“Partnership”: What’s in a name?

In 2003, in an article entitled The Purist’s Partnership: Debunking the Terminology of Partnerships, Ken Caplan called for more rigour around the language we use in relation to partnerships. With a focus on minimising the overwhelmingly positive nature of a vocabulary that erroneously implied partnerships were “harmonious undertakings”, Caplan also pointed to the need for more clarity around different partnership typologies.

Re-reading this excellent thought piece today, and in view of a number of recent conversations on the topic, it seems that efforts to support the clarification process advocated by Caplan are still highly necessary, particularly in deciphering the word “partnership” itself. Although elastic enough to encompass a range of different collaborative relationships, use of the term “partnership” without attention to a specific context, purpose and structure is problematic. As well as creating unrealistic expectations about its possibilities, poor understanding of the concept means that working in partnership can be dismissed as loose and impractical on the one hand, and inflexible and restrictive on the other.

One of the most common misunderstandings is created by the indiscriminate use of the expression Public Private Partnership to describe all partnerships. Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are formal contractual relationships between the private and public sector. In PPPs the private sector partner provides an upfront investment in infrastructure or technology in return for a long term concession, lease or fees for the provision of public goods or services. As a result PPPs operate within legal or regulatory frameworks and go through lengthy tendering procedures. Typified by the UK’s Private Finance Initiative (PFI) PPPs have been hailed by supporters as useful vehicles for improving the quality of public services and harnessing much-needed private capital, while criticised by detractors for promoting neo-liberal privatisation programmes and enabling the private sector to make incursions into the public domain.

PPPs are very different from Cross Sector or Multi Stakeholder Partnerships (MSPs) in which different sector organisations collaborate in areas of mutual interest to achieve common or complementary goals. Operating through shared decision-making processes, these arrangements comprise diverse combinations of international agencies, government ministries and departments, private corporations, business coalitions, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), charitable bodies, community groups, academic institutions and trade unions, among others. Although partners may operate within legal or regulatory constructs, partnerships of this nature are generally unregulated. These are the type of partnerships promoted by the European Social Fund (see my last post) where the overarching rationale is to work together to reduce socio-economic disparities by pooling different resources. With the aim of enhancing legitimacy, coordination and transparency in order to promote social cohesion, such partnerships are vastly different to PPPs.

Our understanding of “partnership” will undoubtedly be furthered by ongoing scrutiny of the different models that exist under the umbrella headings of both PPPs and MSPs. In the meantime reinforcement of the distinction between these two partnership forms is a belated and important prerequisite for the debunking that Caplan called for almost a decade ago.

Enviar comentario / 04 Apr 2012 por ledastott
IMSD /

Business & Ethics – Behind a Code of Conduct

The discussion about the businesses’ adoption of ethical practices of management can be endless if we analyse the multiple points of view reflected in the literature and advanced by experts. Among the topics of debate, the certain thing is that today as never before, firms are required to recover the connection between business and society; one of the doubts is when the connection has been lost.

Nowadays economy suffer from a crisis which is not just financial; a crisis that doesn’t blame just the furtive game of firms as Lehman Brothers, but rather signs the decline of a society which has lost its identity; and the burden to recover the right track is responsibility of the new references: society now assigns to businesses rather than governments the arduous mission of reinvent a new model.

Businesses have been for long time guilty of one simple fact: they have left society behind. They progress, they grow, they globalise; but the habits of people, the rights of an individual, the richness of a culture have often been penalised because civilization development has not globalised: there is not supranational institution able to protect equally the rights of its citizens, so that globally society can be defined as similar to the “state of nature” of the English philosopher Hobbes. In its 17^th century’s greatest work “Leviathan” he describes that no worst thing can happen to humanity than a life without the protection of the State.

While inside the “walls” of a nation the most advanced companies find the constraints of legislation and public pressure, externally as in Hobbes’ theory there is no room for morality because in a world without control every action is someway justifiable or possible.

As a consequence of “Natural Right of Liberty” experienced by corporations, they have been rushing to accumulate financial and manufactured capital, forgetting that they depend on human and social capital for their performance, as well as they also depend on natural capital to obtain inputs to be transformed into goods and services. Consequently, setting people and morality aside, businesses activity that was supposed to be a service of society’s needs, has becoming a barrier for their satisfaction; corporations have committed often the mistake to forget that the only feasible way to pursue profits and growth is by assuring that the society they are part of is prosperous and stable, while the environment healthy.

