A new job on the environment back at home in the UK has prompted much head-scratching and reflection over the past few weeks. How to contribute positively to mitigating and/or resolving the environmental challenges of our time; how to keep positive and optimistic in the face of such huge and overwhelming evidence of the damage that we are doing and the scale of the problems we face in the coming century; how to keep perspective and not feel too bleak; how to make a difference in practical, concrete terms; and how to ensure consistency between the causes one espouses and one's own way of living, in terms of ecological footprint and so on: just an indication of the sorts of questions I have been grappling with, in sometimes interminable fashion.
I had let this blog slip for a few months, due to my Colombian travels, the book writing, and the return home. But now that I am back, and in the proverbial saddle, and thinking about all of these things, I thought it might be a good time to resume writing the occasional blog, not least because it can be quite cathartic and salutary thrash these things out in the public domain, and share them with (hopefully) a sympathetic, interested readership.
Thoughts and comments welcome, on the blog or by email: edwardleodavey@gmail.com.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Monday, 4 July 2011
UK - Colombia relations on the environment (continued...)
Just back to Bogotá following a week in London with Colombia's soon-to-be Environment Minister, Sandra Bessudo. Sandra was in the UK to give a talk in Oxford at the Smith School on the Enterprise and Environment's 2011 World Forum on Biodiversity; and there were bilateral meetings with the British Government (Chris Huhne), former PM Tony Blair, and two brilliant members of the House of Lords, Nick Stern and Tony Giddens, whose work on climate change is well-known.
It was an excellent trip, and I hope and trust that much good will come out of it for the sake of the environment. In concrete terms, the best possible outcome would be the UK Government's decision to fund one or two serious projects in Colombia on low carbon growth, adaptation or REDD+ in the years ahead. This is what we are working to achieve: the political relationship between both countries on the issue is already strong.
As a Brit working for the Colombian Government, it was an unusual and enjoyable experience to represent Colombia in bilateral negotiations with the UK. Quite a few of our interlocutors were keen to understand my role, including Tony Blair, who now knows a small amount about Natalia and love being the cause of my being in Colombia.
After a week at home, I feel quite proud about all that the UK Government and academia are doing in the cause of climate change, biodiversity and so on. Imperfect though it may be, it does seem - objectively - that the UK is quite far ahead on a number of issues, not least in terms of its emissions reduction commitments and its recent public policy on natural capital.
As for Colombia, what is clear is that the country has the world to offer! An emerging middle income country; in the eyes of the Foreign Office, the most important country in Latin America after Brazil and Mexico; 50% forest cover; a low carbon growth plan under preparation; much to do on adaptation.
I hope these two countries continue to see eye to eye and that President Santos' state visit in November heralds a further strengthening of this partnership; watch this space...!
(p.s.: this article can be read in conjunction with an earlier reflection on the same issue, here)
It was an excellent trip, and I hope and trust that much good will come out of it for the sake of the environment. In concrete terms, the best possible outcome would be the UK Government's decision to fund one or two serious projects in Colombia on low carbon growth, adaptation or REDD+ in the years ahead. This is what we are working to achieve: the political relationship between both countries on the issue is already strong.
As a Brit working for the Colombian Government, it was an unusual and enjoyable experience to represent Colombia in bilateral negotiations with the UK. Quite a few of our interlocutors were keen to understand my role, including Tony Blair, who now knows a small amount about Natalia and love being the cause of my being in Colombia.
After a week at home, I feel quite proud about all that the UK Government and academia are doing in the cause of climate change, biodiversity and so on. Imperfect though it may be, it does seem - objectively - that the UK is quite far ahead on a number of issues, not least in terms of its emissions reduction commitments and its recent public policy on natural capital.
As for Colombia, what is clear is that the country has the world to offer! An emerging middle income country; in the eyes of the Foreign Office, the most important country in Latin America after Brazil and Mexico; 50% forest cover; a low carbon growth plan under preparation; much to do on adaptation.
I hope these two countries continue to see eye to eye and that President Santos' state visit in November heralds a further strengthening of this partnership; watch this space...!
