Introduction.
It is my great honor to address such distinguished audience at this institution that embraces such noble purpose as the promotion of international peace among nations of the world. I would like to thank Sasakawa Peace Foundation and most particularly their Executive Director, Junko Chano-san, for her invitation to participate in this event and share with you some thoughts about my country’s efforts to promote international peace.
In an effort to present a case for international peace from the Costa Rican approach, I would like to comment a very brief history of Costa Rica’s demilitarization, illustrating the value proposition of what this means to us as a nation and what it represents to the world. Also, I would like to exemplify some benefits of this decision and present some challenges that lie ahead for the international community in terms of peace and disarmament, and conclude with some final considerations of what demilitarization means for international peace in the world we live in today.
First, I would like to elaborate on the concept of violence and peace. The Jainist religion from India defines violence as anything that alters harmony. Then, there are several forms of violence, from the direct physical violence of a homicide, to the structural violence of contamination of air and water, which ultimately affects both human and non-human life on the planet.
I would catalogue military spending as indirect violence for two reasons: first, because it represents an imminent threat to human life as the institutionalized power of violent force; and second, because the opportunity cost of spending in arms and weaponry implies that such funds cannot be spent in other more virtuous expenses, such as education, healthcare or environmental conservation.
Johan Galtung, a Norwegian peace philosopher, defines peace as “the ability to transform conflicts creatively, empathically and harmoniously.” This means, to think about solutions to human incompatibilities in a way that generates innovative ideas that keep us moving along the path to prosperity; always keeping the other in mind when thinking about the consequences of my behaviors and decisions; and, most importantly, to do so without violence, not inflicting damage or pain or loss to the other.
In that regard, the abolishment of a military army is a virtuous and civilized political decision towards a more peaceful coexistence between human beings towards a more prosperous future for all.
I. Abolishing the army: a brief history.
In 1948, Costa Rica was the scenario of a sociopolitical unrest that originated from an allegedly fraudulent electoral process. This led to a confrontation that became violent and both parties resorted to weapons to fight for what they considered their legitimate right.
A man by the name José Figueres Ferrer became the leader of the national liberation army, which was a paramilitary army of 700 men, some of which were foreigners from neighboring Latin American countries. This contingent was poorly armed and trained, but in 44 days managed to defeat the national state army and instate what became known as the Founding Junta of the Second Republic. During 18 months, Figueres Ferrer himself led a process through which Costa Rica issued a new Constitution including some paramount reforms that have shaped the country’s idiosyncrasy ever since.
One of these reforms was the permanent abolishment of the state military army.
History offers a particular view about this event within the circumstantial perspective of the time. As it has been stated before, this was a weak, poorly armed military body. Abolishing it did not imply a particularly large political cost. There was not going to be much opposition to the decision, especially after being defeated by a group of poorly trained and armed men.
It is said that Figueres Ferrer inspired his decision on a quote from H.G. Wells’s book “The Outline of History”, which says that “the future of mankind cannot include armed forces. Police yes, because people are imperfect.” He aimed at creating a society that would reach a higher level of civilization in which conflicts would never be dealt with through the violence of firearms.
II. A value proposition.
This historical decision has had profound repercussions domestically as well as abroad. For once, all nations around the world, most particularly our immediate neighboring countries of Nicaragua and Panama, have the certainty that Costa Rica will never resort to military power as a way to solve conflicts across borders.
Perhaps the most tangible example of this reality is the present border conflict that Costa Rica and Nicaragua are facing since October of 2010. An occupation of Nicaraguan military troops into Costa Rican territory triggered an international campaign by Costa Rican diplomacy both to legitimize its right to vindicate its sovereignty and territorial claim, as well as to take action at the corresponding international court of justice at The Hague as its fundamental defense strategy.
Would Costa Rica had an army, it is likely to imagine that it would have been deployed to fight the aggression by force. Although there were some isolated cries for militarization in the wake of this conflict, no one in Costa Rica dares to suggest the name and location of the first soldier we would choose to see perish in combat. As Ryoichi Sasakawa once said, “Blessed is the Costa Rican mother, who knows at the time of birth that her child will never be a soldier.”
In 1948, the world, most particularly Europe and Japan, had learned the hard way that war was never the way towards prosperity. The lesson was well learned, and it is no coincidence that today both the European as well as the Japanese nations are among the most prosperous in the world. These cultures understood the principles of peaceful coexistence and have embraced them ever since.
Figueres Ferrer had been very studious of European models of human development. World War II had a profound effect on him and made clear to him that the path towards development could not include military power in the equation.
III. Some benefits.
Looking back at Latin American history, one notorious difference between Costa Rica and many of its neighbors is that there has never been a military intervention in political or state affairs. If a foreign power would have wanted to infiltrate the military to influence political leadership in a country, as it has happened so many times, this was never a possibility in Costa Rica.
This has provided a solid political stability that has guaranteed, since 1948, that all political disputes have been solved in accordance with constitutional rules.
As I have said before, not having an army is a guarantee to the international community, most in particular to our immediate next-door neighbors, that they will never receive a military aggression from Costa Rica. This is why it is said that Costa Rica has waged peace on the world.
A third remarkable benefit of demilitarization for Costa Rica has been the possibility to reallocate military spending towards more virtuous and humane purposes, such as healthcare, education and environmental conservation. Costa Rica has embraced education as a pillar towards development since the 1880s, as well as healthcare to all inhabitants of the country, be they indigenous or migrant, regardless of their legal status through a world-renowned universal healthcare system.
Regarding environmental conservation, the country is well known internationally as an active promoter of sustainable development, ecological tourism, renewable energies and biodiversity. This is why it is said that Costa Rica, after waging peace on the world has also waged peace on nature.
Yet another benefit is the culture of peace. Having no military forces, there is no military training and therefore not a vast knowledge about how to deal with firearms. According to the Costa Rican Constitution, bearing weapons is not a right but a privilege granted by the State to people that prove sufficient understanding of the risks of keeping weapons at home or carrying them.
IV. Challenges of demilitarization.
A few decades ago, civil wars were present in three Central American countries. A peace plan presented by Costa Rica before the international community resulted in strong political commitments from all Central American governments to make all necessary efforts to restore peace. As a result, former Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sánchez was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987. Also, as a result, civil wars were eradicated from the region, with relative political stability since then.
Today the challenges faced by the region also have to do with armed violence. Six of the seven most violent countries in the world in 2011 are in the Caribbean basin of Latin America, and three of those are in Central America. These homicide epidemics represent the greatest obstacle to development in the region, without a doubt the most violent region in the world today. Although this has no relation with institutionalized demilitarization, it represents an urgent need to disarm extremely violent populations that show no respect for human life.
On a positive note, Panama has taken the decision a few years back to abolish its military army, which means that Costa Rica shares with its southern neighbor perhaps the safest border in the world, with no military presence on either side of the international border.
Precisely, another challenge of demilitarization today is the urgency to patrol borders and domestic waters against drug trafficking. Central America and Mexico is the natural bridge of heavy narcotics that are trafficked between South America and North America. This has created an illegal market economy of storage, distribution and sale of drugs that has corrupted millions of people in the region pushing them towards violent crime to earn a living and die young.
The drug war in Mexico, in which the military army has been fighting drug lords and cartels over the past 5 years has rendered nearly 50,000 deaths. It is questionable whether military intervention has been successful. Inevitably, the question looms large about what are alternatives to such intervention by the use of force.
V. Final considerations.
Moreover, at a global level re-militarization is an increasingly worrisome situation. By 2010, the world has managed to reach an amount of military spending of $1.6 trillion dollars. Compared to the financial needs to accomplish by 2015 the millennium development goals launched by the United Nations in the year 2000, military spending exceeds such amount by 30 times.
Also, compared to the Climate Change adaptation costs suggested by the Stern Report in 2005, military spending exceeds the amount by 15 times. In other words, the money spent in military armament and weapons is enough to finance adaptation to climate change and all Millennium Development Goals together more than ten times.
The question is which enemy is it that military armies are preparing to fight against. It makes one wonder if they are aware of human-made environmental challenges that already represent a serious threat to civilization as we know it. And yet there is no military army that can fight a battle that knows no borders and that could affect water supplies and fertility of agricultural production to feed all of humanity.
A recent statistic revealed that worldwide we have produced 14 billion rounds of ammunition. That is two bullets per every single person living in the planet. Is this really necessary?
This is a question that has to be dealt with ethically. What is the kind of civilization we expect to build? How much do we wish to embrace peaceful coexistence, the kind that is lived in Japan, a country ranked third in the Global Peace Index?
For countries that do not have an army, like Costa Rica, the abidance of international rule of law represents the ultimate line of defense against any and all foreign aggressions, be it a state aggression such as a foreign military intervention, or a non-state aggression, such as drug trafficking. The recomposition and absolute respect for international treaties and supranational governance enthroned by multilateralism, is not only a guarantee for the preservation of world peace, but, most importantly, the pinnacle of the most civilized peaceful coexistence in today’s world.
In 2006, Costa Rica presented the Costa Rica Consensus, which was an idea to readjust the rules of international cooperation according to each country’s reduction of military spending. The idea consisted on proposing that the countries that more decidedly reduced their military spending would be the ones to rank higher on the list of countries subject to receiving foreign development aid. Unfortunately, this was not an idea deemed virtuous or of merit by the international community. It is no coincidence that the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are the biggest sellers of weapons and armament worldwide. They would likely disagree with any international treaty that would promote reduction of military expenditure.
Also in 2006, Costa Rican president Oscar Arias Sánchez led an initiative by a group of Nobel Peace laureates to present what has become known as the Arms Trade Treaty, which was adopted at the United Nations General Assembly as resolution 61/89, “Towards and Arms Trade Treaty: establishing common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms.”
Along with Costa Rica, Japan is among the original co-authors of the resolution. The passing of this resolution counted with support by 153 countries, with 24 abstentions and only one vote against, by the United States of America, who is responsible for $55 billion dollars a year in international trade of conventional firearms. In October, 2009, president Barack Obama overturned his country’s former position, granting support to such an international treaty. As of September, 2011, 58 US Senators oppose the treaty, representing a sufficient number to block any such treaty from being ratified by the United States.
As the 21st Century moves along into a far more integrated and interconnected global society that at present counts 7 billion inhabitants and is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050, other global challenges will become far more relevant, such as the availability of forests to clean the air that we breathe and the water that we drink, availability of sanitary conditions such as clean water for all the world’s population, availability of fertile lands and oceans to grow our food resources such as agricultural crops and fisheries to feed us all, and availability of human security not threatened by climate-related catastrophes.
Putting our guns down would be an ethical step towards building global trust to get our heads and hearts around dealing effectively with far greater issues than military confrontation. This calls on peaceful nations like Japan, like Costa Rica, to lead the way by example.
As Johan Galtung reminds us, “peace is the ability to transform conflict creatively, empathically and harmoniously.” This is the aim of the Costa Rican nation and the aspiration of Costa Rica to the world.
Thank you.
Alvaro Cedeno Molinari
February 08, 2012
Tokyo, Japan
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Sunday, February 05, 2012
El Principio de Legalidad
Es llamativo que, en un Estado de Derecho como Costa Rica, no se discuta la diferencia entre el principio de legalidad y el principio de autonomía de la voluntad. Cualquier estudiante de segundo año de derecho es capaz de explicarlo. Todo funcionario público sabe que existe una diferencia fundamental entre la gestión pública y la gestión privada.
El principio de legalidad establece que la administración pública sólo puede hacer aquello que le ha sido expresamente ordenado por una norma. En sentido contrario, el principio de autonomía de la voluntad establece que una persona privada -física o jurídica- puede hacer todo aquello que no esté expresamente prohibido.
Entonces la gestión de gobierno está constreñida por lo que la ley manda, mientras que los sujetos privados pueden hacer todo lo que decidan siempre y cuando no exista restricción legal para ello.
Las implicaciones de estos dos principios son dramáticas, sobre todo porque los sujetos privados suelen desconocer la diferencia. Además, existe la noción entre sujetos privados de que el gobierno no actúa debidamente para llenar vacíos de poder que existen en el quehacer de la nación.
Para que el gobierno pueda ir llenando estos vacíos se requieren nuevas leyes o reformas a leyes existentes, y estas modificaciones sólo pueden provenir del primer poder de la República, la Asamblea Legislativa. Por ello, la falta de acción de un gobierno a veces se debe a imposibilidades legales y a veces a la falta de leyes que le ordenen actuar.
Un buen ejemplo es la promoción de generación de electricidad a partir de fuentes renovables a cargo de sujetos privados que le permita al Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) fijar tarifas para comprar esa electricidad y distribuirla o exportarla. Sin las leyes correspondientes, el ICE no tiene la autorización requerida para hacerlo.
El principio de legalidad establece que la administración pública sólo puede hacer aquello que le ha sido expresamente ordenado por una norma. En sentido contrario, el principio de autonomía de la voluntad establece que una persona privada -física o jurídica- puede hacer todo aquello que no esté expresamente prohibido.
Entonces la gestión de gobierno está constreñida por lo que la ley manda, mientras que los sujetos privados pueden hacer todo lo que decidan siempre y cuando no exista restricción legal para ello.
Las implicaciones de estos dos principios son dramáticas, sobre todo porque los sujetos privados suelen desconocer la diferencia. Además, existe la noción entre sujetos privados de que el gobierno no actúa debidamente para llenar vacíos de poder que existen en el quehacer de la nación.
Para que el gobierno pueda ir llenando estos vacíos se requieren nuevas leyes o reformas a leyes existentes, y estas modificaciones sólo pueden provenir del primer poder de la República, la Asamblea Legislativa. Por ello, la falta de acción de un gobierno a veces se debe a imposibilidades legales y a veces a la falta de leyes que le ordenen actuar.
Un buen ejemplo es la promoción de generación de electricidad a partir de fuentes renovables a cargo de sujetos privados que le permita al Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) fijar tarifas para comprar esa electricidad y distribuirla o exportarla. Sin las leyes correspondientes, el ICE no tiene la autorización requerida para hacerlo.
Saturday, February 04, 2012
Reminder of Urgency
As 2012 moves along, we tend to get caught up in domestic and international politics, trade and unemployment figures. Meanwhile, the most pressing issue civilization has ever faced continues to increase in gravity. Human-made climate change has provoked the unpredictability of climactic patterns, augmented the intensity and frequency of climate-related disasters, and has worsened the constraints for human development.
In 2011 alone, 5.2 million hectares of forest coverage were lost, along with 7 million hectares of fertile land lost to erosion and 12 million hectares of land that turned into desert. This adds up to almost 250,000 square kilometers, a surface area larger than many countries.
These figures make us wonder: how much forest coverage and fertile land are required to support a human population that tends to reach 9 billion by 2050? What is the economic value of environmental services that humanity enjoys for free from nature? Can we afford to continue behaving in this way?
At the pace we are degrading the natural environment, humanity risks reaching critical ecosystemic tipping points beyond which extinction of biodiversity will accelerate, changing the condition of life on the planet like it has not been altered in millions of years.
Our top priority must be to revert the causes of this systemic failure threatening with civilizational collapse and adapt to rapidly occurring changes in our environment. Without healthy ecosystems there are no peacefully coexisting societies, and without these, no thriving market economies or financial expansion.
Peace, wealth, growth, development and comfort are intricately linked to the quality of biodiversity and ecosystems.
In 2011 alone, 5.2 million hectares of forest coverage were lost, along with 7 million hectares of fertile land lost to erosion and 12 million hectares of land that turned into desert. This adds up to almost 250,000 square kilometers, a surface area larger than many countries.
These figures make us wonder: how much forest coverage and fertile land are required to support a human population that tends to reach 9 billion by 2050? What is the economic value of environmental services that humanity enjoys for free from nature? Can we afford to continue behaving in this way?
At the pace we are degrading the natural environment, humanity risks reaching critical ecosystemic tipping points beyond which extinction of biodiversity will accelerate, changing the condition of life on the planet like it has not been altered in millions of years.
Our top priority must be to revert the causes of this systemic failure threatening with civilizational collapse and adapt to rapidly occurring changes in our environment. Without healthy ecosystems there are no peacefully coexisting societies, and without these, no thriving market economies or financial expansion.
Peace, wealth, growth, development and comfort are intricately linked to the quality of biodiversity and ecosystems.
Friday, January 06, 2012
Ideas Going to Bed
I once attended a conference organized by the Common Bond Institute at Kalamazoo, Michigan, where the keynote speaker, Dr. Maureen O’Hara, stated that, given the amount of information available in modern times, the human brain was only capable at grasping at any one time only a trillionth of all knowledge. This marked me in my career as peacemaker and conflict facilitator, as I reflected on the fact that this meant what we ignored was pretty much everything. In other words, I realized that what we ignore is so vast that it is a very arrogant posture to believe one is right about anything. In a conflict situation, this means that believing I am right and the other one is wrong is the least constructive stance of all, because it is leaving the solution –if any- to a third party decision, like a referee or a judge, or to the political might or any other force that would influence the harmonious and synergistic approach of transforming the conflict towards mutual benefits and enriching the relationship. Impossible? Too idealistic? Precisely. That’s what principles are made of and their raison d’être.
When Dr. O’Hara mentioned this humbling fact, we were barely scratching the surface of what has become a social media globalization. Now we are really connected with hundreds of millions of people around the world in real time. The amount of content that is being added onto the internet today, to some accounts, is equivalent to all the knowledge that our civilization had created until the year 2000 every two days. This is yet another reason to understand that it is ineffective to believe we know any better than anybody else.
If you know what I mean, take a look all around you and you will see examples of this jumping at you everywhere. Look at the political dynamics in your country or in any other country. Are politicians asserting opinions as if they were right and others were wrong? Are they categorically making statements that leave no room for doubt? So their political counterparts have no choice but to air out their discontent in a very similar fashion, asserting how mistaken the other is. The vicious cycle goes on and on and does not seem to come to an end. What is worse, it seems to be growing over time. When we have heard this discussion before, and we have seen the outcomes of many a debate that really leads to a stalemate in the best case scenario, and intense animosity and even violence among rivals, then it makes us wonder if this will have a positive outcome some time in the future.
Do you really think that politics will overcome the deadlock on Sunday morning and we will go back to the honorable way of making politics, being first of all respectful of the other, obedient of the legitimately elected leaders, willing and able to engage in transparent and principled negotiations that observe the superior and common cause of collective wellbeing? If you have grown skeptical to this scenario it is probably because you are not a politician or aspiring to become one. On a more serious note, your skepticism is the natural projection humans make into the future when we perceive tendencies that are unsustainable, detrimental to our collective prosperity, in a word: destructive.
The fascinating reality is that, even though we see it worsening, and we envision a dead end where our governance will hit a wall, we react indifferently to the theatrics, sometimes we experience five minutes of rage every so often, but most of us do nothing else about it. We do not have constructive conversations about how to get together and try to influence the neighbors on our street or the coworkers on our department, or our friends on our digital network. We do not consider running for office. We do not even consider staying away from the voting ballot. We the people, citizens of our respective countries, still support the show we are being fed day in and day out by our ever ineffective, tasteless and uncharming public leaders.
Transforming our political system is among the top priorities for our global governance and sustainability. In fact, it might be an indispensable and urgent change for our survival. As long as group o 20 people –mostly men- get together once or twice a year somewhere around the world to decide to continue on the same unsustainable path towards collapse just because change is too politically costly in each of their constituencies, then we can be certain that we will continue traveling this same path, not an inch in any direction.
The way to transform the largest system is exactly the same way to transform the smallest system: interrupting the spiral of violent and vicious growth of a trend and drastically start moving in another direction. The smallest system I can think of that we can influence and transform radically and dramatically is our individual self. Have a look at your past choices in life that have become achievements. They all started off by a decision you made to change, for whatever reason. Have you ever passed a school subject? Have you ever successfully completed a school year? Have you graduated from elementary or high school? Do you have a university degree? Have you ran a marathon or similar athletic accomplishment? Have you quit smoking or put down weight? Have you planted a tree, raised a child or helped someone on the street? All these small and not so small acts of progress have been the result of a decision you made.
Decisions are emotional resolutions that we choose, pacts we make with ourselves: I will do it. All decisions come from a more primitive source: an idea. Eureka! I have an idea: I will do that thing. The reason is not so important as the fact that the idea was entertained in your mind for some time –seconds, days or years- until it finally received the emotional resources to be attempted.
The funny thing with ideas is that they are not invented. They come from somewhere else. Which does not mean that nobody invents something genuinely new and original. There would be no innovation if that were true. My point is that many ideas are the result of observation, whether something we saw or listened, consciously or unconsciously, from someone else or on the media or out on the street. Which means that we owe at least a tiny part of the credit of an accomplishment to the source of where the idea came from.
In fact, innovation sometimes means that one person or group of people put together two or more ideas and come up with something that did not exist before, although the separate elements were already there. The point I am trying to make here is the importance of ideas coming into contact with people, or to put it in more proactive terms, that people get in contact with ideas, as many as possible, as often as possible, as diverse as possible. Perhaps that is what makes traveling to other geographical locations is so enriching, because one enters into contact with an entirely different system of human interaction that is composed of hundreds or thousands of ideas that blend together harmoniously. Then we grow at a faster pace than if we only occasionally entered into contact with an infrequent idea here and there. Again, that is why it is so critical for one’s own decision-making process to remain constantly exploring new ideas through reading or listening to systematic trains of thought, like books or manuals or lectures or speeches that have been elaborated carefully as a collection of other ideas that come from somewhere else.
Innovation is what we need to do with our individual personal system, which is going to train us to do it later with those around us, our relatives, neighbors, colleagues, and beyond. To change the world, therefore, we first need to change ourselves. And the easiest way to do it is to be open and perceptive to new ideas that already exist all around us. Those ideas, in fact, mutate faster than we think. Today there is an idea that tomorrow has become something different when it entered into contact with someone else. When we are the main characters of this process of transforming ideas into something different, then we make individual progress, we make decisions that are life-changing, and we build our character stronger, ready to take on a new challenge.
In a way, we could say that ideas reproduce at the pace at which they are incepted into people’s minds. Do not think of elephants. Now you are thinking about elephants. The notion of an elephant has been incepted into your mind (it was actually already there, I am just illustrating this example with elephants, which you were not supposed to be thinking about now, except I mentioned it). It may be hard to let the elephant go for a while, but you could use the idea of an elephant to think about other things that may be valuable for you. It might remind you that you have not fed your pet, or that you need to congratulate your friend from Thailand on her birthday (there are many elephants in Thailand). It could also help you think about your diet, not because you are fat, but because you are thinking about becoming vegetarian and elephants are. Or you may have remembered a sad story you read about elephant tusks being illegally traded, causing the death of thousands of elephants worldwide. These secondary ideas can derive into something else. The article you are supposed to write by Monday, the Thai restaurant around the corner, or any other thing that is activated when all the database in your brain enters into motion around this new idea of an elephant.
This pace of reproduction of ideas is vital for our individual and collective development. It is this hyper-reproduction of ideas that has brought us so much scientific development that has been transformed into technological tools and gadgets that has added so much value to our lives and has even provided us with a high degree of comfort. In fact, this process will continue to lead the solutions that are required to transform some of the most serious problems we face as a global civilization, especially in terms of energy consumption as a need and pollution as a consequence of our behavior.
It is in our individual and collective interest that more ideas come together, because when they do, they reproduce virally and spread around the world increasingly fast and we grow in digital connectivity with one another. Since no one can have but only a trillionth of all the information available, the best we can do is to share what we know and in the process go exchanging what we know for what we do not. Of course we are not going to lose what we already know. It is already with us permanently, like the idea of the elephant. In fact, this process is a win-win situation for you and for everyone you interact with: they will gain from your ideas and you will gain from theirs. So go ahead and mingle as much as you can, with as many and as diverse a people as you can, spreading your wisdom and collecting new one. Your future decisions will most likely be triggered and composed by things you still do not know and you are about to learn.
When Dr. O’Hara mentioned this humbling fact, we were barely scratching the surface of what has become a social media globalization. Now we are really connected with hundreds of millions of people around the world in real time. The amount of content that is being added onto the internet today, to some accounts, is equivalent to all the knowledge that our civilization had created until the year 2000 every two days. This is yet another reason to understand that it is ineffective to believe we know any better than anybody else.
If you know what I mean, take a look all around you and you will see examples of this jumping at you everywhere. Look at the political dynamics in your country or in any other country. Are politicians asserting opinions as if they were right and others were wrong? Are they categorically making statements that leave no room for doubt? So their political counterparts have no choice but to air out their discontent in a very similar fashion, asserting how mistaken the other is. The vicious cycle goes on and on and does not seem to come to an end. What is worse, it seems to be growing over time. When we have heard this discussion before, and we have seen the outcomes of many a debate that really leads to a stalemate in the best case scenario, and intense animosity and even violence among rivals, then it makes us wonder if this will have a positive outcome some time in the future.
Do you really think that politics will overcome the deadlock on Sunday morning and we will go back to the honorable way of making politics, being first of all respectful of the other, obedient of the legitimately elected leaders, willing and able to engage in transparent and principled negotiations that observe the superior and common cause of collective wellbeing? If you have grown skeptical to this scenario it is probably because you are not a politician or aspiring to become one. On a more serious note, your skepticism is the natural projection humans make into the future when we perceive tendencies that are unsustainable, detrimental to our collective prosperity, in a word: destructive.
The fascinating reality is that, even though we see it worsening, and we envision a dead end where our governance will hit a wall, we react indifferently to the theatrics, sometimes we experience five minutes of rage every so often, but most of us do nothing else about it. We do not have constructive conversations about how to get together and try to influence the neighbors on our street or the coworkers on our department, or our friends on our digital network. We do not consider running for office. We do not even consider staying away from the voting ballot. We the people, citizens of our respective countries, still support the show we are being fed day in and day out by our ever ineffective, tasteless and uncharming public leaders.
Transforming our political system is among the top priorities for our global governance and sustainability. In fact, it might be an indispensable and urgent change for our survival. As long as group o 20 people –mostly men- get together once or twice a year somewhere around the world to decide to continue on the same unsustainable path towards collapse just because change is too politically costly in each of their constituencies, then we can be certain that we will continue traveling this same path, not an inch in any direction.
The way to transform the largest system is exactly the same way to transform the smallest system: interrupting the spiral of violent and vicious growth of a trend and drastically start moving in another direction. The smallest system I can think of that we can influence and transform radically and dramatically is our individual self. Have a look at your past choices in life that have become achievements. They all started off by a decision you made to change, for whatever reason. Have you ever passed a school subject? Have you ever successfully completed a school year? Have you graduated from elementary or high school? Do you have a university degree? Have you ran a marathon or similar athletic accomplishment? Have you quit smoking or put down weight? Have you planted a tree, raised a child or helped someone on the street? All these small and not so small acts of progress have been the result of a decision you made.
Decisions are emotional resolutions that we choose, pacts we make with ourselves: I will do it. All decisions come from a more primitive source: an idea. Eureka! I have an idea: I will do that thing. The reason is not so important as the fact that the idea was entertained in your mind for some time –seconds, days or years- until it finally received the emotional resources to be attempted.
The funny thing with ideas is that they are not invented. They come from somewhere else. Which does not mean that nobody invents something genuinely new and original. There would be no innovation if that were true. My point is that many ideas are the result of observation, whether something we saw or listened, consciously or unconsciously, from someone else or on the media or out on the street. Which means that we owe at least a tiny part of the credit of an accomplishment to the source of where the idea came from.
In fact, innovation sometimes means that one person or group of people put together two or more ideas and come up with something that did not exist before, although the separate elements were already there. The point I am trying to make here is the importance of ideas coming into contact with people, or to put it in more proactive terms, that people get in contact with ideas, as many as possible, as often as possible, as diverse as possible. Perhaps that is what makes traveling to other geographical locations is so enriching, because one enters into contact with an entirely different system of human interaction that is composed of hundreds or thousands of ideas that blend together harmoniously. Then we grow at a faster pace than if we only occasionally entered into contact with an infrequent idea here and there. Again, that is why it is so critical for one’s own decision-making process to remain constantly exploring new ideas through reading or listening to systematic trains of thought, like books or manuals or lectures or speeches that have been elaborated carefully as a collection of other ideas that come from somewhere else.
Innovation is what we need to do with our individual personal system, which is going to train us to do it later with those around us, our relatives, neighbors, colleagues, and beyond. To change the world, therefore, we first need to change ourselves. And the easiest way to do it is to be open and perceptive to new ideas that already exist all around us. Those ideas, in fact, mutate faster than we think. Today there is an idea that tomorrow has become something different when it entered into contact with someone else. When we are the main characters of this process of transforming ideas into something different, then we make individual progress, we make decisions that are life-changing, and we build our character stronger, ready to take on a new challenge.
