All posts tagged julian velez

Posted:
May 6, 2012
Author:
Nathan Thanki

A Date With History (script) English and Spanish version

This script was writen by a group of us for a video context in preparation to the Rio+20 conference.

by Anjali Appadurai, Nimisha Bastedo, Anyuri Betegon, Graham Reeder, Nathan Thanki, Julian Velez, and Trudi Zundel.

The video can be seen here.

We are Earth in Brackets and the future we want requires radical change.

Radical: Favoring drastic political, economic, and social reforms. Radical: Challenging accepted traditional norms.

Some may write off radical thought and action as unrealistic and unattainable. As dangerous.  But the word “radical,” has its origin in botany: a “radical” is the first root to begin growing from a seed. Radical is tackling the world’s social, economic and environmental problems at their roots, instead of pruning their branches with the same old tools.

Tools like assigning monetary value to nature to create new markets. Greenwashing our old inequitable, unsustainable consumption and production methods. Negotiating for twenty years without making solid commitments.

To us, that’s dangerous.

Since the first Rio conference, our problems have gotten worse. Why? Because our mainstream ideology is dominated by neoliberalism, with its rampant consumerism and boundless exploitation of people and nature.

In the future we want, empathy, respect, and integrity form the basis for global decision-making. Sustainable development becomes the priority in national policies. In this future, small-scale farmers can reclaim food sovereignty from big agribusiness. The best education and health care are given to those who need it most.

Biodiversity is protected, not privatized. All humans, not just the rich, have a right to water, to economic stability, to a clean and safe environment. All humans have a right to be heard. The list could go on all day, but it comes to this: basic rights of people and the Earth are no longer negotiable. They are not just needs, they are inherent rights that cannot be bought or sold.

Countries must fulfill their commitments to capacity building, technology transfer and finance. But that’s not enough. We also need radical changes in the way we choose to live together on this planet.

In the future we want, equity prevails: power is justly transferred from institutions to citizens, corporations to people, developed to developing countries. A shift from a human-centered worldview to one that respects all life: this is the radical change we need.

2011 was the year the bottom shook the top, the year when the radical started to become a reality. Let’s make 2012 the year the top wakes up and finally puts the integrity of humans and the planet before profits.

We are calling for ambition. Not just from governments, but from everyone who wants this future too. The future we want, the one we need, is something we’re going to keep building–and we want you to join us.

Este discurso fue escrito por un grupo de nosotros en preparación para la Conferencia Rio+20 en Brasil.

Escrito por Anjali Appadurai, Nimisha Bastedo, Anyuri Betegon, Graham Reeder, Nathan Thanki, Julian Velez, and Trudi Zundel.

Traducido por Anyuri Betegon

Mi nombre es Nimisha y el futuro que queremos requiere un cambio radical.

Radical: Favorecer drásticas reformas políticas, económicas y sociales. Radical: Desafiar las normas tradicionales aceptadas.

Algunos suelen anotar el pensamiento y la acción radical como irreal e inalcanzable. Como peligrosa. Pero la palabra radical tiene su origen en botánica: radical es la primera raíz que crece en una semilla. Radical es la lucha contra los problemas ambientales, sociales y económicos del mundo en sus raíces, en vez de podar sus ramas con las mismas herramientas desfasadas.

Herramientas como el asignamiento de un valor monetario a la naturaleza para crear nuevos mercados. Greenwashing nuestra vieja insostenible e injusta manera de consumir y producir.

Desde la primera conferencia en Río, nuestros problemas siguen empeorando ¿Por qué?  Porque nuestra ideología principal está dominada por neoliberalismo, con su consumismo desenfrenado y la explotación ilimitada de la gente y la naturaleza.

En el futuro que queremos empatía, respeto e integridad forman las bases para las tomas de decisión global. El desarrollo sustentable es prioridad en las políticas nacionales.

