e – DISCUSSION ON ACHIEVING
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The theme for the 2008 AMR is "Implementing the internationally agreed goals and commitments in
regard to sustainable development".
A moderated
e-discussion on Achieving Sustainable
Development is being jointly organized by the UN Department for
Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) and UNDP from 4 February to 14 March 2008 as
part of the larger global consultation process for the 2008 Annual Ministerial
Review. Experts,
practitioners and policy-makers, from within and outside of the UN system, will
interact within this online forum to share relevant experiences and generate
practical input towards this year's AMR. Hosted on MDGNet - http://www.un.org/ecosoc/newfunct/amredis.shtml
See
here all the contributions and the summary:
Summary of eDiscussion on Achieving Sustainable
Development
see all this here:
· Letter of invitation
from Assistant Secretary-General Jomo Kwame Sundaram to participate
· Responses in full (part II) -
· Summary of eDiscussion on Sustainable Development (PDF)
Questions:
II. Concrete policy initiatives that can help
States to achieve sustainable development.
Contributions
from
I.
Challenges countries face in integrating the goals of economic growth, social
development and environmental protection.
Dear colleagues,
I feel humbled and honoured to be asked to add my views to
this prestigious eDiscussion enterprise where policy makes and leaders look
into not just devising regionals, national, local plans and programmes, but care for the global whole and
alternative futures.
We used with a G7 - EEES Environmental Experts of the
Economic
In this UNEP project I learned that there are so many lessons learned
and good news, but the access, bridging and digestion is missing and little
is put into action. With these views and experience I read the contribution in
this eDiscussion very carefully, but have little time on the last day (AMR,
section I May
22) to respond, but will update this
collection, as a co-laboratory work hopefully elsewhere.
Here are my conclusions
and recommendations in a nutshell:
Subsuming and resonating with the contributions in the
eDiscussion makes one feel down. The danger is to get stuck with pointing at
what is wrong, with lamenting and analysis, but not moving on to new frontiers,
synthesis and therapy and positive outlooks which keep “realities”, contexts,
and episodic and epochal changes in mind. It seems to be fashionable now to
speak about holistic and deep-ecology. But is meant and understood and goes
beyond plastic words (empty words without meaning more mis-used than used in
edutainment, politainment, and modern “science”. WE tried some systemic
clarification in this ongoing Wholeness Seminar.
Only few people are used to and dare to step back and try to
confront the issues and consequences at stake from a birds-eye view and with
facetted eyes. (Pls. see “House
of Eyes” and World-House
as oikos,
ecumene, ecudomy) [more].
Since C. West Churchman we aware of the “enormous problems”
and neglect and ignore any alternative, new and old, systemic approaches.
What is missing seems to be an orientation in “common frames
of references”, unifying multi-modal visions, and an integration of sign and
cultural systems, concerted efforts for positive outcomes, including the beauty
of difference and the minority views. Please [see more].
Many contributions wholeheartedly and with much merit and
sincere effort try to confront and tackle one issue or element, and all too
often argue for fashionable new terms and approaches.
But what we learned from Noel Brown, UNEP-RONA was that for
At UN-CSD-15
last summer we created an ad-hoc side-event to revisit international
environmental gatherings:
Some of us thought that all this “new” is not really making
enough progress and much of the “old think” is lost or forgotten. I opt for a
combination and to venture a little into the impossible as the perplexity in
view of this complexity is blinding us and dumping us down.
The only way of
discovering the limits of the possible
is to venture a
little way past them into the impossible.
Arthur C. Clarke
So let us start with revisiting and tackling some old maybe
lost opportunities: See below:
٭ enormous problems” and a unifying framework,
* inter-sectoral strategic dilemma &
groupthink and spreadthink *) harmonisation of environmental data, … and then
explore and propose some more comprehensive “out of the box” thinking and
paradigm mapping and shared dialog and decision culture approaches as we need
to go beyond without loosing tough and ground. So what we will do in 5) and 6)
is revisit the general model theory (UNESCO 1964) and sign theory C.S. Peirce
and see how that can help us to use other ways to communicate, construct, share “realities”.