In a way, we could say that ideas reproduce at the pace at which they are incepted into people’s minds. Do not think of elephants. Now you are thinking about elephants. The notion of an elephant has been incepted into your mind (it was actually already there, I am just illustrating this example with elephants, which you were not supposed to be thinking about now, except I mentioned it). It may be hard to let the elephant go for a while, but you could use the idea of an elephant to think about other things that may be valuable for you. It might remind you that you have not fed your pet, or that you need to congratulate your friend from Thailand on her birthday (there are many elephants in Thailand). It could also help you think about your diet, not because you are fat, but because you are thinking about becoming vegetarian and elephants are. Or you may have remembered a sad story you read about elephant tusks being illegally traded, causing the death of thousands of elephants worldwide. These secondary ideas can derive into something else. The article you are supposed to write by Monday, the Thai restaurant around the corner, or any other thing that is activated when all the database in your brain enters into motion around this new idea of an elephant.
This pace of reproduction of ideas is vital for our individual and collective development. It is this hyper-reproduction of ideas that has brought us so much scientific development that has been transformed into technological tools and gadgets that has added so much value to our lives and has even provided us with a high degree of comfort. In fact, this process will continue to lead the solutions that are required to transform some of the most serious problems we face as a global civilization, especially in terms of energy consumption as a need and pollution as a consequence of our behavior.
It is in our individual and collective interest that more ideas come together, because when they do, they reproduce virally and spread around the world increasingly fast and we grow in digital connectivity with one another. Since no one can have but only a trillionth of all the information available, the best we can do is to share what we know and in the process go exchanging what we know for what we do not. Of course we are not going to lose what we already know. It is already with us permanently, like the idea of the elephant. In fact, this process is a win-win situation for you and for everyone you interact with: they will gain from your ideas and you will gain from theirs. So go ahead and mingle as much as you can, with as many and as diverse a people as you can, spreading your wisdom and collecting new one. Your future decisions will most likely be triggered and composed by things you still do not know and you are about to learn.
Tuesday, January 03, 2012
Preliminary Considerations on Intercultural Ethics
It is mandatory that we identify more opportunities to create change in the way we interact with one another and with other living beings. Symbiosis is the intricate co-dependency between species in any and all ecosystems. Unfortunately, humans have grown to believe that we reign over the rest of plants and animals on the planet and that we dispose of them with a sense of ownership that empowers us to even destroy what we believe belongs to us. Right or wrong, the truth is that we cannot survive without clean air and drinkable water, and the process of cleaning air and water in the planet relies, almost entirely, on trees in our dense forests in Latin America and Africa and Southeast Asia, where most rainforests still remain. As Jared Diamond wonders about the defunct inhabitants of Easter Island, what did the person that cut down the last tree on the island think as she was chopping it down?
Of course, the most expected response to this question is denial: there are still plenty a tree around to think about this question. True. But this denial has led humanity to reduce forest coverage as much as five million hectares, cause a loss of land to soil erosion of seven million hectares, and lead to the desertification of fertile land to almost 12 million hectares. The scariest thing is that these statistics are for 2011 alone. At this pace, the question is not whether or when will we run out of trees. The critical question is how much are we reducing nature’s capability to renew itself to continue cleaning our air and water, especially when, also in 2011, human industry managed to generate 33.5 billion metric tons of CO2.
When I say it is mandatory to seek change, I am not suggesting that it is mandatory by force of law or market incentive or sanction –say, like a carbon tax. Instead, it is an ethical mandate that crosses borders and cultures, gender and socioeconomic status. Survival on the planet lies on the symbiosis that must exist between animals and plants, oceans and skies, as a single and perfectly integrated system that has worked flawlessly for millions of years and has only been disrupted by the footprint of just a few generations of humans roaming the Earth.
This is not too hard to understand. Anyone who studied the water cycle in third grade science knows what I am talking about here. It is far more difficult, I presume, to change course of what we are doing on a daily basis that is causing so much irreparable damage. It is partly due to the fact that it is more complex to comprehend the connection between a beef patty on your burger and the corresponding carbon emissions attached to the transportation of that meat from Uruguay to Singapore, as well as the emissions generated where forest has been transformed into grassland to produce beef meat. In this particular example, when a tree has been chopped down to clear land for agricultural production, the calculation of CO2 emissions is inestimable, since a tree acts as a vacuum of carbon dioxide, and cutting it down reduces the planet’s ability to absorb those emissions permanently.
This is a hard fact and a solid truth in any language, for every religion, in every small village in the world. This is why the ethical mandate is of intercultural characteristics. Whoever cut or burned down those five million hectares of forests in 2011 affects you and me and them alike. We may consider the reasons as to why people do that, whether lack of information or the presence of very strong, monetary incentives. One thing is that a person knows that cutting a tree damages the environment and his own ability to actually grow food to put on his table, and another very different one is understanding that, in order to buy the bottled drink or mobile phone he will need money to do so. This is a microcosm of the trade-off that takes place billions of times every day around the world: doing what is right for the environment by planting a tree or choosing a different product with a lower ecological impact, or going for the immediate hedonistic satisfaction that only money can buy.
The reason why I consider the mandate that is calling is of an ethical nature is precisely because we are reducing the quality of our own lives and increasing exponentially the risk of health and safety for future generations. There is another reason why it is critical that we revise our priorities as human civilization based on ethics and values: because there has never been so much monetary wealth to go around in our history, it is despicable to know that as many as one hundred thousand people die every day from preventable causes, whether lack of proper hygiene, drinking water, malnourishment, diseases that should have been already eradicated, or violent armed conflict.
As it seems, prosperity is not correlated to monetary wealth. Even people that live well off are mistaken if they believe that they are prosperous because they are rich, because, as long as our natural capital is decreasing, we are all worse off. This trend of loss of wealth has been occurring for over two decades now, and as long as we continue to measure our wealth in coins, we will be oblivious to the reality that each and every coin, as well as every single gold bar is backed by a portion of the planet’s limited –and decreasing- natural environment.
Of course, the most expected response to this question is denial: there are still plenty a tree around to think about this question. True. But this denial has led humanity to reduce forest coverage as much as five million hectares, cause a loss of land to soil erosion of seven million hectares, and lead to the desertification of fertile land to almost 12 million hectares. The scariest thing is that these statistics are for 2011 alone. At this pace, the question is not whether or when will we run out of trees. The critical question is how much are we reducing nature’s capability to renew itself to continue cleaning our air and water, especially when, also in 2011, human industry managed to generate 33.5 billion metric tons of CO2.
When I say it is mandatory to seek change, I am not suggesting that it is mandatory by force of law or market incentive or sanction –say, like a carbon tax. Instead, it is an ethical mandate that crosses borders and cultures, gender and socioeconomic status. Survival on the planet lies on the symbiosis that must exist between animals and plants, oceans and skies, as a single and perfectly integrated system that has worked flawlessly for millions of years and has only been disrupted by the footprint of just a few generations of humans roaming the Earth.
This is not too hard to understand. Anyone who studied the water cycle in third grade science knows what I am talking about here. It is far more difficult, I presume, to change course of what we are doing on a daily basis that is causing so much irreparable damage. It is partly due to the fact that it is more complex to comprehend the connection between a beef patty on your burger and the corresponding carbon emissions attached to the transportation of that meat from Uruguay to Singapore, as well as the emissions generated where forest has been transformed into grassland to produce beef meat. In this particular example, when a tree has been chopped down to clear land for agricultural production, the calculation of CO2 emissions is inestimable, since a tree acts as a vacuum of carbon dioxide, and cutting it down reduces the planet’s ability to absorb those emissions permanently.
This is a hard fact and a solid truth in any language, for every religion, in every small village in the world. This is why the ethical mandate is of intercultural characteristics. Whoever cut or burned down those five million hectares of forests in 2011 affects you and me and them alike. We may consider the reasons as to why people do that, whether lack of information or the presence of very strong, monetary incentives. One thing is that a person knows that cutting a tree damages the environment and his own ability to actually grow food to put on his table, and another very different one is understanding that, in order to buy the bottled drink or mobile phone he will need money to do so. This is a microcosm of the trade-off that takes place billions of times every day around the world: doing what is right for the environment by planting a tree or choosing a different product with a lower ecological impact, or going for the immediate hedonistic satisfaction that only money can buy.
The reason why I consider the mandate that is calling is of an ethical nature is precisely because we are reducing the quality of our own lives and increasing exponentially the risk of health and safety for future generations. There is another reason why it is critical that we revise our priorities as human civilization based on ethics and values: because there has never been so much monetary wealth to go around in our history, it is despicable to know that as many as one hundred thousand people die every day from preventable causes, whether lack of proper hygiene, drinking water, malnourishment, diseases that should have been already eradicated, or violent armed conflict.
As it seems, prosperity is not correlated to monetary wealth. Even people that live well off are mistaken if they believe that they are prosperous because they are rich, because, as long as our natural capital is decreasing, we are all worse off. This trend of loss of wealth has been occurring for over two decades now, and as long as we continue to measure our wealth in coins, we will be oblivious to the reality that each and every coin, as well as every single gold bar is backed by a portion of the planet’s limited –and decreasing- natural environment.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Passengers and Crew
Let's face it: there is something intrinsic to our sociopolitical and economic-environmental system that is failing consistently. Whichever the field of study, we see serious faults that prolongate or even worsen human life on the planet. Deteriorating public health, organized crime, lack of food and abundance of toxic agrochemicals, deforestation and overfishing, bankrupt pension funds, ineffective political leaders, corrupt public officials, irresponsible corporations, exorbitant fiscal deficits, etc.
In some areas we have transgressed the limits of decency. Bankrupt pension funds to treat with dignity the millions of "baby-boomers" that constructed the greatest United States there ever was and who have started to retire after a life of hard work is despicable. That some fiscal deficits require 50 years to be paid is an abominable injustice against our children and even against those yet to be born. That 100,000 people -mostly children- die every day around the world from a preventable cause is a sin regardless of your religion. That the oldest trees in the planet are wiped out for a short-term gain is a blunder we will pay for generations to come.
There seems to be no common thread between these phenomena, but I would like to propose there is. Although it is true the law was never enough to contain audacity and defiance of the human spirit towards creativity and creation skipping all obstacles to arrive farther, higher, deeper, until a few decades ago there used to be enough space for some to break the rules and discover new horizons. There was abundance of resources and Economics only theoretically referred to their limits. Demand was tiny compared to today's, as well as purchasing power. Life expectation was lower and global population was a fraction of the 7 billion we are today.
Globalization did not arrive all of a sudden. It was a gradual process which we adopted and adapted to in 50 years past. Since we landed on the moon we knew we were all on the same boat here on Earth.
Nevertheless, the new millennium made us think about the long term. According to present tendencies, where will we be in a thousand years? In a hundred? In fifty? And so we have come to the realization that we cannot continue on the same path because we will collapse if we do. The only way we can prevent a tragedy of cataclysmic magnitude -and, by the way, it is worth confirming that IT IS avoidable- is to arrive at global agreements to preserve what is essential of life on the planet and help the ecosystem regenerate itself.
Our ecological footprint must become positive very soon in order to revert the tendency we are on to allow the environment to flourish -us included. In fact, with us at the lead. As Marshall McLuhan once said: "There are no passengers on spaceship Earth; we are all crew."
The time has come for us to build a system of rules that is not pegged to money, because money is not a value, only a currency. And all the money in the world cannot recuperate all what has been lost from a planet that was perfect and unique in the universe as we know it.
We require values that are durable over time, simple to comprehend, intuitive, natural, pleasurable to adopt, and that distinguish its followers as the new leaders of tomorrow. As Émile Durkheim said: "when values are sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when values are insufficient, laws are unenforceable."
In some areas we have transgressed the limits of decency. Bankrupt pension funds to treat with dignity the millions of "baby-boomers" that constructed the greatest United States there ever was and who have started to retire after a life of hard work is despicable. That some fiscal deficits require 50 years to be paid is an abominable injustice against our children and even against those yet to be born. That 100,000 people -mostly children- die every day around the world from a preventable cause is a sin regardless of your religion. That the oldest trees in the planet are wiped out for a short-term gain is a blunder we will pay for generations to come.
There seems to be no common thread between these phenomena, but I would like to propose there is. Although it is true the law was never enough to contain audacity and defiance of the human spirit towards creativity and creation skipping all obstacles to arrive farther, higher, deeper, until a few decades ago there used to be enough space for some to break the rules and discover new horizons. There was abundance of resources and Economics only theoretically referred to their limits. Demand was tiny compared to today's, as well as purchasing power. Life expectation was lower and global population was a fraction of the 7 billion we are today.
Globalization did not arrive all of a sudden. It was a gradual process which we adopted and adapted to in 50 years past. Since we landed on the moon we knew we were all on the same boat here on Earth.
Nevertheless, the new millennium made us think about the long term. According to present tendencies, where will we be in a thousand years? In a hundred? In fifty? And so we have come to the realization that we cannot continue on the same path because we will collapse if we do. The only way we can prevent a tragedy of cataclysmic magnitude -and, by the way, it is worth confirming that IT IS avoidable- is to arrive at global agreements to preserve what is essential of life on the planet and help the ecosystem regenerate itself.
Our ecological footprint must become positive very soon in order to revert the tendency we are on to allow the environment to flourish -us included. In fact, with us at the lead. As Marshall McLuhan once said: "There are no passengers on spaceship Earth; we are all crew."
The time has come for us to build a system of rules that is not pegged to money, because money is not a value, only a currency. And all the money in the world cannot recuperate all what has been lost from a planet that was perfect and unique in the universe as we know it.
We require values that are durable over time, simple to comprehend, intuitive, natural, pleasurable to adopt, and that distinguish its followers as the new leaders of tomorrow. As Émile Durkheim said: "when values are sufficient, laws are unnecessary; when values are insufficient, laws are unenforceable."
Friday, October 21, 2011
Leadership Crisis at the Core of our Conflicts
Human life has never been so resourceful. We produce more food than we eat (although it is consumed unequally); science and technology have brought us to an era of hyper-modernity unthought of only a quarter century ago; the flow and access of information is unlimited in volume and at near zero cost; entertainment is amusing and at the tip of our fingers.
Yet, humanity has never faced so many and so dire and complex crises in its history: disease and preventable death among children, armed confrontation and high homicide rates, discrimination towards women, attacks against people with different religious background, ideological clashes, environmental degradation.
Some people believe there are too many humans on the planet. Others think the planet could hold up to 18 billion humans if lifestyle was truly sustainable.
Meanwhile, I perceive a dramatic lack of leadership at all levels. That is no surprise. We have been brought up to follow others' leadership: a religious authority, a school teacher, a government officer, a boss. This has blinded us from our own, individual leadership. We practice it since we learn how to walk and we voluntarily choose in which direction to go and discover our Universe. But faster than we think, our leadership is shadowed by that of others. We must discover the leader within.
