Negotiating Copenhagen

This is a piece written by a colleague of mine that describes the situation in Copenhagen well:

Thursday 17 December 2009
Copenhagen deal will require more than a little give
and take
JOHN STURROCK
LAST week, I found myself in the Bella Centre in Copenhagen, the location for the
negotiations on climate change.
It is a vast cavern, with scores of rooms serving as the location for talks, presentations,
media activity and lobbying. I was struck by the sheer mass of people, with laptops, leaflets,
cameras and TV screens, milling around in the hope of influencing discussions.
That image has stayed with me as we hear daily of the difficulties facing negotiations. The
sheer complexity of the treaty arrangements under discussion, the fact that nearly 200
countries are participating, and the energetic presence of hundreds of non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and other international bodies, must make the talks almost
unmanageable. Add to that the diversity of positions on the main issues and the challenge is
great indeed.
Senior diplomats would acknowledge that the process could be done differently. In
conventional negotiations, with a large number of participants, efforts would probably be
made to create smaller working groups to report back to a larger body. The trouble in
Copenhagen seems to be that small groups are working in secret, and exclusion creates
hostility and fear. In the absence of trust, nations fear being taken advantage of by those
whose interests they perceive to be different.
Lack of trust at international level is not surprising, but it makes negotiation difficult. It leads
to the leaking of drafts, a more hectoring tone, hardening into threats and walkouts. Often,
these are carefully orchestrated moves in a game of chess where much else is happening. It
is understandable in negotiation to hear people say: "If you do this, we'll do that…" or "If you
don't give us X, we will not agree to Y". But parties can then find themselves with much less
room for manoeuvre than they need when negotiations reach crisis point. Backing yourself
or the other party into a corner makes it more difficult for crucial concessions to be made.
In Copenhagen, the risk is that some countries will fear losing face even when they know
that, to get an overall deal, they should move. Whatever diplomatic skills leaders such as
Gordon Brown and Barack Obama can bring could be crucial. Can they help others to
change position with dignity and make concessions themselves which are game-changing?
A heroic move to break the impasse may be needed.
In difficult negotiations, all can seem lost until very late in the day. Sometimes, it needs
people to go to look over the precipice and consider again the Big Picture, to realise that the
alternative to a deal is worse than what is on the table. For the rich nations, this may be the
knowledge that, if they don't help the developing nations to tackle climate change seriously
now, emissions will spin out of control so that by 2030 there will be no way back – for
anyone. For the developing countries, the knowledge that, unless global warming is
controlled, the Himalayan glaciers will recede still further, threatening water supplies to
billions of people, and the desertification of large parts of Africa will be hastened, should
provide a strong incentive to reach a conclusion.
While we cannot escape responsibility for what we have done, there may be a time when
letting go of the past is essential if we are to grasp a workable future. Forgiveness is a
sensitive subject with which we may need to wrestle. We can now see that human progress
has come at a great cost. Mistakes have been made. There comes a point when it is futile to
seek to find fault. The reality is that we are all in this together and the only way forward is to
recognise the mutuality of our interests. If we don't, there is a very serious risk that by 2050,
we will have deep regrets.

