Lately I wonder if being humanitarian will be enough to save our planet and ourselves. The whole world has been witnessing what President Barack Obama characterised as an ' environmental 9/11', as millions upon millions of barrels of oil have leaked into the Gulf of Mexico, devastating the ecosystem. There have been no human fatalities, but shouldn't we also weep for the devastation to the creatures we share the planet with? Shouldn't we all be calling for the end of the pollution of the planet, the global warming, the destruction of species which disasters like the Gulf of Mexico spill bring about?
A comment made by one analyst was particularly shocking. He said that it would not be economically sound to plug the well unless the cost of the disaster reaches a trillion dollards. Is this how we value our planet? Is this how we value the role of our partners on this planet: the creatures we share it with? Surely, if we have the technology to plug the leak, there should be no further argument. But apparently our human feeling towards living beings is measured only in their economical value to our projects. We reduce God's magnificent creation to the yen, the dollar, the pound.
If our leaders and decision makers do not work with a deap seated, wide sense of duty, to protect all life, then we will only accelerate the rate of extinction of other species - and undoubtedly, ultimately our own.
If a human looks inside himself, he'll see billions of living bacteria living in his body. Such organisms are there to help man live a happy, healthy life; we can't survive without them, Hypocritically, the same man destroys species after species outside his body; in the greater organism that is earth, we so often upset the delicate balance, out of greed, ignorance or even for sport. How does it befit human beings to cause the extinction of other species which God has created to help, support and make our lives sustainable?
I suggest that the word 'humanitarianism' is out of date. If we want to ensure the planet's survival, and our own, we need a new dialogue and a new terminology to reflect it. We need a word which refers to the origin of our existence, the relationship to other creatures, and the support of our creator.
Instead of 'humanitarianism', which puts us at the top of the pyramid, why not 'creaturitarianism'? In creaturitarianism, man would not be the ruler or user of the planet, or else concerned exclusively with humans, but rather the custodian and guardian of all living creatures. Humans are a central player, but they are not the ultimate focus; they have partners who live with them and make life sustainable and reciprocal. Man is not the reference, we should instead defer ourselves to the Creator.
Unfortunately nowadays man is not only the custodian, but also the ultimate focal point and the reference as well: he's appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. That's why intentionally or otherwisewe're exterminating other species under the label of our own self interest. But a belief of creaturitatianism would ensure a wider world view.
I hope we can save our planet; and I hope we can save our partners: the other species on earth with whom we are intended to live in harmony.
Thursday, 8 July 2010
Tuesday, 1 June 2010
Fighting the subconscious preconceptions in Yemen
A recent trip to Yemen reminded me that you’re never too old or too wise to be proved wrong, and that we have to be vigilant against those judgements and preconceptions that we can all be quick to jump to at times.
This May, Islamic Relief and Humanitarian Forum Yemen held training workshops in Al Mukalla and Taez in Yemen. So far, so normal, but the challenge was that we wanted to start the workshop in the afternoon at 4pm, in hot Middle Eastern cities where people are notorious for chewing qat – that leaf-form drug which is ubiquitous in Yemen.
Just before midday Islamic Relief had a very serious debate in Sana’a amongst its employees that the workshop would be a failure because of the timing. But HFY insisted that we should take the opportunity to bring people together from 4pm, to build confidence and relations before the actual workshop began. In the end, that was what we decided, but not without misgivings of how well this would go.
We arrived in Al Mukalla around 1pm the afternoon of the day of the workshop. The city was extremely hot. Half an hour before the meeting, as I settled into my hotel room, Ahmad, the HFY director rang to ask me to come downstairs. But with my preconceptions about qat habits and afternoon siestas, I was in no rush to come before time and decided to catch a bit of football. Ahmad called again after 15 minutes, when I was half-dressed, and I insisted I was on my way down...