Perhaps the gravest problem is not being aware of the need to have collective leadership, which is not achieved by one person instructing what to do, but by many -all of us- moving in the direction of common interests. Like feeding the hungry, curing the sick, empowering women, accepting religious differences, restoring nature.
Our world is in urgent need for solutions. We must have common objectives (perhaps the U.N. has already done an outstanding job at that), we must aspire to them, and we must understand the consequences of not doing so. Look around you. So much freedom to choose what to do with our spare time, buy the latest gadget, travel to a more remote tourist destination, be the first one to be entertained, has in fact enslaved us. Which is the greatest paradox of modern life: the more freedom we have, the more it enslaves us. And still, we have the same 24 hours per day our ancestors had, so it all seems to boil down to time.
And to virtue: how we use that time to serve the common good is a critical factor to prosperity. We can aspire to all the individual happiness we like, and to all the well-being for our family and relatives that we can, but this does not mean we are prosperous. Prosperity is the improvement in the quality of life of all life on Earth. We are seriously far from that. Once again, the bottom line seems to be ethics, or the lack thereof.
Yet, humanity has never faced so many and so dire and complex crises in its history: disease and preventable death among children, armed confrontation and high homicide rates, discrimination towards women, attacks against people with different religious background, ideological clashes, environmental degradation.
Some people believe there are too many humans on the planet. Others think the planet could hold up to 18 billion humans if lifestyle was truly sustainable.
Meanwhile, I perceive a dramatic lack of leadership at all levels. That is no surprise. We have been brought up to follow others' leadership: a religious authority, a school teacher, a government officer, a boss. This has blinded us from our own, individual leadership. We practice it since we learn how to walk and we voluntarily choose in which direction to go and discover our Universe. But faster than we think, our leadership is shadowed by that of others. We must discover the leader within.
Perhaps the gravest problem is not being aware of the need to have collective leadership, which is not achieved by one person instructing what to do, but by many -all of us- moving in the direction of common interests. Like feeding the hungry, curing the sick, empowering women, accepting religious differences, restoring nature.
Our world is in urgent need for solutions. We must have common objectives (perhaps the U.N. has already done an outstanding job at that), we must aspire to them, and we must understand the consequences of not doing so. Look around you. So much freedom to choose what to do with our spare time, buy the latest gadget, travel to a more remote tourist destination, be the first one to be entertained, has in fact enslaved us. Which is the greatest paradox of modern life: the more freedom we have, the more it enslaves us. And still, we have the same 24 hours per day our ancestors had, so it all seems to boil down to time.
And to virtue: how we use that time to serve the common good is a critical factor to prosperity. We can aspire to all the individual happiness we like, and to all the well-being for our family and relatives that we can, but this does not mean we are prosperous. Prosperity is the improvement in the quality of life of all life on Earth. We are seriously far from that. Once again, the bottom line seems to be ethics, or the lack thereof.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
A Planet made of Diamond
In recent weeks, the scientific community has congratulated itself for the discovery of a planet that is composed of a carbonic substance similar to what we know here on Earth as diamond. Not so fast, jewelers! It is 4000 light years away.
The method to confirm this discovery is the good old scientific method: observation, simulation, hypothesis, testing, confirmation, peer reviews by anonymous, qualified scientists. In the words of Dr. Matthew Bailies, it is likely to be the greatest scientific discovery of his career.
He very quickly shuns pride for the achievement and wonders why, if the scientific community and the specialized and general public are cheering for such discovery, is it not possible to be consistent with scientific discovery following the scientific method that proves, without reasonable doubt, that human behavior with the Earth's natural resources is causing a net negative impact on the world's ecosystem?
The question is pertinent. A group of scientists identify a body in outer space that would take 4000 years to arrive at if we traveled at the speed of light, but the samples collected for decades from all possible locations on our planet are disregarded as sufficient proof of anthropogenic interference -that is, caused by humans- in our ecosystem.
It may not be a matter of method. If we wonder what would happen if exhaust fumes from combustion engines would stay at surface level instead of flying kilometers up into the atmosphere, we would have gotten sick from them half a century ago and we would have probably solved the problem by now.
It may be a matter of belief. Some people choose to believe there is no anthropogenic climate change because they don't see it. Some others choose to ignore its existence or become indifferent to it because it would imply changing the comfortable life that at least 1 billion people on the planet (14% of us) have achieved through technology, energy, safety, market economies, food availability, health, entertainment, etc.
Unfortunately, it may also be a question of incentives: some people may be receiving monetary gains from the lifestyle and processes that are involved with human contamination of nature. I am almost sure that if my father was an important shareholder of a Big Oil Company I would find it more difficult to criticize pollution from carbon emissions and green house gases.
Which leads us to the field of ethics, that moral ground that we used to have and may have escaped this generation of new leaders that we are forming. More on this later.
The method to confirm this discovery is the good old scientific method: observation, simulation, hypothesis, testing, confirmation, peer reviews by anonymous, qualified scientists. In the words of Dr. Matthew Bailies, it is likely to be the greatest scientific discovery of his career.
He very quickly shuns pride for the achievement and wonders why, if the scientific community and the specialized and general public are cheering for such discovery, is it not possible to be consistent with scientific discovery following the scientific method that proves, without reasonable doubt, that human behavior with the Earth's natural resources is causing a net negative impact on the world's ecosystem?
The question is pertinent. A group of scientists identify a body in outer space that would take 4000 years to arrive at if we traveled at the speed of light, but the samples collected for decades from all possible locations on our planet are disregarded as sufficient proof of anthropogenic interference -that is, caused by humans- in our ecosystem.
It may not be a matter of method. If we wonder what would happen if exhaust fumes from combustion engines would stay at surface level instead of flying kilometers up into the atmosphere, we would have gotten sick from them half a century ago and we would have probably solved the problem by now.
It may be a matter of belief. Some people choose to believe there is no anthropogenic climate change because they don't see it. Some others choose to ignore its existence or become indifferent to it because it would imply changing the comfortable life that at least 1 billion people on the planet (14% of us) have achieved through technology, energy, safety, market economies, food availability, health, entertainment, etc.
Unfortunately, it may also be a question of incentives: some people may be receiving monetary gains from the lifestyle and processes that are involved with human contamination of nature. I am almost sure that if my father was an important shareholder of a Big Oil Company I would find it more difficult to criticize pollution from carbon emissions and green house gases.
Which leads us to the field of ethics, that moral ground that we used to have and may have escaped this generation of new leaders that we are forming. More on this later.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Economic Value of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
The United Nations Environment Program hosts the international initiative of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB), which shows the value of nature in economic terms.
Have you ever wondered what are the costs for the services that nature provides to humanity and other forms of life on the planet? Clean the air and water, allow for food to grow on fertile soil, even the availability of minerals and other natural resources that are consumed by humans and other species.
Keep in mind that oil is the result of a natural process through which decayed vegetation and other living forms have been compressed over millions of years to form the thick, energy-rich substance. It is provided by nature and it would take millions of years more to naturally generate more. In fact, humans cannot create oil from fallen trees.
According so some estimates, the global economy is about US$40 trillion a year, and nature represents about US$18 trillion a year. The cost of using nature is not being paid by anyone, which doesn't mean it is free. If we use nonrenewable natural resources, they are gone forever and that natural value is lost. If we, in addition, exhaust renewable resources, like fertile soil or trees, we are also reducing the value of nature permanently.
The problem comes when we think that, in the long run, we could be reducing the natural capital of the planet to the point where consumption is greater than production. At that point, we would be in what ecologists refer to "overshoot", or the impossibility of an ecosystem -in this case, the entire planet- to regenerate its biocapacity on its own in time for it to be used again. Well, according to the Global Footprint Network we have reached overshoot around 2005. Now we are reducing our natural capital every day that goes by.
Linking this ecological problem to the economy is important, because our global economy is not growing much more, while the ecological value has been decreasing. A paradigm shift requires that we think of ways in which we can transform the economy in a way that it ensures that our behavior will be restoring the ecosystem, allowing nature to restore itself.
That's what TEEB is all about. A promise -with sensible, clear numbers- of an economy that provides for the environment and an environment that provides for the economy.
Have you ever wondered what are the costs for the services that nature provides to humanity and other forms of life on the planet? Clean the air and water, allow for food to grow on fertile soil, even the availability of minerals and other natural resources that are consumed by humans and other species.
Keep in mind that oil is the result of a natural process through which decayed vegetation and other living forms have been compressed over millions of years to form the thick, energy-rich substance. It is provided by nature and it would take millions of years more to naturally generate more. In fact, humans cannot create oil from fallen trees.
According so some estimates, the global economy is about US$40 trillion a year, and nature represents about US$18 trillion a year. The cost of using nature is not being paid by anyone, which doesn't mean it is free. If we use nonrenewable natural resources, they are gone forever and that natural value is lost. If we, in addition, exhaust renewable resources, like fertile soil or trees, we are also reducing the value of nature permanently.
The problem comes when we think that, in the long run, we could be reducing the natural capital of the planet to the point where consumption is greater than production. At that point, we would be in what ecologists refer to "overshoot", or the impossibility of an ecosystem -in this case, the entire planet- to regenerate its biocapacity on its own in time for it to be used again. Well, according to the Global Footprint Network we have reached overshoot around 2005. Now we are reducing our natural capital every day that goes by.
Linking this ecological problem to the economy is important, because our global economy is not growing much more, while the ecological value has been decreasing. A paradigm shift requires that we think of ways in which we can transform the economy in a way that it ensures that our behavior will be restoring the ecosystem, allowing nature to restore itself.
That's what TEEB is all about. A promise -with sensible, clear numbers- of an economy that provides for the environment and an environment that provides for the economy.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Effectiveness of #OccupyWallStreet
The heat is on. A movement that did not exist a month ago has become global. People from all walks of life are joining forces despite of different motivations they may have. Indignation and rage may come from unemployment, high education debts, loss of pension funds, lack of job opportunities for young workers. It can also be that indignation comes from the Too Big To Fail principle which led to the alleged injustice of "socializing debts and privitizing profits."
My concern is if this movement is aimed in the right direction. If the global economy is the greatest problem we have, or if there are other problems that require our immediate and decided attention. I refer to the natural environment.
Since 2005 we have been using more natural resources than nature itself can replenish, which means we are "eating" the interests and the principal. Unlike with finances, we cannot print more planet or devaluate it if we are running low on liquidity. We have what we have. Nature, as a matter of reminder from elementary school Biology lessons, cleans the air and water and fertile soil provides the food we eat. Hamburgers grow on soil.
If #OccupyWallStreet is a movement that is bonding people through rage with the world economy, I wonder how they will react when they realize what is going on with our global natural ecosystem. Not even the rich will survive in a world devoid of forests or fisheries or clean, free-flowing water.
My point is: gearing a global movement towards a paradigmatic change of our economy, failing to address the environmental issues as a top priority, is like being on a fire brigade fighting a fire and placing the ladder against the building that is NOT on fire.
Sooner or later we will find out that the economy is 100% linked to natural resources. Put first things first.
My concern is if this movement is aimed in the right direction. If the global economy is the greatest problem we have, or if there are other problems that require our immediate and decided attention. I refer to the natural environment.
Since 2005 we have been using more natural resources than nature itself can replenish, which means we are "eating" the interests and the principal. Unlike with finances, we cannot print more planet or devaluate it if we are running low on liquidity. We have what we have. Nature, as a matter of reminder from elementary school Biology lessons, cleans the air and water and fertile soil provides the food we eat. Hamburgers grow on soil.
If #OccupyWallStreet is a movement that is bonding people through rage with the world economy, I wonder how they will react when they realize what is going on with our global natural ecosystem. Not even the rich will survive in a world devoid of forests or fisheries or clean, free-flowing water.
My point is: gearing a global movement towards a paradigmatic change of our economy, failing to address the environmental issues as a top priority, is like being on a fire brigade fighting a fire and placing the ladder against the building that is NOT on fire.
Sooner or later we will find out that the economy is 100% linked to natural resources. Put first things first.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Telecom's Green Innovation
[Closing remarks at the Telecommunications conference held on October 11, 2011 at Ericsson offices in Tokyo, Japan]
Dear friends,
My mandate as Costa Rican ambassador is to establish links between my country and Japan to develop strong ties for green economic growth. I understand that green growth is where technology meets biodiversity and where business meets ethics.
It is evident in the world we live today that telecommunications play a fundamental role in the way societies coexist.
In this information age, it is still true that information is knowledge and knowledge is power. The difference is that, today, the information can be created by an unemployed person blogging from her house.
Some of you might not like Lady Gaga’s music, but she has almost 14 million twitter followers. Her power and influence are undisputed.
The Arab Spring was an historic social movement in which a critical mass of participants was contacted through social media platforms on mobile telecom devices.
The world has changed in part because we have faster access to more information. This empowers people.
Last year, as a public policy student at Carnegie Mellon, it became clear to me how the field of public policy is closely linked to technology and business. Developers are becoming more engaged in politics, managers require technology to remain effective, and politicians cannot survive anymore without keeping at least one eye open in social media.
Where this global movement is going, nobody knows. I do know it travels through telecommunications. Telecom determines the speed and volume of information being shared, and telecom innovation will determine what new dimensions of our social interaction will become a reality in the years to come.
Moreover, when technology becomes the mainstream, energy becomes the constraint. How we will generate the energy to operate billions of smart phones and tablets ten years from now is a critical question that relates to technology, but also to public policy and business.
It is well known today that some technology companies have become pioneers in the field of energy efficiency. Perhaps the new great revolution is how to make telecommunications self-sustainable in energy consumption.
Who the leaders of the future will be depends on each one of us, on the way we use our time and energy and the connections we generate online and offline. The next Steve Jobs might be sitting in this room right now. Or she could be in a university classroom developing greater skills in management, public policy or technology.
Thank you,
Alvaro Cedeno Molinari
Ambassador of Costa Rica
Tokyo, Japan
October 11, 2011
Dear friends,
My mandate as Costa Rican ambassador is to establish links between my country and Japan to develop strong ties for green economic growth. I understand that green growth is where technology meets biodiversity and where business meets ethics.
It is evident in the world we live today that telecommunications play a fundamental role in the way societies coexist.
In this information age, it is still true that information is knowledge and knowledge is power. The difference is that, today, the information can be created by an unemployed person blogging from her house.
Some of you might not like Lady Gaga’s music, but she has almost 14 million twitter followers. Her power and influence are undisputed.
The Arab Spring was an historic social movement in which a critical mass of participants was contacted through social media platforms on mobile telecom devices.
The world has changed in part because we have faster access to more information. This empowers people.
Last year, as a public policy student at Carnegie Mellon, it became clear to me how the field of public policy is closely linked to technology and business. Developers are becoming more engaged in politics, managers require technology to remain effective, and politicians cannot survive anymore without keeping at least one eye open in social media.