En este futuro, campesinos pueden reclamar su soberanía alimentaria de las grandes empresas de agricultura. La mejor educación y servicio de salud es dada a aquellos que más la necesitan. La biodiversidad es protegida no privatizada. Todos los seres humanos, no sólo los ricos, tienen derecho al agua, a una estabilidad económica, a un ambiente limpio y seguro. Todos los seres humanos tienen el derecho a ser escuchados.

Esta lista podría continuar, pero se trata de lo siguiente: los derechos básicos de las personas y de la tierra no son negociables. Ellos no son sólo necesidades, son derechos inherentes que no pueden ser comprados o vendidos.

Los países deben cumplir sus compromisos de transferir nuevas tecnologías, de promover la capacidad de construcción y proveer financiamiento. Pero esto no es suficiente. Nosotros también necesitamos hacer cambios radicales en la forma en la que decidamos vivir juntos en este planeta.

En el futuro que queremos equidad prevalece: el poder es justamente transferido de instituciones a ciudadanos, de las corporaciones a las personas, de países desarrollados a países en vías de desarrollo. Un paso de un mundo centrado en lo humano a uno que respeta toda la vida: este es el cambio radical que queremos.

El 2011 fue el año en que las bases sacudieron la cúspide. El año en que lo radical empezó a ser realidad. Hagamos del 2012 el año en el que la cúspide se levanta y por fin pone la integridad de la gente y del planeta antes de las ganancias.

Estamos haciendo un llamado de ambición. No sólo por parte de los gobiernos, pero también de todos aquellos que también desean este futuro. El futuro que queremos, el que necesitamos, es algo que vamos a seguir construyendo y queremos que te nos unas.

 

Posted:
March 28, 2012
Author:
COA Students

A Reminder of Reality

By Julian Velez

This is a reflection of my time in the Sustainable Development negotiations that took place in New York City. These negotiations are called the “informal-informal negotiations”; they are a build up to the Rio+20 summit. I speak of Food Sovereignty as a refreshing term that contrasts with the concepts and environment that is present in this UN process.

I find the process of the UN so detached from the people and the places that are in most need and are more affected by all the adverse effects of this unsustainable society created on structures of inequity and unbalance at all levels, economic, social, environmental, political, spiritual, etc.

These negotiations happen within a space where the language that is spoken is the language of policy and politics: technical and cold as it comes out of the mouths of politicians and princes that most of the time don’t represent the needs of their people and our environment.

It has been twenty long years of discussions that don’t come down to concrete actions. Actions needed for a true change to benefit the world’s poor and our natural environment. Discussions that have not manifested in implementation of principles and plans that they set themselves.

Sometimes it looks like kids not being able to reach agreement and not being able to follow their own rules: the bullies bully instead of sharing, and the bullied don’t stand strong and united. It becomes a vicious cycle of inequity that impacts the people most in need, those least represented with the least voice.

If I don’t know real hunger, how I can truly fight for food justice? Our politicians are much farther from this reality, so how can they advocate for this when it is so foreign and isolated from the UN negotiations?

Then the people like me that have the resources to attend these meetings do not have a proper space to speak and be heard. Civil society sits and observes while the words reflecting human rights and justice are deleted, and then we have two minutes to complain and demand our needs.  And we are supposed to feel grateful and satisfied with our chance to participate. Moreover the meetings where all the real decisions take place are closed to civil society.

We sit and watch how concepts like resilience come to the text. Resilience entails that everyone accepts current condition of the developing world as a burden, which they should learn how to carry. Did the world’s poor have a say in deciding whether or not to carry the burden of their condition?

I have noticed how these negotiations affect myself and my teammates. I feel detached from reality and from a certain level of humanity. And I see how we become snappy, technical, cold, impatient, righteous, and arrogant instead of being inclusive and open to hear others. This process distances us from our humanity and from being kind to each other.

We had the chance to speak to Azra Sayeed from Roots for Equity and she came like a breath of fresh air and a wake up call for the team and I. She came and knocked on our doors to remind us that there are real people that die of hunger and that those people are not us; and that oppression and poverty is a real condition, not a term, or a statistic or a GDP number. Like her organization, there are other NGOs that fight for food sovereignty, contrasting with the term or thematic issue of food security that is used in the context of the sustainable development discussions.

