301 - Facilitating High-Stakes Multi-Stakeholder Climate Conversations with Barbara Oliveira

Share your thoughts about our conversation!

When an island is sinking, whose responsibility is it to save? What approach do we take, and who foots the bill?

Big, high-stakes climate conversations always share the same goal: to save the planet. But when a diverse group of stakeholders bring their own interests to the table, tensions naturally arise between the polarity of priorities - and that’s when things start to get a little complicated.

Thankfully, Barbara Oliveira is a master at helping everyone to win. As a lawyer in a past life, she now seeks solutions to Wicked Problems in the climate space, harmonising the rigidity of formal negotiations with the softness of human connection and open exchange.

A thoughtful and motivating conversation, with lots to double-click on, muse upon and learn from Barbara.

Find out about:

• Facilitation through the lens of high-stakes, multi-stakeholder climate conversations
• Powerplay, policies and principles: how to navigate multilateral conversations and negotiations with care
• What lies between the space of Facilitation and Chairing in the climate space
• Why building resilience can keep us present and help us to self-regulate

Links:

Watch the video recording of this episode on YouTube.

Connect to Barbara Oliveira: 

LinkedIn

Website

Support the show

✨✨✨

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive a free 1-page summary of each upcoming episode directly to your inbox, or explore our eBooks featuring 50-episode compilations for even more facilitation insights. Find out more:
https://workshops.work/podcast

✨✨✨

Did you know? You can search all episodes by keyword to find exactly what you need via our Buzzsprout page!

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
What does it take to make workshops work and how can
we facilitate collaboration thatsticks and leads to results?
My name is Miriam Hattness and,with the Workshops Work podcast
, I'm on the mission to find themagic ingredients that make
workshops work.
Today, with me on the show isBarbara Olivier, and we speak
about facilitating in high-levelmulti-stakeholder spaces with a

(00:24):
focus on climate futures andclimate action, and we really
dive into the processes how tofacilitate the change that is
needed to save this planet.
So listen carefully, becausethis is an episode not to miss,
and don't forget to scroll tothe show notes to find more
links to connect to Barbara andto subscribe to the show if you

(00:46):
feel like it.
Thank you for listening.
Hello, barbara, welcome to theshow.

Speaker 3 (00:52):
Thank you.

Speaker 1 (00:53):
Hello, hello.
I am super curious to speakwith you and to hear about
multi-stakeholder meetings, highstakes, climate action, all
these big topics that are morerelevant now than ever.

Speaker 3 (01:10):
Yeah, and we're having this talk just in the
aftermath of the COP 29, whichended this weekend, which is
quite interesting, quite timelyas well.

Speaker 1 (01:19):
Yes, so we are recording this end of November
2024.
Yeah, and before we go there, Iwill start at the beginning.
When did you start callingyourself a facilitator and
actually do you?
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:33):
So I do call myself a facilitator and I've started.
I think I started callingmyself a facilitator back in
2009.
I don't know exactly when orwhich meeting, but I remember
introducing myself as afacilitator or somebody who just
, yeah, create opportunities forpeople who are very different

(01:54):
to meet somewhere that feelsproductive and comfortable
enough to go further.

Speaker 1 (02:01):
Sounds like a guide.

Speaker 3 (02:03):
Yeah, yeah, I had this retreat with my consensus
building community a few monthsago and one of our colleagues, a
friend's beautiful person,asked the question which two are
you as a facilitator andmediator?
And we, all you know, took thatquestion overnight and I
thought I came back the next day.
I think I think I'm a torchovernight and I thought I came

(02:27):
back the next day.
I think I think I'm a torch.
I see myself like sheddinglight when it's dark, and
sometimes a lighthouse.
You know, when participants arein their boats trying to get
somewhere, I'm in the shore,yeah, showing the rocks and
saying, hey, keep on going, keepon going, yeah.
But definitely the idea of likea guide or a torch resonates
with me a lot.

Speaker 1 (02:46):
And I love that.
I love that image you'repainting because it's they know.
For me, it sounds like theyknow the way and what it takes
so they can navigate the boat.
But if they don't see, theywill navigate in the wrong
direction.
So you're not telling themwhere to go or what to do, but
you're helping them to see sothat they can do the work yeah,

(03:09):
exactly, I think as a facilitythey are doing this work.

Speaker 3 (03:13):
For what?
Almost 15 years now, the onething that has grown inside of
myself is really this trust forgroups.
I come from the art of hostingschool, of computation, besides
working formal multi-stakeholdernegotiation processes, and
there is that innate trust inthe wisdom of groups and what
happens is what you know, theonly thing that can have

(03:36):
happened.
Yeah, and I remember learningthat trust a group, trust a
group, trust a group, and I'm alawyer by training.
I was like what are you talkingabout?
Trust a group, trust a group,trust a group, and I'm a lawyer
by training.
I was like what are you talkingabout?
Three versions of the agendaand think of every possible
pitfall and you know, plan fortroubleshooting all kinds of
different things that could gowrong.

(03:56):
And so seeing myself as alighthouse or a torch, trusting
that these are the navigators,they are in the boat together.
I'm not a captain, I'm not evenpart of the boat that these are
the navigators, they are in theboat together.
I'm not a captain, I'm not evenpart of the boat.
I can be invited for coffee ortea, but they know where they're
heading and sometimes thelighthouse also helps them see
that maybe the direction they'regoing is not the most useful,
or they thought they wanted togo that way, but maybe they want

(04:17):
to stop sooner, or maybe theywant to divert course, and
that's also part of it.

Speaker 1 (04:22):
Yeah, beautiful, course, and that's also part of
it.
Yeah, beautiful, and um, Iheard three kind of keywords
that I would love to doubleclick on.
One is and I first list themall three and then maybe you see
where you want to start soundsgood.
I heard you've been a lawyerbefore and you started, or

(04:45):
you're coming from the school ofthought, of the art of hosting,
and you're part of theconsensus building community?
Yeah, and I wonder how thesethree aspects inform the work
that you're doing today withthese complex multi-stakeholder
meetings, especially maybe as alawyer that is paid to have

(05:08):
answers.
Yeah, and the art of hosting,of creating space, and hosting
doesn't sound as sounds morecomfortable and cozy than
multi-stakeholder meeting.
For climate action.
Yeah, and consensus building isit always about consensus?
What are the pitfalls?

(05:30):
So these are my three big onesand I just drop them there and
leave it to you where to go withit yeah, how to make sense of
them.

