Asian Alliance for Solidarity Economy

by

BETSAN PATRICIA MARTIN, New Zealand

(This paper was presented at the 2007 Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy in Manila, Philippines)

I bring greeting from the Charter for Responsibility Committee in NZ and include in that warm greetings from the people of the land, Maori and Pacific communities with whom we work as an intercultural team.

We acknowledge those who have gone before us, those who inform our thinking and actions towards human responsibility, and those who give leadership and guidance for governance that supports the interdependence of people with the earth.

Philosophy for Aotearoa-NZ Charter for Responsibility

Relational ethics

The main philosophical orientation of our committee is to work with relational ethics, through practices of partnership, shared-decision-making, and working with an earth-centered approach in our projects. One of our group, Charles Royal who is a Maori philosopher refers to a ‘woven universe’ (2003) to describe the inter-relatedness of all things.

The relational world view that we work with comes from indigenous knowledge sources, as well as to western philosophers of ethics. Indigenous thought  such as Charles Royal’s concept of a woven universe, and the Pacific oceanic traditions  reflected in the two hulled waka come from traditions of  governance which have regard for safeguarding resources across generations.

Western thought which guides our thinking include Emmanual Levinas and Luce Irigaray, whose work comes from critique of western patriarchal individualism, and restores relational and spiritual values such as responsiveness as neighbours, and the capacity to relate across differences of sex, culture, age, belief that is identified as being attuned with women’s values.

Within this relational approach can be found a move from human centred ethics to the interdependence of life with earth, air, fire and water. The challenge of this work to western women for whom freedom and equality have become realities, is to work with such ethics when we are in so many ways compelled by the dominance of competitive, economic values.

Partnership

Another metaphor for a relational approach, from our location in the Pacific is the two-hulled waka – a vessel for the great journeys across the Pacific that were undertaken traditionally.  Much can be derived from this image, but the main aspects which inspire us are the two hulls and the joining platform.

The model may seem restricted to partnership between ‘two’, but it can represent many forms of shared endeavour, One interpretation we hear is that women are at the front, giving birth to the future, and men at the back safeguarding experience for traditional wisdom.

The hulls can be seen as corresponding to Mãori and Pakeha, the two main groups of people in NZ who entered into a Treaty in 1840. The Treaty was an agreement for shared governance, but this has never been agreed to by Parliament since is represented the majority British immigrant population from the 1860’s.

The joining platform is a key part of the structure, where representatives of the hulls meet to exchange knowledge and views and for decision-making. You might say that direction for the vessel is set from the space in the middle.

Partnership expresses our relational approach which is at the heart of responsibility – responsibility is responsiveness, and attunement with those we relate to closely, as well as  more distantly, and with the living world.

Responsibility for the Health of Water Ecosystems: a NZ –Pacific regional initiative.

NZ Team

Earlier this year a small groups of us  came together for a special 3 day meeting  to discuss responsibility and the project we have initiated on  governance for the health water ecosystems. We chose to work with water because our Pacific identity as a liquid continent, where the  ocean, Te Moana Nui a Kiwa, makes us neighbours.

Reference points for Responsibility for Water

Water is the focus of intense interest for governance in NZ with tension between the market interests in commodifying water and establishing property and ownership rights, and indigenous tribes having to straddle customary traditions of guardianship and care for water, yet make claims for their interests in water through property rights conventions.

Access to water and water quality are the focus of local  conflicts across the globe as water becomes locked up  in private property regimes.  The rising sea levels in Climate Change is already impacting on the Pacific with the prospect of environmental refugees raising particular responsibilities as neighbours for the larger countries of NZ and Australia.

Another reference point for  water comes from understanding water as the foundation of all of life. As stated by Callum Coats, a  water researcher and advocate with whom we are working stated:

“Good water – good life, Bad water – bad life, No water – no life.”

The natural state of water is to be in continuous motion and transformation, absorbing essential elements as  it flows through the atmosphere and earth to take on the qualities needed to support life. The continuance of life is not just a matter of water supply, rather it is the quality of water that determines the level of functioning of human life and other species that consume water.  Coats has identified the mutual importance of the health of water and of life. The question before us is not one of humanity versus the rest of creation, but one of a humanity inextricably embedded in a mutually supportive environment in which the myriads of lesser organisms have an equally vital role to play. Ultimately their needs and their continuing health are as important as ours, and we neglect them at our peril (Coats 2001:2)

Unfortunately I can only bring you a sip of knowledge of  the amazing attributes of water which we are partaking in through a series of seminars with Callum Coats, who opens up the world of  vortical energy systems as part of the complex properties of water.

