November 8, 2021 was the first day of the second week at COP26 in Glasgow, and a new Swarthmore observer delegation team took over from the first one. I spent much of the day, joined by a couple of students who are also part of the delegation, listening in on climate finance. And, I started writing a blog on that topic. But, for now, I want to write about my observations and anecdotes from Week 2 Day 1. As a social scientist, I do not get a chance to do that very often.
My story can be previewed in one sentence: the Americans are back! As the US pavilion’s wall declares (in a uniquely American way, where you cannot tell whether it is supposed to be humorous): “The United States is back in the Paris Agreement, back at COP, and ready to go all in climate.” And, by the looks of it, they were missed.
The big event of the day was former U.S. President Obama’s presence in the halls of COP. While I didn’t get to hear him in person, I enjoyed observing the effects of his visit. He gave two talks, one in the morning and one in the afternoon – both of which were ticketed, and tickets were not readily available. One person from our delegation did make it in. But, hundreds of people without tickets nonetheless cued up on the staircase where Obama was expected to descend into the room for his morning lecture. And, when the crowd got a glimpse of Obama, even a mere fleeting glimpse marked by hundreds of smart phones (which themselves were trying to capture the moment), the crowd cheered him as if he were a member of the Beatles. His quick descent down the stairs and into the large conference space for the talk lingered on with the crowd waiting outside. Some people tried to reason with the security guards that if there was room left, what was a ticket in the end? There were firm but polite rejections.
His second talk, similarly, witnessed a multinational crowd huddled outside of the large plenary room, where he was speaking. As the diverse groups were listening to him through the webcast, they were also hoping to see him in person. One person giddily told her friend “I already saw him, I don’t know why I am still waiting here.” Another group burst into spontaneous clapping as they watched him on the webcast. At some point, the crowd got so significant outside of the closed doors, where he was making the address, that a security guard took a megaphone in her hand to exclaim: “President Obama will not be exiting this way”, finally paving the way for us climate finance nerds to wait for the next session in the same room.
The other American in the limelight was John Kerry, serving as the inaugural Presidential Envoy for Climate Change. He spoke eloquently about the need to close the gap on adaptation finance during the Adaptation Fund Contributor Dialogue. This gap refers to what less developed countries need for building capacity and resilience to meet the challenges of climate change and what more developed countries have been dispensing for that cause. If you are wondering why the relatively rich should pay for the less fortunate to adapt (beyond moral reasoning), the answer is simple: much of the greenhouse gas emissions since about 1850 has been contributed by today’s developed countries, while the effects of climate change are disproportionately felt by the poor. Kerry put it forcefully: “The stakes here [in Glasgow] couldn’t really be higher.” He announced the first ever US contribution to the Fund — USD 50million–, deeming it a shift in the U.S. position. Later on, the German representative jokingly noted that their contribution was 50 million Euros, which superseded the American.
From Day 1, it looks like the Americans have leveraged China’s absence, reestablishing themselves as a key player, if not a leader. President Biden’s visit last week had already set that stage, and Obama’s visit with Kerry’s diplomacy appears to have further solidified it. However, it remains to be seen how long the love for the Americans will last – the proof will be in the negotiation pudding in the remaining days. And, the developing countries, the G77 group, are keeping up the solidarity so far in key negotiating items. So, stay tuned.
World leaders pledge to halt and reverse deforestation: A cause for celebration?
Hello from Swarthmore! In addition to the excellent coverage of the COP26 proceedings from Alicia, Daniel, and Melissa this week, we are hoping to provide some analysis of the news coming out of the conference from a Swarthmore perspective. Given the attention that it has garnered, the magnitude of the agreement, and the obvious relevance of forest health to us on our arboretum campus, the landmark commitment to ending and reversing deforestation seems a fitting place to start.
Even when surrounded by them, we sometimes take for granted the enormous impact that trees have on global carbon accounting. Stable forests act as massive carbon sinks, sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere. New research estimates that global forests absorb on net 1.5 times the total carbon emissions of the United States each year. However, this carbon does not disappear; when forests are cleared or burned, it is released back into the atmosphere. Indeed, of the world’s three largest rainforests, only the Congo Basin remains a solid carbon sink. Deforestation has a double impact; it stops potential carbon-uptake of the forest and releases carbon that was stored there.
In light of these impacts, representatives of 133 countries covering as much as 85 percent of the forests in the world and at least 30 corporations have signed an agreement committing to stop deforestation by 2030 and make efforts to reverse it. In addition to reaffirming Paris agreement goals of ending deforestation in developing countries, the agreement contains roughly $19 billion in financial commitments to reforestation projects in developing countries and promises to provide remuneration to indigenous people to acknowledge their role as custodians of forests.
Despite the newsworthy nature of this agreement, many experts and activists are skeptical of its ability to create meaningful and lasting differences in deforestation practices. Much of this doubt stems from previous failures of similar agreements. Of particular salience among critics is the 2014 New York Declaration on Forests, a voluntary commitment to halve deforestation by 2020 and eliminate it by 2030. Originally heralded as an impressive step forward, with over 200 signatory countries, multinational corporations, indigenous leaders, and non-governmental organizations, the retrospective story of the agreement has largely been one of disappointment.