Speaker 3 (05:38):
So I love how you elaborated on this, because for
me now I think I'm at a placeagain.
I'm almost 48 years old.
I've been doing this for oneand a half decade, working in
different countries withdifferent communities, tackling
different wicked problemsbetween climate change,
biodiversity conservation,energy transitions yeah, so, um,

(06:01):
I think I came to a place inwhich I feel really integrated
and whole.
But for a while, in thebeginning, in the first let's
say five, yeah, until 2012,maybe I felt very born, I guess,
because I felt like I was adouble agent.
Sometimes I was hanging outwith the art of hosting the

(06:21):
Impact Hub, the Innovation Crowdand World Cafes and it's all
like wonderful and so connectingand so creative.
But then how do we followthrough from this?
What are the action points andwhat are we implementing?
And, of course, even in the Artof Hosting, there is a lot of
consistency in implementationand production cafes and we've

(06:43):
gone a long way.
And then I would you know, thenext day or the next weekend,
I'm sitting with the consensusbuilding folks and we are
designing a whole year processto develop policy scenarios for
energy investment at a countrylevel, and then it's all very
formal and the agendas are likereally tight and there is barely
any space for the individual.

(07:03):
It's all like what is thestructure, what is the mandate,
what is the negotiation mandateand what are the different
positions and what are theinterests and where are we
landing and what is the policygoal and how is the policy going
to be implemented?
And I was fine being this doubleagent and just you know,
wearing one hat one day andanother hat the other day, and

(07:24):
having the lawyer, the legalbackground, which has always
been super helpful because it'sso analytical, and I'm always
asking questions and notsettling for the first answer
and wanting to know why and tellme more and what if we do it
this way.
And then I think, when I becamea coach, an integral coach in
2015, things started to cometogether.

(07:44):
And then I startedcross-fertilizing in the
communities and then I becamethe connecting or the connection
expert in the consensusbuilding community and I became
like the designer and the bigvision scenario development
person in the Art of Ocingcommunity and that was really a

(08:06):
beautiful cross-fertilization interms of the tools and mindsets
that the different schools ofthought and facilitation
contribute to actually tacklingthe hardest problems or
challenges in our time.

Speaker 1 (08:22):
Yeah, beautiful.
Thank you for helping us tounderstand this web and how it
all came together, and I thinkit just beautifully also shows
how facilitators all bring intheir different path to then
help groups in very differentways.
Yeah, help groups in verydifferent ways.

(08:48):
Yeah, and maybe you can tell usmore about your work with
multi-stakeholders to tacklethese big problems of our times,
like climate change, becauseand you you mentioned another
keyword that may inspire youranswer the position, roles and
the little space for individuals.
So we have multi-stakeholdersand they're all representing

(09:11):
organizations, countries,institutions.
And I wonder, as facilitators,we all say connection over
content and we first have toconnect on the heart level
before we can go into the heartconversations and before we can
even dream of consensus.
How do you balance that?

Speaker 3 (09:34):
Yeah, it's so interesting when you're talking
about consensus and connection.
I don't think I've ever sharedthat with you in our
conversations, but I started atthe UN.
I worked at the UN level andthe reason why I think I found
my way into facilitation isbecause I was working in Geneva,

(09:54):
the states represented anddiscussing agenda items and all
of that, and I'm one of thosekids that when I was in school
or at university, my goal was tosave the world and work at the
UN.
I don't know if you know whatI'm talking about.

Speaker 1 (10:12):
Yes, I can relate to that.

Speaker 3 (10:15):
And so I'm there like really happy I've made it, I'm
in Geneva.
This is incredible, amazing.
And I'm sitting through thesemeetings and I'm thinking, if
these are the people who aregoing to save the world we are
doomed Like there is no way inthese ways of having a
conversation, there is no waythat we're going to generate the
types of like results andoutcomes that really address

(10:38):
where we are now.
Maybe they did address in the1950s.
There is such an important rolefor the UN in building peace
and bringing hope in the worldthat's devastated by war, two
wars, one after the other, allthe regional wars.
So there is somethingrevolutionary in the
multilateral body in that.

(10:59):
But this is back then, 2006,2007.
And this is like the internetcoming online back then, 2006,
2007.
And this is like the internetcoming online and all the we're
talking like there were 30 yearsof participatory policy
development happening in the US.
You know, since the 1970s,1980s, there were democratized
countries also havingparticipatory fora for policy

(11:21):
development.
So I was like this is not.
I mean, there must be anotherway of doing this right.
So fast forward two years.
I mean this training in theNetherlands, where I live now,
and it was called theInternational Program for the
Management of Sustainability andit was a one week intensive

(11:42):
learning how to dointerest-based negotiations or
the Harvard method onnegotiations, and it was all
about you know, instead ofreading your statement or your
position from your country,let's just understand what is at
stake, what are the goals andhow can we get there and how do
we look at each other asresources versus a burden to

(12:02):
overcome.
So I think that really informedmy even then my lawyering, or I
saw how I saw things.
Instead of seeing others asadversaries, it's like they are
part of the problem.
They are part of the solution,for sure.
Let's see what each one bringsto the table and let's figure
this out.

Speaker 1 (12:18):
We may even disagree what the problem is and still
find a way to agree on thesolution and what I hear is a
massive mindset shift from alawyer who's usually playing, I
would say, a zero-sum game.
Whereas one loses, one winsyeah at least that's, I think,

(12:39):
the ambition of a lawyer goinginto court yeah, a litigator to
suddenly find looking forsolutions where everyone can win
yeah.

Speaker 3 (12:49):
I agree with you and I think it also comes from a
value system.
So because I grew up in thatmindset, you know that the kid
wants to save the world and workat the UN.
From day one in law school, Ifound the whole idea of me
having to win For me to win, youhave to lose very strange.
So I was like, well, why wouldI do that?

(13:11):
And I didn't have words forthose things or I couldn't name
it.
But it's like I want topreserve the relationship as
well, and I remember all mycivil procedure or criminal
procedure teachers, this justsaying you don't need to
negotiate on this, you're goingto win, like the law is on your
side, the decisions on the court, jurisprudence on your side.
But I don't want to win, I wantto solve the problem.

(13:32):
It's a different thing and Iwant to have it solved for a
long time.
Like to keep nurturing this, somoving even.
As you know, as facilitators wehave such an important role
helping participants also movefrom a zero-sum game thinking
into a win-win or value creation.

(13:52):
People say, oh, win-win is toonaive.
Okay, great, a value creationmindset.
Is there value to be created?
What are you bringing?
What am I bringing.
Let's just expand this and I'llmeet my goals.
By having allowing you to meetyour goals, yeah, does that make
sense to you?
What do you?

Speaker 1 (14:10):
think, yeah, I can totally see the mindset shift
and the the desire to do that.
And and now I wonder how canthis become possible?
Because on the small scale, yes, I can see it happening in
workshops, with the individualsat the organizational levels.
And now you make me even morecurious how this works on a

(14:37):
global scale, with multilateralnegotiations or conversations
where and I think especially forclimate everyone comes in with
yes, of course we have the samegoal and to save the climate and
for everyone.
Something else is, somethingdifferent is at stake and the

(14:59):
costs are not equallydistributed.

