Redefining diplomacy – giving our planet a seat at the table

I have spent most of my career working on the role governance plays in preventing violent conflict, including several years as a diplomat in a multilateral setting in which many voices needed to be heard and many needs had to be balanced. It was not until years later that I realized one key voice was often missing in multilateral discussions - that of our planet and its ecosystems. It’s an important voice, and one we’re not necessarily trained to hear. Yet now, as climate change is fundamentally shaping the present and the future, it’s time for us to listen. And it’s time for us to become more creative when we think about who and what we represent in negotiations. We don’t have to look too far to see the results of a human-centric approach to the world, particularly one which has treated nature’s resources as free and our own profit and gain as the top priority.

Negotiating on behalf of countries is incredibly complex. And the reality is that our current global political and legal systems keep us focused on national interests, despite our commitments to preserving the global commons. It’s a recipe for deadlock in negotiations, as we are asked to consider seemingly impossible trade-offs. Many negotiators I speak with long for ways to open up the space for negotiations in new and creative ways. Some also express concern that they are missing key ideas and not fully understanding the consequences of the decisions they are making.

To solve complex problems, we sometimes need to step into a completely different space. What would happen if we began to understand our role as diplomats in a different way?

What if, instead of thinking exclusively about representing the needs of our governments (and beyond them, our fellow citizens), we took responsibility for negotiating on behalf of the ecosystems which feed, support and otherwise ensure life is possible for everyone who lives within a specific territory? The idea is not without precedent – the possibility of nature having legal personality underpins the Rights of Nature movement, which has been successfully used as a legal defense.

A few potential advantages of this approach are worth noting. First, if we are to turn the tide of climate change, the needs of nature must be central to public policy and diplomacy in a way they have not been before. Second, thinking on behalf of nature offers a way to transcend, even for a short time, the sometimes rigid national positions which lead to stalled negotiations. This doesn’t require abandoning official and carefully developed positions, it simply requires a willingness to experiment with the space which opens up when human concerns are not the only ones on the table. Third, this is an acknowledgement of how our planet functions – not according to man made lines on a map, but along natural and geographic features and boundaries. Imagine what could happen, for example, if we treated a river as an integral whole and governed accordingly, rather than being forced to artificially divide and compete for the river’s resources across a series of borders.

Obviously, we are not going to completely restructure international negotiations overnight. But we can and should find opportunities to pilot new approaches. Local governance could be particularly promising in this regard – given the scale on which they work, local governments often see clearly the interconnected nature of policy domains and the role in particular which local ecosystems play in public health, the economy and even education. They may also have the ability to experiment with meetings in which participants speak not only for their own interests but also for the needs of local rivers, lakes, forests or other natural features.

While the stakes may appear to be higher, there could also be a role for new approaches to negotiations in conflicts, especially those which involve access to and control of natural resources. These conflicts are likely to increase in number and intensity as our world is fundamentally impacted by climate change and we are unlikely to find resolution if we continue to treat nature as a commodity.

This also raises the question of who speaks for nature. I am reluctant to suggest this role be reserved for a privileged few, as all of us have a direct relationship with nature. However, there are many who pay close attention to the needs of nature and can help “break the ice” – including indigenous communities, scientists, environmental defenders and activists.

I am not suggesting we abandon human interests in negotiations, but rather that we open up and experiment with different ways of framing the problems we face. We may find the voice of nature unites where national positions divide and gives us not only common ground but also common language which allows us to more easily identify what matters most.