(p.s.: this article can be read in conjunction with an earlier reflection on the same issue, here)
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Peace, poverty + environmental sustainability
A thought with which to begin the week, and which I have been mulling over during the past few days:
One could argue that the three trascendental challenges for the world in the 21st Century are:
1. To ensure world peace + peace between nations (i.e. nuclear disarmament; peace in Israel/Palestine; peace in the Middle East; avoidance of war between India and China; avoidance of conflict over resource shortages; tolerance between societies, cultures and religions);
2. To reduce and eliminate world poverty + inequality;
3. To ensure environmental sustainability (climate change mitigation + adaptation; biodiversity + ecosystem services conservation; food security; low carbon growth + the green economy);
Applying the same logic, one could argue that the three trascendental challenges for Colombia in the 21st Century are:
1. To arrive at and to maintain the peace; to end the tragic conflict of the past fifty or more years;
2. To reduce and hopefully to eliminate poverty + inequality in the country (Colombia being Latin America's most unequal country, and LA the world's most unequal continent);
3. To ensure environmental sustainability (climate change adaptation; low carbon growth; forests + biodiversity conservation; a healthy urban and rural environment in which Colombians can live safely, happily and healthily).
Assuming this schematic equation holds some truth, then one can proceed to argue how these three issues -- peace, poverty + the environment -- are powerfully interlinked, both globally and in the case of Colombia.
By way of a few further hypotheses to show the linkages:
1. The possibility of global conflict in some hotspots is immeasurably heightened by key resource shortages, most obviously water, both current and foreseen.
2. Economic growth, while leading to poverty reduction, has hitherto meant an increase in resource scarcity and/or environmental damage. The current economic growth model is likely to reduce poverty but to increase environmental degradation.
3. Poverty itself often exacerbates negative environmental impacts (e.g. deforestation in watersheds by poor farmers), even though it is important to acknowledge that the collective ecological footprint of the poor is much lighter than that of the rich and of global industry.
4. The effects of environmental scarcity and environmental degradation have a disproportionately negative impact on the poor, who are most vulnerable - for example - to the impacts of climate change, including flooding, droughts and air pollution, as the recent floods in Colombia demonstrated powerfully.
5. Local conflicts in Colombia, and internationally, can often be attributed to the search for control of environmentally important and/or strategic resources.
Assuming one also agrees with this cursory summary of some of the causal links which exist between peace, poverty and environment, then I would be glad to know what readers make of the following conclusions:
1. Peace in the world - and peace in Colombia - cannot be achieved without procuring both poverty reduction and environmental sustainability.
2. Poverty reduction at the expense of environmental sustainability - the current model - will imply short- to medium-term benefits for a significant percentage of the population but will not guarantee long-term prosperity for all.
3. The environmental sector in Colombia (and internationally) would do well to argue that environmental sustainability is a fundamental requisite for peace and for poverty reduction, in order to gain more space and leverage in the public debate: i.e. not environment for environment's sake (although intrinsic value arguments are valid and important too), but as the essential prerequisite for peace and for poverty reduction.
4. Those who care for global peace; for peace in Colombia; for the elimination of world poverty and inequality; and for the elimination of world poverty and inequality in Colombia: their thinking is not complete if it it does not grapple with the most difficult challenge of all to resolve, the challenge of how to ensure environmental sustainability.
As always, all thoughts welcome. Greetings to all and a happy week!
Tuesday, 14 June 2011
What does it take to be a good Minister of Environment?
I have been reflecting of late on what the key qualities of a good Minister of Environment are, whether in Colombia or anywhere in the world. To share some quick thoughts, here are the five key qualities that I have identified:
1. Outstanding moral, intellectual and personal commitment to the issue of sustainable development, sustainability and the environment. (This of course would seem to go without saying, but it's worth stressing...the stronger the commitment, I would posit, the more the Minister will seek to promote their cause - especially when the going gets tough...)..
2. A capacity to make strong, clear arguments to other Government ministries and to the private sector on environmental issues: arguments based strongly on economics, wherever possible, but also on ethics. A good Minister should have the arguments, for example, of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, or the TEEB Study on the Economics of Biodiversity, at their finger tips. In the Colombian case, the Minister should be able to rattle off statistics about the economic impact of the flooding over the past year; or on the value of the country's national parks to water provision in the big cities...
