“INVESTING IN SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE WORLDWIDE”

“INVESTING IN SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE WORLDWIDE” (Role of the Engineering Community) International Roundtable Organized by ASCE, together with the World Bank and the World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO). General Information The International Roundtable “Investing in Sustainable Infrastructure Worldwide” was held in Chicago, USA, last October 19, 2006, in the Westin Chicago River North Hotel, as part of the “International Program” of “ASCE Annual Conference”. In conjunction with this conference, ASCE also hosted the annual meetings of the Executive Council of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, all these within the week of October 15 - 22. The Roundtable key questions, prepared by Henry (Hank) Hatch, Chair of ASCE International Activities Committee, to be considered and discussed by the participants, were: 1. How should engineers work with other professionals such as economists, environmental and social specialists, lawyers and financiers to help assess the soundness and cost-effectiveness of proposed projects? How can they support the World Bank and the international lending/financing communities’ efforts to assist client governments in their infrastructure investments? 1 2. How can the engineering profession most effectively influence a country’s project decision-making processes? 3. Why aren’t engineers working more closely with the development community to support the Millennium Development Goals? Isn’t this something the engineering community supports? If so, how can engineers and the World Bank and the international lending/financing community collaborate more in the advancement of these goals? 4. What are the specific contributions the engineering community can make to address corruption at the project level? Will "hotlines" or "blacklisting" work? How effective were past initiatives? What new ideas are out there? 5. Capacity building is an obvious and important outcome of “Investing in Sustainable Infrastructure Worldwide”. In your view, do current international lending/financing programs have capacity building as a sufficiently strong component? Is enough being done? How can the World Bank’s programs be structured to better tap specifically the engineering community’s experience in capacity building? ASCE invited selected people and institutions to attend this Roundtable, especially Ms. Katherine Sierra, Vice President of Sustainable Development at the World Bank, who was asked to make the keynote address. Her presentation “Infrastructure and Sustainable Developing: Planning Now for a Better World” was handed in to participants some days before the event. During this Roundtable, Henry “Hank” Hatch was the keynote speaker and moderator, supported by Michael Sanio, ASCE Director of International Alliances, as rapporteur. 2 Engineer Conrado Bauer participated in the meeting on behalf of the Pan American Academy of Engineering. He prepared the paper attached hereinafter, which was used to support his presentation and to make its summary in power-point format. 3 “INVESTING IN SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE WORLDWIDE” (Role of the Engineering Community) by Conrado E. Bauer(*) It is a great honor for me to take part in this Roundtable as representative of API, the Pan American Academy of Engineering. As you know, our Academy(**) is a non governmental organization, made up of distinguished engineers from all over America, proposed as “titulars” by the national engineering associations that form UPADI (the Pan American Union of Engineering Associations) or directly invited by the Academy as corresponding members (international). Its statutory purpose is “To constitute and maintain an international environment of hierarchy, propitious for the presentation, study and discussion of the progress of knowledge in engineering and technology, and for the diffusion of the achievements and results of the activities of engineers in benefit of humanity. To identify and opportunely analyze all problems related to the profession, that help towards the scientific and technological progress of engineering as part of the economic and socio-cultural development of countries”. In compliance with these objectives, API considers that it is very convenient to contribute with its points of view to the analysis that ASCE proposes with this invitation to discuss about “Investing in Sustainable Infrastructure Worldwide”. (*) Civil Engineer (UNLP). Past President of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations (WFEO). Member of the Pan American and the Argentine Academies of Engineering, and of the Argentine Academy of Environmental Sciences. President of the Advisory Council of the CEEDS/ITBA (Center of Strategy Studies for Sustainable Development, Buenos Aires, Argentina). E-mail: bauer@bcl.edu.ar (**) e-mail: apingenieria@apingenieria.org / presidencia@apingenieria.org Internet: www.apingenieria.org 4 The planning, building, use and maintenance of infrastructure directly affect people’s lives and habits and are a matter of special interest for the construction industry worldwide, including engineering associations and institutions in their leading role. Following the order of the five key questions proposed by ASCE for this Roundtable, I will make some reflections which are based on the experiences learnt during my participation in these engineering organizations and professional activities. But before dealing with these five points, I would like to discuss a particular concept: – Sustainable Clarifications Development and Sustainable Infrastructure Some First of all, I would like to clarify that every time I say “sustainable infrastructure”, I refer not only to the building and use of infrastructure that is inherently sustainable in the sense that its cost, quality and duration are appropriate to accomplish its purpose, but also –and primarily– to the fact that its objective and effects have been thought and chosen to contribute and serve to an effective advance in the process that leads to sustainable development. The contrary may occur in reality when the construction of “sustainable infrastructure” does not help “sustainable development” or may even impair it (for example, the drying out of Florida swamps). To avoid misinterpretations, I clarify that when I mention “sustainable infrastructure” I mean “infrastructure for sustainable development”. The difference is not a play upon words. With this, I want to point out that the expression “sustainable development” cannot be divided into the two words that form it but it should be taken as a