#43 The Negotiator

Hammond relives his time as a representative for Australia in international biodiversity negotiations at COP13 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. But before that a few updates, a hint for auditors and Gunnar almost completely loses it while talking about one of the latest EPA announcements leading to a most epic Gu-rant.

Links:

Clarence Coal mine penalty

Constitutional heads of power.

'Getting to Yes'.

Never Split the Difference.

Rapport - The Four Ways to Read People.

Sam Harris | #132 - Freeing the Hostages with Chris Voss

Professional AS Soils Short Courses - Southern Cross University

Recorded on 2 April 2026

Listen to Below the Surface and collect CPD points. We have confirmation that you can claim 0.5 points for every hour you spend with us under the Self Education Category

Contact: bts@4pillars.com.au

https://www.linkedin.com/company/below-the-surface-podcast

The necessary disclaimer: The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this Podcast are the speakers’ own. They do not necessarily represent the views, thoughts, and opinions of 4Pillars Environmental Consulting Pty Ltd or any Client, Supplier or other party related to 4Pillars or the speakers. 

(c) Gunnar Haid and James Hammond

Transcript

Transcripts are AI generated and may not be an accurate representation of what was said in this episode.

Gunnar Haid (00:00:00)
Welcome, it's the Below the Surface podcast. I'm Gunnar Haid your host. I have Hammond here, James Hammond. I trust you're well

James Hammond (00:00:08)
Good morning Gunnar, I am very well, how about you? We haven't done an episode with just the two of us, so we'll try and keep ourselves on the rail, hey? It'll be a banter lover's delight, I think, this episode. A cornucopia of delights!

Gunnar Haid (00:00:11)
Okay, thank you.

Gunnar Haid (00:00:23)
There's certainly some potential for some ⁓ rants in there. Alright. ⁓

James Hammond (00:00:26)
⁓ I like it. So we've got a couple of things here. I thought we haven't done housekeeping for a while. So there are a couple of things we wanted to talk about before we get stuck into it.

Gunnar Haid (00:00:37)
⁓ Keep house.

James Hammond (00:00:38)
So, look, yeah, I'll keep it short. just wanted to note the Clarence coal mine prosecution and the penalty that was handed down for that recently. was to do with discharges from the Clarence coal mine into the  Wollangambe River which is part of a World Heritage Area in the Blue Mountains. The reason it caught my attention was because there was a massive penalty. it was $815,000 in penalties in total. That was about a

540k fine, 185k of legal costs and another 86k towards some rehabilitation work. So it's definitely up there. It's on the higher end of POEO penalties. It's not the biggest penalty that's ever been handed down. I think that dubious honour still is also with the Clarence coal mine, but it's from a previous prosecution in 2017. The reason I think it's interesting is because there were a number of offenses involved, but

One of the offences that the EPA pursued was around not testing a pollution incident response management plan or a PIRM is the acronym that we use. So a PIRM is a, it's a requirement for all licensed sites. It's the first instance of anyone ever being prosecuted for the offense of not testing it. They have to be tested at least once every 12 months. So it'd be a bit of a precedent for that and probably give the EPA a bit more backing, I guess, when they're trying to enforce that requirement.

We deal with PIRMs a lot with our clients and I thought I'd drop a couple of tips. So in relation to PIRMs, I actually designed them to be tested every 10 or 11 months rather than every 12 months because it's easy to kind of slip and all of a sudden you're outside of the 12 month window. I actually sketched a

Gunnar Haid (00:02:10)
did the Clarence not test theirs

James Hammond (00:02:13)
It was 280 something days overdue, think, or overdue. ⁓ Yeah. Yeah. It's 200 and something days overdue. So it was, you know, significantly overdue. I hadn't been tested for some time. ⁓ the other thing is that tests really need to be documented. So you can't just have a table that says, yeah, we did a test. You need to document it properly. You need to have the details of people who are attended. What did you do? All that sort of thing. And the other thing I wanted to just remind people of, if they're not aware is that there is a guideline from the EPA about

PIRMs 2022 was the most recent version of that guideline. ⁓ and it actually specifies in there, it's kind of buried in there, but it says, if you've got a licensed site that has a what's called level three risk rating, which is the highest risk category, you have to do a practical drill at least once every two years. And if you have a level two risk rating, you have to do a practical drill at least once every three years. So yeah, a lot of sites rely on desktop drills where you'll sit down and talk through an incident.

But particularly for those higher risk levels, have to do practical drills. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:03:13)
have to actually let some water out into the river and see what happens.

James Hammond (00:03:16)
That's right and try and s- try and stop it.

⁓ Yeah, no, but seriously I've had, you know, I've had, ⁓ I've gotten 44 gallon drums, filled them up with water, tipped them over, get the guys to use the spill kits, ⁓ stop it going into the drain, call the EPA hotline. ⁓ You know, you've got to run through the whole thing. Spills are one thing you can have fires in waste facilities. You can have ⁓ all sorts of different stuff. yeah, a few, a few points there. Cause people often kind of terms are a bit of an afterthought.

but they are important and think the EPA will have bit more gusto in going after them now.

Gunnar Haid (00:03:56)
800 and something thousand dollars sounds like a lot. I don't know how much it is for a coal mine ⁓

James Hammond (00:04:02)
⁓ I don't know how coal mines are doing these days. They must, I'm sure they're still doing pretty well.

Gunnar Haid (00:04:07)
have a feeling this isn't something where someone sits there and says, ouch man, that really hurts now. ⁓ I don't know. ⁓ I really don't know. ⁓

James Hammond (00:04:17)
Yeah. ⁓ Yeah. I don't know. don't know either. It's definitely up there in terms of, the, ⁓ the scale of penalties that have been applied under, under POEO, but, ⁓ how much it hurts the bottom line. Hard to say. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:04:29)
Yeah, okay. That's a mine near Lithgow, isn't it?

