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)
Monday, 4 July 2011
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...!
Saturday, 21 May 2011
Population + environment
Excellent and thought-provoking speech by Sir David Attenborough about the global environmental challenge to be found here, given at the RSA Annual Lecture in March 2011.
The strong, clear argument put forward by Attenborough - in his distinctive voice - is that serious thinkers on the environment should be firmly in favour of the (voluntary) reduction in global population growth as a key strategy in mitigating our global predicament.
It is clear, strident, cogently-argued stuff: 'break the taboo', Attenborough says, to talking about the subject.
'Wherever and whenever we speak about the environment, add a few words to ensure that the population element is not ignored'.
Ethics; Catholicism; condoms; government; responsibility; charismatic species; the Hawaiian goose; it's all there in the 20 speech excerpt available at the link.
The speech reminded me of Professor Tim Dyson's wonderful lectures on Population and Development at my Master's in the LSE, which I see now form the basis of his new book.
I will take up Attenborough's call, as I do believe it is valid; although I also believe that one has to take care to ensure that concern for population growth does not become either anti-poor, anti-immigrant, condescending to families in the developing world or - worse still - an excuse for repressive policies.
But clearly it is a huge issue; and let's hope we are 8 billion (or less) in the world in 2050, and not the 9.7 billion on which it seems we are currently set. I hope to play my part: if I have children, it will be a maximum of two...(and not five, as I once perhaps hoped)...
The strong, clear argument put forward by Attenborough - in his distinctive voice - is that serious thinkers on the environment should be firmly in favour of the (voluntary) reduction in global population growth as a key strategy in mitigating our global predicament.
It is clear, strident, cogently-argued stuff: 'break the taboo', Attenborough says, to talking about the subject.
'Wherever and whenever we speak about the environment, add a few words to ensure that the population element is not ignored'.
Ethics; Catholicism; condoms; government; responsibility; charismatic species; the Hawaiian goose; it's all there in the 20 speech excerpt available at the link.
The speech reminded me of Professor Tim Dyson's wonderful lectures on Population and Development at my Master's in the LSE, which I see now form the basis of his new book.
I will take up Attenborough's call, as I do believe it is valid; although I also believe that one has to take care to ensure that concern for population growth does not become either anti-poor, anti-immigrant, condescending to families in the developing world or - worse still - an excuse for repressive policies.
But clearly it is a huge issue; and let's hope we are 8 billion (or less) in the world in 2050, and not the 9.7 billion on which it seems we are currently set. I hope to play my part: if I have children, it will be a maximum of two...(and not five, as I once perhaps hoped)...
Friday, 20 May 2011
A Modest Proposal for Durban
I am gearing myself to write an op-ed piece for the International Herald Tribune (hope springs eternal!) based around the following set of ideas:
1. The international climate change negotiations are not working.
2. Each year, tens of thousands of climate change negotiators and associated activists fly around the world to the international negotiations, spending weeks on end couped up in conference rooms negotiating over a weak text, full of loopholes; or in side events, preaching to the converted.
3. Many of the key climate negotiators have been in the game too long, and have forgotten what the negotiations are about - immersed more in their own historic battles with particular countries, fellow negotiators, and in general jaundiced by their experiences - rather than committed to coming to a serious deal at any cost.
4. One step forward, however tortuously achieved, is typically followed by two steps back: Cancún may seem a success, and then two months later the American and EU negotiators announce that they cannot foresee a deal in Durban in December 2011, to cite one example. The Cancún text - heralded by most as such a success - has been questioned and undermined by many parties, from January of this year onwards.
First conclusion: why continue - when the future of human well-being in the world is at stake - with a process which is manifestly not working; why emit such a huge amount of greenhouse gases in the pursuit of an elusive goal impossible to achieve in such a cumbersome process? Can't there be another way?
The article would then go on to set out an alternative negotiation idea based around the following (possibly mad) idea:
1. Each country would be invited to appoint two climate change negotiators.
2. The first negotiator would be a senior, preferably democratically-elected politician - e.g. Environment Minister - from the country in question.
3. The second negotiator would be a well-known, universally respected public figure from the country, recognised for their knowledge and commitment on the environment.
4. For the UK, the two negotiators could be, for example, Minister Chris Huhne, and Sir David Attenborough; for the US, Hilary Clinton and Al Gore; for Brazil, Isabella Teixeira, the current Environment Minister, and Marina Silva, the former one; and so on.
5. During the year leading up to the negotiations, both people chosen would be obliged - as a team - to spend the year in a serious process of negotiation and discussion with civil society and different sectors in their country, to build a consensus position based on science, argument and good reason.
6. Then, for the negotiations themselves, two weeks would be set aside for the two representatives from each of the world's countries to meet in an agile, friendly, informal negotiation format. The world's media would be invited along in a kind of benign Big Brother arrangement to monitor proceedings and to be involved from afar. Curmudgeonly, negative negotiating behaviour from any particular pair would receive generalized opprobrium from the world, which would be watching closely.
7. There would be plenty of rest, healthy meals, a nearby beach and a veto against negotiations past midnight.
8. And that's it: these 300 or so of the world's people would negotiate, along the same rules as the existing system, the globally binding and serious deal we so urgently need. Furthermore, they would not be allowed to come home until they managed it. Nelson Mandela would preside the beginning and end of the negotiations, which would begin in Durban in December 2011.
I know it sounds mad; but is it any madder than continuing with the existing system which is definitely failing? Would anyone suggest that this proposal would have any less chance of working than the current one?
Thoughts please - and thanks to the 200+ or so visitors to this blog in its first week. Delighted to see that, in addition to readers in North and South America, and across Europe, there have been a handful of hits from India and Egypt too...what a connected world we live in...!
1. The international climate change negotiations are not working.
2. Each year, tens of thousands of climate change negotiators and associated activists fly around the world to the international negotiations, spending weeks on end couped up in conference rooms negotiating over a weak text, full of loopholes; or in side events, preaching to the converted.
3. Many of the key climate negotiators have been in the game too long, and have forgotten what the negotiations are about - immersed more in their own historic battles with particular countries, fellow negotiators, and in general jaundiced by their experiences - rather than committed to coming to a serious deal at any cost.
4. One step forward, however tortuously achieved, is typically followed by two steps back: Cancún may seem a success, and then two months later the American and EU negotiators announce that they cannot foresee a deal in Durban in December 2011, to cite one example. The Cancún text - heralded by most as such a success - has been questioned and undermined by many parties, from January of this year onwards.
First conclusion: why continue - when the future of human well-being in the world is at stake - with a process which is manifestly not working; why emit such a huge amount of greenhouse gases in the pursuit of an elusive goal impossible to achieve in such a cumbersome process? Can't there be another way?
The article would then go on to set out an alternative negotiation idea based around the following (possibly mad) idea:
1. Each country would be invited to appoint two climate change negotiators.
2. The first negotiator would be a senior, preferably democratically-elected politician - e.g. Environment Minister - from the country in question.
3. The second negotiator would be a well-known, universally respected public figure from the country, recognised for their knowledge and commitment on the environment.
4. For the UK, the two negotiators could be, for example, Minister Chris Huhne, and Sir David Attenborough; for the US, Hilary Clinton and Al Gore; for Brazil, Isabella Teixeira, the current Environment Minister, and Marina Silva, the former one; and so on.
5. During the year leading up to the negotiations, both people chosen would be obliged - as a team - to spend the year in a serious process of negotiation and discussion with civil society and different sectors in their country, to build a consensus position based on science, argument and good reason.
6. Then, for the negotiations themselves, two weeks would be set aside for the two representatives from each of the world's countries to meet in an agile, friendly, informal negotiation format. The world's media would be invited along in a kind of benign Big Brother arrangement to monitor proceedings and to be involved from afar. Curmudgeonly, negative negotiating behaviour from any particular pair would receive generalized opprobrium from the world, which would be watching closely.
7. There would be plenty of rest, healthy meals, a nearby beach and a veto against negotiations past midnight.
8. And that's it: these 300 or so of the world's people would negotiate, along the same rules as the existing system, the globally binding and serious deal we so urgently need. Furthermore, they would not be allowed to come home until they managed it. Nelson Mandela would preside the beginning and end of the negotiations, which would begin in Durban in December 2011.
I know it sounds mad; but is it any madder than continuing with the existing system which is definitely failing? Would anyone suggest that this proposal would have any less chance of working than the current one?
Thoughts please - and thanks to the 200+ or so visitors to this blog in its first week. Delighted to see that, in addition to readers in North and South America, and across Europe, there have been a handful of hits from India and Egypt too...what a connected world we live in...!
Thursday, 19 May 2011
Of radical environmentalism, reasoned argument + cautious optimism
I had a wonderful Middle Eastern lunch in downtown Bogotá today, with a handful of friends who work in the Colombian Presidency: the kind of brilliant, bright, privileged Colombian 30-year olds who will be Ministers in ten or twenty years' time.
There was much talk of Colombian politics; the individual merits of different Ministers in the current Government; and more generally of the issues of the day (the floods; poverty + inequality; social programmes; etc). I shared my concerns about the state of the Colombian environment and the weakness of the environment sector (and its leadership) when compared with the rest.
I made my arguments in what I like to think was a measured, albeit passionate, way, and some of them at least seemed to hit home with my interlocutors. But near the end of the conversation, one of them confided in me that she couldn't stand the radical environmentalists amongst us, letting slip the same kind of virulent passion about them with which some of us tend to express our concern about the environment itself.
Her comment prompted my friend to remind the group of President Santos' apparently frequent joke which, though sharp and almost painful, does make me laugh a lot: "What's the difference between an environmentalist and a terrorist? At least you can talk with a terrorist..."...
The challenge, it seems to me, is to be able to communicate the arguments with clarity, rigour, ethical commitment and intelligence, but also with a light touch. A dose of detachment and a kind of benign, wise irony might have more of an impact than a very vigorous, impassioned delivery.
One of Colombia's pre-eminent environmentalists, Brigitte Baptiste, head of the country's Biodiversity Institute, tends to do just that, which makes her arguments all the more compelling. One is beguiled by her knowledge and seriousness, but also by her sharp sense of humour and keen sense of the ridiculous.
Some in our sector say that the former Minister of Environment, Manuel Rodríguez, of whom I have written in a previous blog, has lost some space of late in the discussion because he is almost always so furious and/or critical (however justifiably) in the articles that he writes.
I am currently reading Amartya Sen's magisterial book 'The Idea of Justice'; one of his key arguments early on in the book refers to the complexity of determining what is just in any given situation, and on the need to apply the full range of nuanced, broad argument + evidence to one's considerations of justice. Justice can be found in a multiplicity of positions, Sen seems to argue, and one's principles established from a number of valid intellectual and philosophical traditions; there is no monopoly on justice.
(He also argues convincingly that, while human societies and philosophers have been rightly concerned with seeking to establish a conception of the perfectly just society, we must also dedicate our lives to procuring justice in our immediate environments and circumstances; a separate point, but a powerfully enabling one.)
Meanwhile, 20 winners of the Nobel Prize - including Sen - yesterday issued the Stockholm Memorandum, a cogent, well-argued, clear-sighted short statement about the urgent need for global sustainability issuing from the meeting and discussion between these distinguished scientists, philosophers et al. over the past few days. It's well worth a read and can be seen at the following link.
Again, the tone is calm, measured, grave and based on the use of reasoned argument; the same tone which characterises President Obama's excellent speech on the Middle East, which I am listening to as I write this.
A final thought: we environmentalists tend to be bleak in our prognoses, for well-founded reasons, but I think elemental human pyschology tends to shut the unconverted off as a result - especially when we are particularly apocalyptic in our delivery. More and more, one sees the environmental movement, in the centre at least, pitching its arguments as 'win-wins' and in a positive light, which seems a valid response to the failure of previous attempts to shock people into change.
In conclusion: perhaps we need less radical environmentalism (we can keep this for between ourselves) and more reasoned argument, coupled - wherever possible - with arguments which reflect a cautious optimism in the future of the planet and in the capacity of human beings to take the right decisions. Or is this simply to deceive ourselves, and to deceive all whom we seek to convince?
All thoughts welcome.
There was much talk of Colombian politics; the individual merits of different Ministers in the current Government; and more generally of the issues of the day (the floods; poverty + inequality; social programmes; etc). I shared my concerns about the state of the Colombian environment and the weakness of the environment sector (and its leadership) when compared with the rest.
I made my arguments in what I like to think was a measured, albeit passionate, way, and some of them at least seemed to hit home with my interlocutors. But near the end of the conversation, one of them confided in me that she couldn't stand the radical environmentalists amongst us, letting slip the same kind of virulent passion about them with which some of us tend to express our concern about the environment itself.
Her comment prompted my friend to remind the group of President Santos' apparently frequent joke which, though sharp and almost painful, does make me laugh a lot: "What's the difference between an environmentalist and a terrorist? At least you can talk with a terrorist..."...
The challenge, it seems to me, is to be able to communicate the arguments with clarity, rigour, ethical commitment and intelligence, but also with a light touch. A dose of detachment and a kind of benign, wise irony might have more of an impact than a very vigorous, impassioned delivery.