More From Ken

Copenhagen Diary:
Reflections from Inside the Climate Change Conference
by Ken Cloke
Entry 2: Sunday, December 6, 2009
This morning, we travelled by bus and tram to the Bella Center to register for the Conference (see photo attached). The lines were not too bad, and it was all efficiently administered by our Danish hosts. Still, we have been notified that if more than 15,000 participants register by Monday there will be rationing. Already there are 5,000 press representatives and they have stopped registering more. Several of our members who went to register in the afternoon got trapped in the Bella Center due to a bag that had been left and resulting bomb threat.
In the afternoon and evening, 22 of us met at Tina’s for a wide-ranging discussion of how to influence delegates. We are a great group and the energy is amazing. At the meeting we each talked about why we came, and the responses were beautiful. Everyone is inspired by what we have created and clear about our mission. We all feel we are representing an idea whose time has come.
The central problems are where to meet, how to communicate with each other, and how to convince delegates that mediation is a useful tool in confronting climate change conflicts, without slipping into the kind of advocacy that seeks short-term advantage through pressure and manipulation.
I said I thought the highest form of advocacy happens when the person you are speaking with understands the idea without any sense that you advocated for it. Even those who oppose mediation should be seen as contributing directly to our future efforts by offering us ways to improve the breadth and effectiveness of our explanation.
I also said that standing directly behind us are dozens of family members and friends, hundreds of MBB members, thousands of mediators, and people all around the world whose lives will be better because of our efforts.
We are all aware that tomorrow the real work begins, and that we need to mediate our way into the mediation process – but this is what we do all the time, so I think it will come naturally to us.
I also worked today on the following letter we are sending to newspapers and blogsites. If you know someone to send it to, please feel free to pass it on.
Mediation and Climate Change
By Kenneth Cloke, President, Mediators Beyond Borders
Global climate change is widely regarded by scientists as non-linear, “chaotic,” inherently unpredictable, and subject to a wide range of environmental impacts. These changes can create disastrous consequences for the earth’s diverse life forms, including us. The potential consequences are so severe that it makes sense for us to take steps to mitigate their impact.
Even those who question the human role in bringing about climate change may agree with these statements.
They may also readily agree that climate changes are already resulting in increased conflicts, due partly to increased competition for scarce resources, and resulting in famine, displacement, shortage of potable water, loss of arable land, and vulnerability to extreme weather conditions.
These conflicts extend to the negotiation and implementation of solutions to these problems, including those currently being proposed and implemented in Copenhagen. Political conflicts over climate change will delay by years, if not decades, the effectiveness of solutions to the problem, thereby causing more conflicts, and so on.
Marshall B. Burke, Edward Miguel, Shankar Satyanathd, John A. Dykemae, and David B. Lobell, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, (go to: http://www.pnas.org/) conclude as follows:
We find strong historical linkages between civil war and temperature in Africa, with warmer years leading to significant increases in the likelihood of war. When combined with climate model projections of future temperature trends, this historical response to temperature suggests a roughly 54% increase in armed conflict incidence by 2030, or an additional 393,000 battle deaths.
We desperately need immediate solutions -- not only to climate change problems -- but to the ways we resolve the conflicts that are caused and aggravated by them; conflicts that reduce our ability to reach and implement agreements that can alleviate the problem.
At Mediators Beyond Borders (MBB), we believe that mediation and alternative dispute resolution are powerful and effective ways of reducing and resolving the conflicts being generated by climate change.
For this reason, we are urging delegates to include mediation in the language of their climate change treaty, and in the negotiations leading up to it. This proposal has been endorsed by over 40 leading conflict resolution organizations, and by 160 practitioners from around the world.
More tomorrow. Love to all of you,
Ken