James Hammond (00:04:33)
Yes, that's right. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:04:34)
Yeah, I have a relatively easy solution for all this. Shut the mines down. How does that sound? Come on, guys. How long have we been doing this now? Digging dirt out of the ground.

James Hammond (00:04:45)
That's it. mean, New South Wales did announce the other day, right? They're not approving any new coal mines, which was a pretty big deal, actually. yeah, definitely coals on the way out for sure.

Gunnar Haid (00:04:54)
One would hope, yes, one would hope. ⁓

James Hammond (00:04:59)
⁓ What did you want to talk about, Gunnar? ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:05:01)
⁓ okay. I have something that's been on my mind for a long, long time and it's very quick. It's a message to the auditors. When you send out ⁓ an email to your client and you cc  the environmental consultant with your interim audit advice, please start your email off with a sentence saying, thank you for that report. have reviewed it. Great report. I'm very happy. Regardless whether you're happy with it or not, it doesn't matter. Okay. So you say this was a great report.

Well done. However, there are, there are a few comments that I have and they are hereby attached. And then you go on in the comments. The most important thing here is that the client, so my client and your client, the auditor, they will read that sentence and say, okay, fair enough. This is good. They will think I hired a good consultant. Very good. And they also think this process is on the way. Everything is fine in honky dory. Clients will then hardly ever proceed and read.

the detailed comments in the report, which they hardly ever understand anyway. So that's all I'm saying is like, makes, I know one auditor does that and it is so good when I, when I work with him, it always starts off well done, great report, ⁓ minor comments attached. This is such a, such an easy thing to do. And it's smooth, this is over because if you don't start like that.

Then the client, my client and your client starts opening that spreadsheet or however you submit your comments and sees 20, 30, sometimes even more comments and things like, man, what is going on in this process here? I paid for a report and there is everything seems to be wrong in here.

James Hammond (00:06:47)
Yeah, that's it. mean, it's just a, it's a nice courtesy, I think, and auditors don't have to do it, but I mean, it certainly makes a big difference for us who are dealing with that pointy end of the client. happens all the time, doesn't it Gunnar, with comments that are given without a bit of, without that bit of context, particularly if it's a client you haven't worked with before, it can create a bit of doubt in their mind about, you know, have we engaged the right people here?

Gunnar Haid (00:07:11)
Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, yeah. Absolutely.

James Hammond (00:07:13)
Yeah, the feedback from the auditor is kind of like, thanks, this is a decent quality report, but here's some comments and questions.

Gunnar Haid (00:07:22)
⁓ That's really all there is to it. I just thought I mentioned it here.

James Hammond (00:07:28)
Same thing goes for regulators, by the way. I've had regulatory letters come back where it's not even a factual issue. It's a, it's a difference of opinion around something that is a grey area. And the way that the regulator has framed it is that, the consultant is wrong. ⁓ And when they're just expressing an opinion and yeah, that has created some tension with clients in the past about who do I believe here? Do I believe the regulator or do I believe my consultant? Yeah. So yeah, a bit of context and courtesy goes a long way.

[ ... ] 

Gunnar Haid (00:20:09)
So this was supposed to be up to five minutes. are in 25 minutes into the podcast, which is good because the rest of the podcast looks just damn boring to me. have to say.

James Hammond (00:20:21)
Well was gonna say time flies when you're having fun. So the next half an hour I might drag for you Gunnar.

Gunnar Haid (00:20:25)
I'm afraid so the video is on if I nod off. Okay, just call me on the phone

James Hammond (00:20:31)
I don't know, I'll have to call Lou or something and get her to throw a glass of water on you or something. Well, yeah. So thanks, Gunnar. What I thought would be nice and a bit of fun to talk about was I've had this idea for an episode for a while and my working title is The Negotiator. And I want to talk a little bit about my time working in international environmental negotiations and what that was all about.

Gunnar Haid (00:20:55)
Have you seen the movie The Negotiator with Kevin Spacey and Samuel L. Jackson? It came out 1998. ⁓

James Hammond (00:21:04)
Nah, don't think I have. I don't think so. What's it about? ⁓

James Hammond (00:21:13)
⁓ So yeah, my experience wasn't quite as high stakes as those sort of hostage negotiations. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:21:21)
know you were you were negotiating ⁓ international treaties on behalf of Australia. I'm suddenly impressed with you, Hammond.

James Hammond (00:21:28)
It sounds impressive, doesn't it? It was a really enjoyable part of my career. This is about 10 years ago now when I was working with the Commonwealth Department of the Environment. I did a few different things over that time, but the last two years that I was there was spent in the team that managed an international agreement called the Convention on Biological Diversity. I'll take you through ⁓ what the international meetings actually looked like and what they were like sort of day to day. Cause that was the really fun part. Cause there's all this.

you know, the conference of the parties, which is the big meeting where everybody goes, they happen once every two years and there's this big lead up, know, 90 % of the negotiation is kind of done before you even get to the meeting or via emails and other sort of meetings where you're on European time. So you're doing it at three in the morning or whatever it is. All that hard work gets done in the lead up. So that's the grind. And then the actual meetings themselves are very enjoyable, but I wanted to ask you a question, Gunnar. I mean, the word negotiation can kind of throw people off. What does that word mean to you?

Gunnar Haid (00:22:31)
You can't just jump something like this on me, you need to warn me so I can prepare and sound smart ⁓ negotiations

James Hammond (00:22:41)
I wanted your raw take on it.

Gunnar Haid (00:22:45)
Well, I guess ⁓ negotiations, ⁓ the process of finding an agreement between parties that don't necessarily agree on a subject.