Finally, all the perspective outlooks building blocks below
need to be combined to go beyond a certain signs, symbols, meanings,
disciplines, languages, cultures, scales … if we want to take the “Rio ’92
mandate” of “common frames of references” for real and shared scales,
proportions, consequences and actions – AND look into truthing and fidelity,
what and how we can communicate and share, and how we can avoid the Charlatan
comparison of the incompatible. See proposal below for the Euro-Mediterranean
region Anna Lindh Foundation
(References below) and the need to have not just ecological
resource or consumption “footprints”, but fidelity and repeatability of
densities and how they overlap and interact. (see A) the Retrospective of the Predicament
of Mankind Club of
Please note: The author worked in the last 40 years in
construction, planning, design, environmental management and education and very
much resonates with the Global Change Agenda since the Global Change Exhibition
in 1990 – a time when the term “glocal” was coined… and for G7 – UNEP exercises
to Harmonize Environmental Information in the late 80ies – early 90ies.
Maybe visit beforehand this article for Lynton Caldwells “Is Humanity destined to
self-destruct” with the title “Show or Schau”? APLS Politics and Life
Sciences, 2000 or start directly with the “building blocks” A) – N) below:
A) “enormous problems” and a
unifying framework (Churchman,
Ozbhekan, Warfield, Christakis)
The “enormous problems’ of Churchman became the “Problematique” of
Ozbekhan, and remerged as the science of generic design of Warfield and the
Structured Dialogic Design Process (SDDP) of Christakis, representing a
continuum of systems thinking with the common vision to engage stakeholders in
addressing the Predicament of Humankind through participative democracy.
See Club of Rome’s Predicament
of Mankind (PDF) 1970 and a A Retrospective
Structural Inquiry of the Predicament of Humankind: Prospectus of the Club of
Rome, 2004, Harness
Collective Wisdom, 2004
B) UNU and UIA prep-work for Rio’92, see: Anthony Judge inter-sectoral strategic dilemma, The Encyclopedia of
World Problems, Human Potential, Actions, Options, Strategies (see:
documents relating to World Problems 1971-2006) and IBIS (Kunz/Rittel) Vicious
Problem Cycles and the Quality of Statements, and the International
Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics (more below).
C) CAPACITY TO GOVERN, Yehezkel Dror, Club of Rome
Report 1995, extra summary points at UN Climate Summit 1995, Berlin to include
inter-sectoral strategic dilemma and common frames (recommendation 6 and 7) * Research into spatial
metaphors supporting local and global governance by enabling understanding
of intersectoral strategic dilemmas of action and results chains in a symbolic
and trans-cultural form, for shared exploration of issues and evaluation of
proportions and consequences with differentiation between data, conjectures and
'noise' in policy information.
* Further development of
a conceptual superstructure as a reference paradigm to ease access to salient
data while avoiding unnecessary redundancy and overloads. [more]
D) Cyberculture, UNECO Culture of Peace, Humane Information
Society 1992 -2008 [more]
E) General Model Theory UNESCO and Herbert Stachowiak - Create
and move boundaries in agreed upon shared realities and virtualities (general
model theory).
F) EXPO 2000, concepts behind the Visitors Information
System for world exhibitions and the Global Dialogues, Hannover,
G) EFFE und Multi-Media
– Tangible Education From the Senses to Meaning, Reason, and
Sensibility - From
Culture to Cyberculture?
H) Knowledge Organisation and Navigation, and Metaphors, see
Dahlberg (ISKO), Judge, UIA (above), Veltman, MMI, and the work of the author.
Pls. see ISKO, infoterm, SUMS.
I) paradigm Mapping and Out of the Box Thinking Seminars developed
by Kurt Hanks for foreign students in the US and widely applied to relate
positions, viewpoints, assumptions and learn to see, relatem and combine with “other eyes/models”…. (call it mental mobility and the negotiation of different
schemas. See: Sharing and
Changing Realities with Extra Degrees of Freedom of Movement (Fig. 1, 2, 6).
J) INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM SCIENCES ENCYCLOPEDIA and outlook
by the editor in chief Charles
François when
introducing the 2nd edition AND the contribution of NEW TERMS like
cognitive panorama” and “mental models” by the author and contributions in the
5 volumes: The
Future of Higher (Lifelong) Education: For All Worldwide: A Holistic View
K) GLOBAL EMBODIED COVENANT - see EARTH CHARTA open-space
presentation, TEC
presentation, and GEIG (IUCN – WHO – etc.)….
L) Future of Modern
Media and Data, ICSU CODATA (1992-2006), see also Systems and Sign Theory
2006 and Quo vadis Cybernetics ?