What Copenhagen Means

I'm on the runway waiting to take off to Copenhagen and just received an email from Ken Cloke discussing what Copenhagen means.This has been a journey that started for me several years ago. I had a sense that change was coming and I was to be a part of that change. Had to be is closer to what I mean. I found MBB by nothing short of pure spirit. Here's is what Ken has to say for all of us:
Reflections from Inside the Climate Change Conference
by Ken Cloke
Entry 1: Saturday, December 5, 2009
I am sitting now in the airport at Heathrow, waiting for a flight to Copenhagen to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 15), taking time to reflect on everything that has happened over the last several months, and everything that lies ahead.
I recall being asked several months ago how our efforts began. Here are the questions I was asked then and what I said in response:
What is the story of how the Copenhagen Initiative came into being?
I was contacted in the fall of last year by MBB member Tina Monberg who lives in Copenhagen, suggesting that we apply to observe the UN climate change meeting in December. With Barbora’s help at the National Office, we pulled together the requisite documents and were admitted as an observer organization. Tina and I began to correspond and developed the idea of urging member nations to include mediation in the treaty. I contacted Tom Fiutak, who agreed to head up our U.S. delegation, and we were off and running.
What does being involved with the COP15 -- that is, being the sole neutral third-party NGO observer and only mediation org present -- mean for MBB?
It means we have now been catapulted into leadership on a world stage, with global recognition and responsibility for helping make climate change mediation successful, which connects with our core mission of building conflict resolution capacity around the world. As a result, we have also become global leaders in shaping public and political attitudes toward conflict resolution, and will need to bring our highest skills to Copenhagen.
What are your hopes and expectations for the Copenhagen initiative and how successful do you think we'll be in achieving them?
It will take years before the political leaders of the worlds nations recognize the enormous threat posed by climate change and develop the willingness to mediate the disputes that will inevitably arise and torpedo cooperative efforts to mitigate and prevent them. My hope is that we will convince those most involved to use mediation to resolve their disputes, and that we will do so in time to prevent the worst of what are now clearly foreseeable catastrophes and disasters that will alter life on our planet.
What strikes me now, reading over these comments, is how little they reveal about what we have actually done. Here is a different take on how I ended up here.
The beginning seems right. Tina Monberg, an MBB member from Copenhagen thought we might register with the UN as an NGO and observe the conference. What is missing in this account, because it came to us only gradually, is how crucial mediation is to solving climate change problems. How could we have missed this? Here is a simple 10-step chain of reasoning that has now become clear to many of us:
1. The problems we currently face, of which climate change is only one, can no longer be solved locally, or even by a consortium of the largest nation-states.
2. There are no international organizations, including the United Nations, that are presently capable of solving them.
3. None of these problems can be solved through force or litigation.
4. Bitter conflicts and diverse opinions are widespread between nations, political groups and environmental organizations over whether these problems actually exist, who is responsible for them, and how to solve them.
5. All of these conflicts are blocking us from reaching agreements, implementing them, and solving problems in time, and the dispute resolution mechanisms we currently have in place are incapable of resolving them quickly or deeply.
6. If we do not solve them fully and in time, hundreds of millions, perhaps billions of people will die, thousands of species will become extinct, and the Earth may become uninhabitable.
7. These problems will only increase as population and technology grow and we become more interconnected and interdependent.
8. The only way we can solve these problems and increase our chances of surviving is to build our capacity to communicate across differences, agree on solutions and implement them through voluntary international collaboration.
9. To improve our capacity for voluntary collaboration, we will need to reduce the systemic sources of chronic conflict and resistance to change worldwide; and therefore to reduce poverty and inequality, find alternatives to unregulated capitalist market competition, and increase political democracy.
10. To do any of these successfully, we will need to vastly increase our skills in cross-cultural communication, prejudice reduction and bias awareness, informal problem solving, group facilitation, public dialogue, collaborative negotiation, mediation, and conflict resolution systems design.
Our goal, quite simply, in traveling to Copenhagen, is to convince the delegates that, along with reducing CO2 emissions and finding sustainable sources of energy, we need to reduce the level of global conflict and find sustainable methods of living together. If we don’t, even the best proposals with the most unassailable scientific evidence behind them will not succeed. Put simply, our historic approaches to conflict have also become unsustainable.
So what are we going to do? We are now about 100 mediators from 20 countries, all coming to Copenhagen under the auspices of Mediators Beyond Borders, but representing conflict resolvers around the world and people everywhere who believe in the possibility of peaceful solutions.
We are a small but determined band, a kind of “children’s crusade,” finding strength in our strangely naïve, yet deeply realistic belief that we can actually make a difference. We are inspired by Margaret Mead’s brilliantly phrase: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world: Indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.”
More deeply and immediately, as Leonard Cohen put it in song, “[We are] guided by the beauty of our weapons,” which consist of listening with open minds and hearts, working jointly to understand and overcome our problems, seeking mutual gains and the satisfaction of everyone’s interests, and working creatively and collaboratively to find and implement solutions - not only to the problem of climate change, but to the deeper problem of how we solve our problems.
It has been a combination of the importance and clarity of our mission, the beauty of this process, and the presence of MBB as an inspiration for mediator leadership and a catalyzing force for volunteerism that has resulted in the extraordinary teamwork and dedication of the last few months. We have gone from a little idea to a large, active, engaged, committed team of mediators. I will explain more about how this happened and what it feels like as the week unfolds.
I will write again tomorrow with a report on the registration process and our first strategy meeting at Tina’s house tomorrow afternoon.
Please feel free to share these thoughts with anyone you want. And wish us well. We will need it.
Love to all,
Ken

