The Global Fool

our planet is our village

What is regenerative leadership?
Sep14

What is regenerative leadership?

By Roberta Attanasio The world is up for re-invention—complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty call for innovative models of leadership. We’re all here to be leaders, we all need to embrace new aspects of leadership, and we all need to step into unique roles that allow our gifts and talents to shine while contributing to a life-honoring present and future. Shared leadership and purpose-driven leadership provide up-to-date paradigms aligned with current needs, which are shaped—among others—by climate change, the COVID-19 pandemic, and civil unrest. Photo by Qingbao Meng on Unsplash Shared leadership is group-based. It empowers group members by giving them leadership responsibilities—individuals within a group lead each other to achieve successful outcomes. Think in these terms: two compatible heads are better than one, three compatible heads are better than two, and so on. In the Preface of their book “Shared Leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership”, authors Craig Pearce and Jay Conger state: “Leadership is therefore not determined by positions of authority but rather by an individual’s capacity to influence peers and by the needs of the team in any given moment. In addition, each member of the team brings unique perspectives, knowledge, and capabilities to the team. At different junctures in the teams’ life, there are moments when these differing backgrounds characteristics provide a platform for leadership to be distributed among the team.” Purpose-driven leadership is a form of shared leadership based on the “why” and on the idea of shared purpose, as a contribution we want to make to our community or to the world, for example by solving a social and/or environmental issue. Here, the leaders’ driving force is the desire to solve a specific problem so to serve the greater good. Regenerative leadership is not only purpose-driven, but also focuses on solutions that aim to a future where organizations flourish, ecosystems thrive and people come alive. In their book “Regenerative Leadership: The DNA of life-affirming 21st century organisations”, authors Giles Hutchins & Laura Storm write: “Regenerative Leadership is not yet another leadership approach that applies the very same mechanistic logic that caused our problems in the first place in seeking solutions to these problems. No, this Regenerative Leadership approach deals with today’s landscape systemically. The epic challenges we face demand a wholly new way quite different from the level of thinking traditional leadership approaches have applied.” A new leadership logic must embrace the understanding of the parts and the way they interplay—“Underpinning the ability for the leader to embrace both is the re-connection and re-integration of left and right hemisphere, inner and outer, masculine and feminine, human and nature.” They cite Peter Drucker: “In times...

Read More
Farmed Salmon Develop Ear Deformities All Around the World
May31

Farmed Salmon Develop Ear Deformities All Around the World

By Roberta Attanasio Salmon farming is the fastest growing food production system in the world—accounting for 70 percent (2.4 million metric tons) of the market. Increasing demand is leading to the gradual development of responsible practices to minimize its negative impacts on the environment. Indeed, salmon farming is known to pollute the oceans, use toxic pesticides to control the spread of sea lice, foster diseases caused by viruses and bacteria, allow escapees, and deplete the stocks of forage fish—depending on the production region, 1.5 – 8 kilograms of wild fish are needed to produce one kilogram of farmed salmon. However, despite the development of the open and transparent production practices encouraged by the WWF in 2004, and currently managed by the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), salmon farming is plagued by numerous problems. A deadly algal bloom is killing millions of farmed fish salmon in Chile, causing a drop of 35% to 45% in exports this year. In addition, the recent research finding that farmed Atlantic salmon from Norway, Australia, Scotland, Canada and Chile are going deaf is both surprising and alarming, raising questions about animal welfare and conservation efforts. Farmed salmon have deformed otoliths (or fish earbones) and, as a result, poorer hearing. Otoliths are located behind a fish’s brain and are essential for hearing and balance, much like the inner ears of humans and other mammals. The typical structure of healthy otoliths is made up of calcium carbonate. However, in most farmed Atlantic salmon, the calcium carbonate is present in the otoliths in a different crystal form, leading to larger, lighter and more brittle structures. This deformity is very uncommon in wild fish. The researchers point out that the deformed earbones could be responsible for the low efficiency of conservation programs, thus explaining the origins of what, in the field, is considered a long-standing mystery. Every year, billions of captive-bred juvenile salmon are released into rivers worldwide to boost wild populations, but their survival is 10-20 times lower than that of wild salmon. The new finding may help explain this low survival rate. Hearing loss could prevent fish from detecting predators, and restrict their ability to navigate back to their home stream to breed. Researchers do not know what the triggering factor for earbone deformity is—they speculate it could be something in the fish’s diet, or a genetic component unique to the salmon selected to be farmed, or it could be related to their abnormally rapid growth rate. Salmon farming is a work in progress. Knowledge and experience, along with commitment to sustainable practices, are necessary for successful production. The unexpected finding of hearing loss in farmed salmon...