In this time of a Climate for Change we are taking notice of global environmental deterioration and our intimate connection with this loss.  Part of the remedy for the general increasing disconnection with the natural world is to restore our ability to relate to living, breathing energy systems, to hear the intelligence of earth and rivers and oceans.

In a small and humble way we seek to respond forms of governance and management that is attuned to the life supporting capacity of earth’s ecosystems.

Integrated governance

In the NZ and Pacific context, indigenous systems based on the interdependence of people with earth, provide some guidance for engaging with environmental responsibility through whole of systems governance and safeguarding long term environmental  and human interests.

We have identified ‘integrated governance’ as a term our Charter for Responsibility working group is using for the initiative on ‘Responsibility for the Health of Water ecosystems. We are inaugurating the project with a meeting in Samoa in January, with participants anticipating being involved in case studies of integrated governance of various water ecosystems projects in NZ, Australia and Pacific Islands.

Principles which we are working with for integrated governance are linked with the sharing of knowledge across disciplinary boundaries and with the interwoven dimensions of social, economic and environmental dimensions for ‘strong sustainability’. These, along with decision-making for the Long term correspond with principles of the Charter for Human Responsibility.

Principles for integrated governance include:

• Partnership and collaboration
• Working with cultural difference and support for indigenous aspirations regarding land and governance
• Decision-making involving whole systems approaches
• An interdisciplinary approach, involving science, social science, philosophy, economics,  with sharing of knowledge.
• Holding the Long view to ensure resources to support future generations
• Earth related with an ecosystem focus
• Keeping a place for the environment ‘to speak’ at the governance table

Recently I was discussing a  proposal for a housing development, of a style that can be seen all over NZ  for subdividing land into small lifestyle properties or for intense inner city apartment construction. In this case it was a rural area which I had been involved in opposing through provisions of the RMA – in my role as a board member. When I spoke about this to a Maori elder from the area, he said ‘ there’s no problem with development, all that matters is that the quality of water in the stream is protected.

NZ and Pacific as parties to International Conventions:

NZ and many Pacific Island states have become parties to numerous environmental conventions, as well as to UN Covenants for the elimination of racism, and other covenants to safeguard Human Rights.⁴

While noting these environmental covenants, and before identifying them, it seems timely to refer a moment to the recently passed UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Key Articles

Simple principles of partnership  include provision for indigenous people to chose their own representatives at forums (and not have these selected ). They also include compensation for the taking of land and other forms of loss.

Articles include:

• Indigenous Peoples have the right to self-determination, and to determine their political status.
• The right to distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, while retaining the right to participate in the life of the State.
• Right to establish educational systems and provide education in their own languages
• The Right to practice and teach spiritual traditions, to protect privacy of cultural sites and control ceremonial objects, and rights to repatriation of human remains.
• Shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories.
• the Right to development and to determine priorities for their lands, territories or other resources
• the Right to determine the responsibilities of individuals to their communities

There has been an outcry because of NZ opposed the Declaration , despite years of advocacy and lobbying from Maori for the NZ government to support this indigenous initiative. The Declaration was passed by 143 votes to 4  (with some abstentions) with opposition from New Zealand, Canada, US and Australia. The Declaration was supported by the Philippines, Chile, Brazil, France, Greece, India, Zimbabwe, Netherlands.

A key area identified by one speaker at a local meeting was that opposition by the four states was to protect  Free Trade, with the argument that  Indigenous Nations Treaty rights might constitute an obstacle to the free trade regime because international free trade agreements rest on  non-disputable national sovereignty  – so states ensure there is no diminishment of  territorial sovereignty.

These proclaimed rights have symbolic force which will be realized with duties, or responsibilities to implement them. You will see the difference between our state refusal to support these rights and the Charter for Responsibility Across Oceania project to work with, and support these kinds of principles.

Environmental Conventions

The Pacific Islands and NZ are two of the 25 ‘hot-spots’ in the world, marked as being in environmental crisis. The need for locally-based ecological initiatives integrated with regional and global information was identified in our Responsibility team discussions with  scientists at the Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP).