One of Colombia's pre-eminent environmentalists, Brigitte Baptiste, head of the country's Biodiversity Institute, tends to do just that, which makes her arguments all the more compelling. One is beguiled by her knowledge and seriousness, but also by her sharp sense of humour and keen sense of the ridiculous.
Some in our sector say that the former Minister of Environment, Manuel Rodríguez, of whom I have written in a previous blog, has lost some space of late in the discussion because he is almost always so furious and/or critical (however justifiably) in the articles that he writes.
I am currently reading Amartya Sen's magisterial book 'The Idea of Justice'; one of his key arguments early on in the book refers to the complexity of determining what is just in any given situation, and on the need to apply the full range of nuanced, broad argument + evidence to one's considerations of justice. Justice can be found in a multiplicity of positions, Sen seems to argue, and one's principles established from a number of valid intellectual and philosophical traditions; there is no monopoly on justice.
(He also argues convincingly that, while human societies and philosophers have been rightly concerned with seeking to establish a conception of the perfectly just society, we must also dedicate our lives to procuring justice in our immediate environments and circumstances; a separate point, but a powerfully enabling one.)
Meanwhile, 20 winners of the Nobel Prize - including Sen - yesterday issued the Stockholm Memorandum, a cogent, well-argued, clear-sighted short statement about the urgent need for global sustainability issuing from the meeting and discussion between these distinguished scientists, philosophers et al. over the past few days. It's well worth a read and can be seen at the following link.
Again, the tone is calm, measured, grave and based on the use of reasoned argument; the same tone which characterises President Obama's excellent speech on the Middle East, which I am listening to as I write this.
A final thought: we environmentalists tend to be bleak in our prognoses, for well-founded reasons, but I think elemental human pyschology tends to shut the unconverted off as a result - especially when we are particularly apocalyptic in our delivery. More and more, one sees the environmental movement, in the centre at least, pitching its arguments as 'win-wins' and in a positive light, which seems a valid response to the failure of previous attempts to shock people into change.
In conclusion: perhaps we need less radical environmentalism (we can keep this for between ourselves) and more reasoned argument, coupled - wherever possible - with arguments which reflect a cautious optimism in the future of the planet and in the capacity of human beings to take the right decisions. Or is this simply to deceive ourselves, and to deceive all whom we seek to convince?
All thoughts welcome.
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
UK - Colombia relations on the environment
A few brief thoughts and reflections on the relationship between Colombia and the UK on climate change and the environment. Ever since I arrived in Colombia, in October 2008, I have worked on this issue and have felt a desire - for obvious reasons - to bring the two countries closer together. A reception this evening in honour of the British Minister for Latin America, Jeremy Browne MP, in the house of the Ambassador John Dew, has prompted me to devote today's blog to a quick exploration of the following points:
1. The UK and Colombia - in the international climate negotiations - are relatively strong allies, with similar, progressive negotiating positions and both with an active role in the 'Cartagena Group', a group of like-minded countries trying to come to consensus on the key text in the negotiation. There is a climate of mutual respect and admiration between both countries with respect to the negotiations.
2. At a bilateral level, the UK gives a very small amount of money to Colombia to support environmental projects, often in donations of between 15,000 and 100,000 GBP channelled by the Embassy to different causes.
3. The UK seeks to raise high-profile awareness on climate change in Colombia, with the President and the Ministers, and does so relatively frequently. They do this bilaterally and through the G24 donors' group, the European Union and through occasional coverage in the media. John was referred to as the 'Climate Change Ambassador' in an interview in El Espectador not so long ago.
4. The withdrawal of DFID from Latin America in 2002 means there is no 'serious' bilateral money for Colombia on issues relating to development and environment, due to the country's status as a middle income country. Nevertheless, an estimated 17% of the European Union and the World Bank's projects concerning climate change and the environment here are funded indirectly by DFID and therefore the UK taxpayer.
5. There are some new funds from the Foreign Office to do with the Prosperity Agenda for Latin America, for which Colombia is applying and which are to do with low carbon growth and renewable energy. These represent an additional support for these issues here, and let's hope Colombia is successful.
6. The Colombian Government's work in highlighting the environmental impact of the cocaine trade on the rainforest and the environment, entitled Shared Responsibility, has found some echo in the UK, with the Home Office and other sectors. I do believe the Colombian Government is right to highlight this impact - deforestation caused by coca is substantial throughout the country.
This said, I am also a a firm believer in the legalisation of the global drug trade, and a steely critic of the fumigations of the coca crop by the Colombian Government (with the support of the US), as these are also undisputably highly damaging from the environmental and social point of view, with farmers losing their crops and soils irrevocably degraded. In essence, I think the Shared Responsibility argument is valid but only goes so far - and stops short of telling the full story.
7. The Prince's Rainforest Project has supported Colombia since 2009 and sought to include the country in its efforts to promote a global deal on REDD+/reducing deforestation. The team has visited Colombia and provided a lot of support one way or another. I remember an intense week in mid-2009 in which the Prince's envoy on rainforests, a very nice Dutch man named Simon Rietbergen, came to Colombia on a whistle-stop visit. We had meetings with the then Vice President and a gamut of Ministers and officials.
8. UK companies have major mining, coal and petrol interests in Colombia. I believe the UK's deep commitment to buying Colombian coal goes against the rhetoric about low carbon growth and climate change. I also believe the mining for gold and other minerals represents a serious environmental threat in Colombia, despite the commitment to corporate social responsibility which the companies seek to demonstrate. There is a definitely a paradox here; a gap between the discourse and the economic interest.
9. Mauricio Rodriguez, Colombia's Ambassador in London, has made a huge effort to position Colombia in the UK for its biodiversity, natural parks and environmental richness. A sign of his success, amongst many others, is the invitation which Oxford has extended to Sandra Bessudo to participate as a keynote speaker in the Smith School's Ecosystems and Biodiversity conference in June.
10. A number of environmentalists and environmental organisations in the UK - Bird Life International, Tony Juniper, and others - know a lot about Colombia and value its biodiversity greatly. This is the country with the world's largest number of individual bird species, after all (1801).
To conclude: the two countries are intertwined on this issue in a multitude of ways.
My personal belief, and what I would most like to see, would be for the UK to give substantial amounts of funding to Colombia to address climate change, forest protection/REDD and the other issues of the day. I believe Colombia is a worthy beneficiary of the UK Government's allotted funds on REDD, Low Carbon Growth and climate change adaptation.
There is no immediate sign this willl happen, however - although Sandra's visit in June, followed by President Santos' state visit to London in November, give us the best possible chance. I am cautiously optimistic, and I do believe we must try.