M) Earth Literate Leaders and Modern Media & Maps &
Models – see Map Analphabetism and UNESCO’s Literacy programmes. About World Map truth, truthing, fidelity and visual demagogy in
computer graphics and visualisation. See LITERACY – FLAT WORLDS and the
models and cosmologies connected to it, and what it means to ecological
footprints and thematic densitiy maps, and the relation and overlap of issues.
See here the problem maps of the Club of
N) Proposal for Anna-Lindh-Foundation, European –
Mediteranian Countries,
Roundtable learning from experience
during the last 40 years and new ideas
Stumbling blocks preventing true dialog,
peace-making, and reconciliation:
1) we
fight over words but do not check the meaning,
2) we
do not question and compare the values attached to statements and attitudes,
3) we do not contextualize
and embody concepts and meaning, do not check the sectors, regions, scales,
proportions and consequences of alternative actions,
4) we
do not give voice, empower, listen, cherish and cultivate difference or variety
in dialog and decision making,
5) Disorientation and
dumbing-down in Cyberculture and a mis-administered and misunderstood,
intangible “Globalisation
/ Glocalisation”: Where we get overloaded by communication noise
(sign/symbol melange) and media demagogy which means: no trust and fidelity in
the statements and no ways and means to check the credibility and
impact/relevance, and get lost between the scales, brackets, and sectors.
6) The above incompatibility
and incomparability opens the door for over-claims and oversimplifications.
Leaders use intangible jargon (plastic-words), neglect impacts and avoid
instead of exploring differences and alternatives.
Whoever imagines mental barriers
which actually do not exist
and then thinks them away, has understood the world.
As space is entrapped in geometry's network of lines,
thought is caught in its (own) inherent laws.
Maps make the world comprehensible to us;
we are still waiting for the star-maps of the spirit.
In the same way that ambling through fields
we risk getting lost, the spirit negotiates its terrain.
Friedrich Rückert, Wisdom of Brahmins
Postscript:
There is no doubt that we have ventured into new realms of
realities and possibilities, but are stuck in old ways and means. Some say we
should venture into “new thinking” some believe in the old and traditional, but
all this are one-way orientations which can only blind us and prohibit going
into the lateral, the across, the other, and the beyond. Why not consider Maps
and Models “Supersigns” L) – instead of fighting over words, labelling living
things into dichotomies or grids, fighting for “mine” or “yours”, forgetting the other,
and building walls between symbols and images ?
This collection is a quick attempt between “Clubs”, “Times”, “Disciplines”,
Languages and Signs. It is not meant to
be complete or final – just another piece to add onto more comprehensive and
tolerant views, approaches, communications, and actions. For the author Space,
Scale (with proportions and consequences), Sign Systems, and the issue of
outline, overview, and orientation are most critical items in times of
over-claims and over-simplifications.
The author works the last 20 years on education, working with
youth and promoting Energy and Education Round-Tables in
Please excuse my “Krauts”-English -
without Editor and proof-reading - in these seasons and hours of the
times…. But I think in the sense of the Arthur C. Clarke’s
citation above, many small, facetted and connected steps are needed to tackle
the Problematique mentioned above.
Heiner Benking, Consultant
and Facilitator
Secretary of the Council on Global
Issues and the Tagore-Einstein-Council
Board Member and European Representative of IHTEC.org (ECOSOC and DESD)
Consultant to International Youth Community Services and Founder of The Open-Forum
http://quergeist.info and http://benking.de
PS:
This
is the “overnight” version of the author. This piece will be discussed in the
eDiscussion and in an open-format forum were [bracketing] and other tools, ways
and means can be used for in-depth discussion and changes. Please come back and
see the Open Theory Discussion and Editing Forum: here.
Valid changes of the text will be marked in further versions as updated above.
AMR Part II (25 February - 14 March)
II. Concrete policy initiatives that can help
States to achieve sustainable development.
Question
2:
What
specific initiatives can ECOSOC promote to be launched to facilitate
realization of the goal of sustainable development? How can we foster human and
institutional competencies to execute supportive policies?
Dear Colleagues,
First:
Revisit
the mandate: Harmonisation of Environmental Information.
The Environmental Experts of the Economic Summit of
the G7 (EEES) issued in the 80s a mandate for the Harmonization of
Environmental Information. (We remember
that in 1975 the G7 was founded in Rambouillet, France, to tackle issues of
global responsibility, and this can surely be seen in view of the
“Problematique” raised a few years earlier (see below)).