When I finally descended from my ivory tower to the conference hall, to my shock I saw the hall full and everyone waiting for me. I was ashamed of myself – of my prejudices and of completely underestimating the quality and keen interest of the people involved. Unlike me, many of them had arrived well before time. I can’t believe I fell into this dreadful stereotype trap, but I am grateful that the Yemeni participants snapped me out of it so quickly.
The discussion in Al Mukalla and Ta’izz were electrifying because of the clarity of thought, the wealth of knowledge, the diversity of ideas and the heat of the debate between all participants. All through the conference people blasted through each other’s prejudices and preconceptions. I was struck by the incredible and positive contribution of the women in both cities, who brought to the table insightful, confrontational and intelligent discussions on a wide range of subjects: reproductive health; mother and child care; microfinance; water and sanitation; health education and problems with early marriages. Their contribution was challenging to everyone there, as they systematically overturned prejudices and preconceptions.
Sometimes we humans become more judgemental than God himself – on the way people dress, talk, and communicate. We classify people in different ranks for faults we perceive them to have. Most times, they are not even guilty of these faults, but still we always do it. We think anyone outside our cultural norms looks odd to us, so we assume they have nothing to contribute.
The Humanitarian Forum’s key mission to build confidence is designed to bring people together, to give them the confidence to speak up about their organisations and their programmes, dreams and visions – and even their social life, if they want to. Whatever works – the result has to be to bridge the gap between themselves and create confidence among themselves. Some of those participants travelled by air to attend - because they believe they can lead. Our duty is to enable them as leaders – whether men or women, and regardless of their backgrounds and cultures.
Yemen is beset with problems and troubles, but the answer lies within. If we can pull our blindfolds off and really see each other – the potential we all have, we can start building a brighter future – for Yemen and the world.
This May, Islamic Relief and Humanitarian Forum Yemen held training workshops in Al Mukalla and Taez in Yemen. So far, so normal, but the challenge was that we wanted to start the workshop in the afternoon at 4pm, in hot Middle Eastern cities where people are notorious for chewing qat – that leaf-form drug which is ubiquitous in Yemen.
Just before midday Islamic Relief had a very serious debate in Sana’a amongst its employees that the workshop would be a failure because of the timing. But HFY insisted that we should take the opportunity to bring people together from 4pm, to build confidence and relations before the actual workshop began. In the end, that was what we decided, but not without misgivings of how well this would go.
We arrived in Al Mukalla around 1pm the afternoon of the day of the workshop. The city was extremely hot. Half an hour before the meeting, as I settled into my hotel room, Ahmad, the HFY director rang to ask me to come downstairs. But with my preconceptions about qat habits and afternoon siestas, I was in no rush to come before time and decided to catch a bit of football. Ahmad called again after 15 minutes, when I was half-dressed, and I insisted I was on my way down...
When I finally descended from my ivory tower to the conference hall, to my shock I saw the hall full and everyone waiting for me. I was ashamed of myself – of my prejudices and of completely underestimating the quality and keen interest of the people involved. Unlike me, many of them had arrived well before time. I can’t believe I fell into this dreadful stereotype trap, but I am grateful that the Yemeni participants snapped me out of it so quickly.
The discussion in Al Mukalla and Ta’izz were electrifying because of the clarity of thought, the wealth of knowledge, the diversity of ideas and the heat of the debate between all participants. All through the conference people blasted through each other’s prejudices and preconceptions. I was struck by the incredible and positive contribution of the women in both cities, who brought to the table insightful, confrontational and intelligent discussions on a wide range of subjects: reproductive health; mother and child care; microfinance; water and sanitation; health education and problems with early marriages. Their contribution was challenging to everyone there, as they systematically overturned prejudices and preconceptions.
Sometimes we humans become more judgemental than God himself – on the way people dress, talk, and communicate. We classify people in different ranks for faults we perceive them to have. Most times, they are not even guilty of these faults, but still we always do it. We think anyone outside our cultural norms looks odd to us, so we assume they have nothing to contribute.