wide, integrated and unified concept. Its own unequivocal meaning was unanimously built and consolidated during the three most relevant international conferences summoned by United Nations Organization on environmental matters and development: Stockholm (1972) on “human environment”, Rio de Janeiro (1992) on “environment and development” and Johannesburg (2002) on “sustainable development”. The “Rio Declaration” 5 clearly established that “Human beings are the centre of concern for sustainable development” and that “in order to achieve sustainable development, environment protection shall constitute an integral part of the development process and cannot be considered in isolation from it”. The “Agenda 21”, action plan prepared in Rio to address the pressing problems of development related to the 21st century, affirmed these premises in its proposals of concrete implementation. The purposes and meaning of “sustainable development” were unanimously confirmed in Johannesburg by the “Millennium Development Goals”(*), ratifying the previous statement approved in New York at the dawn of the third millennium (year 2000) by the heads of 189 States, who set forth in the first place the intention of “eradicating extreme poverty and hunger” and finished encouraging the development of “a global partnership for development”. These objectives inspired the “Millennium Program”, established in Johannesburg as the action plan that updates or expands the Agenda 21. All this leads me to insist that it is not enough to propose that human actions, and, in particular, infrastructure, should be “sustainable”; their contribution to “sustainable development” and, consequently, to the social and economic betterment, emphasizing the eradication of poverty and segregation, should also be made clear, as recently stated by the World Bank in its latest “Progress Report on Infrastructure”: “Infrastructure has a central role in the development agenda and is a major contributor to growth, poverty reduction and achievement of the Millennium Development Goals”. 1. Multidisciplinarity, Interaction and Synergy for Sustainable Development(**) It is clear that a visionary solidarity should go beyond goods intentions, overcoming with practical actions the common short-sighted selfishness. When we seek an advance towards a “sustainable human development”, we focus on meeting real (*) (**) See part 3 hereinafter. Key question 1 of the proposed themes (see “General Information” in page 1); the following parts 2 to 5 correspond to the same “list of themes”. 6 needs, not only the material ones but also cultural, spiritual and personal, of human development. This leads us, particularly in the practice of engineering, to rise above the physical or organizational structure we want to change and ask ourselves how we can contribute, with our works and productive and systemic proposals, to serve to the equitable and integrative development of society in general. We know that engineering and its creations, and technology applications are mainly responsible for the transformation of the physical environment, both improving it or, as it often happens, harming it. This was observed and caused negative reactions against engineering and technology during the second half of the 20th century. After Rio Conference and its Agenda 21 (and accepting that the necessary clarifications have been made and the responsibilities of engineering and technology have been assigned and assimilated) we can renew our confidence on them, thus encouraging the required process of environmental recovery and protection we seek, which will be enhanced by correcting the mistakes of the past and promoting actions aimed at an integral, true and sustainable development. At present, and from this point of view, engineering can only be conceived (and accepted) as a profession which plans and develops its projects within an analysis process of costs and benefits –in economic, social and environmental terms– carried out with scientific and technical rigor and open minds, accepting that we, as engineers, control only a part of the solution. To optimize it integrating a growing search of the social and human progress to our proposals –without resigning our responsibility of leading the physical and technological development– we should improve our evaluations and actions, sharing a multidisciplinary interaction with environmental and social specialists, economists, politicians, experienced lawyers and financiers, and also with philosophers, theologians and artists, to know them, develop languages in common, and work with them or, at least, strive ourselves to introduce their concepts and inputs in our creations and knowledge. It is by doing 7 this that we can achieve a mutually advantageous synergy to face together, with enriched knowledge, reasoning and determination, and better possibilities of success, the challenge of fulfilling effectively the sustainable development, the sustainable human development. To this purpose and to its better understanding and further applications by us, as engineers, and also by professionals of different disciplines, as well as by other development leaders and actors, we should simultaneously advance in a conceptual clarification of our mission as human beings, and push to update and improve education, particularly including university level standards and master and doctor programs, with explicit references to the ethics of professional activities and to philosophical, scientific and technological back-up of them so that all professions can understand each other and give interdisciplinary support and human completeness to development. The practical difficulties that the integral accomplishment of this proposal encompasses should not delay its effective application, though partial, and should point out that a coincidence on its essential principles can let us begin immediately to assess with a wider sense the soundness and cost-effectiveness of proposed projects and to support decision criteria and, particularly, the efforts of the World Bank and other institutions of the international lending/financing community, to assist client governments (and even private firms) in their infrastructure investments. To fully achieve these purposes, the procedures to establish and assess the effects of investments on the environment and on the overcoming of poverty and their impact on sustainable development, should be continuously controlled and revised. The question is how to appreciate better the benefits and costs of contributing to protect the environment and of reducing the isolation and poverty of segregated groups. I think that the academic community has a lot to research and say about these matters, revising and updating criteria and methods. In turn, the 8 World Bank, together with other financing institutions and large multinational corporations, should promote these proposals, supporting and participating in the research of improved analytical instruments to optimize project evaluations. The selection and analysis of investment projects may also be more effective through the steadily growing participation of representatives of organizations such as WFEO and others, which can cooperate with the evaluations of the World Bank in the technical and economic aspects or by creating multidisciplinary working teams. 2. The Engineering Profession and its Influence over a Country’s Project Decision-making Processes It is evident that engineering (including in this expression the different branches of engineering as well as other related professions such as surveying, architecture or urbanism) is the main responsible for the preparation of investment projects, whose realization alters the physical world. This lets us state that engineers are the professionals who best know the subject and, consequently, that they should have an active participation in the country’s project decision-making processes. However in many countries this is not a real practice. The decision-making process as regards public investments is frequently in charge of governmental officers who are appointed due to connections with the government or the influence of political parties; consequently, these positions –though basically technical– are often taken by people who are not involved with engineering. In private companies, sometimes engineers are also left aside in decision processes as regards investments but to a lesser extent because stockholders or owners need a more strict and reliable analysis in search of efficiency to improve the profitability of investments. 9 Is it desirable that the engineering profession has greater influence on decisionmaking processes related to investments and, particularly, to infrastructure investment? In principle, I believe it should, because the engineer is a doer par excellence, trained to design, carry out and assess investment projects, and encouraged by his vocation and education to adopt a dynamic attitude towards the improvement and better knowledge of the systems of effective actions, of administration and production methods, of invention, evaluation, organization, financing and innovation processes and of the features and behavior of products. To spread this concept as a habit and to make engineers participate more actively in related administration and decision processes, it should be convenient that: 1) engineers do not isolate themselves from society, from social processes, and do not get used to staying in their design offices or inside factories, in construction sites or research laboratories, without interaction with the community problems, meetings and activities; 2) besides his human and professional hierarchy, it is important for the engineer to be seen –and truly be– a dynamic and technically qualified social agent, committed with the general interest so that he can be better informed to carry out his profession and be better appreciated and referred to as a decision-maker in the areas of his competence; 3) on the other hand, he should be trained and motivated to work in multidisciplinary teams (and also able to lead them) and to enhance his tasks with an interdisciplinary approach; 4) moreover, he should actively participate in public debates and audiences dealing with the convenience of large investments and projects; and he should give his opinions and knowledge as well as state his position that the possible conclusions should not be decided upon or taken to public contestation before the professionals responsible for the project have widely informed the public opinion about the scopes, purposes and selection of alternatives, so as to prevent that important projects can be approved or refused on wrong basis; 5) finally, to be admitted (and necessary) in decision-making processes, it should become true, known and clear that engineering professionals prepare their projects and proposals with the strictest technical and economic rigor, and with a sound assessment of 10 environmental and social costs and benefits, gradually including, encouraged by the interdisciplinary dialogue, the analyses and conclusions on their contributions to reduce or overcome poverty, marginalization and social segregation and, consequently and considering foreseen effects, to advance towards the fulfillment of sustainable development. The task of social visibility and responsibility should be taken on by all engineers but, particularly, by the organizations that represent them. This representation can only be real and effective if the majority of individual engineers plays an active role in these organizations, participating in their debates and meetings and forming part of their technical committees and executive boards. And this mission and individual commitment of participation should be assumed by engineers within all the different stages that make up engineering organizations, in technical aspects as well as social and political matters related to institutional structures, thus including the work and support of local, national and regional entities up to the international level, represented by the World Federation of Engineering Organizations, whose secretariat is located in the building of UNESCO in Paris. It is only through the strengthening of their representative institutions and their active participation in the exposition of ideas, discussion and proposals of actions regarding problems of general interest related to engineering that engineers will be taken into account and consulted in decision-making processes, particularly about investments in the areas of infrastructure, services, and technological research and development. We have already mentioned in previous paragraphs our opinion on the attitudes that engineering institutions should adopt if they consider convenient that individual engineers should have executive positions or participate personally (or preferably institutionally) in project decision-making processes in their own countries, and in the different governmental levels (national, provincial and municipal). We can further add that we believe it is necessary that representatives of engineering 11 institutions form part, permanent and organically, of advisory bodies –if they exist– and maintain active contacts with the decision areas of technical agencies of the Executive as well as with similar working or counseling committees of the Legislative or the Judicial