Canary in the Ocean is Singing--COP15

I am headed to Copenhagen in December for the UN Climate Change Conference known as COP15. I'm going with an NGO called Mediators Beyond Borders who has been asked to participate. Our primary goal is to insert a mediation clause in the agreement that will hopefully come out of this world climate meeting. This mediation clause, if inserted, will provide countries and others governing bodies with a way to deal with issues and opportunities as they will undoubtedly arise as the world looks to solve the global warming dilemma.

In preparation for my going to Copenhagen, I have been reading a great deal. I just finished a report called the "2009 State of the World--Into a Warming World" by the Worldwatch Institute. Within that report was an article by Aliferti Tawakeand and Jaun Hoffmaister on small island adaptive management. Specifically, they have focused on Fiji and other small countries in the area with something they call LMMA or Locally Managed Marine Areas. It is a community based network where locals share knowledge among traditional elders, community leaders, NGO's, educators and stakeholders. They do not exclude government but rather use them as partners as opposed to commanders. It is a bottom up model as opposed to top down. They are empowered on how to best use their limited resources in light of the predicted climate change. The islands are the canary in the mine so to speak. We should be watching, listening, learning and acting from their example.

Which brings me to the Nobel Prize for Economics. Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist at Indiana University, won the Nobel Prize for Economics yesterday on a theory that caught my ear and sounded familiar. She basically showed how common resources -- forests, fisheries, oil fields or grazing lands -- can be managed successfully by the people who use them, rather than by governments or private companies. She said to reporters after she won that "what we have ignored is what citizens can do and the importance of real involvement of the people involved -- versus just having somebody in Washington ... make a rule."

So the road to Copenhagen starts with you, the individual. As the Dali Lama points out, "We and they no longer exist. This planet is just us. The destruction of one area is the destruction of yourself. That is the new reality." (From Dr. Kenneth Cloke's new book: "Conflict Revolution") It seems apparent that mediation needs to be in place once the parties to the convention in Copenhagen sign the new agreement that replaces the one from Kyoto that expires in 2012. Without this method to solve conflict, global problems will be more difficult to negotiate and more time consuming. Based upon what I have studied, time is not something we have much of if we are to effectuate the change that is needed.

I will endeavor to blog about what I learn and what we achieve as I prepare and go onto Copenhagen and beyond.

Beef Recall Due to E. Coli

HEALTH RISK: HIGH

JBS Swift Beef Company, a Greeley, Colo., establishment is recalling approximately 41,280 pounds of beef products that may be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced today.

The products subject to recall include:

Boxes of "USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/DN S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "21852."
Boxes of "USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "21853."
Boxes of "Swift, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/DN S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "31852."
Boxes of "Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "31853."
Boxes of "Swift, USDA SELECT, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/DN S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "33852."
Boxes of "USDA SELECT, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "33853."
Boxes of "BLACK ANGUS, Swift Premium, BEEF, USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "41853."
Boxes of "BLACK ANGUS, Swift Premium, BEEF, USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "41853."
Boxes of "Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/DN S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, an identifying package date of "042109" and a case code of "79852."
Boxes of "Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, an identifying package date of "042109" and a case code of "79853."
Boxes of "USDA CHOICE OR HIGHER, Bnls Beef Bottom Sirloin, Butt Ball Tip 2/UP S/T." Each box bears the establishment number "EST. 969" inside the USDA mark of inspection, identifying package dates of "042109" or "042209" and a case code of "90853."