3. The ability to be a good, clear and strong negotiator with the other sectors and the Executive on the environmental cause: to cede on some points, not to cede on others, the capacity to come to binding agreements and to generate trust in a given negotiation.
4. A clear communicator in the media, public debates and with civil society: someone who is able to make the case for the environment in a clear, objective but charismatic way in the public domain and who, by doing this, wins the overwhelming support of civil society in the support of the environmental cause. I say this because I believe that civil society in the UK and elsewhere is what holds politicians to account and what generates at least some progressive legislation on the environment from time to time.
5. Someone with an international projection: i.e. a person who is aware, experienced, involved in and who excels in international debates and negotiations, and in the international discussion surrounding sustainable development. In practical terms, I refer to someone who speaks good English and who is capable to project what is being done nationally at the international level.
In summary, five qualities: commitment, argument, negotiation, communication and the international dimension.
I believe the best Environment Ministers in the world at the moment, past or present, have demonstrated a powerful combination of these factors: I am thinking of Marina Silva, the former Brazilian Environment Minister, or Jairam Ramesh, the current, charismatic Indian Minister, about whom a good profile was written recently in Newsweek.
It would be interesting to evaluate the performance of the current British Minister, Caroline Spelman, on the basis of these criteria; my instinct is that she would get a 2 out of 5 in a first analysis.
And I would also welcome reflections from Colombian friends on how these criteria would apply to our current situation here....
1. Outstanding moral, intellectual and personal commitment to the issue of sustainable development, sustainability and the environment. (This of course would seem to go without saying, but it's worth stressing...the stronger the commitment, I would posit, the more the Minister will seek to promote their cause - especially when the going gets tough...)..
2. A capacity to make strong, clear arguments to other Government ministries and to the private sector on environmental issues: arguments based strongly on economics, wherever possible, but also on ethics. A good Minister should have the arguments, for example, of the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, or the TEEB Study on the Economics of Biodiversity, at their finger tips. In the Colombian case, the Minister should be able to rattle off statistics about the economic impact of the flooding over the past year; or on the value of the country's national parks to water provision in the big cities...
3. The ability to be a good, clear and strong negotiator with the other sectors and the Executive on the environmental cause: to cede on some points, not to cede on others, the capacity to come to binding agreements and to generate trust in a given negotiation.
4. A clear communicator in the media, public debates and with civil society: someone who is able to make the case for the environment in a clear, objective but charismatic way in the public domain and who, by doing this, wins the overwhelming support of civil society in the support of the environmental cause. I say this because I believe that civil society in the UK and elsewhere is what holds politicians to account and what generates at least some progressive legislation on the environment from time to time.
5. Someone with an international projection: i.e. a person who is aware, experienced, involved in and who excels in international debates and negotiations, and in the international discussion surrounding sustainable development. In practical terms, I refer to someone who speaks good English and who is capable to project what is being done nationally at the international level.
In summary, five qualities: commitment, argument, negotiation, communication and the international dimension.
I believe the best Environment Ministers in the world at the moment, past or present, have demonstrated a powerful combination of these factors: I am thinking of Marina Silva, the former Brazilian Environment Minister, or Jairam Ramesh, the current, charismatic Indian Minister, about whom a good profile was written recently in Newsweek.
It would be interesting to evaluate the performance of the current British Minister, Caroline Spelman, on the basis of these criteria; my instinct is that she would get a 2 out of 5 in a first analysis.
And I would also welcome reflections from Colombian friends on how these criteria would apply to our current situation here....
Sunday, 29 May 2011
The UK debate on the environment
I spend most of my time at the moment thinking about environmental issues from the Colombian perspective: in particular, climate change adaptation, low carbon growth and rainforest/biodiversity/national park protection.