Power. In the international scenario, the active and responsible presence of engineers and their representative institutions in decision-making processes on related topics is also highly desirable. Entities such as the World Bank (as her Vice President of Sustainable Development is doing today in this Roundtable), the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) and other developing funds, and regional banks, should promote periodic meetings with representatives of engineering organizations to exchange and analyze information and opinions and, if viable, invite professional associations to send members to form evaluation committees of engineering projects. The White Paper prepared by Ms. Kathy Sierra agrees on this idea stating that: “In order to move ahead, it would be good for staff from the World Bank to sit down with engineers representing your organizations” (referring to ASCE and WFEO) “to form a working group or committee on future cooperation”. Besides, national engineering organizations should also feel responsible and participate actively in the discussion and design of sustainable development programs of their own countries. In 1999, the Presidency of the World Bank, then chaired by James Wolfensohn, sent a circular to its offices all over the world stating the inconvenience of proposing, from the Bank top-down, the development policies to be established in each country. Experience had already shown the continuous failures of that method and the standstill of development processes carried out in underdeveloped countries. To overcome these difficulties, Wolfensohn suggested encouraging the identification and responsibility for action of the sectors that should greatly influence the preparation and implementation of development plans in each country: governments, the business sector and the civil society, complementing them by international agencies of the United Nationals and 12 multilateral credit organizations. Within this responsibility structure, the suggestion was to cooperate within the non governmental “civil society” of each country to begin bottom-up processes, organizing primary proposals and giving advices to encourage business groups and the government to integrate and complete development programs. Consequently, plans were designed according to the thorough, sound and reliable knowledge of the reality of each country, its objectives and the capacity of people to participate and agree on programs to encourage sustainable development, taking into account its problems, idiosyncrasy and social, economic and cultural potential. In 2000, the World Bank began supporting some projects with this approach. The world engineering took note of this then new policy of the Bank but only the Pan American organization tried to incorporate it and put it into practice. The UPADI Convention held in Panamá in 2000 resolved to recommend to all its members (national engineering associations) that they should undertake the initiative to call other organizations representative of the civil society of their own countries to begin a process to discuss and establish objectives and plans for sustainable development so that they could be later proposed and discussed with all the other actors and decision-makers in development processes. In Argentina and in compliance with this recommendation, the Argentine Union of Engineering Organizations (UADI), which I then chaired, began in May 2001 with the realization of a successful “National Engineering Forum”(*). This Forum joined all national engineering associations, universities, schools and related organizations, which discussed several aspects of engineering education and professional practice and approved concrete programs for the “participation of engineering in decision-making scenarios on development policies”. The devastating political and economic crisis that Argentina suffered immediately after (*) UADI spread the content and the proposals of the Forum in a publication “Anales del Foro Nacional de la Ingeniería”, at the end of 2001. 13 this, at the end of that same year 2001 until 2002, ruined these promising intentions of engineering in Argentina. On the other hand, the general weakness of engineering institutions in Latin American developing countries, and their limitations to comply with their commitments, to obtain financial support, to assume a leading role and to have access to proper levels of spreading of information, general consent and social recognition, together with the shortage of the necessary economic resources to carry out a sound development program, hindered the enthusiasm shown in Panama and diluted a hopeful process which failed before it had begun to generate results. In order to rescue these possibilities, the World Bank could revise the proposals prepared at the beginning of the millennium and agree with engineering organizations on a joint policy, clearly structured with the proper practical organization and financing support. This could allow the promotion of national and regional plans to be put into practice gradually, considering priorities of strategic infrastructure works and services whose fulfillment could mean an advance towards the sustainable human development. 3. The Millennium Development Goals The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were agreed upon in a meeting of 189 chiefs of States in UNO´s headquarters in New York in 2000, at the beginning of the third millennium. These goals include eight themes: 1. Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger; 2. Achieve universal primary education; 3. Promote gender equality and empower women; 4. Reduce child mortality; 14 5. Improve maternal health; 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; 7. Ensure environmental sustainability; 8. Develop a global partnership for development. The UN International Conference “World Summit on Sustainable Development” that took place in Johannesburg in 2002 adopted and reaffirmed the MDGs and, complementarily, defined five key priority areas for international action: water, energy, health, agriculture and food, and biodiversity (WEHAB). Besides, the Conference approved the preparation of a special plan to design and put into action the programs, specifying the level of accomplishment of the goals for the year 2015 (for example, halve the proportion of people whose income was less than $1 a day). In compliance with this guideline, Kofi Annan, UN SecretaryGeneral, took on the responsibility of the preparation of the “Millennium Project”, distributing the work among ten task forces (TF) commissioned to analyze and propose the best strategies to achieve the “Millennium Development Goals”. The first group dealt