Why don`t I help La Guajira?
No. I am not Mr. Burns’ wife. I’m going to tell you why I don’t help La Guajira.
Hans Rosling, the Swedish physician and statistician whom we have been missing since February 2017, used to repeat a phrase when presenting figures that reflect the growth or decline of different aspects of a country. That phrase was: ‘How do we measure progress?’ He said that if a country’s GDP grew by a certain percentage over a period of time, one would expect the infant mortality rate to decrease by that same percentage or for health coverage to increase in the same proportion.
So if we examine the behavior of per capita GDP* in Colombia from 2008 to 2016 to see if we have improved or worsened, we can see that starting in 2014, per capita GDP experienced a sharp decline. However, we also observe that from 2009 to 2013, it had a strong and sustained growth.
So if this value increased (2009–2013), we would expect to see a decrease in infant mortality during those years, as we can indeed observe in the graph.
But then why do we hear such sad news about infant mortality in La Guajira?
Clearly, the behavior of the infant mortality rate in La Guajira compared to the rate for the entire country is different. And why is that?
With media campaigns promoted by well-known figures and strong brands…
…many would think that our department of La Guajira is neglected and receives very little investment.
Could it be a lack of investment?
We can see that since 2014, the investment in the department of La Guajira has been higher than that in Atlántico, and since 2011, it has been higher than the investment in Antioquia.
When we observe higher per capita investments in departments like Chocó and La Guajira, we may think that it makes sense due to their greater unmet needs compared to the other two departments shown in the graph.
If we look at the budget received by the departments in 2017, we can see that La Guajira received, on a per capita basis, more investment than departments such as Caldas, Risaralda, Cundinamarca, and values very similar to Boyacá and Atlántico.
So we cannot say that La Guajira is a neglected department in terms of investment.
The news talks about climatic conditions in La Guajira that can affect the quality of life of its inhabitants. So let’s look at the hottest places in the country.
The data reveals it: Seven out of the 50 hottest places in Colombia, based on the average annual maximum temperature over a 30-year period, are located in La Guajira. However, it is not the department with the highest number of hotspots in the ranking, as Cesar has nine places and Tolima has 11 places.
So, the condition affecting La Guajira could be its desert region, which means having very few rainy days per year…
31 out of the 50 places in Colombia with the fewest rainy days per year are located in La Guajira, and this affects both crops and animals, resulting in a decrease in the availability of products for the consumption of the inhabitants.
We can get more information by looking at the range of rainy days per year in each department of the country. In the visualization, the intense pink color represents the range where the department has the highest number of municipalities with that range of rainy days per year, while the white color represents the range with the lowest number of municipalities.
We can see that in addition to La Guajira, Magdalena and Atlántico also have the majority of their municipalities with rainfall between 0 to 70 days per year, although in a smaller proportion than La Guajira. The opposite is seen in Chocó, where in the majority of municipalities it rains between 284 and 365 days per year.
So, looking for a desert-like area similar in size to the department of La Guajira (20,848 km2), we find the state of Israel with 22,145 km2. 60% of Israel is desert. 30% of La Guajira is desert. In 2016, these two places on the planet had between 40 and 50 days of rainfall.
Let’s look at the infant mortality figures for both places in recent years:
Part of the illness in La Guajira starts with the letter “C” for culture. When comparing the achievements of these two places with similar characteristics, it seems that there is a cultural problem. Israel is a small country that has not only mastered a complex terrain for agriculture but also faces multiple enemies every day. Israel is an example of how the seemingly impossible becomes a reality. Their innovation in agriculture, communications, defense, technology, etc., serves as a great example for the world. So, part of the illness in La Guajira starts with “C” for culture.
The other part of the illness also starts with “C” because resources do reach La Guajira, but the progress is not visible. This part is “C” for corruption.
Therefore, the high temperatures and lack of rainfall certainly affect the quality of life for the inhabitants, but I fear that the illness that is killing our children in La Guajira is a combination of two elements: culture and corruption.
In Colombia, several private companies support vulnerable populations, and these efforts are commendable. However, I worry that these aids may only have short-term effects while the main problem persists.
What if the campaigns aimed at providing food to children focused on providing education to change the mindset? What if we invested in a cultural shift that distances itself from corruption and promotes a desire to make a difference regardless of the heat or drought? What if we invested in changing the mindset? I would support a campaign like that!
