September 4, 2011
Isbel Diaz Torres
A few weeks ago on the TV news/commentary program "La Mesa Redonda" (The
Roundtable) — known for its tedious monologues and a skewed approach to
any subject — its producers had the surprisingly good judgment to take
on the issue of environmental regulations in Cuba.
I sat down anxious to hear the sharpest arguments confronting Cuban
legislation on this issue.
According to host Randy Alonso (whose responsibility is signaling to
each panelist when it's their turn to chime in), the program would
address the following questions: "How is environmental legislation in
our country established? How is it implemented? What's done to make it
effective? Who are the people who violate it and what's done to them?"
Senior officials from the Ministry of Science, Technology and the
Environment and from the Ministry of Agriculture described how the Cuban
system is structured. Their approaches, in all cases, allowed us to
discover the utilitarian vision of the environment in the eyes in our
research institutions.
The need for environmental legislation, according to this vision, arises
from the obligation to protect the country's natural resources, since
these are necessary for its economic development. It's because of that
goal — though one television viewer asked about a law regarding the
well-being of animals — the issue wasn't discussed.
The term "environmental resources" places all of nature, of which we are
an integral part, in the position of desired merchandise. All of the
knowledge we're able to accumulate is to exploit it to the maximum. It
is a relationship of objectification, one that causes us to become ill
from cynicism and dilutes any possible spirituality.
In this roundtable they discussed our Law 81 on the Environment, which
was so advanced in its time, especially in the Latin American context.
Little was said, though, about its gaps, omissions and exemptions.
The existing legislation is characterized by its unfocused mechanisms of
accountability and enforcement, having originated in the absence of a
sole body to deal with all aspects related to issues of the environment.
This hinders the effectiveness of judicial norms and increases
incidences of environmental and ecological crimes.
I repeat: it's necessary for a single body to be responsible for all
socially dangerous acts or omissions that typify acts of environmental
crime. The criminal code in force in Cuba fails to provide for its
penalization, it merely stipulates sanctions for a few illegal acts that
do harm to the environment, those generally associated with the
protection of health, personal assets and the national economy.
For example, if someone tortures a cat (a species whose milk and meat
are not consumed), would they receive any kind of sanction? And what if
they killed that animal?
Why do we frequently see individuals who capture birds of prey to
decorate their homes? Isn't this a type of torture of species that need
to fly in open spaces? Where are the inspectors responsible for this
matter?
And what if these violent acts are committed by institutions? What if
the pruning of a grove of trees in the city leaves several birds' nests
on the ground with the nestlings dying in agony, as occurred recently
under the direction of the Ministry of the Interior in Santa Fe? Who
gave them a fine? Up to what level do we assign the blame and
responsibility?
I speak of inspectors to try to keep with the logic of the commentators
who had sat around the table on TV. You readers already know that I'm
against repressive bodies of any type. I prefer education, collective
control and self-regulation by individuals and communities.
The program gave examples of measures taken against "infringers" of
environmental legislation, those who hadn't assimilated the
responsibilities they have to society." That's not bad, but we know
that these are often only cosmetic measures because they don't eliminate
the causes that generate the problem.
Some time ago I got to know Aniplant, a Cuban NGO. Thanks to their
director I was put in contact with several people in the country who
have been thinking about the need for an animal protection law. Some of
them have even been working on this, but up to now it has proven
fruitless. I thought that perhaps she would have been invited on the
program to discuss the battles she's been waging in support of animals
and the legal inefficiencies that must be addressed.
Too many documentaries come on TV where they show us animal protection
wardens, animal shelters, specialized clinics and other kinds of
environmental protection projects. Then, when you step outside into the
street, the closest thing you see to all that is a dog catcher grabbing
some poor mutt by the tail, slinging it around in the air a couple of
times to send it flying into the metal wall of the truck, with the blow
silencing the yelps of the sad canine.
That's how they take those animals to the gas chambers, which our health
institutions employ for getting rid of street dogs. There's no talk of
"re-homing" adoption campaigns, vaccination programs or sterilization.
Only death.
For me, the only part of the Roundtable program of interest was where
journalist Jose Alejandro Rodriguez spoke. Several people commented to
me afterwards that the passion and sincerity with which he discussed the
issues impacted them very positively. This becomes evident when there's
true involvement, when the indignation is real and when there is a sharp
critique made from a determined position.
Rodriguez reflects this wherever he's presented, be it on TV or in the
written press. He raises the accusations and charges that people
present to him. He investigates. Like a true revolutionary empowered
with his rights, he calls institutions and the municipal governments on
the carpet. He calls things by their name, and I imagine that soon
he'll be running into some pretty rough problems in the exercise of his
profession.
The "Mesa Redonda" should invite him on more frequently, as well as
other "conflictivos" like him. An act like that would win a lot of
prestige and credibility for the presently lackluster show.
Other topics like the development and large-scale introduction of
transgenic corn and soya crops in the fields of Cuba, as well as
violations committed by national scientific institutions during that
process, were simply not addressed.
I was able to read a copy of the "Environmental Strategy" of the
Ministry of Science, Technology and the Environment for the 2011–2015
period. It has as a goal "the putting into effect those regulations for
the exploration, extraction, transportation and processing of
hydrocarbons." That goal makes me think that over all these years those
activities related to hydrocarbons have been operating outside of the
law. Am I mistaken?
Another goal was "to apply civil liabilities for environmental damage
and criminal liabilities for crimes against the environment" – something
else that that apparently wasn't seen as being done, and also wasn't
exposed on that roundtable.
In short, it's very difficult to be a judge and an involved party. If
you're going to evaluate the work of those who design and apply
environmental legislation, besides themselves, other opinions should be
present. But will "Mesa Redonda" ever be interested in such a debate?
No comments:
Post a Comment