with “poverty and economic development”; the tenth task force (TF 10) on “science, technology and innovation” was coordinated by Calestous Juma from Harvard University together with the then President of the World Federation of Engineering Organizations Dato Lee Yee-Cheong from Malaysia(*). TF 10 submitted its final report(**) in June 2005 and its recommendations, together with those of the other groups, formed the UN “Millennium Project”(***) which was presented by Kofi Annan to the UN General Assembly in September 2005. The Assembly approved the Project whose concrete implementation is responsibility of each country. It is highly advisable that we, particularly all engineers as well as other professionals participating in this Roundtable, know this project and strive ourselves to promote its accomplishment, at national and global levels. (*) (**) (***) He also participated in Chicago International Roundtable, together with the present WFEO President, Kamel Ayadi, and other representatives of the world engineering. “Innovation: Applying Knowledge in Development”. www.unmillenniumproject.org 15 WFEO, with the leadership of their then Presidents José Medem, and PresidentElect Dato Lee Yee Cheong, had in 2001 and 2002 a very active participation cooperating with UNO in the preparation of the Johannesburg Conference. After it, as we have already remembered, Dato Lee, WFEO President between 2003 and 2005, worked hard and summoned many international relevant engineers to collaborate in the task developed by TF 10 to prepare strategies to put in action and effectively fulfill the “Millennium Project” (thus complying with the decision of Johannesburg in 2002, supporting the previous “Millennium Development Goals”, agreed upon in New York in 2000). WFEO also represented the world engineering contributing with initiatives and attended the annual meetings of the “Commission for Sustainable Development” at UNO’s headquarters. In spite of all this, we must admit that, in general, these key actions have not been followed with the necessary dynamics, attention, and collaboration by the national engineering organizations. Now we must spread, strengthen and relaunch both the MDGs information and comprehension as an effective measure to help their concrete fulfillment on the part of engineers and their local, national and regional organizations. To support these purposes, it is convenient to remember that the General Assembly of the United Nations approved in 2005 the document “2005 World Summit Outcome” which reaffirms “that each country must take primary responsibility for its own development” and that “national efforts should be complemented by supportive global programs, measures and policies aimed at expanding the development opportunities of developing countries”. To this end, between other actions, the UN 2005 General Assembly exhorted “To adopt, by 2006, and implement comprehensive national development strategies to achieve the internationally agreed development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals”. Moreover, the UN 2005 General Assembly stated that “we welcome the positive contributions of the private sector and civil society, including non-governmental organizations, in the promotion and implementation of 16 development and human rights programs and stress the importance of their continued engagement with Governments, the United Nations and other international organizations in these key areas”. I believe that this is what we are pursuing in this Roundtable. A continuous and persistent complementation of actions between the World Bank and the world engineering should move all engineering national organizations to disseminate and encourage in their own countries the knowledge and active consideration, adaptation, adoption and implementation of strategies and concrete actions to achieve the MDGs. Only thus, will there be a true advance towards the fulfillment of the goals established to achieve an equitable and harmonic world. An excellent opportunity of international relevance to promote this mobilization to spread the MDGs, particularly among young engineers and advanced students of engineering schools and professors, is the award Mondialogo(*) “Intercultural Dialogue and Exchange”, sponsored by UNESCO (Paris) and Daimler-Chrysler (with headquarters in Stuttgart, Germany). After the first 2004-2005 Mondialogo Award which was very successful and joined young engineers from more than 80 countries to participate in “finding solutions for a better world”, there is nowadays a second contest for 2006-2007. The organizers of this Award explain that “The Mondialogo Engineering Award encourages engineering students in developing and developed countries to form international teams and to create project proposals that address the United Nations Millennium Development Goals – especially poverty reduction and sustainable development to improve the quality of life in the developing world”. Mondialogo Engineering Awards of € 20,000 will go to each of ten teams, composed of students from two countries, one developing and one developed, with the top project proposals. Additionally, € 5,000 will be given to the each of the following twenty teams. (*) www.mondialogo.org 17 I think that these contests offer an ideal possibility to make the MDGs known and, at the same time, foster the international and intercultural dialogue, understanding and cooperation of young people. It could be very encouraging and of great practical value if the World Bank and WFEO could jointly promote this type of initiatives which is one of the best and most innovative ways for young engineers, students and academicians, of approaching the MDGs 4. Ethics, Integrity and Corruption in Engineering Services and Construction Contracts We ask ourselves how we engineers must behave when faced with corruption affairs. We all know that engineering is a university profession. This means that, as a profession, and similarly to what happens with medicine or law, those practicing it must accept and be identified with the idea that it constitutes the “practice, in the spirit of service to the community and public, of an erudite art born from university education and experience”(*). As stated in this quotation by the Peruvian engineer Héctor Gallegos, ex-president of the Academy of Engineers of Peru, due to his condition of a university professional, the engineer is a member of a corporation composed of individuals to whom society, apart from the monopoly of the activity in its technical domain, has given very special responsibilities and, among others, one that is essential: to develop the spirit of service to the community and the public. This spirit of service irrevocably demands from the engineer, who has “professed” and consequently taken on, public and freely, his professional vocation, to practice it with integrity and ethical values which should be present in all his activities. In that book, Gallegos points out (page 55) that “the elements of (*) Héctor Gallegos, free translation into English of “La ingeniería - Ética” (Engineering – Ethics). Fondo Editorial UPC, Lima, Perú, 1999. 