Yet, although a global institution which assures and protects universal justice and human rights is still on his way to catch up, society has experienced different and very important evolutions, one being communication. Consequently, even if legislation cannot be enforced worldwide yet, public pressure makes its remarkable effects already globally. It makes also remarkable effects on reputation of companies and overall in their bottom line, as experienced by many involved in public scandals related to child labour or environmental destruction for instance.

The response

Thanks to such pressures, the same organizations finally realised that in today’s reality the profit at the expenses of others is not feasible anymore, as too many and complex variables are playing to make the risks incontrollable. Today such companies have been engaging in strategies to respond to the critics and manage the risks; they report frenetically their promises and communicate widely their achievements; they declare to take responsibility for their actions and engage on standards and labels to desperately appear better from the ruthless selfish profit-making mechanisms now everywhere blamed; they have now code of conducts to claim the reintegration of ethical principles into business practices.

But what should be a code of conduct?

Definitely a code of conduct is different from the internal regulation defining the responsibility of company’s parties; it is something further.

If it is the statement of how a business behaves as a whole, it is then the expression of the business culture. And here it comes the difficulty: a culture is not built just as a response to one or another group of pressure, a culture is the result of a long term process in which shared values, costumes, practices, behaviours and human interactions are fully integrated in a way of operating followed spontaneously by a group of people or organization. This set of characteristics is what makes the group unique and it is recognised as part of the identity. Now it is easily understandable why a code of conduct is very meaningful to analyse the road map of an organization toward sustainability: a code of conduct made to respond to critics will neither bring benefits for the business nor for society. A set of principles that is not understood and shared by whom is supposed to firstly apply it, will never be effective and cannot be transmitted along the supply chain.

Rather a code of conduct should derive from an on-going process of top-down and bottom-up communication, to create a sense of belonging which reflects the common vision of the company operating. It requires a continual process of people involvement and participation, including stakeholder engagement.

So what it should be about?

I hate standardization because it tends to level what is the most amazing feature of humans: diversity. Why? Simply think about the importance to have diverse points of views about an issue: if so many inputs can be put through, more possibility to understand it we have; if more and more ideas can be advanced, more possibility to solve it too. Diversity is the richness to choose. It is freedom.

Consequently there is no standard solution, but a common goal with different routes to reach it. The goal include environmental conservation and resource efficiency; include the respect of human rights and the commitment to enhance the human capital; it refers to the conservation and improvement of the social fabric of the communities in order to help them satisfy more and more needs, and opening new opportunities for the business; include a way of making decisions which enhances the possibility for success.

I would like to remember that after all, a company is a further member of society; instead of being a single individual, it is a group of individuals, yet as a single actor it has the possibility to choose what to do according to what it consider right, and transmit it to partners and the rest of stakeholders.

Un example

To be coherent with my analysis, before choosing a reference of good conduct we should review the process which led to the code. Nonetheless, the story of Icebreaker affirms what really means following principles of action toward a superior goal: the inspiration of nature to make the business sustainable.

New Zealand clothing designer and manufacturer, Icebreaker may not be the most famous brand of the garment sector but it experiences great success, thanks to its practices about merino wool industry:

“Our role at Icebreaker is not to create the latest ‘technical’ fibre. Nature has already done that – and without an oil rig in sight. The Icebreaker fibre factory works 24 hours a day, on the back of an animal that lives in the mountains.

Nature is an astonishing designer. Everything it creates is simple, efficient and beautiful.

At Icebreaker, we believe nature is a powerful force that is within us and around us.”

JEREMY MOON Founder and CEO of Icebreaker

Icebreaker takes responsibility for the whole manufacturing process, starting with the raw fiber and entailing the whole supply chain; its philosophy sets the principles that suppliers and partners need to comply: strict standards of animal welfare, grazing practices and social responsibility. They study how the wool works in animals to reproduce the effects on humans; they follow the natural cycles to respect the high quality and effectiveness of nature.

From the company’s believes emerge the willingness of doing good by doing well: its transmitted behavior blends the vision of a sustainable business with the mission of serving a basic need: clothing as nature is supposed to provide it.

In this inspirational code of conduct the process is inside out: the company has a clear credo which it intends to transmit to others; in a responsive approach, a company rather tries to apply inside what outside is supposed to be the trend. External trends are not corporate culture at all; following them is neither ethical nor strategic.

