The West has been effective in brain-washing us and making us faithful clients of the free market. The latest topic widely heard (now for decades) addresses the collateral damage of the Californian way of living, and the consequences this is having, and will continue to have in the Rest. I continually think about this, when I see how friends live and what it takes to change someone's habits.
For example, take someone who wants to reduce their "impact on the environment" and asks you what one could do. You can suggest a few easy things (e. g. separate the trash, wash the dishes without running water, use energy-saving light bulbs, etc.) and explain to them the possible consequences of these simple actions. Friends may find it really difficult to execute such changes. I wonder why.
This takes me to the concept of the comfort zone. It is an old concept, since human beings tend to remain in their comfort zones since humanity is humanity. This may be -in fact- part of human nature, a strategy for increasing the probability of survival, an evolutionary trait that has kept us as masters of the Planet so far. But how have we manipulated our comfort zone regarding resource use so far? Apparently we have made our comfort zone unsustainable. That is why it is so difficult to switch to sustainable lifestyles, because it would mean to go against our very nature of staying inside the comfort zone.
Well, here are some news: our Planet will collapse sooner or later if we don't step out of our comfort zones in all senses: physically, but also mentally, emotionally and spiritually. We cannot keep pretending the problems are elsewhere, just because our lifestyle is still sustained by the supermarket in the corner and the mall accross the street. The problems are here, but the West is very efficient in avoiding to show it, for the sake of the market. However, the environmental crisis will be so determinant that we will have to step out of the comfort zone, wether we want it or not, as has happened with recent huricane victims.
So I invite you to embrace experiences out of your comfort zone: acknowledge others, acknowledge their needs, acknowledge the environmental crisis. Step out of the comfort zone and realize you have the power to act. Change the way you look at products, think abouth their origin, the process, and the result. With the internet, we can now help others in many ways, lobbying, donating, educating, or simply clicking. The point is that as long as you stay in your comfort zone, you will not be part of the solution, but you will stay part of the problem.
Check out:
http://www.50waystohelp.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comfort_zone
Monday, September 15, 2008
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Convincing others: why?
When I was explaining the dream of my life to a cyber-friend, and came down to the ultimate goal of diversifying farmer's income with payment for environmental services (i. e. carbon funds), he asked "and why do you want the farmers to have more money?".
This question is crucial in development projects that do not address basic necessities such as food security, health, or education. My project in the rainforest aims to provide the farmers with a production alternative that includes the establishment of a canopy. But, yes, why would I want the farmers to have more money? More money does not necessarily translate into better lifestyles: men can spend extra-money in beers (quite popular in the tropics... and everywhere else), a new plasma TV, a pair of snake skin boots, and I don't know how many other things that will not make him or his family healthier or wiser.
A friend who works with migration issues accross Mexico and USA tells me that most of the money inmigrants send to little ranchitos in Mexico goes directly into plasma TV's, sold by a chain of electric devices owned by one of the two main TV enterprises in Mexico. Inmigrants, then, are putting their money not into better realities for their families in Mexico, but in the pocket of wealthy business men who buy cheap plasma screens from China. This is an interesting example of what could happen to the money we aim to provide to "poor" communities with out projects.
That made me think if money, cash, bills, is the way to pay the farmers for planting and taking care of the trees that catch the carbon. Maybe another way to convince them for getting involved in such an activity is to pay them with something else than money, something that translates directly into bettery livelihoods for them and their families.
This exchange can be of capacities, time, infrastructure... many assets which are actually harder to obtain with money. I am still thinking around this topic.
This question is crucial in development projects that do not address basic necessities such as food security, health, or education. My project in the rainforest aims to provide the farmers with a production alternative that includes the establishment of a canopy. But, yes, why would I want the farmers to have more money? More money does not necessarily translate into better lifestyles: men can spend extra-money in beers (quite popular in the tropics... and everywhere else), a new plasma TV, a pair of snake skin boots, and I don't know how many other things that will not make him or his family healthier or wiser.
A friend who works with migration issues accross Mexico and USA tells me that most of the money inmigrants send to little ranchitos in Mexico goes directly into plasma TV's, sold by a chain of electric devices owned by one of the two main TV enterprises in Mexico. Inmigrants, then, are putting their money not into better realities for their families in Mexico, but in the pocket of wealthy business men who buy cheap plasma screens from China. This is an interesting example of what could happen to the money we aim to provide to "poor" communities with out projects.
That made me think if money, cash, bills, is the way to pay the farmers for planting and taking care of the trees that catch the carbon. Maybe another way to convince them for getting involved in such an activity is to pay them with something else than money, something that translates directly into bettery livelihoods for them and their families.
This exchange can be of capacities, time, infrastructure... many assets which are actually harder to obtain with money. I am still thinking around this topic.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
The quest for effective social development
People that work in development projects face different obstacles along the way, which may result in successful or not-so-much changes in a human community. Even when addressing basic needs projects, if the proposals and methods are not tuned with the community's most intimate characteristics, the project may fail.
The "new" vision among development agencies and actors is the one to let proposals come from the communities in a bottom-top motion, instead of determining from an "outside" perspective what are the needs of that community, and trying to solve those needs. Under that perspective, communities should be first asked about what do they need, what would make their lives better, and how can the agency help them.
In the case of some colonizing communities of rainforest areas in Southeast Mexico, when landwoners are asked about what they would like to have in order to make their lives better, they usually reply they need more support in livestock and agriculture production. However, due to the nature of the soils in the area, livestock and agriculture activities hardly could participate in a regional or state market, due to the amount of inputs needed to raise production. Therefore, another option for these landowners would be to engage in carbon sequestration activities.
How can an agency make local interests and land suitability meet in a mid point? If landowners are "convinced" of planting trees for carbon sequestration, will they "engage" in such activity in the long term? Is payment for environmental services enough for landowners to acquire a compromise with a certain activity?
In my opinion, it is not. A parallel project of education and information must be developed in order for the communities to understand what is the importance of other activities which are not necessarily the ones they think may be the best. The process of informing and educating adults and children will have to endure as much as possible, in order for the people participating in the project to understand the relevance and benefit of tree growth.
The "new" vision among development agencies and actors is the one to let proposals come from the communities in a bottom-top motion, instead of determining from an "outside" perspective what are the needs of that community, and trying to solve those needs. Under that perspective, communities should be first asked about what do they need, what would make their lives better, and how can the agency help them.
In the case of some colonizing communities of rainforest areas in Southeast Mexico, when landwoners are asked about what they would like to have in order to make their lives better, they usually reply they need more support in livestock and agriculture production. However, due to the nature of the soils in the area, livestock and agriculture activities hardly could participate in a regional or state market, due to the amount of inputs needed to raise production. Therefore, another option for these landowners would be to engage in carbon sequestration activities.
How can an agency make local interests and land suitability meet in a mid point? If landowners are "convinced" of planting trees for carbon sequestration, will they "engage" in such activity in the long term? Is payment for environmental services enough for landowners to acquire a compromise with a certain activity?
In my opinion, it is not. A parallel project of education and information must be developed in order for the communities to understand what is the importance of other activities which are not necessarily the ones they think may be the best. The process of informing and educating adults and children will have to endure as much as possible, in order for the people participating in the project to understand the relevance and benefit of tree growth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