Where this global movement is going, nobody knows. I do know it travels through telecommunications. Telecom determines the speed and volume of information being shared, and telecom innovation will determine what new dimensions of our social interaction will become a reality in the years to come.
Moreover, when technology becomes the mainstream, energy becomes the constraint. How we will generate the energy to operate billions of smart phones and tablets ten years from now is a critical question that relates to technology, but also to public policy and business.
It is well known today that some technology companies have become pioneers in the field of energy efficiency. Perhaps the new great revolution is how to make telecommunications self-sustainable in energy consumption.
Who the leaders of the future will be depends on each one of us, on the way we use our time and energy and the connections we generate online and offline. The next Steve Jobs might be sitting in this room right now. Or she could be in a university classroom developing greater skills in management, public policy or technology.
Thank you,
Alvaro Cedeno Molinari
Ambassador of Costa Rica
Tokyo, Japan
October 11, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Con cariño para Ángela
Hola Angelita,
La situación de México la sufro en carne propia. Es mi planeta el que está herido, doliendo y sufriendo. Es mi gente, mi propia raza humana, la que llora, sangra y muere. Es la comunidad que comparto contigo y con todos los demás la que está compungida de temor, de estrés, de ansiedad.
Lo más triste es que todo este dolor y sufrimiento que estamos viviendo es provocado por nosotros mismos. No es una paradoja. Definitivamente somos la especie animal más destructiva consigo misma y con otras especies vivientes. Hacemos de la muerte una industria alimenticia y de las armas de guerra uno de los negocios más lucrativos de la humanidad.
La pregunta es si estamos destinados a la auto-destrucción como sociedad o si esto es tan solo una aparente paradoja de la realidad. Si lo primero, entonces no nos queda mucho más por hacer y el final se aproxima. Pero si lo segundo, entonces debemos encontrar la luz.
Creo que el camino empieza por la fe, sin importar la denominación. Esa esperanza infranqueable de que mañana será un mejor día, de que la mayor prosperidad humana aún está por verse, de que los seres humanos seremos parte de la simbiosis esplendorosa que existe en la naturaleza.
Presiento un despertar de conciencia. Lo veo en todas partes menos en las noticias. Los noticieros están cargados de morbo, y eso sólo exacerba nuestra adicción al miedo y al estrés por lo violento y malvado. Eso se convierte en un círculo vicioso para que los más malos de nuestra especie se sigan comportando igual, pues siguen robándose titulares y primera plana de los noticieros, convirtiéndose en los más famosos. Y el público -nosotros- seguimos consumiendo sin cesar.
De qué me sirve salvar mi propia alma, refugiarme en un monasterio perdido en la montaña si hay sufrimiento a mi alrededor? Habrá quienes prefieran el retiro y otros que elijan el combate. Yo procuro hacer silencio en el silencio y bregar fuerte en el combate. No creo que se trate de pelear, sino de combatir esta onda de mala vibración que nos ataca. Así no era mi mundo cuando nací, y no tengo por qué aceptarlo ahora.
Entonces me esfuerzo cada instante de cada día en hacer el mayor bien posible, en aproximar mis pensamientos a la armonía que aspiro tener y compartir la buena vibración y la buena energía con los seres con los que co-genero más amor: mi familia, mis amigos, mis colegas, mis contactos, la niña que me sonríe en la calle, el señor que me da la pasada en la autopista, el chofer que respeta mi vía como peatón, la señora que me vende la fruta, el policía que me desea los buenos días. Somos muchos más los buenos que los malos. Y como dijo sir Edmund Burke, "Para que el mal prevalezca, basta que los buenos no hagan nada."
Llorar es bueno, querida amiga. Quiere decir que estás llena de energía y de emoción. De eso necesitamos mucho más. También sé que estás impregnada de fe. De eso también necesitamos mucho más. Así que ánimo, que el mejor planeta está por verse.
Abrazos,
Álvaro.
La situación de México la sufro en carne propia. Es mi planeta el que está herido, doliendo y sufriendo. Es mi gente, mi propia raza humana, la que llora, sangra y muere. Es la comunidad que comparto contigo y con todos los demás la que está compungida de temor, de estrés, de ansiedad.
Lo más triste es que todo este dolor y sufrimiento que estamos viviendo es provocado por nosotros mismos. No es una paradoja. Definitivamente somos la especie animal más destructiva consigo misma y con otras especies vivientes. Hacemos de la muerte una industria alimenticia y de las armas de guerra uno de los negocios más lucrativos de la humanidad.
La pregunta es si estamos destinados a la auto-destrucción como sociedad o si esto es tan solo una aparente paradoja de la realidad. Si lo primero, entonces no nos queda mucho más por hacer y el final se aproxima. Pero si lo segundo, entonces debemos encontrar la luz.
Creo que el camino empieza por la fe, sin importar la denominación. Esa esperanza infranqueable de que mañana será un mejor día, de que la mayor prosperidad humana aún está por verse, de que los seres humanos seremos parte de la simbiosis esplendorosa que existe en la naturaleza.
Presiento un despertar de conciencia. Lo veo en todas partes menos en las noticias. Los noticieros están cargados de morbo, y eso sólo exacerba nuestra adicción al miedo y al estrés por lo violento y malvado. Eso se convierte en un círculo vicioso para que los más malos de nuestra especie se sigan comportando igual, pues siguen robándose titulares y primera plana de los noticieros, convirtiéndose en los más famosos. Y el público -nosotros- seguimos consumiendo sin cesar.
De qué me sirve salvar mi propia alma, refugiarme en un monasterio perdido en la montaña si hay sufrimiento a mi alrededor? Habrá quienes prefieran el retiro y otros que elijan el combate. Yo procuro hacer silencio en el silencio y bregar fuerte en el combate. No creo que se trate de pelear, sino de combatir esta onda de mala vibración que nos ataca. Así no era mi mundo cuando nací, y no tengo por qué aceptarlo ahora.
Entonces me esfuerzo cada instante de cada día en hacer el mayor bien posible, en aproximar mis pensamientos a la armonía que aspiro tener y compartir la buena vibración y la buena energía con los seres con los que co-genero más amor: mi familia, mis amigos, mis colegas, mis contactos, la niña que me sonríe en la calle, el señor que me da la pasada en la autopista, el chofer que respeta mi vía como peatón, la señora que me vende la fruta, el policía que me desea los buenos días. Somos muchos más los buenos que los malos. Y como dijo sir Edmund Burke, "Para que el mal prevalezca, basta que los buenos no hagan nada."
Llorar es bueno, querida amiga. Quiere decir que estás llena de energía y de emoción. De eso necesitamos mucho más. También sé que estás impregnada de fe. De eso también necesitamos mucho más. Así que ánimo, que el mejor planeta está por verse.
Abrazos,
Álvaro.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
A los jóvenes del bicentenario
Este 15 de setiembre celebramos 190 años de nacionalidad independiente. El concepto pareciera ser casi un anacronismo si consideramos que la interconexión mundial nos ha llevado más bien a la interdependencia entre naciones modernas. Quizás más importante que el significado histórico que tiene esta fecha es lo que implica hacia el futuro.
Ya los desafíos que afrontamos dejaron de ser locales. El botadero de basura es tan grave para sus vecinos como también lo es la contaminación de cuencas hidrográficas en países donde se producen los bienes que consumimos.
De muy poco sirve esforzarse por generar energía a partir de fuentes renovables y limpias si otros países la siguen produciendo de fuentes altamente contaminantes.
Este es un llamado urgente a un liderazgo criollo que vaya mucho más allá de nuestras fronteras y límites geográficos. Porque hay algo muy particular en el ser costarricense y en su idiosincrasia que hace falta en el liderazgo global: esa sensibilidad que conduzca a rupturas valientes como la abolición del Ejército, la reserva legal de una cuarta parte de sus bosques, el bioalfabetismo para clasificar a todas las especies vivientes o el ser pioneros en turismo ecológico.
Los desafíos del mundo para el 2050 son inmensos. Los límites naturales del planeta empiezan a sonar como ecos a la distancia que van cobrando fuerza cada vez más. Habrá para entonces 9.000 millones de bocas humanas que alimentar y muchos millones de hectáreas de bosque y tierra arable menos que hoy para purificar nuestro aire, agua y producir nuestros alimentos.
El liderazgo que requerimos para mediados de siglo es un llamado para que empecemos desde ya a formar a aquellos líderes que tengan un cúmulo de virtudes que los hagan competitivos a nivel global y capaces de hacerse escuchar entre el barullo ensordecedor que va en aumento. Algunos quizás aún no han nacido o están muy chicos.
Nuestros líderes del 2050 serán aquellos que se encuentren en su esplendor sociopolítico y profesional. Serán aquellos jóvenes que celebrarán el bicentenario con la algarabía de esa noche y con la seriedad de aquellos días; los que hoy puedan comprometerse con el país y con el planeta a 30 o 40 años de entrega y trabajo. Ellos son nativos digitales en la era de la información y el conocimiento, donde las ideas viajan a la velocidad de las redes sociales en la democracia 2.0.
Quizás para el bicentenario –ojalá antes– ya hayamos tenido la experiencia de un referendo digital. Eso le dará una capacidad de gestión al Estado que no se imaginaron nuestros líderes más eficaces. Más aún, los plebiscitos cantonales digitales permitirán a cada comunidad adaptarse a los tiempos más ágilmente, priorizar el gasto cantonal, decidir el destino de sus impuestos, en fin, asumir las riendas de su comunidad con responsabilidad ciudadana.
En Costa Rica ya sabemos que las grandes batallas de la humanidad no se pelearán con pólvora. Los abuelos de los jóvenes del bicentenario renunciaron a ello y mantenemos esa virtud incólume. Elegimos como único camino el diálogo constructivo que, cuando ha funcionado, ha sido majestuoso, y cuando falla nos deja inertes como pueblo.
Para los que ya no seremos jóvenes o no estaremos activos en el 2021, el rol de nuestra generación es facilitar el proceso de interconexión entre nuestros padres –que nos han traído hasta aquí– y nuestros hijos –que nos conducirán al 2050 en el esplendor de sus vidas–. Empieza así, este mes, la cuenta regresiva de diez años para forjar a los líderes que requeriremos para el tercer siglo de vida nacional.
Ya los desafíos que afrontamos dejaron de ser locales. El botadero de basura es tan grave para sus vecinos como también lo es la contaminación de cuencas hidrográficas en países donde se producen los bienes que consumimos.
De muy poco sirve esforzarse por generar energía a partir de fuentes renovables y limpias si otros países la siguen produciendo de fuentes altamente contaminantes.
Este es un llamado urgente a un liderazgo criollo que vaya mucho más allá de nuestras fronteras y límites geográficos. Porque hay algo muy particular en el ser costarricense y en su idiosincrasia que hace falta en el liderazgo global: esa sensibilidad que conduzca a rupturas valientes como la abolición del Ejército, la reserva legal de una cuarta parte de sus bosques, el bioalfabetismo para clasificar a todas las especies vivientes o el ser pioneros en turismo ecológico.
Los desafíos del mundo para el 2050 son inmensos. Los límites naturales del planeta empiezan a sonar como ecos a la distancia que van cobrando fuerza cada vez más. Habrá para entonces 9.000 millones de bocas humanas que alimentar y muchos millones de hectáreas de bosque y tierra arable menos que hoy para purificar nuestro aire, agua y producir nuestros alimentos.
El liderazgo que requerimos para mediados de siglo es un llamado para que empecemos desde ya a formar a aquellos líderes que tengan un cúmulo de virtudes que los hagan competitivos a nivel global y capaces de hacerse escuchar entre el barullo ensordecedor que va en aumento. Algunos quizás aún no han nacido o están muy chicos.
Nuestros líderes del 2050 serán aquellos que se encuentren en su esplendor sociopolítico y profesional. Serán aquellos jóvenes que celebrarán el bicentenario con la algarabía de esa noche y con la seriedad de aquellos días; los que hoy puedan comprometerse con el país y con el planeta a 30 o 40 años de entrega y trabajo. Ellos son nativos digitales en la era de la información y el conocimiento, donde las ideas viajan a la velocidad de las redes sociales en la democracia 2.0.
Quizás para el bicentenario –ojalá antes– ya hayamos tenido la experiencia de un referendo digital. Eso le dará una capacidad de gestión al Estado que no se imaginaron nuestros líderes más eficaces. Más aún, los plebiscitos cantonales digitales permitirán a cada comunidad adaptarse a los tiempos más ágilmente, priorizar el gasto cantonal, decidir el destino de sus impuestos, en fin, asumir las riendas de su comunidad con responsabilidad ciudadana.
En Costa Rica ya sabemos que las grandes batallas de la humanidad no se pelearán con pólvora. Los abuelos de los jóvenes del bicentenario renunciaron a ello y mantenemos esa virtud incólume. Elegimos como único camino el diálogo constructivo que, cuando ha funcionado, ha sido majestuoso, y cuando falla nos deja inertes como pueblo.
Para los que ya no seremos jóvenes o no estaremos activos en el 2021, el rol de nuestra generación es facilitar el proceso de interconexión entre nuestros padres –que nos han traído hasta aquí– y nuestros hijos –que nos conducirán al 2050 en el esplendor de sus vidas–. Empieza así, este mes, la cuenta regresiva de diez años para forjar a los líderes que requeriremos para el tercer siglo de vida nacional.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Reflexiones sobre formación docente
Estimada doña Lupita,
El desafío que me plantea sobre cómo debería ser la formación de docentes de acuerdo con las demandas del mundo actual es muy interesante. He vivido fuera de Costa Rica en cuatro países de tres continentes y he visitado muchos otros más. Y entre más viajo, más creo que la idiosincrasia y la cultura costarricenses deben prevalecer en nuestro entorno, porque la cultura es el resultado de un conjunto de circunstancias que incluyen la geografía y el clima, y esto condiciona la forma de ser, los hábitos alimenticios, la salud, la organización social en instituciones, la educación.
Se lo menciono como reflexión previa porque creo que lo mejorable en nuestro sistema sociopolítico bien podría ser nada más cuestión de madurez. La ruptura que ha significado internet en la vinculación de personas con las organizaciones de las que forman parte y con las cuales participan, ha cambiado la forma en la cual interactúa el ser humano en sociedad.
Con esto prácticamente estaría reduciendo el problema al tema de la conectividad. Si todo estudiante escolar en Costa Rica tuviera cada día media hora de acceso a internet de manera obligatoria, gratuita y costeada por el Estado, esa persona dispondría de un sinfín de aptitudes y destrezas que le permitirían interactuar de manera más eficaz con su entorno. O sea, la conectividad es educación.