Comments Off on Business & Ethics – Behind a Code of Conduct / 03 Apr 2012 por Francesco Mazzeo
IMSD /

Brief Analysis of the EU Proposal for Rules and Action Plans on GHG emissions and removals from LULUCF

Under the context of reducing the greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions, one of the most discussed measures are those related to land use, land use change and forestry. The Kyoto Protocol, the main current international agreement for GHG emissions, covers a very narrow scope of this topic, focusing on the afforestation and reforestation activities contributing for the emissions’ reduction targets, even though the Decision -/CMP.7 taken in Durban during the 17^th Conference of the Parties of UNFCCC resulted in some progress. The main barrier for including other activities in international agreements is still the methodology used to account the emissions or removals promoted by them. In this sense, last March 12^th, European Commission released a “Proposal for a Decision of The European Parliament and of The Council on accounting rules and action plans on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities related to land use, land use change and forestry”. The document assigns a very important role to LULUCF on tackling climate change, aligned with other policies already in force in the region, such as the 20% reduction of GHG emissions by 2020. Although European Union’s emissions basically stem from energy production rather than land activities, “appropriate land uses and management practices in forestry and agriculture can limit emissions of carbon and enhance removals from the atmosphere”. (pg 3)

The proposal was created through the creation of an expert group, supported by a public consultation and an impact assessment, which considered three alternatives for including LULUCF in the Union’s commitments: LULUCF as part of the ESD, as a separate framework or by delaying inclusion altogether. The key issues investigated by the impact assessment were:

ensure robust accounting rules for emissions and removals;
achieve robust monitoring and reporting;
establish the appropriate policy context for bringing the sector into the Union’s climate change commitments

The results of this assessment indicated that there are good reasons to include LULUCF in the GHG emission-reduction commitments. The more appropriate scheme seems to be a separate legal framework, setting rules for a mandatory accounting of emissions and removals from both forestry and agricultural activities, and giving equal weight to mitigation action irrespective of whether it was taken in the forestry, agriculture, related industries or energy sectors. Therefore, the proposal represents the first approach to robust and comprehensive accounting rules for LULUCF, which should support future policy development towards the inclusion of LULUCF in the Union’s commitments.

Since it’s a trans-boundary issue, the Subsidiarity and the Proportional Principles underlie the proposal. The GHG involved in the accountability are CO₂, CH₄ and N₂0 resulting from the following activities: afforestation, reforestation, deforestation, forest management, cropland management and grazing land management.

To conclude, it’s clear that LULUCF must be included in the international GHG emission-reduction commitments. But the main constraints are still the methodology used to account the emissions or removals and the monitoring process. Although the European Commission’s proposal sets ground rules and guidelines to support related policies, it doesn’t address properly those challenges.

Reference:

European Commission 2012/0042 (COD) of 12 March 2012. Proposal for a DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on accounting rules and action plans on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities related to land use, land use change and forestry.

Comments Off on Brief Analysis of the EU Proposal for Rules and Action Plans on GHG emissions and removals from LULUCF / 31 Mar 2012 por Fabio Pinto Almeida
IMSD /

EU policies. Common Agricultural Policy

When I think about European Union policies the first thing that comes to my mind is the Common Agricultural Policy. I would like to explain my reasons for my interest to this topic. First of all it represents almost the half of the total EU budget, around 48%, which accounts to approximately €50 billion. However it is projected that it will decrease to around 32% by 2014, following the new 2014-2020 financial perspective. Second of all it is one of the first common policies established by the European leaders and is still one of the most discussed and most controversial ones. The agriculture is a very important, and at the same moment delicate topic. Even if agriculture is not the dominant sector in any of the European countries the food security issue is extremely vital. As a citizen of this continent I am happy that our “local” products are being protected from the import of its substitutes from third countries. It is due to high cost of life in Europe and low cost of life outside. Farmers would not be able to survive if the prices would be leveled with the global trends. Unfortunately this is the only way, so far, to protect our own products. I really wouldn’t like to eat Chinese apples instead of my favorite polish “antonówka”☺

The biggest problem is that the story doesn’t end here. After the II World War western countries started to promote, little by little, free trade around the whole world. Of course they would leave the Soviet block alone. The free trade was and still is working perfectly until you belong to the privileged group of “western” countries. Coming back to the CAP, it is working very well if we consider only the EU. The biggest discussion is around the subsidies issue. Until this debate is not over the WTO Doha Round won’t be finished. Third party countries are complaining that the EU is not letting the almost any agricultural products to enter its market. It is especially painful for less developed countries, which economies are based on agriculture, that don’t have the opportunity to sell to this market. It is mostly due to its customs policies, so that the non-european products would not be competitive.

