A thought for the afternoon

With the first few days behind us, old war horses from the north and south seem set on heading to the battle fronts to dig their heals into the carpet on a timeline for Kyoto 2; on finance for adaptation, and implementation; on equity, ambition and flexibility within the still fetal Durban Platform, and on where we might hide all the unfinished “Cooperative Action”.

There has been progress, and whispers of a new market mechanism seem to inspire a new belief that financial fairies from the private sector might sprinkle their green back pixie dust across the convention and the compromises we can’t seem to make might just fly out of informal imaginations.

And so this morning, I spent some time trying to rekindle my creative fires and try to imagine what might just be holding us back.

Yesterday, US Deputy Special Envoy for Climate Change Jonathan Pershing gave an inspired lecture to the assembled roundtable discussions on the Durban Platform, covering the academic literature and history of negotiations. Believe it or not, his analysis argued that the only way forward was through flexible rather than legally binding agreements between disparate negotiating parties.

This was a call that has been echoed by other developed nations gathered here, but surprisingly…developing nations don’t seem so thrilled. And across a number of the negotiating tracks, many of the same old races, disputes, fears and half-hearted compromises seem to be gaining traction.

So I thought to myself, what is it about the UNFCCC meetings that always seem to get us in these binds. Obvious answers such as geopolitical rivalries, finance and CBDR disputes came to mind. But as I sat by a waterside gallery, wondering if it was something more, I came to realise that maybe

And then I remembered that Jonathan Pershing said something else. He said that in the history of the UNFCCC, it never takes parties long to draft text. If they wanted to, they could do it in hours (well, I guess if certain convincing presidents fly in they can). But what really takes the UN parties a long time to do is to think. There is not enough time spent on creatively coming up with ideas that everyone can agree on. And to this, I somewhat agree.

And then I realized, maybe its not just the fact that there is not enough time dedicated to creativity, but not enough space either…

So I thought I would get a bit creative myself, and offer this thought for the UNFCCC.

 

 

A thought for the afternoon

There’s a place by the water,

where the waves negotiate only against the breeze

and the wood frames

that hold up a home

for my shoeless feet,

an art gallery

and an old bamboo seat

that I sit in,

And slurp up something spicy mixed with rice,

something icy and something so sweet

that I might need something plain, before I can speak

of mundane things again.

But alongside this floating street,

I felt some semblance of ease

I seldom meet inside the plenary halls,

no matter how informal they might be.

Because while our chair’s

and roundtables

might enable us to discuss “the issues at stake”

I wonder if our own “means of implementation”

leaves us too little space

to have a real, face-to-face

conversation.

Where maybe, somewhere

inscribed in the name tags with no-one’s name,

and the ideas that became interventions

we let listening

become a negotiation with patience.

And even this week, where mandates have become red flags,

finance has added dynamite

to adaptation,

and the lack of ambition

might blow over platforms and protocols

we hold as heritage and hope

of our convention,

Why don’t

we think to ask

how our ideas for survival

might feel less like threats

between enemies?

And how we might make informals

more than just a label,

but a place where people meet, just like me

in a cafe by the waterside

with their shoes off, but their eyes open

ready to design

something we all

could admire.