DP5.- Cradle to Cradle: How the Fractal Triangle works

I want to explain how the Fractal Triangle help us to exanimate the questions of sustainable development within a project. How ecology, economy and equity have linked values and how each design decision has an impact on the three areas.

Most of this post are William McDonough and Michael Braungart words from both videos and their own websites, but anyway I think it would be an interesting piece of information if you are a Cradle to Cradle “believer”.

The aim is that each fractal peace of the big triangle has to be 100% good in order to have balance, because as  if you have ever ride a tricycle, you will know that three wheels are more stable than just one or two. Therefore, what we have to do is to move around the fractal inquiring how a new design can generate value in each category.

There will be complex questions in the triangles where there are intersections between Ecology, Economy and Equity.

We cannot forget that our goal is to maximize the value in all areas of the triangle through intelligent design, because: What are we doing here, if there is not to find the “synergies” and the “tidy” in the middle of the chaos!? J

We are all finding the balance, and balance is the essence of sustainability.

“Our goal is a delightfully diverse, safe, healthy and just world, with clean air, water, soil and power – economically, equitably, ecologically and elegantly enjoyed”

William McDonough and Michael Braungart

http://www.mbdc.com/images/MBDC%20Booklet_proof.pdf

 

1 comentario / 06 Jan 2012 por Aitana Leret Garcia
Uncategorized /

Energy and Economy

Azerbaijan is the most energy-intensive country in the Caucasus. The amount of energy it consumes per GDP adjusted to purchasing power is double that of the German economy, but it remains lower than that of Russia and Kazakhstan. (IFC)

Its economy has been growing at an average rate of 21% per year, achieving the highest GDP growth of any country in the world in 2006 with 34.5%. Nonetheless, even a country like Azerbaijan, rich in oil and natural gas reserves, must focus on a greener future, with energy efficiency occupying  a central role.

Current Policies

Energy efficiency has been promoted since 1996 with the passage of the Law on the Use of Energy Resources that called for mandatory energy consumption metering, introduction of energy efficiency standards and application of sanctions for energy waste. (IFC) It wasn’t until 2004, however, that energy efficiency began to play a more central role after the approval of the State Program on the Use of Alternative and New Energy Sources in the Azerbaijani Republic. The program implemented the help of foreign contractors to conduct research about various renewable energy source potentials available in the country.

Small Scale Examples

Currently,  there are many energy efficiency projects being planned in Azerbaijan. Most importantly these projects are focused on lowering energy usage, since “the land-based industry and infrastructure of energy production and distribution are poorly developed.” (Hunt) This low efficiency will put a heavier burden on the country, as its conventional energy sources are depleting, and the economy is not experiencing the same rate of growth.

The topic of energy efficiency is especially important in the rural areas, where access to water and energy is not constant. A good example of such a project is the planned renovations for the Qara Jali Community Medical Center, which provides medical, dental and midwife services to 450 individuals of two local villages.

Although this building was built in 2005 by the International Medical Corp and through BTC financing, it does not have hot water available for cleaning, a refrigerator to store vaccines, and experiences really cold temperatures in the winter, as a result of constant heat escape.

Some cost efficient energy efficient measures proposed include: installation of ceiling insulation, application of caulking to window gaps, the replacement of  broken or cracked glass windows, and addition of more panels on internal doors. These actions would ensure that the little heat which is stored within the building does not escape through the roof as it rises, or through broken windows and window frames. To compliment this, energy efficiency measures on the outside of the building can be implemented, such as: construction of a porch on the north side (where the most cold air and wind enters from), the reallocation of the front door to the west side and planting of trees around the entire building (providing natural wind barriers and promoting sustainability).

Use of Renewables

In addition to these low cost measures, it is also possible to rely on renewable energy to provide heating, electricity, and any other service required by the community center. Since Azerbaijan enjoys ample sunshine, the use of Solar PV will be the best option. By utilizing solar power, the community will not be dependent on the energy sources of the community, which are not always constant. Most importantly, since the center currently does not have vaccine refrigerators, using a refrigerator that runs on Solar PV will be the most efficient option, since in the summer when its use is needed the most, the panels will be outputting the most energy.

Future of Energy Efficiency

Taking into consideration the current economic decline and depletion of the conventional energy sources of Azerbaijan, the country is heavily focused on installing energy efficiency measures. The lack of a clear understanding of how energy-efficiency can lead to cost-efficiency and self-reliance, however, means that such projects are not very common. This problem could be fixed by having the government provide more reassurance and guidance on taking out bank loans to finance energy-efficiency projects and explaining the long-term benefits of such actions.

