Swarthmore at COP29

One of the more interesting panels I have attended so far was held Tuesday morning (11/15) on “Addressing Conflicts of Interest in the Implementation of the Paris Agreement.”  Having attended COP-19 in Warsaw, I was aware of the concern over participation of fossil fuel industries in the conference, of the booths set up by fossil fuel industries that aimed to persuade passers-by that they were environmentally progressive, that Poland (the host country) was heavily reliant upon coal and not ready to switch, and the fact that UNFCCC officials had a meeting with the coal industry during that conference.  It seems the involvement of environmentally dirty industries in the COP has become more pervasive since then.  The panel, which included Goodwin Ojo from Environmental Rights Action and Friends of the Earth International, Nigeria; Meena Raman of Third World Network, Lidy Nacpil representing Asian Peoples’ Movement for Debt and Development; Walter Schuldt, state delegate to COP from Ecuador; and Tamar Lawrence-Samuel of Corporate Accountability International, explored ways in which conflicts of interest posed problems for climate change negotiations, and how they should be dealt with.

Polluters have increasingly come to participate in the COP.  Some years, they have come as representatives of their industries (as BINGOs—business and industry non-governmental actors—don’t you have to love these acronyms?) , and other years they will show up wearing badges of some nation (or the EU) as an official negotiator.  Whichever hat they wear, they emphasize private sector interests; when they are delegates, they have a voice in the negotiations.  Even as BINGOs, they get access that other non-governmental organizations do not have.  Other NGOs (including environmental NGOs and research institutions) do not have the same access to official meetings at COP.  BINGOs are able to submit documents (as other NGOs are not). And it looks as if, under UNFCCC auspices, banks direct some monies (adaptation/mitigation, Green Development Fund?) to some of these industries. Tamar Lawrence-Samuel of Corporate Accountability International outlined four ways corporate conflict of interest occurs: 1) direct lobbying by industry, and industry representatives joining official delegations; 2) industry lobby groups with legal status as non-profits who get NGO credentials (World Coal Assn, International Trading Association, etc);  3)  Holding big side events that UNFCCC high-level folks attend; and 4) Platform(s) for corporations to pledge to take action on the climate (global climate action plan), and thereby greenwashing their actions.

Walter Schuldt, an official state delegate from Ecuador who was also instrumental in Tuesday’s meeting for consultation with indigenous peoples about the proposed new Platform, pointed out the SBI [Subsidiary Body for Implementation] report at COP22 does not include a conflict of interest statement, despite the efforts of their Latin American group that had support from some African groups.  Schuldt, who I was drawn to as one of the rock stars (one of the really good guys) in these meetings, said that a significant part of government climate change expenditures goes through businesses (30%, I believe he said)—yet Corporations have been involved in environmental damages and human rights violations, putting the entire economy of nations in danger when having to press their cases against international corporations (there are examples in his region).

There are good models for conflict of interest rules out there.  Schuldt pointed to the World Health Organization (WHO), which has set up a participatory framework for non-state actors.  If a conflict of interest exists for a corporation, that entity has to be considered a private sector actor.  The Human Rights Council has also worked to develop a binding agreement on international corporations involved in violations of human rights (the EU participated in this). Tamar Lawrence-Samuel (Corporate Accountability International)  also pointed to important international examples of keeping industry at arms’ length in the negotiating process.  The Global tobacco treaty shows that world leaders can (and have) stood up to powerful corporations.  Tobacco interests did everything they could to weaken the agreement, but (Asian-Pacific and other) nations banded together to stop them.  The treaty was unanimously adopted in 2003 (provision 5.3 recognizes the tobacco company’s profound and irreconcilable conflict of interest in health policy).  This treaty is working, she said, and it helps speed up domestic laws to provide for public health (anti-tobacco laws).

Another point made by two speakers was that the legal systems in some of the LDCs are quite weak, and that national courts’ decisions against polluters (e.g., natural gas flaring in Nigeria, declared illegal in 2005) are often unenforced.  They would like some UNFCCC help with the enforcement problem.

Various speakers pointed out that international safeguards and regulations on corporations will not be enough.  Our governments can invoke our own right to deal with corporate investors within our countries.  International law and regulation for transnational corporations important, of course—and they should be held accountable.  It is important to be very careful how “nationally determined contributions” are getting defined to include interests of corporate actors (is coal-produced megawatt power excluded in the 70% reduction in emissions Philippines promised?).

