Reply To: Seminar reflections – Governance of the Arctic 30/3

Author Replies
Miguel Núñez # Posted on April 1, 2015 at 16:08

My comments:

I will do my comments in two parts. First, I will comment around the conflicts between World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations Climate Change Convention (UNCCC). Second, I will talk about if it is possible doing agreements between principles of economic capitalist model and a ecological model based on the common but diferentiated responsabilities.

First, I talk about the example from REDD+(Reduction carbon emissions from deforestation and degradation of forests) as a clean development mechanism, through which north and developed countries signed agreements with south and developing countries in order to maintain deforesttion indexes in tropical rain forests. A critical point about this strategy is the financiation and the carbon market in which are negotiated the ammount of carbon emmisions. The REDD+ is a special program initiated by the UNCCC, but here is clear that the economic model from WTO is applied on this program also. One of the approaches to assesses REDD+ is that it is a new colonialism form in order to appropriate over the forest resources, through the transference of scientific knowledge from developed countries to developing countries. Who will put prices over every carbon emission? And in this way, Who will value the works of communities which conserve the forests? The global market! Again we´re in front to a vicious circle.

Second, from a ecology of mind approach (see: Gregory Bateson, “Ecology of mind”), the adaptation is a natural ability from the biological, social and human systems, which allow them correct mistakes and specialize their functions. By this reason, the natural consequences from conflicts between human and nature are their resolutions. I think that, from a democratic perspective which are agree with the dialogal ways to resolve conflicts, an agreement between economic and ecological principles is probable. But, what about those quota of people who don´t believe in the linguistic capacities from the human beign to improve their surroundings, and rather than this, believe in the warfare as way to win over the opponent?