Work Cited:

Hunt, Steven. 2006. Azerbaijan Alternative Energy and Energy Efficiency Project Development Support. Practical Action Consulting. Accessed on December 30 from: practicalaction.org/docs/consulting/Azerbaijan_RE_Report.pdf

International Finance Group (IFC). 2008. Energy Efficiency: A New Resource for Sustainable Growth. Accessed on December 24 from: www.ifc.org/…nsf/…/AzerbaijanEEsurvey/…/AzerbaijanEEsurveyEN…

Tekna. 2004. Cleaner Production and Energy Efficiency Capacity Building in Azerbaijan. Accessed on December 28 from: www.ensi.no/uploads/040629.kd.period2_status_report.pdf

Comments Off on Energy and Economy / 06 Jan 2012 por Hokuma Karimova
IMSD /

DP Blog 3: The Future of Farming, “Shouldn´t it to be Fair in the First Place?”

In this third blog we shall see some challenges and consequences for smallholder farming producers due commercial strings and influences from the globalization system. In addition I will point the reader the extent of purchase alternatives that we as consumer, can have in order to not collaborate with farming production exploitation and demonstrate what should be done at agriculture policy level.

But first, let’s start with the bigger business picture; the world commodity commercialization is in the hand of few large multinationals, according to Oxfam¹ 90% of total global grain trade is in the hands of Cargill, Bunge and ADM.

On top of MNEs control, stock markets determines and speculates the magnitude of commodity price change, more specifically through future price fluctuation, some major world commodity stock market exchanges are the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and The New York Mercantile Exchange.

But how it affects our smallholder farming producers all over the world?

For such producers, in case they are not able to sell their merchandise at the local market, they will have to sell it for local cooperatives or commercial intermediaries instead.

From this point merchandises will pass through an extensive supply chain which may involves a middle man, freight companies, traders, processors, manufacturers and retailers. Each of these members of supply chain will then put pressure to low down the cost of respective merchandises. Therefore the final value chain will gives profits to traders, manufacturers and retailers however at cost of pressing the capacity of small farm holder to gain a minimum income to maintain basic living standards or to let them vulnerable to poor labor conditions.

A simple commodity supply chain example:

The video bellow shows an example of this situation where all these actors inside the value chain can suppress the ability of coffee producers in Ethiopia to obtain some profit from their farming activity and to assure the minimum dignity for their families to reach basic needs.

Black Gold-Ethiopian Coffee-PART 1 of 8.wmv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0gD-JGbs3o&feature=related

 

Black Gold-Ethiopian Coffee-PART 2 of 8.wmv

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXzZQZY2s-Y&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Is there anything that developing countries can do to bypass price speculation from commercial actors inside the global trading system? Is it possible to eliminate commodity speculation and to reform agricultural trade at global level?

 

Today there are many advocators whom believe that small farming holding should be vanish, because of its low productivity, difficulties to invest in new technologies and market vulnerability.

In 2010, The economist magazine, showed the Brazilian model of large scale commercial agriculture as the model to be followed by many developing countries, because it encourages small holding farming and organic practices, it  gives more importance for food to be sold in the local market, it buys inputs and sell crops according the market demand, it is upgraded with new technologies and because it invests into research of new means of production on the large scale that are less harmful to the environment.

However, in reality there is no such thing as small scale in Brazil, since its colonization the country has been utilizing its land by farming in large areas and taking the advantage of its fertile soil and natural resources. Therefore the Brazilian model cannot be applicable or comparable with many farming producers from developing countries because they as majority produce on smaller plots and do not get the same farming incentives and natural conditions that take place in Brazil.

At same time Brazilian rural families that possess just few hectares of land also face the same difficulties if they want to sell their surplus in the market which are: competitive market pressure, price volatility, lack of access to savings and credits, weather instability and plague harms.

Farming is evidently not an easy business, there are a lot of externalities and commercial pressures that can make profits uncertain, and in case things goes wrong what we will see are families expelled of their lands and displaced to urban migration.

Recently during our IMSD course class on Haiti Urban Study, the concept of downgrade the concentration of urban areas in a country was demonstrated as more efficient and sustainable way for a country urban planning. However it would means that farming in this case will be based solely on large scale to supply and to be part of the food chain to such thriving central urban areas. If that is the way of the future urbanization, what will happen with village life and small farm market? Will it be an inclusive or excluded urban police for small scale producers?

On the other hand what business and consumers can do for farming production justice?