In any case, the most important thing is that the world manages to come to a globally binding deal in Durban at the end of this year. The UK and Colombia are set to play an important part in these negotiations, and the closeness and trust between both countries in this context is a very positive achievement. Long may it continue.
1. The UK and Colombia - in the international climate negotiations - are relatively strong allies, with similar, progressive negotiating positions and both with an active role in the 'Cartagena Group', a group of like-minded countries trying to come to consensus on the key text in the negotiation. There is a climate of mutual respect and admiration between both countries with respect to the negotiations.
2. At a bilateral level, the UK gives a very small amount of money to Colombia to support environmental projects, often in donations of between 15,000 and 100,000 GBP channelled by the Embassy to different causes.
3. The UK seeks to raise high-profile awareness on climate change in Colombia, with the President and the Ministers, and does so relatively frequently. They do this bilaterally and through the G24 donors' group, the European Union and through occasional coverage in the media. John was referred to as the 'Climate Change Ambassador' in an interview in El Espectador not so long ago.
4. The withdrawal of DFID from Latin America in 2002 means there is no 'serious' bilateral money for Colombia on issues relating to development and environment, due to the country's status as a middle income country. Nevertheless, an estimated 17% of the European Union and the World Bank's projects concerning climate change and the environment here are funded indirectly by DFID and therefore the UK taxpayer.
5. There are some new funds from the Foreign Office to do with the Prosperity Agenda for Latin America, for which Colombia is applying and which are to do with low carbon growth and renewable energy. These represent an additional support for these issues here, and let's hope Colombia is successful.
6. The Colombian Government's work in highlighting the environmental impact of the cocaine trade on the rainforest and the environment, entitled Shared Responsibility, has found some echo in the UK, with the Home Office and other sectors. I do believe the Colombian Government is right to highlight this impact - deforestation caused by coca is substantial throughout the country.
This said, I am also a a firm believer in the legalisation of the global drug trade, and a steely critic of the fumigations of the coca crop by the Colombian Government (with the support of the US), as these are also undisputably highly damaging from the environmental and social point of view, with farmers losing their crops and soils irrevocably degraded. In essence, I think the Shared Responsibility argument is valid but only goes so far - and stops short of telling the full story.
7. The Prince's Rainforest Project has supported Colombia since 2009 and sought to include the country in its efforts to promote a global deal on REDD+/reducing deforestation. The team has visited Colombia and provided a lot of support one way or another. I remember an intense week in mid-2009 in which the Prince's envoy on rainforests, a very nice Dutch man named Simon Rietbergen, came to Colombia on a whistle-stop visit. We had meetings with the then Vice President and a gamut of Ministers and officials.
8. UK companies have major mining, coal and petrol interests in Colombia. I believe the UK's deep commitment to buying Colombian coal goes against the rhetoric about low carbon growth and climate change. I also believe the mining for gold and other minerals represents a serious environmental threat in Colombia, despite the commitment to corporate social responsibility which the companies seek to demonstrate. There is a definitely a paradox here; a gap between the discourse and the economic interest.
9. Mauricio Rodriguez, Colombia's Ambassador in London, has made a huge effort to position Colombia in the UK for its biodiversity, natural parks and environmental richness. A sign of his success, amongst many others, is the invitation which Oxford has extended to Sandra Bessudo to participate as a keynote speaker in the Smith School's Ecosystems and Biodiversity conference in June.
10. A number of environmentalists and environmental organisations in the UK - Bird Life International, Tony Juniper, and others - know a lot about Colombia and value its biodiversity greatly. This is the country with the world's largest number of individual bird species, after all (1801).
To conclude: the two countries are intertwined on this issue in a multitude of ways.
My personal belief, and what I would most like to see, would be for the UK to give substantial amounts of funding to Colombia to address climate change, forest protection/REDD and the other issues of the day. I believe Colombia is a worthy beneficiary of the UK Government's allotted funds on REDD, Low Carbon Growth and climate change adaptation.
There is no immediate sign this willl happen, however - although Sandra's visit in June, followed by President Santos' state visit to London in November, give us the best possible chance. I am cautiously optimistic, and I do believe we must try.
In any case, the most important thing is that the world manages to come to a globally binding deal in Durban at the end of this year. The UK and Colombia are set to play an important part in these negotiations, and the closeness and trust between both countries in this context is a very positive achievement. Long may it continue.
Tuesday, 17 May 2011
Pacto Ambiental Colombiano - the Colombian Environmental Pact
A brief reflection today on the Colombian Environmental Pact, or 'Pacto Ambiental Colombiano'.
The 'Pacto' is a short document, prepared and written by Sandra Bessudo, now the Colombian President's High Presidential Adviser on Environmental Affairs, and a team of environmentalists, during the build-up to the Colombian Presidential Elections in mid-2010. A number of us worked hard on the content of the 'Pacto' in the months leading up to the preparation of the final text, which Sandra did over the course of a weekend.
The 'Pacto', which was modelled on a similar exercise carried out by the French ecologist Nicolas Hulot in the French Presidential Elections in 2006 (yes: Sarkozy is a signatory...), is well worth reading: quite a concise, albeit imperfect, declaration of the key environmental issues of our day, both Colombian and international, intended for the signature of all the Presidential candidates in 2010.
Among eleven chapters, as I recall, there are sections on mining, urban sustainability, organic agriculture, climate change adaptation, green growth, biodiversity conservation, and so on.
The document begins, broadly speaking, with a declaration to the effect: "if I am elected President of Colombia, I will commit to the following environmental principles in my policies and actions as President." The issues are then set out.
Well, suffice it to say that all the Colombian Presidential candidates in 2010 signed, with barely a second thought, although I remember Antanas Mockus of the Partido Verde wanted to understand and to interrogate - with customary philosophical rigour - the implications of signing (to whom I am responsible; who is behind this; what are the implications...etc...) before doing so.
A number of Colombian environmentalists were sceptical at the time: Manuel Rodríguez wrote a brilliant, Voltairean piece in El Tiempo, saying that the candidates - by signing the Pacto - were committing a base act of demagoguery unless they were really serious about the issues of the day, listening 15 or so taxing questions for the candidates in his article.
More than one observer wondered whether the Pact, if Juan Manuel Santos were elected, would lead to the election of Sandra Bessudo as Environment Minister.
I remain convinced that this was not Sandra's intention in preparing the Pact; I don't believe this is her style; and believe she prepared the Pact in good faith, and with good intentions (she is a genuinely committed environmentalist).
Nevertheless, Santos did indeed win, and did indeed appoint Sandra as his Minister of Environment. Her promotion of the Pact must - to some degree at least - have positioned her in this way, at that time.