The Humanitarian Forum’s key mission to build confidence is designed to bring people together, to give them the confidence to speak up about their organisations and their programmes, dreams and visions – and even their social life, if they want to. Whatever works – the result has to be to bridge the gap between themselves and create confidence among themselves. Some of those participants travelled by air to attend - because they believe they can lead. Our duty is to enable them as leaders – whether men or women, and regardless of their backgrounds and cultures.
Yemen is beset with problems and troubles, but the answer lies within. If we can pull our blindfolds off and really see each other – the potential we all have, we can start building a brighter future – for Yemen and the world.
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Official and unofficial dialogue
Official and unofficial dialogue is the name of the game. Which can become official and unofficial negotiation. We all need to understand the English terms ‘dialogue’ and ‘negotiation’.
‘dialogue’ is between two parties, individuals or groups, who are talking and listening to one another, and willing to take some points from this kind of dialogue, to enrich the society, culture etc.
Negotiation could be understood as used in a time of conflict, when we disagree on the same issue as our opinions are far away from one another. We sit down as 2, 3, 5, 10 groups or parties to negotiate together because if we do not negotiate, we will not be able to live in peace.
Negotiation and dialogue need a beginning and an end, a concept and result, a vision and power to implement. Negotiation and dialogue without and end or power to implement is an absolute waste of time. And it could lead to what we become afraid of: radicalism, extremism, terrorism.
This would create a status quo of despair amongst nations - particularly the youth of such nations which will lose faith in us. Let us respect the value of our civilisation, of our religions and of our neighbourhoods and give in on our dialogue and negotiations so the other party might believe that they have won. We make them happy, and then we ourselves can be happy – not all of us are not looking at our own interests but at the interests of the community.
To create a win-win situation, we have to be bold enough to risk losing – to take the first step down.
‘dialogue’ is between two parties, individuals or groups, who are talking and listening to one another, and willing to take some points from this kind of dialogue, to enrich the society, culture etc.
Negotiation could be understood as used in a time of conflict, when we disagree on the same issue as our opinions are far away from one another. We sit down as 2, 3, 5, 10 groups or parties to negotiate together because if we do not negotiate, we will not be able to live in peace.
Negotiation and dialogue need a beginning and an end, a concept and result, a vision and power to implement. Negotiation and dialogue without and end or power to implement is an absolute waste of time. And it could lead to what we become afraid of: radicalism, extremism, terrorism.
This would create a status quo of despair amongst nations - particularly the youth of such nations which will lose faith in us. Let us respect the value of our civilisation, of our religions and of our neighbourhoods and give in on our dialogue and negotiations so the other party might believe that they have won. We make them happy, and then we ourselves can be happy – not all of us are not looking at our own interests but at the interests of the community.
To create a win-win situation, we have to be bold enough to risk losing – to take the first step down.
The industry of life and death
Life and death are facts. We observe them every day, but quite often we do not learn from the experience as much as we should. It’s very easy for a child to cut a flower or break a window, or for a man to uproot a tree, or demolish a building. It’s very easy for a careless driver to knock down a bystander with their car or for a gunman to shoot haphazardly into a crowd and kill unsuspecting victims, or plan to destroy a building, bridge, house or people. Sometimes a process of destruction only takes seconds; sometimes an hour or two.
If we look at the industry of death, we find its goals are very easily achieved. What we build in years, decades and centuries is often destroyed in minutes, hours, days. But while it takes seconds to destroy, it takes lifetimes to protect and preserve. The industriousness of living is what God has created us to develop, so we can struggle together, work collectively, compliment one another and salute the achievement of every being.
Somebody wants to take his life: why should he take his neighbour’s life with him? Not only that, why should he take his own life? We need to preserve life, to prevent this waste. We need to change the mindset and philosophy of those destructive people, from that of the industry of death to the industriousness of living.
Some people think that when they get killed they are martyred. But martyrdom is beyond being killed by, or killing others, and if we look back at the history of mankind, who came to the planet as messengers or prophets, we can see that God through his wisdom did not make them war-bringers: to be killed on the battlefield. God in his wisdom wanted them to become the founders of the industriousness of living, not of death. Every day, we count the number of innocent dead who have been blown up by a suicide bomber in different parts of the world. But if you go to the little girl whose father and mother happened to be passing through the market at the time the incident happened, and ask her why she is crying, she will say ‘daddy and mummy will never come back’. What fault did this little one, and her daddy and mummy have, to be punished in such a merciless way? Is this really what God wants of his messengers?
Religions, prophecies, messages and messengers are not about killing innocent people or promoting the industry of death. It is about saving, preserving and bettering the lives of others; producing the industriousness of living. This is what God wants from all of us. Let us guide, advise the death industrialists, and take them by the hand to show them how we can together produce the industry of living.
If we look at the industry of death, we find its goals are very easily achieved. What we build in years, decades and centuries is often destroyed in minutes, hours, days. But while it takes seconds to destroy, it takes lifetimes to protect and preserve. The industriousness of living is what God has created us to develop, so we can struggle together, work collectively, compliment one another and salute the achievement of every being.
Somebody wants to take his life: why should he take his neighbour’s life with him? Not only that, why should he take his own life? We need to preserve life, to prevent this waste. We need to change the mindset and philosophy of those destructive people, from that of the industry of death to the industriousness of living.
Some people think that when they get killed they are martyred. But martyrdom is beyond being killed by, or killing others, and if we look back at the history of mankind, who came to the planet as messengers or prophets, we can see that God through his wisdom did not make them war-bringers: to be killed on the battlefield. God in his wisdom wanted them to become the founders of the industriousness of living, not of death. Every day, we count the number of innocent dead who have been blown up by a suicide bomber in different parts of the world. But if you go to the little girl whose father and mother happened to be passing through the market at the time the incident happened, and ask her why she is crying, she will say ‘daddy and mummy will never come back’. What fault did this little one, and her daddy and mummy have, to be punished in such a merciless way? Is this really what God wants of his messengers?
Religions, prophecies, messages and messengers are not about killing innocent people or promoting the industry of death. It is about saving, preserving and bettering the lives of others; producing the industriousness of living. This is what God wants from all of us. Let us guide, advise the death industrialists, and take them by the hand to show them how we can together produce the industry of living.
The Unanswered Questions
Every day, new questions arise for us to answer – us, our politicians, communities, and leaders. But the unanswered questions people have been raising for the last century remain. I’m wondering who will have the courage to put the answers on the table of humanity.
Once upon a time, the world woke up to find a crisis which I call the ‘OFF’ crisis: a crisis of Oil, Food and Fuel. These three components have shaken the whole world, particularly the silent majority of the poor and the most marginalised, who don’t suffer from the loss of the equity value, but rather from every cent added to their daily living expenses.
We are still witnessing appalling catastrophes in DRC and Somalia, and nobody claims to have the solution; the answers to the question of why the gap between the rich and poor has become a chasm. Is this the result of free market economy? Global economy? Transnational and multinational businesses? Why should we have more poor when we are becoming richer?
What is fuelling the flames of the world’s conflicts? Is it war lords and arms manufacturers? Or is it the international community? Who’s paying for the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is it the Afghani and Iraqi people? The neighbouring countries and the region? Or is it the countries in the west – the taxpayers who are funding the defence budgets?
Is the solution to ideological, theological and cultural problems military action or security measures? What solution can we find on our humanitarian menu?
Many humanitarians adopt a ‘do no harm’ policy – but this can often mean inaction in the face of crisis. Does a ‘do no harm’ policy actually cause harm? Does it mean we fail to stop agressors and wrongdoers through not interfering? Indeed, should a ‘do no harm’ policy call our humanitarian neutrality and impartiality into question?
Who is responsible for the world now? Who is governing the world? And are the policies and actions of global government bodies upholding the rights of humanity and humanitarian principles or degrading them? Are our governments driven by the economy or by the needs of their people? We talk about respect, equality and fairness, but we need to believe in them, even if it means a material loss to ourselves.
Why is there so much conflict between different faiths and belief systems? Aren’t we ultimately all striving for the same goals? Can’t we make space for each others’ faith and beliefs? Are we trying to create a new global system to replace the existing one, or are we interested only in our own desires? The most precious being is the human being who is losing his or her life – millions every day. Who amongst us is responsible for the daily loss of innocent life?
HIV/AIDS has become not just a medical problem, but a social issue too. Is our policy just to live with it? Or to eradicate it, and how can we protect our children from contracting it?
What are the real causes of climate change? Is it our ignorance or our partners who share the planet – birds, animals, trees etc? Or is it the industrial drive which only serves its own interests?
Nobody knows how many billions or trillions of dollars are spent on curbing the newly created monster that is terrorism, but what is becoming all too clear is that we cannot meet the millennium development goals because we haven’t enough resources. But who’s deciding where resources are spent?
Are we fuelling conflict or are we diminishing its fire? What is our role as individuals leading governments and global institutions, when the plethora of conflicts is on the rise by the second? Can we really call natural disasters by that name, or are they at least to some degree man made? When it rains, are we a part of the flood, the tsunami, the hurricane? We need to redefine what we mean by natural disaster, by climate change, by global warming, and pollution. What are the root causes and where will it take us?
I don’t believe God makes people suffer. I believe that we need to take responsibility for our actions and inaction, and for the consequences: for conflict, for illness and hunger, for violence against women and abused and abandoned children. At the very beginning of the new millennium, we should have the courage to find real answers to these questions instead of fighting the fires that we ourselves have lit.
There are too many ‘why’s, ‘how’s ‘who’s. But while we’re looking at all these questions, we don’t pinpoint the real solutions– we need a champion who will say ‘I will’ or ‘we will’.
Are our Millenium Development Goals complete, fulfilling the needs, or do they need to be revised? Or is it our other goals which need revision: those more self-interested goals which do not look out into the world, but can’t see past our own advancement?
My last question is one that keeps many of us awake at night. What is the value of our life if we fail to value the lives of others? Valuing human life cannot be a passive activity. I wish one day that our subconscious will be more aware that ‘do no harm’ can be very harmful. ‘Do nothing’ does not reflect neutrality, but rather indifference to suffering and putting our interests in the security of the few before the survival of many. Humanity does not need a new religion or a new messiah, but it does need new believers in humanity. Let us all believe together in shared common humanitarian values that can save all of us before it’s too late for us and our children.
Once upon a time, the world woke up to find a crisis which I call the ‘OFF’ crisis: a crisis of Oil, Food and Fuel. These three components have shaken the whole world, particularly the silent majority of the poor and the most marginalised, who don’t suffer from the loss of the equity value, but rather from every cent added to their daily living expenses.
We are still witnessing appalling catastrophes in DRC and Somalia, and nobody claims to have the solution; the answers to the question of why the gap between the rich and poor has become a chasm. Is this the result of free market economy? Global economy? Transnational and multinational businesses? Why should we have more poor when we are becoming richer?
What is fuelling the flames of the world’s conflicts? Is it war lords and arms manufacturers? Or is it the international community? Who’s paying for the cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is it the Afghani and Iraqi people? The neighbouring countries and the region? Or is it the countries in the west – the taxpayers who are funding the defence budgets?
Is the solution to ideological, theological and cultural problems military action or security measures? What solution can we find on our humanitarian menu?
Many humanitarians adopt a ‘do no harm’ policy – but this can often mean inaction in the face of crisis. Does a ‘do no harm’ policy actually cause harm? Does it mean we fail to stop agressors and wrongdoers through not interfering? Indeed, should a ‘do no harm’ policy call our humanitarian neutrality and impartiality into question?
Who is responsible for the world now? Who is governing the world? And are the policies and actions of global government bodies upholding the rights of humanity and humanitarian principles or degrading them? Are our governments driven by the economy or by the needs of their people? We talk about respect, equality and fairness, but we need to believe in them, even if it means a material loss to ourselves.