Speaker 3 (15:02):
Yeah, I would put a question mark after the question
Do we have the same goal?
Like I don't like.
Oh my, this is such a huge, somany things to you know, untie
there.
I find there are various levelsof divergence in the climate
conversation.
So we are dealing with thetension between short-term and

(15:23):
long-term action.
One of the most entrencheddiscussions in international law
, which is the common butdifferentiated responsibilities,
or the historicalresponsibility for the emissions
, and who pays the bill, isanother big question, right,
what is the equity versusequality issue?
If I were to look at thenegotiations, not from a legal

(15:44):
perspective and all the issuesI've just described, but from a
process perspective and howconversations are organized, I
noticed that there is a lot ofspace for discussing losses and
people giving up things and howmuch is that going to cost, and
more and more like how much doesit cost to adapt, not only to

(16:06):
give up fossil fuels or to giveup our ways of living, but also
how much does it cost to adaptand to transition into a new way
of living, and the compensationfor those who have suffered the
losses or who are in dangerbecause of the climate change.
And I wonder where is the spacefor the visioning, like I don't

(16:26):
remember the last climateconversation that I was in in a
more formal setting, that therewas a one and a half hour
introduction.
So let's all envision a worldin which we've made it.
We've made it like we've, wewere together.
Look at the person sitting byyour side.
This person made it with youand you were together and you

(16:47):
made it happen.
How does this world look like?
And of course, there are manypeople working on this, but I'm
talking about where decisionsare being made and from that
vision, that unifying visionwith some differences, maybe we
walk backwards and say, okay, sowhat had to happen?
When, by when and how?
And then a discussion ontrade-offs.

(17:08):
And for that discussion, it's afacilitated discussion with
modelists, and you're aneconomist, so run the models and
let's look at the trade-offs,and not only economic costs, but
social costs, environmentalcosts, cultural costs.
And then let's discuss what arethe criteria for making
decisions.
Is it equity, is it ancestralknowledge?

(17:31):
Is it protecting culturalheritage?
Is it the options that protectfuture generations the most?
And then we're not discussingthe criteria, only negotiating a
tit for tat bunch of solutions.
So, at the multilateral level,it would be incredible for that
to happen, but that can alreadyhappen in the country level, in

(17:55):
regional levels, among statesthat have commonalities, like
the EU, for example, and that isthe work that I have been doing
for many years, also developingthose scenarios or not
developing, helping thosescenarios be developed for
people to have thoseconversations.

Speaker 1 (18:14):
Yeah, and what I hear and what you describe.
Thank you so much for guidingus through that.
I had a lot of light bulbmoments and one specifically is
that, by boiling it down to aprocess level, you're taking the
emotional load out of theconversation, where it's not

(18:36):
about who pays what and who hassuffered and who is defending
their own stakes, but it's okay.
What are the commondenominators and what are the
criteria we want to agree uponand to have set that first and
then go into the models and lookat the data and see okay, if we
agree on the vision and themain criteria, what does it then

(18:59):
mean and how can we negotiatethen the implementation of the
details?

Speaker 3 (19:04):
yeah, I think you're spot on to make it more workable
.
You're trying to make somethinghuge and very complex and,
according to some intractable,workable, and I wouldn't.
I wouldn't say that theemotions do not belong, I would
just say that then they wouldhave, like a place for that to
be welcomed.

(19:24):
You know, like they're notsomething that gets mixed up
with the conversation, thatthere is no money available, you
know, but oh, I'm drowning, myisland is going to disappear,
and then the person says, well,great, but it it would cost five
billion and I only have 200million available.
I mean, what kind ofconversation is that?
You know, yeah, like okay.
So if that is gonna likelyhappen, what are we going to do

(19:47):
about that?
What is our vision of how?
Then?
We're going to talk aboutmigration, all kinds of
different things, but we are onthis together.
Like, my job is not to fend youoff, my job is to think through
with you and commit to thisvision together.
But emotions are very, veryimportant and they I think they
if well explored and well, howis the word facilitated?

(20:11):
Let's just see where itcontained.
Yeah, contained in a positiveway, not like suppressed or
repressed, but they are, yeah,they have a container well held.
They lead us to needs.
You know as to what are theneeds behind these emotions.
They lead us to grievances.
You know where?
Where have we not abide by ourvalues, where have we not abide

(20:35):
by these principles we've justdiscussed, and so that is.

Speaker 1 (20:40):
You know, that is a real conversation as well yeah,
fascinating, and I would love tocome back to the emotions and
to the individuals who actuallysit there.
And before that, just one moremoment on the process, because,
as you explained, all theimplications of, okay, the, the
island might disappear, okay, wedon't have enough budget, and

(21:03):
then we have the issues ofmigration, we have the issues of
cultural heritage, of sharedresponsibility, it seems as so
what I can connect it to is anorganization that sees one issue
that they're losing marketshare, whatever and then a

(21:24):
consultant comes in or afacilitator and peels the onion
and actually shows everythingthat is related to that, and
while everyone is focused tojust solve this one problem, how
can we save the island?
Suddenly you have theconversation about values,
priorities, systems, evaluationmethods, who decides, or how

(21:47):
does it then come?
Because it almost looks like aflowchart.
Yeah, that you want to go backto the highest level as possible
, to really start there and thengo down and to discuss the next
level whenever it's appropriate, and that you can only discuss
when you have agreed upon thehigher levels, and I can imagine

(22:08):
, from what I observe in humandynamics, is that's far too
complex.
Let's talk about the budgetagain.
Yes, because it's so mucheasier, but then you have to
constantly get them on the roadand put them up on the meta
level again.
How does it work?

Speaker 3 (22:25):
yeah, well, you've just oh, my god, you've just
nailed first, you've just now.
I have a light bulb here and Iwas like, yeah, that's a very
good question.
Who is framing these things?
And I think I'm gonna go intothat in one second.
So I'm thinking, oh, that'ssuch a beautiful question.
The other thing is like you'vebeen working in complexity for

(22:47):
decades now, right, as aneconomist, as a facilitator, and
we know all the heuristics oflike, how the human mind shies
away from complexity, how we tryto break down the parts and
simplify things, and that is whyI strongly advocate for
facilitation, professionalfacilitation.
In such processes, thefacilitator is a key instrument

(23:09):
for holding complexity, orcreating ways for complexity to
be a little more digestible forthe groups, or less scary, or
yeah.
So there is something aboutholding that complexity and I
know you want to go there.
So where is the individual onthis?
Where is the human developmenton this?

(23:30):
And let's talk about that aswell, because it's the one thing
that started keeping me awakeat night over the last five
years.
Like, where does trauma comeinto these conversations?
Am I hosting conversations witha bunch of people who are
completely numb?
They're not listening.
The people are saying, you know, I don't have a home anymore
because of, uh, of thetorrential rain and landslides,

(23:52):
and they're like, oh, okay,great.
Next, people are completelynumb.
So either we go like this isabout power, they don't care
about us, or we're just like, oh, my god, they are numb.
We should have an interventionfor all a bunch of somatic um
experienced therapists to helppeople come out of their hypo
arousal um window.

(24:13):
You know of tolerance, the lackof tolerance, but anyway, so we
were talking about yeah, so youwere you mentioned about um
who's doing the process, whoframes it?
And then you asked me somethingelse.
You said there was a pieceabout framing and the other
piece was about Because I saidI'm going to start with that.

