Consensus voting doesn't build consensus

Behind effective decision making is an effective decision making infrastructure. At COP, like the UN Security Council and many other international organisations, decisions are made through consensus – where there is the no explicit objection. This presents many problems because it means everyone must be content with the decision to move forward. In the context of when states are telling other states to reduce emissions, progress is difficult.

As a geographer I love analysing power relationships within spaces of dialogue and a quote said in this side event sums up my feels on consensus.

“Consensus is the best decision rule, least likely to produce consensual behaviour.” Or in simpler terms, if you want consensus, don’t use consensus voting.

This may sound ridiculous but remember the purpose of consensus is to enable conversations so that agreement can be made which satisfies all parties. However by nature of the consensus voting procedure where one objection means the motion fails, the actor with the lowest ambition gets to dictate debate and get their way if they are willing to block any proposal that is stronger than they desire. Thus consensus creates a process where debate takes place around the purpose of avoiding a block and focusing on the lower end of the ambition rather than the middle or upper end of what more progressive parties desire.

Conversely, majority voting systems create power dynamics and a space where the discussion focuses on a more moderate space. For example when a 51% majority is required, conversation will be centric and when a 75% majority is required, then debate will be less centric and focus on only having a 25% rejection rate although still give a much more open debate than consensus. Voting is therefore far more conducive to directing the conversations to a more moderate position and actually building consensus since discourses will occur that more parties agree with and progressive parties can have more input and relevance.

It is very difficult to decide on what level of majority should be required given there are many types of decisions being made. A really interesting concept proposed by one of the panellists was that of layered voting. Rather than having the same majority required for all types of motions you take a staggered approach. From research, procedural motions are normally the least contentious and financial motions the most contentious. As an example of a layered voting process, a simple majority of 51% would be required to pass procedural motions, a three-quarters majority for substance motions and financial changes require a 90% majority.

There are definitely issues with this system such as agreeing what level and categorising motions but once in place this could definitely shift discussions away from being dominated by those with the least ambition and towards those with more aspiration.

All posts by Institute delegates reflect their own thoughts, opinions and experiences, and do not reflect those of the Institute.

For official Institute updates, take a look here.

Connecting people and data

 “People aren’t waiting for the international negotiations to get a result. People are adapting now.”

Considering people within science is a tricky balance to achieve. This is a pity because people are at the heart of climate change impacts and it must be kept in mind that when we are looking for solutions and weighting what level of warming to accept and how to adapt. With approximately 250 million people expected to migrate due to climate induced reasons by 2050, these people must be looked after using all the tools possible to ensure adaption is as effective as possible and connecting people and data is a crucial element to successful adaption.

“Platforms of data shape the essence of life and how we can adapt.”

The UNFPA [UN Population Fund] have spent the last couple of years, developing a tool called DECA which connects population data with geographic information systems to make an easy to use, automated programme which can provide all sorts of information such as at-risk geographies. In the context of climate change, this can be used to compare areas where there is high population density versus areas that are flood prone or where agriculture is the main source of livelihood and where drought may be common as two basic examples.

Mobile phones are also an easy tool to figure out population movements and responses to both slow and rapid climate onset impacts. As an example, mobile SIM cards through call data records are used in Bangladesh, in an area vulnerable to flooding to measure migratory patterns. Using call data records is an invaluable tool to easily measure something which is inherently difficult to measure. The records show where populations reside and how they change over time which is very useful for trying to work out where to direct adaption measures and how the population is responding. After one particularly large storm, there was a clear drop in the number of people in the specific area and then afterwards there was a pattern of some people returning but then a slow decline in the population which was later attributed to the people having lost their livelihood which is attributed as a fundamental cause of climate-induced migration. Whilst far from a perfect measure, with access to the records, there is a fast, easy and cheap source of data available to assist resilient adaption measures.  

 “2C global mean temperature rise means nothing to an individual facing the consequences now.”

The quote above whilst from a different side event illustrates the disconnect between the numbers thrown around in high level negotiations and how for many their livelihoods are already under threat and are having to adapt right now, even though there is no assistance available to them given the lack of climate finance.

Another interpretation of this quote which was from this event is that the thought of this number totally ignores the concept of scale, which is crucial for effective adaption. The magic 2C temp remember is the global mean average and the actual increase varies spatially. For example, NZ is only effected by about two thirds of temp rise [although don’t take too much hope from this as wind patterns and other impacts will have a more than proportionate impact]. Another example is the many Pacific Islands where sea level rise is between three and six times the global average which rapidly compounds the problems they are facing. The urban heat island effect may be more relevant to you. Cities are hotter than rural areas because of their large surface area which absorb more heat and the human activities which collectively generate more heat. Some cities are already on average 2C warmer than pre-industrial levels so it can be expected that urban centres will be my much warmer than the global average.

Overall, people need data and data needs people to have mutual meaning. People need to data to help make informed decisions and the data needs people so that it can be relevant to the people who want to use the data. The next step is connecting it with policy and politics.

Being an adult and representing youth.

I have heard a lot of talk within the youth constituency in the past few days about what the ‘adults’ are doing in the negotiations. I am 25 years old and I am an adult. I would think the majority of youth attending this conference would identify with being an adult, at least some of the time. To get access to the negotiations venue, you need to be 18 years old. Therefore, as 18 is a fairly standards age for being legally considered an adult in many countries, I am going to assume that the majority of the youth constituency is made up of adults. They may be young adults, but they are adults none the less. Being an adult to me is not a negative thing, but what I have found interesting is that sometimes within the youth constituency it is portrayed that way. 

I have spent many years researching science and the underlying social and cultural issues associated with climate change. I am currently in an international negotiations setting, of which I have very little experience. I am aware of the exceptionally complex nature of these negotiations and I don’t believe that I could ever know all the subtle intricacies that go on behind the scenes in terms of power dynamics between countries and other alliances. But I do believe I know enough about the situation to determine when I am hearing honest facts versus lip service. There is a reason that people in government get trained how to portray issues and turn conversations around to suit their skill sets and knowledge. I am finding this type of negotiator language quite draining. 

The human cost of climate change

I think I got carried away in the glitz and glamour of playing ‘grown up’ with government delegates and being at the UN that I lost touch with the reality that causes these talks to be held in the first place. Climate change is real, and it is being caused by extensive emissions released into the atmosphere by humans. These points can be agreed on by the majority of scientists and governments from around the world. The part that I have found myself forgetting is the human cost of these changes. It is easy to talk about the number of deaths caused by climate change induced (or exacerbated) storms when they are just that, statistics. It is harder to comprehend that each one of those statists is a person, just like you and I. We may not speak the same language or wear the same clothes. We may not eat the same food or practice the same religion. We may not understand each other’s views on life, or indeed know anything about climate change at all. Yet we are all still human and each life lost is a terrible sacrifice made for the continued prosperity of a very small majority of global inhabitants. I am currently one of that small majority, whether I want to acknowledge that or not, and whether I am prepared to accept it or not.

After reading a powerful, emotive blog today I have tried to recognise that over this first week of COP19 I have sheltered in the safe world of ‘learning the ropes at COP’ and not activity participating in the dialogue that begins to address these important issues. Is it the easy way out to stand on the sidelines and watch people make interventions or plan actions, and be the quiet observer? I feel a huge personal responsibility to speak on behalf of people I don’t know, and will probably never know, because I have the privilege to have access to the information and resources that surround this complex social, economic, environmental and political issue. Does that mean I am the right person to be speaking for them? Is there any other way that I could privilege their voice without imposing my own views and opinions? These are the important questions I want to locate, explore, uncover and recognise during this next COP week.

All posts by Institute delegates reflect their own thoughts, opinions and experiences, and do not reflect those of the Institute.

For official Institute updates, take a look here.

Equity - what is fair and what is possible?

Martin Khor, Executive Director of the South Centre, held a meeting with youth to give his run down of the negotiations. He gave an eye opening perspective on the context of the negotiations. His insights demonstrate just how difficult it will be to get the required mitigation. There were two main themes I took from his discussion:

1.       Politics of burden sharing through equity

The atmosphere is a global commons that we all share and have a responsibility to maintain. Given the historic pathways of industrialisation and development as well as the aspiration to have a world without extreme poverty there is general acceptance that equity rather than equality is necessary for emission reduction targets. How equity is implemented is extremely political and contentious as no country wants to have the perception of having a larger or unjust responsibility than other parties.

The debates on equity have been occurring throughout the history of COP but ultimately have made no progress. The implementation of equity is particularly difficult given the decision making standard is that of consensus, so if one party thinks the standards set are inequitable, an agreement is not reached. The typical conflict here is between the developed and developing countries where the developing countries blame the developed for the majority of climate change. Alternatively, developed countries agree they need to reduce emissions but expect developing countries to do the same as otherwise they are taking on more of a burden than they want.  

2.       The possibility of reducing emissions to the required target

Beyond the politics, this issue of equity gets more complicated when looking at the numbers that Martin Khor gave us on mitigation. Trying to avoid 2C warming and allowing for a 7% annum increase for developing countries which is what they want and say they need for their economies and people presents knowledge, technical and political problems which currently cannot be solved. Martin using numbers from his report said it will not be enough for developing countries to reduce emissions by 100%, it will be more in the range of 3-400% in order to compensate for the developing countries increase in emissions. 

Beyond the political feasibility and popularity of reducing emissions, a country will only commit to a pledge in that is technologically achievable given the knowledge and finances available. Lowering emissions by 20% is a massive challenge for many countries and political feasibility reduces this back down to 5-10% for many developed countries. There isn’t technology out there presently that will enable 100% emissions let alone beyond 100% so this is a huge challenge going forwards.

How we go forward with these numbers is a challenging situation and suggests the discussions on equity are far from over.

(All posts by Institute delegates reflect their own thoughts, opinions and experiences, and do not reflect those of the Institute. For official Institute updates, take a look here)

Climate protest in Warsaw

To add to the description in Natalie's blog about the climate change march last week, this is a short video of the protest as it went past the COP19 venue. I have never seen so many armed police and riot vehicles in one place at one time! I am unsure whether they were there to protect the protestors from anti-climate change extremists, keep the march from getting out of hand, or a combination of the two. Was an amazing sight!

The video can be found on YouTube using the link below:

(All posts by Institute delegates reflect their own thoughts, opinions and experiences, and do not reflect those of the Institute. For official Institute updates, take a look here)

Warsaw protest video