A Lesson in Public Speaking

Posted on 10. Apr, 2010 by joannadafoe in Canada | View Comments

The purpose of this intersessional is to agree on a method of work from now to Cancun.  Both the Kyoto Protocol and Cooperative Action tracks are focused on process, not substantive text.  They are negotiating how many times to meet, where, and with what kind of outcomes.  I overestimated what this session could deliver.

The Executive Secretary, Yvo de Boer, explained to us today how important good process is for the negotiation.  The breakdown of Copenhagen was not caused by the political position of states, he said, but concerns over process (ie – draft text circulated by the Danish Presidency without consultation).  From now until tomorrow morning, the plenary chair has to consider all of the many demands he heard in plenary today and accommodate suggestions into text.

This chair has a tough task.

I realize there is not much I can do to influence the outcome of decisions from now to tomorrow.  But I can offer some advice to countries on how to improve the deadlock dynamic with a basic guide to public speaking at the UN.

Joanna’s Guide to Public Speaking at the UN

Delegates, by tomorrow night you will have to agree on a program of work from now to Cancun.  While you do not see eye-to-eye on all issues, there are some very simple questions you can ask to help move everyone forward.  You are encouraged to print out this guide to use with you in plenary tomorrow.

Before lifting the placard to speak, delegates should think about the following points:

One delegate today had the unfortunate luck of being caught sleeping! A sign for better public speaking?

• Does your statement last longer than a lunch break?
• Is what you are saying useful?
• Has someone said what you are about to say?  Have you said it already before? … Have you said it repeatedly for the past two years?
• Do other people like it when you speak?
• Do you know what you want to say (a general trick is to see if your statement relies on obscure metaphors).
• Does your statement call into question principles and conventions you have already agreed upon?

Delegates, you are here to set the tone from now to 2010. The text tomorrow should set a path forward based on good-will.

Meet the Adopted Negotiator

Posted on 09. Apr, 2010 by joannadafoe in Canada | View Comments

Joanna and her adopted negotiator David McGovern

Introducing… your current Lead Negotiator from Canada!  I had a chance today to grab a coffee with David McGovern. [As a side note: David, if you're reading, I think it is really cool that you always make an effort to meet with young folk like in Bali and Poznan].  I wanted to catch up with David about Canada’s current climate change position, and the Federal Government’s strategy moving forward from now to Cancun.  Here are some of the points we discussed from our meeting although this recap is not verbatim.  I’d like to thank David very much for his kindness and willingness to answer these questions.

Is there any intelligence on who the new lead negotiator will be, or when the position will be announced?

David assured me the new position will be announced “soon,” but that is all the information he knows.  I asked why Michael Martin is not leading the Canadian Delegation anymore and David explained that Martin’s appointment was an intentional decision after Bali in COP13 to build up capacity for Copenhagen.  His position was never intended to be long-term.

Any news on Canada’s pledges for fast track financing? When will it be announced?  Are pledges additional to official development assistance?

Here the news is generally quite positive!  David said Canada’s position is consistent with the Copenhagen Accord, which calls for new and additional funding (so as not to be included in official development assistance).  When I asked how much exactly Canada intends to contribute for it’s “fair share,”, he said that the Government models will determine what amount is transferred.  As for the timing, David does does not know when the financing will be announced but will be “soon,” by nature of it being fast track.  I am not sure if this will be for the June Bonn meetings or the G8 Summit; but most certainly not this weekend.

Canada is the only country to have downgraded its emission reduction targets with the Copenhagen Accord – how is this consistent with a leadership role?

David said that Canada’s announcement in Copenhagen is consistent with Federal Government’s new harmonization goals.  Canada will match its climate targets to be consistent with the US, and only follow our American neighbours. [In real terms, this means that instead of reducing our emissions 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, we are actually increasing our emissions by 3%]

After you fight, work to build trust.

Posted on 09. Apr, 2010 by joannadafoe in Canada, bits | View Comments

In the opening speeches on “organization and methods of work” (aka process), developing countries expressed that the UNFCC, despite big shortcomings in Copenhagen, has to remain as the legitimate framework for solving climate change. These countries also asked for more support to attend these very negotiations, since financing the trip to Bonn is a financial burden for many states.

Australia and Saudi Arabia provided a 101 lesson on what not to say after an international breakdown in Copenhagen.  These countries wanted to meet less, lower expectations to have a binding agreement by Cancun, and dissolve expectations for binding emissions. Their interventions were, to be truthful, unwelcomed.  At one point when the US even reached for the microphone to speak, the room started to boo.

The underlying context for the tension here stems from the lack of trust.  My friend Tom describes the current trust deficit at the UNFCCC as something like a fight with your partner.  If you and your significant other have a huge disagreement, both people need to work together – very hard – to rebuild trust.  Both people have to meet up, maybe have a very awkward dinner to hash out the details, say sorry, and move on.  But in this case the fight was Copenhagen, and the awkward dinner is… Bonn.

The Democratic Republic of Congo said it perfect.  The Copenhagen Accord “broke the trust of any partnership that is needed for a next agreement to be successful, the priority must therefore be to rebuild trust and confidence.”  My relationship counsel to the industrialized states, for whatever it’s worth, is not to undermine the value of trust.  It may ruin your relationship.