Speaker 1 (24:33):
It slipped, because now you caught me on the corner.

Speaker 3 (24:36):
Yeah we weren't there , so never mind.
So we'll just start with thebeginning, okay.
That's why I find negotiationsskills and negotiations theory
so vital for this type offacilitation.
Whoever frames the conversationholds a lot of power, and
whoever holds a lot of powerends up framing the conversation

(24:56):
.
So I advocate for participatoryprocesses at the country level,
at the UN level, at themulti-state, like when you think
of intergovernmental levels, sothat the framing of these
conversations can be revisited,because by now we're having
conversations, let's say, aroundclimate change, in the

(25:18):
international fora.
That follows a structure thatwas negotiated in 1992, when the
world was very different, andthen in 2004 and then 2008 and
then 2015.
But there is a whole framingthat was done by experts in
climate policy, plus the UNSecretariat, plus the states

(25:39):
that have negotiated theframework agreement in which we
keep developing things and, withthe amount of climate data, we
have the types of interests thatdifferent groups that do not
participate at the governmentallevel have.
we're talking about youth,unborn generations, elderly,

(26:00):
those in marginalizedcommunities, those in the most
vulnerable countries and areasin which I would say, well, good
question, let's just reframethis conversation and see where
we end.
Right and that there is a lotof that's when loss and damage
came in and the conversationaround equity.
And there is another thingwhich is the anchoring effect in

(26:20):
negotiations effect innegotiations.
So whoever, puts the firstproposal or make.
The first step is anchoring onnumbers, on ambition, on how
much you invest.
So I'd say that maybe.
Well, there has been what 30years that we've been having
these conversations at themultilateral level and I wonder

(26:42):
if it's time for a reset.
Yeah, I hadn't thought aboutthis.
I told you let's let's discusswhere we can facilitate these
conversations because, um, themultilateral negotiations level
is not one that has been.
Really.
It has a lot of sharing, butnot facilitation, as we call it
with the capital f, you know,where people connect and we

(27:04):
think of vision and we share ourfears and we mourn together and
we grieve and we dream.
It's been very formal aroundpositions and a lot more
collaboration and participatorypolicy development happens in
the countries, in countries andlocal government level.

Speaker 1 (27:24):
And that's a very interesting aspect.
Do you think it is because of alack of understanding the
facilitator could bring to theprocess, so that they don't
believe, maybe, in thecompetence or expertise or in
the potential value afacilitator could bring

(27:48):
expertise or in the potentialvalue a facilitator could bring?
Or is it because the system isso much in the mindset of
negotiating and zero sum thatthere's a lack of trust that who
appoints this facilitator, whowill then again have a lot of
power?
Because if you drive theprocess, if you hold the
framework, there's a lot oftrust.
There's a lot of power, becauseif you drive the process, if
you hold the framework, there'sa lot of trust.

Speaker 3 (28:10):
There's a lot of power as well, even if you don't
define what happens within that.
Yeah, I wouldn't know.
It's a good point.
I think that theintergovernmental regimes,
they're really founded in statesovereignty, so in that sense
the chair is one of the state,one representative of a state,
so they're among peers and it'sa system that's been done in

(28:32):
diplomacy since a long time.
So if you think of mediation.
Popes used to mediate conflictslike a thousand years ago.
So it's a peer system and Iknow of different processes in
which chairs have hiredfacilitators as support and the
facilitator is more on thebackground and they're like
helping ask good questions, aspowerful questions create some

(28:56):
moments of interaction.
That is more informal but it'sI remember doing things for
international organizations atthe national level.
They have like everything is onrecord.
There is no brainstorming.
You know all statements areread and recorded.
So when you frame thisconversation as like
multi-stakeholder processes,high stake conversations, is

(29:18):
because everything is on record.
So where is the space for justcreative thinking and, as we're
saying, interest-basednegotiations, like creating,
without committing, andanalyzing the various
possibilities?
What is the value thatdifferent parties are bringing
to the table before you youactually go to into agreement

(29:41):
negotiations?

Speaker 1 (29:42):
yeah, and then what is the role of the individual as
opposed to the role?
Because I can imagine from whatyou explain now, everything has
been preset.
So every individual isrepresenting their organization,
their institution, theircountry.
So they're coming in carryingthe responsibility to represent
as best as they can.

(30:03):
So there's, from what Iunderstand or how I imagine it,
very little wiggle room.
If they're invited tobrainstorm, this means letting
go of this army of people whohave been involved in preparing
the representative and thenstarting and basically putting

(30:24):
the trust in this representativethat they can be in the moment
and develop to the best of theirknowledge, representing
everyone.

Speaker 3 (30:33):
Yeah, and usually those positions are the outcome
of, like, very tightnegotiations at home as well.
If you think of the person whorepresents the European Union.
Like you know, 26 states havesat down and spent months trying
to come to that one position,so they have very little leeway.
And that's where the innovationhappens, not in that forum.

(30:55):
It happens before it happens inBrussels.
It happens in amulti-stakeholder forum on
energy or energy transitions forthe European landscape, or
places where you can reallygather industry and academia and
youth groups and governmentrepresentatives and CSOs to look

(31:17):
the way I was describing before.
What is the vision, where do wewant to be together and what are
the pieces, the parts of thepuzzles that each one of us are
bringing to make that a reality?
And how are we going to dealwith trade-offs?
Because there is no free lunch,so there is no way that change
will not affect different groups.

(31:37):
That will change the waybusinesses are done, and that is
a whole different, like anexpanded conversation into how
we're framing the future as well, and decolonization and all of
that.
How long is the facilitation uh, hooking that?

(31:57):
Because I think one of theroles we have as facilitators is
also to explicit those values,the values that inform the
different world views.
there is so much conversationand discourse that's based on
automatism and things that we'rerepeating and we don't know,
because it's the buzzword that'son LinkedIn or on the latest

(32:18):
report of this organization orthat organization, and I think,
having worked with differentminorities and different groups,
like indigenous groups, womenrights groups, there is always
that question what is this inservice of?
What is this narrative?
What is behind this narrative?
You know, and there issometimes, even when we talk

(32:39):
about building futures there issuch an imprint of business as
usual we're going to change theway we produce, but we're not
going to change consumptionlevels, we're not going to
change how we deal with the endof life product, and that's
still why I thinkmulti-stakeholder collaboration
is so important, because that'swhen those questions will be

(33:00):
asked yeah, they will be asked.

Speaker 1 (33:02):
And then the question is how much space for
innovation is there then in theconversation?
If, if there is no time topause, to bring everything on
the maybe on a one level, up onthe meta level, to assess, okay,
what are the values of theprinciples that we derive this
conversation from, and I wonderwhat you would think what, what

(33:27):
kind of principles would have tochange so that it might become
possible to actually shift gearsand to maybe it's a wrong word
but empower the representativesso that they can engage in more
innovative conversations.