In our project we will therefore bring knowledge of global ecosystems to inform local and regional programmes for protecting biodversity. Protection of fish and birds needs to account for migratory habits -  birds migrate from Alaska to Samoa, Godwits migrate from Siberia to New Zealand and then return to reproduce.   Similarly, long finned eels live in NZ rivers for 80 years then migrate to Tongan waters to spawn and continue ther lifecycle in this habitat for a further 20 years.  Fish migrations mean that local environmental and ecological initiatives have to be matched with corresponding responsibilities in far regions.

Some of the conventions which NZ and Pacific states are party to include:

• UN Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982, covers  territorial sea, EEZ and continental shelf. Refers to sustainable fisheries and marine protection
• UN Convention of Biological Diversity
• UN Fish Stocks Agreement – management of migratory species beyond EEZ
• Convention on Conservation of Migratory species – NZ involvement in managing biodiversity beyond territorial limits
• Protection of Antarctica – Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade

The UN convention of the Law of the Sea  provides a legal framework for management of oceans. As a signatory New Zealand gained rights and responsibilities for over 4 million sq. kilometers (430 million hectares) of sea, the area of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

The UN Convention on Biological Diversity (1993) arose from the 1992 convention on biological diversity held in Rio de Janiero. The UN convention, which has been ratified by NZ, provides for the setting of national priorities, which are then translated into regional plans and local management regimes. A series of conventions include codes for responsible fishing, provisions for management of migratory fish, and mechanisms for NZ involvement in managing biodiversity beyond territorial limits. New Zealand is part of the UN Convention on Environment of the South Pacific Region, as well as being party to treaties on Antarctica,

In the visions and objectives of the UN Conventions, and the ways in which they have been translated into policy in New Zealand, there are general principles which can be identified as:

• The conservation of biological diversity;
• The sustainable use of  resources;
• An ecosystems approach to research, governance and management;
• Fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of  utilisating genetic resources.
• Marine Protected Areas as a tool for managing the marine environment
• Community-based natural resource management and conservation initiatives
• Management to ensure freshwater quality and supply
• Sustainable coastal fisheries
• Waste management and pollution prevention
• Learning for best practice in integrated governance and management of coastal watersheds

Current water, oceans, and fishing policies are oriented towards species and resource use, whereas these principles move us towards taking account of the inter-relationships between species, of habitat protection and of the effects of waste disposal in  water and oceans. At present NZ has not proceeded with a comprehensive Oceans Policy as originally promoted, which is attributed to the government’s betrayal of Maori customary interests in the Foreshore and Seabed. Legislation in 2003 foreclosed on customary rights, with an assertion of Crown sovereignty which is parallel to the assertion of territorial sovereignty for trading purposes that we saw with the Declaration of Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

We are working with another approach to globalization, different from that of corporatized economic growth: which is shared responsibility for the complex inter-connected eco-system of the biosphere, from which emerges the need for protocols that support local, and indigenous approaches to ecological responsibility with international protocols for safeguarding all forms of life.

Concluding  notes

Linking social and environmental responsibility

Our projects on water encompass building a NZ network on responsibility for water, Te Wai Puna Ariki, and a regional project Across Oceania Te Au o Te Moana.  Working with science and social science has led us to bring together social and environmental concerns, and this will be one area we bring to a symposium / assembly in Samoa in January 2008.

One of the big questions of sustainability is how to relate care for the environmental  with responsibility to alleviate poverty.  Development is seen as the pathway to achieve  the freedoms that come with sufficient income to bring access to education, to enhance health and bring the human benefits of enhancing human capacity for social participation and access to technology and knowledge.

Knowledge about climate change and environmental responsibility comes out of science and is access to information. People who are poor in terms of education and access to information are less likely to be informed of the environmental crisis and even less likely to be able to be involved in movements for responsibility or to influence decisions. This may not  be necessarily true of indigenous peoples who may be income poor, but who are resourced with traditional knowledge and unextinguishable responsibilities to the land. Nevertheless, it can be claimed that people’s whose basic needs are not being met cannot give priority to protection of  earth, water and air (Sinner, Baines et al, 2004).

