Mother Pelican
A Journal of Solidarity and Sustainability

Vol. 13, No. 6, June 2017
Luis T. Gutiérrez, Editor
Home Page
Front Page


Advances in Sustainable Development


This supplement attempts to be a radar screen for recent/emerging/forthcoming advances in sustainable development. In selecting items for this supplementary page, priority is given to information about publications and tools with an educational and human-centric focus. This update includes the following reminders that sustainable development has a human face:

1. Suggestions for Prayer, Study, and Action
2. News, Publications, Tools, and Conferences
3. Advances in Sustainable Development
4. Advances in Integral Human Development
5. Advances in Integrated Sustainable Development
6. Sustainability Games, Databases, and Knowledgebases
7. Sustainable Development Measures and Indicators
8. Sustainable Development Modeling and Simulation
9. Fostering Sustainability in the International Community
Note: Items in this page are updated as information is received and as time permits. If the reader knows about new pubs/tools that should be announced in this page, please write to the Editor.




1. Suggestions for Prayer, Study, and Action


Prayer for Humanity and the Human Habitat

The Road to Emmaus by Daniel Bonnell
"There can be no renewal of our relationship with nature without a renewal of humanity itself. There can be no ecology without an adequate anthropology." Pope Francis, Laudato Si', #118


Doughnut Economics for Social/Ecological Justice

Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist, suggests seven key concepts for transitioning from the illusion of "endless growth" to a realistic goal of "thriving in balance" for humanity and the human habitat: 1. Change the goal -- from GDP to Doughnut. 2. See the big picture -- from self-contained market to embedded economy. 3. Nurture human nature -- from rational economic man to social adaptable humans. 4. Get savvy with systems -- from mechanical equilibrium to dynamic complexity. 5. Design to distribute -- from 'growth will even it up again' to distributive design. 6. Create to regenerate -- from 'growth will clean it up again' to regenerative by design. 7. Be agnostic about growth -- from growth addicted to growth agnostic.


Local and Global Action for the Common Good

The Elders

The Elders are an independent group of global leaders working together for peace and human rights. Contact them and support their work for the common good. See personal stories of people making a difference in their communities.

2. News, Publications, Tools, and Conferences



Sustainability Science (PNAS)

Science of the Anthopocene

The Anthropocene Review


Environmental Research Letters

Progress in Industrial Ecology

Environmental Leader

Sustainable Development Magazine

Monthly Energy Review

The Environment Nexus

Energy and Climate News

BURN Energy Journal

Environmental News Network

Planet Ark
World Environmental News

Mother Earth News

Climate Action News

Sustainable Development Media

World Pulse


Environmental Science & Technology


WiserEarth News

New Internationalist

The Global Journal

Trade & Environment Nexus

Yes! Magazine

Human Development News

Science Daily
Earth & Climate News
Sustainability News
Science & Society News

International Institute for
Sustainable Development (IISD)
Reporting Services

Policy-Strategy Coverage

Sustainable Development Policy & Practice
Sustainable Development - Small Islands
Biodiversity Policy & Practice
Climate Change Policy & Practice
Energy Policy Issues
Multilateral Environmental Agreements
Earth Negotiations Bulletin

Theme Coverage

Sustainable Development
Biodiveristy & Wildlife
Chemicals Management
Climate & Atmosphere
Forests - Deserts - Land
Human Development
Intergovernmental Organizations
Trade & Investment
Water - Oceand - Wetlands

Regional Coverage

Lating America & Caribbean
Near East
North America
South West Pacific

Rio+20 Coverage

Sustainable Development Conference
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
4-6 June 2012

United Nations News Service
Rio+20: Making it Happen
UN Sustainable Development News
UN Gender Equality News

Value News Network

Catholic News Service

Anglican Communion News Service

Ekklesia Christian News Bulletin

Religion News Service

LiveScience News

Inter Press Service (PSI)

Triple Bottom Line
CSR News

The Progress Report

Global Health News

Kosmos Journal

Environment & Technology
Scholarly Journals

Environment & Society Section
American Sociological Association


Eldis Development Newsfeeds

General - all subjects

Newsfeeds by Subject

Ageing populations
Aid and debt
Children and young people
Climate Change
Climate adaptation
Corporate responsibility
Finance policy
Food security
Health systems
ICT for development
Influencing policy
Jobs, Events and Announcements
Manuals and toolkits
Trade policy

Newsfeeds by Region

East Asia and Pacific
Latin America and Caribbean
Middle East and North Africa
South Asia



2017 World Happiness Report
United Nations, 20 March 2017

International Women's Day 2017:
Gender Equality

European Union, 8 March 2017

Value in the Commons Economy:
Developments in Open and
Contributory Value Accounting

Heinrich-Böll-Foundation & P2P Foundation
February 2017

Existential Risk:
Diplomacy and Governance

Global Priorities Project, January 2017

BP Energy Outlook 2017
British Petroleum, January 2017

Human Rights World Report 2017
Human Rights Watch, January 2017

Climate on the Line
Oil Change International
January 2017

World Energy Outlook 2016
IEA, November 2016

Emissions Gap Report 2016
UNEP, November 2016

Atlas of the Human Planet 2016
Publications Office of the European Union
October 2016

Living Planet Report 2016
World Wildlife Fund, 2016

State of the World Population 2016
UNFPA, October 2016

Pathways to Urban Sustainability
National Academies USA, October 2016

World Social Science Report 2016
UNESCO, September 2016

State of Nature 2016
RSPB, UK, September 2016

World Population Data Sheet 2016
Population Reference Bureau, 2016

Frontiers in Decadal Climate Variability
National Academy of Sciences
July 2016

Annual Energy Outlook 2016
Energy Information Administration
July 2016

The Future of Jobs
World Economic Forum, July 2016

State of the World's Children
UNICEF, June 2016

Pollution in People
Environmental Working Group
June 2016

2016 Multidimensional Poverty Index
Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative
June 2016

2016 Global Peace Index
Institute for Economics and Peace
June 2016

The Price of Privilege
ActionAid, April 2016

Global Trends in
Renewable Energy Investment

UNEP, March 2016

Next Generation Earth System Prediction
NAS, March 2016

World Happiness Report
UNSDSN, 20 March 2016

One Humanity: Shared Responsibility
UN Secretary General
World Humanitarian Summit
May 2016 (Draft)

