In the Collective Action working group, Dave Tenny wrote: “…we may have to take a fresh look at the [Vision] statement. It may be that we start by agreeing to the most important questions we are trying to answer and then provide the best answers we can to the questions. That would be a very useful mapping exercise and could end up either borrowing heavily from the existing draft statement or not. Simplicity will be key – what is the most important objective we are trying to achieve? What are the two or three most important questions we need to answer to help us achieve it? What are the three or so most important answers we can provide to each question. From my experience this type of approach maintains simplicity, fosters collaboration and builds a common language and ownership.”
My response:
Let me share a bit more about the purpose of the Vision statement, the process for shaping and finalizing it, and its intended use post-Summit. The initial purpose was to provide orientation for the Challenges and Solutions the working groups are tackling, which are about clarifying what impedes progress toward the Vision and what actionable solutions would help overcome these hurdles. Even if there are parts of the Vision over which there is disagreement — and we knew there would be — we believed that there would be enough there that most people support that it could serve this function.
Next, we wanted to provide a solid basis— one that’s already supported by many — for generating discussion and getting input prior to the Summit and workshop it during. Here’s where it’s important to get as many joint comments as possible as opposed to dozens of individual ones.
Post-Summit, as is noted in the preface to the Vision statement, the steering committee will determine the process for taking all of the input and arriving at a version for which we’ll solicit the public support of Summit participants. This then provides the basis for numerous subsequent activities, including communications, procurement guidance, collective action, etc.
So obviously the Vision is a keystone of the whole endeavor, and to be very clear, while the goal is to arrive at a version that as many stakeholders as possible can publicly stand behind…
-
WWF is unlikely to support a Vision that does not take a strong and progressive position on forest conservation and restoration as well as forest management — and I think this is true of many of the green building leaders and other NGOs who organized this meeting;
-
there has been a strong commitment from the get-go to the proposition that the ambition for forest management should not be a mere affirmation of the status quo, but rather that the goal should be management that increases forest carbon stores and ecological resilience;
-
we always thought it would be a great challenge to get all participants to sign on, and I’d say if anything it’s becoming more challenging as the list of invitees has grown.
So: if the Collective Action working group or anyone else is able to draft a version of the Vision that maximizes support, wonderful!!! But a core challenge is that we won’t achieve that if certain core principles — for me, 1) and 2) above — are sacrificed. In other words, if there is disagreement on these principles, then it seems like the document will inevitably break one way or another — and gain / lose support accordingly.
If all this holds water, then a logical starting point for our WG could be to see if we can agree collectively on what the core principles should be — and go from there. I think this may be what you mean when you say “what is the most important objective we are trying to achieve? What are the two or three most important questions we need to answer to help us achieve it?”