Many of us can now recognize this label; it means that the product that you are purchasing is under fair trade accreditation, which further means a different practice towards international trade, by paying a fairer price for products imported, aiming to cover the total cost of production and to provide a decent wage for producers at the same time improving their livelihoods and offering independent market access.

Fair Trade comes as an alternative to the competitive global market and the purchasing power of multinationals it also seeks to protect human rights, the environment and to tackle economic inequality.

Moreover, businesses that deals under the fair trade accreditation, gives a percentage of their total profit back to producers in form of premiums, in order for them to invest in their community through education, technical training, health, sanitation projects, etc.,  endorsing a sustainable business partnership and better quality of products in return.

On the other hand, fair trade movement is not free from criticism. For an instance fair trade practices and accreditation is unheard in many areas of the globe, personally I was not able to find any accredited fair trade good, while was living in Latin American or Southeast Asia, but conversely this is a booming industry specially in Northern European countries, a fact that has lead multinationals to include fair trade products as their brand segmentation in order to cover the mass market and to take advantage of its concept by making high profit margins. Therefore there are some skepticism about the % of a premium price is returning to producers in relation to how much profit can be gained in the fair trade consumer trustworthiness.

Another point is that producers may switch their crop production for those that are being commercialized under fair trade initiatives, at same time the system seems unfair for crop producers whose fair trade demand is absent.

It is not absolutely clear whether multinationals have a genuine interest in fair trade or if it is simply a new marketing strategy. The success of this new approach for international trade will rely on how committed the multinationals will be with fair trade suppliers in the long term and the extent of capacity that fair trade producers will be able to build a future and manage to stay in the competitive global market.

Then, what else can and should be done at institutional level in the context of rural agriculture policy and practices to protect small farm holders and to make their farming conditions to be fair in the first place.

Considering that around 60% of total populations of developing countries are living in rural areas, thus ignore this reality seems a case of great governance socio and economic indifference and lack development foresight. Hence rural development policies must provide investment in infrastructure, it should guarantee farmers’ access and it have to deliver public goods that will meet producer’s basic needs since this would be reverted into higher productivity and provide them the ability to achieve economic and social rights.

 

 

References:

The Economist Magazine. (Aug 26th 2010) Brazil’s agricultural miracle, How to feed the world.

http://www.economist.com/node/16889019

EFTA – European Fair trade Association

www.eftafairtrade.org

http://www.eftafairtrade.org/Document.asp?DocID=33&tod=12219#top last accessed on 3/01/2012.

The Fairtrade Foundation

www.fairtrade.org.uk last accessed on 3/01/2012

The International Fair Trade Association

www.ifat.org last accessed on 3/01/2012

Oxfam International. (2011) Growing a Better Future, Food justice in resource-constrained world report.

www.oxfam.org/grow

www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/growing-a-better-future-010611-en.pdf. last accessed on 29/12/2011.

Sanderson, D. (2011) PowerPoint Class Presentation,“Urban disasters – lessons from Haiti”, at EOI, Madrid.

http://www.eoi.es/aula/file.php/1340/DOCUMENTATION/2._THEORY_AND_PRACTICE_FOR_DEVELOPMENT/2.1._DEVELOPMENT_PERSPECTIVES/DAVID_SANDERSON/dec-haiti-urban-study.pdf

 

Comments Off on DP Blog 3: The Future of Farming, “Shouldn´t it to be Fair in the First Place?” / 06 Jan 2012 por Patricia Perez Costa
IMSD /

D.P.#3: The motivations behind government’s short term thinking: is there a way to change?

In the latest post, the analysis of government’s role on development promotion focused on the preference for local results, without any concern about the global result. Basically, the motivation behind most of the political decisions seems to be the combination of that with another factor that has been extensively studied by political psychologists: the prevalence of short term considerations over long term ones. Recalling the graph presented in the book “The Limits to Growth”, we see clearly that these 2 elements were in the basis of the Club of Rome’s warnings.

As well as the local one, the short term thinking has one strong psychological component, which is potentiated by the political systems all over the world. The first well known studies regarding time preferences were conducted by economists. For instance, Menger (1871), considered founder of the Austrian School of Economics, affirmed that there is always a difference between the consumption of a product according to the time it happens, since there is a certain level of uncertainty about the satisfaction provided by the same choice if it’s not taken at the present moment but in the future. Later on, psychologist Richard Herrnstein came up with a theory of choice known as “matching law”. Other psychologists, such as Howard Rachlin and David Laibson, summarized the main idea of the matching law with the hyperbolic discounting model, which describes the way that people value outcomes along the time. According to this theory, people’s perception of value decreases rapidly for small delayed periods and slowly for longer periods. Ainslie (1991), presents as an example to make it clear: “a majority of adults report that they would rather have $50 immediately than $100 2 years later, but almost no one prefers $50 in 4 years over $100 in 6 years, even though this is the same choice seen at 4 years’ greater distance” (regardless inflation and other economical considerations). A non economic example presented by Chapman (2005) showed that most people don’t have good habits in terms of cancer prevention because the costs of these measures are immediate, whereas the benefits are delayed.

In politics, the idea is the same. People apply a very high discount rate for future rewards in terms of political decisions, so even measures with a low cost of implementation seen to be worthless if their benefits come in a further time. However, individuals don’t necessary apply the same discount rate for future rewards and some politicians, as decision makers on behalf of people, could think differently. But then the electoral factor is brought out. Politicians are discouraged by their peers and by their political willingness to undertake measures with a long term result if their costs to the voters occur immediately.

It’s disappointing to realize that countries are acting only now or are not acting at all to face problems identified a long time ago. The cost of these actions when the problems become urgent is much higher than it would be if it was done in a preventive way, and the benefits are not the same. It has a lot to do with the so called sustainability; however it is still evident the barriers to promote it or even to understand what sustainable development is. This idea was the basis of the Club of Rome’s warnings and almost 50 years later governments are still reluctant on accepting this.

To conclude, unless countries change their short term vision, most of the economic, social and environmental problems in the world will be reinforced and the future costs to face them will be much higher. The democracy and its transitory tenures, despite their many positive considerations, have a huge influence on this, and people as voters should value long term results rather than short term populist measures. The political systems could also be improved, implementing long term goals and enforcing the legislative power, which often doesn’t have reelection constraints and is able to set long term policies. If nothing changes, we will be exchanging the uncertainty about the future for the certainty of reaching a dead end.

References

Ainslie, G. 1991. Intertemporal Choice: Derivation of “Rational” Economic Behavior from Hyperbolic Discount Curves. American Economic Review, vol. 81, pp.334-340.

Ainslie, G and Haendel, V. 1983. The Motives of the Will. Etiology Aspects of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Charles C. Thomas, Springfield.

Chapman, G. 2005. Short-Term Cost for Long-Term Benefit: Time Preference and Cancer Control. Health Psychology, vol. 24, n. 4 (suppl.), pp. 41-48.

Menger, C. 1871. Principles of Economics. Braumüller. Austria.

Rachlin, H. and Laibson, D. 1997. The Matching Law: papers in psychology and economics. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Massachussets.

 

1 comentario / 05 Jan 2012 por Fabio Pinto Almeida
IMSD /

DP4: The day the farmer became industrial

The previous chapter outlined the truthful connections occurring in our systems, contrasting the “Micky Mouse Model” as representation of the World. If understanding development can be defined as aligning actions to the real system, I would like to suggest a practice to support the adjustment dealing with a central aspect among development issues: food security.  Vital for the strict interconnection which ties it with poverty: food security will not be improved without relief in poverty, while poverty will not be alleviated without addressing food security.

First of all, a little clarification on the meaning. When talking about food security I refer to the whole set of mechanisms which enable people to have granted the vital provision of caloric needs thanks to a proper allocation of edible resources, over time. I include into the structure elements which deal with production, circumstances of distribution, and considerations related to the end-use.

Some of my fellow students provided bright insights on the mechanisms which undermines food security. For instance:

• food wastage, at the end of the “value chain”;
• overconsumption, with the extreme of increasing obesity rate, again in the demand side;
• market and geopolitical mechanisms, disturbing, altering and impeding adequate allocation, instead of facilitating it;
• land management, pollution, environmental degradation and biodiversity loss;
• competition with energy supply regarding biofuels production.
• Lack of infrastructures and technology in the developing world;

The share of the problem is so immense that claiming to have the solution will represent really presuming assumption. Nonetheless, I would like to drive a reflection about the matter that may be seen as the most logical and accessible; I would start from the apparent simplicity of a question to which everyone should answer: how should we grow our food?

Industrial Agriculture

Ten thousand years ago humankind gave a huge step forward to start civilization thanks to the discover of what represented the solution to starvation: agriculture. Ten thousand years later, such precious art has been turned the cause of starvation instead of the solution. While yesterday the farmers were experts of nature secrets, today most of them turned to be petrochemical adepts; from the point of view of the most involved, agriculture seems to be doing great to help close the gap regarding hunger: for instance, since 1960 production of cereals has increased by 250%, even outpacing population growth. Consequently the apologue of food scarcity fails. We should instead wondering how then it is possible that absolute number of malnourished people, defined by minimal energy consumption, keep growing, as stated on the “Human Development Report 2010”. That recalls the numerous and complex issues causing poverty, few of which mentioned above.

Yet, the situation can be  even more troublesome: the way we produce food today is due to certain failure, calling for a catastrophe in a business as usual scenario. To have an idea, the following video couldn’t present it better: save and grow

My suggestion:

The food growing system of the future should attain:

• Sustainability – ­ecosystems shows us how a plant community advances, without the dependence of external agents as fertilizers and pesticides. Nature counts on diversity against the monoculture system of industrial agriculture; nature counts on symbiosis between species, as advanced in the system thinking theory everything holds a specific function which helps the system do better; nature draws on long lasting perennial plants, against annual crops, which loss resiliency and deplete the soil.
• Security – a system which meets the demand in a healthy way, while taking into account long-term concerns. Substances external to nature as the ones derived by petrochemicals are hard to phase out and accumulate in organic tissues causing illnesses. Ecological agriculture can use hundred of nitrogen-fixing species (i.e. legumes) to keep to soil fertile hand welcome micro-helpers insects to get the work done.
• Accessibility – current mechanisms distort farmers’ competition, lead the poor poorer and don’t contribute to reduce hanger. Instead, profits concentrate in the hands of multinational corporations which tie society to fossil fuels: when the depletion of resources will increase prices, more and more farmers will disappear and more people will be under the poverty line. With less % of population able to grow food, we will have less possibility to create solutions. By contrast we need local experts in a financially organized system which benefits the small producers and distribute locally to meet the needs of society, while safeguarding the health of the environment.

To conclude, my thoughts go back to the idea of limitation: maybe something is just not our call; maybe instead of trying continuously to invent something new which may occur in risks to human health, we can taking inspiration from what already exist in nature and does well since ever.

Maybe, instead of genetically engineering our food we need just to observe and learn how ecosystems do it for us. Humanity looks like willing to play God, modifying the principles of life, but the real secret of life, photosynthesis, remain mostly a mystery for us. Maybe the solution of our problems is already inside our systems, we just need to discover it.

 

 

 

 

Comments Off on DP4: The day the farmer became industrial / 05 Jan 2012 por Francesco Mazzeo
IMSD /

DP: Private Sector and development

The private sector is vital when it comes to development. In one hand, enterprises sometimes do themselves projects that contribute to it, and on the other hand, they constitute an important source when it comes to financial purposes for NGO’s and governments along. Their contribution permits both to cover their operational expenses and develop projects that push towards development. In the past two topics we were able to see how governments should include more the private sector in the development process, and also let NGO’s access more freely development funds to avoid the costs of bureaucracy, nonetheless, the private sector needs changes in order to address the challenge of having more participation, in the sense that it is conceived as a segment created just to make profit. Actions coming from themselves become vital if we start from here.

Latin America is a region filled with cases of enormous States. Sizes of these sometimes suffocate the efforts and contributions of the private sector, as for State tends to take the responsibility of maintaining the whole nation, sometimes with the risk of depending on one natural resource (Oil or gas, for instance). Enterprises have the advantage of belonging to people, meaning it’s the people who are the motor of their own sustain. If enterprises would become the base of the countries’ economies, it could be interpreted that the necessary economic impulse to achieve development would come from the citizens, becoming themselves an important driver on this task. This statement is valid up to some extent, science it doesn’t consider which percentage of the people is going forward within the process. If businesses would be the depart point for economical sustain within the development process, it’s important that workers are pushed forward together with these and by these, creating the vital synergies that will improve the environment where the enterprises operate, and likewise the life of the employees.

Even if enterprises were not created to fulfill the needs that States reserve for themselves, it’s important for them to understand the context in which they operate, especially if they are located in developing countries. The initial purpose of an enterprise is to make money, this fact has not changed and it’s not something bad in itself, the bad thing is when only few can be actors in this dynamic. Labor conditions, salaries or incentives plans to improve the life of the workers is important in this sense, as for it creates commitment from the workers towards the enterprise and it helps to create a better society, even helping the enterprises in relation to the environment in which they are. If enterprises would compromise with society, their market would be better, retaliation from society towards them would progressively be less, people having better conditions could also start doing other things that would improve general quality of life (investment in educations, household expenses, businesses, for instance), and that way multiply the efforts made by the already existing private sector.