The term food security refers mainly to the production aspect of food and more specifically the amount of production. The problem is not that there is not enough food but that many people don’t have access to good, safe food, land, water or energy. The issue is much broader and the concept of food sovereignty embraces this.

Food sovereignty is to have access to land to grow food for your subsistence; with your own technologies and traditional ways; your own seed; access to water and energy; and a local market that doesn’t have to be bound to the rules and the control of the global market. Furthermore, food sovereignty must include independence from the oppressing corporate structures in order to live with dignity in your own ways; to empower the local community’s culture so a communal fabric can support the members in a more sustainable and whole way. This is a much more whole perspective than solutions that will not change the structures weaving this reality of food insecurity and poverty.

Food sovereignty is a term that brings back a sense of humanity and community to the table, which I think are two essential things for the negotiating process and to achieve sustainable development.

Posted:
March 22, 2012
Author:
COA Students

The Green Economy Will Inspire All Nations with Positive Light?

By Julian Velez

The EU again steps forward to propose the idea of a roadmap for the Green Economy. They are testing the waters, looking at the reactions of the different groups in order to come up with a proposal of how that roadmap should look like. Their position on how to implement this roadmap is quite visible. Their roadmap plan demonstrates their lack of inclusion of the developing world, especially vulnerable countries: The Least Developed Countries, Small Island Developing States and the African countries have been explicitly suggested for deletion throughout the text. In the EU’s vision there is no space for mention of specific country blocks because they want a general document that doesn’t go into any specificities. They want a green economy that is vague and generic, that doesn’t reflect any of the critical points for the developing world.

They called for the deletion of the right to development under the green economy, which is a key principle for G77 (representing 132 developing countries). The right to development is a concept stemming from the view that the poorest countries of the world don’t have the means to attain sustainable development by themselves, and therefore should be provided with support and means to fulfill sustainable development. The EU called for the deletion of this because in their perspective it doesn’t relate to the green economy and because it shines a negative light on the concept of green economy… maybe they just want to avoid providing any national funding. Furthermore, they suggested the deletion of the recognition of the Rio principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities for sustainable consumption and production patterns. As far as I know Haitian and Ethiopian people have a very different lifestyle and levels of consumption than people in France or Germany. Not to mention  levels and differences in production.The EU says that they want a green economy roadmap with deadlines, specific goals, objectives and concrete actions at the international level in a specific number of cross-cutting thematic areas. They are pushing for a focused political document that will inspire nation states to renew their political commitments. It looks as though they are trying to avoid any language that reflects specifics for actual implementation.

But they do want an explicit mention of the green economy in their terms through the involvement of the private investment, domestic resources, International Financial Institutions and South-South cooperation. The EU has no intention of stepping forward for the creation of an that furthers the principle of equity. There is a call for creating a text with positive lighting that would inspire and bring about political will from the Heads of State, but this positive light mentioned by the EU doesn’t seem to inspire and shine upon the developing nations. All nations should take ambitious steps to achieve sustainable development both at the national and the international level, but this doesn’t mean that the developed world is exempt from their responsibility to support with means of implementation. Without commitments from the developed world the roadmap towards a green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication seems quite bleak for the developing world, and  the principle of equity would not be properly addressed in the future of our economy.Do we want a text that inspires ambitious action form all nations? Or do we want an outcome that inspires another 20 years of inaction?

Posted:
March 21, 2012
Author:
COA Students

Photo coverage of Earth in Brackets at a Informal Informal side event

Julian Velez got a seat as an impromptu interpreter for Jadder Mendoza, Centro para la Autonomía y Desarrollo para los Pueblos Indígenas (CADPI) at Key Messages of Indigenous Peoples side event.

There was no employed interpreter at the side event who would translate the discussion from english into spanish, which gave less chance for the key speakers who were not fluent in english to actively participate in the discussion. While Julian didn’t translate the discussion from english to spanish, he did volunteer to contribute to more proficient translation of spanish with his native speaking skills.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →