Would God have patented that idea about the round madhouse?
This week I had thought about keeping with the topic I begun last one; if last one I spoke about traditional knowledge, this one was intended to be for the result of humans’ most marvellous capacity for imagination: technology! But while diving through the news, I felt I had to dedicate an entry to this piece of news.
It’s in Spanish, sorry for that to all my kiwi/English-speakers, but I’m sure you will reach the same conclusion as me after reading the heading: “A Cantabrian mayor appoints a confessed pyromaniac as Environment City Councillor”.
The first thing that came to my mind was “It’s a joke, right?” But, unfortunately, it is completely true and made me think about how the environment is systematically humiliated by politicians with acts like this and about the relevancy of this in the general topic of this blog. This is completely relevant for two reasons:
1: Credibility of the process and stakeholders selection, and
2: Trust building.
Making decisions like that can spoil a process of environmental management by eroding the very basic foundations. When discussing about the basics of the theory, one fundamental pillar was trust, based on professionalism and honest work. With decisions like these, the entire process is rotten from the very beginning, a complete lack of credibility will surround any decision made from the Councillor, or the person who appointed him. This is a failure sentence, and an enormous lack of respect for the rest of actors and interlocutors which shows the role the environment and its defence have in many cases yet. A lot of questions arise from this election, the why, the how and the hidden who, but I won’t go deeply into them. The most important one that appears to me is how the involved stakeholders will react to something like that: how would any process of dialogue or negotiation be approached with these precedents?, how could anybody pretend to gain some agreement or advance if the head actor shows such a complete disdain of the matter?, would anybody agree even to try to gain some goal?
The answer to all this is not easy and, surely, in some cases will be no option but to work with these kind of institutions and actors; but when a chance, even if radical, the election should be a complete withdrawal of the process. IEM takes time and resources, and both are valuable enough to be spoiled in a doom-to-failure process; a sign of professionalism should be to demand the same in our interlocutors and they should take the task as seriously as we do. Without this basis, the trust and credibility construction is impossible and, consequently, all the IEM process, a chimera.
I don’t want to seem pessimistic or disenchanted, nor naive or falsely optimistic. Even if this is an example, an unfortunate election from a Major, environmental insults like this happen far away, and close to home, as well as remarkable intents to amend things and act correctly. Which side does the scale tip in? I won’t answer that; instead, I will ask you as a reader to wonder that yourself and act, so you can, as a citizen, tip it through the right side.
It’s in Spanish, sorry for that to all my kiwi/English-speakers, but I’m sure you will reach the same conclusion as me after reading the heading: “A Cantabrian mayor appoints a confessed pyromaniac as Environment City Councillor”.
The first thing that came to my mind was “It’s a joke, right?” But, unfortunately, it is completely true and made me think about how the environment is systematically humiliated by politicians with acts like this and about the relevancy of this in the general topic of this blog. This is completely relevant for two reasons:
1: Credibility of the process and stakeholders selection, and
2: Trust building.
Making decisions like that can spoil a process of environmental management by eroding the very basic foundations. When discussing about the basics of the theory, one fundamental pillar was trust, based on professionalism and honest work. With decisions like these, the entire process is rotten from the very beginning, a complete lack of credibility will surround any decision made from the Councillor, or the person who appointed him. This is a failure sentence, and an enormous lack of respect for the rest of actors and interlocutors which shows the role the environment and its defence have in many cases yet. A lot of questions arise from this election, the why, the how and the hidden who, but I won’t go deeply into them. The most important one that appears to me is how the involved stakeholders will react to something like that: how would any process of dialogue or negotiation be approached with these precedents?, how could anybody pretend to gain some agreement or advance if the head actor shows such a complete disdain of the matter?, would anybody agree even to try to gain some goal?
The answer to all this is not easy and, surely, in some cases will be no option but to work with these kind of institutions and actors; but when a chance, even if radical, the election should be a complete withdrawal of the process. IEM takes time and resources, and both are valuable enough to be spoiled in a doom-to-failure process; a sign of professionalism should be to demand the same in our interlocutors and they should take the task as seriously as we do. Without this basis, the trust and credibility construction is impossible and, consequently, all the IEM process, a chimera.
I don’t want to seem pessimistic or disenchanted, nor naive or falsely optimistic. Even if this is an example, an unfortunate election from a Major, environmental insults like this happen far away, and close to home, as well as remarkable intents to amend things and act correctly. Which side does the scale tip in? I won’t answer that; instead, I will ask you as a reader to wonder that yourself and act, so you can, as a citizen, tip it through the right side.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario