Not that I am for a carbon tax, but wonder, for clarification, if this would be an example of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)?
I do not understand this:
"A conservation society and a communal governance body are co-authoring a tourism proposal that treats a leopard corridor, a mission museum, and a citizen science project as a single offer."
How do the three services balance off incomes for services rendered? And what is their ROI?
For your question about the three services balancing off income, please hold tight for an upcoming essay.
For now, let me just make this distinction:
- A tourist destination designed as a 'cathedral' or some other visitor attraction is following the +I or +M Node trajectory and building the wrong form.
- A destination designed as a *threshold to a watershed* is following the +N trajectory.
This "threshold" (for a destination) is the single most important structural distinction from my recent TIMN deep dive and extrapolation.
As I get deeper into defining what our valley actually offers, this test has become increasingly more meaningful:
Does the physical site orient inward (toward visitor experience, revenue extraction/capture, or institutional presence) or outward (toward catchment recovery, distributed participation, and planetary learning)?
Once these new thought patterns have had time to crystallize I'll be able to offer something more concrete, but hopefully this gives some sense of where this might go. 🤷♂️🤯🤦♂️
No, a carbon tax is not an example of PES, although many would want it to be so.
Biodiversity credits, ecosystem-service payments, and natural capital instruments (at least as we define them today) are mostly or wholly captured by +M. They depend on commodification, fiat denomination, and market pricing to function.
In an upcoming essay I'll describe PES as real outcomes that benefit real people. As one example: we'll have a citizen science observation process that links increased fynbos biodiversity to increased rainfall and water retention. We can then sell the validated increased water to nearby farmers who have exceeded their water quota or to national government. In this way it revers the abstraction of existing PES creations.
Such a chock full of useful information and concepts for change! I am still in progress with it.
But want to mention "gift economy" and accompanying neighborhood sharing circle.
The "neighborhood' is defined as "reachable by walking or by bicycle." People gather monthly to share a pot-luck meal. They circle up afterwards. The power object is passed around the circle and each person who holds it gets the opportunity to share what they need by way of a thing or a service. After this there is a milling about time where those who have what a person needed hook up.
For example, an elderly lady needs help taking down the screens and putting up her storm windows. Two younger and stronger guys wind up helping her do this.
There are no money exchanges---it is all gifts within the neighborhood. A community biuilding device.
Yes, nice example, Don. It builds on an "abstraction theory" that I'm developing for the next essay, which says that each coordination form (TIMN) abstracts its Node and its Instrument as it matures. Gift-giving was a core part of pre-Market forms. It seems to me that we abstracted gift-giving to special occasions like birthdays and Christmas, whereas it was a core part of every-day pre-market life. The example you've quoted confirms the bioregional bent, where all forms of abstraction are being reversed to focus on a watershed.
Too much to unpack in a short note, and more coming in the essay. Just wanted to thank you for the example.
Not that I am for a carbon tax, but wonder, for clarification, if this would be an example of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)?
I do not understand this:
"A conservation society and a communal governance body are co-authoring a tourism proposal that treats a leopard corridor, a mission museum, and a citizen science project as a single offer."
How do the three services balance off incomes for services rendered? And what is their ROI?
For your question about the three services balancing off income, please hold tight for an upcoming essay.
For now, let me just make this distinction:
- A tourist destination designed as a 'cathedral' or some other visitor attraction is following the +I or +M Node trajectory and building the wrong form.
- A destination designed as a *threshold to a watershed* is following the +N trajectory.
This "threshold" (for a destination) is the single most important structural distinction from my recent TIMN deep dive and extrapolation.
As I get deeper into defining what our valley actually offers, this test has become increasingly more meaningful:
Does the physical site orient inward (toward visitor experience, revenue extraction/capture, or institutional presence) or outward (toward catchment recovery, distributed participation, and planetary learning)?
Once these new thought patterns have had time to crystallize I'll be able to offer something more concrete, but hopefully this gives some sense of where this might go. 🤷♂️🤯🤦♂️
No, a carbon tax is not an example of PES, although many would want it to be so.
Biodiversity credits, ecosystem-service payments, and natural capital instruments (at least as we define them today) are mostly or wholly captured by +M. They depend on commodification, fiat denomination, and market pricing to function.
In an upcoming essay I'll describe PES as real outcomes that benefit real people. As one example: we'll have a citizen science observation process that links increased fynbos biodiversity to increased rainfall and water retention. We can then sell the validated increased water to nearby farmers who have exceeded their water quota or to national government. In this way it revers the abstraction of existing PES creations.
Such a chock full of useful information and concepts for change! I am still in progress with it.
But want to mention "gift economy" and accompanying neighborhood sharing circle.
The "neighborhood' is defined as "reachable by walking or by bicycle." People gather monthly to share a pot-luck meal. They circle up afterwards. The power object is passed around the circle and each person who holds it gets the opportunity to share what they need by way of a thing or a service. After this there is a milling about time where those who have what a person needed hook up.
For example, an elderly lady needs help taking down the screens and putting up her storm windows. Two younger and stronger guys wind up helping her do this.
There are no money exchanges---it is all gifts within the neighborhood. A community biuilding device.
Yes, nice example, Don. It builds on an "abstraction theory" that I'm developing for the next essay, which says that each coordination form (TIMN) abstracts its Node and its Instrument as it matures. Gift-giving was a core part of pre-Market forms. It seems to me that we abstracted gift-giving to special occasions like birthdays and Christmas, whereas it was a core part of every-day pre-market life. The example you've quoted confirms the bioregional bent, where all forms of abstraction are being reversed to focus on a watershed.
Too much to unpack in a short note, and more coming in the essay. Just wanted to thank you for the example.
Lots to unpack her but feels like a very meaningful contribution, thank you.