Why is there so much conflict between different faiths and belief systems? Aren’t we ultimately all striving for the same goals? Can’t we make space for each others’ faith and beliefs? Are we trying to create a new global system to replace the existing one, or are we interested only in our own desires? The most precious being is the human being who is losing his or her life – millions every day. Who amongst us is responsible for the daily loss of innocent life?
HIV/AIDS has become not just a medical problem, but a social issue too. Is our policy just to live with it? Or to eradicate it, and how can we protect our children from contracting it?
What are the real causes of climate change? Is it our ignorance or our partners who share the planet – birds, animals, trees etc? Or is it the industrial drive which only serves its own interests?
Nobody knows how many billions or trillions of dollars are spent on curbing the newly created monster that is terrorism, but what is becoming all too clear is that we cannot meet the millennium development goals because we haven’t enough resources. But who’s deciding where resources are spent?
Are we fuelling conflict or are we diminishing its fire? What is our role as individuals leading governments and global institutions, when the plethora of conflicts is on the rise by the second? Can we really call natural disasters by that name, or are they at least to some degree man made? When it rains, are we a part of the flood, the tsunami, the hurricane? We need to redefine what we mean by natural disaster, by climate change, by global warming, and pollution. What are the root causes and where will it take us?
I don’t believe God makes people suffer. I believe that we need to take responsibility for our actions and inaction, and for the consequences: for conflict, for illness and hunger, for violence against women and abused and abandoned children. At the very beginning of the new millennium, we should have the courage to find real answers to these questions instead of fighting the fires that we ourselves have lit.
There are too many ‘why’s, ‘how’s ‘who’s. But while we’re looking at all these questions, we don’t pinpoint the real solutions– we need a champion who will say ‘I will’ or ‘we will’.
Are our Millenium Development Goals complete, fulfilling the needs, or do they need to be revised? Or is it our other goals which need revision: those more self-interested goals which do not look out into the world, but can’t see past our own advancement?
My last question is one that keeps many of us awake at night. What is the value of our life if we fail to value the lives of others? Valuing human life cannot be a passive activity. I wish one day that our subconscious will be more aware that ‘do no harm’ can be very harmful. ‘Do nothing’ does not reflect neutrality, but rather indifference to suffering and putting our interests in the security of the few before the survival of many. Humanity does not need a new religion or a new messiah, but it does need new believers in humanity. Let us all believe together in shared common humanitarian values that can save all of us before it’s too late for us and our children.
Thursday, 6 May 2010
The biggest challenge: preserving issues or serving interests?
Quite often, God inspires us to have a magnificent idea: one that can serve our community or even the whole of humanity. When someone has such an idea, they call upon their closest friends to discuss it with them. If the group accepts the idea they will change it into a small project which they can look after.
In a year or two the group will start thinking about developing the project, to make it more organised and structured. The group will collectively decide to change the project into an organisation, because the capacity of the organisation is now wider than the scope of the project that the organisation is serving. In the following years the group will think again and then again about institutionalising their organisation and it will change from a small community based enterprise to a national organisation.
To move from the inception of the idea to the making of the institution, we have to go through a bottleneck. And the most difficult challenge to overcome is to continue to serve the idea – to remember the issue and to preserve our community product, rather than to serve the organisation, its structure and quite often the individuals who run it.
If the organisation fails to focus on the original idea as it grows, it will fail in its objective and will suffer a downfall. This is the problem we face nowadays with political parties, groups, movements and structured organisations, who quite often forget the great idea which led to their existence and instead begin to focus on the group, the party, or individual interests. It is the big challenge facing all of us at times of election or change because all these parties’ interests are not compatible. They don’t compliment each other, but rather each would like to uproot the others, forgetting that the resources they have are national, communal resources, and each community needs to see the resources working.
Unfortunately I have seen this happening not only in political parties, but also inside humanitarian organisations which still claim to champion humanity. But if we are really looking to preserve and grow our civilisation, we have to ensure our organisations and institutions keep serving humanity by being true to their ideals. Only then can they develop it and change it into ideology and global community culture. This won’t happen if they are serving the organisations’ interests.