Global Trends & Opportunities
2016 and Beyond

SustainAbility, February 2016

Transitioning Toward Sustainability:
Advancing the Scientific Foundation

National Academy of Sciences
January 2016

World Economic
Situation and Prospects

UNDESA & UNCTAD, January 2016

Automation & Connectivity:
The Fourth Industrial Revolution

UBS/WEF, January 2016

Digital Dividends
World Development Report 2016

World Bank, January 2016

Global Risks Report 2016
World Economic Forum (WEF)
January 2016

Dirty Toys Made in China
Global Labor and Human Rights
December 2015

Call for an Ethical Framework for Climate Services
WMO, 12 November 2015

2015 Energy Trilemma Index
World Energy Council, November 2015

Global Wealth Report 2015
Credit Suisse, October 2015

The Challenge of Resilience
in a Globalised World

Joint Research Centre, EU, October 2015

Climate Change and the U.S. Energy Sector
US Department of Energy, October 2015

Pathways to Deep Decarbonization
UN SDSN, October 2015

Playing to Win:
The New Global Competition
for Corporate Profits

McKinsey Global Institute, September 2015

America's Future:
Environmental Research and Education
for a Thriving Century

NSF, September 2015

2015-16 State of the Future
Jerome C. Glenn, Elizabeth Florescu, et al
Millennium Project, 2015

Transforming our World: The 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development
Finalized text for adoption,
United Nations, 1 August 2015

World Water Development Report
United Nations, July 2015

World Population Prospects
United Nations, July 2015

Climate Change: A Risk Assessment
Centre for Science and Policy
Cambridge University, July 2015

Democratic Equality, Economic Inequality,
and the Earth Charter

Steven C. Rockefeller
Earth Charter, 29 June 2015

Climate Change in the United States:
Benefits of Global Action

EPA, June 2015

Renewables 2015
Global Status Report

REN21, June 2015

Demographic Vulnerability Report
Population Institute, June 2015

FAO and Post-2015:
Nourishing People,
Nourishing the Planet

FAO, May 2015

Global Financial Stability Report
IMF, April 2015

World Happiness Report
United Nations, April 2015

National Footprint Accounts
Global Footprint Network, March 2015

Health & Fracking:
Impacts & Opportunity Costs

MEDACT, March 2015

Global Sustainable Investment
Clean Technica, 26 February 2015

World Report 2015
Human Rights Watch, 12 February 2015

Short-Term Renewable Energy Outlook
U.S. EIA, 10 February 2015

Global Risks Report 2015
WEF, January 2015

World Energy Outlook 2014
IEA, 12 November 2014

Beyond Downscaling:
A Bottom-Up Approach
to Climate Adaptation
for Water Resources Management
AGWA, October 2014

2014 Global Hunger Index
IFPRI, October 2014

The New Climate Economy
United Nations, September 2014

Living Planet Report 2014
Global Footprint Network, September 2014

Sustainable Development Goals
and Inclusive Development

UNU-IAS, September 2014

Sustainable Development Goals
and Indicators for a Small Planet
Part II: Measuring Sustainability

ASEF, August 2014

The Plain Language Guide
to Rio+20: Preparing for the
New Development Agenda

Felix Dodds et al, 28 July 2014

Human Development Report 2014
UNDP, 24 July 2014

Millennium Development Goals
Report 2014

UNDP, 7 July 2014

Global Sustainable Development
Report (GSDR)

UN DSD, 1 July 2014

Agreeing on Robust Decisions:
New processes for decision making
under deep uncertainty

World Bank, June 2014

Early Childhood Development:
The Foundation of
Sustainable Human Development
for 2015 and Beyond

UN SDSN, 4 May 2014

What’s In A Name?
Global Warming vs Climate Change

Yale Environment, May 2014

World Health Statistics 2014
WHO, 2014

The Arctic in the Anthropocene:
Emerging Research Questions
, National Academy of Sciences, 2014

Annual Energy Outlook 2014
US EIA, 30 April 2014

Global Trends in
Renewable Energy Investment 2014

UNEP-Bloomberg, April 2014

International Human Development Program
Annual Report 2013

IHDP, April 2014

Momentum for Change 2013
UNFCCC, 2014

Global Gender Gap Index 2013
WEF, April 2014

NAPAs and NAPs in
Least Developed Countries

Gabrielle Kissinger & Thinley Namgyel
ECBI, March 2014

Water & Energy 2014
United Nations, 21 March 2014

Inclusive and Sustainable
Industrial Development

UNIDO, March 2014

What We Know:
The Reality, Risks, and Response
to Climate Change

AAAS, March 2014

The State of Natural Capital
UK NCC, March 2014

Women's Lives and Challenges:
Equality and Empowerment since 2000

USAID, March 2014

Climate Change: Evidence & Causes
NAS/RS, 27 February 2014

Beyond 2014 Global Report
ICPD, 16 February 2014

World Youth Report 2013:
Youth Migration and Development

UN-DESA, 14 February 2014

State of the World's Children 2014
UNICEF, January 2014

Global Land Use:
Balancing Consumption
with Sustainable Supply

UNEP-IRP, January 2014

Sustainability Investment Yearbook 2014
RobecoSAM, January 2014



Input-Output Tables for
Regional Footprint Analysis

NTNU/TNO/SERI, January 2015

Sustainable Society Index 2014
SSI, 17 December 2014

CAIT Equity Explorer
WRI, October 20114

WBCSD Tools Box

Post-2015 SDGs Target Database
Project on Sustainability Transformation
Ministry of the Environment, Japan

Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action (NAMA)
Sustainable Development Evaluation Tool

UNDP, 16 September 2014

2014 Global Peace Index (GPI)
Institute for Economics and Peace, 2014

UN CC: Learn Climate Change
United Nations, 2014

Global Consumption Database
World Bank, 2014

LEAP Scenario Explorer:
Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning

Stockholm Environmental Institute, 2014

Momentum for Change Interactive
UNFCCC, 2014

Sustainable Human Development Index (SHDI)
IFMR LEAD, Tamil Nadu, India

Environment & Gender Index (EGI)

Livelihood Strategies
Knowledge Bank

Development Cafe

Global Forest Watch System
World Resources Institute

WomanStats & World Maps
WomanStats Project

Scenario Modelling and Policy Assessment Tool

European Union

OPEN EUOne Planet Economy Network
European Union

Constitutional Gender Database
UN Women

OpenGeoSci Maps
GeoScience World

Earth Data Website


2013 Legatum Prosperity Index
Legatum Institute

Global Slavery Index 2013
Walk Free Foundation

Food Policy Network Resource List
School of Public Health
Johns Hopkins University

Water Change Modelling System

Earth Charter Virtual Library
Earth Charter Initiative

Resource & Documentation Centre
European Gender Equality Institute

Climate Justice Research Database
Mary Robinson Foundation

Distribution Centre

Climate Data, Simulations, and Synthesis
Data on Related Socio-Economic Factors

Nitrogen Footprint Calculator
ECN & Oxford University

Exploring Oil Data
Open Oil

Sustainability SWOT (sSWOT) Analysis Tool
World Resources Institute

CAIT Climate Data Explorer
World Resources Institute

Sustainable Technologies Databases
EWBI International

Renewable Energy Interactive Map

Global Transition to a New Economy
Interactive Map

New Economics Institute

Map of Climate Think Tanks

Energy Access Interactive Tool

Long Range Energy Alternatives
Planning System (LEAP)

SEI Energy Community

Industrial Efficiency Policy Database

Technology Cost Database for Renewables

Mapping the Global Transition
to a New Economy

New Economics Institute

Open Source Software for
Crowdsourcing for Energy Analysis


Adaptation Support Tool

Terra Populus:
Integrated Data on
Population and Environment

NSF & University of Minnesota

Environmental Performance Index
Interactive Map & Database

EPI, Yale University

Environmental Data Explorer

Clean Energy Information Portal

Mapping the Impacts of Climate Change

Eye on Earth
Global Mapping


Database of Actions on Adaptation
to Climate Change


Climate Scoreboard
Climate Interactive

Calculator of the
Carbon Footprint of Nations


Geospatial Toolkit (GsT) for
Integrated Resource Assessment


Climate Impact Equity Lens (CIEL)
Stockholm Environment Institute

Global Adaptation Index
Global Adaptation Institute

Gridded Population of the World
CIESIN, Columbia University

The New eAtlas of Gender
World Bank

Statistics and Tools
for Gender Analysis

World Bank

Gender Statistics Database
World Bank

Live World Data
The Venus Project

Clean Energy Analysis Software

RETScreen International

IGES CDM Methodology Parameter Data

IGES Emission Reductions Calculation Sheet

OECD Sustainable Manufacturing Toolkit

OECD Family Database

OECD Social Expenditure Database

Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services
and Tradeoffs (InVEST)

Natural Capital Project

Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC)
NASA & Columbia University

IGES GHG Database

Emission Factors Database

Forestry Industry Carbon Assessment Tool
Green Resources, Tanzania

Agent-based Computational Economics
of the Global Energy System


Climate Hot Map
Union of Concerned Scientists

Solar Thermal Barometer


Forest Monitoring for Action

Water Evaluation And Planning System

Global Land Tool Network

UN-Energy Knowledge Network
Multi-dimensional Energy Poverty Index (MEPI)
and Energy Development Index (EDI)

Measuring Energy Poverty
Visualization Platform


United Nations Data
UN Statistics Database
UN MDG Indicators
UN Human Development Index (HDI)

Humanity's Footprint Data
Ecological Footprint
Footprint for Nations
Footprint for Cities
Footprint for Business
Carbon Footprint
Personal Footprint
Footprint & Biodiversity
Footprint & Human Development

Earth Policy Institute Data Sets
Population, Health, and Society
Natural Systems
Climate Change
Energy Resources
Transportation Systems
Food and Agriculture
Economics & Development

World Bank
World Development Indicators (WDI)
World Bank

Sustainable Society Index
StatPlanet Interactive Map

Interactive Mapping of
Population and Climate Change

Population Action International

Global Advocates Toolbox
Population Action International

Teaching and Learning
for a Sustainable Future:
Dissemination and Training Toolbox


Economic Input-Output
Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA)

Green Design Institute
Carnegie Mellon University



Conference Alerts
Find Conferences Worldwide
by Topic, Country, or Keywords.

Calls for Papers
Find Calls for Papers Worldwide
by Specialization, Country, or Keywords.

Journal Articles
The latest Tables of Contents
from thousands of scholarly journals
Search by journal title, ISNN, or keywords

Selected Announcements

35th International Conference
of the System Dynamics Society

Cambridge, Massachusetts USA
16-20 July 2017
Contact: Roberta Spencer

Sustainability Transformations
Future Earth
University of Dundee, Scotland, UK
August 30-September 1, 2017

17th Congress of the
Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN)

Portuguese National Parliament
Lisboa, Portugal
25-27 September 2017
Contact: BIEN 2017

3. Advances in Sustainable Development

How to Achieve the SDGs by 2030 ~
Lessons from 50 Case Studies

Kate Bird

Originally published by
Deliver 2030, 10 May 2017
under a Creative Commons License

The SDGs risk losing momentum in 2017, as President Trump slashes funding to UN agencies and the international political scene appears in disarray. To stay on track, we need to focus on what works.

ODI’s Development Progress initiative looked at more than 50 cases across Africa, Asia and Latin America where progress was faster than expected. Here’s what worked and what got in the way.

1. Strong leadership and vision can drive progress with public support

Progress is faster where clear priorities are linked to a broad national development vision driven by committed political leaders. This is particularly powerful when part of a long-term cross-party consensus widely endorsed by citizens. Public support can spring from a particular political moment or widespread debate. Support for national leaders can be important, in some cases alongside active social movements pressing for change (Tunisia).

2. Local ownership supports innovation and accountability

Governments should mobilise staff towards a clear goal without imposing a blanket approach, as evidence from China and Burkina Faso shows that local expertise responding to local conditions leads to innovation and more effective solutions. Decentralised decision-making also helps tailor services to local needs, improves accountability, and can enhance progress in some sectors. Effective management, performance-based incentives and tackling front-line corruption and absenteeism can enhance delivery.

3. Funds come from many places, but must be well managed

Policy priorities must be properly funded to achieve good results, even in resource-constrained countries. Citizens have been successful in pushing for better public services where policy innovation is supported by additional funding. This investment can come from exports (Mauritius), better management of national budgets (South Africa), economic growth (Vietnam), or international support (Rwanda). Resources should be channelled through strong institutions, which may need reconfiguring in line with priorities.

4. Flip flop policies and political patronage slow progress

The absence of a long-term vision for development can result in erratic policymaking. Policy reversals mean some interventions do not survive long enough to deliver sustained progress, while budgeting failures leave others financially unsustainable. National policy may not translate into local action due to conflicts of interest and weak coordination and monitoring. Harmful patterns of power coupled with a lack of oversight and accountability undermine progress. Implementation becomes inconsistent, hampered by political favours and a lack of transparent systems.

5. Progress not driven by or for people can be reversed

Countries lacking a strong civil society face challenges pushing for sustained investment in a particular policy area. Progress that does not promote socio-economic transformation can also reinforce and widen existing inequality, causing tensions and leaving the poorest and most vulnerable behind. Reversal of progress is more likely where limited structural change has been achieved. Where fertility rates exceed economic growth, public services can be put under unsustainable pressure. Coupled with high youth unemployment, this can be destabilising.

6. External factors play a big part in a country’s progress

External risks and events can have a profound effect on a country. Climate change is a prime example with widespread negative consequences. Other external shocks may affect exports, impacting the income of producers and their families, economic growth and tax revenue. This can have damaging implications for public services and undermine progress across a broad range of areas. Changes in donor priorities and funding behaviour can also have major implications for aid dependent nations.

What we know for sure

Progress can be made in the most unlikely of places and toughest of issues. It mostly boils down to political leadership. Leaders need to be clear about what they want, if there is any hope of delivering the SDGs. Priorities should reflect a country’s financial resources, policy preparedness and institutional strength. They must be widely communicated, properly funded, and provide clarity about the task at hand and the vision for the future.

What we know for sure is that where there is shared national vision, progress is strongest. In highly contested areas, public communication campaigns can help shift public opinion, alongside legislation and careful monitoring. Partnerships with civil society and international development agencies can also support home-grown innovation, and technical support – provided in the right way – can be effective too. Some policy areas will progress more quickly than others, but the hard work on all areas must start now!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR Kate Bird is a Research Associate at Development Institute.

4. Advances in Integral Human Development

Tearing Down the Walls that Keep Us
from Finding Common Ground

JoAnn McAllister

Originally published in
Waging Non-Violence, 19 May 2017
under a Creative Commons License


The current occupant of the White House wants to build a “real,” “big,” “serious” wall. To avoid a government shutdown, the administration wavered on the timing of funding. But that does not mean a wall, or walls, will not be built. Walls are material structures, and — maybe more importantly — they are metaphors. They promote ideas like possession, property and separation, as well as mine, yours, who belongs, and who doesn’t belong. They create emotional responses: safety, trust, envy, frustration, fear, anger, dread, hostility. The wall on the border between the United States and Mexico is both material and metaphorical. If you have not looked at pictures of the walls, fences, or barriers already installed on some 650 miles of the 2,000-mile border, you should do so right now. Considerable damage to the environment, the economies of border communities, and individual human lives has already been accomplished by the militarization of the border.

In 1961, the Berlin Wall appeared almost overnight. It was physical and metaphorical, carrying a weighty ideological message to Western “fascists,” who, according to the U.S.S.R. were trying to destroy the socialist state. From the West’s perspective, the purpose of the wall was to deny people access to the West and, importantly, to its message of freedom. All walls carry multiple messages depending on your point of view. The wall on the border with Mexico has different meanings depending on which side of the physical and metaphorical wall you are on. Attorney Gen. Jeff Sessions has different ideas about the wall and the people it prevents from entering the United States than do the ranchers and farmers whose land is often divided by a river that does not respect human boundaries.

While construction may be impeded, the idea still exists. It exists as part of an “unconscious system of metaphorical thought,” according to Tom Vanderbilt, in a November New York Times essay about the insidious power of ideas. As a metaphor, the idea of a “wall” is the centerpiece of the new administration’s approach not just to the border, but also to the rest of the world. More barriers along the border could have dire environmental consequences for specific species and the biodiversity of the region. As an environmentalist, I am horrified at this scenario and, yet, I believe that the idea of the wall is as pernicious a consequence of the election as these material impacts.

Everyone is building walls. In Eastern Europe and the Middle East, walls are being built at an exceedingly rapid pace. Vanderbilt cites geographer Elisabeth Vallet’s survey of the 50 actual walls that currently exist, 15 of which were built in the last few years. They are a response to the crisis of immigrant and refugee migration and reflect, as well, the different belief systems — religious and political — that fuel various regional conflicts. A similar surge of nationalist ideology is evident in the United States, too, as “build that wall” became a rallying cry among Donald Trump’s supporters. Those who approve of both kinds of walls exhibit fear and racism. Others believe the myths about job loss or the illusion of physical walls as a solution to a variety of social problems. Nationalism, sometimes labeled populism, has always bubbled under the surface of political discourse in the West, and such rhetoric now has “legs.”

Meanwhile, people who oppose the wall and the immigration policies it represents have also built walls. Articles in Slate, Huffington Post, and elsewhere all carried unforgiving tirades against people who voted for Trump after November 8. This divisive landscape and tendency to build walls represents a crisis for social change activists in engaging a majority of the people to support movements for change.

In the 2001 book “Doing Democracy: The MAP Model of Organizing Social Movements,” veteran social movement activist and trainer Bill Moyer wrote that, “the central task of social movements is to win the hearts, minds and support of the majority of the populace.” After 40-plus years of participating in, planning, training, and analyzing social change and the role of social movements, he stressed the important role of ordinary citizens in successful movements for change. Moyer believed that people would respond to violations of “their deepest values” and that social movements were, in fact, a primary way for people to “challenge unjust social conditions and policies.” As the editor and a co-author of “Doing Democracy,” I too believe that values are at the core of social movements. That is why our political and cultural polarization — that is, the “metaphorical walls” — concerns me and raises questions like: What are these “deepest values?” How do they relate to our “democratic values?” And how many of us share them?

If social movements are to continue to be a “means for ordinary people to act on their deepest values,” as Moyer thought they did, then we need to ask questions about our current culture and the dynamics that are creating more walls than ever before. Are there, in fact, universal values that are widely held today? Numerous authors and many activist groups still cite the Movement Action Plan, or MAP, as a model in understanding the typical stages of social movements on the road to success, the strategies and tactics useful along the way, and the roles that individuals and organizations play in accomplishing movement goals.

Since we completed “Doing Democracy,” I have not encountered any references to the last chapter, titled “Toward the Future.” That chapter encapsulates discussions that Moyer had with many people over the years, and with me during the last several years of his life, about the underlying philosophy of our beliefs and values and knowledge emerging from psychological and sociological research about how we change beliefs and behaviors. Moyer’s analysis of the need for personal and cultural transformation, including the transformation of movement cultures, has not engaged people as much as the “Eight Stages of Social Movements” and “Four Roles of Social Activism” — reflecting, perhaps, an emphasis on strategy and tactics instead of the more personal challenges of being effective change agents by grappling with the philosophical and psychological aspects of social change.

Some will say these considerations sound too individualistic or academic and ask why they are important given the absolutely frightening challenges we face today. In response to this challenge, my colleague Jim Smith and I wrote the forthcoming book “Still Doing Democracy! Finding Common Ground and Acting for the Common Good.” In it, we focus on questions about values, about understanding different beliefs and about how we negotiate the boundaries that different perceptions of the world create so that we can build broader coalitions to support progressive change.

We are once again in an era of large demonstrations that engage the public’s attention. This is good. Some of these events may help groups gain traction in establishing a campaign and building the next movement moment. As longtime organizer and Waging Nonviolence columnist George Lakey has pointed out, protests do not a social movement make. I contend that after the “trigger” events, after the mass demonstrations, and after the first flush of success, such groups will persist in the long struggle to facilitate change only if they are able to engage the “hearts, minds, and support of the majority of the populace.” That is, only if they are able to have a conversation about values and how current conditions violate widely held values. This conversation needs to take place with those with whom you marched, with those who did not march, with those who did not vote (over 42 percent of eligible voters), with those who do not participate in civic life at all, and even with those who voted for the other candidate.

Despite the elation over mass turnouts at recent protests, beginning with the Women’s March, I fear that too little attention is being paid to the more nuanced and disciplined work of listening and learning that’s required to “win the hearts, minds, and support of a majority of the populace.” Unless we are determined to have real conversations — where we are not talking past each other because we are speaking a different language, while using the same words — I believe we will fail.

“Still Doing Democracy!” takes the question of having authentic conversations seriously. Partisans on either side of the progressive/conservative wall use the same language in talking about democratic values. For example, “freedom” is a commonly expressed value that has widely divergent meanings depending on which side of the wall you are on. On one side, being free means to be able to choose to buy or not buy healthcare. On the other side, it means having access to healthcare that you can actually afford to buy. This is not a conversation; there is no common ground here. There is certainly not a shared belief in healthcare as a human right. The belief system and value differences are not only external to the progressive movement world.

Jonathan Matthew Smucker’s analysis of Occupy Wall Street in “Hegemony, How-to: A Roadmap for Radicals,” shows how movement groups create walls that keep them from collaborating with natural allies. I look at the signs at the various marches since January and see a plethora of issues and value statements. But what do these value statements mean? Do people mean the same thing by the words “freedom,” “justice” or “fairness?” Do the people standing next to each other at demonstrations share the vision in “Doing Democracy” of a “civil society in a safe, just and sustainable world?” What kinds of personal and cultural characteristics would describe such a world? These are the questions we need to consider in our groups and in our efforts to engage the “majority of the populace.”

The building blocks of metaphorical walls are the ideas and beliefs that reinforce them. They can be as impenetrable as brick and mortar. Thinking and feeling our way around — through, or over walls — is not always easy, but it is necessary to contribute to real change in a world characterized by diversity of beliefs, perspectives and life experiences.

My approach comes out of a tradition that approaches social problems by asking epistemological questions and analyzes issues through the lens of critical theory. No one needs a degree in philosophy to use these tools — they are everyday skills. Whenever you ask someone where they got a certain idea from, you are asking an epistemological question. What is the source of the information? Is it from the news, their family or the Bible? How firmly do they hold it? Is it an opinion, a belief or, perhaps, “the truth”? As you listen, and this is key, you will learn whether you can have a real conversation. Of course, you must be willing to be similarly transparent, and we must each ask ourselves the same questions. Where do my ideas and beliefs come from? Are they tentative frameworks for making sense of the world, or are they my version of the “truth”?

When you look at social problems through the lens of critical theory you are also asking questions about beliefs. A basic question must be: “Are the people benefitting from this situation, or is some power holder making out like a bandit?” This is the beginning of strategic issue analysis, and it too must include close scrutiny of the stories that substantiate the walls of political belief systems. Our approach brings new insights to the analysis of issues in a social, political and cultural environment that is clearly more complex and fragmented than ever before.

In Lakey’s review of Smucker’s book, he suggests that we have, perhaps, not been bold enough in promoting movement values as the new standard worldview. I suggest that we need to engage in an ongoing conversation about values because we live in a world that has significantly changed since the 1960s, when many of these commitments were first framed as “universal values.” We hope “Still Doing Democracy!” will promote these conversations by helping engaged citizens develop an appreciation of different, disparate, competing or conflicting beliefs and learn how to overcome the barriers they create. We need to add these tools to our list of strategies at every stage and as skills to develop in whatever role we are playing.

We must not build new walls. Instead, we should be echoing an earlier call, “Tear this wall down.”


JoAnn McAllister, PhD, was a co-author of Bill Moyer’s Doing Democracy: The MAP Model of Organizing Social Movements. She is the co-author of the forthcoming "Still Doing Democracy! Finding Common Ground and Acting for the Common Good," which will be available this summer, and is the president of the Human Science Institute.

5. Advances in Integrated Sustainable Development

Integral Human Development and Subsidiarity

The Principle of Subsidiarity

Source: EZFord, YouTube, 23 February 2013

See also

"An issue or problem should be dealt with by the people who are closest to it"
Rudy Carrasco, PovertyCure Voice, 20 March 2012

Cardinal Reinhard Marx on Subsidiarity vs. Solidarity
Berkeley Center, Georgetown University, 20 June 2012

Integral Human Development and Subsidiarity: A Closer Look
Matthea Brandenburg & Carolyn Woo, Poverty Cure Voice, 10 January 2013

An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Development Goals
David Griggs et al, Ecology & Society, 19(4): 49, 2014

Integrated Approaches to Sustainable Development
Planning and Implementation

Capacity Building Workshop, United Nations, May 2015

6. Sustainability Games, Databases, and Knowledgebases

Global Push for Earth Observations Continues

Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS)

This press release was originally published in
GEO Group on Earth Observations, 13 April 2017

China's Tian Shan Mountains
Contains modified Copernicus Sentinel data (2016),
processed by the European Space Agency (ESA)

The Group on Earth Observations (GEO) has been working for more than a decade to open access to Earth observation data and information, and increase awareness around their socioeconomic value. As GEO moves into the second decade four new global partners are announced to help support GEO’s vision.