The ambitious 2014 commitment was followed by a general lack of published mitigation targets, and the countries that did create targets were unambitious. Indeed, the 2019 five-year report of the project carried the subtitle “A Story of Large Commitments yet Limited Progress.” The data indicate that this assessment may actually have been overly positive; a 2020 report of progress on deforestation goals found, “an average of 41 percent more [tropical primary forest] loss each year after [the agreement] was signed than before.” Needless to say, the 2020 goal of halving deforestation was not met. The Declaration on Forests followed a pattern that many observers of global climate governance are only too familiar with; a promising initiative is introduced at a conference, but national-level financial, administrative, and political follow up is insufficient to achieve its goals.
Despite these past experiences, there is good reason to believe that the new agreement has both new magnitude and a new approach that give it the opportunity to break the pattern of disappointing deforestation commitments and achieve a more meaningful impact. The most important feature of success has been the inclusion of Brazil, Russia and China in this declaration, countries who had not signed onto previous agreements on deforestation. The inclusion of China has large potential for impact because its growing economy has been driving major deforestation in fringe forested areas like Pacific island countries. Similarly, Brazil has been witnessing unprecedented deforestation in the past decade, so its commitments are a good signal.
Secondly, the increased finance for protecting the forests is a necessary attempt to fix the distributive consequences in developing countries of stopping deforestation. Deforestation has immediate benefits for the local communities while ending deforestation has long-term global benefits. Larger financial commitments are an important step in addressing distributive consequences, fostering local support for reforestation measures, and supporting front-line communities. It is the first step to set up a system that works for everyone.
Thirdly, there has been a marked increase in the provision of philanthropic financial commitments by private actors like Jeff Bezos. This shows the growing awareness and perceived urgency of climate action amongst non-state actors. This should be encouraged and shows there is great potential for raising funds for certain oft-overlooked causes of climate action. The inclusion of pledges by at least 30 corporations to cut out products like coffee that drive deforestation in developing countries is a very important and much needed step to halt this blatant exploitation of forests in the developing world. In countries like Brazil, industrial sources of deforestation vastly outnumber the local population’s demand for deforestation.
However, let us not paint too much of a rosy picture of the massively grim state of forests. No international agreement on controversial issues plays out as effectively as it was intended and that is why we see a constant evolution of the treaties, agreements, and bureaucratic setups governing them. The biggest concern has been the role of countries that bought-in to the deforestation setup for the first time. While Brazil’s inclusion in the agreement has been touted as a game changing scenario for deforestation and harbinger of success of the agreement, critics have alleged that Brazil’s commitment resembles active attempts at greenwashing and is nothing more than a hollow pledge to gain access to climate finance. While Brazil has sent the second largest delegation to COP26, deforestation rates in Amazon in the past 12 months from June have reached their highest levels ever. So will Brazil show a turn around in the next decade? We can only speculate that there is a high chance of underperformance in Brazil due to its current regime’s anti-environmental actions leading right up to COP26 and its needs as an emerging economy. In such a situation, the role of transnational networks of epistemic and activist in the implementation of this agreement in Brazil is of paramount importance in holding it accountable.
Similarly, China has shown a colder attitude to climate change negotiations in COP26 in a clear departure from its earlier ambitions of global leadership in climate action. It has shown clear preference for pursuing environmentally unsustainable practices if the costs get too high with their announcement of 11 new coal plants in view of rising oil prices. Deforestation agreements can suffer a similar fate in China if costs of abatement of deforestation locally and globally get too high.
The US congress also has a history of refusing to ratify environmental treaties due to domestic political conflicts. If Democrats lose control of the Senate in 2022 midterm elections or there is a lack of broad support for these pledges, the USA’s commitment and support to this agreement and other such agreements at COP26 could become a problem.
Lastly, this agreement would not mean anything if the haves of this world continue consuming the same lifestyles that drove our Blue Marble to this state of sheer fragility and possible collapse at the expense of have-nots. The pledged to source out deforestation-driving products by corporations is a necessary step, but many of these companies still fall short of providing remuneration for the profit earned by dwindling forest cover of developing countries over the past decades. Just as fossil fuel companies knowingly brought us to the brink of climate crisis, corporations that drove deforestation have KNOWINGLY landed us in a world of shrinking and fragmenting forests and an extinction crisis by imperilling biodiversity. They should be held accountable. Moreover, we as consumers should feel compelled to source our material comforts locally and sustainably. There is evidence that consumers can change their lifestyles for the better and deforestation is one sector that can allow consumers to express their preferences and make an impact.
Finally, it is vital that we as members of civil society place pressure on governments and the private sector to follow through on their commitments. In the United States and other signatory countries, this looks like working to build political will for ratification, an extensive reforestation program, and meaningful support to indigenous communities, as well as tying agreement followthrough to their diplomatic agenda. Citizens have a vital role in ensuring that agreements made at COP are followed and expanded, and in shaping a more sustainable and just future.
As we’ve previously mentioned, COP26 is packed with thousands of people each day (according to news reports, more than 30,000 people are in attendance.) Each of these attendants is designated with a certain status/classification which include: observers (mostly civil society and NGOs), media/press, and party members (heads of state, negotiators, and their staff members). (FYI, Melissa just posted a blog and does an amazing job discussing more about these dynamics.) While we are recognized by the UNFCCC as official delegates, our observer status signifies not just our current roles, but also lets us know which spaces we can actually have access to.