On the other side the EU is exporting a big share of its agricultural surplus, invading less developed markets with low prices and worse quality. Farmers also receive subsidies for export. It is a system that breaks totally the rules of the free market. Of course it is not that easy right now to make a u-turn and open the EU borders for foreign products, but obviously this system is not working, as it should be. In addition to that the system make the food MNC make higher profits. The prices are growing, portions are increasing, and production is getting out of control. All of this results in incredible amounts of food waste. In my opinion we, as the citizen of this planet, cannot afford neither permit to commit this kind of mistake anymore.

Comments Off on EU policies. Common Agricultural Policy / 27 Mar 2012 por Piotr Adam Lubiewa-Wielezynski
IMSD /

REACH Policy

Consider this: we are living in the “era of a great biological experiments,” there are more than 100,000 man made chemical compounds, many of whose effects on the human body we don’t know.

Many of these compounds are not found in nature and can’t break down. These chemicals get exposed to vegetables and fruits in the form of pesticides, or get washed with the rain and find their way into the ocean. Here, they are eaten up by small fish and enter their way into the human food chain. Since they accumulate in the fatty tissues of animals, by the time they reach our plate, their toxicity and negative effects are multiplied in our bodies after consumption.

Nonetheless, the food chain is not the only place where we encounter these chemicals. They are also found in our cosmetics, clothing, wallpaper, detergents, medicines, and almost anything else we can imagine using throughout the day.

Bearing this in mind, the REACH policy is one of the most important policies we covered in class, for it helps in the organization and listing of these chemicals. Chemicals which otherwise would have gone unnoticed or unrecognized by the human population and scientists alike.

The registration process asks manufacturers of the chemicals to provide as much information about their substance as they can. This includes information about the its chemical make up, how it ought to be properly used, what are the known negative effects, and a procedure list of what to do in the case of an emergency.

Lets see how registration works. Substance produced below 1 ton do not have to be registered, unless very toxic. Substances produced in quantities of 1 ton or more, have to be listed in the ‘technical dossier’- this includes the classification and guidance on safe use of the product. Chemicals manufactured in volumes of 10 tons or more must be listed in the ‘chemical safety report’- this analyzes the risk measures of the chemical, and gives further information about its use along the life cycle.

The idea of the REACH program is to make the listing of toxic chemicals more organized, transparent and available for the use of scientists, policy makers and the public. It also aims at jumpstarting innovative ideas by trying to find substitutes for substances that are just too toxic to be on the market.

So far, however, the policy has faced much criticism. Small companies find it very costly to attend various REACH meetings, install IT software to complete registration, or find translators who can explain the policy to them (the policy is only available in English). As we say, ‘the devil is in the details,’ but this is one policy that is worth maintaining for it serves as the first line of defense against human exposure to lab made toxins, which are found everywhere and whose effects we still don’t fully understand.

Work Cited:
Unknown. (2007) “REACH.” European Commission. Accessed on March 20, 2012 from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm

Comments Off on REACH Policy / 27 Mar 2012 por Hokuma Karimova
IMSD /

A Weekend in the NorthWest Area

My first weekend in Portland started on Thursday 1 of March right after visiting the eco trust building and receiving a talk from David Yudkin owner of Hotlips Pizza. We had some time to spare before heading to the Rose Garden Arena to watch a match between the Portland Trail Blazers and the Miami Heat. At first the Blazers were winning 14-6 but soon came the Miami Heat tied them and took the lead pretty much for the rest of the match. Although it was a pity seeing the home team for who we were cheering loose, going to an NBA match was extremely exiting. It really was like nothing I had seen before the whole thing is more than a sports match it’s a show they put on from the music, lights, the narrator of the game, to cheerleaders and the half match entertainment was nothing but good fun.

As for the rest of the weekend some of my friends and I planned out a trip to go check out the North American nature on north west of the United States, for our long weekend off. So the idea was to take one of the vans out that the group rented and head up to Washington State to visit Olympic National Park. Our first stop would be Port of Angeles, where we stayed Friday night on motel we found along the road. Then on Saturday morning we got up early and headed to Hurricane Ridge were we took 5 hour walk on snow shoes to encounter one the most impressive scenarios I have seen. It was crazy seeing the view on one side you had mountains covered in pine trees and snow and on the other you could see the ocean, and you found yourself on the middle of nowhere, on the top of the mountain covered in snow were at times saw the tip of huge pine trees showing up that were under you. But all good things must come to an end so after a couple of hours up there we got down to parking made our bags and drove into the night till we reached the Makah Indian Reserve in Neah Bay. Here you drove around for a while until we found another resting place to sleep and prepare for our last day of adventures on Washington.

The next day was foggy Sunday morning we woke up to find out our backyard was a huge pine tree forest and across the street we had the bay with its marina. We took off to make a walk of about an hour to a watch point as far in the northwest tip of the United States as we could be. Where we saw some bays with some of the most amusing rock formations I’ve seen carved bythe power of waves through millions of years. By the end we finished our walk it was still before noon so we headed to another region of Olympic national park a couple of hours south. Once we got there it was raining and a bit cold but we still had the spirit for doing another hike. Here we found a temperate rainforest with huge trees growing everywhere and all covered moss that seemed like something out of this planet. After about four hours here we headed back to Portland to get a good night sleep after a tiring week ended of hiking and nature.

5 comentarios / 26 Mar 2012 por Javier Solano Palacios
IMSD /

Portland entrepreneurs

After coming back from Portland I realize what impressed me the most was the entrepreneurial spirit from some of the people we met in the visit and their businesses both normal and social entrepreneurism. Among the most inspiring were Portland Purple Water, Hot Lips Pizza, and The Rebuilding center.

It was amusing how this people had the courage to materialize their ideas and watch them grow. Like a plant that you water, take care, and give love too and watch it

become something beautiful. In the case of Portland Purple Water the owner and founder Jason Garvey strongly believes water is part of the main issues to solve in moving towards sustainable living. Therefore he decided to dedicate his efforts to resolving this issue by founding his own company dedicated to design and install rainwater harvesting systems, aquaponics systems, water-wise landscaping, water efficient irrigation systems, and water purification systems. Facilitating this technology to people and taking his concepts to the market place and making it available to everyone who is interested in them. The second part of his business is giving lectures on water, and teaching the public more about water and the impacts of their water usage as well as the managemen t of hydroponics and aquaponics systems that allow people to grow food virtually anywhere; teaching people how to do it their selves.

Another interesting entrepreneur was David Yudkin owner of Hot Lips Pizza. Hot lips is not an ordinary pizzeria, it’s a family project in witch his owner has taken sustainability as big issue and has incorporate deeply into its business model. But it didn’t do this as publicity stunt or as a differentiation strategy, Yudkin really believes sustainability is just the right way in which business should be done. He works and collaborates with his suppliers, tries to make menus based on seasonal produce, he tries to make his business more efficient even on technical and minimize waste. In fact he has incorporated a heat recovery system into his ovens to recover heat and using it to heat up water. Although he acknowledges taking his business to a 100% sustainable scope is something still difficult due to consumer demands he tries to get as close as he can as consumers are willing.

The last day of visits we also met one of the most interesting social entrepreneurial initiatives of the whole trip to Portland The Rebuilding Center, which consists in a center, that gathers/collects used furniture and building materials from donors. Giving this material a second cycle of life instead of ending up in a landfill. They gather all this materials and separate them by categories and put a price tag on them depending on their condition and article they are. Although the donated materials are re-sold they are priced 50-90% less than the ordinary retail price making in it a great deal for people on tight budget and donors can get a tax reducible receipt making it a win-win deal. Another service they provide is deconstruction services so instead of demolishing an old structure you can call them and they’ll show and salvage up to 85% of the buildings major components and leave them ready for reuse. By making all if this and providing other services such as classes and workshops they are also helping to consolidate community feeling in the area.

I believe courage is the common denominator in all of these stories. Courage to actually believe in your idea and getting it through. As well as considering the interpersonal relationships that are involved in making business, making your business part of your community, making business more than just about money and giving a purpose to it.

Comments Off on Portland entrepreneurs / 26 Mar 2012 por Javier Solano Palacios
IMSD /

Partnerships for employment, growth and social inclusion

One of the projects I have worked with over the last three years is the Community of Practice (COP) on Partnership in the European Social Fund (ESF). From 2009-11, against the background of the economic crisis, the COP examined partnership approaches adopted by the national and regional ESF Operational Programmes (OPs) of EU Member States to promote economic growth, social inclusion and employment opportunities.

ESF regulations on partnership refer to both the involvement of stakeholders, including social partners (trade unions and employer representatives), in the governance mechanisms of OPs, as well as to the provision of financial support to multi-actor projects. In the COP we worked together to develop a working definition of partnership that combined these two distinct areas, at the same time as enabling flexible interpretation of the concept across different EU Member States:

Partnership is a dynamic and complementary relationship between diverse actors in which added value is achieved by working together rather than alone. In the ESF partnerships are used to support policy linkages that promote growth and prosperity across the EU by reducing economic, social and territorial disparities through:
• Encouraging employment and social inclusion at transnational, national, regional and local levels;
• Stimulating the involvement of diverse actors and approaches;
• Clearly defining target groups, objectives and priorities;
• Balancing competition and cooperation;
• Achieving benefits for both partners and wider society; and,
• Building participatory democracy through collaborative decision-making.

COP members exchanged learning through peer reviews that looked at different Partnership Practices, Effects and Opportunities (PEOs):

• P: Partnership Practices of Member States/regions at all levels of governance
• E: Effects of partnership approaches on policies and impacts for ESF target groups
• O: Opportunities for improving policy planning and delivery

Peer reviews, or PEO explorations, were conducted in: Austria, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Hungary, Portugal and Sweden. The diverse partnership approaches encountered in these Member States included:

• Austria: Territorial Employment Pacts (TEPs) – contracted regional partnerships that promote better policy linkages in order to improve the employment situation at regional and local level.
• Germany: A “T model” combining horizontal partnerships at federal level with vertical partnerships initiated at federal level but addressing regional and local levels.
• Greece: Mainstreaming of EQUAL Programme principles to promote greater empowerment and social cohesion at local level.
• Hungary: Emphasis on the added value of partnership and stakeholder engagement, with special focus on the local level.
• Ireland: Local partnership and community emphasis to reinforce grassroots links and gender equity.
• Portugal: Macro, meso and micro level approaches with two forms of partnership at meso and micro level: ‘formal’ projects developed in partnership with defined access to financing and management; and ‘informal’ partnerships based on the logic of coordinated work.
• Sweden: Regional Structural Fund Partnerships (SFPs) that reinforce improved governance through the engagement of politicians and also serve as selection bodies for “cooperation projects” operating at multiple levels.

The PEO explorations demonstrated that partnerships can foster employment, social cohesion, economic development, environmental sustainability and quality of life, even in times of crisis. Indeed countries and regions with long partnership histories and good cross-sector connections appear to have been better able to withstand the impact of the current economic crisis. While clearly not a panacea, COP members found that well-planned and executed partnership approaches have been able to support improvements in:

• Governance – by mobilising different stakeholders to work together and provide a more democratic policy ‘mandate’ and responsive policy approaches to problem-solving;
• Sustainability – through stakeholder engagement across different levels of society leading to more sustainable solutions to development challenges than when different actors operate separately;
• Transnationality – cross-country linkages and inter-regional cooperation that enable greater access to new ideas, approaches and skills; and,
• Innovation – the sharing of diverse perspectives, ideas and resources that create new solutions for promoting social cohesion and creating employment opportunities.

It is also worth noting that the review process itself was highly successful in enabling fruitful partnership learning. The COP’s work suggests that more dynamic and innovative cross-territorial learning exchanges, where experiences and knowledge are shared and reflected upon “at the same eye-level”, can make a valuable contribution to finding effective ways to address pressing ongoing challenges in the EU such as poverty, unemployment and social exclusion.

For more information on the work of the Community of Practice (COP) on Partnership in the European Social Fund (ESF) and details of the PEO explorations undertaken, please see the Partnership Learning Manual (Vienna, January 2012).

Enviar comentario / 19 Mar 2012 por ledastott
IMSD /

Blog 2 – Portland week 2. march 5th to march 11 th

The week strated driving from the Olimpia National Parc to Portland. After three days of forest, nature and happiness, we had to come back to the reality.