Speaker 3 (33:46):
Yeah, I'm so loving it that we arrived at the
conversation on principles andvalues, and I know you've had
other guests in this podcastthat talked about
principle-based facilitation andI find making those values
explicit and working throughpolarity management, for example
, in which we're looking, if wemake a decision in this

(34:06):
situation under these values,what does it look like?
Under those values?
What does it look like?
So is there, you know, a third,and that is not a conversation
about values in abstract, it'slike these are the colors in
which we interpret this way ofbeing, and I would say this is
me going back kind of with mylegal DNA or the legal.

(34:30):
It's like the river right, theunder, like the underwater.
Undercurrent river right theunder, like the underwater and
the current, yeah, theundercurrent.
I can come out of the legalprofession, but it's it doesn't
leave me necessarily.
So I think the one principlethat I have been holding very
dear to my heart is theintergenerational peace, and
what does it mean to makedecisions now that will protect

(34:53):
life on the planet sevengenerations from now?
So this is the, the work thatfolks, colleagues at cl, done
with a bunch of other beautifulorganizations called the
maastricht principles, therights of future generations,
and, I think I think, anythingthat I sit down and facilitate
and if I'm able to offer thatyou know I'm not the one I'm

(35:16):
offering the principles or maybein the contract phase, like,
what are you discussing here?
What are you making decisionsbased on?
I would find that if we'retalking about equity, this is,
yeah, those principles are theones to to be holding dear when
we're having these discussions,at whatever level we're talking.

Speaker 1 (35:36):
And I was reflecting on guiding principles and values
a lot recently as we closed wehad the last NDB festival and
realizing that we had threeguiding principles risk, respect
and generosity and everythingthat has evolved came out of
these guiding principles.
Everything that has evolvedcame out of these guiding

(35:58):
principles and realizing thewasted opportunity of many
organizations by just puttingthe principles or their values
on the wall but not nurturingthem in a way that they are
driving decision-making andfacilitating decision-making.
To what extent are theprinciples then, on this higher
level, present, or also justwords on the wall?

Speaker 3 (36:19):
yeah, in the climate regime, in the climate
negotiations, most of theprinciples, they are in the
preamble to the agreement, tothe unfccc agreement, and as a
policymaker and a lawyer, youstudy those things.
So every preamble to anagreement, this is, yeah, the
Vienna Convention on the Law ofTreaties.
This is me back at my you know,public international law.

(36:42):
When I was a teacher so I'mlaughing here I was like these
things don't leave my bodyAnyway.
So you always interpret anagreement, an international
agreement, in light to thepreamble and the principles
therein.
And international law itselfhas many principles as well that
are aimed at protecting lifeand keeping peace and all of
those things.
So we're not in lack ofprinciples.

(37:05):
They are there, they have beenwell-designed, they can be
reinterpreted in light of theworld we live in now, which is a
decolonial world in which we'retalking about equity.
In a decolonial world in whichwe're talking about equity in a
very different way, in whichwe're talking about repairing
historical harm.
And that leads us to theindividual is like, how can we

(37:26):
prepare the people whoparticipate in these processes
to be resilient for theseconversations?
And that's where I see so I'vetalked about the facilitator as
a negotiator, right, see.
So I've talked about thefacilitator as a negotiator,
right, and now I want to talkabout the facilitator as a coach
.
And how can you have, how canfacilitators work with
colleagues that are able tocreate spaces that are safe

(37:48):
enough for inner transformation,brave enough for exploring
what's on the undercurrent, butsafe enough for any
transformation?
And also our ability to holdboth what's at the surface and
what are the outcomes and thedecisions that are being made,
and what is in this individualcollective, because it's
collective trauma, butindividual, collective layer.

Speaker 1 (38:12):
And it's the second time that you use the word
trauma, so I would love todouble click on that and also on
.
I realized that I'm verypeculiar on words today.
Yeah, on resilience.
What do you mean by resilience?
To prepare them, to build theresilience?
Is it because of thefrustration that comes through

(38:33):
these conversations and thatthey have to stick to their
vision and the purpose why theyshowed up in the first place?

Speaker 3 (38:41):
what is the resilience about so, miriam, in
the facilitations you lead, whenpeople are not interested in
the conversation or they can'tcope with the conversation, what
do they do?
What do you see them doing?
They, disturb.

Speaker 1 (38:55):
They withdraw disturb .
Why are we talking about that?
There's no sense in this.
Anyway, they leave or theystart discussing about something
that is granular, yeah, andtangible, to divert the
conversation.

Speaker 3 (39:08):
It's my experience exactly in my experience in
these settings they just checkout.
Sometimes they check outbecause they have another
negotiation form that they canget things done.
Or they check out because theyfeel they're very powerful, so
they don't need to be engaged inthis, they don't actually need
this to happen.
Or they check out becausethey're way too busy and this is

(39:29):
too much and let's not engagewith this right.
So if you have participantsthat are still disturbing you,
you're the lucky ones becausethey're still active and their
energy is in the room.
So I think when I wasdiscussing, like when I brought
the idea of resilience, what Iwas referring to is creating a
space in which they're ablepeople are still able to
self-regulate and co-regulate,so that when discussions get

(39:53):
uncomfortable, let's say, we'retalking about the energy
transition and it was all aboutmegawatts generation, and all of
a sudden there is a group thatsays, yeah, but you're creating.
You're actually Brazil, forexample.
You're generating all theenergy in the North and we are
indigenous peoples and we livein the North and we don't have
electricity, because all theelectricity goes to the South.

(40:13):
So it's generated there, but itdoesn't stay there.
So we have an equity issue.
What does a person in aposition of power would do is
like, oh yeah, that's veryinteresting, but it's not my
domain.
I don't do energy policy.
I'm just here talking aboutenergy generation.
Or they'll say, oh, thank youfor saying that, and they move
on to something.

(40:34):
And resilience allows me to bepresent, to self-regulate, to
feel.
If I feel like ouch and thereis an error, an error coming
through me, I was like, really,tell me more.
I'm so sorry, that's yourexperience.
So, wow, there is an issue here.
Where are we generating theenergy and where is the energy
arriving and how equitable isthat?

(40:54):
So let's put it on the wall asa theme.
It's not mine, I'm just theenergy company.
Why would I put that on thewall?
But there is this sense thatwhat is in the space belongs to
all of us.
It's not only my point or theirpoint, and as a facilitator, I
can just help make them land onthe wall very elegantly and

(41:14):
swiftly, instead of saying well,but the energy company said I
can just say, oh, that that.
Thank you so much forhighlighting that, john.
So it's a person, not the hatanymore, and I just put and
that's where the neutralitycomes in.

Speaker 1 (41:30):
That's so important in a facilitator.
Yeah, and you spoke abouttrauma and I think there are
many levels of trauma and I twopodcast episodes recently also
about different levels of traumainformed facilitation, trauma,
informed design and now we arespeaking about collective trauma
.
I assume, yes, populations ofcountries.

(41:52):
How does this play a role andhow can you take this into
account in these, in thiscontext, as a facilitator?