James Hammond (00:22:55)
Yeah, I'm with you there. think that's a, that's a good definition. mean, the way I think ⁓ my take on this has changed over time where I think a lot of people think about negotiation, like it's these defined things where it might be, you know, you're negotiating a pay rise or you're trying to buy something and you're negotiating around it or whatever it is. But I've really come to realize that negotiation is just what we do constantly every single day. I would say that a lot of the interactions we have with other people ⁓ are

negotiations in that you have something that you want, other people have things that they want, and you're trying to ⁓ work it out between you as to where that all lands. And yes, there are skills around negotiating. So investing in learning in those skills and kind of looking into this more can actually help you not just in those formal settings, but in your everyday life. So I wanted to start with just a bit of a overview about

the United Nations framework and treaties in general. Do you have a take on the UN framework? Like if you have much exposure to it or like what's your level of understanding?

Gunnar Haid (00:24:05)
I'm very sceptical about the UN and its roles. am, and I'm not saying abolish it. All I'm saying is, um, it all sounds so nice that we have the United Nations and whatever they come up with, you know, um, gets stuck to or not. And until someone says, don't like this anymore. Remember Kyoto was signed in 1996, think. Hmm.

Okay. Until it gets kind of inconvenient and suddenly it's like, you know what? It didn't really mean it. ⁓ Or, or, Ooh, there's ⁓ a few hundred coal miners. What are we going to do with them? It's, it's, it's taken seriously until someone comes along and says, nah, ⁓ I don't think we want to, we want to do that anymore. ⁓ War has officially been outlawed since, since 1928. Obviously didn't prevent the second world war ⁓ either. Right.

Um, but the CUN didn't exist back then, but then after the second world war, it was again confirmed. I forgot now what it's called. Uh, and that doesn't, doesn't mean anything. And then, you know, there's international treaties and then some, some orange golf player comes along and says, are you going to do?

James Hammond (00:25:21)
interesting that you mention the orange elephant in the room. I think that's why this is also front of mind for me is because like you said, there are a lot of international norms and systems that are really being ⁓ either completely torn up ⁓ or radically changed. ⁓ it's an interesting time in international law and in foreign relations. I definitely take your point. I understand the skepticism about it. I do think that the UN system is important in a globalised world. We also have what I would refer to as global

environmental commons, and they are things like the atmosphere, ⁓ oceans, ⁓ and some domestic areas that are of global significance. Like for example, the Great Barrier Reef, it's these shared areas where you really do need to cooperate to manage them. Otherwise everybody's individual interests will end up ruining them. And the atmosphere is the perfect example. There's no boundaries. It ⁓ flows throughout the globe. It must be managed on a global scale. I'm talking just about environmental stuff here. I'm not going to talk about security and trade and all those other elements, but we'll leave them to others to talk about. ⁓ some of the ⁓ treaties and international agreements people might be aware of is, you touched on it there Gunnar, so the UNFCCC. So that's the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. And that's where the Kyoto Protocol is a subset of that. ⁓ Some others that people might have heard of is the Basel Convention, which is regarding persistent organic pollutants.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. That's the international convention that has outlawed the movement of ⁓ ivory from elephant tusks and rhino horns and all those sorts of products that come from endangered species. And another example is the World Heritage Convention, which again, people would be aware of Great Barrier Reef for example, is a World Heritage Area. I think the UNFCCC, like you touched on the Kyoto Protocol, being, I would say, ⁓ a failure.

I think it's fair to say that the UNFCCC has been a failure in terms of slowing and then stopping ⁓ runaway climate change, guess, controlling ⁓ greenhouse gas emissions. But one example of a really good success of international environmental treaties was the Montreal Protocol on ⁓ substances that deplete the ozone layer. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:27:38)
Yeah, I was about to say that we had some success ⁓ in 90s with the ozone layer and that was before ⁓ scientists and science was politicized. ⁓

James Hammond (00:27:48)
Well, yeah, I think that definitely has something to do with it. I think that the other component is that we understood the problem, that it was those substances that were creating a hole in the ozone layer down near Australia, if anyone doesn't know. But they were limited in their scope and application, right? So they were used in refrigerants and they were used in a range of other things. And it was a small subset of society that was economically impacted by phasing CFCs out. It was a much easier proposition to say, we've got this issue, we know what it is.

It only affects a relatively small number of people. The economic cost is small and therefore we can kind of deal with it fairly easily. So that was a great success, I think, of international frameworks. Specifically, what I wanted to talk about is a treaty called the Convention on Biological Diversity, which ⁓ is probably not as well known as some of these other ones. ⁓ But it's the main convention that deals with biodiversity ⁓ worldwide. And it was created in 1992. So ⁓ again, it's been around for ⁓ quite a long time. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:28:45)
Funny you say it. When I hear 1992, I was fairly recent and you say, oh, this has been around for a long time. Yeah.

James Hammond (00:28:54)
⁓ It's all relative, isn't it? ⁓ So the aims of that convention are around conserving biodiversity throughout the world. Also ⁓ the fair use of genetic resources. So again, it's got almost universal membership. So there's 196 member states and that's almost every single country in the world. There's only a handful that are not signatory to this convention. The most notable exception is the United States.

Gunnar Haid (00:29:23)
Of course, ⁓ a country that can't get their measurements together, of course it wouldn't sound something like this. ⁓

James Hammond (00:29:29)
Yeah. So they, the United States is a, is a weird player in international treaties. And we won't go into this in any detail, right? But they are a bit of a weird player. They've signed the treaty, but they haven't ratified it. So for anyone who's not aware with international treaties, a country signs the treaty, but then they have to go home and what's called ratify, which basically means they have to implement what they've said they're going to do by signing through domestic legislation. ⁓ the U S has basically said, yeah, yeah, the CBD sounds all well and good.

happy to sign it, but then they've gone home and they haven't done anything about it. ⁓ So they attend the meetings and what have you, but unless the country is ratified, they actually don't get a vote in any sort of meeting. They don't get a formal say in any of the meetings as to how the convention operates. The thing with ratification, right, is that once the country has ratified, it is then bound under that treaty to implement the treaty's provisions domestically within their own country. ⁓ And as part of the, I guess, checks and balances for that, any

any party to that treaty has to submit national reports on a regular basis. And those reports have to ⁓ outline how they are achieving the objectives ⁓ of the convention ⁓ domestically. you know, then, you know, enforcement is not

Gunnar Haid (00:30:44)
And I was about to say, if you don't do your homework, what happens? Nothing.