To this end we hold up Amartya Sen’s thesis (Sen 1999) that freedom requires relief from poverty and deprivation and is the basis for the opportunity to realize and express human potential and engage in responsible citizenship.

Callum Coats has asserted that a long-term view is now imperative, taking appropriate steps to respond to an earth in crisis and safeguard the long-term future of life. For this a far more profound knowledge of Nature is necessary, so that whatever is implemented by way of remedial measures, will be in harmonious accordance with Nature’s laws.

References:

Coats, C. (2001) ‘Water the Unifier of Life’ Presentation Paper at the Alliance Workshop ‘Interbeing’ ,Bangalore, South India – 19^th – 23^rd June 2001

Royal, C.  (ed) (2003) The Woven Universe. Selected Writings of Rev. Maori Marsden. The Estate of the Rev. Maori Marsden.

Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Books

Sinner, J.; Baines, J.; Crengel, H.; Salmon, G.; Fenemor, A.; Tipa, G. (2004) ‘Sustainable Development: A summary of Key Concepts’. Ecologic Research Report No. 2.

Speech by Edith SIZOO [1] at the Final Plenary Session of the Asian Forum for Solidarity Economy

TOKYO Conference 7-10 November 2009

Being the last speaker in a long range of interesting preceding ones is not that easy, but it has the advantage of having had the privilege to listen not only to all that has been said, but also to what has not been said. …[A]t the end of two days of detailed information on fascinating and very concrete experiences related to Solidarity Economy (hereafter SE), it is good to go back to some basic questions. ..[O]ne aspect in the analyses that have been provided about the current situation in the world, has not been highlighted very clearly.

SE has been presented as a reaction to the dominant economic systems, as one way of realising the slogan “another world is possible”, as an alternative. If the word “alternative” is meant to imply that the dominant economic system should be replaced by more socially equitable forms of economy, I’m afraid that there is a long way to go before this dream comes true. A too long way.

Thus the question is: what to do between today and the moment our dream comes true ?

There is no need to stress here that our world is facing unprecedented crises : the ecological crisis, the financial and economic crisis, political crises in the sense of good leadership and good governance, social and cultural crises. The phenomenon of globalisation implies that never before have human beings had such far-reaching impacts on one another’s social, political, economic and cultural lives. And never before have the challenges to face the economic and ecological consequences of these crises been so enormous. And never before have human beings possessed so much knowledge and so much power to change their environments.

And still, in spite of all the available knowledge and all the new possibilities that have opened up, the responses to these crises have been insufficient :

- the role of States is undermined by the pervasive power of international markets

- scientific institutions are pursuing specialised interests

- international institutions have failed to turn the rising tide of inequality

- and religious institutions have not adequately fulfilled their role of providing adequate answers to the new challenges.

Therefore, the key-question to be asked is : why are these responses insufficient ?

There is, of course, not one answer to this question. But among the many aspects of this complicated issue, I would like to propose for reflection that underlying all these crises and insufficient answers, there is another fundamental crisis : a crisis in values, or more precisely :a crisis, a breaking down of a common ethical basis which helps people to make choices.

One of the characteristics of modernity and of so-called post-modern thinking is fragmentation.

Fragmentation

- of the social fabric (e.g. within families : divorces)

- within the sciences (e.g. : far-going specialisations within the medical sciences, at least the Western ones, where each part of the human body is given specialised attention, but the complex whole is not taken into consideration)

- fragmentation in the workplace, factories, offices where one is given tasks of which one often does not quite know how it serves the overall objective of the company.

These and other forms of fragmentation are less visible, but very much present as well in the underlying ethical foundations of our societies. Traditional values of respect, consideration for others, hospitality, compassion, peace and harmony are usually still practiced at family level, but less and less predominant at the workplace, in politics, in the business world, not to speak of the financial world…

I remember a debate that took place in the Parliament of my country, the Netherlands, some years ago. The question was whether a law should be made to control the application of advanced technologies in genetic engineering. Should we at the end of the day allow human beings to be cloned ? In the course of the debate the differences between the 28 political parties seemed to fade away as every single parliamentarian was facing dilemmas between moral consciousness on the one hand and economic profit or freedom of scientific research on the other. Towards two o’clock in the morning, the chairman stood up and said that there was no use continuing the debate. The real problem is, he said, that this debate shows that in this country we do not have anymore a common ethical base of values that tell us “so far and no further”. We are not able to put ethical limits to what technologies may make possible.