Today, Alicia and I decided to visit the Green Zone — The Green Zone is a separate space where the public can get access to events, exhibitions, workshops and talks hosted by civil society, artists, business and other groups from across the UK and all over the world. This year, the Green Zone is at the Glasgow Science Centre which is around an 8-10 minute shuttle ride (GMaps says 5 minutes, but it’s definitely longer) from the Blue Zone, located at the Scottish Events Campus.
Outside of the Green Zone
Map from Blue Zone (OVO Hydro) to Green Zone (Glasgow Science Centre)
We decided to attend an event there entitled: Role of Indigenous peoples and their communities and nature-based solutions. While I won’t use this blog to go in depth about their discussions, I do want to point out a particularly interesting moment of the session. The Indigenous group (including José Gregorio Díaz Mirabal and Tabea Cacique), who spoke only Spanish and Portuguese, was halfway disrupted by a Scottish woman who exclaimed: “Some us only speak English here!”
Presenters at the event “Role of Indigenous peoples and their communities and nature-based solutions.”
Just to give the full context to this story, there were no official translators present in the discussion, nor did the event supplied us with the headphones that I was able to use at the blue zone to help me hear and translate the language. (Heres a pic of me using one — it has six channels including languages like English, Spanish, Chinese, etc.) Later on, a crowd member volunteered to translate which allowed us to carry on.
While I would like to believe that this woman’s sudden interruption was not out of malice, but merely out of frustration and an (extreme!) eagerness to understand the group, I could not help but be bothered about the larger structural issues present: barriers in communication. Sessions at COP26 are mostly in English which really puts those that are from non-English speaking countries at a big disadvantage — whether that be in activism or negotiations. Communication and participation are so closely related, and at a place like COP… it is perhaps the most crucial aspect.
After that event, Alicia and I headed to our very first plenary focused on discussing what can be done to enhance the scale and effectiveness of climate finance. Plenaries are sessions which are generally available to everyone (for the last two days, it was not open to observers) where they have panelists to discuss a certain issue and provide heads of states, ministers, and (at the end, if there is time) observers the chance to speak. We had the opportunity to sit very closely to the middle of the stage, just behind the Guyana and Guinea-Bissau delegation. Not every country was present — whether that was due to other commitments or rather the inability to send anyone to the conference, it is important to point out that many of these absent delegations included nations from Africa and the Pacific.
Sat behind Guinea Bissau (who was not present today)
Current UNFCCC Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa & UK Lead Negotiator Archie Young
Nonetheless, we were still able to recognize some familiar government officials, including Philippine lead negotiator and current Secretary of Finance Carlos Dominguez. Alicia and I had the chance to meet and chat with him where he asked us about our role here, experience, and background (Of course, I had to let him know that I was Filipino as well!)
If you’ve been keeping in touch with my blogs and comments, I have raised my concern about the ways that the Philippine delegation was approaching COP26. Taking this very rare opportunity, I decided to discuss this with Dominguez and his party about their chosen representation. They shared with me that they decided to have a small group out of a “respect for the UK’s requests” and also their goals in bolstering the group with finance officials and experts due to the important discussion of climate finance.
Alicia and I (Daniel) w/ Philippine Secretary of Finance Carlos Dominguez & Philippine Assistant Secretary of Finance Paola Alvarez
It was a definitely an exciting moment to have had this moment to speak with him and the Philippine party. However, my point underscoring the importance of having representation like climate justice activists, scientists, and Indigenous members still stand.
I had a great time being in this session (will hopefully write a blog getting into the specifics of a plenary!), and being so close to so many influential people… Yet, I can’t help but be disappointed in the other important people that are still left out of these room. Despite great efforts to have a more inclusive COP, issues in representation and participation still remain.
I am trying to make the most of my limited experience here, and will definitely be more in the plenary sessions (and hopefully be able to make a statement and/or ask a question if given the opportunity.) For now, I’ll settle with my five seconds of fame after being featured next to the Nepali lead negotiator during the plenary session. (I can’t seem to find the video — but rest assured, I will add that link as soon as I get access to it.)
If you’ve been following this blog and all that Alicia & Daniel have been up to this week (which has been a lot!!), you might now be wondering how the Swarthmore delegates choose which activities to pursue while at the conference. And if you haven’t thought about this, it’s worth considering just how massive this annual conference is and how many concurrent events there are at any given time!
At every COP, there are many types of events. Here’s a quick breakdown.
First, there’s the Blue Zone. This very, very large area (often several buildings) can only be accessed with an official badge.
Entry hallway of the COP26 Blue Zone
The Swarthmore delegation has “observer” badges, while other people have “party” badges (which means they are officially part of a country’s negotiating team). Within the Blue Zone, observer delegates only have access to some of the various types of events. At the most formal level, there are plenaries and a number of types of negotiating sessions. Observer delegates can often attend plenaries and sometimes can attend negotiating sessions. However, observers were restricted from attending any of these events during the first two days of COP26 — with the reason given being that it was the World Leaders Summit (with many heads of state in attendance) and there were more restrictive quotas set due to COVID.
COP26 Plenary room
Still within the Blue Zone, there are also other events that are open to all badge types. Many if not most of these occur within pavilions, which are temporary structures rented by countries, NGOs, and others. Each pavilion has its own 2-week slate of events! Pavilions are quite substantial structures themselves, often with space for several dozen people. That said, the size (& therefore cost) of pavilions varies, and this is one of many ways in which there are disparities in access between countries (a bit more on that later).
Examples of COP26 pavilions: Resilience Lab; International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Climate Change Pavilion; Republic of Korea Pavilion; & the US Center.
Another location where events in the Blue Zone occur is the Action Zone, which has the most informal & colorful feel of the space.
Photo of the Action Zone from our first day.
In addition to all of this, there is an entirely different area called the Green Zone. This venue is open to the public; badges are not needed. The Green Zone is about a 15 minute walk or short (electric) bus ride from the Blue Zone. We stopped by the Green Zone this morning and found it to be something like a massive, climate-focused science fair filled with dozens of hands-on science exhibitions and hundreds of local schoolchildren. There are also lectures and film screenings and other neat events occurring in side rooms of this venue. (I don’t have a great photo of the Green Zone yet, but will try to add one to this post soon!)
Finally, there are other big events, often protests, that occur outside of both zones. See here for some initial pictures from The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2021/nov/03/cop26-finance-protest-and-indigenous-voices-in-pictures
While we’re talking about the COP venue, it’s worth mentioning that accessibility is a huge challenge — and is perhaps more so this year than ever before due to COVID. Challenges started even before COP26 began, with many delegations having a hard time planning for and then traveling to the UK because of vaccination disparities and the requirement of quarantine periods for unvaccinated delegates. (The UK offered to pay for vaccinations & quarantine hotels, but the process has been abysmal.) Another big challenge in planning is that there are limited flights to/from some locations, and so some delegates are needing to stay for abnormally long periods in the UK (or, of course, not coming at all).
There was also a lot of confusion leading right up to the first day of COP26 regarding how daily COVID testing would work. (It turns out we each have to take a rapid test every morning and then present results during our security check-in.) We’ve also heard that official party delegates who remain in quarantine (either because of post-travel requirements or because of several positive cases that have occurred) are having trouble accessing their negotiation sessions virtually because the online platform for delegates is quite terrible. Finally, actually getting inside of the Blue Zone has been a very slow process each morning — with sometimes a multi-hour wait standing in line outside.
As Daniel has mentioned, the Glasgow Climate Dialogues (and many others) have called for a UNFCCC action plan to increase accessibility at future COPs. Given the logistical missteps that have occurred this year, there is unfortunately a long way to go to achieve this extremely important goal.
Today marks the end of the World Leaders Summit! For context, each day has a theme in which discussions follow — it’ll be focused on finance tomorrow! (check out the Presidency Programme here)
Here is the set of sessions that I decided to attend today (see below). My goal today was two-fold: first, continue learning about the impacts of unequal representation on the ground, while the second was attempting to informally chat with national delegates / party members.
My itinerary for November 2 of COP26
Despite being 10 minutes late, I joined Melissa at event titled: Glasgow Climate Dialogues, where they invited folks to think about how to improve participation by the Global South at COPs in order to hold a “just transition.” They shared with us a communique which includes efforts on access, participation, adaptation, and more.
“Every effort possible must be made by the COP26 Presidency and others to get delegations from all parties to COP26 – especially from the Global South. This effort must include enhancement in the rollout of vaccines, arrangements for hotel quarantine, adding capacity to visa processing, and ‒ as a fall back ‒ creation of global hubs to enable virtual access where travel is impossible.”
– Excerpt from the Communiqué (Glasgow Climate Dialogues)
One of the panelists, Oxfam UK CEO Danny Sriskandarajah, reified the “moral imperative to include the most marginalized and the future generations” within our climate discussions. While Sriskandarajah’s statement is inspiring and one that I agree with, I often find myself frustrated in thinking about this given that most diversification and inclusion efforts does not necessarily equate to actionable change. This led to me asking:
Q: A larger issue of conferences such at this is that it often requires “formal and technical” and I would even argue a western-centric knowledge to participate… How can institutions like this not just include, but importantly, center these voices to actually be decisive and meaningful?
Fellow panelists Margaret Naggujja and Julius Ng’oma agreed with my statements, with Ng’oma discussing how the complexities of negotiations at COPs can be detrimental to certain groups. For example, Ng’oma recalls the story of the Malawi delegation finding it difficult to navigate these spaces, adding onto another challenge to their work. Sriskandarajah circled back at the end also agreeing, ending the discussion with a call to action for COPs to have a “participation revolution.” To watch the dialogues (and hear me ask my question!), check out this video: Glasgow Climate Dialogues.
Following this, I had some time in between my next couple of sessions, where I had the chance to interview party members and delegates of South East Asian countries Thailand and Indonesia. We chatted about the difficult and/or ease of getting to COP26, goals and achievements of their respective nations, and also their level of their optimism for COP26. (Side note: I actually interviewed two other European delegates who later revoked their consent to have their thoughts and photos published). Below I share some of the insights from my interviews.
DISCLAIMER: The two members provided their consent for their statements to be summarized in this blog, for their photos to be included, and also wanted to make clear that all of their statements do not necessarily reflect the entire opinion of the delegation.
First, I interviewed Indonesian journalist Jessica Wulandari, who mentioned that she and the rest of the delegates had a surprisingly easy process getting into the UK in terms of getting their VISAs. As a reporter of the Indonesian delegation, she mentioned that her main goal was to keep the Indonesian community engaged throughout the next two weeks, especially on their concerns on international climate funding. Wulandari is referencing the $100 billion climate fund that countries are currently negotiating on how to finance and distribute. Taken all this into consideration, Wulandari remains optimistic for the outcomes that will come from COP26.
Daniel w/ Wirat Songsri
Daniel w/ Jessica Wulandari
For the Thailand delegation, I interviewed Environmental Analyst Wirat Songsri who, unlike Wulandari, mentioned the challenge of attending due to the process of quarantine and financing it. When asked about Songsri’s goals, he cited Thailand Prime Minister’s Prayut Chan-o-cha goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 40% by 2030, eventually working towards carbon neutrality by 2050. Songsri also remains optimistic in achieving these goals, but highlighted the necessity for international support to reach these efforts.
Admittedly, it was pretty difficult approaching these busy folks and getting them to speak to a random college student standing around with an iPhone in hand taking notes. But I am immensely grateful that they took the time to chat with me.
Filled with thousands of people everyday, COP26 is increasingly overwhelming to navigate. Although my status as an observer means that there are (many!) limits to my participation, I am still trying to make use of my time here by connecting with people who mainstream media do not often hear from. It was an extremely jam packed day today (and I can only expect the next couple of days to get busier). While I take a rest after today, please enjoy this photo of Alicia being told to distribute headphones for an event at the World Health Organization pavilion.
Alicia passing out headphones at a World Health Organization event
Even though this is my first blog, you might already know from Daniel that so far we have mostly attended events at the pavilions.
Today was a similar day. We could not get into the plenary sessions (where the negotiations happen) since they were restricted to mostly official party delegates. The reasoning we were given was that the capacity of the site is limited and because Monday and Tuesday were dedicated to the “World leaders summit” with leaders from all over the world (the important people) there were no spots left for observers. The hope and communication we got is that starting tomorrow, that should get better and we should have more chances to get into the plenary sessions and follow the negotiations more closely.
Overall, there have been a lot of complaints regarding the transparency and lack of communication at this COP, even way weeks before it started.
The entrance to the area where plenaries happen being restricted to party delegates
Anyway, we all filled our schedules for the day with events in the pavilions. I started the day attending a roundtable discussion at the US Center pavilion titled “Equitable Deep Decarbonization: A Roundtable Discussing the Historic Justice40 Initiative.” They talked about the Justice40 initiative of Biden’s plan that that “aims to deliver 40 percent of the overall benefits of federal investments in climate and sustainable transportation to disadvantaged communities” and the importance of transparency and engaging communities in conversations so that solutions come from the bottom up. Something to note though is that at least from the sessions I attended so far at the US Center pavilion, they don’t open up the space for questions. Overall, the session was good and I appreciated how they highlighted the importance of putting these communities at the center. However, as long as they only share what they want to share, I’m going to remain a bit skeptical, especially when the conversation is about how inclusive something is.
Equitable Deep Decarbonization: A Roundtable Discussing the Historic Justice40 Initiative at the US Center Pavilion.
Another event Daniel and I attended was at the WHO pavilion titled “Achieving the Paris Agreement and preventing the next Pandemic: the case for transformative, climate-resilient and healthy food systems.” They mostly highlighted the need to shift to a new food system and diets that are less meat-intense, end industrial animal farming, and shift to agroecological systems. Something they stressed after a question Daniel asked with regards to cultural considerations was that even though the goal of reducing meat consumption is global, their more specific target is the global north and do not mean to impose diets on communities who have their specific cultures and whose impact are minimal.
“Achieving the Paris Agreement and preventing the next Pandemic: the case for transformative, climate-resilient and healthy food systems.” hosted by WHO
The next event, and in fact my favorite of the day, was hosted by delegates of Costa Rica at the NDC pavilion. The session was about Costa Rica’s approach to climate change and was called “Transformative Climate Communication-Short Stories and Climate Conversations.” They mentioned that they believe in science and that all plans and solutions should be based on science but even science has limitations and that’s when imagination comes into play, to complement science and craft solutions. They then showed a video of several writers from Costa Rica reading poetry and tales about the world in 2050, allowing us to dream of a different world with good outcomes and imagine a world of possibilities. Listening to the stories filled me with joy and inspiration (also felt good to attend a session in my first language, Spanish.) I think there is so much power in that art to inspire and boost real action using the science available to us.
Writers reading the tales they wrote as part of the “Costa Rica 2050 tales” book
The stories read are actually not public yet as they are part of a book that will be officially published at the end of the year as part of a project from the Climate Change Office from the Environmental Ministry. If anyone is interested, the book is called “Costa Rica 2050 tales of change” and features the work of several authors. They also mentioned that with the goal of being inclusive they tried to incorporate as many authors from different backgrounds as possible such as indigenous, LGBTQ+, and rural communities but also acknowledge that the way everyone experiences climate change is different and not one perspective could be the same as others. Another project that Costa Rica featured was the “Climate Conversations.” The idea is basically to promote communication and space for conversations about climate change. They brought up the point of how even though people know about climate change they don’t talk about it and if they don’t talk about it, it’s harder for them to raise their voices. They also mentioned that inclusivity played a role in the creation of the guidelines and methodologies they created for the discussions as they were co-created with different communities.
Costa Rica presenting their upcoming book “Tales of Change”Costa Rica presenting their upcoming book “Tales of Change”
To end the day, we had the opportunity to briefly meet with Swarthmore alum and a former professor who are part of the US official delegation. Among other things, we discussed how this COP is different from previous ones, delegation sizes, how to get the best out of our time at COP26 among other things.
Oh and before heading to the train station back to our hotel, I found someone from Paraguay (my home country) who’s also attending COP26 as an observer with her organization. I am very happy I get to make these connections (found 2 Paraguayans yesterday too who are actually party delegates) with people working on Climate Change issues back home, especially since we don’t have a lot of youth representation.
Meeting a fellow Paraguayan
Today, just like yesterday, was a good day filled with inspiration and connections. Hope tomorrow we get the chance to follow the negotiations more closely. Stay tuned!
Waiting in the never-ending line to enter the blue zone
While the Swarthmore COP Week 1 Delegation (Daniel Torres Balauro, Alicia Contrera, Clare Hyre, and Melissa Tier) got to an early yet slow start on our first official day, our days’ pace immediately changed as soon as we entered. Although it is still quite difficult to develop a daily itinerary given the quick changes that occur, insider info you get on the ground, and informal meetings, here is a list of the events that I had planned to do today.
My itinerary for November 1 of COP26
Surrounded by fellow observers, national delegates, and heads of state, we ventured into the “Blue Zone,” where country and organizational representatives host events ranging from topics showcasing their current advocacy, research, and efforts. (Side note: The difference in country’s funding was quite apparent just by comparing country pavilions like that of the United Arab Emirates’ versus Tuvalu’s).
United Arab Emirates (UAE) Pavilion
Tuvalu Pavillion
Given my personal interest in exploring the power imbalance between “developed” vs “underdeveloped” nations, I was intentional in attending events that expanded on this exact topic.
Indigenous Panelists from Forests and People: How Can REDD+ Support Indigenous and Local Forest Communities, and What Have We Learned So Far?
For example, my very first COP event, entitled, “Forests and People: How Can REDD+ Support Indigenous and Local Forest Communities, and What Have We Learned So Far?,” was paneled by Indigenous leaders and activists from around the world. Present were Tuntiak Katan, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, Dolores de Jesus Cabnal Coc, and Raymond Samndong who discussed their efforts in ensuring that REDD+ (Reducing emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation) Framework to center Indigenous strategies in its implementation. They highlighted the fact that despite financing Indigenous peoples (which has its own complications), policy-reform (in other words, collaboration with governments) must be the utmost priority. In Swarthmore fashion, I pushed this answer even more and asked: How do we continue this sort of collaboration with governments like that of Brazil’s and the Philippines’s who have been explicit in undermining the rights of Indigenous peoples? While they were not able to fully answer my question due to time, they explained to me that the enhancement of internal “capacity-building” in Indigenous communities is one way to address this challenge — and thus, we must find ways to strengthen our collective action.
After the panel, I was approached by former UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Victoria (Vicky) Tauli-Corpuz, who chatted with me about environmental activism in the Philippines, and the dangerous conditions present as many activists are declared by the government as “terrorists.” Our conversation ended with us exchanging contacts, and an (over-excited) Daniel taking a selfie with Vicky.
Later on the day, I joined the rest of the COP delegation for two sessions at the United States (US) pavilion respectively titled, “Launching the Decisive Decade of Climate Action” and “America is All in: A society-wide Mobilization to Meet US Climate Goals,” where representatives talked about the important role of the US in addressing the climate crisis, especially after its previous withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. In these sessions, we were joined by many notable folks including, Secretary of State Tony Blinken, US Climate Envoy John Kerry, National Climate Advisor Gina Mccarthy, and Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Secretary of State Tony Blinken accompanied by US Climate Envoy John Kerry and National Climate Advisor Gina Mccarthy
While it was great to hear all of these officials speak, the rockstar of the night was Indigenous youth activist: Sam Schimmel (Kenaitze Indian/Siberian Yup’ik). Schimmel talked about his Indigenous community in Alaska, and recalls a story where his father explained that the ocean is not merely a body of water, but their “grocery store.” Schimmel is getting at his community’s heavy reliance on the oceans, underscoring the importance of the preservation of their natural resources as a way to sustain their livelihoods and culture.
To top my very first day at COP26, Alicia and I had the chance to informally meet former Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and Swarthmore alumna Christiana Figueres ’79. It was nerve-wracking to approach her, but I’m so glad we did since she met us with so much excitement and imparted to us some words of wisdom and advice (whatever that advice was will be kept to me and Alicia for now).
Alicia and I with Christiana Figueres ’79 (I promise we wore our masks the entire time.. except for this moment, haha)
It was so powerful and valuable to me to be able to be in a space to discuss and learn about these issues. While efforts have been made for the inclusion of traditionally underrepresented voices within the international climate regime, I remain cognizant of the flawed power structures that puts the future of these nations in the hands of those that continue to threaten it. Throughout my next couple of days here at COP26, I hope that I am able to continue learning from folks around the world aiming to resolve these important issues.
Wednesday was a day of working with YOUNGO again, beginning with the spokescouncil or daily meeting in the morning, which Nancy facilitated. After this, YOUNGO had a bilateral with the President of the UN General Assembly. Bilaterals are one of the multiple ways that constituencies like YOUNGO can get involved in the negotiations, although it was difficult for me to see more to it beyond a PR move. Firstly, all interested YOUNGO members had to submit their questions beforehand so that they could be reviewed, so everything was pretty scripted. After all of the scripted questions, there were some more spontaneous ones, but since the PGA took them five at a time he was able to skip over certain topics and focus on others. Some of the questions were: What are your plans as PGA for impacting economy and security of LDCs? In 2020, what will the UN’s process be to include young people in the discussion and how will UN cater to changing needs of youth? After 25 years of having the UNFCCC negotiations, we can all see outcomes are not meeting needs of time. Don’t you think we should redesign the negotiations to facilitate more collaboration and contribution? The considerations of human rights have been sidelined in negotiations leaving many communities vulnerable… what will you do to ensure human rights and indigenous rights?
Before the meeting and bilateral Nancy had introduced me to a Haverford graduate who has been working for the UN for the past several years. I spent some time talking with him after the meeting, and we ran into someone he knew, who mentioned something called the “contra COP.” I was immediately curious. I had heard about how in Chile they were holding an alternate climate meeting, but I didn’t know there was anything like that going on in Madrid. I got some more information, and found their website, which was all in Spanish and listed all of the events they were holding that week. I decided I would try to go there that day or the next, to see what it was like.
I had heard that there would be an action that morning in front of one of the plenary rooms, protesting the removal of human rights language from the Article 6 negotiations, but when I went there, all I could see were several groups of people chatting together. Wondering if maybe they were preparing for the action and trying not to look suspicious, I asked someone, but they told me they had all just gotten out of the last event. A security guard then asked everyone to clear away.
A bit confused, I decided to go to an event I had heard about that highlighted the work of Bayer Crop Science, a soil company that was doing research on no-till farming as a method of carbon sequestration. The VP of Environment at Bayer was presenting alongside the CEO of Gold Standard, a company that produces sustainability standards for other agriculture companies, someone representing the Farmers Union of the UK and Wales, and an economist from the USDA. The highlight was Bayer’s ongoing soil research, which was being done through satellite imaging of farmer in the Midwestern United States. The satellite technology could pick up how much the soil had been tilled, and then the researchers could test the soil to see how much the carbon content in a given field’s soil corresponded with how much that field had been tilled. The USDA person also talked about their grant program CIG (Conservation Innovation Grant) which gives money to those trying to develop tools for next generation’s conservation efforts on working agricultural land, through researching or implementing market-based solutions to resource challenges. The speaker said that the key words here are working land, because it shows that conservation can happen at the farming level, not just through preserving pristine national park lands. But I also hear another key term: market based strategies, and found that throughout the panel, the narrow focus on the no-till carbon sequestration methods they were trying to develop meant that other key aspects of GHG generation from industrial agriculture, such as pollution from pesticide production, could easily be ignored.
Later that afternoon I went to the CAN meeting, where they were discussing who would be the fossil of the day for that day. They also began discussing the action that was going to be happening that day. For some background, most actions at COP are very highly regulated and have to be registered with security beforehand. This one was unauthorized. Just as someone announced this, a security guard was seen entering the meeting hall… someone said, “This is a closed meeting for CAN members only,” but it took a little bit more discussing to finally get the guard to leave. After that, the details of the protest were sent via email. The instructions were for us to stand around chatting in groups inconspicuously outside the plenary hall entrance a few minutes before the protest was supposed to start. Upon hearing the signal, a whistle, everyone was to make as much noise as possible using anything they had. I used my glass water bottle and a bamboo reusable straw, both of which had ironically been given to me in a swag bag from COP. The protest got pretty heated… there was a central group of people who were doing call and response, and I was pretty close to them when I noticed that people were starting to sit down. I saw a security guard and I thought they were probably trying to get people to sit so they could get them under control. Someone next to me said “they are going to de-badge people!”
The security guards started to form a human blockade and edge the protesters who were within their blockade towards a large garage door-like exit, which was opened. As the crowd booed, they pushed people out of the doors. They began to close the doors, but people crowded around them and booed louder, and so they began to form another blockade around those people; I was among them but I eventually slipped away before they actually formed the blockade. Many people who were in press slipped out from the blockade and were allowed, but others who tried to go under the guards’ arms were stopped. It was hectic!
I took a video, but it was too large a file to upload, so here are some screenshots of security letting someone from the press out:
and stopping others from escaping:
About 300 people were locked outside in that courtyard area, and they blocked off anyone from entering that hall for the next hour. A lot of people were de-badged, though the next day they were allowed back into the conference, after a lot of push back. It was definitely an exciting experience.