The private sector has the power to multiply itself, it just needs to realize that this goal is attained by working with the people and giving something for the development of their societies, starting from the ones which they can influence the most, which is their own workers. This sector faces a challenge, needs also favorable political changes in many cases, but the way politics change is changing the people, and making that possible starts from their inside, proving that they play a central role in development not just for the number of jobs, but for the benefits that these can bring to society. Latin American countries needs changes like these as soon as possible, it’s the most unequal region worldwide. Development is a multi-factor process; Private Sector is one of them, proving to society their importance starts by showing it by actions. Participation is not just expecting for the governments to open the possibility, but it will also must emerge from themselves by doing it so.

 

Comments Off on DP: Private Sector and development / 05 Jan 2012 por Rodrigo Capriles Mazzei
IMSD /

DP2: Key drivers of CSR’s growth and Ben&Jerry’s case

From my point of view the economy nowadays rule the world. Everything has to be measured; everything has to be account into profits or loses. Once we achieve economic welfare that unfortunately is the index that we use to measure the development the society start to be concern about other issues such as the environment or social ones. It is more or less what it is happening with the companies in this moment. A company or a multinational is based obviously in the consumers who are who buy their products or consume their services. As we are changing our behavior companies needs to follow this trend and keep on satisfying our needs.

However according to Nelson there are seven key drivers that can explain with facts how the growth of CSR has occurred:The growth and the reach of the private sector as a result of trends such as the globalization, market liberalization, privatization, and technolog

The growth and the reach of the private sector as a result of trends such as the globalization, market liberalization, privatization, and technological innovation.

Crisis of trust in the private sector.

Dramatic growth in the number, influence and sophistication of non-governmental organizations, campaigns groups, and activist organizations.

The growing financial clout and activism of large investors.

Governance gaps (constraints in public sector capacity and finance to deal with complex issues)

Growth in the importance of intangible assets as a key driver of corporate value.

Climate change and HIV/AIDS are two global challenges that cannot be afford by only one sector or one government. The private sector, which has global reach, influence, and resources, could play a big role helping to address some of these issues.

Once explained the principle key drivers that have increased the CSR I would like to introduce you which is in my opinion the best example of CSR. CSR should be integrated in the main vision of the business. It should not be just a part of it. The company that I am using as an example understood that CSR could be used as a strategy of a successful business.

BEN & JERRRY’S was born in a little town of the United States around 1978. The creators were two hippies with the their ideas of business really clear. They wanted to reach three goals or none. The three goals were to achieve social objectives, environmental and economical at the same time.

Pinche aquí para ver el vídeo

 

At that time the company provides just natural and organic products, they recycled paper and cardboard in order to make their packaging and they got involved with the farmers that supplied their raw materials to control the wellbeing of the animals. With this simple view of a business they created an empire. Little by little they were expanding into the whole world facing Haagen Dazs. Haagen Dazs tried to stop this expansion trying to limit the Ben & Jerry’s distribution channel, fact that made the society feel more empathic with this little brand that were trying to expand their business in a different way.

By the time that the company was growing their commitments too. For example, the company implement a salary policy where the best paid could not be seven times higher than the worst paid. They started to promote the fair trade market applying it into the supply chain. Now they are member of the Fair Trade Foundation. They created too the Ben&Jerry’s Foundation to support the activities related with the local communities allocating 7.5% of the total profit on it. The company still worry about the environment being CO2 neutral.

Ben&Jerry’s was since 2001 part of Unilever one of the biggest multinationals of the world. Most of the people thought that this was the end of the friendly behavior of the company. However why Unilever was going to change something that was working. Unilever keeps the principle values that Ben and Jerry were improving since the beginning of the brand. Today companies are convinced that innovation is a strategy to keep locking for solutions to a problems that they have created, Ben&Jerry’s make us remember that the answer is simpler than we think we just need a real and genuine commitment.

Comments Off on DP2: Key drivers of CSR’s growth and Ben&Jerry’s case / 04 Jan 2012 por Antonio Calixto Moreno Zarco
IMSD /

The biggest offshore wind farm #Project Management

In September 2010 the currently largest offshore wind farm in the world was completed in Thanet, Kent (UK). It consists of 100 turbines which have a total capacity of 300 MW. This is enough to provide electricity to more than 200,000 homes per year. The wind farm makes “a significant contribution to the aim of a five-fold increase in the UK’s renewable energy resource by 2020″ (BBC 2006). The total offshore wind energy generated in the UK amounted in September 2010 to 1,314 MW, more than the rest of the world with 1,100 MW. Still there is lot more to do than to build one offshore wind farm and the UK could struggle to provide 15 % of overall energy from renewables by 2020.

The wind farm got its planning permission in December 2006 and was accomplished by Vattenfall, a Swedish energy company. Vattenfall bought the project company Thanet Offshore Wind Ltd in 2008 and is still the operator of the wind farm.

During the planning and execution phase the company faced several problems which lead to a delay. Vestas, the supplier of the turbines, withdrew its offshore wind turbine from the market due to technical problems in early 2007. One year later the turbines were on the market again and the constructions could continue. Oppositions came from environmental groups, which were concearned about the environmental impact. To deal with this interests Thanet Offshore Wind Ltd released a Summary of Environmental Impact in 2007.

The project shows how important it is to deal with external stakeholders. Not to consider them can delay the project or can even result in a complete failure if there is bitter opposition. The best would be to include important stakeholders early into the planning phase and deal with their concerns. A good risk management can identify them and address them accurately. Such a huge project is not possible without good project management and availability of resources. Beneficial for the realization of such a big project is a long term legal framework which can increase planning reliability.

Resources, last accessed 04.01.2012:

BBC (2006) Offshore wind farms get go-ahead, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/kent/6188133.stm

BBC (2010) Largest offshore wind farm opens off Thanet in Kent, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-11395964

Reuters (2008) UPDATE 1-Vattenfall to build UK’s biggest wind farm, http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/11/10/vattenfall-idUSLA62270320081110

The Telegraph (2010) World’s largest offshore wind farm opens off Kent, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8018828/Worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm-opens-off-Kent.html

Vattenfall (2011) Thanet Offshore Wind Farm, http://www.vattenfall.co.uk/en/thanet-offshore-wind-farm.htm

Vestas (2008) Company announcement from Vestas Wind Systems A/S, http://www.vestas.com/files//Filer/EN/Investor/Company_announcements/2008/080218-MFKUK-11.pdf

Comments Off on The biggest offshore wind farm #Project Management / 04 Jan 2012 por Marie Glueck
IMSD /

(DP) A philosophical approach to sustainability part 3

Part 3: What the governments should do?

Following the second part of my DP blog, in this third post I will point out what the PUBLIC SECTOR should do -in my opinion- to gain a sustainable worldwide development.

I think that the public sector has the “reins of the game” on his hands, and that’s why it has even the SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY to lead the society to a sustainable economy, society, development.

The first aim of a government is the GOOD GOVERNANCE, which has 8 major characteristics. It is participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are taken into account and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society [1].

Actually it should be clear that good governance is an ideal which is difficult to achieve in its totality, however, to ensure sustainable human development, actions must be taken to work towards this ideal with the aim of making it a reality.

Summarizing, the public sector  is asked to ensure these tasks:

• Creating frameworks for economic, political and social rights
• Ensuring public services meet basic needs and rights are met
• Developing regulations and standard-setting mechanisms, adherence to international obligations [2]

The new millennium is showing to the governments new challenges and new issues to facing, and the ENVIROMENTAL and SOCIAL ISSUES are the crucial ones, which should be straight linked with concept of SUSTAINABILITY.

I believe that just through SUSTAINABLE POLICIES the public sectors could help the right development; without sustainability we won’t have social and environmental development.

In the past we’ve already seen what it’s happened between developed countries and developing ones; in many cases we had just the exploitment of the last ones (since colonialism on then), but unfortunately today the scenario is still not completely changed.

This delicate (new?) equilibrium between countries, should be helped and encouraged by multinational and multilateral agencies, which retain the authority delegated by the most powerful states, and with this power they dictate the rules of the game.

These agencies (as UN, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, and so on) should be reviewed and reformed, since now they are facing several critics, especially from the developing countries (those –I would to point out- which would be the main subject to be helped from these agencies).

From the class of Development Perspectives I’ve learned that we can see the world from many points of view and not just from the point of view of developed countries (ethnocentrism?); we’ve met a lot of issues existing on these agencies, and in many cases it’s the developed countries that still have the power to change/reform/fix these issues; but the question that comes straight is: do they want to change the system to give more power/opportunities to the developing countries?

The main aims of these agencies should be the aids to let develop the countries which would to achieve I) a good governance, II) an environmental, III) economic and IV) social development.

Do the international agencies really want to help unconditionally those countries to reach these objectives or do they give them just some “poor tools” that implies a future dependency?

I would to let the readers reflect on these questions, and as for me I would to give my own opinion here:

From what I’ve read and I’ve learned in class, I think that actually the international agencies (especially which ones that are linked with economical field as WTO, World Bank, International Monetary Fund) are working not just with the aim to help, but they are working to gain and maintain power and subjugate the poorest countries in a forced market: I call that NEW COLONIALISM.

In the future, if we want a “Balanced Life, Sustainable Living” all around the world we need to “redefine globalization”, and this will pass through redefine even the public sector and either multilateral agencies.

And this process should starts from the governments.

The primary input should starts from the developed countries, which has to prove that it has became mature and appropriate for this new scenario and this new (sustainable) development.

The challenge that they’ll face will be almost the same all around the world; it’s time to SAY NO to the multinationals that go in the poor countries to exploit the workers, the environment and the resources: the globalization is here, now, and we need to understand that if we’re going to do something bad in the other side of the world, soon it will turn against us as well!

For these reasons I say, stop to play this game.

Sustainability?

With this word we can explain a lot of things, but this is right even for government’s policies, they aren’t excluded, they are leading this global game, and they should understand the importance of this word: this means for them to give real opportunities, real market and exchanges to the countries that could develop theirself without fake borrowing of money that are just new chains for their develop; they need to improve step by step as the civil society has done in other part of the world during the history; but with their own forces, qualities and work, and not being inmates in the role of eternal poor.

 

Sources:

[1] http://www.unescap.org/pdd/prs/ProjectActivities/Ongoing/gg/governance.asp

[2]  Leda Stott (2011): class presentation “Players, levels and sectors – The public sector”, IMSD, EOI

Comments Off on (DP) A philosophical approach to sustainability part 3 / 03 Jan 2012 por Luca Palma
IMSD /

DP 2 | Easterlin´s guidestones: an approach to happiness measures.

Alligned with my previous post I am now going to continue with the idea of “Happiness Economics”, which casts aspersions on traditional economic theories.

With regard to this topic I fairly make this first reference to the “Easterlin Paradox”, which is the key factor for Happiness Economics. It is referred to a postulate by economist and USC Professor Ricard Easterlin in the 1974 paper “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence”.This theory suggests that once basic needs are met in a country, government policy should focus not on economic growth or GDP, but rather on increasing life satisfaction or Gross National Happiness (GNH).

After reviewing the authors summary of his paper it is clear that the origin of any happiness and life satisfaction measure is located on two different approaches to happiness, the psychologic in contrast to the economic.

In one side Psychologic Studies state that each individual has a fixed setpoint of happiness , this one is determined by genetics and personality. Up to this, people tend to return to the same baseline of happiness over time. After this statement it can be assumed that public policies aimed at improving social well-being and economic conditions are a vain attempt.

In the other hand, Economic theories place particular importance on life circumstances, and particularly money, to social well-being. A person’s income and employment situation will increase well-being, so public policies are determinant for the happiness of society.

According to Easterlin neither of these theories is correct, crucial events in one´s life such as marriage or serious disease can affect one´s happiness setpoint in the long term and money in particular does not make people happier.

Once the author has reached this point it is better moving away from these previous theories and resort to surveys, to ask people themselves about those factors contributing to their happiness. I consider the importance of a key factor for this type of “happiness survey across countries”: Open-ended questioning; the importance of allowing people to explain themselves freely, away from fixed answers, is crucial for meaningful answers. It is possible that two people state they are equally happy even though one´s life circumstances seem to be objectively worse than the other´s. This can be explained maybe because the worse-off person has lowered his expectations of what reachable maximum happiness is for him, so that even when they both rate their happiness level with an “8”, the scale of the worse-off person is actually compressed in comparison with the scale considered by the better-off person. This kind of questioning overcomes a universal barrier for happiness studies, namely the lack of equivalence between the different happiness scales.

Coming back to Easterlin, he took as starting point of his own research an intensive survey carried out in the early 1960s by social psychologist H.Cantril. This one was taken in fourteen different countries worldwide through open questions and concluded that surprisingly the answers he obtained were more similar than expected. The three circumstances predominantly mentioned by people as their sources of well-being were material living level, family circumstances and health.

Those universal factors judged as very accountable for life satisfaction help to explain why comparing happiness among groups of individuals from disparate countries is possible and meaningful.

Considering this commonality among countries which seem to give great importance to the abovementioned factors, I believe, as I have explained, that scales differ from one country to another. If surveys questioning about the three circumstances may be arranged it is key that we previously gather information about how they grade each of these three in a scale of importance. This way is more effective to compare the relative importance of the three keyfactors next to the other mentioned circumstances, and so compare happiness across the world.

 

1 comentario / 03 Jan 2012 por Tatiana Casquero Rodriguez
Uncategorized /