Almost a year has passed, and by common consent the text of the Pact is far from being fulfilled by the Santos Administration. I would venture to say that the President's discourse is consistent with the Pact's spirit by as much as 70%, starting with his inauguration speech which was at times visionary on the environment; but that the key policies of the current Government - especially with regards to mining, infrastructure and large-scale agriculture - fulfil the Pact's broad spirit by a maximum of 10%.
At the beginning of the lifetime of the Pacto, during the Presidential campaign hustings, its existence did raise the profile of environmental issues, to some degree, and there was a fair bit of helpful media coverage at the time too. In this respect, I think it was successful and fulfilled its goals in the short-term.
This said, however, I believe the Pacto has comprehensively failed, so far, in terms of becoming a mechanism by which to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of this Government's environmental performance; it is certainly not an instrument by which to hold the Government to account.
Those of us who worked on the Pact are beholden to think seriously about how to revive it at the current time, and how to use it in a positive way to question some of the policies of the current Government and to square its thinking with the thinking embodied in the document.
I hope to gather a number of us together in the coming weeks to do just that; it's the least we can do!
The 'Pacto' is a short document, prepared and written by Sandra Bessudo, now the Colombian President's High Presidential Adviser on Environmental Affairs, and a team of environmentalists, during the build-up to the Colombian Presidential Elections in mid-2010. A number of us worked hard on the content of the 'Pacto' in the months leading up to the preparation of the final text, which Sandra did over the course of a weekend.
The 'Pacto', which was modelled on a similar exercise carried out by the French ecologist Nicolas Hulot in the French Presidential Elections in 2006 (yes: Sarkozy is a signatory...), is well worth reading: quite a concise, albeit imperfect, declaration of the key environmental issues of our day, both Colombian and international, intended for the signature of all the Presidential candidates in 2010.
Among eleven chapters, as I recall, there are sections on mining, urban sustainability, organic agriculture, climate change adaptation, green growth, biodiversity conservation, and so on.
The document begins, broadly speaking, with a declaration to the effect: "if I am elected President of Colombia, I will commit to the following environmental principles in my policies and actions as President." The issues are then set out.
Well, suffice it to say that all the Colombian Presidential candidates in 2010 signed, with barely a second thought, although I remember Antanas Mockus of the Partido Verde wanted to understand and to interrogate - with customary philosophical rigour - the implications of signing (to whom I am responsible; who is behind this; what are the implications...etc...) before doing so.
A number of Colombian environmentalists were sceptical at the time: Manuel Rodríguez wrote a brilliant, Voltairean piece in El Tiempo, saying that the candidates - by signing the Pacto - were committing a base act of demagoguery unless they were really serious about the issues of the day, listening 15 or so taxing questions for the candidates in his article.
More than one observer wondered whether the Pact, if Juan Manuel Santos were elected, would lead to the election of Sandra Bessudo as Environment Minister.
I remain convinced that this was not Sandra's intention in preparing the Pact; I don't believe this is her style; and believe she prepared the Pact in good faith, and with good intentions (she is a genuinely committed environmentalist).
Nevertheless, Santos did indeed win, and did indeed appoint Sandra as his Minister of Environment. Her promotion of the Pact must - to some degree at least - have positioned her in this way, at that time.
Almost a year has passed, and by common consent the text of the Pact is far from being fulfilled by the Santos Administration. I would venture to say that the President's discourse is consistent with the Pact's spirit by as much as 70%, starting with his inauguration speech which was at times visionary on the environment; but that the key policies of the current Government - especially with regards to mining, infrastructure and large-scale agriculture - fulfil the Pact's broad spirit by a maximum of 10%.
At the beginning of the lifetime of the Pacto, during the Presidential campaign hustings, its existence did raise the profile of environmental issues, to some degree, and there was a fair bit of helpful media coverage at the time too. In this respect, I think it was successful and fulfilled its goals in the short-term.
This said, however, I believe the Pacto has comprehensively failed, so far, in terms of becoming a mechanism by which to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of this Government's environmental performance; it is certainly not an instrument by which to hold the Government to account.
Those of us who worked on the Pact are beholden to think seriously about how to revive it at the current time, and how to use it in a positive way to question some of the policies of the current Government and to square its thinking with the thinking embodied in the document.
I hope to gather a number of us together in the coming weeks to do just that; it's the least we can do!
Monday, 16 May 2011
RedParques - Protected Areas in the Amazon Biome
An uplifting meeting on the Amazon region today, hosted by Colombia's National Parks Agency - led by the graceful, charming and charismatic Julia Miranda - with the support of WWF, and my dear friend Ximena Barrera, who is one of the most serious, kind, committed and intelligent colleagues one could imagine.
A few years ago, the National Parks Agencies of the nine countries of the Amazon Biome formed a network in order to exchange information and experiences, and to come to regional agreements on priorities in terms of protected areas across the Biome.
The work has continued since then, with the occasional regional meeting between the parks officials, in addition to Ministerial gatherings at the Biodiversity and Climate Change conferences.
At Nagoya in October 2010, there were a handful of these meetings, including a memorable lunch in which the Ministers congregated to discuss the advances of the partnership.
Much to my surprise, once the Ministers had all spoken, and WWF's Yolanda Kakabadse too (one of my great environmental heroines), the mike was passed around and I was called on to add a few words. I made an impromptu, impassioned and I thought quite diplomatic speech, full of sincere phrase for the initiative, but ended up by referring to the importance of national politics in each country in protecting the Amazon, referring 'en passant' the then Brazilian election campaign; my sympathy for Marina Silva, the Brazilian environmentalist and former Environment Minister and, to cap it all, my concern about the Belo Monte dam...
The Brazilian Minister, Isabella Teixieira, who hosted the lunch, gave the concluding remarks and I remember her steely, unyielding gaze fixed firmly on me as she wrapped up by saying how difficult it was to be a Minister, to resist the lobbies, and to balance the conflicting demands of energy, poverty reduction and environmental protection in her country.
I felt a bit like a cowering schoolboy, not knowing whether to look her back in the eye or into the remnants of my pudding; but approached her at the end to apologize, and she laughed, stroked my arm, and said that my remarks had been helpful as they had allowed her to 'get a few things off her chest'. We've had a nice relationship ever since, and had a good catch up in Cancún.
Anyway, back to today's meeting: I had engaging conversations with the Peruvian and Brazilian colleagues present, both grappling with their respective national political situations and the challenges facing the environment in their countries (gold mining in Peru; the forest law in Brazil; etc.); and nice exchanges too with the Suriname and Bolivia representatives.
Sometimes one wonders what the real 'added value' of regional exchanges are; and of course, as always as an environmentalist, there is the cruel paradox of all the carbon emissions which the flights to and fro inevitably entail. But it does seem a valuable space, and I am sure that my colleagues take heart in their work from knowing what their counterparts are also doing across the border.