By climate change adaptation, I mean how Colombia can prepare better for future floods + extreme weather events; on low carbon growth, how the country can grow economically whilst maintaining its current low level of GHG emissions; and on the forests and biodiversity, I refer to conservation, debates about intrinsic value, 'ecosystem services' and the arguments which Amartya Sen cites in his 2004 LRB piece (to which I have often returned) as to 'why we should preserve the spotted owl'.
Meanwhile, however, the debate at home in the UK on environmental issues rages away and there are other issues which occupy the limelight. In particular, this week George Monbiot has written two powerful articles on the nuclear versus renewable energy debate, and on the country's emissions reductions targets, while Simon Jenkins wrote a strident piece criticising the UK Government's wind farm plans in rural Wales.
The pieces can be found here, here and here.
Amid news that the world's emissions have increased substantially over the past year, and that it now looks highly unlikely that the world will be able to prevent a 2 degree celsius net rise, the UK debate is hitting the key issues on the head.
I am convinced by Monbiot's arguments in favour of nuclear power, despite the recent tragedy in Japan (the full impacts of which we do not yet know). And I share Jenkins' concern for the aesthetic value of the countryside and nature, and hence his opposition to wind farms in such areas.
Jonathan Porritt will respond to Monbiot's piece next week; it will be good to see what he says.
What is clear is that this discussion should be the central debate of our time: and it is striking that the strongest political leaders in the world, starting with Obama, devote such little political time and capital to addressing the issue.
By climate change adaptation, I mean how Colombia can prepare better for future floods + extreme weather events; on low carbon growth, how the country can grow economically whilst maintaining its current low level of GHG emissions; and on the forests and biodiversity, I refer to conservation, debates about intrinsic value, 'ecosystem services' and the arguments which Amartya Sen cites in his 2004 LRB piece (to which I have often returned) as to 'why we should preserve the spotted owl'.
Meanwhile, however, the debate at home in the UK on environmental issues rages away and there are other issues which occupy the limelight. In particular, this week George Monbiot has written two powerful articles on the nuclear versus renewable energy debate, and on the country's emissions reductions targets, while Simon Jenkins wrote a strident piece criticising the UK Government's wind farm plans in rural Wales.
The pieces can be found here, here and here.
Amid news that the world's emissions have increased substantially over the past year, and that it now looks highly unlikely that the world will be able to prevent a 2 degree celsius net rise, the UK debate is hitting the key issues on the head.
I am convinced by Monbiot's arguments in favour of nuclear power, despite the recent tragedy in Japan (the full impacts of which we do not yet know). And I share Jenkins' concern for the aesthetic value of the countryside and nature, and hence his opposition to wind farms in such areas.
Jonathan Porritt will respond to Monbiot's piece next week; it will be good to see what he says.
What is clear is that this discussion should be the central debate of our time: and it is striking that the strongest political leaders in the world, starting with Obama, devote such little political time and capital to addressing the issue.
Wednesday, 25 May 2011
On the unhappy issue of fumigations
Today's issue, which was discussed in brief yesterday in a meeting in the World Bank with indigenous communities from the Putumayo region of the Colombian Amazon, is the Colombian Government's fumigations of the coca crop (carried out with strong US backing).
This is a highly thorny subject in Colombia, and one which I feel slightly anxious but duty-bound in addressing.
From the day I first read about the fumigations of coca, as a student at Oxford, I have been opposed to, and worried by, this phenomenon.
For those who don't know the story: over the past decades, Colombia has sprayed the coca crop with chemicals including glysophate as part of its strategy to reduce the country's drug production. I say part of the strategy: because the Government also employs people voluntarily to uproot the coca crop by hand. (Over fifty people have died in recent years doing just that, due to landmines and to being attacked by illegal armed groups).
The more one knows about the issue, the more morally complicated and ethically challenging it becomes.
Here are a few isolated observations which I hope are valid:
1. There are many hundreds - probably thousands - of stories of 'innocent' farmers and rural communities whose crops are sprayed by mistake by the chemicals, resulting in the losses of crops, health problems for the families and a huge amount of frustration and rage on the part of the affected people.
2. Many times, the good work of the state, of NGOs, and of international cooperation, providing farmers with alternative crops to coca, has been inadvertently ruined by the spraying.
3. Coca itself - the raw material for cocaine - is a product which the indigenous communities of Colombia venerate and consume as part of their cultural tradition and way of life.
4. Demand remains high for cocaine, and so - while the figures have definitely gone down in Colombia - overall global demand has been displaced to some degree elsewhere, both in the Andes, Central America and, most cruelly of all at the moment, in Mexico.
5. The Colombian conflict has been fuelled to a significant degree by the drugs trade, and narco-trafficking.
6. Many 'campesinos' and poor communities in Colombia grow coca either because there is no alternative, or because they are forced to do it by illegal armed groups, or because they earn much more money from it than they could ever hope to earn from the alternatives. Coca has been a 'bonanza' in many areas, just as other crops and raw materials (gold, coffee, emeralds, silver, etc.) have created their own bonanzas in other times.
7. The coca crop itself does definitely lead to significant deforestation; and the fabrication of cocaine alongside the riverbanks has led to much pollution of toxic chemicals into Colombia's rivers.
8. Fumigation in areas planted with coca near national parks has led those who grow coca to transfer the plantations to often exceptionally biodiverse areas within national parks. Colombian legislation in principle prevents parks from being sprayed; but one reads that the Americans are pressuring Colombia to enable spraying in the parks in order to continue to spray.
9. To some degree, strong industrial interests within the US have pushed for spraying, however controversial, to continue; while the chemicals are banned in the US, they are not banned here; and the spraying requires a whole support network of planes, pilots and infrastructure in order to be carried out.
10. In the absence of global legislation, and in a broadly prohibitionist atmosphere in the US and indeed in Colombia, it is difficult to foresee the Government(s) reducing their spraying to zero.
11. In the absence of spraying, coca production would be likely to undergo an increase, especially in some areas where state presence is weak, the conflict continues and where significant extensions of land for coca are available for use.
12. The alternative to spraying - manual erradication - is also ethically problematic, as the numbers of deaths over recent years attest.
13. A recent book published in Colombia documents in extensive detail the achievements + (multiple) flaws of the Global War on Drugs in recent decades.
14. Avaaz - the global petition side - today launched a new campaign to collect signatures to influence the drugs debate in a progressive way, and calling for decriminalisation.
15. Many experts in Colombia believe the country is uniquely well-placed to call for a global discussion on the successes and failures of the War on Drugs, and around legalisation/decriminalisation.
16. Various ex-Presidents of Colombia, strongly prohibitionist in office, become in favour of reform on leaving office. President Cesar Gaviria (1990 - 1994) is a case in point.
17. President Santos, in an interview in Semana 6 months ago, said he would be open to the debate but not to promote it unilaterally; it is contingent on legislative and political progress on the issue in other countries.
To conclude: I am in favour of legalisation and believe spraying should end. But is it legitimate for me to call for either or both of these things? Thoughts please...!
This is a highly thorny subject in Colombia, and one which I feel slightly anxious but duty-bound in addressing.
From the day I first read about the fumigations of coca, as a student at Oxford, I have been opposed to, and worried by, this phenomenon.
For those who don't know the story: over the past decades, Colombia has sprayed the coca crop with chemicals including glysophate as part of its strategy to reduce the country's drug production. I say part of the strategy: because the Government also employs people voluntarily to uproot the coca crop by hand. (Over fifty people have died in recent years doing just that, due to landmines and to being attacked by illegal armed groups).
The more one knows about the issue, the more morally complicated and ethically challenging it becomes.
Here are a few isolated observations which I hope are valid:
1. There are many hundreds - probably thousands - of stories of 'innocent' farmers and rural communities whose crops are sprayed by mistake by the chemicals, resulting in the losses of crops, health problems for the families and a huge amount of frustration and rage on the part of the affected people.
2. Many times, the good work of the state, of NGOs, and of international cooperation, providing farmers with alternative crops to coca, has been inadvertently ruined by the spraying.
3. Coca itself - the raw material for cocaine - is a product which the indigenous communities of Colombia venerate and consume as part of their cultural tradition and way of life.
