Having posted the details below on Ban Ki-Moon’s December climate conference at a seaside luxury resort on Bali, I’ve now gone a bit deeper into the UNFCC web site (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). There the UNFCC has posted its “Overview Schedule” for the conference. Not only are the proceedings amid the beaches and tennis courts (see photo in Nov. 4 post, below) scheduled to go on…and on… and on… for a full 12 days. It also looks like the work hours won’t intrude all that much on the recreational possibilities.
The meetings at the Dec. 3-14 conference begin each day at a leisurely 10 A.M., with a two-hour break for lunch, and wrap up their work on assigned topics by 6 PM. Except on Thursday, Friday, Saturday and Monday — Dec. 6,7, 8 and 10 — when all meetings will be devoted to “informal groups.” On Sunday, Dec. 9, there are no meetings scheduled at all. In other words, the workaday UN conferees will be jetting to Bali for a routine in which they spend almost half the 12 days of the conference engaged in unstructured activities, start work mid-morning, lunch from 1-3 P.M. and knock off in time for cocktails.
Why is Ban Ki-Moon steering public resources into a two-week UN climate-crowd pajama party on Bali? I’m almost tempted to protest. Except if these folks skip the mai-tais by the pool and toil around the clock, it could get even worse. The last time the UN rolled up its sleeves and went to work on a giant project, we got Oil-for-Food. If the UN in the name of controlling the climate gets into the business of regulating the economies and reallocating the resources of the entire planet, it could cost the rest of us trillions in productivity lost, creativity stifled and development thwarted — or, in a nutshell — freedoms foregone. So, interesting though the inevitably ensuing corruption scandals might be, here’s hoping the conferees at Ban’s Bali Blowout take a hint from the Overview Schedule, and spend all their time on the beach.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
15 Comments
Chip Seiple:Claudia,
You may not get many comments, but I never miss a day. Your posts are invaluable to me in understanding the un-understandable. Keep it up.
chip
Nov 7, 2007 - 3:00 am E. Weisbord:Excellent suggestion Claudia. They should actually beach themselves like misdirected whales.
Nov 7, 2007 - 12:35 pm OmegaPaladin:With a little help from nature, we can look forward to a tsunami to eat them for lunch.
Ms. Rosett,
This is quite depressing. I’m honestly wondering: When was the last time the UN actually did something good? For that matter, when was the last time a US dollar actually produced some benefit to the US at the UN?
By the way, I do work in the field of industrial safety. What have you heard about the ILO and other international standards bodies? This may directly impact my work.
Nov 7, 2007 - 3:21 pm Scott R. Lucado:A long time ago, I wrote that just once they should hold one of these conferences at a Super 8 off some busy interstate.
With the prospect of stale doughnuts and trying to sleep next to a noisy ice machine, these pampered blowhards might skip the conferences altogether–and wouldn’t the world be better for it?
Nov 7, 2007 - 4:25 pm L. Riofrio:Despite personal outrage at UN excesses, your post brings back fond memories of my stay at at the Westin Nusa Dua. Do you want more photos of the hotel?
Nov 7, 2007 - 6:24 pm Roberto Kinley:Dear Claudia,
You really do not have a clue of what you are talking about. There are several misconceptions and a lot of ignorance of your writting, let me clear a couple of them:
- The UNFCCC is not an organisation, it is a convention which belongs to governments. The conference in Bali is by no means an initiative of the UN but of governments, including yours. So, whether things are achieved or not entirely depends on the willingness of governments and not on the UN.
- What is presented as schedule refers to the formal sessions. Most work is undertaken by informal groups which arrive at 7 am and do not stop working sometimes even until the next morning. For most delegates, Bali mean at least 20 hours of daily work for 15 days in order to finding solutions. So in my personal opinion you are being extremely disrispectful with those people that devote their time and patience for finding a solution to a problem that also concerns you
I can go on and on… but I think that the above two points cover most of what you have written.
Nov 8, 2007 - 10:33 am Scott Kirwin:Roberto
So the UN Climate Change Conference is not attended by United Nations staffers? I’d say the title of the conference undermines your criticism of Claudia. And you fail to get Claudia’s point that 22% of the UN’s budget in 2006 was provided solely by the United States.
You also fail to understand…
1. Why this may upset US taxpayers like me who pay federal taxes and are therefore footing the bill for this conference.
2. Miss the point of holding a climate change conference in one of the most distantly located places on the planet - which will force attendees to contribute to the very problem they are supposedly discussing.
And I don’t buy that line about 20 hour days. I’ve worked very closely with UN staff in Africa and seen first hand how your organization operates.
Honestly, it’s immoral.
Nov 8, 2007 - 11:37 am Roberto Kinley:Dear Scott,
I also think you do lack knowledge for this debate (including on the UN) mand I think that it is important that you and all those that criticise understand before making wrong statements.
Yes, the UN conference is attended by “UN staffers” as you call them, but they are a limited number of people that support negotiations. Again, the conference is primarily made up of governemnts. The conference will receive more than 10000 people (negotiators, NGOs, business and many others); around 150 will be UN staff. But lets go one by one on your points:
- The climate change process has its own budget and receives contributions from countries from all over the world, not only the US. It is not correct nor fair to criticise expenditures of the US government on the UN using the climate change process as an example as budgets are not related. Direct contributions by other countries are more important than that of the US alone. You will be surprised to know that a significant cost of the conference is shouldered by the Indonesian government itself. Not counting resources by research groups, NGOs and other self financed attendees. But beyod that, I think that by no means spending money to solve a problem that will affect me, you, our children and many others is immoral. What is immoral is doing nothing about it.
On your second point, the fact that you call Indonesia remote only reflects the false idea that near is only what is close to the United states. For your information, more than half of the population lives in Asia. Regarding climate change, it is precisely in asia where emissions are becoming most important, notably those from China and India, and also where impacts of climate change are being felt by millions of people which wont not agree with you in saying that the Conference is being held in a remote place. I would rather say that as the happening place is Asia, distant and remote places will end up beiong the US (and I am from your side of the world as well). And for your information, efforts are being made to make conferences carbon neutral: the majority of airtravel is compemnsated and, dependiong on the location, the comnferences uses carbon free eneregy.
Finally, you may not buy that staff work more than 20 hours a day but, frankly, basing your argument on a couple of guys you saw in Africa does not stand strong on your side. I think Claudia is making a shallow analysis of the agenda and I reestate that she has no information whatsoever to argue that people go to Bali to sunbath and have coctails. This can only be said by someone who has not clue at all on what happens in that negotiations and I do not only talk about climate change. I tell you by experience because I was a negotiator in the past and believe me that is is no exageration when I say that it is mostly 20 hours a day during 12 days that this people have to work hard and under high level of stress; statements like that are disrispectful with a lot of people that work away from home and very long hours to solve a problem that is not simple to solve and that concerns you as well. Please acknowledge that.
Nov 8, 2007 - 3:38 pm Susanne Klieber:Oh dear. I have never read anything so uninformed as Claudia’s and Scott’s postings. It amazes me that you can have such strong opinions about something you so clearly know very little about. Anyway, have a lovely weekend saving energy and not driving cars, you die-hard climate activists!
Nov 8, 2007 - 3:45 pm Laura Dooley:I do not know much about the climate and the UN but the comment by E WEISBORD is completely out of order and should be deleted from this forum. I am not sure if you are aware of the sensitivities you touch by referring to the tsunami and how good it would be that it kills attendees. Do you know how many people died in Indonesia for the Tsunami and do you have any respect at all from them? It would be like saying that if the conference is held in New York we wish some terrorist crash planes in those buildings. This is certainly NOT right.
Nov 8, 2007 - 4:35 pm Person of Choler:Roberto,
If the delegates are working 20 hour days, why are the sponsors paying for the amenities of a luxury tropical resort?
Nov 9, 2007 - 5:03 am Roberto Kinley:Person of Choler,
The sponsors are not paying for a luxury tropical resort. The meeting is taking place in a conference centre offered by the host country and, as a conference centre, is not a place to relax but to work, which happens to be in an area of resorts. Attendees may be staying at different resorts with the facilities you mention, some luxurious some others not, personal taste and possibilities.
Nov 9, 2007 - 3:16 pm Icebear:Claudia,
Nov 11, 2007 - 10:19 am Ben:Thank you for waching the new royalties.
Could you also inform these critics that the temerature in NYC in December can be VERY cold. Not a good place for a conference, the staff needs to get to warmer places (on taxpayers money of course).
I think the justification is obvious.
Seeing no way to fight Global Warming successfully, the UN is instituting plan B: Teach the climate crowd to enjoy hot weather.
Ben
Nov 12, 2007 - 4:30 pm bourne2y:So, Roberto sniffs, UNFCCC is a convention and not an organization. Killer point, eh?
Notwithstanding that Claudia accurately refers to UNFCCC as a Convention and nowhere in her piece does the word “organization” appear (nor the word “organisation”, for that matter).
The irony of all this to me, as a former senior officer at UN (at least, that is what my PA Form says I was) is that a lengthy and detailed public “Overview Schedule” for a supposedly important world conference on Climate Change is not the Agenda after all, and does not allow one to discern what is really going on.
Instead, as Roberto testifies, the important stuff takes place in off-agenda “informal” sessions - having other agendas.
This is perfectly consistent with my own experience with UN-related decision-making. Specifically, decisions are reserved for the sequestered few, cloaked in opacity, while everyone pretends to openness and transparency.
So it does not matter how much or little the meeting will cost. No country that believes in open processes is likely to get its money’s worth. Some participants no doubt take this work seriously and work 20 hours a day. They are quite useful as part of the cloak of opacity.
Meanwhile, the sequestered few relax, dine, sip Pimms, and wonder where to hold the Twenty-EIGHTH Session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 27).
Roberto Kinley, you speak the truth - you just don’t seem to comprehend how much truth.
Nov 12, 2007 - 10:06 pm