James Hammond (00:30:49)
Look, they call international law soft law for a reason, right? You're not going to get pulled in front of the international court of justice or whatever it is for not fulfilling your CBD requirements, right? But it is more about diplomatic implications and that sort of thing that come from ⁓ not holding up your end of the bargain. Why does it matter that Australia is a party to the CBD? There's actually a really important reason why it is helpful for Australia to be a party to this convention. And I want to touch on this thing.

that's called Commonwealth Heads of Power or Constitutional Heads of Power. So the Commonwealth government cannot just make laws about whatever they want, right? So everyone would know in Australia, we've got three levels of government, Commonwealth, state and local government. And there is a split of responsibilities ⁓ between those three levels of government, right? It's meant to reduce the level of overlap or duplication between them. in the constitution of Australia, there are a range of

things that are set out and they are called the heads of power and they define the things that the Commonwealth can make laws about. And they include things like taxation, ⁓ international trade, this sort of stuff, right? The environment is not one of the things that is mentioned in the constitution. ⁓ So when it comes to national legislation, like the environment protection, biodiversity conservation act, the EPBC act, which is our main national environmental act. The only reason that can come about is through

a head of power called foreign affairs power. And what that means is that the Commonwealth is enabled to make legislation around the environment because they've entered into an international treaty related to those matters. If it wasn't for the fact that Australia was a party to those international treaties, that piece of legislation could not exist. It would be unconstitutional for the Commonwealth to make those laws. So that's just a really kind of

clear example as to why these international treaties matter. Some might say, ⁓ why should they do that? Because it duplicates something that the state should be doing. But I would argue that ⁓ there is a role for national government in managing the environment because environmental issues don't stop at state boundaries. There are things that are genuinely ⁓ in the national interest. And also the Commonwealth government has resources that the states don't. The NEPEM, like you mentioned before, that's slightly different. I was kind of...

James Hammond (00:33:09)
I was kind of hoping that I'd come to this with a zinger and say the NEPM wouldn't exist if it wasn't for international law, but I can't do that. The NEPM is actually a different form of things. It's basically where the states...

Gunnar Haid (00:33:18)
I've the national environmental protection measure for those people who are not in the, ⁓ why they would be listening anyway. ⁓

James Hammond (00:33:28)
It's almost like, ⁓ yeah, that's almost like a password, I think, to get access to this podcast. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:33:34)
If you don't know what the net is, ⁓ don't listen to this podcast. ⁓

James Hammond (00:33:38)
⁓ And we say it all the time, right, but we're talking about the ASC NEPEM, the assessment of site contamination NEPEM, because there are others about air quality and stuff. But the National Environment Protection Council Act, which is the legislation that creates ⁓ the body that creates NEPEMs, ⁓ that's ⁓ slightly different. That's the states coming together and saying, we all have responsibility for environmental management and environmental law, but we're going to voluntarily agree.

to together and create this national framework, which we're then going to implement at a state level through state legislation. So it's a bit of a, it's more of a cooperative version of this.

Gunnar Haid (00:34:15)
You know, you should have wrote Sarah Mansfield or Elizabeth Weil or Darren Beak into this and not me. ⁓ I mean, I'm suffering here.

James Hammond (00:34:23)
⁓ This kind of brings me back to, sorry, this is probably going to be a lot of me talking and I'm trying not to nerd out on this stuff, right? But ⁓ bringing it back to my time doing this stuff, I found it really interesting because I'm a scientist by background and I was working in this team and you know, I'm working with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade all the time. I'm dealing with lawyers all the time. ⁓ Most of these people are lawyers, right? That's who normally does international law. I'm just a poor scientist who has found myself

Gunnar Haid (00:34:45)
tough.

James Hammond (00:34:52)
thrown into this thing and trying to get my head around all this stuff that was very, very new to me.

Gunnar Haid (00:34:58)
⁓ I love the photo you sent me. think we should make that the episode graphic because it was a very young Hammond with ⁓ some of your negotiation partners there. There's a sign saying, you know, Australia. ⁓ That's certainly a reason to be proud of when you represented Australia. Tell me, what did you negotiate? What's the negotiation? What happened?

James Hammond (00:35:04)
so.

James Hammond (00:35:21)
I was lucky enough to go to two international meetings. I got to go to something called, this is a terrible acronym, it's called  SBSTTA 20, which is the subsidiary body on scientific something rather. I actually can't remember what it is. It's an interim meeting that happens between the conference of the parties. So the conference of the parties is the big one where all 196 countries and all these other non-government organizations get together.

This is all under the UN. the conventional body, the scientific body meeting, which was the interim meeting that was in Montreal. Okay. That was a very cool experience, a massive room with the big UN banner on the front. So that was in 2016. And then I got to go to the conference of the party number 13. So the 13th meeting. And that was in Cancun, Mexico in 2016.

Gunnar Haid (00:35:51)
should go with Zurich, Vienna, ⁓ New York.

Gunnar Haid (00:36:13)
It's funny they always pick places that really suck, they? ⁓ Yeah. Davos, ⁓ Monte Carlo ⁓ and Cancun. ⁓ Let's battle. The hardship ⁓ must be tremendous.