Corporate social responsibility, self-depicted, was called greenwashing by several speakers.  Godwin Ojo from Nigeria underscored the failure of voluntary mechanisms: corporations pollute and then build a hospital.  Ojo (joined by others) used the term Ecoside to describe such actions.  There need to be binding mechanisms, Ojo contended.  Delegate Schuldt (Ecuador) pointed out that the achievement of sustainability has not yet been defined for non-developed country funding by UNFCCC, and that definition needs to have teeth.

On our first day, we went to the Forum for informal consultation with indigenous peoples on a proposed Platform for Indigenous Peoples, pursuant to paragraph 135 (non-party stakeholders) in the Paris Accord. Very few “parties” (state actors) attended–Bolivia and Ecuador seem to have spearheaded this effort; Australia, the EU, Sweden, Canada, Panama and a few others participated. There were many indigenous people observing, and several at the table speaking.

The purpose of the meeting was to “gather views and share information” from indigenous people, a demographic with a legacy of oppression. It is extremely unfortunate that while these countries contribute the least to CO2 emissions, they are also the ones who feel the full effects of climate change and are most heavily impacted. In moving forward, it is critical that they have the opportunity and voice to contribute to the design and implementation of actions. The First Nations spokespersons insisted that this must be a fully participatory process and that they must be active drivers of change, not passive agents.

I admired and respected how the representatives of indigenous peoples highlighted a common theme in their discussions: the importance of understanding the spiritual, traditional, and cultural dimension of knowledge. Walter Schuldt from the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the United Nations pressed, “We must see Mother Earth as an integral part of nature, as human.” He stated that our collective responsibility to defend nature means that there must be legal implications to any violations against nature.

Kevin Hart, the Manitoba Regional Chief for the Assembly of First Nations, spoke on behalf of the Canadian delegation. He was joined by an elder from British Columbia who said, “Mother Earth can live without us; we cannot survive without Mother Earth,” and who spoke in opposition to a new hydroelectric dam at Fort St. John. Both Hart and the elder expressed their dissatisfaction with the lack of engagement and action. They emphasized that the first step in addressing climate change is to possess full awareness of the holistic issue at hand. The chief elder said, “We are stewards of the land. Our connection to the land is first and foremost based on the teachings that have been passed down in the memorial…Protecting the land and water is not an indigenous issue; it is a human issue.” Hart pressed for full respect of the constitutional treaty and for inherent human rights, supported by all levels of the government. He stated, “I’ve been to a lot of these meetings now, and we really need to move ahead.”

Ecuador and Bolivia, who seem to have pressed for this meeting, had several proposals for moving forward with the Platform. Bolivia suggested that there be indigenous peoples’ sessions at each COP and that the UN work to set up more meetings among indigenous peoples. Victoria Tauli-Corpus, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous People added that there should also be more virtual exchange of ideas and information on extending technologies of indigenous peoples, perhaps by means of a common website. She also said the Platform should be adopted at the next session of COP, and there should be a high level meeting of indigenous peoples’ technology at COP23.The representative from Ecuador suggested as well that there be an “Action agenda” for a full day on indigenous peoples at COP 23.  

There was a state delegation from the EU at this meeting, and while they emphasized their support for human rights, including those of indigenous peoples, and with sharing technological best practices of indigenous peoples, they expressed a need for clarification about the platform and how and where it will fit into the framework and architecture of Paris. They seemed to be less ready to move forward with speed than did others in the room. We asked several parties (state representatives) and they suggested that the EU was somewhat wary because someone would have to pay for whatever was enacted, and/or that the EU was interested in maintaining control over the Paris process.

Day 2 in Marrakech and day 1 (of week 2) of the 22^nd Conference of Parties complete for the second Swarthmore Delegation. Things have been going smoothly thus far and our experience has been a satisfying mix of ad hoc and deliberate scheduling to get the most out of both the busy Conference and the inviting sites in the city. Already in our last 32 hours here, since arriving on Sunday afternoon (Marrakech time), we have managed to explore the labyrinth of outdoor vendors in the Souk and twice dined on delicious dinners ranging from pastille platters and tangine dishes on rooftop restaurants within the Medina (the old city within Marrakech). Thanks to the advice from the first Swarthmore delegation as well as the kind Moroccan city dwellers, we have gotten familiar with transit costs, navigating the COP space, and of course, learning the tricks to optimize the hotel wi-fi.

We’ll be sure to share plenty of details of specific workshops and negotiations as the week progresses, but first, a brief overview of the COP itself may be helpful for understanding the importance of this meeting, and for demonstrating that we are here for more than just delicious mint tea, beautiful weather, and a head start on Christmas shopping.

