3 Things…On 2 Sides of the Balance…

So as I have been running around trying to check out as many side events as possible, I have noticed three key issues in regards to the complexities faced at this conference. Whether, the side event speaker is discussing adaptation, mitigation, sustainable development, environmental equity, or policy three key holistic aspects keep coming up that add to the confusion of ultimately creating a binding agreement from these negotiations.

SOCIETAL. ECONOMICAL. ENVIRONMENTAL. While these three sectors form the backbone of traditional environmental studies, I was interested to see their carrying over to policy creation. The complexities of each sector overlapping are reflected in this statement from the Climate Action Network Briefing materials in regards to expectations in Durban, “Advance and potentially agree on the modalities and guidelines for National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) by Durban. These should follow an inclusive and integrated country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems. It must be flexible so that it takes into account national circumstances and already existing strategies (e.g. NAPAs, and also comprehensive climate change strategies addressing adaptation and mitigation).” Clearly the economic, societal, and environmental impacts of any binding plan is taken into account—yet each one factors to a differing degree for each individual country!! How can we remedy this?? Can it even feasibly be remedied???

http://www.bd.com/sustainability/2009/img/ph_atb001.png

While attending the various Africa-specific side events for today alone, seeing the diversity of these three basic aspects across the entire continent of Africa was mind-blowing. This broad and complex anlysis of a continent, is only further compounded by the number of continents participating in the negotiations, and the various ways in which the pros and cons of each aspect intersect. For example, development initiatives in developing countries must be both environmentally (i.e. reduced emissions) sound, as well as equitable for its inhabitants, and cost-effective for both the creators and the beneficiaries of these development mechanisms. If one of these aspects gets swung out of balance with the other two (and that seems to be a common occurance), then development can not progress successfully, because one member of one of these parties will feel they are not being fully accounted for. Therefore, PERFECT BALANCE NEEDS TO BE ATTAINED. Is this feasible with the number of countries now in negotiations?Can ANY ONE regional group successfully implement a proprosal of any sort that brings about real tangible change when three factors are on the table?? Only the conclusion of the UNFCCC will tell…let’s hope the various factors can balance the metaphorical weights on their scales to create a binding agreement.