James Hammond (00:36:30)
I know, right? ⁓ Yes, we were staying in an all-inclusive resort in Cancun.

Gunnar Haid (00:36:36)
Of course, wouldn't want to mingle with the Mexicans, would you? Like, come on!

James Hammond (00:36:40)
⁓ Well, we did get a day off and we went out to Chichén Itzá and a few other places around and saw what we could see. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:36:48)
Did go to Taco Bell to get some local food? ⁓

James Hammond (00:36:52)
Yeah, that's it. That's it. A real taste of the locals. So ⁓ these meetings are held in these kinds of places ⁓ because they're central and they're nice to go to and they have the facilities, I guess, to handle these sorts of things. So ⁓ Montreal was great. So the subsidiary meeting in Montreal was awesome, but that was a kind of a warmup. That was the first international meeting I'd been to. To give a bit of a sense as to what the COP is like, like I said, there's 196 nation states at a party to the convention and

Each of them will send a delegation of, like think the Australian delegation to that cop was about five or six people.

Gunnar Haid (00:37:25)
Give me the acronym called again.

James Hammond (00:37:28)
⁓ conference of the parties. So this is where all the parties to the convention get together to vote on resolutions, right? So that is the purpose of the COP, is to come together and there's a whole bunch of resolutions that are about advancing the objectives of that treaty. ⁓ And that is where all that discussion happens and that's where the agreement and the, what they call resolutions. So the negotiation centers around the content of those resolutions. I should mention here that the CBD works on a consensus basis.

So some other treaties work on majority rules and other sort of formats, but the CBD is a consensus treaty. So all parties need to agree ⁓ to the resolutions that are finalized. Right. ⁓ And so that's why I have. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:38:12)
have a family of fives. We can't agree on which restaurant we go to. You have 130... How many? Come on. This is a setup for failure. There's at least 10 % cooks in there, right? For sure.

James Hammond (00:38:20)
196

James Hammond (00:38:30)
there's definitely some agitators for sure. mean, you know, every country of the world almost is represented here. That includes some pretty wacky.

Gunnar Haid (00:38:38)
can't even agree if you all believe in or don't, let alone...

James Hammond (00:38:41)
Well, that's the thing. And you would think that this thing was doomed to fail, but the vast majority, I would say 98 % of resolutions that are passed in the CBD, they are agreed on consensus. And there's two parts of that. One part is that they can be a bit watered down with consensus and that can be a criticism of it. But occasionally resolutions do get passed by the vast majority of parties and there might be one or two dissenting parties that say basically, we don't agree, 194 countries agree, but two don't.

and they just kind of note their descent, but it passes otherwise. Some countries send delegations of 20 or 30 people. And then you've got other non-government organizations that come along, know, all the big NGOs that people would be familiar with and a lot of smaller ones that people wouldn't have heard of. They all send delegations too. So what you end up with is thousands and thousands of people staying in the one place basically. And this room with...

hundreds and hundreds of people sitting there. And then there are a whole bunch of other kind of breakout rooms and smaller rooms where that's where a lot of the more detailed negotiation about particular topics happens. We actually didn't have a big enough delegation to go to all of those side discussions. So we just had to pick the ones that were most relevant to Australia. I had courage of a couple of items. One of them in particular was around indigenous peoples and their access, particularly as it relates to genetic resources. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:40:04)
Thick Resources.

James Hammond (00:40:05)
Yeah. this is like, you know, ⁓ pharmaceutical company goes out to the Amazon and collects a whole bunch of different plants and animals and what have you, and tries to distill compounds from them to test whether they can be effective against various diseases and that sort of thing. So pharmaceutical company A finds this amazing compound in some Amazonian plant that treats cancer. Right. And the question is who has ownership over that genetic resource that was taken from the Amazon? Is it?

It can be quite a complex thing as to kind of who has the ownership and therefore who should have a share of the benefits that come from the use of that genetic resource. So what it was like at these meetings, it's like the definition of work hard, play hard. You're at a resort, you're in Cancun. It sounds pretty amazing. And it was amazing. And there was a lot of fun elements to it, but man, we really worked hard. I'm talking massive, massive hours. But then whenever we did get a break, there was always.

functions on, you know, various countries put on welcome functions or the EU is hosting this thing or ⁓ the Danes are hosting a dinner or whatever it is. We went for about 10 days. So we went over the kind of two weeks and there was a weekend in the middle. And on the weekend, everyone takes a break and the Mexicans hosted like a cop party essentially on the Saturday night and the tequila and the mezcal was flowing and everyone has an awesome time. So the thing is you're always.

representing your country at these things. you can't, you have to conduct yourself obviously in a professional manner, but if you can manage to maintain your professionalism, ⁓ you can have a really, really good time at these events. And I had, I had an awesome time. I worked extremely hard and worked 14 hour ⁓ days most days, but I also found some time to have some really nice, ⁓ socializing and met a lot of really awesome, interesting people from

lots of different countries, not just countries that are aligned with Australia. It really broadened my horizons and those meetings actually were a big part of what caused me to then start Four Pillars when I came back to Sydney. So it was really quite a pivotal time in my

Gunnar Haid (00:42:16)
So our next yearly ⁓ celebrations ⁓ we're going to have in Cancun.

James Hammond (00:42:22)
Yeah, sounds good to me. At the all-inclusive resort. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:42:27)
⁓ the Rudy Hill RSL will have to do.

