|
Angry African delegates leave the negotiations and art is taken for a ride at the climate negotiations in Copenhagen
…after the first week in Copenhagen at the Climate Negotiations, Jan-Gustav Strandenaes, Senior Consultant, Haring Woods Studio, has this story:
Sixteen or seventeen thousand people, perhaps even more, were milling about inside the Bella Centre outside Copenhagen, focus of global attention on climate change issues and the official venue for COP 15. COP 15 or the 15th UN Conference of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol, which is technically speaking the correct name for the event, started on Monday December 7. A seminal event, a watershed moment in the history of humanity, an event whose outcome holds the key to a prosperous future, the near clichés used in the opening speeches were many.
The Africans walk out
My delegate friend slouched in one of the comfortable chairs found in the lounge-like areas found at intervals outside the plenary halls in the enormous Bella Conference Centre. He sighed slightly sipping his café latté leaving me to wonder if it was pleasure, fatigue or concern he exhaled. He looked tired, obviously reflecting the exhausting intensity of the negotiations. The COP had moved halfway through its allotted time, and an agreed outcome document seemed less likely now than at the beginning of the COP despite all the high expectations. Or perhaps because of the expectations? He had escaped from a strategy session to chat with me. Stolen moments in a busy delegate’s conference life. But everything had suddenly ground to a standstill as the African delegations had walked out of the negotiations earlier this day to demonstrate their anger with what they considered ridiculously insufficient offers on money to pay for their mitigation and adaptation efforts and too low emissions reductions from the rich world.
Off to a bad start
The conference had gotten off to a bad start already at the beginning, when the Danish Proposal, as it was called, was picked up by the Guardian and published. A so-called non paper, obviously made as an attempt to suss out the most difficult fault lines in the coming negotiations and a document meant to be discussed discreetly, was now seen as an attempt by the developed North to railroad delegates from the South into acquiescence. Angry statements of disrespecting the process, of undermining the present substance of the Kyoto Protocol as a legally binding document, of blaming the North for trying to shy away from its responsibility to reduce their emissions were heard from the developing nations.
And no sooner were negotiations brought back on track at the tables, than a serious, though highly expected disagreement broke over who would pay what and when, and who should take the lead on emission reductions. I took my delegate friend’s sigh as a sign of beginning exasperation. After all, the future existence of our world as we know it was what this conference and its outcome was all about. Even though the final legally binding agreement did not have to be concluded until COP 17 in December 2011, a weak and fragmented outcome from Copenhagen now could seriously damage further development on a new treaty. And a week into the negotiations, the 192 countries seemed to excel in disagreement.
Chanting at the UN
Chanting and shouting broke out a little way from us. A group of officially accredited activists dressed in bright red dresses were moving up the centre pathway of the conference centre. They were carrying banners with strong demands on behalf of humanity, reminding us all that we have no Planet B and we needed a strong outcome document. They belonged to the British based organisation Action Aid. Other groups, indigenous peoples, more NGOs, all deeply concerned people instantly joined the procession forming a loud, colourful, multicultural band of people rhythmically meandering its way past exhibitions, side events and hungry delegates trying to enjoy a small meal in one of the many cafeterias. The demonstration proudly and loudly propagated its support for the African walkout.
More people, but less access
“Highly un-UN”, I hinted at the demonstration, and was pleasingly amused at my little word play. “You know, all these seemingly impulsive and impromptu demonstrations, loud and often with banners are new ingredients at these meetings. Usually these intergovernmental negotiations are carried out within - let’s call it, a high sense of decorum. But I think there is a clever strategy behind this.”
“Always looking for ulterior motives, a true sceptical NGO you are. What is the conspiracy theory behind your observation this time?” my delegate friend might be tired, I thought, but always spoiling for a verbal fight. “Access – or lack thereof”, I retorted. “Yes”, I admitted anticipating my friend’s remonstrance, “there are more side events and high quality workshops and presentations than I have ever seen at such an event, save for the global Summits. And yes, more exhibits, and more civil society representatives, handouts, press conferences, you name it, everything abounds. But take a look at the official events, plenaries, working-group meetings, break out groups, where the negotiations are actually taking place, all these meetings are closed.”