On Monday we went to Sokol Blosser Winery. Basically it is a winery that reduces the impact on both the farming and production. Besides the different kind of wines tasted really well! It was a great visit … although the weather as the whole trip, was really disgusting.. all day raining.. Afterthat, we visited the wave energy center. Although this technology is still testing I think that it will be very important in the power generation in medium term. At the end 2/3 of the earth is water!

On Tuesday we got up early. We had to go to Nike Factory. We attend to a innovation conference and free time for shopping at really good prices!. It was surprising the degree of innovation and the staff dedicated to promote sustainability in large companies like Nike. I did not know anything about it.

On Wednesday we visited our compatriots in Iberdrola. I have to say that the only difference between Iberdrola in Spain and Iberdrola in Portland is the language!. The system appears to work equal. Afterthat, we also had a conference of the Metro council in which he explained us how the council tries to reduce the impact and improve public transportation in Portland.

On Thursday we went to university to attend to a conference on recycling and Costco (it is a company similar to the Corte Ingles).

Then we made a short presentation (in my case Ecotrust) and finally we went to the “dinner” at 18:00 with students of the E-Scholars program. It was a interesting expirience. In fact, some of them go out with us at night!

On Friday we went to first Rebuilding center (center where everything is sent for recycling) and Boeing. I have to say that the main thing that I got from Boing was the extreme kindness shown by some guards! However from the academic point of view the visit was very interesting although it was very complicated to deal with so many technical terms!

And finally … Saturday, we wake up at ten and took the train up. It was the end of the dream. It had been an unforgettable trip for all. Although Portland as a city does not offer great night alternatives, to travel with a good fellows is always a pleasure trip.

I would like to say thank’s to Andres and Esperanza of the EOI and Howard and Kate from the University of Portant. Thank you all for this trip, I will not forget it. If you have good company, it is always a pleasure to travel!

A hug/kiss to all!

Carlos

1 comentario / 17 Mar 2012 por Carlos Cerdan Infantes
IMSD /

Blog 1. Portland week 1. february 24th to march 4 th

The trip began on Friday night because I tried to be awake in order to sleep in the plane. The trip was tired but relatively quick. We arrived and took the vans, and it was the starting point of this incredible trip which lasted only two weeks. Sunday was quiet, we visited Portland downtown and we went to dinner and a have a drink. Some left early, others later … but Portland adventure had just started.

Howard, which would be our tutor / guide during the two weeks, met us on Monday at the hotel. I can only be grateful for the work since all visits / conferences have been truly amazing!

On Monday we visited Columbia, which certainly surprised met. I did not know the huge efforts that they put on social corporate responsibility. After this visit we went shopping (I personally bought a couple of thermal shirts and leotard to be prepare since we went to Olympia National Park the following weekend). Then we went to see the campus of the University of Portland where I was surprised by its green and huge spaces (very American style of course).

On Tuesday we visited Portland Purple Water. The presentation was given by Jason which I personally congratulate for his initiative. I think it is a brilliant idea that can be applied in the future worldwide. In the afternoon, we met students in the Spanish class! It was very pleasant and interesting to have this opportunity!

On Wednesday we went to the university to attend to three lectures on new buildings, Natural Step and Portland General Electric. All were very interesting but perhaps me most surprised for me was how the electricity market works in a country so big!

On Thursday we went to Ecotrust. It was simply amazing. From my point of view It is a perfect idea to rehabilitate a building in order to create synergies between users to enhance business (Excluding also the reduction in consumption an so on). I would also stress the theory (presentation) and the practice of Hot Lips Pizza (it tasted really good!. A fascinating idea of sustainability, using local seasonal and local ingredients seems to me the best idea to boost the local economy according to the harvest conditions. After class we went to watch the game between Portland against Miami. It was unbelievable, instead of a basketball game it liked to be a show …music all the time … cheerleaders every 5 minuts…

And finally … Friday morning we left to the Olympia National Parc. The only thing that I have to say is that, probably this trip was the most amazing trip I’ve never done in my life. To be inside the national parc, walking 4 hours with snow shoes, enjoying the nature was an excellent experience. Also I do not want to forget that, this travel had not been so amazing without a perfect fellow travellers. Ruben, Javi and Piotr, I want to say you that thank you for the trip! I do not have enough words to say thank you for this trip! I leave a picture that we took when we reach the peak of the Huricane Ridge in the Olimpia National Parc.

AWESOME!