Speaker 3 (42:02):
yeah.
So if you hear colleagues inthe trauma fields speaking,
especially this year, they keepsaying how, like climate change
is the biggest manifestation ofcollective trauma.
Right, thomas hobo says that,um, and it's like there is so
much hurt and so much grief thathas not been lived through and
named that basically justdestroying the planet through

(42:23):
our inability to absorb newinformation, to relate to others
, to find common ground, to carefor the planet.
So I stay either on reactivity,anger, fighting or flight, or
I'm numb and meanwhile theplanet is burning.
And so if we look at this fromthis perspective, and also
decolonization and thehistorical grievances that are

(42:46):
really showing up now as we talkabout the climate impacts, I
find that healthy conversationsaround climate, even if it's
energy policy or transportationpolicy, include our grief, our
collective grief, grief as tohow inept we've been to deal
with this or how we've adoptedways of production, producing,

(43:09):
consuming that landed us in theplace where we are now.
But it doesn't end there.
That's why I said theconversation doesn't end in
emotions or grief.
There is the role of beauty intransforming that, in
transcending that.
So I find that in highlycharged conversations in policy
development with very diversegroups, slowing down is a

(43:33):
trauma-informed approach.
Groups slowing down is atrauma-informed approach.
Slowing down for people to meeteach other, having good food,
having beauty, you know,bringing art caring for the body
, yeah care for the body.
Is it a comfortable chair?
Are we sitting outside enough?
Many intergovernmentalnegotiations happen in rooms

(43:54):
without windows.
Like, how can you create anybeauty out of that?
So it's so, like if you go backto the process as a place, so
place as part of process.
Where are we meeting?
Are we honoring the traditionsof that place?
Do we have enough time forstorytelling?
Do we start with somebodyopening?

(44:16):
For example, I hosted abioeconomy summit a year ago in
Brazil with all the Amazoniancountries and I told them from
the beginning this is sacredland, so let's invite indigenous
groups to open for us.
And at the beginning I thinkpeople thought, yeah, they're
going to say, hey, welcome, youknow, on behalf of our land.

(44:39):
And then, of course, the ideais that the indigenous groups
would open in their way.
So they open in a way that theywould sing and dance and invoke
ancestrals.
And the beginning was anopening speech format, so it had
15 minutes on the agenda, butthe opening and the ways that
those people opened took one anda half hour, and it's just the

(45:00):
way it is and that is part ofthe slowing down, you know.
And it was such a beautifulsummit in which the organizers
invite Amazonian artists todisplay their art and there were
women, indigenous womenpainters who had their painting
exhibited.
And so you think, oh, but youknow that's so small compared to

(45:23):
all we have to catch up.
I said, yeah, but it's notnothing.
It's, this is slowing down.

Speaker 1 (45:28):
This is a lot of places to come in yeah, and it's
a yeah, bringing into the space, making aware.
Yeah, just as a short tangent.
How did the participants andthe organizers react when they
realized, okay, this is not a 15minutes opening, it's taking
one and a half hours.
And what was the impact on theconversations from that?

Speaker 3 (45:49):
As the facilitator if those conversations happened.
I was not there because Ialready had the agenda B,
because I already knew.
So the rest of the facilitationteam was already ready to work
in a certain timeframe thatallowed for that to happen, you
know.
Yeah.
Yeah, so that was the.
So I think I just kept smilingand nodding like everything's

(46:10):
fine, don't worry, and thenwe're all in the.
In that place and I must say,like the organizers was also
like a group of women who wereincredible and very, very
sensitive so yeah, because I canimagine that nobody remains
untouched, no something likethat, especially if they've
never experienced it.

(46:31):
And then suddenly there's somecontext yeah and maybe some
urgency in the space and ithappens in ways that it's
exactly what you mentioned.
It's not because people heardthat they're like now we have to
do something, it's from insideout.
So there was this, you knowwhen, when, like it dropped,

(46:53):
like the energy level dropped toa level of presence and this is
like 150, 180 participants andI could feel like there was
something sacred happening atthat moment.
And people were just landingand it's not cognitive, and then
it's almost like someplaceinside of them that's ancestral
and that knows the land andknows they son or a daughter of

(47:15):
the land is awakened by thatexperience.
And I know that has happened inother multilateral meetings and
other type of like high stakesconversations and negotiations.
That happens in sacred land, andevery land is sacred, but it
happens in sacred land thatpeople are aware of the
importance of doing that andthen you allow participants,

(47:37):
again by slowing down time, tobe present in a different way
and you bring dance, you bringmusic, you bring art, you bring
walking in nature as a you know,after lunch activity, visioning
.
I heard colleagues they hadsweat lodges, you know, like
shamanic sweat lodges for andpeople do fires for storytelling

(48:01):
, honoring their ancestors, andyou can do that in Latin America
, of course have the Amazon, butif you have a summit also in
the Lapland or in very northernparts of Europe I mean the
Arctic you also have the wisdomof the local indigenous people,
and so it's everywhere.

Speaker 1 (48:21):
Yeah, and especially in Europe, we often forget that.
Yeah.
And I parked the individualsand the emotions quite a while
ago.
Get them out of the drawer.
How do we allow the space, orwhere do you draw the line

(48:41):
between the individual, therepresentative, allow the
emotions in without deluding, orwhere is time and space for
emotions and the individual, andwhere is time and space for
emotions and the individual, andwhere is time and space for the
role and the representative?

Speaker 3 (49:00):
yeah, so I think process again becomes very
important, right?
So you are.
We're here talking about groundrules.
Are people present as you know,their own person, or are they
present as representatives?
And if they're present as both,do they want to name it?
Now I'm speaking with this hatand process again.
Are you offering people hatsthat if they're speaking as a

(49:22):
representative, they'll justtake a cap?
I've had not me.
I've seen this done before thatpeople had caps and then you
could know when they werespeaking as representatives
beautiful and it's making theimplicit explicit.
Oh, totally explicit, Exactly.
Another thing that I findreally important is it's one
thing if you're hosting adialogue and in dialogue we're

(49:45):
there to get to know each other,to exchange there is no
decision-making mandate.
You can have an agenda forcollaboration as an outcome or
topics that come up for furtherdiving in, but if you have a
summit and there is adecision-making power making
that power explicit, what is themandate?
How are we going to makedecisions?

(50:06):
Is it by consensus?
Is it by consent?
Is it two-thirds majority?
Are we voting first?
Are we voting as less resource?
Do I have a right to disagreeor to just leave a note on the
final agreement that I disagree?
And so in these settings, manytimes the decision making, there
is either a governance systemin which the group is making

(50:28):
recommendations for a councilthat will make a decision or
that will make the finalrecommendations for the
policymakers, or you are goingfor consensus-based rules with
the right to leave notes onthings you disagree.
Let's say right.
And I find that, for situationsthat include decision-making,

(50:49):
that clarity about the mandateof the representative is really
needed.
Are they showing up with thepower to make decisions or are
they going to go back to theirwe say capital, or to their
company or to their organizationto have a final approval.
Because if that is clear, thenwe know what the representative
is bringing forward, whetherit's something they can stand by

(51:13):
or if it's just a bunch ofideas or part of brainstorming,
you know.
Yeah, and I was just thinkingthat many of the meetings happen
with some sort of public ormedia there that's such a big,
big issue because we want to betransparent in many of the
situations and other situations,to say no media today, no media

(51:37):
until there is an agreement, oronly media with an official
statement that is approved byeveryone.
So it is a delicate one,because you really want to be
transparent.
So what I've seen work betterand better.
Imagine processes in whichyou're developing energy policy
or energy transition policy, forexample.