Art is taken for a ride
“The lack of transparency here is preposterous” I was actually surprised that no one seemed to care about this point. And if they did, I sure would have liked to know what they were doing about it. My delegate friend waved his coffee mug to stop me, but I would not allow him in yet; “And the organisers cannot use the presence of high-level politicians as an excuse to secure meetings as they claim. The state leaders arrive end of the second week and besides, numerous UN meetings have received numerous state leaders and still allowed an interactive presence from civil society. So, this is actually the least transparent, the least interactive, the least open and participatory conference I have seen for a long time. And that is a sad fact. And you don’t have to be particularly perceptive to see all this. These spontaneous, artistic, cultural manifestations, rife with poetry, colours, images, some even having the resemblance of clever and dramatic installations and performance art, all this is just a smokescreen, a cover up for lack of democracy. It is actually a good example where art and democracy are held hostage to good governance, and the public space in the conference centre are in reality carefully controlled stages where good intentions expressing a public voice and concern are made into a mockery by those who have made the entire choreography at this COP. With all this seemingly interactive, colourful participation a veil is thrown over our eyes and we don’t see the closed doors to where the decisions are being made. Smart moves!”
From 14000 participants to only 90!
My delegate friend had stopped sipping his café latté, and seemed to look at me with renewed interest. “That’s a feisty NGO statement! You know, sometimes you would probably sound better on stage. You know as well as I that all these thousands of people could not be allowed into the conference rooms. That would be counterproductive. Besides, I am sorry to say, that at least half of the civil society people here have no clue as to why they are here, let alone have deep knowledge and understanding of climate issues or the complexity of negotiating these issues.” I was too tired to get bogged down in a verbal warfare with my delegate friend hurling volleys of carefully crafted and pointed statements at each other. I wanted to defuse a possible conflict but also wanted to stand my ground; I interrupted my friend; “Granted - you find the best and the brightest here, and the absolute ignoramus, you find top notch scientists who know more about climate change than the best of the negotiators, yourself included, you have the newcomers, who know very little but are eager to learn, and we need to train the next generation, and yes, you have those who have come along for the ride. On both sides of the accreditation fence will you find this. The US delegation for instance has more than 250 members, and not all of those know why they are here. What also worries me, is that the second week of this COP, access will be restricted among civil society, and as far as I have been told, for the last two days, only 90 people from the NGOs will be admitted. Ninety people, and the UN has actually accredited close to 14 000 people! And they reduce the number, allegedly because the government delegations surrounding their heads of state are so large. I find that a lame excuse, because as I said, the global summits earlier have had no problems in admitting large groups of civil society into the same rooms as state leaders. And the last summit on sustainable development held in Johannesburg in 2002 is point in case. It is just a matter of developing a system that will allow maximum participation and good governance.”
Success can be had
“If it helps you in your concern, I actually agree.” I could see my delegate friend changed track from trying to score verbal points. “From what I hear, the delegates from some of the hard-line developing nations have driven the security question to the exclusion of civil society. And even though they are in a minority, the minute they push the security threat issue, everybody seem to cower. I think that the security issue is an excuse to eliminate civil society. And this is a reflection of how they deal with participatory democracy in their own countries. Unfortunately, in the context of the intergovernmental world, anti-democratic forces often have a field day.”
An assistant came up to my delegate friend, and told us that the Africans had been persuaded to come back to the negotiating tables. My friend got up, nodded to me with a friendly wink and headed for the closed negotiating rooms. I walked him to the door, where a UN security guard politely stopped me. “Now what?” I said to my friend. “Now we’ll get down to business” he replied, “and get the needed document in place so we can have a successful outcome.” “Did you know that the proposed Summit on Sustainable Development in 2012 has been agreed to?” I said. My friend looked at me with a smile. “This is good news. Then we’ll have the signing ceremony of the new Kyoto Protocol at this summit. And then you can make sure that the question of access and art is combined to promote real good governance. And I’ll make sure this conference is a success.” The guard closed the door behind him.
I left, thinking my delegate friend is always an optimist, looking for a good, positive and constructive outcome. But what will come of this meeting? COP 15 had opened with such high expectations, and was already bogged down in serious conflicts and thousands of participants had been literally left out in the cold of the Nordic December despite being promised entry by the UN accreditation process. There would be repercussions from this COP in many directions. There would perhaps be as many analyses claiming failures, as there would be success stories. Still, we had another four or five days to go before the final result. Then of course, there would be more COPs, COP 16 and COP 17…….
Copenhagen, December 2009
|
|