Probablemente dentro de 10 años tendremos mucha mayor penetración de gobierno digital del que tenemos actualmente. El mundo va en esa dirección, y la velocidad a la cual nuestro país se incorpore de lleno dependerá, en parte, de la velocidad en la que nuestros estudiantes lo hagan. La niña que entró a primer grado este año estará a las puertas de la adultez en el 2021 y su capacidad de ejercer la ciudadanía de manera activa la hará una ciudadana más eficaz contribuyendo a su comunidad, no sólo nacional sino provincial, cantonal y distrital, sino, y más importante, a la comunidad global de la cual forma parte.
Los docentes en el mundo son cada vez menos instructores y cada vez más facilitadores de conocimiento, precisamente porque hoy en día hay más información disponible en internet de la que podrían saber uno o mil maestros. Entonces ser gestores del proceso de acercamiento entre el alumno y la información es crucial desde ya y lo será mucho más en los años venideros.
Si la mejor forma de educar es con el ejemplo, entonces la conectividad de docentes es fundamental para que de ese proceso aprendan los estudiantes. Crear la infraestructura requerida para que esto suceda no es solamente una cuestión de política educativa, sino un tema de ciencia y tecnología, pero sobre todo de finanzas públicas.
El desafío que me plantea sobre cómo debería ser la formación de docentes de acuerdo con las demandas del mundo actual es muy interesante. He vivido fuera de Costa Rica en cuatro países de tres continentes y he visitado muchos otros más. Y entre más viajo, más creo que la idiosincrasia y la cultura costarricenses deben prevalecer en nuestro entorno, porque la cultura es el resultado de un conjunto de circunstancias que incluyen la geografía y el clima, y esto condiciona la forma de ser, los hábitos alimenticios, la salud, la organización social en instituciones, la educación.
Se lo menciono como reflexión previa porque creo que lo mejorable en nuestro sistema sociopolítico bien podría ser nada más cuestión de madurez. La ruptura que ha significado internet en la vinculación de personas con las organizaciones de las que forman parte y con las cuales participan, ha cambiado la forma en la cual interactúa el ser humano en sociedad.
Con esto prácticamente estaría reduciendo el problema al tema de la conectividad. Si todo estudiante escolar en Costa Rica tuviera cada día media hora de acceso a internet de manera obligatoria, gratuita y costeada por el Estado, esa persona dispondría de un sinfín de aptitudes y destrezas que le permitirían interactuar de manera más eficaz con su entorno. O sea, la conectividad es educación.
Probablemente dentro de 10 años tendremos mucha mayor penetración de gobierno digital del que tenemos actualmente. El mundo va en esa dirección, y la velocidad a la cual nuestro país se incorpore de lleno dependerá, en parte, de la velocidad en la que nuestros estudiantes lo hagan. La niña que entró a primer grado este año estará a las puertas de la adultez en el 2021 y su capacidad de ejercer la ciudadanía de manera activa la hará una ciudadana más eficaz contribuyendo a su comunidad, no sólo nacional sino provincial, cantonal y distrital, sino, y más importante, a la comunidad global de la cual forma parte.
Los docentes en el mundo son cada vez menos instructores y cada vez más facilitadores de conocimiento, precisamente porque hoy en día hay más información disponible en internet de la que podrían saber uno o mil maestros. Entonces ser gestores del proceso de acercamiento entre el alumno y la información es crucial desde ya y lo será mucho más en los años venideros.
Si la mejor forma de educar es con el ejemplo, entonces la conectividad de docentes es fundamental para que de ese proceso aprendan los estudiantes. Crear la infraestructura requerida para que esto suceda no es solamente una cuestión de política educativa, sino un tema de ciencia y tecnología, pero sobre todo de finanzas públicas.
Sunday, August 14, 2011
El Pacto Ambiental Nacional
Estimado don Rodrigo,
Según conversamos en días pasados, existe la necesidad de repensar políticamente nuestro quehacer ambiental como país. Cada nuevo diagnóstico científico sobre el cambio climático nos revela dos verdades: 1. Que nuestro país se enrumbó en la dirección correcta medio siglo atrás cuando articuló su afán conservacionista, su inquietud por la generación eléctrica renovable y, más recientemente, asumió liderazgo mundial en investigación en biodiversidad y desarrollo de ecoturismo; y 2. Que hay mucho más que hacer en nuevas fuentes de energía renovable, reducción de emisiones en el transporte público y privado, mejor aprovechamiento y gestión productiva de residuos y desechos, y en fuentes de financiamiento de servicios ambientales, entre otros.
En suma, hace falta ampliar y profundizar los esfuerzos de bioalfabetización que se han realizado con éxito en nuestro país y que son la misión del Instituto de Biodiversidad que usted fundó.
Si bien la gestión de las organizaciones no gubernamentales es eficaz en la sociedad civil, esa eficacia podría aumentar en varios órdenes de magnitud en cuanto a su alcance local y global si contara con alianzas en sectores académico y privado, y sobre todo, si lograra consagrar sus principios en políticas públicas sustentadas en leyes de la República.
Es por ello que me permito compartir con usted algunas ideas que he recopilado durante los lapsos en los que he residido en Noruega, China y Australia, países con quienes compartimos el perfil de liderazgo ambiental que tiene nuestro país, aunque en sectores distintos y complementarios.
Por ejemplo, Noruega ha sabido aprovechar la riqueza que ha generado el país a partir de la explotación de petróleo para incrementar sustancialmente el bienestar del país invirtiendo las ganancias en salud y educación públicas de máxima categoría, infraestructura pública moderna y de primer orden, incluyendo la conectividad digital celular y de internet, y la conservación ambiental dentro y fuera del país.
Por su parte, China ya ha comprendido la dimensión del problema climático mundial y de las amenazas que representa para su inmensa población la contaminación en tierras otrora fértiles, la deforestación y desertificación y el deshielo de glaciares. Hoy en día China es el país número uno en manufactura de turbinas eólicas y paneles solares y hay quienes sugieren que en este siglo cambiará el polo de energía mundial del petróleo árabe al sol chino.
Finalmente, Australia se ha dado a la tarea de implementar políticas públicas de cambio climático en cada estado y municipio, para que cada organización y empresa adopte las medidas requeridas para mitigar las causas que provocan alteraciones ambientales. El sur de Australia fue el primer estado en el mundo en contar con un Ministro de Cambio Climático desde 1998. La intensa sequía de la década anterior y la contaminación de cuencas dulces y saladas durante el último medio siglo han provocado la urgente necesidad de que el país se coloque a la vanguardia mundial en conservación, biodiversidad, generación de energías renovables y ecoturismo.
Nuestro país requiere de un nuevo pacto ambiental nacional, al cual todos aportemos y del cual todos nos beneficiemos. O sea, requerimos que el proceso genere sentido de pertenencia en cada costarricense.
Las oscilaciones climáticas para el próximo medio siglo podrían provocar cambios en los patrones de lluvias de nuestra zona geográfica, creando incertidumbre acerca de la viabilidad de generación de energía hidroeléctrica. Por ello, es indispensable hacer un inventario de los recursos naturales de los que dispone nuestro país para generar energía renovable proveniente de otras fuentes, lo cual ayudaría a preservar los ecosistemas en las cuencas de los ríos que, de otra forma, serían intervenidos con represas de hidrogeneración. Si no hay agua en los embalses, no podría haber electricidad. Es una apuesta muy alta como para perderla. De ahí lo elemental de la cuestión.
Con 1500 kilómetros lineales de litoral, la energía mareomotriz es una opción principalmente en la costa Pacífica donde las mareas oscilan hasta dos metros, dos veces al día. Es una fuerza que genera el mar y que se puede transformar en electricidad. Esto tendría el efecto adicional de la conservación de las zonas costeras para no entorpecer la generación energética, creando con ello santuarios extensos para los ecosistemas marinos del país, tan ricos en biodiversidad.
La proximidad geográfica del país con la línea del ecuador lo hacen una de las zonas en el mundo con mayor insolación anual. El ángulo de los rayos solares, la temperatura del aire y la cantidad de horas de sol por día a lo largo del año representan un altísimo potencial para la generación de energía solar en el país. Por si fuera poco, las inclemencias del tiempo, principalmente lluvia y viento, sólo favorecen el mantenimiento y limpieza de las celdas fotovoltaicas, sin requerir equipos especiales de limpieza ni infraestructura adicional para soportar el peso de la nieve.
Es quizás la geotermia la más prometedora de nuestras fuentes de energía renovables. Con un total de 113 volcanes, nueve de ellos activos, en apenas 50.000 kilómetros cuadrados, la exploración y posterior explotación de ese recurso energético es de bajo grado de dificultad y bajo costo en comparación con lo que se está haciendo en otras partes del mundo, sobre todo entre mayor sea la proximidad al cono de un volcán. Australia está invirtiendo cerca de cien mil millones de dólares ($100.000.000.000) en exploración geotérmica a pesar de que el país no contiene ni un solo volcán.
Uno de los desafíos principales para adoptar la geotermia como la fuente más limpia y renovable de energía para impulsar al país por el transcurso de este siglo XXI es la protección legal que tienen los Parques Nacionales, y es ahí adonde existe la mayor oportunidad para nuestra nación.
Un pacto ambiental nacional debería estructurarse de manera similar al fondo de petróleo noruego, en el cual se centralizan todas las ganancias que se generarían a partir de la geotermia. Este “Fondo del Volcán” estaría administrado por notables líderes nacionales de la ciencia, la industria y la política ambiental y energética del país. Con representación del gobierno de turno, existiría una limitación al porcentaje del fondo del cual podría disponer el Poder Ejecutivo para el presupuesto ordinario nacional cada año. En Noruega, el Primer Ministro sólo puede disponer de 10% de las ganancias anuales del fondo para el presupuesto nacional. El dinero restante del Fondo del Volcán se utilizaría para cumplir las siguientes metas: aumentar la cobertura boscosa del país del 52% actual a 80% del territorio nacional; ampliar la protección de áreas marinas del actual 0,2% a 50%; e incrementar la cobertura de Parques Nacionales y reservas biológicas de 26% en la actualidad a 50% del territorio nacional.
El cumplimiento de estas metas requerirá de muchos esfuerzos, tiempo y dinero, y la energía geotérmica podría generar los fondos requeridos para alcanzar esos objetivos en un período de tiempo relativamente corto. Para el 2025 el país podría haberse convertido en exportador neto de electricidad renovable y su flotilla vehicular podría haber sido totalmente reemplazada por vehículos eléctricos modernos y eficientes, con muy bajas emisiones de carbono. Esto en definitiva le permitiría a Costa Rica convertirse en un país neutral en sus emisiones de carbono.
Ello sería mucho más expedito si se permitiera la exploración y eventual explotación en Parques Nacionales. Por eso se requiere de un pacto nacional, porque todos debemos entender y visualizar los beneficios que este proyecto traería para esta, y sobre todo, para las próximas generaciones de costarricenses.
De estar usted de acuerdo, me gustaría sugerir una estrategia para empezar a darle vida al sueño de una Costa verdaderamente Rica, próspera y de creciente bienestar para todos.
Tokio, Japón
14 de agosto, 2011
Según conversamos en días pasados, existe la necesidad de repensar políticamente nuestro quehacer ambiental como país. Cada nuevo diagnóstico científico sobre el cambio climático nos revela dos verdades: 1. Que nuestro país se enrumbó en la dirección correcta medio siglo atrás cuando articuló su afán conservacionista, su inquietud por la generación eléctrica renovable y, más recientemente, asumió liderazgo mundial en investigación en biodiversidad y desarrollo de ecoturismo; y 2. Que hay mucho más que hacer en nuevas fuentes de energía renovable, reducción de emisiones en el transporte público y privado, mejor aprovechamiento y gestión productiva de residuos y desechos, y en fuentes de financiamiento de servicios ambientales, entre otros.
En suma, hace falta ampliar y profundizar los esfuerzos de bioalfabetización que se han realizado con éxito en nuestro país y que son la misión del Instituto de Biodiversidad que usted fundó.
Si bien la gestión de las organizaciones no gubernamentales es eficaz en la sociedad civil, esa eficacia podría aumentar en varios órdenes de magnitud en cuanto a su alcance local y global si contara con alianzas en sectores académico y privado, y sobre todo, si lograra consagrar sus principios en políticas públicas sustentadas en leyes de la República.
Es por ello que me permito compartir con usted algunas ideas que he recopilado durante los lapsos en los que he residido en Noruega, China y Australia, países con quienes compartimos el perfil de liderazgo ambiental que tiene nuestro país, aunque en sectores distintos y complementarios.
Por ejemplo, Noruega ha sabido aprovechar la riqueza que ha generado el país a partir de la explotación de petróleo para incrementar sustancialmente el bienestar del país invirtiendo las ganancias en salud y educación públicas de máxima categoría, infraestructura pública moderna y de primer orden, incluyendo la conectividad digital celular y de internet, y la conservación ambiental dentro y fuera del país.
Por su parte, China ya ha comprendido la dimensión del problema climático mundial y de las amenazas que representa para su inmensa población la contaminación en tierras otrora fértiles, la deforestación y desertificación y el deshielo de glaciares. Hoy en día China es el país número uno en manufactura de turbinas eólicas y paneles solares y hay quienes sugieren que en este siglo cambiará el polo de energía mundial del petróleo árabe al sol chino.
Finalmente, Australia se ha dado a la tarea de implementar políticas públicas de cambio climático en cada estado y municipio, para que cada organización y empresa adopte las medidas requeridas para mitigar las causas que provocan alteraciones ambientales. El sur de Australia fue el primer estado en el mundo en contar con un Ministro de Cambio Climático desde 1998. La intensa sequía de la década anterior y la contaminación de cuencas dulces y saladas durante el último medio siglo han provocado la urgente necesidad de que el país se coloque a la vanguardia mundial en conservación, biodiversidad, generación de energías renovables y ecoturismo.
Nuestro país requiere de un nuevo pacto ambiental nacional, al cual todos aportemos y del cual todos nos beneficiemos. O sea, requerimos que el proceso genere sentido de pertenencia en cada costarricense.
Las oscilaciones climáticas para el próximo medio siglo podrían provocar cambios en los patrones de lluvias de nuestra zona geográfica, creando incertidumbre acerca de la viabilidad de generación de energía hidroeléctrica. Por ello, es indispensable hacer un inventario de los recursos naturales de los que dispone nuestro país para generar energía renovable proveniente de otras fuentes, lo cual ayudaría a preservar los ecosistemas en las cuencas de los ríos que, de otra forma, serían intervenidos con represas de hidrogeneración. Si no hay agua en los embalses, no podría haber electricidad. Es una apuesta muy alta como para perderla. De ahí lo elemental de la cuestión.