As for the Amazon itself, as was also discussed today, the more national parks, the merrier; and the greater the resilience of the forest and its ecosystems when faced with the challenge of climate change, savannization and all the rest. As a map of every single of the Amazon countries shows, where there are parks, there is next to no deforestation - so here's to the parks of the Amazon biome, and to the network which they have formed.
A few years ago, the National Parks Agencies of the nine countries of the Amazon Biome formed a network in order to exchange information and experiences, and to come to regional agreements on priorities in terms of protected areas across the Biome.
The work has continued since then, with the occasional regional meeting between the parks officials, in addition to Ministerial gatherings at the Biodiversity and Climate Change conferences.
At Nagoya in October 2010, there were a handful of these meetings, including a memorable lunch in which the Ministers congregated to discuss the advances of the partnership.
Much to my surprise, once the Ministers had all spoken, and WWF's Yolanda Kakabadse too (one of my great environmental heroines), the mike was passed around and I was called on to add a few words. I made an impromptu, impassioned and I thought quite diplomatic speech, full of sincere phrase for the initiative, but ended up by referring to the importance of national politics in each country in protecting the Amazon, referring 'en passant' the then Brazilian election campaign; my sympathy for Marina Silva, the Brazilian environmentalist and former Environment Minister and, to cap it all, my concern about the Belo Monte dam...
The Brazilian Minister, Isabella Teixieira, who hosted the lunch, gave the concluding remarks and I remember her steely, unyielding gaze fixed firmly on me as she wrapped up by saying how difficult it was to be a Minister, to resist the lobbies, and to balance the conflicting demands of energy, poverty reduction and environmental protection in her country.
I felt a bit like a cowering schoolboy, not knowing whether to look her back in the eye or into the remnants of my pudding; but approached her at the end to apologize, and she laughed, stroked my arm, and said that my remarks had been helpful as they had allowed her to 'get a few things off her chest'. We've had a nice relationship ever since, and had a good catch up in Cancún.
Anyway, back to today's meeting: I had engaging conversations with the Peruvian and Brazilian colleagues present, both grappling with their respective national political situations and the challenges facing the environment in their countries (gold mining in Peru; the forest law in Brazil; etc.); and nice exchanges too with the Suriname and Bolivia representatives.
Sometimes one wonders what the real 'added value' of regional exchanges are; and of course, as always as an environmentalist, there is the cruel paradox of all the carbon emissions which the flights to and fro inevitably entail. But it does seem a valuable space, and I am sure that my colleagues take heart in their work from knowing what their counterparts are also doing across the border.
As for the Amazon itself, as was also discussed today, the more national parks, the merrier; and the greater the resilience of the forest and its ecosystems when faced with the challenge of climate change, savannization and all the rest. As a map of every single of the Amazon countries shows, where there are parks, there is next to no deforestation - so here's to the parks of the Amazon biome, and to the network which they have formed.
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Oil in Colombia
Today's Semana - Colombia's foremost and quite exceptional weekly (as its name attests) news magazine - arrived on my doorstep with a special, 100-page supplement on the country's oil boom.
"Rumbo al 'Boom' Petrolero: Anatomía de una Industria Poderosa y Fascinante"; "En Route to the Oil Boom: Anatomy of a fascinating and powerful industry", beamed the title, and it makes for fascinating reading, with interviews with key figures, including the Energy Minister, Carlos Rodado; a section on the history of the industry here; future projections; a section on 'corporate social responsibility', with pictures of the oil companies' work with children and on the environment; maps; and so on and so forth.
'El Tiempo', meanwhile - Colombia's mainstream newspaper, and at its best on Sundays - carried an opinion piece by Salud Hernández-Mora on the multiple calamities caused by oil extraction in the biodiverse Colombian region of Casanare.
A celebrated, wisened Spanish journalist known for her investigative work and her incisive views on contemporary Colombia, Hernández-Mora's article is enthused with a palpable sense of outrage at both the environmental damage caused in the region, and at the abject poverty in which the communities living near the oil fields are to be found.
At the very least, the argument seems implicitly to hold, the communities should benefit from the exploitation of the natural resources on top of which they live: but corrupt local élites, as so often in Colombia, have made off with the proceeds, in a classic illustration of the global phenomenon of the 'resource curse'.
Most environmentalists in Colombia, when discussing the undoubted oil and mining boom currently underway in the country (despite Rodado's somewhat disingenuous insistence in his interview on calling the boom an 'auge'; a softer word, implying a 'rise' or 'peak'), tend to argue that the environmental implications of mining are significantly worse than oil.
Some of the arguments cited: the oil industry is more modern and serious in its commitment (for reputational reasons if nothing else) to good environmental management; the industry's ecological footprint is, a priori, smaller; while the country's national oil company, Ecopetrol (with its cunning name and iguana as a logo), is consistently voted Colombia's post popular company, with their Director seemingly genuinely serious about the company's interest in, and commitment to, reducing its impact on the nation's biodiversity.
The Casanare article - coupled with general knowledge on the impacts of the oil industry elsewhere, including of course Shell's history in Nigeria - make me deeply sceptical. I firmly suspect that for every Casanare that is reported, there are ten similar cases in Colombia alone of which we have next to no knowledge.
And none of this, of course, is to address the net environmental impact - the international 'externality' - of the greenhouse gas emissions which eventually result from the oil being consumed.
But, the overall life cycle of oil aside (to which I shall return at some point) I do believe there are significant grounds to be worried about the oil boom in Colombia: due to its impacts on people and communities; on ecosystems; on water supply; on biodiversity; on the Colombian landscape. The possible oil exploration in the UNESCO world heritage site in San Andrés & Providencia, the spellbindingly beautiful islands off the Caribbean Coast, is the latest case in point.
I hope the current enthusiasm can be tempered with some very clear guidelines; some strong, empowered negotiation from the environment institutions; some clarity about which areas should be manifestly off limits; and - most importantly - with an inminent and dramatic reduction in overall global demand for 'the black stuff'.
"Rumbo al 'Boom' Petrolero: Anatomía de una Industria Poderosa y Fascinante"; "En Route to the Oil Boom: Anatomy of a fascinating and powerful industry", beamed the title, and it makes for fascinating reading, with interviews with key figures, including the Energy Minister, Carlos Rodado; a section on the history of the industry here; future projections; a section on 'corporate social responsibility', with pictures of the oil companies' work with children and on the environment; maps; and so on and so forth.
'El Tiempo', meanwhile - Colombia's mainstream newspaper, and at its best on Sundays - carried an opinion piece by Salud Hernández-Mora on the multiple calamities caused by oil extraction in the biodiverse Colombian region of Casanare.