4. Demand remains high for cocaine, and so - while the figures have definitely gone down in Colombia - overall global demand has been displaced to some degree elsewhere, both in the Andes, Central America and, most cruelly of all at the moment, in Mexico.
5. The Colombian conflict has been fuelled to a significant degree by the drugs trade, and narco-trafficking.
6. Many 'campesinos' and poor communities in Colombia grow coca either because there is no alternative, or because they are forced to do it by illegal armed groups, or because they earn much more money from it than they could ever hope to earn from the alternatives. Coca has been a 'bonanza' in many areas, just as other crops and raw materials (gold, coffee, emeralds, silver, etc.) have created their own bonanzas in other times.
7. The coca crop itself does definitely lead to significant deforestation; and the fabrication of cocaine alongside the riverbanks has led to much pollution of toxic chemicals into Colombia's rivers.
8. Fumigation in areas planted with coca near national parks has led those who grow coca to transfer the plantations to often exceptionally biodiverse areas within national parks. Colombian legislation in principle prevents parks from being sprayed; but one reads that the Americans are pressuring Colombia to enable spraying in the parks in order to continue to spray.
9. To some degree, strong industrial interests within the US have pushed for spraying, however controversial, to continue; while the chemicals are banned in the US, they are not banned here; and the spraying requires a whole support network of planes, pilots and infrastructure in order to be carried out.
10. In the absence of global legislation, and in a broadly prohibitionist atmosphere in the US and indeed in Colombia, it is difficult to foresee the Government(s) reducing their spraying to zero.
11. In the absence of spraying, coca production would be likely to undergo an increase, especially in some areas where state presence is weak, the conflict continues and where significant extensions of land for coca are available for use.
12. The alternative to spraying - manual erradication - is also ethically problematic, as the numbers of deaths over recent years attest.
13. A recent book published in Colombia documents in extensive detail the achievements + (multiple) flaws of the Global War on Drugs in recent decades.
14. Avaaz - the global petition side - today launched a new campaign to collect signatures to influence the drugs debate in a progressive way, and calling for decriminalisation.
15. Many experts in Colombia believe the country is uniquely well-placed to call for a global discussion on the successes and failures of the War on Drugs, and around legalisation/decriminalisation.
16. Various ex-Presidents of Colombia, strongly prohibitionist in office, become in favour of reform on leaving office. President Cesar Gaviria (1990 - 1994) is a case in point.
17. President Santos, in an interview in Semana 6 months ago, said he would be open to the debate but not to promote it unilaterally; it is contingent on legislative and political progress on the issue in other countries.
To conclude: I am in favour of legalisation and believe spraying should end. But is it legitimate for me to call for either or both of these things? Thoughts please...!
Monday, 23 May 2011
Of floods, 'La Niña', adaptation + humanitarianism
The Luis Angel Arango public library in La Candelaria organised a very stimulating and enriching public event today, with four wonderful minds discussing the Colombian floods, the deterioration of the country's ecosystems, the need to adapt to what the future climate holds, and the country's current pressing humanitarian needs.
It was one of those relatively frequent moments in Colombia which leave you scratching your head: if the quality of the people is so high, their capacity for intelligent empathy and deep understanding so acute, their commitment to resolving social problems so intense, you wonder, how can the country still face all the deep problems that it does? Where is the disconnect; where are all the entrenched interests who ignore the ethics, rigour and clarity of all the arguments put forward today? What is it in Colombian history and society which means that the kinds of principles set out in this discussion are most often overlooked?
In a hall of 100 or so people, and with further groups of people listening to the debate live in 13 or so branches of the library around the country, the two hours passed by very fast.
Everardo Murillo led the line-up: Everardo is head of 'Colombia Humanitaria', the nation's unprecedented humanitarian platform, set up during the floods at the end of the last year. Everardo is one of the best examples of the best of civil servants in Colombia: humble, serious, intelligent, full of solidarity for the poor, plain-speaking, wise, someone who's travelled right across the country over decades. From the coffee country, Everardo is well-known for having led the reconstruction of this region following the earthquake in Armenia in 1998, which killed thousands of people.
Next, Brigitte Baptiste, of whom I have written in previous blogs. Brigitte gave a fantastic, eloquent account of the impact of the floods on Colombia's biodiversity and ecosystems; a thoughtful reflection on the 'El Niño/La Niña cycle', which has gone on for hundreds and thousands of years; an intrinsically fair account of winners and losers from the current situation; and all delivered with a level of analytical clarity which made complex arguments feel absolutely clear. "We don't yet know how to live in Colombia", said Brigitte nearer the end, in a reprise of a theme she has made her own elsewhere.
Ricardo Lozano, the Meteorological Institute's Director, also spoke, giving a didactic and characteristically communicative scientific account of the current floods, replete with the graphs and data which IDEAM routinely connects. Ricardo's strong, clear argument referred to the urgent need for adaptation to climate change - both within ecosystems and communities - to the changes which are underway.
The event was chaired by a poetic, wise, elderly professor and thinker - Joaquín Molino Barrero - who spoke with tremendous clarity and foresight, adding real value both in his introduction and in his closing words. His knowledge of Colombian geography seemed intense; and his incitement to the audience that the event be only the beginning of a conversation and a reflection on these issues seemed particularly welcome.
I left feeling very renewed by the level of the debate, the scale of the challenge ahead, and the knowledge that such fine people are working on these issues. As Brigitte confided in me before it began, however apocalyptic one may feel, there is always home in humanity's creativeness and capacity to adapt; and always the need, from the ethical perspective, to do all that one can to make things better. What else is there to do, she said...!
It was one of those relatively frequent moments in Colombia which leave you scratching your head: if the quality of the people is so high, their capacity for intelligent empathy and deep understanding so acute, their commitment to resolving social problems so intense, you wonder, how can the country still face all the deep problems that it does? Where is the disconnect; where are all the entrenched interests who ignore the ethics, rigour and clarity of all the arguments put forward today? What is it in Colombian history and society which means that the kinds of principles set out in this discussion are most often overlooked?
In a hall of 100 or so people, and with further groups of people listening to the debate live in 13 or so branches of the library around the country, the two hours passed by very fast.
Everardo Murillo led the line-up: Everardo is head of 'Colombia Humanitaria', the nation's unprecedented humanitarian platform, set up during the floods at the end of the last year. Everardo is one of the best examples of the best of civil servants in Colombia: humble, serious, intelligent, full of solidarity for the poor, plain-speaking, wise, someone who's travelled right across the country over decades. From the coffee country, Everardo is well-known for having led the reconstruction of this region following the earthquake in Armenia in 1998, which killed thousands of people.
Next, Brigitte Baptiste, of whom I have written in previous blogs. Brigitte gave a fantastic, eloquent account of the impact of the floods on Colombia's biodiversity and ecosystems; a thoughtful reflection on the 'El Niño/La Niña cycle', which has gone on for hundreds and thousands of years; an intrinsically fair account of winners and losers from the current situation; and all delivered with a level of analytical clarity which made complex arguments feel absolutely clear. "We don't yet know how to live in Colombia", said Brigitte nearer the end, in a reprise of a theme she has made her own elsewhere.
Ricardo Lozano, the Meteorological Institute's Director, also spoke, giving a didactic and characteristically communicative scientific account of the current floods, replete with the graphs and data which IDEAM routinely connects. Ricardo's strong, clear argument referred to the urgent need for adaptation to climate change - both within ecosystems and communities - to the changes which are underway.
The event was chaired by a poetic, wise, elderly professor and thinker - Joaquín Molino Barrero - who spoke with tremendous clarity and foresight, adding real value both in his introduction and in his closing words. His knowledge of Colombian geography seemed intense; and his incitement to the audience that the event be only the beginning of a conversation and a reflection on these issues seemed particularly welcome.
I left feeling very renewed by the level of the debate, the scale of the challenge ahead, and the knowledge that such fine people are working on these issues. As Brigitte confided in me before it began, however apocalyptic one may feel, there is always home in humanity's creativeness and capacity to adapt; and always the need, from the ethical perspective, to do all that one can to make things better. What else is there to do, she said...!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)