COP 16 Cancun: Is it the process or the place that’s wrong? – Ben Vivian

November 29th, 2010

Is it too early to judge COP 16 in Cancun, but why on Earth did they decide to go to Cancun to discuss climate change? Mexico is a wonderful country, rich in interesting culture, places and natural history that I have visited on many occasions.

Many years ago I went to Cancun for a much less salubrious conference with one of my former employers and I vowed never to return. Having travelled in sub-tropics a reasonable amount, I found it was just such an artificial place. One evening soon after arriving we were standing outside enjoying a drink and I noticed that there were no insects – biting or otherwise – apparently the resort authorities use insecticide to eradicate them.  Cancun is one of the worst places in the world to hold a conference about how to combat the negative impacts of human occupation of the planet.

Can we expect anything to come from COP 16? It appears that after the failure at COP 15 in Copenhagen last year, some are saying it is make or break time. While the same arguments are being rehearsed, about emissions reduction, strategies, social justice and economic development, something new seems to be emerging and it’s really dull but crucial. Many are starting to question the process, the Conference of the Parties (COP). Failure this time would suggest that these junkets to tourism hot spots are in danger of extinction.

An old adage in management practice, often credited to Peter Drucker, is that the optimum committee size is 6. COP would exceed this number by several orders of magnitude. But simple numbers is not the only criterion. Psychology plays an enormous role in the effectiveness of groups and their readiness to make decisions. And herein lies the fundamental problem with the COP process. Too many people appear to be there with the sole objective of blocking progress – for whatever reason. In a small group you can work to bring round one or two nay sayers; conversely in a large group it is first very difficult to discover what people really think, even before you try to move their stance.

In management sciences the issue of committee group size also relates to authority and responsibility. If you keep numbers down then there is nowhere to hide, you can’t sit silently with your hands in your pockets not contributing to debate and decisions. Due to the nature of a small group there is more transparency, the converse is true in a large group. Individuals can weald huge but unrepresentative power, especially when it comes to decisions for action. And some of the potentially most influential chose not to attend at all, like the UK’s Prime Minister.

So should we replace COP17 with a much smaller group, which is granted more authority to make decisions? I’m afraid the answer is no because with a global, hugely complex issue affecting everyone on the planet we need to ensure engagement. We must understand and work with those that do not agree to try to change their ways. With the exception of a small number of countries, we live in democracies. Democracy is messy and slow.

And so back to Cancun, a sterile, man-made carbuncle in a sub-tropical idyll, is possibly the worst place on Earth to try to thrash out the difficulties. Perhaps we should be less critical of the process and more critical of the place (or is that the geographer in me speaking).




Leave a Reply


Archives

  • Categories

    • Testimonials

    It is fantastic to leave a seminar feeling inspired and full of practical ideas. Thursday’s oomph seminar did exactly that, Ben and Dan are naturals at putting an audience at ease which meant real participation from the group. As environmental professionals often form a one person team, it is fantastic to share a room with like minded individuals from local businesses who have faced and tackled similar challenges and can offer insight and advice. Eagerly anticipating the next installment of Oomph!

    Nicola Duffy, Environmental Co-ordinator at Highcross, Leicester

    Thank you both for inviting us to today’s Oomph seminar. From our point of view, we found the stimulus material and subsequent debate insightful from a sustainability perspective, but also in a wider context applicable to the successful deployment of general business initiatives.

    Participant at Oomph Seminar 30 June 2011

    Really enjoyed this morning. I have attended very few seminars over the past two years simple because they are all too similar, often the the same speakers and follow the same theme. Today was most importantly enjoyable, interesting and got the brain cells working. I like small groups with variety of people and backgrounds.

    Participant at first Oomph Seminar 30 June 2011