(51:57):
It's not a one-off meeting,right?
So you have a bunch of meetingsand you start by diverging,
creating multiple options,assessing the criteria for
choice.
Then you are choosing, then youare assessing the implications
of the choices that were madetrade-offs, who loses, what is
acceptable or not and then youadopt or send it for adoption.

(52:18):
So that could take fivemeetings, four meetings and the
whole process.
So the idea is that in betweenmeetings there is always
information that goes out to thepublic and that's also how some
of the parties that are notparticipating in those
negotiations can influence, canlobby, can call, can have their

(52:39):
say, because you never have aprocess in which everybody
participates.
You always have like 100, 150,200 participants.
So you may have 15 CSOs, ngosparticipating, but from a
universe of 200.
So you have others that want toinfluence the process, and so
what I find most exciting andyou can see that because I love

(52:59):
this stuff, I love it is whenyou do this type of design and
this type of multi-stakeholderprocesses is that one of the
indicators I have of success isthat for every one thing that
happens in the room, nine thingshappen outside.
So I facilitated this process inBrazil 2014 and 15 about.

(53:19):
It's called MAPS, so it'smitigation action planning
scenario.
So, long story short.
It was about various optionsfor mitigation in climate change
in Brazil and what were theimplications of those policy
choices for the economy and forsocial goals that Brazil had
Employment equality, genderequality all of that and what I

(53:43):
saw happening is 150 peopleworking in the room, six
meetings, one and a half year, ateam of like 40 modelists
developing the policy options,running the models, and all of
that, the Minister ofEnvironment picking up on the
recommendations.
But there were many likeconflicts or disagreements
between participants that weresometimes historical, like they
had, you know, had not seen eyeto eye for like years.

(54:05):
And then, because they'reworking together on this, all
kinds of different initiativesstarted popping up, a coalition
on this and, uh, you know the,the 23 industry organizations
working on um communique forparis and the ngos developing a
strategy for I don't know what,and of course I cannot report to

(54:28):
the donor that.
You know this is what happenedbecause of this process, because
there was a philanthropistfinancing this for the Ministry
of Environment.
But it was a big, big, bigsuccess because, you know, the
goal of the multi-stakeholdercollaboration is to create
change.
So if these people meet eachother and trust each other and
find ways to create even betteroutcomes for the country, the

(54:52):
better yeah, and that reallyfurther collaboration emerge
through that.

Speaker 1 (54:59):
That maybe and this also puts into perspective this
one thing, because then, even ifthat may fail, or maybe the,
the outcome is not as gloriousas we thought it would be.
There there are all these microchanges and opportunities.

Speaker 3 (55:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (55:15):
Beautiful.

Speaker 3 (55:16):
Yeah, it's super exciting.

Speaker 1 (55:18):
And then it's yeah interesting.
This is an absolute tangentcould lead us to a different
conversation.
How to measure success?
Because, as you say, you don'treport this to the donor or to
the sponsor and you cannotreally follow up on that either
because it's out of your controlor hands, and still we might

(55:42):
have our kpis on how to measuresuccess of these set of meetings
yeah there's so much beyondthat and I think there is a big
parallel to organizations.
Precisely.
Where this could happen.
Yeah, that is totally ignored.

Speaker 3 (55:58):
Huh yeah, sometimes you have a meeting in an
organization that you're tryingto decide on project X, but
because of that meeting otherthings got solved or people
would not have met, sat down andcreated a new product, or
Suddenly realized that they havemore commonalities or they have
a shared vision on somethingelse and they take it into a
different direction.

Speaker 1 (56:19):
Beautiful.
What remains your facilitationchallenge?

Speaker 3 (56:24):
yeah, what remains my facilitation challenge.
I feel that the one thing thatI've been working on ever since
I started was devolving power sothat this idea of the torch is
more and more and more embodied.
Because I was a lawyer when Istarted, I felt everything was
my responsibility, so I wouldoverprepare and I would follow

(56:47):
up with everyone and I wouldproduce the best report the
soonest so they wouldn't losemomentum.
And now I work very strongly inidentifying the people who are
torchbearers like in the group,who can be whether there is a
formal governance system or aninformal one who have the
influence with the stakeholdersto keep mobilizing for action,

(57:08):
want to take responsibility forco-creating the agendas, but
we'll take this forward longafter I'm gone.
That is, yeah, power.
We talk about power over powerwith.
I'm thinking of power through,so that ownership is really
shared.
And what?

Speaker 1 (57:27):
are your strategies then?
To, because it's relationshipbuilding.

Speaker 3 (57:31):
It's very strategic yeah, it's strategic and, at the
same time, clarity, right thatthis is a goal.
I don't do this um, it's not ahidden agenda, like from the
beginning I just say, well, thisis your process.
So I want to be able for you tounderstand this as much as you
can from minute one, and I willbe reaching out to people and if

(57:53):
you're interested to be one ofthe ambassadors or you know
torchbearers or something, justreach out and to make things.
I'm very focused on makingthings as explicit as I can.
Another thing that has been agoal of mine for a few years is
also to have fun, because if Ijust hang on to the heaviness of

(58:14):
this work and what is at stakeit's high stakes, facilitation
and like, if we don't have adecent policy, at the end you
know the world is gonna end.
And so for me, my Buddhistpractice really helped me, like
the, the idea of you know, likeinterconnectedness, that the
earth is leading things and I'mjust here working, that, like

(58:35):
you know, she's big and I'msmall, that really kind of
crowns me.
I don't think it would be doingthis work because I've burned
out before.
So for me to be able to do thiswork in a caring only what's
mine to carry.
Spirituality has been veryimportant yeah.

Speaker 1 (58:52):
And coming back to the resilience, yes and yeah,
carry only what's your to yoursto carry beautiful.
And I think it's so difficultto distinguish sometimes because
we get carried on, or and thenthere's obviously our own vision
and maybe activism or highergoals coming.

Speaker 3 (59:16):
And you've just named it, I think.
Another thing I think has madea huge difference in my life as
a facilitator, doing this work,is to have my consensus building
community in which we havebuddies and we can debrief
processes.
And then that is one of thequestions so who suffered there?
Was it the facilitator, you orthe activist?
You welcome activist me.

