International Development Project: Assessment & Suggested Improvement

Picture1

In groups of two, and based on the projects you selected in class, write an overall critique of these projects, initiatives, or activities. In no more than three pages, provide a brief description for the project, the lead organization that is working on it, and an assessment for the project performance looking at its environmental and social components. If you are the UN secretary general and have the power to encourage, or stop this project, would you approve/implement this project (as it is) or not? After your critic and reflection, provide three direct actions that if taken into account will significantly improve the project. Make sure to add the name of your project, location and overall theme. Use the material in earlier classes to have a critical lens on the project development.

#Env_Plan      

8 thoughts on “International Development Project: Assessment & Suggested Improvement

  1. Project: Global Sustainability Initiative
    Location: Dublin, Ireland
    Theme: Support sustainable practices across the world and improve quality of life
    The Global Sustainability Initiative in an international independent standards organization composed of entrepreneurs and experts from across the world. Their global headquarters is located in Dublin but they also have offices in Geneva, Douglas, Washington DC, Lisbon, Perth, Brussels and Cape Town. Their overall goal is to work towards implementing sustainable practices through food, water, health, energy, education, and technology. Each category contains sub-projects that the organization is working on. To encourage countries to make these sustainable changes, GSI developed a virtual currency called BioCertz. This currency is similar to carbon pricing or an Emission Trading Scheme. It works by paying money to countries/organizations that hit certain sustainability quotas such as planting a large number of trees in an urban environment. BioCertz can be traded for other currencies, assets, retired, or donated. The topic we focused on was food and nutrition, specifically, “ready to use foods”.
    Good:
    The food initiative goals are to provide food security to those suffering from malnutrition by developing and mass producing ready to use foods. These foods are oil based, made from locally grown materials and high in calories and nutritional content. GSI uses village, community, and city farms to maximize production efficiency. Vertical farms are more profitable because they are capable of producing more food for the same amount of area, increasing productivity and reducing the overall cost. The Village farm produces approximately 500 servings of food a day, the Community Farm produces 5,000 and the City Farm provides a permanent location while distributing produce across multiple regions. This idea helps people across multiple countries by providing low-cost nutritional food. GSI is constantly experimenting with new ideas to create ready-to-use foods that are healthy, affordable and easily accessible. accessibility. This organization mitigates many of these issues if it is done successfully and people are educated.
    Bad:
    While the GSI’s initiatives are noble and seemingly well-thought out, the website is lacking some crucial information. This reduces credibility and raises questions about the foundation of their organization. There is not a date provided to show when the organization was created or who the founders are. Judging from the technology and projects listed on the website, GSI appears to be founded recently. This also raises questions about possible unintended outcomes that may result from their experiments. This appears to be a successful organization, but possibly needs more time to really get going. If the initiatives are already in place, better documentation of the results should be posted on the website. If they are simply in the idea stage, that should be clearly stated as well. Much of the wording on the website is vague, for example this statement taken from the page on ready to use foods sounds nice but raises questions as to how it would actually work in the field: “GSI regards malnourished people as legitimate customers and not as passive victims or mere beneficiaries. We are endeavouring to tailor nutritional products (recipes, formats, sourcing and delivery) to their needs as opposed to those of the agencies involved in supply.” The organization seems to be tackling more than one group can handle. They also ask for donations to support the initiatives. If they are going to ask for money, more precise information should be shared.
    Vote:
    If we were given the opportunity to encourage the GSI project, we would. It seems to provide many creative incentives to help people and the environment in new ways. The initiatives support environmental sustainability as well as social sustainability by creating products that promote equality and well-being for everyone. If the intentions could become reality they would make a substantial positive impact. GSI needs to work on educating people about the organization and the opportunities it promotes to allow people to become more knowledgeable.
    Three Actions to improve the project-
    1.) People need to be more aware of this project. It provides many great opportunities that are supposed to help people, but they can’t take advantage of their resources if they don’t know they are there. A way to do this could be to increase advertisement and develop small interactive groups that would allow people to socialize and spread information.
    2.) Checks and balances should be implemented so that people know their money is actually going towards the promised outcomes, not just someone’s pocket.
    3.) More information is needed in general on the website.