James Hammond (00:42:30)
Yeah, yeah, it's not quite there, but you maybe one day. It was quite an experience. Like there's just so much that I could say about it. Australia is, is what's called a middle power. So we don't, we're not one of the dominant players in international ⁓ matters, but we have, we're kind of a glue that can bring some of the bigger powers together. And Australia is part of a group called  JUSCANZ, which is a kind of an informal grouping of countries that tend to vote as a block. And what that is is basically just a group of countries that are typically smaller.

countries or sort of middle powers that come together and try to vote together in UN ⁓ forums to give themselves a greater amount of power. And the perfect example of that is the EU. Member States of the EU do not vote individually. They vote as the EU. They're on the same footing as, I mean, the United States doesn't get a vote in the CBD, but they're on the same footing as, you know, the larger nations like China, like Russia. So Australia was part of an informal group.

called   JUSCANZ, which if I can get this right, there are a number of other states that are a part of it, but the acronym is made up of Japan, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. So they are the countries that sort of lead that group. Now the US is not a party, like we've said, but the US is involved in  JUSCANZ and the US basically tries to influence and get what it wants through working with countries that are actually a party.

And I actually do have a vote. There are a number of other countries, some European countries that are outside of the EU that are part of JustCans as well. So in between the main COP sessions, we would get together and try and come up with our own position that we all agreed with, that we could then, when we get into the main room, with all 196 countries in there, one member of JustCans puts forward their position and then all the other members of JustCans can jump in and say, yes, we support Australia.

We support Canada, we support it, and it creates this kind of momentum. Australia doesn't go in there just kind of voting for things on its own. It has these informal coalitions with other countries to try and increase its level of power.

Gunnar Haid (00:44:32)
⁓ a survivor. ⁓

James Hammond (00:44:35)
You don't want to be on your own. If you look at how the US is acting at the moment, it's acting as if it doesn't need anybody else in the world. And the reality is that one country like the US or China is bigger and more powerful than any other country, any other individual country, but they are not more powerful than all other countries or even a group of other countries. So yes, they are the most powerful player in the room, but

It doesn't mean that they can just go around doing whatever they want, because if you get a coalition of other nations that will stand against you, that's something that they're not going to be able to overcome. So I think the U S and some other big countries like to behave like they don't need to be part of, ⁓ you know, any kind of international coordination ⁓ or effort. I think the Americans are finding out now ⁓ that just going it alone and burning all your bridges with your allies is not an effective way to get things done.

I'll take it back a bit, I'm conscious of time.

Gunnar Haid (00:45:32)
What's about to say, do you see the little clock at the bottom here?

James Hammond (00:45:36)
I just hit a little clock. So there are just so many things I could, I could talk about. ⁓ mean, I'm sure you can tell I just love this time in my career. It was amazing, but I want to just take it bit of a step back and just talk a little bit about negotiating principles and sort of how I upskilled and how I developed those skills or kind of sharpen them at those meetings and continue to sharpen them. Right. think when people can think of negotiating or good negotiators, they often think of the really the harsh.

powerful, forceful kind of approach, right? So that steamroller kind of approach where somebody comes in, they're dominant, they have all the power, they say, we've got all the cards. And I think some people often think of that as like, is the winning approach to negotiation. And the reality is that the vast majority of negotiations that we would have in our day-to-day lives and at meetings like this, it just doesn't work. It's just not an effective way to get things done.

It's really more about talking things through understanding where your counterpart is coming from and trying to understand if there's a way for you to actually both get what you want or close to it. And so I think that there, have some traits that I've found through doing this. think that that are helpful in those situations and they are traits like I'm pretty level headed. I tend to be able to stay fairly calm in most situations.

I'm pretty open-minded about things. I don't have a whole lot of fixed opinions or positions about stuff. I'm willing to kind of see things from other people's point of view. And I'm genuinely curious about other people and about learning. When you're having a conversation with a counterpart that you're trying to negotiate something with and you want different things, you're trying to talk to them and understand where they're coming from ⁓ and tease out information from them that could help you come to a point where you ⁓ can both agree.

If you're genuinely curious about somebody else, that comes across in the conversation. If you're putting it on, ⁓ just so you can tease out information and you're not genuinely interested, people catch onto that pretty quickly. So there are these interpersonal skills that I think really play into all this. I'm going to mention just a few, I guess, resources that I found particularly helpful in developing these skills and I'll link them in the show notes. There's three books that have been particularly influential on me. The first one is called Getting to Yes.

James Hammond (00:47:58)
The second one is called never split the difference. And the third one is called rapport. Now rapport is not really about negotiation. It's more about interpersonal relations and building rapport with people. So the first one is that preparation is critical. If you're going into a negotiation unprepared, it's not going to work out well. The more you can prepare for negotiation and the better informed you can be, not just about finding things out about your counterpart, but also understanding

where you're coming from. Because one thing that getting to yes and never split the difference talk about is that the concept of positional negotiation, where you say, this is my position and that's where I'm at and I'm not going to move that position. So unless you can meet me there, we're not getting a deal done. You're going end up walking away from a lot of negotiations. Basically, it's not an effective way to get things done preparation and understanding where you're coming from. And the reason why you have a position is really, really important because if you understand why you have a particular position.

If people introduce alternatives or things shift, you can kind of shift along with it and you have a better chance of getting an agreement. The second point I want to mention is that you kind of remove emotion from negotiation, right? We're all people at the end of the day. Getting to Yes is written by Harvey professors and they like to sort of pretend like emotion doesn't come into things and you can just be purely objective when you're talking about outcomes that people want. But the reality that Never Split the Difference brings in is that

We're emotional beings, right? And so there's a layer of emotion and personality that always sits over the top of objective reality. And so you shouldn't ignore that. You should work with it and understand what things work to manage and navigate that emotional layer. The third point I already touched on, which is you really do need a genuine interest in your counterpart. They use the term tactical empathy, which is a bit.

bit of a weird term but this is the term that they use in Never Split the Difference. This is all about understanding your counterpart's point of view and this is not necessarily about accepting their point of view. You don't have to agree with what they're saying but you need to understand what they think and why they think it. ⁓ Jump in Gunnar if you want.

