The many types of events at a COP

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).

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.

A Day of Dialogues

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.

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

Day2: Environmental Justice, Communities, and Imagination.

Hi all!

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

First (Official) Day at COP26!

Greetings everyone from Glasgow, Scotland! 

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).

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.

Action at COP-25

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!”

IMG_0247

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:

Screen Shot 2020-01-20 at 11.11.37 AM

and stopping others from escaping:

Screen Shot 2020-01-20 at 11.12.09 AM Screen Shot 2020-01-20 at 11.12.17 AM

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.

Indigenous presence at COP (oficiál)

 

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

IMG_0213

Disappointed but not daunted 

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
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
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.

Musings in Pollution Pods

Most days of COP, I have stayed in the “Blue Zone, ” which is the area of COP for accredited delegates and where plenary sessions and the vast majority of official side-events are held here. Next door is the “Green Zone,” which also has various exhibits and is open to the public.

COP25 Green and Blue Zone
COP25 Green and Blue Zone

One art exhibit in the Green Zone I had looked forward to (and FINALLY got around to) seeing was the “Pollution Pods.” The installation, by artist Dr. Michael Pinsky, uses fog machines and perfumes to imitate the smog of 5 cities around the world: Beijing, Sao Paolo, New Delhi, and London.

IMG_5664
Pollution Pods at the COP25 Green Zone

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), “Air pollution and climate change are two sides of the same coin: both are largely caused by the same sources and have similar solutions. Ambitious climate action has the potential to both safeguard our health and future, and to reduce the yearly seven million premature deaths from air pollution.”

Walking from one pod/“city” to the next really showed how stark the contrast was. Entering “Beijing” and “New Delhi,” it suddenly looked hazy in a very noticeable manner. Fortunately, the fake smog in the pod is non-hazardous. Still, it’s so sad to begin thinking about how millions around the world are literally being smothered by the toxic fumes due to the burning of fossil fuels (I’ll blog later about my thoughts on climate change/social justice).

The only upside of this situation is that the health impacts of air pollution are convincing citizens and governments in affected areas that climate action must be taken NOW. Protests in mainland China are rare, but people still took the risk to protest against insufficient air pollution measures because they are so fed up with the detrimental impacts of smog. When a problem affects a large swathe of a population, such discontent no doubt raises concerns in a country like China that values social stability. China’s progress on climate change clearly indicates its government’s long-term planning and foresight about the necessity of climate action. I found the experience of the Pollution Pods to be an effective way of connecting the dots between the climate and health nexus.

As some food (or shall I say “air”) for thought, I’ll end today’s post with an excerpt from the Pods’ creator, Dr. Pinsky about his installation:

“Five geodesic domes are connected to form a ring. Within each dome the air quality of five global cities is recreated. A carefully mixed recipe emulates the relative presence of ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and carbon monoxide which pollute these cities. Starting from the hosting city, the visitor will pass through increasingly polluted cells, from dry and cold locations to hot and humid.

The release of toxic gases from domestic and industrial sources both increase the rate of global warming and have a direct effect on our present day health. In the West, in cities such as London, one in five children suffer from asthma. Whilst in the developing countries such as Delhi, over half the children have stunted lung development and will never completely recover. However, this pollution is difficult to understand through images, as the smog of such as Delhi seems almost romantic and much of the most dangerous toxins are not visible at all.

Much of this pollution is driven by the insatiable appetite of capitalist consumerism.  Whilst we here in the developed world live in an environment with relatively clean air, people in countries such as China and India are being poisoned by the air borne toxins created from industries fulfilling orders from the West.

The experience of walking through the pollution pods demonstrates that these worlds are interconnected and interdependent. Our need for ever cheaper goods is reflected in the ill-health of many people in world and in the ill-health of our planet as a whole.”

Climate Neutral Now

Today I attended a showcase highlighting the work of the Climate Neutral Now award winners as part of the 2019 UN Global Climate Action Awards. It was a fun event and one that drove home for me the importance of engaging corporations (and communities, and cities, and all levels of sub-national governments) in the fight to stay below +1.5. Some of the really transformative work is being done by companies, and the four winners of this award really showcased some excellent initiatives. Four organizations won the award (video can be seen here: https://unfccc.int/climate-action/momentum-for-change/climate-neutral-now).

The representative from MAX Burgers went first who talked about their Climate Positive menu. He showed the analysis their company did on when their emissions was coming from (surprising no-one, a lot cam from beef) and how they tackled reaching 0 emissions. Their goal was to introduce more plant based food options and have every other meal not have beef (there were other things as well). He was asked about pushback to the menu and he responded by saying that there was some pushback, but also said that in general people have been very responsive and supportive. He felt that the marketing the change in a positive light (Climate Positive Menu) helped.

Apple went next, and I was skeptical. The organization has several environmental initiatives, but the representative specifically talked about their transition to 100% renewable energy at their sites. The speaker gave some interesting stats, including that Apple was responsible for 0.1% of all global emissions. The company set a goal to have all Apple owned operations powered with 100% renewable energy and generate a total of 4 GWt by 2020. They are investing in their own projects and doing it as locally as possible, which creates jobs in the areas where the facilities are. They met these goals early and have no switched to help their suppliers meet the goal of using 100% renewable energy for the production of the materials Apple uses. I found this really positive, because they not only made this demand but also helped these supplier make the energy transition. The combination of adding pressure and then providing resources and support is powerful, and corporations with the influence and money like Apple should be doing this work. They added another 1 GWt of energy production through this. I felt strangely proud to have all three of my Apple devices with me during this talk…

Natura, the 4th largest cosmetic company in the world, went next. They talked about packaging and materials. The thing I took away most here was how they have partnered with the Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon to use local ingredients for their cosmetics, which supports the livelihoods of the people and provides a local and sustainable supply chain.

The final presentation was from Infosys, a global tech services and consulting company headquartered in India. There path to zero emission used a combination of energy efficiency (highly efficient new buildings and deep retrofitting of old buildings), transition to renewable, and off-setting. I rolled my eyes a bit on off-setting, but the presenter impressed me because all of their offsets have been done at the local level. They invented off-sets that engaged and supported the local community and improved the general quality of life for the people living there. This is the kind of off-setting that I can get behind!

In total, I found this event very inspiring! There is some much positive and transformative work going on, and it is good to be reminded especially when it feels like the policy makers are not acting fast enough.

COP Curtailing Civil Society

The irony did not elude me that I spent International Human Rights Day at a UN event, witnessing the UN attempting to curtail the very same rights it adopted 70 years ago. Last week, it was the ECO newsletter, while this week, it was the Fossil of the Day Award, both of which were prohibited but later reinstated. I’ll focus this post on Fossil since I have been part of the team of volunteers putting on the event each night. Fossil of the Day takes place at the end of each day at COP, and select countries (and some terrible organizations) are presented with the ignominious award for being “the best at being the worst” at the UN Climate Talks. Through a very participatory process, members of CAN (the organizers of Fossil), nominate and vote for members based on which country stands out for their atrocious climate policies or for actions such as “blocking” negotiations. Alongside Fossil of the Day, a Ray of the Day is also awarded to recognize the efforts of climate champions.

To put the impact of Fossil into perspective, last night we awarded Japan with a Fossil of the Day, and already multiple news outlets have now covered how Japan’s “environment minister failed to commit to the phasing out of coal-fired power generation in a speech at a UN climate conference.” Also, the other day, as we were setting up the stage for the award ceremony, a man came over and asked what Fossil is and why Belgium’s flag was on the Fossil leader board (a running tally of all the Fossil winners over the course of this COP). Once my colleague explained the award and said the full explanation of why Belgium won is available on the Fossil Facebook page, the curious man explained that he’s from Belgium and shocked to see Belgium on the list. At this point, I noticed his pink badge, which means he’s a part of the government delegation. I saw the man type notes on his phone before walking away. Hopefully, the Belgian man will look into why CAN awarded his government the Fossil Award, relay the information back to his delegation, and then try harder to advocate for stronger climate policies.

No one, and governments especially like to be named and shamed, which is precisely what makes the Fossil award an effective advocacy tool. It’s also easy to understand why, after a long day of dense negotiations and plenary sessions, a crowd of delegates and media gather each night at the Fossil award ceremony. Though it has a serious message, Fossil is a fun and engaging event with costumes, props, and even a theme song for the daily ceremony. Delegates can enjoy the light-hearted and engaging nature of the event, while media is also on hand to capture the novelty and satire that is used to call out insufficient or outright troubling climate policies. Though some countries try to fly under the radar, Fossil of the Day is a reminder for these states that their actions will come under scrutiny!

A Fossil of the Day awarded to Australia
A Fossil of the Day awarded to Australia

So now that you’re hopefully convinced that Fossil of the Day is a great event, we can return to my original point about the clampdown on civil society space. On Wednesday, we were told in the morning the award could not go ahead because “it is the start of ministerial day, they have no “security capacity” to cover Fossil of the Day. So they [UNFCCC Secretariat] did not authorize this key daily action today. We tried to push back but we had no success.”

The attempt to stop Fossil was neither the first nor the last time civil society space had come under attack during COP25. Last week, ECO was banned from being distributed at the conference venue. ECO is a daily newsletter put together by civil society to inform all delegates at COP about the developments with negotiations and other informative updates from various NGOs. Without warning or any wrongdoing on the side of ECO distributors (who are just volunteers handing out information), security removed the volunteers and banned the newsletter’s distribution at the conference venue. Fortunately, with support from delegates and coordinated push back from CAN, the UNFCCC Secretariat relented. By the time I arrived for Week 2 of COP, I was able to get my daily dose of ECO!

Given what had just happened to ECO, it’s easy to understand why members of CAN did not want to relent and were suspicious of the UN’s motive in not allowing Fossil to take place. Firstly, this excuse is quite suspect since there is so many security personnel available and especially since few other events are also happening at 6pm that requires manpower. Moreover, Fossil is a daily event and not a protest, it was not like many security guards were even needed for this orderly and predictable event in the first place. It seemed far more plausible that the lack of security was only a cover story for banning an event that was effective in calling out the bad behavior of governments. The CAN organizers negotiating with the UNFCCC Secretariat that the Fossil award would go ahead regardless of their authorization because it never posed a security threat (we would even have volunteers to help with crowd control if security was the “real” concern. There was even a suggestion to nominate UNFCCC for a Fossil because of this attempt to stop Fossil of the Day.

Over the course of the day (Human Rights Day no less!), the discussion was that the Fossil award should still happen even with the risk of “de-badging.” Without authorization to carry out this action, if we went ahead with the event we risked being “de-badged,” which means being banned from attending the rest of COP25. The hope was that if Fossil volunteers really do get removed from the premise, then this was more evidence to be used in the media to call out the UNFCCC for the shrinking civil society space. One of the Fossil organizers was kind enough to explain this risk to me and said I didn’t need to feel pressured to participate because she knew I was a student and didn’t want me to get in trouble with my school delegation.

At this point, I really did consider the consequences of whether I should take part in the fossil award that day. On the one hand, I thought that on the off chance I did get de-badged, hopefully, Swarthmore would be understanding. As a double major in Political Science, Peace and Conflict Studies, could Swarthmore really expect that I wouldn’t stand up for what I believe in? On the other hand, I would feel guilty if I could not attend the rest of COP25 because I know many other students also applied to be on the delegation, so I’d feel like I took someone else’s spot then did not even make the most of this opportunity. I could argue that attending sessions is the only way to “get” something from attending COP because I think a lot of learning can also happen by encountering and understanding more about inherent power structures and barriers faced by civil society, I’ll touch on this point further in a future post.

For better or worse, I was truly saved by the bell and didn’t need to be decisive in this moral quandary. As my colleague was still in the middle of discussing the de-badging risk with me, at 5:29pm (so only 1 minute before our daily set up time of 5:30pm), we received the breaking news in our team WhatsApp group chat that the UNFCCC Secretariat backed down and authorized our event! Luckily, all the hard work of the CAN team negotiating with the Secretariat about the matter had paid off.

Despite the ultimate win for ECO and Fossil, this pressure on civil society is a worrying trend because civil society is so crucial for holding parties accountable. Also, let’s not forget that there is already a massive power imbalance at COP. Civil society, as observers at COP, have less political clout than countries who can directly vote as member states in this state-led UN process. Civil society also has less financial resources than businesses. When highlighting the fact that businesses had their logos on massive banners around the venue. In contrast, our Fossil of the Day backdrop was only a small makeshift display, the Fossil award host joked that we “shouldn’t buy the corporate greenwash unless we recycle it together.” So given the extra institutional and financial constraints compared to governments and businesses, civil society’s power is in having the voice that transmits beyond such barriers.

The ban on ECO led to the use of slogans on Twitter, such as “Not just Time for Action but also Space for Action,” a play on the motto of this year’s COP, and I could not agree more. Also, as our school’s Quaker values continuously reinforce, it is so important to “speak truth to power.” Being a part of the fantastic Fossil of the Day team has definitely been a highlight of COP25. It could not have been more apt, when at the end of the Fossil Award on Human Rights Day, someone from the crowd shouted, “Long live civil society!”