The first GEEP day ended with delegates still searching for some illusive final clarity about goals, objectives and strategies. It's still not clear whether GEEP does things, or (just) enables others to do things. Rather inevitably, with so many people from different countries, and a good mix of organisational types represented, there were many perspectives about both the problems to be addressed, and how to do this. We did one of those deliberative exercises with group work, flip charts and sticker dots to identify priorities, and the core team will be thinking about all this before we meet again on Thursday when they will tell us what we've decided.
Thinking turned to whether there are already models for GEEP amongst the world's institutions. My group explored this issue, though what follows is my personal take on those discussions: We rejected the UN as a model as being too fractious, and the Saudis would likely demand a human rights oversight; then there was the IMF with task forces being sent into countries to sort out bankrupt EE programmes, but that would necessitate a French chef de mission. The WHO was tempting as we saw the possibilities of intervening to prevent pandemics of nature deficit disorder, ESD, etc, but it was the OECD that was thought to offer the most possibility. After all, it's a think tank, an author of authoritative country / regional studies, a noted evaluator, and the parent of PISA with its international league table of success, which would appeal to the standards brigade. And, as I had to be reminded after the discussion, it was the origin of ENSI. Job done, I think.
Meanwhile, there's the issue of who's going to fund it. Maybe we should ask the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Given that they have announced that they will be investing $2bn in breakthrough renewable technology projects over the next five years, a million or so diverted to EE to ensure that folks understand the issues, would be money well invested. Now, who's going to write ...
Respond