Death by text
Posted on 05. Nov, 2009 by Rosa Kouri in Canada
The unbearable weight of consensus, and the inexorable heavyness of paper.
The unbearable weight of consensus, the law of infinite discussion, and other joys of collective editing.
Walking into an open negotiating session this afternoon, I was handed a document with the concise title “Text on potential consequences for further consideration by the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex 1 Parties under the Kyoto Protocol at its resumed ninth session”.
Huh? Do you think they could add a few more clauses to that sentence? Isn’t there some rule that titles should be, well, readable? Just say it outloud, it’s exhausting. You need to take periodic pauses to avoid asphyxiation.
I must admit, I feel really bad for these delegates. I sympathize. This stuff is not easy. And this is what Michael Martin and his team deals with every day.
I find the process astounding, especially at such an early stage as the discussion I was watching. They put a draft up on a large screen. Some poor guy gets to sit at the front of the plenary, and type changes directly into the document in real time. Everyone watches. Together, they collectively edit clause by clause, putting all additions in brackets. When it comes to the final document, each amendment ultimately requires consensus to pass.
Can I repeat the key element of what I just said – COLLECTIVE EDITING. Have you ever had to edit a document with your co-workers or as fellow students? You know how unmanageable it gets when you have more than two people editing or writing at once? You know that point when you are ready to poke your eyes out, wondering why our ancestors picked verbal communication as our preferred method of making sense to each other. Much less written communication! Who thought of that? Every word is an opportunity for disagreement, then toss in their combinations and permutations. Following the basic laws of mathematics, debate grows exponentially. Call it the law of infinite discussion. Couldn’t we just pile up coloured blocks instead?
At the session this afternoon, there were 15 clauses, and approximately 80 different government delegations present. Now, granted, some participate more than others, but still, imagine all the possible interventions. It’s a wonder anything gets done at all (and I mean that with all sincerity).
From what I picked up, Canadian negotiators (not Mr. Martin, who was probably in a closed session) interjected once asking for time to read a proposed draft. I find that reassuring – you can’t argue with someone who wants to read what they are supposed to be discussing.
Exhibit A:
To make sense of everything, and avoid unexpected legal implications from the documents they are writing, exhausted negotiators have no choice but to pay excruciating attention to detail. The result seems unbelievably banal.
For proof of this banality (not that you asked), I’ve paraphrased an exchange between the Secretary of the session and negotiators. Don’t blame me if you fall asleep by the time you finish this blog. Just admire me for staying awake long enough to write it.
Chair: Can we move forward with option one in Clause X, as it shows on the screen?
Delegate 1: Thank you chair, we’d like to recommend that the text from option one be added to the text from option two.
(poor guy working at the computer moves the text from one paragraph to another)
Delegate 2 interjects: You’re not allowed to delete anything, you can track changes, but not delete.
(poor guy undoes what he just did)
Chair: I believe that text was recently added during this session. Because the change was suggested by the person who proposed the text in the first place, it is not a problem.
(poor guy redoes what he just did)
Chair: Can we then accept option 1 and move on?
Delegate 2: I can not see the changes, could you clarify what you have just done?
Chair: I don’t know what we’ve just done. Could the first delegate please clarify?
Delegate 1: I did not intend introduce text into option one, but to introduce text to option two. In fact, the paragraph in option one is the paragraph in option two.
Chair: Is that satisfactory?
Delegate 2: I prefer the paragraph in option one as amended by the previous delegate, can we request that option one is kept as originally amended by the previous delegate before that amendment was removed by the previous delegate?
Chair: Fine, both paragraphs will be kept as amended by both delegates.
(poor guy re-undoes what he just did)
And imagine, this is how we’ve created practically every global institution. Amazing.
Much love from Barcelona,
Rosa