The COP is the actual international meeting that has been held annually since 1995, to actualize the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). UNFCCC was first established in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, where the international community decided to begin negotiations in which nations would voluntary work to reduce carbon emissions. The Kyoto Protocol established in 1997 was one of the first COPs that yielded somewhat substantive results for nations to commit to cut carbon emissions, yet lack of participation from large emitters (including the U.S.) combined with weak targets resulted in little global progress towards carbon emission reductions. The Kyoto Protocol differentiated between Annex I (developed) and non-Annex I (less developed) nations, with developed nations bearing responsibilities for reducing CO₂ emissions.  (Harris et. al., 2015, 9) Since China and India were among the non-Annex I nations and had no formal responsibility to curb carbon emissions, the U.S. Congress would not ratify Kyoto. Carbon emissions trading under Kyoto failed to be effective to bring down CO₂ levels.

By many measures, the next substantive meeting that showed any hopeful progress was 18 years later in COP 21 in Paris. With China and the U.S., the world’s two greatest carbon emitters, finally cooperating in the 2015 conference broadly considered “the last chance”, the world finally made three especially important strides towards carbon emissions reductions. The Paris Agreement ended the formal, differentiated responsibility of Annex I and non-Annex I nations, it provided flexibility of states’ contributions in a way that encourages participation, and it establishes 5 year reviews of states’ progress. (Kaya, Desai, 2016, 5, 6) The Paris Agreement also bolstered recognition of the need to pursue more ambitious emissions reductions, marking a global temperature increase of 1.5ºC increase from pre-industrial levels as the goal, rather than the previous goal of no more than a 2.0ºC increase (Obergassel et. al. 2016, 14, 15) The Paris Agreement was officially ratified on November 4, 2016- way sooner than most expected- after a enough countries (the required 55% threshold) signed on to the agreement in October of this year. (Reuters, 2016)

While the progress made in COP 21 rejuvenated hope in the ability of productive international diplomacy on climate change, challenges remain. Calculations of the world’s current emissions reduction plans still project that the global temperature increase will range from 2.7ºC to 3.5ºC, far exceeding the 1.5 to stay alive as was chanted by many small island nation representatives at the Paris conference. Additionally, the Paris Agreement is not legally binding, but only provides a system of “naming and shaming” through its 5 year reviews in which nations share progress. (Obergassel et. al., 3) And, of course the election of a president and a congressional majority that tends to disregard the scientific projections from the international science community, in addition to its own EPA, DOD, and CBO, is not helpful.

The rest of the global community however is continuing to work towards its moral and technical responsibilities to address the global climate crisis. We’ll keep you updated on how these efforts are playing out.

We woke up to great shock and surprise as we realized that Trump had won the election. The irony of being in Morocco at a UN global climate change conference right now hit us hard, especially while we were away from friends and family.  However, we took solace by watching and joining in on youth-led election-response demonstrations. Hearing stories from young climate activist groups such as SustainUS (which includes recent Swarthmore grad Ben Goloff) reminded us that there are many others who will continue to fight for a sustainable and just future, despite present and future challenges to that vision.

Our Moroccan hosts and the general public that we have met have been extremely supportive of us and were also surprised that Trump won.

It is difficult to gague the effect of the election on COP events, as we do not have access to observe the official negotiations between parties. On the surface, COP looked to continue as usual. The only visible signs of grief came from youth delegates, largely activists, who cried and hugged as we made our way through the day.

We’re sending a few pictures after a busy Day 1 at the COP22.  The speeches at the opening ceremonies promised that ACTION would be the operative word at the conference.  Salaheddine Mezouar, the president of COP22, argued that we must commit our work during these negotiations to ensure climate justice for the most vulnerable nations.  He quoted a proverb from the Dogon people of Mali: “The sun does not forget a village just because it is small”.  Let’s see what happens.

Here are some pictures from Day 1:

The COP compound is filled with meeting rooms, displays for countries and NGOs, and large halls for panel discussions. These are located in the Blue Zone, which requires special UN accreditation to access and is where we spent all of today.

We look forward to checking out the Green Zone tomorrow, which is where NGOs and other civil societies gather to hold events and displays. We only passed this space briefly on the way out, but look forward to spending more time there.

On the way out we also helped a group of event organizers transport the “Medina Bikes” on display…by riding them! (These are the city bikes available for public use in Marrakech, for a yearly fee of approximately $50.) While chatting with one of the other bike riders on the way out, it turned out we were riding bikes with the Moroccan Minister of the Environment. (Adina was asked if she was a minister too.) Afterwards, Giovanna reminded us that we probably should have asked about environmental justice in Morocco, but it was still a nice way to end the day.

More posts to come soon!