Read More
Circular Economy: Turning Waste into Resources
May09

Circular Economy: Turning Waste into Resources

By Roberta Attanasio We take, we make, we dispose — in this daily process, we deplete irreplaceable natural resources and generate not only massive waste, but also extensive environmental and health hazards. Our current economy — or linear economy — is based on the take-make-dispose approach. However, this approach is not sustainable. We need to ask ourselves a crucial question: how can we generate clean prosperity today, while preserving resources and ecological functions for use by future generations? In other words, how can we build a sustainable economy? The answer is: we can do so by adopting a new approach, one based on the so-called circular economy. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, a circular economy is one that is restorative by design, and which aims to keep products, components and materials at their highest utility and value at all times, distinguishing between technical and biological cycles. In the circular economy, materials and products are reused, repaired, refurbished and recycled. Waste can be turned into resources. The inspiration for the circular economy approach is nature. Waste does not exist in nature, because ecosystems reuse everything that grows in a never-ending cycle of efficiency and purpose. Thus, the circular economy approach is based on an economic system in which no materials are wasted. In such a model, “Instead of selling products, we should retain ownership and sell their use as a service, allowing us to optimize the use of resources. Once we sell the benefits of the products instead of the products themselves, we begin to design for longevity, multiple reuse, and eventual recycling. This requires a new generation of materials as well as innovative development and production processes. In addition, we need to define new business models and redefine the concept of legal ownership and use, public tendering rules, and financing strategies. And we need adaptive logistics and a leadership culture that embraces and rewards the circular economy.” The video below, by the European Commission, is a fascinating tour of different creative approaches that are now being used to move towards a circular economy....

Read More
Neonicotinoid Pesticides: Bad for Bees, Bad for Many Other Species
May06

Neonicotinoid Pesticides: Bad for Bees, Bad for Many Other Species

By Roberta Attanasio Do neonicotinoid pesticides harm bees? According to scientific evidence, the answer is “yes”. Indeed, scientific evidence for the toxic effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees is accumulating at an increasing pace. And, on the basis of scientific evidence, the European Commission banned in 2013 the use of three neonicotinoids — clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam — on flowering plants. The ban was motivated by findings from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA); these findings were based on the evaluation of the scientific studies available at the time. Now, a report from the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC) emphasizes that bees are not the only species affected by the use of these pesticides. The report is based on the findings of an international group of independent scientists with expertise ranging from pollination biology through systems ecology to toxicology. According to the report, there is more and more scientific evidence that widespread use of neonicotinoids has severe effects on species that are important for pollination, natural pest control, and soil productivity. For example, predatory insects such as parasitic wasps and ladybugs that aid in pest control, and earthworms that improve soil productivity, are all harmed. In addition, neonicotinoid use has a negative impact on biodiversity. Neonicotinoids are neurotoxic (poisonous to nerves or nervous tissue of insects and other organisms), and act systemically in the plants — their solubility in water allows them to be absorbed and spread via the plant’s vascular system to all of its tissues. They reach leaves, flowers, roots and stems, even pollen and nectar, and become toxic not only to sap-sucking pests such as aphids or mealybugs, but also to any other species that harvest the different parts of the plant. In addition, exposure is possible across trophic levels, as for example in the case of bees foraging on honey dew, predators exposed through ingesting prey, or soil organisms decomposing contaminated organic matter. There is also evidence for sub-lethal effects of very low levels of neonicotinoids, over extended periods of time, on non-target beneficial organisms. Repeated sub-lethal doses may eventually become deadly once a certain threshold is passed. The EASAC report acknowledges that use of all pesticides is based on the balance between the desired effect on food production and the inevitable risk of collateral damage to non-target species and the environment. However, for neonicotinoids, scientific evidence accumulated over the last two years suggests that, rather than balance, there in imbalance —  the risk of collateral damage is too high when compared to the benefits. Peter Neumann, EASAC’s Chair of the Working Group, wrote in an article published in the journal Nature that the...

Read More
Clean Air: The Effects of U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standards on Human Health
May04

Clean Air: The Effects of U.S. Power Plant Carbon Standards on Human Health

By Roberta Attanasio A little more than a year ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) reported that in 2012 around 7 million people died — accounting for one in eight of total global deaths — as a result of exposure to air pollution. These estimates more than doubled the previous ones, and confirmed that air pollution is now the world’s largest single environmental health risk. The WHO concluded that reducing air pollution globally could save millions of lives. But, what policy changes would be most effective at saving lives? The answer comes from a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change (May 4, 2015.) The study, (US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits), was based on data from the Census Bureau as well as detailed maps of the more than 2,400 fossil-fuel-fired power plants operating across the U.S. It outlines how changes in carbon dioxide emissions could lead to considerable health benefits for the U.S population. According to the WHO, the diseases caused by air pollution include ischemic heart disease (40%), stroke (40%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (11%), lung cancer (6%), and acute lower respiratory infections in children (3%). For the new study, the researchers analyzed three possible policy options for power plant carbon standards. The policy option leading to the biggest health benefits was the one that included changes proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June 2, 2014, in the Clean Power Plan. Modeling analysis indicated that this option could prevent an expected 3,500 premature deaths in the U.S. every year, and avert more than a thousand heart attacks and hospitalizations annually from air pollution-related illness. Thus, according to the study, the formula presented in the draft Clean Power Plan is on the right track to provide large health benefits, and these health benefits depend entirely on critical policy choices that will be made by the EPA in the final Clean Power Plan expected in July. The Plan is the nation’s first attempt to establish standards for carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. It is also viewed as an important signal of U.S. leadership in the run-up to international climate negotiations in Paris in December. Jonathan Buonocore, one of the researchers involved in the study, said in a press release: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Power plants are the nation’s largest source of carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to climate change. However, they release not only carbon dioxide, but also other pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter — precursors to smog and...

Read More