Con 1500 kilómetros lineales de litoral, la energía mareomotriz es una opción principalmente en la costa Pacífica donde las mareas oscilan hasta dos metros, dos veces al día. Es una fuerza que genera el mar y que se puede transformar en electricidad. Esto tendría el efecto adicional de la conservación de las zonas costeras para no entorpecer la generación energética, creando con ello santuarios extensos para los ecosistemas marinos del país, tan ricos en biodiversidad.
La proximidad geográfica del país con la línea del ecuador lo hacen una de las zonas en el mundo con mayor insolación anual. El ángulo de los rayos solares, la temperatura del aire y la cantidad de horas de sol por día a lo largo del año representan un altísimo potencial para la generación de energía solar en el país. Por si fuera poco, las inclemencias del tiempo, principalmente lluvia y viento, sólo favorecen el mantenimiento y limpieza de las celdas fotovoltaicas, sin requerir equipos especiales de limpieza ni infraestructura adicional para soportar el peso de la nieve.
Es quizás la geotermia la más prometedora de nuestras fuentes de energía renovables. Con un total de 113 volcanes, nueve de ellos activos, en apenas 50.000 kilómetros cuadrados, la exploración y posterior explotación de ese recurso energético es de bajo grado de dificultad y bajo costo en comparación con lo que se está haciendo en otras partes del mundo, sobre todo entre mayor sea la proximidad al cono de un volcán. Australia está invirtiendo cerca de cien mil millones de dólares ($100.000.000.000) en exploración geotérmica a pesar de que el país no contiene ni un solo volcán.
Uno de los desafíos principales para adoptar la geotermia como la fuente más limpia y renovable de energía para impulsar al país por el transcurso de este siglo XXI es la protección legal que tienen los Parques Nacionales, y es ahí adonde existe la mayor oportunidad para nuestra nación.
Un pacto ambiental nacional debería estructurarse de manera similar al fondo de petróleo noruego, en el cual se centralizan todas las ganancias que se generarían a partir de la geotermia. Este “Fondo del Volcán” estaría administrado por notables líderes nacionales de la ciencia, la industria y la política ambiental y energética del país. Con representación del gobierno de turno, existiría una limitación al porcentaje del fondo del cual podría disponer el Poder Ejecutivo para el presupuesto ordinario nacional cada año. En Noruega, el Primer Ministro sólo puede disponer de 10% de las ganancias anuales del fondo para el presupuesto nacional. El dinero restante del Fondo del Volcán se utilizaría para cumplir las siguientes metas: aumentar la cobertura boscosa del país del 52% actual a 80% del territorio nacional; ampliar la protección de áreas marinas del actual 0,2% a 50%; e incrementar la cobertura de Parques Nacionales y reservas biológicas de 26% en la actualidad a 50% del territorio nacional.
El cumplimiento de estas metas requerirá de muchos esfuerzos, tiempo y dinero, y la energía geotérmica podría generar los fondos requeridos para alcanzar esos objetivos en un período de tiempo relativamente corto. Para el 2025 el país podría haberse convertido en exportador neto de electricidad renovable y su flotilla vehicular podría haber sido totalmente reemplazada por vehículos eléctricos modernos y eficientes, con muy bajas emisiones de carbono. Esto en definitiva le permitiría a Costa Rica convertirse en un país neutral en sus emisiones de carbono.
Ello sería mucho más expedito si se permitiera la exploración y eventual explotación en Parques Nacionales. Por eso se requiere de un pacto nacional, porque todos debemos entender y visualizar los beneficios que este proyecto traería para esta, y sobre todo, para las próximas generaciones de costarricenses.
De estar usted de acuerdo, me gustaría sugerir una estrategia para empezar a darle vida al sueño de una Costa verdaderamente Rica, próspera y de creciente bienestar para todos.
Tokio, Japón
14 de agosto, 2011
Tuesday, August 09, 2011
A Monumental Change of Mind
After the first seven days in Japan, the most remarkable difference I have found from the last time I was here two years ago is a dramatic change of mind in the Japanese people -corporations, civil society, public officials- regarding consumption, most particularly of energy. Private enterprises have reduced their working schedule during the summer months; people have relaxed their outfits; government officials are incessantly searching for new energy outlets to reduce.
The summer dress for the summer is called "cool biz" and consists of short-sleeved button-down shirts, no tie, no coat. Air conditioning has been turned up to 28C and metro cars have fluorescent lights missing. All of this is the result of a sudden energy constraint that surged in Japan after the Great Eastern Earthquake of Tohoku on March 11. That day, four of the main nuclear sources of electricity in the country which were very close to the epicenter of the temblor went offline. The nation faced electricity shortages, and quickly opted for a significant reduction in consumption to make sure there was sufficient energy for everyone's basic needs.
A country that for centuries has been very concerned about their fragile environment knows about reducing consumption. Six centuries ago, Japanese understood that if they continued cutting down trees they would run out of water. So they started preserving their forests and today the country has 72% forest coverage, a figure very hard to imitate in other latitudes. Japanese cuisine is characterized by low energy consumption: who doesn't like a strip of raw fish on top of a ball of rice?
I have heard unofficially that the goal is for the nation to reduce 30% of its electricity consumption. That sounds to me like a more ambitious goal than the one set for developed economies in the Kyoto Protocol to mitigate climate change. And most likely they will achieve it sooner rather than later.
The worst earthquake in recorded history triggered perhaps the worst tsunami ever heard of. We saw it. It was a horrifying nightmare that washed out entire villages. Despite early warnings, nearly 30,000 people perished catastrophically. The wave flooded the Fukushima nuclear facility, starting the worst nuclear disaster since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs 66 years ago.
Moreover, the Japanese nation seems to have rekindled the value of sustainable development, ethics and love. A high-ranked government official told me that one of the goods that has increased sales significantly since the earthquake is wedding rings. People are now reconsidering their individualistic lifestyle for a more meaningful standard of living by building a family.
A retired Japanese diplomat told me that the public is very angry about the nuclear disaster (it has not been controlled yet, let alone cleaned up). This nation has suddenly awakened to the reality that nuclear energy is neither clean nor renewable. It was simply inexpensive and seemingly endless. Generating abundant sources of renewable energy will be a priority in this country for the next 20 years.
Talk about a crisis transformed into an opportunity.
The summer dress for the summer is called "cool biz" and consists of short-sleeved button-down shirts, no tie, no coat. Air conditioning has been turned up to 28C and metro cars have fluorescent lights missing. All of this is the result of a sudden energy constraint that surged in Japan after the Great Eastern Earthquake of Tohoku on March 11. That day, four of the main nuclear sources of electricity in the country which were very close to the epicenter of the temblor went offline. The nation faced electricity shortages, and quickly opted for a significant reduction in consumption to make sure there was sufficient energy for everyone's basic needs.
A country that for centuries has been very concerned about their fragile environment knows about reducing consumption. Six centuries ago, Japanese understood that if they continued cutting down trees they would run out of water. So they started preserving their forests and today the country has 72% forest coverage, a figure very hard to imitate in other latitudes. Japanese cuisine is characterized by low energy consumption: who doesn't like a strip of raw fish on top of a ball of rice?
I have heard unofficially that the goal is for the nation to reduce 30% of its electricity consumption. That sounds to me like a more ambitious goal than the one set for developed economies in the Kyoto Protocol to mitigate climate change. And most likely they will achieve it sooner rather than later.
The worst earthquake in recorded history triggered perhaps the worst tsunami ever heard of. We saw it. It was a horrifying nightmare that washed out entire villages. Despite early warnings, nearly 30,000 people perished catastrophically. The wave flooded the Fukushima nuclear facility, starting the worst nuclear disaster since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs 66 years ago.
Moreover, the Japanese nation seems to have rekindled the value of sustainable development, ethics and love. A high-ranked government official told me that one of the goods that has increased sales significantly since the earthquake is wedding rings. People are now reconsidering their individualistic lifestyle for a more meaningful standard of living by building a family.
A retired Japanese diplomat told me that the public is very angry about the nuclear disaster (it has not been controlled yet, let alone cleaned up). This nation has suddenly awakened to the reality that nuclear energy is neither clean nor renewable. It was simply inexpensive and seemingly endless. Generating abundant sources of renewable energy will be a priority in this country for the next 20 years.
Talk about a crisis transformed into an opportunity.
Saturday, April 09, 2011
Institutionalizing Entrepreneurship
The Brazilian government considered entrepreneurship a priority for national development. Since 1972, a group of people got together to form a not-for-profit private organization to “promote competitiveness and sustainable development of micro and small enterprises and foster entrepreneurship.” In 2006, the federal government approved the General Law of Micro and Small Enterprises which includes the rules and incentives required to follow-up the issue at a federal, state and municipal levels.
The result of these efforts is diverse and very rich in experiences and entrepreneurship even within the organization itself. The Brazilian Support Service for Micro and Small Enterprises (SEBRAE, in Portuguese) announced today on Folha de São Paulo, perhaps the most important newspaper in the country, that in 2010 it achieved the mark of one million (yes, 1,000,000) new formal entrepreneurs, which have been assisted in techniques, methods and principles for sustainable development of new enterprises allowing them to benefit from the services and advantages of having their enterprises duly registered according to law.
It is clear that, with almost 200 million people, Brazil still needs much more to scale the transformation of 100 million people living in poverty into becoming micro and small entrepreneurs. In this way, the “bolsa família” program, which gives scholarships to poor families that send their children to school and take them to medical check-ups regularly, is complemented by this institutional effort so that those children and adolescents can also expect the necessary support to establish their own companies.
It is also clear that this is the right way to go and that there are plenty optimistic results thus far. It is inevitable to think what will happen during the coming 20 years following this line of support to the person that needs support into becoming a formal entrepreneur.
SEBRAE transfers competencies –by law and also through training workshops- to municipalities, so that these offer more customized services to their constituents. This generates competition among the different municipalities towards enlarging their lists of clients and improving the socioeconomic condition of their neighbors. According to their performance, municipalities receive every year the “Entrepreneurial Major” award, which stimulates municipalities to constantly improve to aspire to this certification.
Today, SEBRAE makes efforts to introduce more national legislation amendments, this time to create an entrepreneurship learning program for public schools for children and youth between 7 and 17 years old. Upon graduation, the student can choose to continue her academic career or continue her entrepreneurial career, as she already possesses sufficient tools, guidance, ideas and experience to become an entrepreneur. I was very positively surprised seven years ago in Thailand seeing 20 year-olds managing their own companies thanks to this kind of public policy in that Asian country. This time, Brazil attempts to do it as well.
By 2020, SEBRAE promises to be recognized for: connecting people, having passion for entrepreneurship and the transformation of dreams, impeccable customer service, virtualization of services, cooperation to perpetuate businesses, being a cherished brand, being sustainable around the value cycle including clients, partners and suppliers in environmental responsibility, and being coherent with the organizational vision. Do you think they will manage? If they can, then why can’t we?
The result of these efforts is diverse and very rich in experiences and entrepreneurship even within the organization itself. The Brazilian Support Service for Micro and Small Enterprises (SEBRAE, in Portuguese) announced today on Folha de São Paulo, perhaps the most important newspaper in the country, that in 2010 it achieved the mark of one million (yes, 1,000,000) new formal entrepreneurs, which have been assisted in techniques, methods and principles for sustainable development of new enterprises allowing them to benefit from the services and advantages of having their enterprises duly registered according to law.
It is clear that, with almost 200 million people, Brazil still needs much more to scale the transformation of 100 million people living in poverty into becoming micro and small entrepreneurs. In this way, the “bolsa família” program, which gives scholarships to poor families that send their children to school and take them to medical check-ups regularly, is complemented by this institutional effort so that those children and adolescents can also expect the necessary support to establish their own companies.
It is also clear that this is the right way to go and that there are plenty optimistic results thus far. It is inevitable to think what will happen during the coming 20 years following this line of support to the person that needs support into becoming a formal entrepreneur.
SEBRAE transfers competencies –by law and also through training workshops- to municipalities, so that these offer more customized services to their constituents. This generates competition among the different municipalities towards enlarging their lists of clients and improving the socioeconomic condition of their neighbors. According to their performance, municipalities receive every year the “Entrepreneurial Major” award, which stimulates municipalities to constantly improve to aspire to this certification.
Today, SEBRAE makes efforts to introduce more national legislation amendments, this time to create an entrepreneurship learning program for public schools for children and youth between 7 and 17 years old. Upon graduation, the student can choose to continue her academic career or continue her entrepreneurial career, as she already possesses sufficient tools, guidance, ideas and experience to become an entrepreneur. I was very positively surprised seven years ago in Thailand seeing 20 year-olds managing their own companies thanks to this kind of public policy in that Asian country. This time, Brazil attempts to do it as well.
By 2020, SEBRAE promises to be recognized for: connecting people, having passion for entrepreneurship and the transformation of dreams, impeccable customer service, virtualization of services, cooperation to perpetuate businesses, being a cherished brand, being sustainable around the value cycle including clients, partners and suppliers in environmental responsibility, and being coherent with the organizational vision. Do you think they will manage? If they can, then why can’t we?
Sunday, April 03, 2011
Everyone Wanting
In recent days I had the opportunity to interact with several public and private officers and leaders in Brazil. People from the academic and research sectors, publicly elected officials, leaders of industry chambers, directors of private agencies of public interest, and corporate executives from the airplane and biofuel industries.
All of these encounters had a common thread: all those leaders of the Brazilian society share the conviction that it is possible to have a more prosperous and developed country. This is not only an illusion that exists since the 1950s about this country: Brazil, the country of the future, although that future never seemed to arrive.
Today it is also a reality that the country is in fact more prosperous and more developed. The last 16 years have seen 8-year stints in office by Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva, and have resulted in a very steep growth that is admired by the entire world and that stands out among the remaining Latin American neighborhood. How did they do it?
Thirty years ago, Brazil was a military dictatorship. Less than twenty years ago they were swamped in an endless economic crisis with three- and four-digit inflation figures, as incredible as it may seem.
Then came the macroeconomic legal reforms of Fernando Henrique to stabilize the economy and to make it sustainable, and Lula’s policies to put 100 million poor people at the top of national political priorities. The result is a country that is legally organized and where everyone shares a feeling of belonging about the challenges and achievements.
There is still a long way to go. Domestic security, deforestation, staggering poverty levels. We shall see in another 16 years how Brazil has managed to deal with such complicated challenges.
For now, the feeling I get is that, at least at a leadership level, all the people I have interacted with share the desire of the country’s progress. This is reflected in their behavior: serious, formal, highly qualified, and committed to excellence in the service they provide.
I imagine the following analogy: if there are 22 players and none of them wants to play, there is no way they will manage. If only four or five want to play, it would still be difficult to perform with efficacy. If at least eleven are in, then there is a football team, although with no substitutions, and perhaps with high opposition from those on the bench. But when all 22 want, then the coach can choose the best ones to perform at the highest level, and not only a few. It sounds so familiar.
All of these encounters had a common thread: all those leaders of the Brazilian society share the conviction that it is possible to have a more prosperous and developed country. This is not only an illusion that exists since the 1950s about this country: Brazil, the country of the future, although that future never seemed to arrive.
Today it is also a reality that the country is in fact more prosperous and more developed. The last 16 years have seen 8-year stints in office by Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva, and have resulted in a very steep growth that is admired by the entire world and that stands out among the remaining Latin American neighborhood. How did they do it?
Thirty years ago, Brazil was a military dictatorship. Less than twenty years ago they were swamped in an endless economic crisis with three- and four-digit inflation figures, as incredible as it may seem.
Then came the macroeconomic legal reforms of Fernando Henrique to stabilize the economy and to make it sustainable, and Lula’s policies to put 100 million poor people at the top of national political priorities. The result is a country that is legally organized and where everyone shares a feeling of belonging about the challenges and achievements.
There is still a long way to go. Domestic security, deforestation, staggering poverty levels. We shall see in another 16 years how Brazil has managed to deal with such complicated challenges.
For now, the feeling I get is that, at least at a leadership level, all the people I have interacted with share the desire of the country’s progress. This is reflected in their behavior: serious, formal, highly qualified, and committed to excellence in the service they provide.
I imagine the following analogy: if there are 22 players and none of them wants to play, there is no way they will manage. If only four or five want to play, it would still be difficult to perform with efficacy. If at least eleven are in, then there is a football team, although with no substitutions, and perhaps with high opposition from those on the bench. But when all 22 want, then the coach can choose the best ones to perform at the highest level, and not only a few. It sounds so familiar.
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Lo que el río no se llevó
Mucho de lo que fue dragado en nuestra frontera nor-caribe ha sido llevado por el río. Eso no lo devolverá ninguna resolución judicial ni medida cautelar, ni hay monto que pueda resarcir algo tan valioso como el estado natural del medio ambiente que ha sido degradado de manera permanente. Entre más pronto aceptemos esta realidad, más pronto podremos retomar el rumbo de nuestro destino patrio.
Algunas cosas el río no se las ha llevado, como la vocación democrática, pacífica y conservacionista de nuestro pueblo. La combinación de estas virtudes colectivas nos distingue a nivel mundial como un país de autoridad. En tiempos en que las democracias atraviesan la encrucijada de cumplir soberanamente la voluntad de sus pueblos; en que el armamentismo adquiere dimensiones financieras globales exorbitantes; y en que la degradación ambiental acaba con la vida de miles de especies que se extinguen del planeta cada año, Costa Rica representa uno de los pocos paraísos donde aún se preserva el sentido ético por la convivencia humana.
Lo que Daniel Ortega -y su camarilla- le ha hecho a nuestro país es evidencia del irrespeto que guarda por esos tres valores supremos de la humanidad: democracia, paz y conservación medioambiental. Pero es probable que todo esto él mismo lo ignore.
Debemos entender la dimensión global de nuestra lucha. En estos momentos, el Medio Oriente se debate a sangre y fuego entre la tiranía y la anarquía, en combustión con un ardiente deseo ciudadano por alcanzar mayores grados de libertad y democracia que varias generaciones en esos países jamás han visto. El mundo superó la factura anual de un trillón de dólares en gasto armamentista, mientras mueren 100.000 personas al día en el planeta por causas prevenibles. Como si se prepararan los que gastan en armas para librar una gran batalla contra un enemigo que podría ser disminuido por la fuerza de la pólvora, aunque nuestros niños se estén muriendo de inanición o ingesta de agua contaminada. Para agravar la trama, el ritmo de deforestación que la humanidad ha alcanzado equivale a talar todo el bosque de Costa Rica cada tres meses. De ese tamaño es la batalla que libra nuestro país contra el mundo.
Esto quiere decir que Ortega es apenas el más cercano de los bandidos, y ciertamente uno más entre miles que, desde sus diferentes puestos de poder, condenan a la humanidad a vivir su futuro en opresión, bajo la mira de un rifle, y en una tierra contaminada e infértil.
No podemos pasar por alto lo que debemos corregir para mejorar la posición nacional. Nuestra democracia se desgasta cada vez que somos incapaces de escuchar al otro y de hacer aportes constructivos por medio del diálogo. Nuestro parlamento debe volver a ser buen ejemplo de democracia participativa, formativa y madura. Nuestra sociedad debe aumentar significativamente los niveles de bienestar para erradicar la violencia en la que estamos sumidos, incluyendo la pobreza crónica, la falta de educación y las demás falencias en desarrollo de nuestras comunidades. Además, debemos transformar rápidamente nuestras fuentes de energía no renovables y la gestión de residuos. Estos tres grandes retos los podemos cumplir en la década actual sin mucho aspaviento.
Las democracias revolucionan el día de las elecciones, y evolucionan durante los cuatro años del gobierno de turno. Comunicación, eficacia, sentido de pertenencia. Requerimos que todos nuestros líderes, en toda industria y a todo nivel, incorporen las herramientas, métodos y actitudes necesarias para potenciar las mundialmente reconocidas virtudes. Construyamos sobre ellas.
Lo que el río no se llevó es la cepa de la que estamos hechos. Multipliquemos nuestros talentos. Que esa sinergia nos permita alcanzar el desarrollo sostenible al que aspiramos.
Algunas cosas el río no se las ha llevado, como la vocación democrática, pacífica y conservacionista de nuestro pueblo. La combinación de estas virtudes colectivas nos distingue a nivel mundial como un país de autoridad. En tiempos en que las democracias atraviesan la encrucijada de cumplir soberanamente la voluntad de sus pueblos; en que el armamentismo adquiere dimensiones financieras globales exorbitantes; y en que la degradación ambiental acaba con la vida de miles de especies que se extinguen del planeta cada año, Costa Rica representa uno de los pocos paraísos donde aún se preserva el sentido ético por la convivencia humana.
Lo que Daniel Ortega -y su camarilla- le ha hecho a nuestro país es evidencia del irrespeto que guarda por esos tres valores supremos de la humanidad: democracia, paz y conservación medioambiental. Pero es probable que todo esto él mismo lo ignore.
Debemos entender la dimensión global de nuestra lucha. En estos momentos, el Medio Oriente se debate a sangre y fuego entre la tiranía y la anarquía, en combustión con un ardiente deseo ciudadano por alcanzar mayores grados de libertad y democracia que varias generaciones en esos países jamás han visto. El mundo superó la factura anual de un trillón de dólares en gasto armamentista, mientras mueren 100.000 personas al día en el planeta por causas prevenibles. Como si se prepararan los que gastan en armas para librar una gran batalla contra un enemigo que podría ser disminuido por la fuerza de la pólvora, aunque nuestros niños se estén muriendo de inanición o ingesta de agua contaminada. Para agravar la trama, el ritmo de deforestación que la humanidad ha alcanzado equivale a talar todo el bosque de Costa Rica cada tres meses. De ese tamaño es la batalla que libra nuestro país contra el mundo.
Esto quiere decir que Ortega es apenas el más cercano de los bandidos, y ciertamente uno más entre miles que, desde sus diferentes puestos de poder, condenan a la humanidad a vivir su futuro en opresión, bajo la mira de un rifle, y en una tierra contaminada e infértil.
No podemos pasar por alto lo que debemos corregir para mejorar la posición nacional. Nuestra democracia se desgasta cada vez que somos incapaces de escuchar al otro y de hacer aportes constructivos por medio del diálogo. Nuestro parlamento debe volver a ser buen ejemplo de democracia participativa, formativa y madura. Nuestra sociedad debe aumentar significativamente los niveles de bienestar para erradicar la violencia en la que estamos sumidos, incluyendo la pobreza crónica, la falta de educación y las demás falencias en desarrollo de nuestras comunidades. Además, debemos transformar rápidamente nuestras fuentes de energía no renovables y la gestión de residuos. Estos tres grandes retos los podemos cumplir en la década actual sin mucho aspaviento.
Las democracias revolucionan el día de las elecciones, y evolucionan durante los cuatro años del gobierno de turno. Comunicación, eficacia, sentido de pertenencia. Requerimos que todos nuestros líderes, en toda industria y a todo nivel, incorporen las herramientas, métodos y actitudes necesarias para potenciar las mundialmente reconocidas virtudes. Construyamos sobre ellas.
Lo que el río no se llevó es la cepa de la que estamos hechos. Multipliquemos nuestros talentos. Que esa sinergia nos permita alcanzar el desarrollo sostenible al que aspiramos.
Lecciones del fútbol brasileño
Hay una notoria diferencia que salta a la vista entre el fútbol nacional en Costa Rica y en Brasil: el profesionalismo. Como en cualquier oficio, la calidad en el desempeño no sólo se adquiere con años de trabajo, sino que requiere de métodos de entrenamiento, de práctica dirigida, de mejoramiento constante.
El campeonato brasileño, quizás el más complicado del mundo, se divide en dos etapas a lo largo del año: el campeonato estatal o provincial, el cual se disputa sólo entre los equipos de cada estado o provincia (se disputan 18 torneos independientes en total); y el campeonato nacional, en el cual participan sólo los mejores equipos del país.
La precisión en los pases, la velocidad en los piques y la eficacia frente al marco son llamativas. Un distintivo adicional es la potencia con la que tiran a marco. No es raro ver goles desde 25 metros, imparables para los ya de por sí buenos porteros.
Esta calidad no responde necesariamente a cuestiones meramente culturales o étnicas. No es tan cierto que por ser una cultura con amplia influencia africana el biotipo del jugador brasileño es ideal para la práctica del fútbol. Tampoco es cierto que por ser un país de danza (samba, forró, lambada) los jugadores tienen mayor aprestamiento para la “danza” del fútbol.
Lo que sí es cierto es que todo jugador que participa de un equipo de primera división en cualquier campeonato del país ha pasado años de infancia y adolescencia en escuelas de fútbol donde han sido entrenados desde lo más elemental del deporte –condición física y técnica- hasta sus elementos más elaborados, como tácticas y sistemas de juego.
Los niños que tienen aspiraciones a ser jugadores profesionales entran a escuelas que existen en todo el país, donde son asesorados, entrenados y escogidos según su desempeño. Para cuando cumplen 15, ya es evidente su talento y destrezas desarrolladas y por lo general ya han sido reclutados por equipos mayores. Al cumplir la mayoridad, sus fichas ya tienen precio y se miden en millones. Tal es el caso del conocido zurdo mediocampista Ganso, del Santos del famosísimo Pelé. Este jugador está próximo a ser traspasado al Inter de Milán, que inició negociaciones por la suma de 36 millones de euros (50 millones de dólares), y a sus 21 años, con cuatro temporadas completas, ya registra casi 50 goles y fue distinguido como el mejor jugador del campeonato nacional el año pasado.
Estos jugadores, al llegar a Europa, es poco lo que hay que enseñarles. Lo que los clubes europeos hacen con ellos es cambiarles la alimentación y el trabajo concentrado con pesas para que aumenten los 10 ó 15 kilos requeridos para competir hombro a hombro en las duras ligas europeas. En nuestro país hemos visto el cambio físico que han tenido jugadores como Bryan Ruiz, Christian Bolaños o Winston Parks. El aumento en corpulencia se traduce en potencia para correr, saltar y patear, movimientos elementales del fútbol.
Queda claro que es muy diferente nuestra querida “mejenga” que la práctica, profesional y competitiva, del fútbol. Como en cualquier oficio, el aprendizaje y el entrenamiento conducen a mayor calidad. Es en educación donde fallamos.
El campeonato brasileño, quizás el más complicado del mundo, se divide en dos etapas a lo largo del año: el campeonato estatal o provincial, el cual se disputa sólo entre los equipos de cada estado o provincia (se disputan 18 torneos independientes en total); y el campeonato nacional, en el cual participan sólo los mejores equipos del país.
La precisión en los pases, la velocidad en los piques y la eficacia frente al marco son llamativas. Un distintivo adicional es la potencia con la que tiran a marco. No es raro ver goles desde 25 metros, imparables para los ya de por sí buenos porteros.
Esta calidad no responde necesariamente a cuestiones meramente culturales o étnicas. No es tan cierto que por ser una cultura con amplia influencia africana el biotipo del jugador brasileño es ideal para la práctica del fútbol. Tampoco es cierto que por ser un país de danza (samba, forró, lambada) los jugadores tienen mayor aprestamiento para la “danza” del fútbol.
Lo que sí es cierto es que todo jugador que participa de un equipo de primera división en cualquier campeonato del país ha pasado años de infancia y adolescencia en escuelas de fútbol donde han sido entrenados desde lo más elemental del deporte –condición física y técnica- hasta sus elementos más elaborados, como tácticas y sistemas de juego.
Los niños que tienen aspiraciones a ser jugadores profesionales entran a escuelas que existen en todo el país, donde son asesorados, entrenados y escogidos según su desempeño. Para cuando cumplen 15, ya es evidente su talento y destrezas desarrolladas y por lo general ya han sido reclutados por equipos mayores. Al cumplir la mayoridad, sus fichas ya tienen precio y se miden en millones. Tal es el caso del conocido zurdo mediocampista Ganso, del Santos del famosísimo Pelé. Este jugador está próximo a ser traspasado al Inter de Milán, que inició negociaciones por la suma de 36 millones de euros (50 millones de dólares), y a sus 21 años, con cuatro temporadas completas, ya registra casi 50 goles y fue distinguido como el mejor jugador del campeonato nacional el año pasado.
Estos jugadores, al llegar a Europa, es poco lo que hay que enseñarles. Lo que los clubes europeos hacen con ellos es cambiarles la alimentación y el trabajo concentrado con pesas para que aumenten los 10 ó 15 kilos requeridos para competir hombro a hombro en las duras ligas europeas. En nuestro país hemos visto el cambio físico que han tenido jugadores como Bryan Ruiz, Christian Bolaños o Winston Parks. El aumento en corpulencia se traduce en potencia para correr, saltar y patear, movimientos elementales del fútbol.
Queda claro que es muy diferente nuestra querida “mejenga” que la práctica, profesional y competitiva, del fútbol. Como en cualquier oficio, el aprendizaje y el entrenamiento conducen a mayor calidad. Es en educación donde fallamos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