Gunnar Haid (00:50:14)
⁓ Never mind, I agree.

James Hammond (00:50:16)
Are you loving this? ⁓

James Hammond (00:50:24)
I'd be really interested to see what our listeners think. This is just fun for me. Even if nobody listens to it, I'm having a good time.

Gunnar Haid (00:50:31)
I'm glad someone is. ⁓ Chris Voss, the author of Never Split the Difference, right? ⁓

James Hammond (00:50:38)
Yeah, great book. Yeah.

Gunnar Haid (00:50:40)
I listened to him on, I'm a big fan of Sam Harris's podcast. So I listened to him on Sam Harris. As you mentioned it, I'm like, hang on. I know this book. Uh, and, and Sam Harris spoke very highly of it. And then I hear it from other parties and I'm okay, I gotta read this book. God, could, it's this boring. Jesus. This is a terrible book for me. It's like, I opened this book. started reading it. Yeah. Get to the, get, give me some meat here. All right. So I, I'm, I'm like, all right.

I put that book aside and got myself ⁓ a condensed version on the internet. Because I can't read this book. And even the condensed version is just bad shit boring for me. ⁓ I cannot relate to what he had to say. I already couldn't relate to him while he was on Sam Harris' podcast. But I've heard ⁓ so many people say, this Never Split the Difference is, ⁓ that's the book and you've got to read that. I'm like, not me.

terrible book sleeping pill stuff horrible just nothing no substance there and everything he says is is is ⁓ you know like these these empty terms that you just you have to understand the other player you know no shit of course you do ⁓ and ⁓ make sure that you are that you ⁓ you you have empathy with the other you can't you either have it or you don't right you either you either like the person or you don't but none of this this this ⁓ you know you can

fake to be interested in the other person. Because if the other person is a boring person, you're just not interested. End of the discussion. There's nothing you can do. Okay. It ⁓ was like, you know, just make sure you whatever. mean, and I hear you say the, these, all these empty, just, just vacant void statements that this book is full of. ⁓ I'm like, man, you know, I, I could not do that. That book was not me in any version in the long version or the short version. Couldn't do it.

James Hammond (00:52:37)
⁓ man, I- ⁓ that's a good take. ⁓ Man, I love that. Really? I've read it multiple times.

Gunnar Haid (00:52:46)
Well, you're also interested in basketball, so you know, what the hell, you know.

James Hammond (00:52:50)
Yeah, well, ⁓ don't hold that against me. So yeah, we've got a bit of a different, a different view on this. I Gunnar ⁓ and You said you've either got it or you don't. And ⁓ I don't really agree with that. I do think that it's a skill that you can develop, but number one, you got to want to develop it. And I should have said this earlier on, when we're talking about negotiating, you need to start from a place where you both want an outcome. You want something from this interaction.

Because like you said, if you're just dealing with somebody who you find boring or reprehensible, or you don't want to be there, if there's no point in you having that conversation, then you're not going to have it. You're just going to say, why would I do this? Right? So I take everything you've said, but in a situation, for example, in an international treaty where it's like, you're representing a country and that country wants an outcome. ⁓ it's the same as if, you know, you're buying a car or something like

you want to buy a car and the salesperson wants to sell a car. So you're both there and you might come up across these kinds of issues where you find the other person boring or the other person annoying or whatever it is. But because you are there and you want the outcome, that's where these skills come in that help you kind of push through those barriers that might be in your way and get an outcome. ⁓ So there's got to be something that brings people to the table.

Gunnar Haid (00:54:11)
⁓ The line between negotiations and sleazy sales tactics is very blurry. ⁓ and I, know, it's, it's, ⁓ but you know, the funny thing is when you say car sales or wherever I go somewhere and you're talking to a salesperson and, you know, of course I've read all the, as soon as soon as I hear a salesperson even use one of those things on me, I'm already out.

Because I automatically assume the guy thinks I'm a complete idiot for not knowing what he's doing or they are doing. ⁓ I'm but oddly enough, you know, that the weird thing is that these tactics, these sales things seem to work. Otherwise salespeople wouldn't do them, Because their livelihood depends on closing a sale. But trust me with me, you use one of those things on me and it's always the same stuff anyway, right? ⁓ Asking you so, so, you know,

Faking interest in me and why I really want that lender and all this, ⁓ you know, ⁓ what have you got at the moment and how much are you willing to, ⁓ what's your, all this, all this cheap sleazy stuff ⁓ seems to work oddly enough. Either nobody has read any of these sales books. That's possible. the people don't, don't realize that. But for me, it is such a turnoff. ⁓ It is terrible. ⁓

The negotiation very, very quickly stops. I I I even pulled people up and say, listen, please stop it with the sales here. ⁓ You got to stop that.

James Hammond (00:55:45)
The sales tactics. But Gunnar, what you're talking about there is, you're talking about psychological tricks to try and fool somebody into agreeing to something that they really don't want or shouldn't agree to. Now, yeah, that's not at all what I'm talking about. Like that's the bad experience. And that is one of the things I think that people's minds can go to when you say the word negotiation, because they might have had a bad experience like that. So I...

So let me just say this as a really blanket thing. If you want a good and lasting outcome from any negotiation that you're involved in, do not use ⁓ the sleazy mind tricks to get the short-term outcome because they don't last. Particularly in something like an international agreement where yes, you can get, you get the agreement, you get the thing signed, you get the resolution passed, but then you've got to go back and implement that stuff. Let me give an example closer to home. If I'm a regulator and I strong arm.

or kind of use coercion or sort of forceful tactics to get a licensee to agree to something that isn't feasible for them, doesn't work for them, is not achievable for them. You feel like you get the win because you get the, you get agreement, right? So you negotiate an outcome and they agree to something. They then walk away and they either can't or don't want to then follow through with what they've agreed to do. You have to be really careful with those things. And I'm definitely not a believer in those kinds of tricks or tactics.

to get an outcome because it's not going to be a lasting outcome. The sleazy tricks do work, but they are not good in the overall scheme of things and I never recommend people use those sorts of things. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (00:57:25)
That's as a difference between negotiations and sales tactics. Obviously, all I'm saying is there is a, ⁓ I think ⁓ the line is not a line. The line is an area, is a ⁓ zone. ⁓

James Hammond (00:57:29)
I think I-

James Hammond (00:57:39)
Yeah. We do need to wrap up. I think, so just let me finish round out with a few other points that I had here. Another thing I want to mention is just the importance of building rapport with who you're working with, particularly for these kind of longer lasting negotiations where you're to have to have ongoing interactions with somebody. Another point is whenever I get stuck on something, so say you're in a salary negotiation, you're trying to negotiate an increase in your salary with your boss. ⁓ Let's do it right now. Let's do it. Let's do a live example.

Gunnar Haid (00:58:05)
Yeah, why don't we?

James Hammond (00:58:09)
If you get stuck ⁓ on the number, for example, and you're not getting anywhere, right? You're just kind of banging up against each other. You know, this is what I want. No, I can't do that. How about this? And you sort of do that back and forth. ⁓ Pivot to something else. Pivot to some other element of the agreement, additional leave ⁓ or work from home flexibility. Pivot to something else that is not about that particular issue. And then see if you can come back to it. You might be willing to accept a salary, for example.

if there's some other benefit that is brought into the agreement that may not have originally been on the table. People often question with international meetings like this, like why do you all need to go together, particularly you and FCCC. Everyone's saying, I can't believe you're burning all this jet fuel to come to one place and talk about the importance of stopping climate change. But the reality is that it comes back to that point. We are humans. There are certain things that you just need to get in the same room with somebody and read the body language and

be in proximity with somebody else and just talk things out that way.

Gunnar Haid (00:59:08)
can't drink tequila with anyone over zoom, can you?

James Hammond (00:59:11)
Exactly, exactly. And I should have said this before, outside the negotiating rooms, that's where a lot of negotiation actually happens. Over a glass of mezcal at the bar is often where things can be kind of worked out. I'm conscious of what I'm talking about here. You do have to maintain professionalism and you've got to stick to your guns with what you can agree to, obviously, but it's easier for me to discuss something openly and freely with a counterpart where I'm sitting there having a drink at the bar versus when I'm in the room with everyone's eyes on you.

And the last point I'll make here is just, do need to know when to walk away. And so in international negotiations, we had ⁓ what are called red lines, which are essentially like the non-negotiable aspects of any kind of an agreement. ⁓ And they are fixed. They really can't move, but they are only one element of an agreement. might be like, we can't move on this thing, but we can move on all these other things. Right. And so that gives us the flexibility to maneuver on those other things. But.

You've got to know what your boundaries and what your red lines are and need to know when to walk away. So I'll leave it there. I'm hoping that there are some interesting ⁓ or useful points that I've covered on there. And despite what you said, Gunnar, I would encourage people to go out and form their own opinion about those books that we read. Maybe, maybe start with the little summary version and then if you like it, go up to the big one.

Gunnar Haid (01:00:31)
⁓ Yeah. Most of while we're mentioning books and you always sound so, so intelligent when you say, I've read this book and I can highly recommend that everybody does. ⁓ Well, actually there is one book that I have read several times and that's Dale Carnegie, How to win friends and influence people. ⁓ did buy that book for my girls in the foreword of how to win friends and influence people. says that what made him write this book was that he realized in his career and we're talking Dale Carnegie  here, right? Yeah. Not short of a quid. ⁓

James Hammond (01:01:00)
you

Gunnar Haid (01:01:01)
That's even in, and this is what really hit it home for me, even in industries that are highly technical, like engineering. So I'm like, okay, ⁓ the success ⁓ in your career depends mainly on your knowledge in human engineering. in human interactions and only secondarily in your technical knowledge, which is

great for someone who went to uni for 10 years. ⁓ I went to a technical university and ⁓ not ⁓ one lecture was about the human engineering. So when I read that book, it was after I had gone to uni. ⁓ think, okay, ⁓ I didn't believe it, but it's true. ⁓ It's very much true to a degree. ⁓

James Hammond (01:01:50)
Well, yes, we can leave it there and I thank you Gunnar for indulging me. This certainly wasn't indulgence. ⁓ Thanks to anyone who's hung in there. ⁓

Gunnar Haid (01:01:56)
You're welcome. You owe me another acid-sulfate soil episode now.

James Hammond (01:02:03)
That's a fair trade. No, I appreciate it. This was a little pet interest of mine that I wanted to talk about. Like I said, it was a really formative part of my career. don't know if anyone who's listening has also agreed that it's been fun, but hopefully there's a few tidbits in there that are of interest.

Gunnar Haid (01:02:18)
We don't get ⁓ many people contacting us, but please, if someone still is in this podcast, can I please ask you to flick us ⁓ an email? Just contact us, we are easy to contact and say number one, yes, I did actually listen to the very end. ⁓ Well done Gunnar for hanging in there. ⁓ I also want to hear that. ⁓ And thirdly, whether you found this interesting or not. ⁓ I want to know.

James Hammond (01:02:43)
And if we ⁓ get more than five people contacting us, can I? Yeah, I mean, it'd ⁓

Gunnar Haid (01:02:49)
Yeah, fair enough. A tequila. I'll you a tequila.

James Hammond (01:02:53)
Yeah, that's right. Take me back to Mexico. Alright.

Gunnar Haid (01:02:54)
But leave it at that. Have fun. Bye.

James Hammond (01:02:57)
Thanks Gunnar, have a good day. Bye.