The GEO community has been building a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) that links Earth observation resources worldwide across multiple Societal Benefit Areas (SBAs). These SBAs range from Biodiversity and Ecosystem Sustainability, Disaster Resilience, Energy and Mineral Resources Management, Food Security, Infrastructure and Transportation Management to Public Health Surveillance, Sustainable Urban Development and Water Resources Management. The SBAs serve as lenses through which the Member governments and Participating Organizations (POs) that constitute GEO may focus their contributions to GEOSS, with a goal to make the open EO data resources available for informed decision-making.

The four organizations include Conservation International (CI), Earthmind, Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition (GODAN) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Each organization has now joined GEO as a Participating Organization, taking the total number to 110 working internationally to advocate, engage and deliver on open EO data.

“CI empowers societies across the globe to sustainably care for nature through science and partnerships. We are excited to join the GEO community, which has long recognized the power of collaboration in leveraging earth observation to benefit humanity.” Said Daniel Juhn, Senior Director, Integrated Assessment and Planning Program at Conservation International. “Though we face obstacles to achieve the SDGs, we are at a critical juncture where the science of valuing ecosystems, and understanding the full services nature provides to people expands our knowledge and options. We hope this partnership exemplifies bringing together that science, the right policies, necessary collaboration, and advanced technologies to generate the solutions we need to tackle global sustainability challenges.”

“Earthmind supports positive efforts by private, public and non-profit stakeholders to conserve and responsibly manage nature. As one of our main programmes is to recognise conservation in the areas where people live and work, we are most honoured and indeed excited to join the GEO community. In so doing, we hope to further encourage voluntary efforts to observe how we managing our planet in order to take better care for it.” said Francis Vorhies, Founder and Executive Director of Earthmind.

“GEO, its Members and the broad new set of tools provided by geodata constitute a fantastic step forward in the quest to help farmers from all corners of the world improve their yields and Governments to improve their policies to further stimulate agriculture in their respective countries. This is why GODAN is very glad to become part of GEO and to count the GEO partnership among the GODAN network. We believe that this collaboration will be most fruitful for all parties involved” said André Laperrière, Executive Director of the GODAN Secretariat.

"UNICEF has learned through experience that problems that go unmeasured often go unsolved,” said Toby Wicks, Data Strategist at UNICEF. “We will work with the GEO community to link the needs of the world's most vulnerable populations to a rapidly expanding set of data informed solutions, including GEOSS. This partnership signals an effort to build a world in which a near real-time understanding of risks and global challenges, particularly water resources management and disaster resilience, allows us to work harder and faster, for children."

The key engagement priorities for GEO in the coming years involve using open Earth observations to respond to a number of global policy issues. The priorities are tied to the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, the Paris Agreement on Climate Change and the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. These new partnerships will complement existing ones and also help deliver in line with the GEO engagement priorities.

The Group on Earth Observations (GEO)

GEO is a partnership of governments and organizations creating a future wherein decisions and actions for the benefit of humankind are informed by coordinated, comprehensive and sustained Earth observations. GEO Member governments include 104 nations and the European Commission, and 110 Participating Organizations comprised of international bodies making use of or with a mandate in Earth observations. GEO’s primary focus is to develop a Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) to enhance the ability of end-users to discover and access Earth observation data and convert it to useable and useful information. GEO is headquartered in Switzerland.

For English-language media enquiries, please contact:

Katherine Anderson – Communications Manager, Group on Earth Observations

Tel: +41 22 730 8429; Email:

7. Sustainable Development Measures and Indicators

Sustainable Development Goals ~ Targets Tracker

Source: Overseas Development Institute (ODI)

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) will be the guiding framework for international development until 2030 and are intended to provide a reference for setting national policy priorities.

This unique, searchable database provides a snapshot of what those national priorities are. Users can compare existing national targets with the ambition of the SDGs. We intend this to be a living document, supplemented and kept up to date by crowdsourcing, and we encourage others to send us new information on national goals to update the tracker.

This research report: Mind the gap? A comparison of international and national targets for the SDG agenda, ODI, June 2015, documents the gaps and data issues that must be resolved if the SDGs are to be attained by 2030.

Please send any new information on national level targets in any of the areas covered by the SDGs to


Global Footprint Network's National Footprint Accounts 2015 Public Data Package

Ecological Footprint Infographics

Footprint Calculator


Links to Global Partnership Data for the SDGs:

1. End poverty in all its forms everywhere
2. End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition
3. Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being
4. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education
5. Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls
6. Ensure availability of water and sanitation
7. Ensure access to affordable and clean energy for all
8. Promote economic growth and decent work
9. Build resilient industrial infrastructures
10. Reduce inequality within and among countries
11. Make cities resilient and sustainable
12. Ensure sustainable consumption and production
13. Take urgent action to combat climate change
14. Conserve the oceans and marine resources
15. Protect terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity
16. Promote peace and inclusive societies
17. Strengthen global partnership for sustainable development

Human Development Data (1980-2015)


8. Sustainable Development Modeling and Simulation

Modeling Sustainability:
Population, Inequality, Consumption, and
Bidirectional Coupling of the Earth and Human Systems

Safa Motesharrei et al

This article was originally published in
Oxford Journals National Science Review, 11 December 2016


Over the last two centuries, the impact of the Human System has grown dramatically, becoming strongly dominant within the Earth System in many different ways. Consumption, inequality, and population have increased extremely fast, especially since about 1950, threatening to overwhelm the many critical functions and ecosystems of the Earth System. Changes in the Earth System, in turn, have important feedback effects on the Human System, with costly and potentially serious consequences. However, current models do not incorporate these critical feedbacks. We argue that in order to understand the dynamics of either system, Earth System Models must be coupled with Human System Models through bidirectional couplings representing the positive, negative, and delayed feedbacks that exist in the real systems. In particular, key Human System variables, such as demographics, inequality, economic growth, and migration, are not coupled with the Earth System but are instead driven by exogenous estimates, such as UN population projections. This makes current models likely to miss important feedbacks in the real Earth-Human system, especially those that may result in unexpected or counterintuitive outcomes, and thus requiring different policy interventions from current models. The importance and imminence of sustainability challenges, the dominant role of the Human System in the Earth System, and the essential roles the Earth System plays for the Human System, all call for collaboration of natural scientists, social scientists, and engineers in multidisciplinary research and modeling to develop coupled Earth-Human system models for devising effective science-based policies and measures to benefit current and future generations.


Integrated Model for Sustainable Development Goals Strategies (iSDG)

Millennium Institute, 13 January 2016

"C-ROADS is an award-winning computer simulation that helps people understand the long-term climate impacts of policy scenarios to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It allows for the rapid summation of national greenhouse gas reduction pledges in order to show the long-term impact on our climate." For more information, click here.


9. Fostering Sustainability in the International Community

Dialogue toward Unity in Diversity

Heiner Benking & Sherryl Stalinski

This article was originally presented at the
Ludwig von Bertalanffy 100th Anniversary Conference
University of Vienna, 1-4 November 2001
and published by Dialogue among Civilizations

Abstract: The authors seek to briefly address the persistent challenges of applying general systems principles to our human cultural systems. We identify individual and cultural worldviews which continue to cause us to resist integrating diverse human perspectives and cultural systems in relevant and meaningful relationship. We introduce dialogue methodologies which can lead to cultural praxis toward a more unified and ‘whole’ global humanity which not only retains our individual and cultural diversity, but celebrates and integrates this diversity into ever-increasing relevant and meaningful relationship. The authors introduce the five global ethics identified by the Institute for Global Ethics as the "centralizing influence" which can guide our inter- and intra-cultural dialogues.

General System Theory would seem to point out the obvious reasons for humanity to value, and thus seek out Unity in Diversity. Further, to even carry on a dialogue on the topic within the systems research communities should seem trivial: We understand the value of diversity. We understand the principles which govern a complex, open system to be stable and sustainable over time. We, as systems researchers, should readily conceptualize a complex global human system, made of increasingly specialized and diverse individuals, communities, countries evolving in ever increasing integration and relationship, and evolving around influential centers which continually catalyze our increased organization. As systems researchers, a conference on Unity in Diversity should seem like a kindergarten reunion; an exercise in ‘preaching to the choir.’

And yet here we are, still reconciling what we have learned through empirical systems research with what we have learned through personal experience. And for many of us, influenced by the wisdom and understanding of the new sciences, we find ourselves still reconciling the experiential and the empirical with new, relativist or postmodern perspectives. We continue to struggle to validate and honor our own diverse ways of knowing (Earley 1997; Harman, 1998; Stalinski, 2001) along with the diverse perspectives of others. The struggle comes from trying to choose between perspectives; an ingrained insistence that we must choose one perspective or another, rather than holding diverse and multiple perspectives simultaneously and then seeking their integration.

Jay Earley (1997) articulates the same fundamental processes of integration as von Bertalanffy by concluding that "differentiation (complexity), autonomy and wholeness are the three basic tendencies of evolution." The authors propose that in and among human systems, this process happens concurrently at the level of individual consciousness and the societal/cultural levels. It seems significant however to remind ourselves that this evolution—increased wholeness and individuation (unity)--happens through the relevant, effective and right relationship of increasingly diverse (differentiated and autonomous) components (Bertalanffy, 1968). The evolutionary process is not reliant merely on differentiation, but on the appropriate relationship of differentiated systems components; whether biological, organismic or human perspectives.

Human evolution likewise follows this principle—human perspectives which drive human behavior—is the process of evolving individual consciousness and the inevitable concurrent evolution of our social systems and their cultures (Banathy, 2000; Earley, 1997; Harman, 1998). Rose (1998), Gebser (1949/86) and the authors (Benking & Stalinski, 2001) argue that this process is central to being, and emergence of evolved consciousness (and thus the integration of human culture) is an experiential, "concrete," as well as conceptual reality. Earley likewise calls for the integration of "participatory" and "reflexive" consciousness—again underscoring the integration of the experiential, rational and spiritual towards increased individual and cultural wholeness.

The evolution of consciousness is not a process so much of changing perspective and personally held meaning and worldviews, as it is a process of integration (Gebser, 1949/86, Rose, 1998; Benking & Stalinski, 2001) and finding internal congruency among what we know empirically, experientially and from our understanding of meaning (Stalinski, 2001). Our cultures then are the lived and experienced reflection of our individual consciousness and awareness and thus likewise, cultural evolution is a process of living and experiencing both internal and external differentiation, integration and congruency. Often our contemporary cultures express contradictory and conflicting values internally, and even as we ignore these internal conflicts, humanity seems to be striving for a more global wholeness and unity.

Within our human communities—whether local, societal or global—the unity or ‘wholeness’ of the systems complex of diverse individuals and sub-systems is centralized by shared meaning and value. Human cultures are value-guided systems (Laszlo, E. 1996; Banathy, 1996, 2000) and we learn through personal experience and cultural influence to value that which benefits our ability to not just survive, but thrive as individuals and social systems. The cultures within our small local geographic communities or larger societal systems evolve around the ‘highly influential centers’ (Bertalanffy, 1968) of the values adopted by and the norms agreed upon by the system. And yet central meaning, values, and norms are rarely reflected upon and evaluated at a conscious level.

Internal-External Dialogue

In the process of evolving to a more unified, whole systems complex of diverse cultural, socio-economic, religious, psychological individuals and social systems, it is dialogue which can enable us to discover the relevant and integrated interrelations which will make us a more autonomous individually, and more unified globally. This dialogue may be internal as we seek congruency between what we know empirically, experientially and from our understanding of meaning for our individual and collective lives. This conscious reflection of personal values and meaning impacts our behavior choices, especially in how we view and perceive others who may seem different from us, and cause discomfort. The willingness to engage in external dialogue – the co-creation of meaning with others—becomes an exploration in discovering how we fit together, as individuals, communities, cultures and nations (Bohm & Peat, 1987; Lopez-Garay, 2001; Christakis, 2001). The level and focus of dialogue may require various dialogue methodologies, a few we introduce here with encouragement for further exploration:

Models, Maps & Metaphor

That which we experience in life: the tactile, sights, smells, sounds, tastes and emotional feelings make up the strongest sense of understanding our human experience. While we may sometimes use our capacity to reason to try to understand these experiences, it is often difficult to argue rationally against what is learned experientially. In dialogue, we can create valuable experiential learning through our senses and emotions by languaging with the concrete. The use of models, maps and metaphor are strong tools for sharing verbally, in writing and outside the parameters of our symbolic languages. (Benking 1996, 1997; 2001 Rose, 2000; Stalinski, 2001)


The purpose of dialogue is to create shared meaning. Since we currently experience life within the constraints of linear time, it is important that diversity is nurtured by enabling diverse participation in equitable ways. Time-sharing roundtable exercises enable participants to reflect the other perspective and at the same time practice "communion" through empowerment, giving voice and sharing empathy in a process of establishing shared meaning. (Judge, 1994; Benking, 1998; Bohm [online]). The theoretical framework for embodied shared meaning was established by Hellmuth Plessner who re-established our ability to take on other viewpoints with the definition of "eccentric positionality." (Benking & Rose, 1996)

The Design Conversation

Dialogue which seeks to create, redesign or refine human systems requires competence in the area of design. The design conversation engages participants in both generative and strategic dialogue in order to gain design competence and effectively conceptualize and create complex human systems. (Banathy, 1996; Laszlo, Laszlo, et al, 1996; Stalinski 2001)

Computer-Aided Dialogue for Addressing Complex Societal Issues

Complex systems can be challenging to design, and quite impossible to fix when they are not functioning optimally. Addressing the systemic mess of complex organizational and societal issues, as well as designing ways to re-create them to be healthy, viable and sustainable can be aided with the help of computer software technologies. (Christakis, 1996, 2001; Judge, 1998).

