This Ecological Solidarity Economy article 9 – writes that diverse interpretations of trade agreements may create confusion and mistrust. The similar may happen with business ownership and partnership agreements. Here are 8 steps and alternative mental frames.
1)Democracy deficit
Many trade agreements are difficult for people to understand. Transparency need lawyers to interprete. The user interface is easy only for those with a PhD degree. People and often also politicians are not certain if local room of action within the agreement is large or small.
2)Politicians interpretation
Politicians at home may promise to domestic opinion and voters that there is a large room of action.
3)Lawyers interpretation
However the lawyers of the dispute settlement body of a trade agreement may say there is no such domestic room of action. Double communication is easy to emerge. A result is to confuse common people. Easy to follow is apathy, reducing people’s understanding and action.
4)Confusion creates mistrust
Global environment and social problems need solutions that people have trust in. People need motivation and enthusiasm to do the sustainable solutions. Mistrust is a barrier. And when there is misinterpretation of the rules, people get confused and lose trust.
5)Dispute settlement mechanisms
In some trade and investment agreements, there are investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms (ISDS). Companies are allowed to sue governments for strict environmental regulations. This hinders single countries to go in front, take initiative unilaterally, to create higher climate and nature standards. I think it is a good idea to allow some to go in front for climate solutions. Is it a good idea to ban and punish one country to be first in climate action?
6)Nature and people prior to economic growth competition
Reflect also about the principle that companies are given the power of nations! One company may sue the government in another country if it is too sustainable! Isn’t this an extreme fundamentalist example of – profit before nature and people? Do we rather need sustainable investment and trade agreements that put nature and people before private profit and material growth? Is this a better balance of sustainable – both – ecological, social and economic – development?
7)«There is no alternative»
This we are often told. But people have made the economic system, so people may amend, change and improve it?
8)What is possible for people to change
Is it better to have a lineary understanding of present or focus on possible curves in the longer term? Focus on the fixed present nature or on what is flexible and that people may act to do something to change? One practical thinking perspective: It is waste of time - wishing to change what is impossible to change. However – when many take small steps towards sustainable development – the result may be huge. The result may be much larger than what seems possible at first glance. And that is what climate change and biological diversity need! What mental frame do you use: Shold we improve the economic system – and respect nature? Or should we destroy nature in order to save the economic system? Or what frames du you use? Is that the best you may contribute with?
What do you think and feel about this?
Read more in my book: Kreativ i ekstremvær
https://www.helgechristie.com/butikk/helge-christies-15-bok-kreativ-i-ekstremvr-e-bok
Do you want to experience a test session on how you may shift brain networks and be more creative in climate and biodiversity solutions, contact helge.christie@gmail.com