    Kate Larkin & Mack Yeager

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Team: Marcos Aleman and Priyasha Shrestha

    The Kyoto Protocol

    Introduced: 1992; Finalized in 1997; Came into effect: 2005; Commitment period: 2008-2012
    Scope: Global
    Organization: The United Nations
    Theme: Climate change

    Background:
    The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty that aimed to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. It was an outcome of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was an international environmental treaty, opened for signature at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janerio in May 1992. The objective of the UNFCCC was to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992) Discussions after the UNFCCC lead to the conclusion that stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels was not adequate, and so the Kyoto Protocol was put in force since 2005. The protocol was targeted to reducing six greenhouse gases: Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) to 5.2% below the 1990 levels, in the countries that signed the treaty, for a ‘commitment period’ of 2008-2012. It was considered one of the most significant treaties ever signed for bringing the world together regarding issues of climate change and global warming, although critics have questioned its effectiveness. Each developed country that agreed to the treaty was given a binding target to reduce overall emissions by a certain percent from 1990 levels. Developing countries were only expected to voluntary limit their emissions to a certain degree. Some developing countries could even increase emissions: Iceland could increase their emissions by 10% and Portugal by 27%. Developed countries such as the United States and the EU were expected to reduce their overall emissions (7% and 8% respectively). The protocol also provided means for countries to reach their targets, which are outlined below:
    1. To use “sinks,” or natural processes to remove atmospheric greenhouse gases. Example: planting trees
    2. To adopt the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which encouraged developed countries to invest in technology (such as natural gas instead of coal) to reduce emissions in developing countries and gain credits towards meeting the protocol requirements.
    3. To trade emissions, or buy and sell emissions rights, thereby placing an economic value on greenhouse gas emissions.
    4. To employ joint implementation, by means of which developed countries could sponsor foreign research in reducing emissions in developing countries, and earn credits.

    Countries that failed to meet their emissions targets would be required to make up the difference between their targeted and actual emissions, and an additional penalty of 30 percent, in the following commitment period (2012-2020). Failure to decrease emissions resulted in losing face, and having to present a plan analyzing the causes of failure and future steps to meet targets.

    Good:
    The Kyoto Protocol introduced mandatory targets for the developed countries that signed it, instead of voluntarily acting on reducing emissions. The developed countries or regions, such as the European Union, that worked towards the target were successful in reducing emissions by 22.6%. It also brought awareness to the fact that climate change is happening and we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to reduce the impacts of climate change. Thus, it was a good starting point for countries all around the world to start thinking about these issues, and work together to tackle them. The protocol also paved the way for the Paris Agreement, which aims to limit global temperature increase to 2 degree Celsius.

    Bad:
    The inception and administration had many flaws, because of which the protocol was not entirely successful. Only developed countries were given binding targets, and developing countries were left to voluntarily decrease emissions to not hinder their economic development. So even though the number of developed countries that cut emissions was greater than the number of countries that didn’t, the overall reduction was not very significant, and the global emission levels still went up. The major cause of this was that major contributors to greenhouse gas emissions such as China and India were considered developing countries and were not mandated to reduce emissions (India and China’s emissions increased 103% and 150% respectively). Due to this reason another major emitter, the United States, did not ratify the treaty. Moreover, it took a long time to finalize, which wasted valuable time in which the countries could have reduced emissions.

    Achievement of goals:
    Many of the participating developed countries met their goals, but their input was not enough to make too much of an impact on global emissions.

    Would we vote it?
    As the UN Secretary general(s), we would not vote this treaty as it is, because it has substantial flaws in its division of responsibility, execution, and enforcement. Although the treaty’s outreach was global, its impact could not hit the mark because it could not include major global forces in greenhouse gas emissions from binding targets. Although 192 countries ratified the treaty, only 37 developed countries were mandated to reduce emissions and three major GHG emitters (China, US, and India) were not included.

