There is a saying that comes from the old PRI policies, “A public policy that is not linked to the budget is pure demagoguery.” It was used by both governors and secretaries of state to fight the budget or to highlight the empty affections of the speeches of political opponents.
The phrase has survived different administrations, not only of the PRI, but of the entire political spectrum and the criterion we could say that ends up being the same. Especially if we think that economic prosperity has not been the hallmark of our country for a long time. We have to admit that resources are limited and the priorities of governments are noticeable because that is where resources are allocated to keep them functioning.
That is why I found alarming the analysis made by a coalition of civil society organizations—nonpartisan and non-profit, according to their self-definition—grouped in NOSSA, which highlights the budget reduction for environmental care.
The coalition made an analysis of the budget allocated to Branch 16, which has to do with the “Environment and natural resources.” The findings in the analysis highlight that this would be the second consecutive year in which the budget designated for environmental protection is reduced. It will have a 4.3 percent cut and is at less than 0.1 percent of the total budget if it is approved in the terms in which it is proposed.
To be entirely fair, this government is not the first to make substantial cuts to agencies that care for natural resources. Between 2015 and 2018, during the Enrique Peña Government, the environmental conservation branch had a significant reduction that has not been reversed.
But one of the most notable reductions is the real 4.5 percent to the Conagua budget. According to the analysis, it would be the lowest budget assigned to the Commission in the last five years.
Beyond the numbers, what is worrying is how diminished the capabilities of an organization that helps with the conservation, administration and monitoring of one of the country’s vital resources will be.
The difference I see with those years and the 2016 cuts is the number of natural disasters, and the intensity of each one. Mexico has suffered storms, floods and hurricanes of an unknown magnitude due to the effects of climate change.
That is why I believe that the reduction of quality and natural spaces should be an issue that entails much more concern than we currently give it.
Conserving protected natural areas has to do with taking care of ourselves, our country and our communities in the much longer term. There will be no habitable cities near the coasts that survive the erosion of mangroves or coral banks. There is no mountain area that is habitable after deforestation.
The genuine question we have now is, how much will we invest in taking care of our future?
@Micmoya