A celebrated, wisened Spanish journalist known for her investigative work and her incisive views on contemporary Colombia, Hernández-Mora's article is enthused with a palpable sense of outrage at both the environmental damage caused in the region, and at the abject poverty in which the communities living near the oil fields are to be found.
At the very least, the argument seems implicitly to hold, the communities should benefit from the exploitation of the natural resources on top of which they live: but corrupt local élites, as so often in Colombia, have made off with the proceeds, in a classic illustration of the global phenomenon of the 'resource curse'.
Most environmentalists in Colombia, when discussing the undoubted oil and mining boom currently underway in the country (despite Rodado's somewhat disingenuous insistence in his interview on calling the boom an 'auge'; a softer word, implying a 'rise' or 'peak'), tend to argue that the environmental implications of mining are significantly worse than oil.
Some of the arguments cited: the oil industry is more modern and serious in its commitment (for reputational reasons if nothing else) to good environmental management; the industry's ecological footprint is, a priori, smaller; while the country's national oil company, Ecopetrol (with its cunning name and iguana as a logo), is consistently voted Colombia's post popular company, with their Director seemingly genuinely serious about the company's interest in, and commitment to, reducing its impact on the nation's biodiversity.
The Casanare article - coupled with general knowledge on the impacts of the oil industry elsewhere, including of course Shell's history in Nigeria - make me deeply sceptical. I firmly suspect that for every Casanare that is reported, there are ten similar cases in Colombia alone of which we have next to no knowledge.
And none of this, of course, is to address the net environmental impact - the international 'externality' - of the greenhouse gas emissions which eventually result from the oil being consumed.
But, the overall life cycle of oil aside (to which I shall return at some point) I do believe there are significant grounds to be worried about the oil boom in Colombia: due to its impacts on people and communities; on ecosystems; on water supply; on biodiversity; on the Colombian landscape. The possible oil exploration in the UNESCO world heritage site in San Andrés & Providencia, the spellbindingly beautiful islands off the Caribbean Coast, is the latest case in point.
I hope the current enthusiasm can be tempered with some very clear guidelines; some strong, empowered negotiation from the environment institutions; some clarity about which areas should be manifestly off limits; and - most importantly - with an inminent and dramatic reduction in overall global demand for 'the black stuff'.
Saturday, 14 May 2011
A reflection on the Colombian Green Party - the 'Partido Verde'
A thought for the morning, to do with Colombia's 'Partido Verde, which I mulled over as I went for a jog in Bogotá's rather lovely long, thin park, Parque el Virrey, fresh in the morning air and full of puddles after a night of ceaseless torrential rain.
For those who don't live in Colombia, or follow Colombian politics: the 'Partido Verde' here was formed by three charismatic former mayors of Bogotá - Enrique Peñalosa, Antanas Mockus and Lucho Garzón - and one charismatic former mayor of Medellín - Sergio Fajardo - at some point in early 2010. The Mayors got together and ran for the Presidential Elections in Colombia later that year, with Antanas Mockus as their presidential candidate, and won a considerable 3 million votes against Juan Manuel Santos' 9 million.
Their platform: anti-corruption; rule of law; ethics in politics; decency; human rights; cultural change in Colombia. The young flocked to the cause and social media led to a huge 'green wave', such that at one point it seemed like this maverick party might win...
During the campaign, the leaders themselves were relatively weak on the environment, but the Party cobbled together a good environmental policy document, led by former Environment Minister and dear friend Manuel Rodríguez Becerra (who remains - among dozens of wonderful environmentalists in Colombia - the thinker on these issues whom I most look up to, and whose ideas and positions I most often share) with the help of an excellent team.
Almost a year on from the elections, the Partido Verde has been through difficult times, with internal division between the leaders (especially between Mockus & Peñalosa as to whether Peñalosa should accept former President Uribe's backing in his attempt to become Mayor of Bogotá again in the elections this October: Peñalosa is in favour, Mockus opposed on principle - I agree with Mockus...) and some dwindling in the support of their base. This said, Peñalosa - whom I interviewed yesterday for The City Paper - may well win in Bogotá, and Fajardo might also become Governor of Antioquia later in the year: if this happens, it will be a major achievement, and the party will remain a force to be reckoned with.
All of which is a prélude to say that the Partido Verde in Colombia is not (yet) an environmental party, and has not in any way carved out for itself in Colombian political life a serious position from which to comment on the many pressing environmental issues of the day here: namely, inter alia, the flooding, spatial planning, mining, petrol, large-scale agriculture, cities, public transport, the state of the still-to-be-recreated Ministry of Environment, the need to think seriously about the implications of climate change in the country.
They have one gutsy Congressman, John Sudarsky, who speaks out on these issues from time to time, but it is clear that the leaders themselves have multiple other concerns and that they are not - frankly - serious thinkers on the range of environmental issues that I have just mentioned. This said, Peñalosa is an impressive figure and internationally recognised as a consultant on urban issues and what might be called 'the cities of the 21st century', having implemented many good policies during his period as Mayor of Bogotá, including the Transmilenio, Bogotá's emblematic rapid transit bus system; plus an increase in cycle routes, public footpaths, anti-car/traffic measures and so on.
Speaking to him yesterday, it seemed to me that Peñalosa - while definitely not an 'environmentalist': indeed, a number of his comments demonstrated scepticism and even a degree of hostility towards environmental ideas and legislation - could, if Mayor again, push to make Bogotá a much more sustainable place. He is bold, a good, charismatic leader, and allows himself to think big on all issues, including the environment. He also said that he hoped that all Colombian political parties would become more 'environmentalist', rather than the Partido Verde alone.
But what a shame for the Party to be squandering such a serious place in Colombian political life; what a failure of 4 very intelligent men to grapple seriously with the environmental challenges of the 21st Century! As a loyal member of the UK Green Party, with the wonderful Caroline Lucas as our sole MP, and with never more than 4% of the national vote, we British (and doubtless European Greens too) would yearn to have won such a high percentage of the popular vote and to be in such a favourable position to bring about change.
One of the world's most biodiverse countries, in which 3 million people have been affected by flooding, and in which very substantial areas have been set aside for petrol and mining; a country in which human well-being and environmental degradation are powerfully interwoven; a country which has everything to play for in the global environmental issues of the 21st century: surely this is the perfect moment for the 'Partido Verde' to consolidate its gains and to become a serious environmental party? I still have faith, and hope to convince many who were involved in the Party's cause in 2010 to address these ideas in a more serious way. The Green Party here has a wonderful opportunity to be a powerful force for good; and God knows, Colombia needs it...!