I hope this will be – for me as well as others – a wakeup call to keep serving the cause of our existence, which is to serve God, through serving his people.
In a year or two the group will start thinking about developing the project, to make it more organised and structured. The group will collectively decide to change the project into an organisation, because the capacity of the organisation is now wider than the scope of the project that the organisation is serving. In the following years the group will think again and then again about institutionalising their organisation and it will change from a small community based enterprise to a national organisation.
To move from the inception of the idea to the making of the institution, we have to go through a bottleneck. And the most difficult challenge to overcome is to continue to serve the idea – to remember the issue and to preserve our community product, rather than to serve the organisation, its structure and quite often the individuals who run it.
If the organisation fails to focus on the original idea as it grows, it will fail in its objective and will suffer a downfall. This is the problem we face nowadays with political parties, groups, movements and structured organisations, who quite often forget the great idea which led to their existence and instead begin to focus on the group, the party, or individual interests. It is the big challenge facing all of us at times of election or change because all these parties’ interests are not compatible. They don’t compliment each other, but rather each would like to uproot the others, forgetting that the resources they have are national, communal resources, and each community needs to see the resources working.
Unfortunately I have seen this happening not only in political parties, but also inside humanitarian organisations which still claim to champion humanity. But if we are really looking to preserve and grow our civilisation, we have to ensure our organisations and institutions keep serving humanity by being true to their ideals. Only then can they develop it and change it into ideology and global community culture. This won’t happen if they are serving the organisations’ interests.
I hope this will be – for me as well as others – a wakeup call to keep serving the cause of our existence, which is to serve God, through serving his people.
Tuesday, 4 May 2010
Finding new energy : poverty alleviation through technology
Last week, I attended an extremely interesting and inspiring meeting: the Powerful Initiative Meeting, hosted by Practical Action at the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. This meeting brought together stakeholders from businesses, foundations, think tanks, the UN, NGO and INGOs to discuss access to energy and energy services in the developing world and at the alleviation of energy poverty.
I was very moved by the wealth of discussion during the meeting. My relationship with Practical Action began 3 months ago when we met in Clarence House, hosted by HRH the Prince of Wales. The Prince’s Start Initiative is a new plan to introduce citizens of the UK to new energy initiatives and show where we can all save energy and become friendly user of our valuable resources for life.
For somebody like myself with no background in energy poverty, I thought poverty only hit humans in the more well documented forms - of food, housing, finance and health – and as such was eager to learn from the experts. But it soon became clear to me that in an increasingly industrialised world, a lack of access to energy – energy poverty – is increasingly a big problem for the world’s poorest.
The question which came to me was: what are the consequences of energy poverty compared with absolute poverty humans suffer from? What are the scales of both of them? If we are truly serious about eradicating poverty, then where does the need for energy sit in the big picture? The most important conclusion was that we need to transfer our technology to the poor countries, rather than export our product. Many emerging economies are based on reverse engineering and copying technologies. The new patent laws which have emerged in recent years have safeguarded the inventors, but often put a stranglehold on poor nations who have no chance to develop their industries.
Exporting our technology to poor countries might provide a short term solution, but when we leave, we take the technology with us. Only technology transfer enables poor communities to build social industry which in turn will enable them to be financially independent in the long term. Our Corporate Social Responsibility to them should not only be a financial contribution, but should be the sharing of our technology to build the industrial social fabric of their societies. This should not only be used for energy but for any field in which we can empower people by the technology we have.
There has to be positive technology transfer and skillshare, not just moving the factory to poorer countries, without safeguards or proper partnership. There must be gatekeepers: Government, civil society, local businesses, INGOs and CSR can help to ensure that technology transfer is effective and sustainable.
Our advances in technology and energy research should be used to train, empower and build capacity – all too often they instead lead to exploitation, ruin and societal disintegration.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)