18 professional behavior are the following: 1) Sensitivity to the ethical content of situations; i.e. to right and wrong matters. 2) Capacity to choose the correct behavior in each particular situation. 3) Commitment and courage to behave correctly regardless of the consequences”. In an increasing order of spiritual hierarchy, the professional should not only have and show the technical knowledge and ability inherent to his specialty (and do not accept the tasks which exceed his capacity) but also meet the legal, deontological and ethical requirements. Consequently, his behavior should observe three imperatives: 1) the law approved and applied by the State; 2) Codes or rules of conduct, obligations or deontology, established and controlled, in general, by colleagues in institutions authorized by the State; 3) his ethical conscience and religious or philosophical beliefs which make him distinguish between morally wrong and right acts (though these have not been punished in the two first categories). I make these reflections and remarks to point out that, in his capacity as professional with the special rights and duties society has given him (even more in the case of a profession such as engineering whose actions have direct consequences on people’s health and security) the engineer should comply strictly with these imperatives and, at the same time, within the sphere of his knowledge and influence, he should prevent others from disregarding the proper rules of conduct. In particular, he should react if he becomes aware of cases of transgressions that include corruption or bribery. The action (denunciation or accusation) may be carried out at different levels considering the seriousness or continuity of the wrongdoing: 1) to the wrongdoer asking him to correct his fault; 2) to the bosses or clients of the engineer who made the mistake; 3) to professional entities which represent engineers such as nongovernmental organizations (engineering centers and associations); 4) to the professional committees of ethics or associations appointed by the State to apply 19 the “codes of ethics” or “codes of conducts”; 5) finally, to civil or criminal courts, according to the case. With these comments, I do not want to suggest that every engineer should become a civil hero or a “justice seeker”; but what I want to say is that each engineer should be aware and appreciate the importance of his responsibility towards his colleagues and society in general. If his character, personality or willpower are not strong enough to act by himself, the use of ”hot-lines” could be a practical solution though it is not ethically advisable. The cases of proven transgressions must be explicit and publicly punished and spread. From its beginning, the engineering community has made specific contributions to address corruption and ethical deviations. Without dating back to the creation of the Institution of Civil Engineers in London (1828), and particularly referring to organizations that I personally know, I can mention the “Code of Environmental Ethics for Engineers”, approved in 1985, under my presidency, by WFEO Committee on Engineering and Environment, and then adopted by WFEO and many engineering organizations all over the world; “WFEO Code of Ethics”, updated in 1995 and 2003; UPADI’s “Model Code of Ethics”, approved in 2003 and adopted by API with some modifications; etc. But besides these general codes, we should point out the particular concern of the world engineering about the ethical damages (and economic, since the resources assigned to development are reduced since they are partially absorbed by wrong practices) caused by corruption and bribery in the field of engineering and in the construction industry. This concern has been stressed during the last years, causing discussions and statements. Among them, we should mention the attitude of ASCE, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and express our recognition for the courage with which it put forward the problem in 2004, when it adopted the “Guidelines and Policies Encouraging Zero Tolerance for Bribery”. 20 The Pan American Academy of Engineering (API), the organization I represent in this international Roundtable, explicitly supported these guidelines in January 2005. According to the statements of its President, engineer Miguel A. Yadarola, this first act of awareness among the members (of API) that represent 18 countries in the Americas, was followed by the creation of a high-level commission chaired by the present member and Past President of WFEO, the Academician Dr. William J. Carroll, who proposed the “Anticorruption Policy”, adopted by the Board of Directors in Aruba, on October 13, 2005. This policy is now part of the Code of Ethics for the Members of the Academy, officially approved during its Plenary Session, held last September in Atlanta, USA. Among other recommendations, this “Anticorruption Policy ” states in item 3 that “All Members shall adopt for the Pan American Academy of Engineering the norms of the Business Integrity Management Systems of FIDIC –International Federation of Consulting Engineers– , and the principles established in the new ASCE Code of Ethics prepared with the concept of “zero tolerance” for bribery and corruption; besides they shall support the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption”. To discuss and spread these actions and decisions, API promoted, also during its meeting in Atlanta last September 2006, the organization of the Forum on “Ethics and Integrity in Providing Engineering Services”, which was successful with the participation of relevant guest speakers. Apart from all this, in October 2005 during WFEO General Assembly held in San Juan de Puerto Rico, the “Engineer’s Charter” against corruption was made known and signed by many participants, leaders of engineering societies worldwide. In that meeting, WFEO appointed its Anti-Corruption Task Group (ACTG), chaired by its Past President, José Medem. The activities of this group began in 2005, updating the Code of Ethics of WFEO, advising WFEO members and cooperating with other international organizations in anti-corruption action and preparing several reports, among others the article “The Humanitarian Reasons for Fighting