On Consensus

A COP29 adventure

Most of these newsletters have some unifying theme — sometimes rather subtly or forced — but today’s doesn’t. I began the day thinking that I’d write a COP finance explainer for today’s newsletter, because I intended to go to some sessions about that. But it feels like the official negotiations about finance are stuck, so I’m going to wait on that until there is something else to report. Instead, I’ll just start recounting the things I did today, and perhaps see if anything significant emerges from it.

I had a better night of sleep last night, though I must admit some pharmacological assistance in that. Our days begin with some group time to debrief from the previous day. I shared with the group about my encounter with Olga yesterday and got all choked up about it again. Then in an interesting coincidence (if you believe in those kinds of things!) I bumped into Olga again today. She actually saw me in the hall and said hi. So I introduced her to Colin and told her that I shared her story with my group (which includes you all who read this), and she thanked me. Say a prayer for Olga (if you believe in that kind of thing!).

After group time, everyone makes arrangements to get to the COP. Colin and I have pretty consistently been walkers, and increasingly it seems like it is not only the least expensive in terms of money and the lowest carbon footprint, but it is also the fastest! The traffic seems to have gotten increasingly snarled here this week. But there is a dedicated bus lane. So even after a 30 minute walk, then two buses, we were quicker than those who took a Bolt across the distance of our walk and first bus.

The first bus takes us to the Old City, and we decided on a detour to the sock place. Someone told us about a Minnesota woman who has lived here for 20 years, working with rural women to make sock/slippers for people. She has a little market up in Old City. So we found her and bought some slippers (don’t tell my grandsons).

Then we caught the bus and made it to the Blue Zone. We walked around the pavilion hall a bit and stood in line at Australia because they give away flat whites (and do pretty impressive art on them).

Then we went back into the big plenary hall for a bit where the speeches from high level ministers from yesterday continued. It was more of the same, with grandstanding by developed nations and pleading from the developing ones.

After that, Colin had a session he wanted to attend and I joined some other CCOPers for a press conference from the European Union. This is what made me decide that things seem to be stuck in the official negotiations, because it didn’t really seem like all the words that were said actually conveyed any information. After a brief opening statement, they invited questions. There were probably 250 people in the room and most of them wanted to ask a question. The response to almost every question was, “we’re not able to give any further details about that right now.” But there was one significant signal in all this that was conveyed pretty clearly: we’ll not be going back on last year’s agreement.

In Dubai at COP28 the big news was that everyone agreed in the final text that we will transition away from fossil fuels. Here in Baku there has been a lot of saber rattling about that maybe being just one option that countries could pursue and that there are others. Of course it is Saudi Arabia that is leading that movement. But the EU said several times in the process of saying nothing about what is going on now that we’ll not being reneging on Dubai.

I thought it might be interesting to make this a press conference day and saw that Greenpeace was having one. But I couldn’t find where they were and instead stumbled into one of the really wonky policy meetings. So again, I’m going to inflict on you the substance of what I experienced.

I got a good seat up in the second row right next to the Japan delegation. This meeting was supposed to be a final report from a working group that had been commissioned last year to meet and discuss how each country’s commitments were going. This was the last scheduled session of the group, and they needed to approve the report that would be sent to the president of the COP. There was a draft of the one-page report that was a bunch of “we commend these people… we are grateful for these people… and so on.” Then in paragraph 7, there were two options. Option 1 said “[Placeholder for possible messages and substantive text]”. Option 2 said “No text”. So the discussion was which of these options they were going to agree to, and if option 1, what would we say? Remember these proceedings work by consensus. Every party has veto power and can stop anything from moving forward. I’m now part of a Mennonite church that operates on the same principle (for at least some matters), and it has been a shift for me to not want to say, “OK let’s vote on it and the majority wins.” There is something good and even right (I think) about giving power to the minority and allowing them not only to have a voice, but to be able to control the outcome. But sometimes that means there is no outcome. Case in point:

The facilitator opened the floor for discussion, and pretty quickly two different coalitions formed. The Association of Small Island States spoke first saying they wanted more substantive text in the report and that paragraph 7 needed to be expanded to include it. Australia agreed. But then a young woman from Saudi Arabia got the floor and in a rather disdainful tone said that there is no consensus in the room about any substantive messages coming out of their consultation, so they will not support any text in that section. India and China chimed in with them. This sort of thing went on for 40 minutes, and then the US said:

“I had hoped we get closer to consensus, but I’m not seeing that. I’m hearing that there is no will to include long substantive messages. But could we include a short paragraph that simply factually states what has been spoken to by different parties? That could at least let us leave here by giving some sense of what happened in these meetings.”

Then the facilitators said, “give the three of us just a moment to confer, and then we’ll give you our proposal for the way forward.” After a bit the main facilitator came back and asked the delegates to form an informal huddle for 10 minutes to determine whether the US proposal to have a short paragraph simply describing what they disagree on would be acceptable. No one moved. Then the facilitator again asked if they would please huddle with each other to try to resolve the question. Finally the young woman from Saudi Arabia shrugged her shoulders and stood up to move and a few others followed. The “huddle” ended up with about 30 people standing there. I crept up behind them to eavesdrop.

The young woman from Saudi Arabia (in the center with the headscarf) was clearly in charge. Many others made speeches, but they were essentially, “Yeah, what she said.” The US woman walked over at one point and asked if anyone had questions for her, but no one did. So she wandered off and furiously typed things on her phone.

The facilitators called them back to the floor and requested a report from the huddle. No one spoke. Then finally after some more prodding, Sweden spoke up:

We didn’t find a common view on what to do with paragraph 7. I propose that we simply capture this divergence and send to the presidency our report that includes those two options for paragraph 7. We can ask the presidency to consider that we are in a critical phase and could not come to consensus about which option to include. It would be important for us to keep the two options; we will not support a report that with no text.

The US chimed in, agreeing that there was no consensus, but helpfully (in their minds) suggesting everyone consider the text she just sent for how they might report about there being no consensus on these substantive items (that must have been what she was furiously typing in her phone). That, of course, brought out Saudi Arabia again to simply state that they will not approve any document where paragraph 7 has any text.

Several more speeches on both sides were made, which boil down to one side saying they won’t agree if there is any text, and the other side saying they won’t agree if there is no text. This reminds me of the scene from The Princess Bride where Vizzini says, “Then we are at an impasse: I’m no match for your strength, and you’re no match for my brains.”

There were more speeches, but what do you do if they can’t come to a consensus? Have more meetings. The facilitator said:

We have heard opposing views on next steps, not just about the elements of the document, but also about whether the document is in a position to move forward at all. We are in the hands of you, the parties. It is not up to the facilitators to reach consensus, but up to you. This is the last session for this agenda item, but we will consult with the secretariat to see if we can add one more session tonight or tomorrow morning. We may reach out to some of you, and urge you to reach out to each other to find some compromise. We will send proposals. Session closed.

Well, I’m dying to know what is going to happen. I don’t know if I’ll be able to find the resolution of this tomorrow, but I’ll try.

After that, four of us CCOPers took the bus back to Old City for dinner, and then Colin and I took another bus and then walked home (beating the group who were going to take a Bolt the whole way from Old City!).

Then Colin and I had to record for the bonus podcast episode that will come out Thursday morning from Baku (find it on the Language of God podcast feed!). Toward the end of our recording in our bedroom (the least acoustically offensive place in the house), our host’s daughter came to the door and asked what we’re doing. I explained that we were recording something and that she needed to go back and find her parents. She said, “No, I watch.” I thought about telling her that we have voted and it is two against one that she needs to go back to her parents. But instead we gave her the power and said she could stay if she sat down and was very quiet. I’m pleased to report that we all came to consensus on that.

Then I sat at the dining room table and started writing this newsletter. That brings me up to the present in the account of my day: 10:54pm local time.

But the day isn’t done. There are still four CCOPers who haven’t returned to the house, and someone has to stay up to let them through the gate. I’m on duty. See you tomorrow.