Loss of values means loss of a sense of self-limitation. Is there an answer to this loss ? Is there still a value common to all humankind, to all human beings from street cleaners to villagers to teachers to business people, fair traders, social activists, scientists, journalists, politicians, religious and social leaders ? One value of which no one can say : that’s good for others but not for me ? That’s good for family-life but not for the workplace ?

Or, the other way around ; is there one value common to all human beings that is not applied sufficiently so that all current crises in the world are so far from being solved ?

It took two World Wars in the last century before the Nations of the world united at the General Assembly of the United Nations to create and sign two agreements that can be considered the two pillars of international life : the UN Charter for Peace and Development, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Peace…development… rights… We all know that these important objectives have not been reached. But at least… they constitute international reference points, notions one can refer to when they are not observed or violated.

The problem in the present crises the world is facing - ecological, economic, financial and social- is that there is not a commonly worldwide accepted international reference point that can be pointed at.

Is the underlying problem not the lack of clarity about the age old idea of Responsibility in modern times ? Confusion about what “responsibility” implies ? for each and all of us ? for professional groups, social groups, politicians, scientists, the media, the world of money and profit-making ?

Nowadays there is a lot of political discourse about “responsibility”. The US President, Barack Obama, said in one of his speeches with regard to the financial crisis : “We have to transform a culture of greed into a culture of responsibility”.

He is perfectly right. But the problem with political discourses is that subsequently no specification is given of who is responsible for what ? and who has to account for what to whom ?

For instance : for what are multi-nationals responsible ? for the common good ? and to whom do they account for their choices of products ? good or bad for the climate, health of people ? good or bad for local village industries ? To whom do banking traders account for the way they are trading with the money of others ? To whom do scientists account for the potential consequences of the things that are invented thanks to new technological discoveries ?

Would it not be useful for all activists in Solidarity Economy to be able to refer to an internationally recognised reference point, a Charter or a Universal Declaration of Human Responsibilities, a “third pillar” of international life ? And would it not be useful to have oneself a checkpoint with regard to one’s personal and professional responsibilities ?

The new challenges humankind is facing in the XXIst century are urgently calling for such an agreement, certainly not to replace the two existing ones but as an additional reference point, to re-enforce the agreements for Peace, Development and Rights.

In this framework of thinking an initiative was taken in 2001 at the World Assembly of Citizens, organised by the Foundation Charles Léopold Mayer, to start up a process to promote the idea of such a Charter. A text was proposed as a working document, a pretext for dialogue, a text in evolution. It was translated in some 25 languages, each of them adapted to the cultural context concerned. An International facilitation Committee was formed with coordinators in 15 countries around the world. They formed national committees and submitted the Charter of Human Responsibilities for discussion to all kinds of professional and social groups. The ten principles of the Charter were thus discussed by journalists, lawyers, scientists, social activists and even schoolchildren. Sectoral and professional charters were created based on the principles of the Charter of Human Responsibilities.

The process we have thus started up is essentially a bottom-up approach, but does not exclude in any way the world of politics. It is felt though that we need to work towards creating cultures of responsibility in all spheres of life and work. We need to create the groundswell, that is to say massive support from civil society to oblige political, economic and social leaders to accept that an internationally recognised Charter or Declaration of Human Responsibilities is unavoidable.

I would like to end by saying that the idea of “Responsibility” is a unifying concept, because it applies to each and all human beings at all levels of activity. The French philosopher Emmanuel Lévinas said : “I am responsible because you are”. It is true that “responsibility” is by definition a relational notion. But not only between human beings. In Asian traditions as well as in indigenous worldviews there are much deeper and larger conceptions of “responsibility”. There one finds the idea of “the woven universe”, the idea that all living beings and forms of life are interconnected and that the human being is just one among them, and… not superior to other forms of life. This implies that responsibility is evident. In indigenous languages there is not even an adequate word for the western notion of responsibility, because it is too evident to be named. The deepest reason why Responsibility is a key-value, is found in Asian wisdom which teaches to be aware of the wholeness of the universe. It is summed up by the following sentence :

“You are like a drop in the ocean.

The ocean is nothing without the drop. The drop is nothing without the ocean.

You are the ocean. The ocean is you”.