Corruption” (WFEO e-bulletin January 2006). The Chairman of the group WFEO/ACTG has also participated in international meetings on the subject and 21 has pointed out that, as the corruption issue is a global problem, a kind of alliance with the World Bank, the Regional Development Banks, Transparency International (TI), UNESCO, FIDIC, API and other international organizations should be established, in order to adopt a more efficient action worldwide to fight against corruption in engineering contracts and works. I favor that this corruption issue has been included in this international Roundtable since the discussion and implementation of dissuasive actions will clarify and ennoble our engineering profession and will optimize construction activities and the production of goods and services in general. I consider this meeting as a sign of future actions led by the World Bank, ASCE, and WFEO, jointly participating in the anticorruption campaign. A true war against corruption and bribery has been declared by our representative institutions and all of us should commit ourselves to accuse and punish corrupt individuals and firms and force them outside the professional world. It is obvious that it is not possible to eliminate dishonest tendencies in morally weak people but a continuous, decisive and active campaign against this serious problem may overcome skepticisms and obtain important advances towards the objective of eradicating corruption and corrupt individuals and firms. To this end, as FIDIC is proposing, we must stress in the first place every possible action to prevent corruption by means of proper procedures and measures. And when it is detected, there should be no doubts to punish it. I believe that a prevention action and a key challenge in this area that could be carried out with the cooperation of the World Bank, will be to spread anticorruption concepts and attitudes in the whole educational system and, particularly, in engineering colleges worldwide. The interaction and active cooperation among them and national engineering organizations, supported by WFEO, ASCE and the World Bank, could lead to the discussion of ideas and the establishment of permanent programs on the ethical education of future engineers, by means of 22 which the ethical values, together with the technical and scientific knowledge, will be the structural core of engineering education, especially at the basic and receptive stage of pre-graduation. 5. Capacity Building and Training of Engineers There is no doubt that the training, education and update of technical, economic, social and environmental knowledge of engineers are a key factor for developing nations to encourage and advance towards the true accomplishment of their sustainable development. Engineer Russell Jones, Chairman of WFEO Standing Committee on Capacity Building since 2003, has been working hard and consistently on this subject and, among other activities, he has been editor and promoter for several years of the “International Engineering Education Digest”(*), a monthly electronic newsletter for engineering education leaders. It has very useful information on several topics, including news and international references on the progress of world engineering. It is worth mentioning that with the initiative and cooperation of Russell Jones, the Organization of American States has adopted and promoted the program called “Engineering for America”, whose purpose is to implement concrete actions for the integral improvement of engineering education and training in America and particularly in its developing countries. The structure and formal launching of this plan and the acknowledgement of its strategic value for an effective realization of the development process in American countries were presented in a meeting organized by OAS and held in Lima, in December 2005. All this deserves our support and the active participation of engineering schools and organization. However, I think it is convenient to recommend that international (*) www.worldexpertise.com 23 efforts to train engineers of developing countries should be clearly accompanied by programs to be able, after their training, to use their services and to develop their main professional activities in their own countries. Then the key purpose of educating them better so that they can effectively encourage progress in their own countries will be met. From the inside and with better knowledge and a stronger commitment with their reality, they are placed where they are useful to contribute, together with a true process of self-improvement and self-fulfillment, to promote and lead local development. On the contrary, it could be very negative that these training programs for engineers from developing countries end up as a process to choose and export to the developed world the most talented people, widening the international gap between development and underdevelopment and including a dangerous and regressive subsidy of poor countries in favor of the rich. I have extensively discussed this topic in several meetings(*), in written reports to UNESCO and API, and articles on “brain drains”, published in Argentine engineering magazines(**); the proposals of these papers were also dealt with and shared by the Pan American Academy of Engineering, in the meeting held in Aruba, in October, 2005. With the aforementioned exceptions, I consider that we all agree on the importance and usefulness of programs for capacity building of engineers. To enhance their positive effects, it could be of great value that international programs could also include as a habitual strong component the assignment of loans to finance service and infrastructure works in developing countries. Specifically, if we think of “Investing in Sustainable Infrastructure Worldwide”, it will be highly positive that the World Bank could take into account, in each particular case, the addition of (*) For example, the oral presentation of the report: Engineer’s Cooperation for Knowledge Dissemination to Promote Sustainable Development, representing WFEO in a Panel on “Global Cooperation for Knowledge Dissemination” of the “Symposium on Science and Technology for International Development”, within the framework of the Conference “Global Knowledge ´97”, organized by the World Bank and the Government of Canada. Toronto, June 22-25, 1997. Conrado E. Bauer, “La fuga de cerebros” (in English, “Brain Drains”), 1º and 2º parts, Boletín 387 y Boletín 388, Consejo Profesional de Ingeniería Civil, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2006. For the electronic updated version, both in Spanish and English write to bauer@bcl.edu.ar. (**) 24 commitment clauses with the