Adina, David, and Giovanna

In the three days since negotiators reached an agreement in Paris, I’ve seen the deal heralded as everything from “the world’s greatest diplomatic success” to “just bullshit”. There seems to be little consensus as to whether COP-21’s outcome was phenomenal, devastating, or even meaningful whatsoever. Personally, I’m happy (and, frankly, somewhat surprised) to see language regarding a 1.5 degree goal, loss and damages, and human rights make it into the text. At the same time, I know that current INDCs still add to 3+ degrees of global warming from pre-industrial levels and that the legal status of the agreement is still uncertain in many countries (including the U.S.). But overall, I align with commentators who claim the deal was better than expected.

To be clear, I didn’t expect much from the outcome document. Heading to the conference, I tried to eschew any belief that the parties would reach a deal at all. I anticipated that the process would be slow, opaque, and potentially inconclusive. I knew that the COP was a fundamentally political undertaking and that the negotiators faced immense institutional inertia in attempting to reach an agreement. In this respect, the proceedings presented many pleasant surprises. I was excited to see shifts towards transparency and accommodation for all parties, regardless of delegation size. Developing countries still faced undue barriers in comparison to their developed country counterparts, but structural elements like the Paris Committee and Indaba meetings gave me hope for an increasingly inclusive COP process in the future.

After reading the final text, I can’t say I feel excitement or despair or even anything in between. Mostly, I just feel relief. Even though I don’t think we know yet what this text means for decarbonization, fossil fuels, or the environment as a whole, I’m thrilled that the UN successfully provided a space for 196 countries to reach a substantive agreement. This agreement offers a clear focal point for further civil society movements, scientific research, and political negotiations around the world. All of these elements together will determine the trajectory of international climate change policy in the future. For now, the UNFCCC has served its purpose by providing an integral first step that will catalyze countless subsequent actions.

Last Wednesday night, when an agreement seemed to be a distant if not impossible prospect, I feared what an inconclusive COP would mean for both the future of the environment and the viability of UN processes as a whole. It’s my opinion that the global nature of climate change requires a global, intergovernmental solution. Nations don’t bear the brunt of global warming equally, but climate change undoubtedly affects the lives and livelihoods of every person on the planet. If governments can’t all come together to do something at COP, I thought, what chance do they have of addressing other issues like peacekeeping or refugee crises, where the moral imperative for action is considerably murkier? Luckily, the parties managed to reach an agreement. And I left the conference with hope, which is, upon reflection, better than expected.

-Anita Desai

While diplomats and negotiators attempted to come to an agreement this morning in the suburb of Le Bourget, thousands gathered across Paris for a series of demonstrations to mark the conclusion of the conference. These demonstrations’ fate has been in flux over the past month following the attacks in Paris, following with the French government imposed a State of Emergency and banned nearly all demonstrations. Coalition Climat 21 (which includes organizations like 350.org and Avazz) was unable to gain authorization for two demonstrations. A planned march on November 29th the weekend before the COP and what organizers said would be the largest ever civil disobedience today (Saturday 12 December) to conclude the conference. Potential demonstrations faced threats of tear case and clashes with police.

A smaller action did take place on November 29th, but the 10,000 participants were a far cry from the hundreds of thousands expected. Actions organized by 350.org and Avaaz included a human chain through the downtown the placement of thousands of pairs of shoes – including ones from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and Pope Francis – at the Place de la Republique to symbolize the people who would have joined the march. A peaceful march in Paris that day clashed with police in riot gear using tear gas on protesters. Nevertheless, over 800,000 people around the world marched in solidarity as part of the Global Climate March.

Despite the protest ban, Coalition Climat 21 planned a mass civil disobedience action, though the ban deterred many, leading to lower interest than expected. Nevertheless, the coalition trained thousands of activists this week in preparation for the action and for the likely scenario of arrest.

http://twitter.com/350/status/675647112906981376/photo/1
However, early this morning, the government decided to officially authorize the demonstration. A mass text sent from Coalition Climat 21 at 6 am this morning read: “BREAKING: massive mobilisation pushes French Gov. to PERMIT #D12 #redlines action. We didn’t accept demands to change plans & prevailed. See you on the streets.” In the end, an estimated 15,000 people converged within sight of the iconic Arc de Triomphe on Avenue de La Grande Armée at noon wearing red to form red lines to symbolize the ‘red lines’ demanding negotiators and political leaders not cross (one references repeatedly during the COP was the need to keep warming well below 2 degrees Celsius). Banners read, “It’s up to us to keep it in the ground” and “Crime Climatique – Stop!”

1000s sit in under the Eiffel Tower demanding real #climatejustice and chanting #keepitintheground. It’s up to us! pic.twitter.com/Q0NISbpUvT

— 350 Europe (@350Europe) December 12, 2015

Later in the afternoon, thousands chanted, sang, and linked arms to circle Champ de Mars and sit-in in front of the Eiffel Tower. This closed out with a rally with music and speakers, including author and activist Naomi Klein. She shared her reactions to the final draft text (which had been released just hours before and had yet to be approved). She heralded the agreement as a clear sign that the fossil fuel age is ending, but called for greater action, noting how countries’ existing INDCs (see our earlier blog for an explanation) set us on path for over 3 degrees Celsius of warming. She pointed to the fossil fuel industry’s immense power in domestic and international politics as a major inhibitor of an ambitious deal at the COP.

However, she expressed hope for the coming months, highlighting the development of the climate justice movement over the past few years, citing the Keystone XL win, a growing number of fossil fuel divestment commitments, and institutions like museums cutting ties with fossil fuel companies. She highlighted plans for a series of global civil disobedience actions organized by 350.org in May in which she said thousands around the world would “go up against the biggest fossil fuel projects in the world.”

Klein’s response echoed the views expressed by 350.org and many other climate justice organizations over the past few days, and today as the parties finalized the agreement: the agreement is a major step in the right direction and provides a clear example of the effectiveness of civil society engagement. However, it is not enough and civil society and social movements will need to step up the pressure over the next few years to counter the power of the fossil fuel industry and ensure countries go above and beyond their INDCs and, for those in developed countries, pressure governments to provide financial support to less developed countries to support in adaptation and mitigation efforts.

Here’s a good infographic evaluating the text as of Thursday:
http://climatetracker.org/we-evaluate-final-text-infographic/

All hopes to Paris for tomorrow!

As we walked towards a panel facilitated by One UN on human mobility and climate change, we debated the applicability of the word “mobility” in this case. “Mobility” seems to suggest voluntary movement; whereas we felt that climate-induced human movement better resembles forced migration.  Fortunately, our skepticism about the event’s title was allayed as soon as the panel chair started speaking, emphasizing that of issue here is forced human movement and “forced migration.”  The panel was informative and saddening at the same time.

A representative from the Norwegian Refugee Council stressed that since 2008, an average of 22.5 million people have been displaced each year due to natural disasters related to weather and climate events.  As some of the panelists noted, while we may not be able to say climate change caused these disasters (consider the El Nino in Ethiopia this year, which caused the country’s worst drought in 30 years), climate change exacerbates existing extreme weather events, for instance by intensifying El Niño cycles.  At the same time, those who are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change have the least ability to adapt to its negative repercussions.  There are, thus, complex but strong linkages between climate change, poverty, poor governance, civil war, and the displacement of people. 

A number of panelists referred to the 2014 IPCC report’s recognition of this important issue: “Climate change over the 21st Century is projected to increase displacement of people” and “can indirectly increase the risks of violent conflicts in the forms of civil war and inter-group violence by amplifying well-documented drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shocks.”  As an example, decreased food security and water availability caused by extreme weather not only exacerbate poverty, they might also compel people to move.  Conflict over scarce resources poses yet another risk.

The panelists also drew attention to the Nansen Initiative, which refers to the 2011 conference in Norway that laid out 10 principles with the recognition that “a more coherent and consistent approach at the international level is needed to meet the protection needs of people displaced externally owing to sudden-on-set disasters.” 

The panelists called for more data and more monitoring.  For instance, we do not have adequate data on displacement after disasters, and contrary to common assumptions, people who move to a natural disaster are not necessarily able to move back, leading to, what the IDMC calls, “protracted displacement.”  Another issue that requires more study and better policy is “planned relocation,” by national, international, sub-national, and non-state agencies.

Despite the depressing statistics, the panelists seemed encouraged that the Paris text might recognize the linkages between human movement and climate change. This would build on efforts from the 2010 meeting in Cancun, when parties endorsed a linkage between adaptation and displacement. Tonight’s (Dec 10) draft agreement included a request for the Executive Committee of the Warsaw International Mechanism “To [enhance understanding, coordination and cooperation with regard to climate change induced displacement, migration and planned relocation][initiate a process of identifying arrangements, modalities and procedures to convene and promote work on climate change displacement], draw upon the work of and involve, as appropriate, existing bodies and expert groups under the Convention, as well as that of relevant organizations and expert bodies outside the Convention.”  Whether this bracketed reference will survive remains to be seen, as we await the penultimate draft of the Paris agreement tomorrow.  Stay tuned!

-Anita Desai, Stephen O’Hanlon, Ayse Kaya

Follow us throughout the week on Twitter (@SwarthmoreCOP21) and Snapchat (SwarthmoreCOP21) to get real-time updates.