Author: Marianne Lotter-Jones

Over the week there have been several protests in and around the COP to bring attention to certain issues that should be addressed in the Negotiations.  Yesterday, Friday, Shana and I actually got to participate in a protest chanting “Climate equals Health, Our Health is up to you” to ensure that more public health issues are directly addressed in countries’ nationally determined contributions (NDC). While Shana is a tried and tested protester, this was my first time actually participating in a protest (rather than just observing one) and I was pretty proud of myself for pushing the boundaries of my comfort zone and try to make a difference.

But that got me thinking. How effective are protests at the COP actually? This year’s protests in Poland are more restricted than they have been in the past and one needs to have the protest approved and no microphones are allowed. Regardless of the extra restrictions with this year’s protester’s abilities, I think protests in general add a totally different dynamic to the COP. The negotiations I have been to at the COP have more so been about the language used in various agreements rather than debates about what should or should not be directly addressed. Furthermore, even if a specific issue were being added to the agreement, I have the distinct impression that the debates between states would generally agree that the issue should be included but would argue about the language of the agreement to the extent where it would end up being as vague as possible so that countries do not have to necessarily act upon said issue. To what extent does a protest really force countries to change the language of an agreement? Does it matter how many people and the type of people who get involved?

The three protests I attended during my time at the COP were all very different from one another.

A protest on Tuesday organised by SustainUS to Keep Fossils in the Ground! had around 20 people in the protest surrounded by 30 or so people watching the protest, most of whom I thought were young people. There was a lot of chanting, various people speaking about their personal experiences with fossil fuels, and while the audience was pretty big, it did not get much bigger. This protest was quickly followed by an organised Press Conference that concisely defined the movement’s demands. A protest on Friday on Human Rights had a similar atmosphere around it in terms of the people that were there but there was a lot more silence than chanting. Furthermore everyone from that protest was wearing black and had red lanyards for the entire day to continue their protest.

Finally, the protest I actually participated in, also on Friday, about Climate Change and Health did not have that many participants, nor that big of an audience. We played out a skit and then did some chants but there was not a speech of what we were actually demanding which I thought could have really helped others understand the goals of the protest. Although the audience was not very big, I did think that because we were not completely blocking off a hallway, that people walking past could actually see our protest rather than having to walk past a big herd of people who are encircling the protest and thus are also obstructing the ability for passers  by to see the protest. We did get press coverage by a couple of country’s news outlets (and by a couple, I mean exactly 3) but it is difficult to tell the effect of the news coverage on important COP negotiations too.

The primary goals of all these protests at COP are to change the way that the agreements are being negotiated and in order for that to happen, the actual negotiators should be listening. Are they really listening though? There are long negotiations continuously throughout the day so when would a delegate even have time to see the protest? A lot of the issues brought up in these processes are further talked about in side events and press conferences, but again, most state representatives are too busy to go to these meetings (I certainly haven’t seen many of them at the events I went to). Many states have prepared for weeks in advance their specific strategies of negotiating deals and have specific orders of what the outcomes should be at the end of the two weeks. Thus, how would an impromptu protest change a state’s stance on the climate negotiation?

Protests do have an impact, I’m not denying that. But I do wonder whether protests are the right way to make an impact at the COP. The protests I have seen have all been organized by young people and it seems that at the COP, protests are the only way in which non-governmental organizers (especially YOUNGOs) can make their voices heard since they are prohibited from even entering high level negotiations. I believe that the questions posed here are definitely worth looking into and I think that in addressing them, people could make their protests more effective.

Being at the COP has made me so much more aware of just how many countries there are in the world. Sure, 197 is a number that is not to hard to think about but do you actually know what you’re imagining when you think of 197 countries? It’s surprising that any negotiations get worked out at all given the sheer amount of languages spoken, though it is certainly heart warming!

I have had several experiences this week that have made me think of the extraordinary ways in which the COP delicately (and maybe sometimes indelicately) handles culture clashes.

 

What is it with every single speaker thanking the previous speaker for their “kind words”, congratulating the previous speaker on being appointed to a certain position, and addressing each other as “your Excellency”?

At first, I thought the formal ways in which people spoke to one another here was quite over the top and in some cases, frankly, a waste of time. Just get to the point already! But I think that these ways in which people speak to one another is a form of showing deep respect and to avoid certain confrontations. It also shows the appreciation that people have for one another during these talks and exhibits ways in which climate negotiations are supposed to unite us and not divide us.

To me, the COP is not a tourist attraction and is not even supposed to be, but that’s not what other people seem to think. 

I can get behind the fact that people want to document that they were at the COP and that they were with their delegation presenting at a certain side event or something but sometimes, it seems like some delegates are putting on too much of a show. For example, I literally saw a panelist leave the panel, give his phone to a random stranger, go back to the panel and pose thoughtfully as the stranger took a photo of him, all while the actual panel discussions were ongoing. No one batted an eyelash. I think something like this just goes to show the extent to which people want to document their time at the COP, and hey, in the 21st century when social media is king, there is no better way to get the word out than a snazzy picture on instagram. This is also surely the first time that a lot of people get to visit Poland and be so far away from home so if they have to spend most of their time at the COP, then that’s what they are going to take pictures of. The privilege I have of being able to travel as much as I have has been checked. 

 

Please please please will anyone address the fact that most of the events are held in English!!!

I could not be more grateful of the fact that I can understand most of the events that I go to. Only one event I have been to has completely been in a different language and in the negotiations, only those delegates who absolutely cannot speak English will not. However, what does it mean that the COP is in English? I know that the UN has six official languages, but these languages do not seem to be exposing themselves that much throughout the COP. What sort of messages of power are relayed when everything is in English? I had to leave an event just because I could not understand the broken English that people were using and I felt really bad because I was so sure that the topic they were speaking about was just as important for me to learn about as a topic that was presented on by fluent English speakers. I think it’s beyond the scope of this blog to go more into detail about this but it is definitely worth thinking about some more.

As you may or may not know, an umbrella group of Non-Governmental Organisations, Climate Action Network (CAN), has been organizing awards called “Fossil of the Day” at the COPs since 1999 which is an award given to the country that has done their ‘best’ to block progress in the negotiations on each day of the COP. Members of CAN vote each day on which country can claim this prestigious prize and today….

the award went to…. Poland!! CAN cited the Polish President who said that there was “no contradiction between climate protection and coal” during his Plenary speech yesterday. Today he further stated that “Poland has enough coal to last for another 200 years”… and that the “Polish mining industry and mining constituencies were the foundations of the Polish economy determining the country’s energy security and are a greater extent towards energy sovereignty.”

As it is only the first day of negotiations, I do not know how much we can really look into the significance of this award and there are plenty more days ahead for other countries to take a lead in blocking negotiations. I do think that as the hosts of a COP, there is a lot of pressure for Poland to “put on a good front” and there are a lot of people very willing to critique the COP itself (just how much carbon was emitted to get 197 countries to convene?) and looking for any sort of juxtaposition between what states say compared to what they do. I did not attend any high level negotiations today so I am not able to say whether I think Poland is more deserving of this award than any other country but somehow I can’t help feeling that Poland only got this award because it’s been under the microscope more so than other countries today and yesterday.

There’s a lot to unpack in this award, that’s for sure but here are just a few questions I am thinking about:

• Do you think Poland’s stance on supporting the coal industry is worse than a country’s support for fracking or nuclear power? (Can’t we critique every country for a bad climate policy decision?) Or did Poland win the award because it was selling the ‘wrong’ sorts of ideas to the wrong audience?
• As a host of COP, is it really Poland’s job to be at the forefront of climate policy? Afterall, isn’t the point of having different countries host the COP so that different voices can be heard and different cultures experienced?

Also, I think it’s really interesting to think about how the Fossil of the Day award can be used as a climate negotiating tool.

• Do you think that the award would make more people engaged with the COP and would a daily spotlight on a specific country help the public follow the COP events that much more?
• What do the countries who win this award think? It’s not a great award to get, that’s for sure, but will it change the way in which, for example, Poland will think about it’s message?

As CAN stated, it has definitely been “a hot welcome from the hosts of COP24!” Seriously, it’s cold in Poland but not as cold as I thought it would be…

— Marianne

P.S.I You can follow more of the Fossil of the Day COP24 awards here on their facebook page! Or, to learn more about CAN, click here.

Wow! What a really interesting first day at COP! I feel like everything has just been an absolute blur and that I’ve been at the COP for way longer than I actually have been.

Like I saw David Attenborough today… How crazy is that?!?!

 

Anyway while seeing David Attenborough (a.k.a my second Grandfather) was definitely the highlight of my day, I also went to some very interesting meetings that gave me a lot of food for thought. In one of the side events entitled
“Climate Friendly Technologies” one of the speakers off handedly mentioned that he would prefer to see a COP structured where all the important negotiating stuff happened as side events (observers can’t attend these events anyway so what does it really matter to us?) and that people’s presentations on current work that they are doing to actively reduce carbon emissions or adapt to climate change should have more of a focus at these conferences. I thought that this one comment was actually quite profound and it got me to thinking about what a COP would be like if we focused on stuff we ARE doing instead of stuff that we SHOULD be doing. How would that change people’s perception and attitudes towards climate change? What sort of message would that send in terms of placing the importance of climate change policy on people instead of powerful governments?

At the end of the day these are rhetorical questions and I do not think that I have been able to process a comprehensive answer. But, from my first impressions of COP, it does seem like there is a definite hierarchy of events that people prioritize to attend. For example: Why were there more people at a talk from Arnold Schwarzenegger than there were at a talk about indigenous voices?

Just some food for thought for my first day at the climate negotiations. How effective is COP anyway? I guess all of us at Swat will get back to you on that sooner or later.

—Marianne

Day 0:

As the COP does not start until tomorrow, the whole group got to spend the day exploring Katowice and Krakow (after we picked up our badges, of course – pictured below).

It seems like we walked through a never ending stream of Christmas Markets and just went from one place to another in search of more and more food. A lot of coffee was also drunk to stave off the jet-lag.

Can’t wait to see what is in store for us at the opening plenaries tomorrow and meet some exciting people!