After that, I wandered around the various booths where different groups were presenting their work in video or poster format. There I met an indigenous Amazonian from Peru, and we talked about the Peruvian Amazon and the organization he was involved with. I also asked him if he felt like he was able to have a voice at COP and impact the decision making. He said not really at all in the higher-level decisions, but that it was good to be there to bring more visibility to his town and community. The next week he and others in his group were going to be speaking with the environmental Minister of Peru in Lima about a specific issue affecting the Amazon river, in which a Chinese-based company was planning to dredge the river to make it more navigable, at the risk of ecosystem collapse and the damaging of indigenous lands.
Hi everyone, I know that I’m posting this very late, but I wanted to share some of the things I learned with you and wrote about a while ago but didn’t get a chance to post earlier.
On Monday Dec 9th I attended an interesting panel, which consisted of someone from the French Ministry of Environment, someone from the French Agency for Development, an indigenous leader from a community in Chad, and someone from the Tropical Forest Alliance (TFA), and someone from the Ministry of Environmental and Sustainable development in Colombia.
The panelists representing government and NGO talked about the programs that their departments or organizations are working on regarding deforestation.
The French government has a program in Cote D’Ivoire, working with local farming communities on sustainable cacao production and agroforestry. They’re also developing an anti-deforestation Action Plan, which is supposed to be out in 2020.
The TFA works on negotiating with private sector food providers that are contributing to deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, and getting them to stop sourcing their products from deforested areas. The companies currently sourcing meat from deforested areas had a goal of net zero deforested sourcing by 2020, but have missed that goal.
This talk was interesting to me not just because of the content, but also the way it was delivered, and a specific thing that happened afterwards: after the panel, during the Q&A, a woman stood to ask: How can you in the French government say that you are doing so many great things, when right now you are supporting deforestation, the devastation of primary forests, and indigenous communities in French Guiana by goldmining companies? The French Minister was a bit at a loss for words, though he did say that they needed to change their now outdated mining laws, and said that he would like to talk about that issue with her afterwards. I wonder how that conversation went. Here’s a link to learn more about this issue: https://www.fern.org/news-resources/montagne-dor-mine-france-needs-to-walk-the-talk-on-halting-deforestation-in-the-tropics-937/
I wanted to hear more from Hindou Ibrahim, so I went to another talk that she was participating in that evening. It was a series of panels spotlighting indigenous leaders or youth who had worked with indigenous communities, hosted by the UN. The main topic was about NDCs, how Nature Based Solutions can and should be main contributors to NDCs, and how indigenous communities are leaders in nature-based solutions. It was great that the UN was giving a platform for different indigenous people to bring attention to the issues affecting their communities, though as Hindou said, the time of negotiations are finished; we have gotten as much agreement as possible and it is time for us to see how we can localize what we decide at the national level… there’s no time to negotiate anymore, and it’s up to communities to apply the recommendations that have been brought together at the international level, along with indigenous knowledge of land management methods that is thousands of years older than scientific knowledge and that can be paired with science to meet the NDCs and the needs of communities experiencing climate change. She said that we have the tools we need, but what is needed is implementation and financial investment: investment in nature and in youth.
The next day, on Tuesday, I witnessed a different kind of interaction between indigenous peoples and the UN. I had stayed late at the venue, and it was already 6:30 when I was about to leave, but I heard singing coming from the IPCC pavilion. I went to see what was going on. It was an event with a lot of people from an organization called La Minga that brings together indigenous peoples from all over Latin America to advocate for their rights and make their voices heard. They also did a ceremony there and one indigenous leader from Brazil addressed the Spanish IPCC representatives and asked why they haven’t done more, why are they allowing the killing of indigenous peoples. Her words were translated by a young indigenous woman. Then, they presented their charter on climate change, and a woman from Chile read it. It was emotional and raw. Here’s a link to the charter: https://350.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CARTACLIMATICA-en.pdf
COPs often run overtime, which is why CAN even holds a wager for delegates to guessing the date and time COP will end. Earlier this week, we knew the negotiations in Madrid were expected to be prolonged especially when word circulated that staff at the venue had been asked to work over the weekend. We did, in fact, witness how negotiations dragged on because governments with large emissions dragged their feet on targets. Ultimately, the lack of consensus prolonged COP25 to such an extent that this is now the longest ever meeting in UNFCCC history.
Source: Twitter
Perhaps, these negotiations have been hampered from the get-go by everything ranging from adversaries to the negotiation strategy employed. The Chilean Presidency’s approach to the negotiations has been criticized for not using their office to have set higher ambitions, knowing that “blockers” would want to reduce the targets, and compromise can be reached somewhere in the middle.With the immense and imminent impacts of climate change, old tactics of incrementalism no longer meet the challenges the world faces.
However, what transpired was that the Chileans had expected other governments to lift ambitions so shad et the initial targets too low, which meant a far more difficult uphill battle in the negotiations. Now we are left with a COP that was supposed to be focused on “Ambition” and “Action,” but has not delivered on neither. Even the UN Secretary-General has voiced his disappointment.
Source: Twitter
There is already enough analysis out there offering a breakdown of the watered-down outcome of COP25, so I’ll touch on more of my personal takeaways from attending the conference from my positionality in a follow-up post. Now more than ever, we need to remain hopeful and not be daunted by the challenges ahead in our fight for climate justice.