    Direct action recommendations:
    1. Developing nations should also be given a binding target considering their economic implications and their GHG emissions. A better analysis of the economic status of the countries and their capacity to reduce emissions should be a basis for their allotted targets.
    2. The countries should be given a longer commitment period to reduce emissions, and also a more substantial target so that it can have a greater impact on the global warming scenario.
    3. The ramifications for not meeting the goals should be more substantial, since several countries have backed out (e.g. Canada) at the last moment, when they figured they could not meet their targets.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Team: Rachel Cross and Madison Quincke
    First Project:
    Gardens, Green Spaces, Health and Well being- Lima, Peru
    Second Project:
    Exploring Relationships and Impact Between Vector-Borne Diseases and Landscape Architecture- Iquitos, Peru

    Firm: Collaboration with Informal Urban Communities Initiative(IUCI) and Land 8
    Location: Lima and Iquitos, Peru
    Theme: Each project addresses qualities, which include, “water quality, vector-borne disease, nutrition, and mental health and well-being.”
    Website: https://land8.com/beyond-landscapes-interdisciplinary-research-design-health-land8x8.
    http://sqwater.be.washington.edu/wp/.

    The Organization
    “The IUCI is a design activism, research and education program based in Seattle, Peru and Nepal. It focuses on the design, implementation and assessment of community-driven interventions in the built environment and places particular emphasis on the integrated, interdisciplinary design of distributed infrastructure and public space. The IUCI aims to improve human and environmental health and well-being, to build the capacity of designers and other professionals to work effectively with marginalized communities and to gather evidence that informs best practices in these contexts”
    (Spencer, Ben. 2018. Informal Urban Communities Initiative. Accessed November 5, 2018. http://sqwater.be.washington.edu/wp/.)

    Intro
    At a time when environmental crises are becoming more prevalent and the health industries are acknowledging the critical role the environment plays on human health, designers are stepping up to explore how landscape architectural interventions can address health issues. Informal Urban Communities Initiative (IUCI) is an initiative that began through the University of Washington. Many under served communities throughout Peru were in need of assistance regarding their communities organization and creating sustainable natural systems. IUCI takes an interesting approach, by creating a collaborative experience with the communities that are being helped. Each project addresses qualities, which include, “water quality, vector-borne disease, nutrition, and mental health and well-being. They also highlight the importance of a community-participatory approach, and bridges the divide between research and intervention, and landscape architecture and health.

    Good Attributes?
    Gardens, Green Spaces, Health and Well being | Fog Water Farms:
    This project brings the community together, creates a community park (active recreation), a public farmland (healthy food source) and provides a sustainable water source (with fog collectors). By providing public active space as well as a place the community can get necessities such as clean water, the project is increasing the communities health and well-being.
    Exploring Relationships Between Vector-Borne Diseases and Landscape Architecture: Impact of Landscape Architecture Technologies on Human and Ecological Health-
    The development created a landscape that is more resilient to vector borne diseases, which come from Aedes mosquitoes by cleaning water of the city. Because the city is covered in trash which pollutes the water, the organization strived to clean-up trash and replaced it with thousands of medicinal and edible plants which also helps to infiltrate and clean stormwater runoff. The organization also implements floating gardens which provides year round green space and a food source for the community.

    Poor Attributes?
    Gardens, Green Spaces, Health and Well-being | Fog Water Farms:
    There should be a higher installation rate of fog collectors throughout the city to increase water sources. There has been quite a few installed, but we believe that the villagers should take advantage of their extra space for the creation of water sources.
    Exploring Relationships Between Vector-Borne Diseases and Landscape Architecture: Impact of Landscape Architecture Technologies on Human and Ecological Health-
    Because the project was a focused site and related to one area of the village and the project doesn’t seem to extend outward. The creation of more community focused areas should be better integrated into the community so that all people are within appropriate distance to a food source.

    Achieved Goals?
    Gardens, Green Spaces, Health and Wellbeing | Fog Water Farms:
    Yes. They built 50 household gardens and provided a sustainable water source. Created a community park and improved the overall quality of life by making people happier, adding aesthetic value and brought the community together.
    Exploring Relationships Between Vector-Borne Diseases and Landscape Architecture: Impact of Landscape Architecture Technologies on Human and Ecological Health-
    Yes. They replaced locations of trash with planted filter stormwater runoff hills, created public space that was in the most relevant spots for the community, and removed 6 tons of trash to reduce the pollution that eventually ends up in the Amazon River.

    Vote?
    Both projects
    Yes. Both projects created standards which could reach a broader community through replication of the projects. We saw this project as setting a standard for the quality of life for the people in ways which are affordable and obtainable. These projects in Peru are saving the environment in many ways such as protecting crucial bodies of water such as the Amazon from pollution, researching vector-borne diseases that come from mosquitoes, creating sustainable agriculture, and education the people about landscape architecture and the impact they are having on the earth.

    Three Actions:
    The Fog Water Farms project could utilize their knowledge of the fog collectors and place them in many more places around the city of Lima.
    Also, the work that they are doing are having big impacts on the cities but they are both implemented on the edges of the cities. The projects should be in better proximity of the city center or villages so that all of the community has equal access.
    The organization could be working to spread their work and initiative across a bigger scale by working in other countries.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Team: Rachel Cross and Madison Quincke
    First Project:
    Gardens, Green Spaces, Health and Wellbeing- Lima, Peru
    Second Project:
    Exploring Relationships and Impact Between Vector-Borne Diseases and Landscape Architecture- Iquitos, Peru

    Firm: Collaboration with Informal Urban Communities Initiative(IUCI) and Land 8

    Location: Lima and Iquitos, Peru

    Theme: Each project addresses qualities, which include, “water quality, vector-borne disease, nutrition, and mental health and well-being.”

    Website: https://land8.com/beyond-landscapes-interdisciplinary-research-design-health-land8x8.
    http://sqwater.be.washington.edu/wp/.

    The Organization:
    “The IUCI is a design activism, research and education program based in Seattle, Peru and Nepal. It focuses on the design, implementation and assessment of community-driven interventions in the built environment and places particular emphasis on the integrated, interdisciplinary design of distributed infrastructure and public space. The IUCI aims to improve human and environmental health and well-being, to build the capacity of designers and other professionals to work effectively with marginalized communities and to gather evidence that informs best practices in these contexts”
    (Spencer, Ben. 2018. Informal Urban Communities Initiative. Accessed November 5, 2018. http://sqwater.be.washington.edu/wp/.)

    Intro:
    At a time when environmental crises are becoming more prevalent and the health industries are acknowledging the critical role the environment plays on human health, designers are stepping up to explore how landscape architectural interventions can address health issues. Informal Urban Communities Initiative (IUCI) is an initiative that began through the University of Washington. Many underserved communities throughout Peru were in need of assistance regarding their communities organization and creating sustainable natural systems. IUCI takes an interesting approach, by creating a collaborative experience with the communities that are being helped. Each project addresses qualities, which include, “water quality, vector-borne disease, nutrition, and mental health and well-being. They also highlight the importance of a community-participatory approach, and bridges the divide between research and intervention, and landscape architecture and health.

    Good Attributes?
    Gardens, Green Spaces, Health and Wellbeing | Fog Water Farms:
    – This project brings the community together, creates a community park (active recreation), a public farmland (healthy food source) and provides a sustainable water source (with fog collectors). By providing public active space as well as a place the community can get necessities such as clean water, the project is increasing the communities health and well-being.
    Exploring Relationships Between Vector-Borne Diseases and Landscape Architecture: Impact of Landscape Architecture Technologies on Human and Ecological Health-
    – The development created a landscape that is more resilient to vector borne diseases, which come from Aedes mosquitoes by cleaning water of the city. Because the city is covered in trash which pollutes the water, the organization strived to clean-up trash and replaced it with thousands of medicinal and edible plants which also helps to infiltrate and clean stormwater runoff. The organization also implements floating gardens which provides year round green space and a food source for the community.

    Poor Attributes?
    Gardens, Green Spaces, Health and Wellbeing | Fog Water Farms:
    – There should be a higher installation rate of fog collectors throughout the city to increase water sources. There has been quite a few installed, but we believe that the villagers should take advantage of their extra space for the creation of water sources.
    Exploring Relationships Between Vector-Borne Diseases and Landscape Architecture: Impact of Landscape Architecture Technologies on Human and Ecological Health-
    – Because the project was a focused site and related to one area of the village and the project doesn’t seem to extend outward. The creation of more community focused areas should be better integrated into the community so that all people are within appropriate distance to a food source.

    Achieve Goals?
    – Gardens, Green Spaces, Health and Wellbeing | Fog Water Farms:
    – Yes. They built 50 household gardens and provided a sustainable water source. Created a community park and improved the overall quality of life by making people happier, adding aesthetic value and brought the community together.
    – Exploring Relationships Between Vector-Borne Diseases and Landscape Architecture: Impact of Landscape Architecture Technologies on Human and Ecological Health-
    – Yes. They replaced locations of trash with planted filter stormwater runoff hills, created public space that was in the most relevant spots for the community, and removed 6 tons of trash to reduce the pollution that eventually ends up in the Amazon River.

    If you were the mayor or the decision maker, would you vote for it or against it.

    Both projects
    Yes. Both projects created standards which could reach a broader community through replication of the projects. We saw this project as setting a standard for the quality of life for the people in ways which are affordable and obtainable. These projects in Peru are saving the environment in many ways such as protecting crucial bodies of water such as the Amazon from pollution, researching vector-borne diseases that come from mosquitoes, creating sustainable agriculture, and education the people about landscape architecture and the impact they are having on the earth.

    Three Actions:
    – The Fog Water Farms project could utilize their knowledge of the fog collectors and place them in many more places around the city of Lima.
    – Also, the work that they are doing are having big impacts on the cities but they are both implemented on the edges of the cities. The projects should be in better proximity of the city center or villages so that all of the community has equal access.
    – The organization could be working to spread their work and initiative across a bigger scale by working in other countries.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Team: Danielle Hodgson and Allyssa Gray

    Project: Lotus Lake National Wetland Park
    Location: Tieling City, Liaoning Province, China
    Client Tieling City Planning Bureau
    Designer: Beijing Tsinghua Urban Planning & Design Institute
    Size:629-hectares
    https://www.asla.org/2012awards/200.html

    Background:
    Lotus Lake was originally a freshwater marsh until it was transformed into a reservoir for irrigation into the 1960s, and over the course of 50 years, compromised the water quality and depleted water levels from toxic sewage and lack of habitat diversity. Regardless, the area provides a crucial habitat along the migratory path of East Asia for 165 bird species, including 18 internationally or nationally endangered species (ASLA 2012). Development of the Tieling New City presented opportunities to enhance to the reservoir and promote coexistence between humans and nature, so the government established a 4,700 hectare National Wetland Park, with 629-hectare area around the lake to become the core habitat protection area (ASLA 2012). Improvements to the site were designed to limit human interference, and promote biodiversity by creating forest woodland, forest edge shrub-and-grass and brush habitat (ASLA 2012). The protection area incorporates new embankments built 50 meters away from existing ones to promote the protection of mature trees, as well as to create more habitat diversity and complexity. Zoning was designated with different management plans to promote wildlife protection and public amenities for local residents. The site promotes ecological health as a part of a 67-hectare Treatment Wetland Zone water system by cleansing 60,000 tons of grey water per day, and the first city in Liaoning Province to have its entire sewage fully treated before discharging into Liao River (ASLA 2012). Three artificial islands, every 30 hectares in area, creating foraging and breeding habitat for the migratory birds. While much of the site is dedicated to wildlife habitat and natural vegetation, the Southern Recreation Zone promotes human activities such as bird watching, hiking, visiting the museum and exploring Lotus Lake.

    Goals:
    Lotus Lake has four overarching goals:
    To restore the ecological functions and ecosystem services of the existing wetland, water quality protection, wildlife habitat, flooding risk and retention of water for irrigation.
    Enhance the overall ecosystem heald of the health with a long-term management regime (ASLA 2012)
    Create engaging public open space with social amenities such as recreation and environmental education.

    Good:
    There are four parts of this design the provide benefits to the immediate environment and regional community. The ecology is improved by enhancing the habitat diversity, water quality, and biodiversity. The Water Treatment Zone and new embankments reinvigorate the degraded marshland and provide amenities for both humans and animals. Around 230 native plant materials are implemented, and the water in the reservoir s managed to treat and recycle grey water and stormwater. The site creates social benefits through public access to areas of the park for recreation, environmental education, and community outreach. Raising environmental awareness fosters stewardship and will enable more projects like Lotus Lake around the country. The site is an economic generator from the notoriety gained for the push for environmental stewardship, which had increased Tieling’s national reputation.

    Bad:
    Lotus Lake needs to improve in some areas. One that was observed is how the project seems to be more passive than active. While there are opportunities for activity, the project is more passive. The design is specific to ecological aspects ad educating the public, but it lacks a stronger integration with the surrounding community. The project focuses on many ecological aspects and the architects focused on providing space for migratory birds. While it is important for migratory birds to have a space, the project lacked a consideration or discussion on how Lotus Lake works with other species.

    As mayor would you vote to approve?
    As the UN secretary general, this project would be approved because it is providing a much needed ecological service by cleaning and enhancing the environment. The project promotes environmental awareness and creating stewardship, which would make our country implement more of these projects. The renovations to Lotus Lake not only provide a needed ecological improvement to the area, but also provides economic growth while cleaning and enhancing the landscape. The planning and design efforts of this project beforehand ensure care into the longevity and sustainability of the design, and therefore should be given the opportunity to be realized.

    3 Direct Improvements:
    – Provide more engaging active space for visitors to promote greater activity and knowledge of the area. These will include: exterior classroom spaces, a small amphitheater for local events and concerts, and more signage among the different ecosystem improvement to advocate for their application.
    – Integrate the community with the project to promote environmental stewardship through dedicated annual activities and festivals that bring the residents to integrate further with the area.
    – Dedicate future funding to other animal species. With the funding, learning centers and specific habitats would be created.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Team: Caleb Parker and Cody Borwege
    LEVEL (3) Global Landscape Sustainability: Project or policy on the federal level or the international level. A global project that aims to improve the environment, protect forests, and/or reduce poverty.

    Name of your project: The Landmark Project, supported by The forest Certification for Ecosystems Services aptly named, ‘ForCES’ is a campaign powered by the Forest Stewardship Council. http://forces.fsc.org/index.htm

    Location: Nepal, a landlocked country in South Asia, located mainly in the Himalayas but also includes parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain.

    Lead Organization: Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Global Development https://us.fsc.org/en-us

    Project Partners, Nepal: Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB) http://www.ansab.org/about/

    Federation of Community Forestry Users, Nepal (FECOFUN) http://www.fecofun.org/home/index.php

    Overall theme: The landmark project “ForCES – Forest Certification for Ecosystem Services” ran from 2011 to 2017. FSC and partner organizations researched, analyzed, and field-tested innovative ways to evaluate and reward the provision of critical ecosystem services, such as biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, and carbon storage/sequestration. Pilot tests were carried out at ten forest sites under different socio-political and environmental conditions. The core outcome for FSC at the global level was the development of a new certification tool for ecosystem services. Our new Ecosystem Services Procedure is a global tool for FSC-certified forest managers to measure, verify and communicate the impact of their activities on ecosystem services. Buyers and financial sponsors can use FSC trademarks to promote their support of verified ecosystem services impacts. (de Gaulle Straße, 2007)

    Brief description of the project: Nepal has already gained important experience in group certification for forest management, through certification projects with the FSC-accredited Rainforest Alliance/Smartwood Program. It is important that Nepal now explores the potential of enhancing the economic and environmental benefits of extended forest certification by incorporating additional Ecosystem Services (ES). (de Gaulle Straße, 2007)

    Scope of project: The six-year project aims to make a significant contribution to building national capacity in certifying ecosystem services. Activities planned include technical and financial support for the project area and guidance to policymakers and stakeholders in drawing up rules, laws, regulations, and policies. (de Gaulle Straße, 2007)

    Assessment of the projects performance both environmental and social aspirations: FSC and its partner organizations came up with a way to analyze and reward the preservation of critical ecosystem services, through research, analysis, and field testing. Plot tests were carried out at ten forest sites under different socio-political and environmental conditions. The core outcome for FSC at the global level was the development of a new certification tool for ecosystem services. Our new Ecosystem Services Procedure is a global tool for FSC-certified forest managers to measure, verify and communicate the impact of their activities on ecosystem services. Nepal had previous experience with the FSC, the worked together through the Rainforest Alliance/Smartwood Program. Now they need to focus on incorporating more Ecosystem Services so that they can obtain further certifications. The six-year project attempting to help build the national capacity in certifying ecosystem services, by supplying technical and financial support for the project, and giving some guidance to public officials. There are two sites with this project, Charnawati Landscape, and the Gaurisankar Landscape. The core outcome for FSC at the global level was the development of a new certification tool for ecosystem services. Our new Ecosystem Services Procedure is a global tool for FSC-certified forest.

    * Brings awareness to ecological issues

    * Helps countries put programs in place to achieve sustainable certifications.

    * Provides funding for sustainable projects

    * Extensive research into the sites that the countries can use for future efforts as well

    Overall critique of these projects, initiatives, or activities: Some of the sponsors of the organization are very intense groups that promote a lot of social causes that are not all that scientific. While the projects are promoting ecosystem services it seems like they are also motivated by outside sources, like the monetary value of a certification. They are not really trying to get countries to buy into ecology, they are trying to get people to buy into the fact that having a certification looks good because people are willing to pay more for things that are certified as ecologically sound.

    If you are the UN secretary general and have the power to encourage, or stop this project, would you approve/implement this project (as it is) or not? We would support this project because it is doing many good things for the ecosystem through research, and supporting countries efforts to obtain sustainable certifications. They have partnered and collaborated with several foreign and domestic organizations and third-party groups to obtain large amounts of data during their initial ten-year preliminary research period. The final report and executive summaries do a better job of presenting the data that the website but aren’t as approachable to digest for the general public.

    Provide three direct actions that if considered will significantly improve the project:

    * Suggest that they revisit/ the way they present these projects to the public.

    * Financial benefits should not be the main reason for people to invest in the project.

    * Implement initiatives at a more localized scale to be involve the people of the place.

    References: Carstensen, Kim. “Forest Stewardship Council® FSC® Global Development.” https://ic.fsc.org/en., accessed November 2018, https://us.fsc.org/en-us.

    de Gaulle Straße, Charles. “The Forest Certification for Ecosystems Services®, ForCES®.” http://forces.fsc.org/nepal.27.htm., accessed Nov. 2018, http://forces.fsc.org/index.htm.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Team: Cody Borwge + Caleb Parker
    LEVEL (3) Global Landscape Sustainability:
    Project or policy on the federal level or the international level. A global project that aims to improve the environment, protect forests, and/or reduce poverty.

    Name of your project:
    The Landmark Project, supported by The forest Certification for Ecosystems Services aptly named, ‘ForCES’ is a campaign powered by the Forest Stewardship Council. http://forces.fsc.org/index.htm

    Location:
    Nepal, a landlocked country in South Asia, located mainly in the Himalayas but also includes parts of the Indo-Gangetic Plain.

    Lead Organization:
    Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Global Development
    https://us.fsc.org/en-us

    Project Partners, Nepal:
    Asia Network for Sustainable Agriculture and Bioresources (ANSAB)
    http://www.ansab.org/about/

    Federation of Community Forestry Users, Nepal (FECOFUN)
    http://www.fecofun.org/home/index.php

    Overall theme:
    The landmark project “ForCES – Forest Certification for Ecosystem Services” ran from 2011 to 2017. FSC and partner organizations researched, analyzed, and field-tested innovative ways to evaluate and reward the provision of critical ecosystem services, such as biodiversity conservation, watershed protection, and carbon storage/sequestration. Pilot tests were carried out at ten forest sites under different socio-political and environmental conditions. The core outcome for FSC at the global level was the development of a new certification tool for ecosystem services. Our new Ecosystem Services Procedure is a global tool for FSC-certified forest managers to measure, verify and communicate the impact of their activities on ecosystem services. Buyers and financial sponsors can use FSC trademarks to promote their support of verified ecosystem services impacts. (de Gaulle Straße, 2007)

    Brief description of the project:
    Nepal has already gained important experience in group certification for forest management, through certification projects with the FSC-accredited Rainforest Alliance/Smartwood Program. It is important that Nepal now explores the potential of enhancing the economic and environmental benefits of extended forest certification by incorporating additional Ecosystem Services (ES). (de Gaulle Straße, 2007)

    Scope of project:
    The six-year project aims to make a significant contribution to building national capacity in certifying ecosystem services. Activities planned include technical and financial support for the project area and guidance to policymakers and stakeholders in drawing up rules, laws, regulations, and policies. (de Gaulle Straße, 2007)

    Assessment of the projects performance both environmental and social aspirations:
    FSC and its partner organizations came up with a way to analyze and reward the preservation of critical ecosystem services, through research, analysis, and field testing. Plot tests were carried out at ten forest sites under different socio-political and environmental conditions. The core outcome for FSC at the global level was the development of a new certification tool for ecosystem services. Our new Ecosystem Services Procedure is a global tool for FSC-certified forest managers to measure, verify and communicate the impact of their activities on ecosystem services. Nepal had previous experience with the FSC, the worked together through the Rainforest Alliance/Smartwood Program. Now they need to focus on incorporating more Ecosystem Services so that they can obtain further certifications. The six-year project attempting to help build the national capacity in certifying ecosystem services, by supplying technical and financial support for the project, and giving some guidance to public officials. There are two sites with this project, Charnawati Landscape, and the Gaurisankar Landscape. The core outcome for FSC at the global level was the development of a new certification tool for ecosystem services. Our new Ecosystem Services Procedure is a global tool for FSC-certified forest.

    * Brings awareness to ecological issues
    * Helps countries put programs in place to achieve sustainable certifications.
    * Provides funding for sustainable projects
    * Extensive research into the sites that the countries can use for future efforts as well

    Overall critique of these projects, initiatives, or activities:
    Some of the sponsors of the organization are very intense groups that promote a lot of social causes that are not all that scientific. While the projects are promoting ecosystem services it seems like they are also motivated by outside sources, like the monetary value of a certification. They are not really trying to get countries to buy into ecology, they are trying to get people to buy into the fact that having a certification looks good because people are willing to pay more for things that are certified as ecologically sound.

    If you are the UN secretary general and have the power to encourage, or stop this project, would you approve/implement this project (as it is) or not?
    We would support this project because it is doing many good things for the ecosystem through research, and supporting countries efforts to obtain sustainable certifications. They have partnered and collaborated with several foreign and domestic organizations and third-party groups to obtain large amounts of data during their initial ten-year preliminary research period. The final report and executive summaries do a better job of presenting the data that the website but aren’t as approachable to digest for the general public.

    Provide three direct actions that if considered will significantly improve the project:
    * Suggest that they revisit/ the way they present these projects to the public.
    * Financial benefits should not be the main reason for people to invest in the project.
    * Implement initiatives at a more localized scale to involve the people of the place.

    References:
    Carstensen, Kim. “Forest Stewardship Council® FSC® Global Development.” https://ic.fsc.org/en., accessed November 2018, https://us.fsc.org/en-us.

    de Gaulle Straße, Charles. “The Forest Certification for Ecosystems Services®, ForCES®.” http://forces.fsc.org/nepal.27.htm., accessed Nov. 2018, http://forces.fsc.org/index.htm.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s