country receiving the loan not only to employ highly qualified international engineers and consulting firms to transfer knowledge (knowhow) with the direct observation and cooperation with their work but also to organize parallel training and updating courses for local engineers. With the addition of training courses, besides those working with the project, there will be other local engineers whose knowledge is updated and expanded for the benefit of their country. Those who are part of project teams and of the management staff of the execution of the works should participate in a percentage and, once trained, they should go on working in their own countries for a minimum of years to be determined in each case. To this end, governments should commit their participation to employ after that same period of the program these engineers in public positions related to their specialization or, preferably, to promote that local consulting firms or industries hire them, even including –in extreme cases– the possibility of assigning public subsidies to their employers if necessary. 6. Conclusions I think this International Roundtable “Investing in Sustainable Infrastructure Worldwide”, organized by ASCE together with the World Bank, WFEO and special guests, is very profitable and of great symbolic and practical relevance because of its participants and its subject. The topics under consideration have been and are essential to find ways for the better use of the human, physical and financial resources assigned to infrastructure so that it can best adapt and comply with the fulfillment of the MDGs and sustainable development objectives. In particular, I would like to point out that improving the planning, basic studies and project evaluation methods of physical infrastructure, its characteristics and geographic distribution, is of practical and strategic importance. At the moment of 25 setting priorities, it is advisable to have in mind objectives such as the reduction of poverty and segregation and, without any doubt, the overcoming of isolation of certain groups as well as the protection of health and the social and physical environment, both natural and artificial. When we refer to physical infrastructure, we include that of transport (road, rails, ports, airports, ducts, stations); power production, transportation and distribution systems; freshwater provision and sewage disposal; and telecommunication systems. All these have great effects on economy and social relations. Their availability is an essential tool for geographic and social integration and, consequently, they facilitate the reduction of poverty and encourage sustainable development. Those who are nowadays studying social and economic tendencies are deeply concerned about the process of concentration of wealth, talent and power caused by the increasing impact of technological innovation. The advancement of developed countries and sectors, best capitalized in human, scientific and financial aspects, is naturally more accelerated and with more resources due to their higher level and concentration; this, in turn, widens the gap with developing and underdeveloped countries, whose growth is slower because they do not reach the critical mass necessary to push the social and economic development to the extent of getting closer to the developed world. All this causes a morally distressful situation and a growing instability that threatens social harmony and international peace. Only a clear conscience, without lies or euphemisms, about the risks derived from these seriously dissimilar processes, may call the attention of the world population, particularly of the economically and socially privileged, to carry out actions together in order to change tendencies and begin to overcome problems. As a starting point, the most powerful should play a leading role and work with generosity and solidarity. In this respect, we deeply appreciate the invitation made by UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan. He stated in 2005 that, for the first time in history, the technological progress has created “the necessary means and conditions to eradicate poverty and to live in dignity and health all over the world”. Making this 26 possibility come true is not then a utopia but an accessible though instrumentally complex enterprise. To be hopeful about it, it is necessary to begin with the political decision (and wisdom?) to go beyond selfishness and encourage the power of solidarity. However, while waiting for this decision which should not last decades, we have the duty of optimizing our intelligence, knowledge and willpower to make the best use of available resources and programs and to establish the proper conditions to adapt our needs to the real and sustainable possibilities our planet is offering us. The protection of the environment and the construction and maintenance of infrastructure, properly planned so that their benefits are accessible to all people, may be key factors to expand progress, reduce poverty and marginalization and to distribute in a more equitable way the access to health, education and work, thus facilitating the betterment of the poorest countries and sectors with the massive use of the possibilities offered by the knowledge society. The world engineering, well organized, aware and encouraged, may play a key role in this process, taking on a leading attitude. Due to its international prestige and relevance, the World Bank could adopt a pragmatic and efficient policy in accord with these ideas, with the active collaboration of ASCE and WFEO, which the Bank itself may encourage inviting them –as well as other academic and regional engineering organization– to participate regularly as permanent consulting entities. The mutual cooperation and respect will enable that the World Bank’s programs be structured to better tap specifically the engineering community’s experience in capacity building and in the better planning and execution of infrastructure for the sustainable development. 27 The “smart growth” as Vice-President Katherine Sierra has called it will be then assured. Her inspired and intelligent White Paper(*) to lead this Roundtable merits our congratulation and enthusiastic adhesion. I expressly want to state it on behalf of the Pan American Academy of Engineering. Buenos Aires, October 2, 2006(**). (*) (**) This paper has been published in Internet: www.worldbank.org Supporting paper prepared for the participation in the International Roundtable, held in Chicago last October 19. The original written in English and its translation into Spanish, required by API, have been revised and updated in March 2007. Refer to: www.apingenieria.org 28