May this wisdom guide us in our search for a responsible world.

***************

The Inherent Conflicts of the Profit-Maximizing Market Economy

By Benjamin R. Quiñones, Jr.

Founder and Chairman, CSRSME Asia

In a profit-maximizing market economy, stakeholders are in constant conflict with each other while trying to look for ways to advance their own “stake” in the market. The final arbiter of resource allocation or the “allocator of resources” in this kind of economy is market price.

This situation creates a breeding place for conflicts among stakeholders throughout the system. The wholesaler wants to buy at a low price from the producer and sell at a high price to the consumer. The consumer/worker wants to buy at a low price while contending for a high wage. The investor/ banker wants higher interest for his loans to distributors and producers alike, but the latter want lower interest rate. Each stakeholder tries to protect its own interest and thinks very little about social responsibility.

The market solution towards integration is the reign of monopoly or oligopoly. One of the major stakeholders, or a collusion of a few of them, integrates the whole economic system through a global supply chain under a regime of economic and financial liberalization.

The globalization process has hastened the integration of national economies into a global market system dominated by transnational corporations (TNCs). This has deepened the gap between the haves and the have-nots and further marginalized the vast majority of people who have no access to productive resources.

In the midst of adversity and alienation, the human spirit time and again rises up to regain man’s dignity and freedom. Every epoch in various areas throughout the world is witness to heroic attempts of people to mitigate the harsh impact of market economy through self-help efforts and egalitarian outreach programs. A few examples are cited below:

● Solidarity-based initiatives (e.g. cooperatives, associations, fair trade, social enterprises) are created by people to try to overcome adversities and live a life that would otherwise be devoid of hope. Oftentimes, these solidarity-based struggles are waged without fanfare and independent of similar initiatives in other parts of the world. They aspire for a responsible, plural, social and solidarity economy that deliberately chooses serving the needs of people and ecological sustainability as the goal of economic activity rather than sheer maximization of profits under the unfettered rule of the market. They place economic and technological development at the service of social and human development rather than the pursuit of narrow, individual self-interest.

● There are institutions in various countries (some are called microfinance institutions, others are savings and credit cooperatives, still others are social finance or solidarity finance institutions) that mobilize funds from sources who support a fairer, more people- and environmentally oriented world and make these funds available to projects that do not merely seek profits for self-gain but also pursue the greater good of the community and the environment.

Solidarity Economy : A Sustainable Alternative

Solidarity Economy is a socio-economic order and new way of life that deliberately chooses serving the needs of people and ecological sustainability as the goal of economic activity rather than maximization of profits under the unfettered rule of the market. It places economic and technological development at the service of social and human development rather than the pursuit of narrow, individual self-interest.

Solidarity Economy is an alternative economic model to neo-liberal capitalism. This alternative socio-economic order and new way of life inspires attitudes and behaviors with values such as sharing, co-responsibility, reciprocity, plurality, respect for diversity, freedom, equality, ethics, brotherhood, and sisterhood [1]/ ^.

The Chantier Economie Sociale of Quebec cites five key principles to distinguish solidarity economy initiatives. These are [2]/:

(1) the objective is to serve its members or the community, instead of simply striving for financial profit;

(2) the economic enterprise is autonomous of the State;

(3) in its statute and code of conduct, a democratic decision-making process is established that implies the necessary participation of users and workers;

(4) it gives priority to people and work over capital in the distribution of revenue and surplus; and

(5) its activities are based on principles of participation, empowerment, and individual and collective responsibility.

Solidarity Economy adopts conscious altruism and solidarity, not extreme individualism, as the core of the new socioeconomic culture. It tends to favor cooperation, not competition, as the main form of relationship among humans and between them and Nature [3]/.

Solidarity Economy does not constitute a SECTOR of the mainstream economy. It is rather a global APPROACH encompassing initiatives in most sectors of the economy. This alternative approach to socio-economic development operates side by side with the market economy and is capable of sustaining its initiatives and competing in the market logic of traditional markets for as long as its approaches continue to be innovative [4]/^.

by Jeanne Marie O. Bernardo, CSRSME Asia

The recently concluded TalipapangKaunlaran (translated: “Development Marketplace”) Forum jointly organized by the Southeast Asia Interdisciplinary Development Institute (SAIDI) and the Coalition of Socially Responsible SMEs in Asia (CSRSME Asia) held at the University of the Philippines Hotel last October 23, 2009 brought to light current Filipino efforts in the arena of social enterprise development.