These beef products were produced on April 21 and 22, 2009, and were shipped to distributors and retail establishments in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Wisconsin.

The problem was discovered through FSIS microbiological sampling and an investigation into the distribution of other products.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause bloody diarrhea, dehydration, and in the most severe cases, kidney failure. The very young, seniors and persons with weak immune systems are the most susceptible to foodborne illness. Individuals concerned about an illness should contact a physician.

FDA CONFIRMS PEANUT CORP OF AMERICA AS SOURCE OF SALMONELLA

FDA Confirms Peanut Corp As Source Of Salmonella

Federal health officials said Wednesday that they have confirmed the source of a salmonella outbreak that has sickened almost 500 people as Peanut Corp. of America.

Peanut Corp., based in Lynchburg, Va., produced peanut butter mostly distributed to nursing homes and schools as well as peanut paste used in dozens of products sold directly to consumers in retail stores. Last week the company recalled peanut butter and peanut paste made at its Blakely, Ga., facility after July 1.

The Food and Drug Administration said that in addition to products made by Peanut Corp., more than 125 recalls of crackers, cookies, ice cream and even some pet food have been announced the past few days. Earlier Wednesday, PetSmart Inc. (PETM) recalled seven types of Grreat Choice Dog Biscuits.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that 486 people in 43 states and Canada have been sickened by a specific strain of salmonella known as Typhimurium, which has contributed to six deaths.

SANS PEANUT BUTTER ROUND TWO

The Peanut Butter Product Recall List Grows

FDA: Don't Eat Products Containing Peanut Butter or Peanut Paste That Might Be Tied to Salmonella Outbreak

From WebMD Health News Jan. 20, 2009 -- The list of recalled products containing peanut butter continues to grow in the wake of the salmonella outbreak that has sickened at least 475 people in 43 states and Canada.

The outbreak strain of Salmonella typhimurium may have contributed to six deaths, according to the CDC.

Yesterday, the FDA confirmed that the source of the outbreak is peanut butter and peanut paste made by the Peanut Corporation of America (PCA) at its Blakely, Ga., processing plant.

PCA's products aren't sold to grocery stores. PCA only sells peanut butter to institutions and food manufacturers. Some food makers use PCA's peanut butter or peanut paste to make products including crackers, cookies, cakes, cereal, candy, and ice cream.

Many products containing PCA's peanut butter or peanut paste have been recalled. The lengthy list includes, but is not limited to, the following companies:

General Mills: Lara Bar Peanut Butter Cookie flavor snack bars and Jam Frakas Peanut Butter Blisscrisp flavor snack bars
Clif Bar & Company: Clif Bar Chocolate Chip Peanut Crunch, Clif Bar Crunchy Peanut Butter, Clif Bar Peanut Toffee Buzz, ZBaR Peanut Butter, Clif Builders Peanut Butter, Luna Nutz over Chocolate, Luna Peanut Butter Cookie, and all Clif Mojo Bars
Kroger: Private Selection Peanut Butter Passion Ice Cream sold at City Market, Fred Meyer, Fry's, King Soopers, QFC, and Smith's stores.
Kellogg Company: Certain Austin and Keebler brand peanut butter sandwich crackers, select snack-size packs of Famous Amos Peanut Butter Cookies, and Keebler Soft Batch Homestyle Peanut Butter Cookies.
The FDA's web site has a list of recalls related to the salmonella outbreak.

So for now, the FDA advises consumers not to eat commercially prepared products containing peanut butter or peanut paste, or peanut butter served at institutions, unless they're sure that those products don't contain PCA peanut butter or peanut paste.

The FDA reminds consumers to throw out recalled products in a manner that prevents others from eating those items, and to see a health care provider if you think you got sick from eating peanut butter. But if I were you, I'd save the UPC code or take a picture of the product in case you get sick from it.