Unfortunately, the idea and project to bridge
incomparable information and to link information from a high level and
agreed-upon reference schemas were not followed up on in the early1990s.
Central is the concept that information with different granularity--from
different sign-systems and cultures, in different languages, and from various
spatial and temporal scales--can be related in “common frames of reference”.
Pls. see the “manager” Noel Brown of Rio’92 re
“common frames of reference” and ideas behind tHe Earth Summit.
Noel Brown 1994 requested from scientists (surveyors and remote sensing
specialists in particular) to:
- establish common frames of
reference to better gauge the human prospectus,
- develop a common understanding
of the state of the environment,
- ****
quoted from: http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/genre/benking/melbourne.htm
Unfortunately, in the early 90s technology only
allowed one to develop “meta-data” systems and so the concept to maintain “information about
environmental information” (meta-information) was discarded in favor of the
technological “quick-fix” of handling just “hard and dead data. “ Every
organization was in this way encouraged to develop and maintain their own
repositories, instead of looking into bridges between sectors, times, and
scales. Remember that the Internet was not yet on the horizon, and it was very
typical to keep and maintain ones “own” data.
But what is needed is the in-between, the how-to of dynamic patterns,
overlap and interactions. Storing only “compatible” data, not comparable
information, was what was possible, but not what is needed. See Patterns and Scales
in the International Encyclopedia of Systems and Cybernetics. But this has
changed in the last 20 years! We have collected ways and means for an
International Council of Scientific Unions, CODATA conferences: please follow
the papers from 2005, but also go back to annual CODATA symposia from 1994, and
1992: http://benking.de/systems/codata/
Second:
Revisit
the Original Prospectus of the Club of
Why? There
is more to Future Studies than looking into prospective futures (scenarios,
models). There are also participative and normative dimensions to be included.
Creating models is good and needed, but to be relevant, they have to “touch
base” by checking the norms and values, what is said, written, and meant and
how it is done by some against the odds.
Please revisit my AMR 2008 section I (“Challenges”
contribution, part (A, B) as there are intersectoral strategic dilemmas and
problem clusters as we know, not only from the studies for Rio 1992, but as
have been revisited by Christakis as a review of the Original Problematique, or
Prospectus of the Club of Rome 1969-1970 (see A).
Please compare this with research and cuuricula
done in
It appears to me that the consideration of any Big
Picture view is neglected and avoided by all means – but cant
we create, compare, and relate various “big pictures and stories”? Isn’t man a
“model-making” being?. Any approaches in this
direction over the last 20 years have been ignored, but I feel should be
revisited by a body in charge for a higher stand.
Above examples by institutions are symptomatic for
staying on the surface – not questioning relations, depth, interactions,
leverage or tipping points…
Examples on how to make a difference was presented
since the late 80’s in the papers below. I feel there are many more examples
when we can search for common patterns “between” the ivory towers of our
artificial scientific enterprise, which cuts with artificial “boxes” and walls
into living, dynamic matters. Pls. see: Geo-Eco-Dynamics:
- Geo-Object-Coding:
- Global
Change: - Emergence and Systems:
- Spacial or
Spatial: - Show or Schau: - Global Covenant:
The dilemma why above concrete proposals, even when
done for premier institutions worldwide seems to be in the avoidance of
anything “beyond the box” providing overview, and the known “quick-tech-fix”
solutions which are readily available and modern in their times, but focus only
on what is tchnically feasible and “state of the art”, instead of what is needed and wanted.
The above two proposals for the AMR 2008 are
examples to look into deeper connections, and not get distracted by beautiful
pictures or numbers. The author has worked for 20+ years on visualization and
media demagogy; he feels that any argument and issues need to be “rooted” in
their specific situation and context. Maybe check: Environmental Data
Visualization and Visual Demagogy, Springer Scientific, 1987.
The core issues seem to be overclaims
and oversimplification without overview and orientation and the accelerated
use of technology as a way to ignore looking into the “Problematique”. See ROBUST
PATHS TO GLOBAL STABILITY, Section I, the Global Challenge and the elements
for Section I of this AMR 2008:
(A, B, C).
Instead of lamenting over obsolete reality maps we
should establish also “externally related workplaces of the mind” (please see this paper - [more] and see how exploring
alternative dialogue and decision cultures (N) possibly can help us to go
deeper.
It is a moment to question central
assumptions--like how we outline and share a commons and allow us to expand our
reality maps and open the door for new approaches to the environment
and our picture of our and other’s places in the greater commons. Pls. see a
proposal for a conference in June 2008 Exploring &
Negotiating Old & New Reality Maps/Models, New Ideas and Spaces for the
Council of Europe in 1996, and the Elements outlined in the Challenges Part I of this AMR 2008.
Note: The above
two Initiatives proposed are central and critical ones, because the moment you
start questioning “everybody knows” standards, the door is wide open to address
diversity, quality, trust and fidelity issues. It is important how we include
vague data, minority views and other ways to speak, think, express, display,
and share. This has to do with creativity and cognition, and bigger, shared,
and negotiated commons which can be placed between categorical extremes, the
dualistic approach of higher versus lower, good or bad, given or not-given,
material-immaterial….
Heiner Benking
Consultant and Facilitator
Maybe visit: www.quergeist.info,
www.benking.de, www.in-betweener.org, www.open-forum.de
Voice: +49 30 793 2230 or Skype me at: heiner.benking E-mail: heiner@benking.de
________________________________________
Again:
here the linkd to the sources and context:
Summary of eDiscussion on Achieving Sustainable Development
see all this here:
· Letter of invitation
from Assistant Secretary-General Jomo Kwame Sundaram to participate
· Part I launch message
from Moderators
· Part II launch message
from Moderators
· Responses in full (part II) -
· Summary of eDiscussion
on Sustainable Development
See: Hosted on MDGNet
- http://www.un.org/ecosoc/newfunct/amredis.shtml
|
Part One
Responses: Ejembi John
Onah, Glenn Okun, USA Nick Surr USA Chamari Karunanayake, USA Iyad Abumoghli, Lebanon Eric Belvaux, Canda Bremley W. B.
Lyngdoh, Bakhodir
Ganiev, Marianne
Fernagut, R.J. Andrew McEwan, Dr J G Ray
India Mary Ennis, Steve Bass, D. B.
Dalal-Clayton, Gregory Borne, Sheng Fulai, Geneva Rita Cooma Rahi,
Henry Ekwuruke, Nigeria Eric Lemetais, France Dai Ming, China Angelica Lusigi, Kenya Raul Montenegro, Argentina Teresa Flore, Bolivia Nick Surr, USA Lee Chan, Canada Joseph A. Giacalone, USA Dai Ming, China Kanan Ajmera, USA Dai Ming, China Benedict Osakwe Odigwe, Nigeria Alicia Villamizar, Venezuela Samir Aziz, Morocco J.G. Whitney D.W.
Smith, Mary Ennis, R.J Michel Allaire,
Jan Roberts, Benedict |
Dze Nguesse Guy
Antoine, Cameron Bruno
Mupinganayi, Eric
Belvaux,
Canada Amadou
Makhtar Diop, USA Adil Najam, USA Eric Belvaux, Canada Harvey W.
Parker, André Francisco
Pilon, Dr J. G. Ray, India Noura Fatchima Djibrilla, Nigeria John
Musemakweri, Soe Thant Aung,
Mary Rose
Kaczorowski, Ramit Basu, India Mengue
Oloumou, Cameron Abimbola Akeem, Joseph Ray, India Boengiu Constantin, Romania Victoria Hickman, UK Dr. Jose j. Jimenez, Mexico Ram Fulai Sheng, Ross Ashcroft,
Francis Stuart,
James Greyson, Jon Hobbs, Edgar Göll, Mimi Joseph Varsha Ajmera, Malaysia Bertha Garcia Cienfuegos, Peru Nzoa
Gervais, Kodakkal Shivapraszad, India Aminul Islam, Bangladesh Madame Rachel
Mamba, CAR |
Part Two
Responses: Teresa Flores, Justin D. K.
Bishop, Dr J G Ray, Eric Belvaux, Rongming Wu Nzoa Gervais,
Cameron James
Greyson, Tim
Garbutt, Sarah Atkinson, Australia Amitava Mukherjee, Thailand James
Greyson, Daniela Piffer,
Dr J G Ray, Michael Massey,
Rongming Wu Mary Ennis, H.M
Henry
Ekwuruke, James
Greyson, Graham
L. Twaddell, Matilde
Tim Garbutt, Yusef Alhadri, Yemen Kathleen O'Halleran, USA Mrs. Rachel
Mamba, |