(59:40):
There is no shame for thecoaching question yeah, come
just have tea with me I can seeyou're hurting and that that
ability to hold that becausethere is if.
If you say there is neutrality,I don't think there is
neutrality.
I think there is impartialityand holding things in ways that
I'm including every voice wherethere is process in service of

(01:00:03):
everyone and in service of themain outcome Right.
But like all the time, I'mnoticing my own beliefs and what
I think.
I'm also a climate expert, sowhat I think should be the way
forward.
And I'm just sitting there andI'm like, oh, I wouldn't do it
this way, let's see where itlands.
But that self-compassion tojust say, oh, the activists in
me would have really liked this,so I don't put that under the

(01:00:27):
rug, it's really there.
And sometimes, at the end ofthe day, my inner activist does
need a bubble bath Because it'sbeen a tough day, but the inner
facilitator is really happybecause what happened is what
could have happened.

Speaker 1 (01:00:39):
Yeah, I hear the self-awareness and humility and
curiosity to stay open all thetime and ask the questions.
Thank you, before I ask the,because I'm so curious and I'm
watching the time, so before Iasked my last questions I would
be curious and maybe there is anutshell to it.
I think it could be a very longanswer.

(01:01:01):
Maybe there's a nutshell.
How did you make the transitionfrom your legal profession to
becoming a coach and afacilitator and now it sounds as
if you're living your dream?

Speaker 3 (01:01:15):
Yeah, it's so beautiful to hear you say that,
because I really love what I do.
So that is living the dream.
And I find it kind ofinteresting because I do coach a
lot of like CSO leaders, andthese are folks that I end up
finding in the room when I'mfacilitating or end up
facilitating their teams ormulti-stakeholder consortium or

(01:01:37):
multi-stakeholder partnershipsthat they're involved in, and we
end up meeting at the Sanghabecause we all find Buddhism in
a certain way, or the PlumVillage in a certain way.
So it's very funny and I'm oneof those people that really
trusts that the universe likewhatever you're looking for is
looking for you.
So in that sense, I have manymemories of moments that I I was

(01:02:01):
supposed to turn right but thenI turned left and at the left
that was what was, you know,expecting me.
But a journey point in my lifefor sure was this course that I
mentioned in the Netherlands in2008.
That was when I was introducedto interest-based negotiations.
That was my first facilitationtraining.
It was one and a half hourfacilitation training and you

(01:02:22):
were still a lawyer back then.
I was still a lawyer workingcarbon credits contracts and I
had just come out of the UN andI had just come out of the UN
and I remember in one of thesimulations because when you
learn negotiations that way,there is a lot of simulations
and role-playing I was the chairin the game Pablo Burford is
the name of the game.

(01:02:43):
It's a groundwater contaminationin a border two countries that
are bordering and I was sharingin the meeting and it was just
the beginning of the meeting andI was listening initial opening
statements and holding the penand the flip chart and I
remember this one participantlooking at me and I was writing
down his words and I looked athim and I said I'll never forget
Nestor, his name, and I said,nestor, does this capture what

(01:03:06):
you just said?
And he looked at me and hiseyes there was just trust.
And his eyes said that's exactlywhat I said I need.
Those are my needs, thank you.
And I remember feeling like,please, god, can I do this for
the rest of my life?
For me it was so powerfulbecause I was like, if my work
is to be trusted with otherpeople's words and to help them

(01:03:30):
bring their voice into the space, this is sacred work.
I want to do this for the restof my life.
I felt like you know somebody'ssharing a secret, although that
was a public thing, right, theywere saying what they needed in
front of everybody.
So I think from that moment on Idid more facilitation trainings
and then I just started tellingclients like, can I facilitate

(01:03:50):
this meeting when you're?
So, instead of just takinglet's say taking the brief that
they had for that particular, Iwas working on sustainability,
like especially corporatesustainability, instead of just
taking the brief and the clientwould have had the meeting with
multiple people in theorganization, I would say can I
join that meeting?
Can I see if I can facilitatethat conversation, to see what

(01:04:12):
comes up?
And that's how I started kindof doing it and I became more
and more interested in helpingthe conversations happen, then
doing the content work, thenwriting the strategies for them,
and so that was yeah.
And then a few years later,maybe two or three years later,

(01:04:32):
from that experience, I wasworking as the climate director
on the business school.
We had a sustainability centerand there was this one meeting
and then one of the participantswas a bank was really upset
about the conclusions of thereport that was being presented
and they were going to come out,walk out, but this was like one
of the main parties that weneeded to influence as a

(01:04:54):
sustainability center.
And I just remember I walked in, there was a colleague
presenting the outcomes of thereport and I said can I just do
something here?
And everybody's like the personis very upset.
My colleague said sure, and Isaid can I transform the points
you're making into questions?
And the person looked at me andsaid, sure, okay, so let me

(01:05:17):
help reframe what you just said.
For example, this study isbullshit because it doesn't do
that.
Does this study cover thesources of income in a
transparent and fair way?
It's like, oh, that is exactlywhat I was saying.
And so I transformed all thepoints in like 15 questions and
this person stayed through theend of the meeting, and so I

(01:05:40):
think those are the moments that, for everybody else and for
myself, I was like I am afacilitator.
I'm here to make things easier,not a difficult theater, I'm a
facilitator yeah, not adifficult theater.

Speaker 1 (01:05:54):
I'm a facilitator.
I'm so glad I asked thequestion, thank you, yeah,
beautiful, and what I hear isyou crafting your own career
change by creating opportunitiesfor yourself to practice the
skill and to to create valuethrough this new skill yeah, and
being invited by colleagues aswell.

Speaker 3 (01:06:12):
Many people open doors and I said, can I just
come and help?
Can I come and facilitate?
Can I do a session?
Can I do this?
Yeah, beautiful, I think.
I just I just took the chance,and then the rest is history
somehow.
And then, yeah, and reallyworking with incredible people,
yeah, I guess.
And being completely fascinatedby design, the process, design

(01:06:36):
that's my legal mind, I thinkyou know.
So, from beginning to end, canI design something super
exciting?
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:06:44):
So what is it that you would tell your former self?
Or that?

Speaker 3 (01:06:47):
you wished you had known before, honestly, that the
sky is the limit.
Yeah, really, listen to yourheart and what you want to
facilitate, and desire and trustthat what you're looking for is
looking for you yeah, micdropping moment.

Speaker 1 (01:07:06):
Thank you so.
So much, barbara but thisglimpse into a different world
with such clarity and precisionand guidance.

Speaker 3 (01:07:17):
Thank you, learned a lot yeah, thank you for the
opportunity and for saying yesand um yeah for inviting my
experience in these stories inand made that be to the benefit
of all beings on earth.

Speaker 1 (01:07:34):
That's what I wish for, thank you thank you for
staying tuned and for listeninguntil the very end.
I hope that you found theinspiration and the wisdom that
you are looking for, and I hopethat you will subscribe to the
show so that you never miss anyof the interviews with another
inspiring facilitator fromacross the world.

(01:07:56):
I'm devoted to continue thispodcast and to deliver weekly an
episode that maintains thequality that you expect and you
deserve, and if you would liketo help me to maintain this
quality and to keep the podcastfree, please help us visit
workshopsworkcom to make a smalldonation to keep the podcast

(01:08:23):
free.
Thank you so much.
I hope to be in your ears nextweek.