The Influential Center of a Global Dialogue:

Systems evolve around ‘instigating causalities’ which influence and catalyze the organization of a system (Bertalanffy, 1968). In our cultural systems, these influential centers are the values which define the cultural system and the norms and behaviors which reflect these values are catalyzed by our cultural leadership. By understanding the role of leadership as "centralizing" and influential for the application of a culture’s values, leadership can be seen not as a "dominant" role, but a "predominant" role which empowers integration and interrelationship among all system members to create a more unified and individuated ‘whole’ culture (Stalinski, 2001). At a global level the Institute for Global Ethics already lists five values identified around the world: respect, honesty, compassion, fairness and responsibility (Glenn & Gordon, 2001). These fundamental, life-affirming values, by being integrated within cultural dialogues at all levels of the global human systems complex, can provide a meaningful and valuable ‘centralizing influence’ as we strive for an increased unity, bound and influenced these central values, and expressed in myriad diverse cultural, ethnic, and even religious traditions.


Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing social systems in a changing world. New York: Plenum
Banathy, B. H. (2000) Guided societal evolution: A systems view. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers
Benking, H. (1996) A Metaparadigm or Sharable Framework - (Cognitive Panorama). Consiel de l’Europe: New Ideas in Science & Art, Nov. 1996 Conference,
-/- (1997) Weltbildkopositionen in anschaulichen kognitiven Räumen - ein notwendiger phylogenetischer Schritt , IN: EMERGENZ UND DIE PSYCHOLOGIE DES MENSCHEN, Konrad Lorenz Institut, Publication under preparation,
-/- (1997) Sharing and Changing Realities with Extra Degrees of Freedom of Movement. The Integrity Papers:
-/- (1998) Dialogue Culture and open-forum
-/- (2001) An Integral Agenda for Coping with Globalisation and Cyberculture Sustainable Information Society - Values and Everyday Life, Sept 27-28, SIS KOUVOLA, Finland
-/- (2001) Spatial versus spatial, Knowmap Magazine:
-/-. & Stalinski, S. (2001) Concreteness in Integral Worlds. Worldly Expressions of the Integral. Jean Gebser Society Conference, Athens OH, Oct. 18-20, 2001
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968) General system theory. New York: George Braziller
Bohm D. and Peat D., (1987) Science, order & creativity. NY: Bantam
Christakis, A. (1996). A People Science: The CogniScopeTM System Approach, Systems, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1996, pp. 16-19.
Christakis, A. (2001) "The Dialogue Game." Paoll, PA: CWA Ltd.
Earley, J. (1997). Transforming Human Culture: Social Evolution and the Planetary Crisis. Albany: SUNY Press,
Gebser, J. (1986) German Original (1949) The Ever-Present Origin. Athens: Ohio University Press. For more see:
Glenn, J. & Gordon, T., Ed. (2001) 2001 State of the future. Washington DC: American Council for The United Nations University, The Millennium Project.
Harman, W. (1998, 2nd Ed.) Global mind change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler
Judge, A. (1994) Time Sharing System in Meetings. UIA:
Judge, A. (1998). The Challenge of Cyber-Parliaments and Statutory Virtual Assemblies. UIA,
Laszlo, Laszlo, et. al. (1996) "Fruits of our Conversation" Proceedings, 1996 Conference for the Comprehensive Design of Social Systems. Carmel: ISI,
Laszlo, E. (1996) The systems view of the world. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press
Lopez-Garay, H. (2001) "Dialogue Among Civilizations: What For?" International Journal of World Peace, vol. 18, no. 1, March 2001
Mandel T., Benking, H. (eds) (1994-2001) WHOLENESS SEMINAR
Rose, J. (1998) The Integrity Paradigm. Proceedings: Annual Conference, International Society for the Systems Sciences. Available online, Ceptual Institute:
Rose, J. (2000) "Persistence of Image": Languages & Cultures as Systems Phenomena. Conference Discussion: ISSS Toronto, July 2000. Available online:
Stalinski, S. (2001) Creating futures: A systems view of transformation for our organizations, communities and world. Tucson, AZ: Aurora Now Foundation,


Heiner Benking and Sherryl Stalinski are independent scholars. Heiner Benking is part of the Commons Alliance within UN-ECOSOC and served in international development since 1977 and environmental programme projects since 1998. He served Dr. Noel Brown, director of UNEP-RONA and in the UNEP-HEM harmonization project and was later around before and after Rio. He is a trained technician and engineer and studied geosciences at the University Hamburg. He worked in management, marketing and strategy, later data-management consultancies, and in the 80s in sales and marketing of the founding computer-graphics indutry (vector- and rastergraphics). He holds verious positions in NGO's in the youth and educational sector worldwide, is associate of the Global Agoras in the field of deliberation, peacemaking, and multi-track diplomacy, works for an Institute for Sustainability in Education, Work and Culture. He established youth media agencies, works as a journalist and blogger, and has been curator of the Global Change exhibition since 1990.


Page 1      Page 2      Page 3      Page 4      Page 5      Page 6      Page 7      Page 8      Page 9

Supplement 1      Supplement 2      Supplement 3      Supplement 4      Supplement 5      Supplement 6

PelicanWeb Home Page

Bookmark and Share

"Pray for the dead and fight like hell for the living."

Mary Harris "Mother" Jones (1837 – 1930)


Write to the Editor
Send email to Subscribe
Send email to Unsubscribe
Link to the Google Groups Website
Link to the PelicanWeb Home Page

Creative Commons License
ISSN 2165-9672

Supplement 1      



Subscribe to the
Mother Pelican Journal
via the Solidarity-Sustainability Group

Enter your email address: