Box 2. Lack of transparency:
The perceptions of the informal processes
Schelling (1960: 31) argues that organizing multiple meetings is a good negotiating tactic and is not a neutral approach to reaching consensus. "When there are two objects to negotiate, the decision to negotiate them simultaneously or in separate forums is by no means neutral to the outcome, particularly when there is a latent extortionate threat that can be exploited only if it can be attached to some more ordinary, legitimate bargaining situation."
Interviewees (Gupta 2000a) have, over the years, argued that they find the international negotiation process not very transparent. "What happens inside the negotiation rooms determines very little. Late night meetings in smoke-filled rooms, late calls home, corridor discussions, lunches, individual agreements outside the plenary are then sold to the plenary." "The development of consensus is not a logical consequence of the negotiating process." "Nobody knows why we agreed to a 5.2% reduction." There is "no open and transparent debate." Decisions appear to be taken during informal lunches, in the corridors, by powerful groups.
Of course, this is seen as logical since "...you cannot negotiate anything in a public room, there is no debate, only statements. The plenary and SBI only help to set the positions and the final decisions are taken behind closed doors. The main work is in the informal groups, where people can talk more openly; and in these groups only countries very interested in the issue are present." |