For those who don't live in Colombia, or follow Colombian politics: the 'Partido Verde' here was formed by three charismatic former mayors of Bogotá - Enrique Peñalosa, Antanas Mockus and Lucho Garzón - and one charismatic former mayor of Medellín - Sergio Fajardo - at some point in early 2010. The Mayors got together and ran for the Presidential Elections in Colombia later that year, with Antanas Mockus as their presidential candidate, and won a considerable 3 million votes against Juan Manuel Santos' 9 million.
Their platform: anti-corruption; rule of law; ethics in politics; decency; human rights; cultural change in Colombia. The young flocked to the cause and social media led to a huge 'green wave', such that at one point it seemed like this maverick party might win...
During the campaign, the leaders themselves were relatively weak on the environment, but the Party cobbled together a good environmental policy document, led by former Environment Minister and dear friend Manuel Rodríguez Becerra (who remains - among dozens of wonderful environmentalists in Colombia - the thinker on these issues whom I most look up to, and whose ideas and positions I most often share) with the help of an excellent team.
Almost a year on from the elections, the Partido Verde has been through difficult times, with internal division between the leaders (especially between Mockus & Peñalosa as to whether Peñalosa should accept former President Uribe's backing in his attempt to become Mayor of Bogotá again in the elections this October: Peñalosa is in favour, Mockus opposed on principle - I agree with Mockus...) and some dwindling in the support of their base. This said, Peñalosa - whom I interviewed yesterday for The City Paper - may well win in Bogotá, and Fajardo might also become Governor of Antioquia later in the year: if this happens, it will be a major achievement, and the party will remain a force to be reckoned with.
All of which is a prélude to say that the Partido Verde in Colombia is not (yet) an environmental party, and has not in any way carved out for itself in Colombian political life a serious position from which to comment on the many pressing environmental issues of the day here: namely, inter alia, the flooding, spatial planning, mining, petrol, large-scale agriculture, cities, public transport, the state of the still-to-be-recreated Ministry of Environment, the need to think seriously about the implications of climate change in the country.
They have one gutsy Congressman, John Sudarsky, who speaks out on these issues from time to time, but it is clear that the leaders themselves have multiple other concerns and that they are not - frankly - serious thinkers on the range of environmental issues that I have just mentioned. This said, Peñalosa is an impressive figure and internationally recognised as a consultant on urban issues and what might be called 'the cities of the 21st century', having implemented many good policies during his period as Mayor of Bogotá, including the Transmilenio, Bogotá's emblematic rapid transit bus system; plus an increase in cycle routes, public footpaths, anti-car/traffic measures and so on.
Speaking to him yesterday, it seemed to me that Peñalosa - while definitely not an 'environmentalist': indeed, a number of his comments demonstrated scepticism and even a degree of hostility towards environmental ideas and legislation - could, if Mayor again, push to make Bogotá a much more sustainable place. He is bold, a good, charismatic leader, and allows himself to think big on all issues, including the environment. He also said that he hoped that all Colombian political parties would become more 'environmentalist', rather than the Partido Verde alone.
But what a shame for the Party to be squandering such a serious place in Colombian political life; what a failure of 4 very intelligent men to grapple seriously with the environmental challenges of the 21st Century! As a loyal member of the UK Green Party, with the wonderful Caroline Lucas as our sole MP, and with never more than 4% of the national vote, we British (and doubtless European Greens too) would yearn to have won such a high percentage of the popular vote and to be in such a favourable position to bring about change.
One of the world's most biodiverse countries, in which 3 million people have been affected by flooding, and in which very substantial areas have been set aside for petrol and mining; a country in which human well-being and environmental degradation are powerfully interwoven; a country which has everything to play for in the global environmental issues of the 21st century: surely this is the perfect moment for the 'Partido Verde' to consolidate its gains and to become a serious environmental party? I still have faith, and hope to convince many who were involved in the Party's cause in 2010 to address these ideas in a more serious way. The Green Party here has a wonderful opportunity to be a powerful force for good; and God knows, Colombia needs it...!
Friday, 13 May 2011
Another blog? On the environment?
I have taken the plunge, and decided to write another blog. This one will be exclusively on questions relating to the environment and sustainable development. My existing blog (www.edwarddavey.blogspot.com), currently neglected, will continue to be the place for my occasional meanderings on life, love, travels, experience, music and the rest.
This blog, entitled Edward's Environment (www.edwardsenvironment.blogspot.com) is intended primarily to keep me sane. Let me explain: I spend much of my daily life thinking and worrying about the environment. As followers of my Facebook will attest, the issue is - for good or ill - my all-consuming daily passion (with the possible exception of classical music). It is not an exaggeration to say that I often wake up and go to bed grappling with the environment and issues relating to man's relationship with the environment.
So, instead of worrying about it, I have decided to write about it. With a few ground rules which I hope to observe strictly:
(1) I will write one blog a day on one issue concerning the environment;
(2) I will write for no more than half an hour per day, in a stream of consciousness, with little concern for figures, links to other webpages, photos + the like;
(3) I will seek not to repeat issues, although doubtless there will be overlap along the way;
and (4), I will seek to be modest about the blog - there'll be much to be modest about - and not share it widely.
I will begin tomorrow, Saturday 14 May 2011, and see what happens. Thank you for reading this - if indeed you are. And thank you to the world of blogs for what I think may be, if nothing else, a useful place to record my thoughts on the (environmental) issues of the day and, by doing so, get them off my chest -- to the benefit of friends, loved ones and myself!
Edward Davey
This blog, entitled Edward's Environment (www.edwardsenvironment.blogspot.com) is intended primarily to keep me sane. Let me explain: I spend much of my daily life thinking and worrying about the environment. As followers of my Facebook will attest, the issue is - for good or ill - my all-consuming daily passion (with the possible exception of classical music). It is not an exaggeration to say that I often wake up and go to bed grappling with the environment and issues relating to man's relationship with the environment.
So, instead of worrying about it, I have decided to write about it. With a few ground rules which I hope to observe strictly:
(1) I will write one blog a day on one issue concerning the environment;
(2) I will write for no more than half an hour per day, in a stream of consciousness, with little concern for figures, links to other webpages, photos + the like;
(3) I will seek not to repeat issues, although doubtless there will be overlap along the way;
and (4), I will seek to be modest about the blog - there'll be much to be modest about - and not share it widely.
I will begin tomorrow, Saturday 14 May 2011, and see what happens. Thank you for reading this - if indeed you are. And thank you to the world of blogs for what I think may be, if nothing else, a useful place to record my thoughts on the (environmental) issues of the day and, by doing so, get them off my chest -- to the benefit of friends, loved ones and myself!
Edward Davey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)