Talk:Sustainable Development Goal 1: No poverty

From EcoliseWiki
  • Key strategies:
    • Challenging purely material notion of poverty (thus drawing attention to prevalence of its non-material forms)
    • Attention to and action on non-material forms of capital
      • Social capital in ecovillages and degrowth
      • Regenerative enterprise
    • Specific strategies for improving/safeguarding material conditions:
      • More resilient production systems (e.g. in food, energy)
      • Sharing of income and resources
      • Community currencies
      • Localisation makes existing local poverty more visible, avoids (invisible) creation of poverty elsewhere

        --Gil Penha-Lopes (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

some of the solidarity economy studies I am currently working on might also be relevant, e.g. case studies of responses to austerity in Greece and the history as a reaction to systematic poverty in much of Latin America. Will add these when relevant. --Tom Henfrey (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)


Interesting References

"This imaginary more often than not responds to neoliberal promises of individual freedom and autonomy and seems to undermine CBEs' more radical possibilities at the same time obscuring more diverse voices of transformation." (Arguelles et al, 2017) From a more nuanced perspective these community-based economies (CBEs) can be seen as examples of diverse economies growing outside common capitalist logics, recognizing their potential to bypass or even reconfigure dominant global trends." (Argüelles et al 2017:30)

"The challenge lies in implementing the ” transition paradigm” in poor communities in South Africa where most people are dependent on income from government grants. While many see the solution to poverty as job creation, the ” transition paradigm” explores innovative ways of creating sustainable livelihoods by harnessing unexplored assets of poor communities. The paper observes three existing communities in the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality with the objective of analysing how such models are integrated (or not) into the local economy. Thereafter aspects of a model that envisages ways that poor communities can create sustainable livelihoods, using local skills and resources, are presented. This model requires strategies for creating localised systems, including micro finance systems, local markets, community exchange networks, cooperative construction, production and distribution systems; and infrastructure and technology systems." (Cherry, 2014)

A case study of the Brighton and Hove Food Partnership "For BHFP, normalising sustainable food in the city region means ensuring that all aspects of the local food system (nutrition/cooking, growing, procurement, poverty/access, waste, distribution, retail, etc.) are transforming – BHFP is not happy with uneven progress. It also believes that normalising requires chronic issues, such as poverty, to be addressed with long-term solutions, which can only be achieved by working at different levels of the system (i.e. with individuals, communities and with policies) simultaneously." (Currant, 2015)

"The potential health and wellbeing co-benefits are directly relevant to the public health outcomes framework (Appendix 3.). Most domains link to the Transition Together / Transition Streets initiative. For example Domain 2: Tackling the wider determinants of ill health and factors which affect health and wellbeing, such as children in poverty, fuel poverty and social connectedness. This also links with excess seasonal mortality and mortality from chronic respiratory diseases in persons less than 75 years of age. Improved energy efficiency in homes could contribute significantly to this domain, particularly if targeted at those in fuel poverty. The potential social cohesion brought about by neighbours coming together through Transition Together could provide added benefit to enhance health and wellbeing." (Richardson et al 2012)

"In the final chapter in this section, Alexander discusses the question: How would an ordinary middle-class citizen deal with a lifestyle of radical simplicity? Radical simplicity, he states, does not mean poverty, which is involuntary and full of suffering and anxiety, and thus universally undesirable. Rather, it means a very low but biophysically sufficient material standard of living. His chapter directly addresses the issue of the “two types of austerity”, arguing that lifestyles of reduced consumption can be desirable if we negotiate the degrowth transition wisely, both as individuals and as communities. Indeed, it suggests that radical simplicity is exactly what consumer cultures need to shake themselves awake from their comfortable slumber, and that radical simplicity would be in our own, immediate, self-interest." (Vicens et al 2017)

"The economic dimension/impact of CBIs" (Celata and Sanna :17) "CBIs can indeed produce economic effects at different scales:" (Celata and Sanna :17) "Micro: potential benefits and costs to the individual participant and by extension to group members" (Celata and Sanna :17) "In terms of economic impacts, the literature shows that the majority of participants, when asked the most important reasons for joining CBIs, agreed "it was due to the financial savings" (Katzev 2003; Flachs 2010, p. 2) and impacts on income" (Celata and Sanna :18) "For car and bike sharing initiatives the financial savings are expected to be derived from "avoiding the cost of owning and operating a private vehicle or by making it unnecessary for people to purchase one"" (Celata and Sanna :18) "Community gardens and community farming, to give another example, deliver fresh, local, and often organic food at relatively low prices, consumers save money on comparable products available in shops." (Celata and Sanna :19) "The literature indicates that CBIs are felt to convey non-financial benefits - intangible factors such as improved health, better consumption patterns, increased physical activity, lack of stress, recreation, civic participation, etc." (Celata and Sanna :20)