Transcript SES_1.4_SustaianableDevt_Ethics_2015_04x

Section 1. Introduction and Background
1.4. Guiding Frameworks –
Sustainable Development & Ethics
USAID LEAF
Regional Climate Change Curriculum Development
Module: Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
Name
Affiliation
Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Penporn Janekarnkij; Co-Lead Kasetsart University,
Thailand
Surin Onprom; Co-Lead
Name
Affiliation
Tran Thi Thu Ha
Vietnam Forestry University
Nguyen Dinh Hai
Vietnam Forestry University
Rejani Kunjappan; Co-Lead
RECOFTC
Thailand
Vo Mai Anh
Vietnam Forestry University
Claudia Radel; Co-Lead
Utah State University
Tran Tuan Viet
Vietnam Forestry University
Sarah Hines; Co-Lead
US Forest Service
Cao Tien Trung
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sidthinat Prabudhanitisarn
Chiang Mai University,
Thailand
Nguyen T. Trang Thanh
Vinh University, Vietnam
Sharifah Zarina Syed Zakaria
University Kebangsaan Malaysia
Nguyen Thu Ha
USAID Vietnam Forests &
Deltas
Mohd Rusli Yacob
University Putra Malaysia
Maeve Nightingale
IUCN MFF
Kaisone Phengspha
National University of Laos
Guada Lagrada
PACT MPE
Phansamai Phengspha
National University of Laos
Le Van Trung
DARD Lam Dong
Kethsa Nanthavongduangsy
National University of Laos
Nguyen Thi Kim Oanh
AIT Thailand
Freddie Alei
University of Papua New Guinea
David Ganz
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Chay Kongkruy
Royal University of Agriculture,
Cambodia
Kalpana Giri
USAID LEAF Bangkok
Soreivathanak Reasey Hoy
Royal University of Phnom Penh,
Cambodia
Chi Pham
Project Coordinator
USAID LEAF Bangkok
I.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1.1. Introduction to Climate Change
1.2. The Climate Change Mitigation & Adaptation Context
1.3. Introduction to Social and Environmental Soundness (SES)
1.4. Guiding Frameworks – Sustainable Development & Ethics
II. WHAT SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES EXIST: STRENGHENING
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF REDD
2.1. Environmental Co-benefits: Introduction to Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
2.1.1. Carbon/REDD+ Project Accounting, Carbon Monitoring & MRV
2.2. Governance
2.2.1. Regulatory Framework, Forest Tenure, and Carbon Rights
2.3. Stakeholder Participation
2.3.1. FPIC
2.4. Social Co-benefits
2.5. Gender Equity and Women’s Empowerment
2.5.1. Gender Analysis Tools
2.5.2. Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index
2.6. Indigenous Peoples and their Empowerment
2.7. Local Livelihoods: An Introduction
2.7.1 Livelihoods impact Case Study: April Salumei, PNG
2.8. REDD+ Benefits Sharing
2.9. Economic and Financial Viability and Sustainability
III. STATE OF THE ART IN ACTION: BRINGING THE PIECES TOGETHER
3.1. Safeguard Mechanisms in REDD+ Programs
3.2. Streamlining of Safeguards and Standards
3.3. Developing National Level Safeguards
At the end of this section, learners will be able to:

Identify the principles of sustainable development linked
to social, economic and environmental issues

Describe the concept of environmental ethics and the
essential features of moral or ethical thinking

Identify how a human-rights-based approach can arise
from an ethics framework

Relate and develop the skills to recognize and apply moral
discourse for leadership in environmental fields, including
in climate change mitigation
1.
Introduction
2.
Sustainable development
concepts
3.
Environmental ethics
4.
Activities

Lecture


presentation of concepts and information
Class discussion

decision making

identifying issues
Read:

The concept of sustainable development published in “Our
Common Future” report in 1987 (The Brundtland Report)

Kortenkamp, K & Moore, C. F. 2001. Ecocentrism and
Anthropocentrism: Moral Reasoning About Ecological
Commons Dilemmas. Journal of Environmental Psychology
21, 000-000. (http://www.idealibrary.com)
This module section:

Examines in detail the applicability of the sustainable
development concept as the framework for REDD+

Relates the use of ethical frameworks for decision
making
Sustainable Development (SD) Framework consists of three
pillars:

Economic (Goal: Growth?)

Environment (Goal: Conservation?)

Social/Livelihood (Goal: Equity?)
We then also add a fourth consideration:

Governance/Political (political process and how decisions
are made)
Commonly accepted considerations:

Maximize human well-being.

Ensure efficient use of all resources, natural and otherwise, by
maximizing rents.

Seek to identify and internalize environmental and social
costs.

Maintain and enhance the conditions for viable enterprise.
Commonly accepted considerations:

Promote responsible stewardship of natural resources and
the environment, including remediation of past damage.

Minimize waste and environmental damage along the
whole of the supply chain.

Exercise prudence where impacts are unknown or
uncertain.

Operate within ecological limits and protect critical natural
capital.
Commonly accepted considerations:



Ensure a fair distribution of the costs and benefits of
development for all those alive today.
Respect and reinforce the fundamental rights of human
beings, including civil and political liberties, cultural
autonomy, social and economic freedoms, and personal
security.
Seek to sustain improvements over time; ensure that
depletion of natural resources will not deprive future
generations through replacement with other forms of
capital.
Commonly accepted considerations:

Support representative democracy, including participatory decisionmaking.

Encourage free enterprise within a system of clear and fair rules and
incentives.

Avoid excessive concentration of power through appropriate checks and
balances.

Ensure transparency through providing all stakeholders with access to
relevant and accurate information.

Ensure accountability for decisions and actions, which are based on
comprehensive and reliable analysis.

Encourage cooperation in order to build trust and shared goals and values.

Ensure that decisions are made at the appropriate level, adhering to the
principle of subsidiarity where possible.
For Discussion:
1. Where, diagrammatically,
does the governance /
political element fit?
2. Can the three SD pillars
be effectively balanced?
Why or why not?
ECONOMIC
population, GDP, exports,
employment, entrepreneurship,
innovation
SOCIAL
human rights, equal
opportunity, health,
education, housing,
security, families & villages
Sustainable
Development
(SD)
ENVIRONMENTAL
air quality, water quality, waste
recycling, energy, forest renewal,
biodiversity
National Strategy Scorecard
Vital indicator metrics
Social:
1. Human rights
indicator
2. Equal opportunity
indicator
3. Etc.
Economic:
1. Population indicator
2. Growth indicator (e.g.
GPD per capita)
3. Etc.
Environmental:
1. Air quality
2. Water quality
3. Etc.
Current Bench- Benchvalue
mark
mark
2015
country country Goal
Actual
Milestones
2016
2017
Goal
Actual Goal
Actual
Is REDD+ “conservation as development”?
Can environmental conservation be economic development
at the same time?
Environmental
conservation
Sustainable
development
REDD+
Economic
development
the study of good and bad, right
and wrong
criteria that help differentiate
right from wrong
the study of ethical questions
regarding human interactions
with the environment
Ethics
Ethical
Standards
Environmental
Ethics
Environmental ethics:

guides humans behavior and relations with nature and other
species on earth.

deals with the moral relationships between humans, nature
and other species on earth.

addresses the ethical dimensions of humans’ relations with
and behavior towards nature and other species on earth more
generally.

Understanding human ethical attitudes towards themselves
and nature.

Understanding how environmental exploitation affects
livelihoods (social/economic/political)

Understanding how conduct of social/economic/ political
activities affects the environment.

Understanding how technologies affect the environment,
livelihood, social well-being and nature.

In the context of this course: understanding, from an ethics
perspective, the role of REDD+ in addressing both
conservation and development.
Environmental ethicists define three value systems that differ sharply
with regards to on whom the ethics are centered:
1. Anthropocentrism – Human-centered

considers the effects of environmental actions on humans only

humans as more important than any other species
2. Biocentrism – Life-centered

considers the effects of environmental actions on all living things

all species are important elements in a system of interdependence
3. Ecocentrism – Ecosystem-centered

considers the effects of environmental actions on all components of
our environment, both living and nonliving

totality is more important than individuality

to other humans?

to other living things?

to other species?

to non-living things?

to future human generations?
The recognition of values or importance can strengthen
relations within all living, non-living, humans and other species
as a moral obligation and responsibility.
One framework we use to consider our obligations to other
humans is that of:
Human Rights


Different peoples and different countries may recognize
different sets of human rights based on different
collectively shared ethical principles.
International human rights debates and agreements are
attempts to build a shared discourse of moral obligation
and then to codify this discourse in law.
Four Fundamental Principles:
1.
Participation
2.
Non-discrimination
3.
Transparency
4.
Accountability
participation and
stakeholder engagement
social benefits and
co-benefits
local livelihoods
environmental benefits
and co-benefits
governance, tenure, legal
processes
Do we need ethical
principles that
constrain and guide
our actions?
Do we need
guiding
frameworks?
economic / financial
viability and
sustainability
indigenous
empowerment
gender equity and
women’s empowerment
Consider the following:
“A farmer has to clear land by cutting trees / forests to feed and support his or her
family“
What do we need to include in our consideration of the farmer’s actions?
1.
Identify arguments for and against the farmer’s actions based on the SD
framework:
 conservation perspectives (environment)
 economic perspectives (economy)
 humanity perspectives (social / political)
2.
Identify arguments for the “rightness” or “wrongness” of the farmer’s actions
based on environmental ethics perspectives (anthropocentrism, biocentrism,
ecocentrism).
3.
Now consider the impact of processes at broader scales: Why might the farmer
clear forest to farm? (consider the potential roles of national policies, legal
frameworks, markets, etc. in shaping the farmer’s actions) Does this change our
judgment of the farmer’s actions?
Social
Actions that can cause the
extinction of other species for
convenience of humanity
Cutting down of trees for the
sake of human consumption
Performing animal testing for
scientific research
Restoring lands that were
destroyed
Protecting endangered species
Economic
Environmental
Political

The sustainable development framework can be a
tool to support decision-making to address multiple
policy aspects: social, economic, environmental, and
political.

Environmental ethics are the constraining and
guiding value perspectives which shape the intention
and purpose for conservation and development
actions.

The framework of human rights is a key system of ethical
thinking that positions obligation to other humans in
terms of “rights.” A human-rights-based approach can
provide ethical guidance to projects design and
implementation.

By providing frameworks for development of ethical
decisions, these theories strengthen our ability to reach
balanced and insightful judgments and to clarify and
communicate the bases for those judgments.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common
Future. London: Oxford University Press. (The Brundtland Report)
Corbera, E., Schroeder, H. 2010. Governing and implementing REDD+. Environ.
Sci. Policy, doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.002.
Clugston R. 2011. Ethical Framework for a Sustainable World. Journal of Education
for Sustainable Development. 5, September: 173-176.
Gary W. Luck, Kai M. A . Chan, Uta Eser, Erik Gómez-Baggethun, Bettina Matzdorf,
Bryan Norton, & Marion B. Potschin. 2012. Ethical Considerations in On-Ground
Applications of the Ecosystem Services Concept. BioScience. Vol. 62, No. 12,
December.
Jagger P., Sills E.O., Lawlor, K. and Sunderlin, W.D. 2010. A guide to learning about
livelihood impacts of REDD+ projects. Occasional paper 56. CIFOR, Bogor,
Indonesia.
Rolston. H. 2003. Environmental Ethics. In The Blackwell Companion to
Philosophy, 2nd ed. Bunnin. N and Tsui-James. E.P (eds), Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing.
Ulvin, Peter. 2007. From the right to development to the rights-based approach:
how ‘human rights’ entered development. Development in Practice 17(4-5): 597606.