With 33 participants from diverse backgrounds including social enterprises, NGOs, the academe, faith-based groups, and training and research, the Forum was conducted with the purpose of appreciating and learning from these initiatives, primarily to develop a research document and compendium on all these experiences and to create a web of relationships for mutual learning to move towards a new model or vision for enterprise development in the Philippines.

Development Models presented during the Forum included the following:

1. Building Shared Vision (by Ben Quinones, Jr. of CSRSME Asia), a methodology that brings out the community’s shared vision or aspirations for a better society; the community’s capabilities in terms of attitude, time and talents that can be committed; the community enterprises that can be harnessed and the community’s opportunities and challenges in networking and interaction, all towards the achievement of their shared vision.

2. Fair Housing (by Jun Simon of Bumbaran Development Corporation), a response to the government’s relocation program which is seen to create more poverty rather than alleviate it, by constructing cost-effective, viable and affordable medium-rise buildings in squatter communities. It is deemed fair to all concerned whether squatter, investor or landowner, and includes a transformational module for resident squatters through value formation and community organization.

3. Funeral Services for the Poor (by Zeny de Jesus of the Inter-City Development Cooperative), an offshoot of the Cooperative’s microfinance program which aims to transform saver-borrowers to investor-employers, and finally to social investors. This model provides funeral care that is affordable, dignified and dynamically responsive to the current needs of Filipino families, and treats Cooperative members as their “customer-families.”

4. Coffee with an Advocacy (by Pastor Jun Sibanico of Chrimi Malunggay Coffee), which started with a vision of hope for the Filipino and a vision for a righteous Philippines. The model provides entrepreneurial opportunities for the poor through distributorships of Chrimi products, at the same time empowering the poor by training them to save and invest their resources.
5. Subsidiarity Movement (by Phillip Camara), as an organizing principle for Philippine renewal, promotes subsidiarity (through community-driven consensus and coordination) as against superiority (through bureaucracy-driven command and control). It involves organizing the whole of society by building communities, linking them to common goals and recapturing the bureaucracy.

6. Palengkenomics (by Phillip Camara) looks at the role of the market as the nucleus of the local economy and as being pivotal to economic growth. The model promotes a process by which markets can be development by assessing their potential, capability-building, market system development, infrastructure development, and support systems development, among others.

7. Public Market Project (by Bing de Ocampo and Chris Fereira) recognizes that vendors play a major role in the nation’s economic viability. The project focuses on transforming vendors’ economic mindsets, business practice values and sensitivity to environmental justice. The model has proven that markets are developed when vendors are transformed.

The short and crisp presentations did not prevent me from learning a great deal from them. Here are some of the realizations I had:

1. That everything starts with the individual, whether it is a value, a vision, or the desire for change;

2. That initiatives and innovations, whether they be methodologies, business models, or movements, that recognize the needs and aspirations of communities are on the rise;

3. That there is an increasing recognition of the importance of moving into supply or value chain economics at the local level in order to organize and empower communities;

4. That many enterprises are moving from mere corporate social responsibility or CSR to real social entrepreneurship;

5. That there is a need to bring more of these initiatives into the open and make these the standard rather than just “the alternative’; and

6. That creating a web of relationships among socially responsible entrepreneurs and movers is essential for them to mutually strengthen and empower one another.

If the enthusiasm of the participants were to be the gauge by which to measure the success of any activity, then I could personally say that the TalipapangKaunlaran Forum was a big hit. Given that the organizers had only scratched the surface of the totality of social enterprise initiatives out there, the prospects for holding more of these Forums are indeed very good. I certainly hope I will get to see more, hear more, and learn more from more of these laudable social entrepreneurs.

WHAT IS YOUR VISION OF A SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE,  SOLIDARITY-BASED ECONOMY?

WHAT CONCRETE STEPS CAN PEOPLE FROM DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS TAKE SO THAT THEY CAN WORK TOGETHER AND BUILD SUCH AN ECONOMY?

Please send us your answer to these two quesstions together with your ID picture.

A CSRSME Asia Award Certificate will be given to the entry with the most innovative idea.