COP 26 and the Observer Status

COP 26 and the Observer Status: Reflections and Suggestions
Kyra Hall ’22


ENVS Personal Narrative: How I got Here

Inside a Presidency Event: An active plenary mediated by COP President, Alok Sharma
Inside a Presidency Event: An active plenary mediated by COP President, Alok Sharma

A Reflection from the Blue Zone

There is something to be said for being surrounded by 30,000 other people who care about what you care about and are interested in what you are interested in. Never before in my life have I been able to look around and, for as far as I could see, down all converging corridors, be swarmed by buzzing individuals who are engaged and aware of the most current status of our global environmental governance and the impending climate crisis. Personalities eager to collaborate, share their “why” for being in attendance, and ask how far you traveled from. Busy halls packed with different identities fulfilling very different roles: environmental NGOs, press and media, indigenous peoples, student activists, business and industry, women and gender NGOs, staff and volunteers recruited to facilitate the impossible, and high-profile party members with a buffer of security separating themselves from the rest (among others). A rich array of vibrant colors, combining smart-business attire and a variety of traditional cultural prints, flood the space. Buzzing individuals, each with their own agenda, zipping from one event to another and taking business calls from a recently assembled IKEA cubicle in between. Students and youth activists ready to jump into a humbling conversation about the (dis)functionality of the UN or the pervasive lack of ambition from wealthy nations that they have observed, as they wait in line for a “high-profile” “Presidency” event that those with “Observer Status” may not even be allowed to attend. Groups of suited individuals huddled around a laptop, frantically reading line-by-line, speculating and criticizing, as the first draft-text was released. Masses queued up to hopefully gain access to the plenary sessions, mediated by COP President Alok Sharma, to experience party-members and heads of state take issue with and offer forceful critique on article 8, section 2, paragraph 1, lines 8 and 9, for example. Adjusting my headset and setting my attached translator to “English,” as I settle into the second row of one of the same developing countries who consistently has empty seats and lacking representation at major events where feedback and input is welcome. Fighting sensory overload and an inability to possibly process all of the social and structural dynamics resounding from the desk microphones at each seat, I take the last sip of my third cup of overpriced coffee, re-fasten my mask, and start furiously taking notes in hopes of making sense of all of the moving parts at a later time.

—-This reflection was adapted from the beginning of a free-write I did on the train from Glasgow back to Edinburgh to post of the Swarthmore COP26 blog that I never got the chance to finalize.

Visit: https://blogs.swarthmore.edu/cop/ for more reflections from the Swarthmore delegation


COP 26 Blog

An art installation at the entrance to the Blue Zone.
An art installation at the entrance to the Blue Zone.

Reflections Continued Back Home

My COP experience was accompanied by so many enriching conversations that flipped everything I previously understood about global governance on its head. Being constantly confronted with unequal representation between countries, the relentless valuing of “party” voices over “observer” voices, the exclusivity of certain “high-profile” events, the structural power that government officials possessed that NGO representatives and indigenous peoples in attendance lacked, and the ongoing conversation regarding the inaccessibility of the conference at large, made for provoking conversation on the train back to Edinburgh every evening. While we all spent our days at the conference very differently, acquiring empowering independence and having full agency over deciding which events and demonstrations we wanted to prioritize, we could all identify similar themes upon recounting our observations, experiences, and conversations from the day.

Of our four-person Swarthmore delegation present for the second week, we had two closely following the climate finance meetings and the development of the contentious agreement between negotiating wealthy nations. We had one following the presence of indigenous folks at different events, attending indigenous-centered side events, and dashing from the confines of the conference any chance they could to join the indigenous-led protests. The fourth individual, scientifically-minded, didn’t miss a meeting hosted by the IPCC, that addressed the thinking behind and the approach to realistically hit the 1.5 degrees Celsius target, or addressed nation-specific emissions targets. Covering a breadth of COP 26 topics and realities, engaging with very different pillars of the conference, the experiences we had and were excited to recount to each other were diverse, yet the learning takeaways strikingly similar: 

We keep hearing from the same high-profile, powerful, well-known individuals; 

they belong to the same wealthy nations with high attendance; 

the U.S. delegation is overwhelmingly white and male; 

poor nations have so few representatives here; 

wealthy nations dominate negotiation spaces; 

the spaces that non-state attendees have the opportunity to speak at lack the attendance of those with ratifying power. 

We kept coming back to the same big questions: Does this system even work? What does the UNFCCC (and other UN functions) accomplish if those that are being most severely harmed by the impacts of climate change are either unable to attend due to lack of resources, not inclined to attend due to reluctance to feed an oppressive structure that does not serve them, or, for those that are present, are not heard or valued, as their voices are not lifted, but rather drowned out?

As a collective, through emotionally charged sentiments and reflections, we never came to a conclusion because the questions are so complex and have so many implications. We can’t necessarily abolish a system in the absence of another functioning one, especially in the presence of accelerating climate change. The fact that nations spend two weeks of the year committing conversation, funds, and resources to addressing climate change and its impacts is considerable progress in a world where some individuals still deny global climate change to be real and occurring. We would be worse off in the absence of the UNFCCC and a convening space to converge on these issues, but it is impossible to ignore what is lost and the ways in which this system needs to be improved to more equitably address global climate change, the adverse effects it is having on vulnerable communities, and the resiliency resources and funding that developing nations require from wealthier countries to survive.

These questions are validated by the multitudes of news reports, articles, and interviews that have been published since the start of the conference and over the past several months. People all over the world commented on the inaccessibility of the conference, the restrictive role that COVID played, the imbalance of representation in terms of nationality, but also race and gender, and the blatantly disappointing nature of the outcome. The questions we grappled with and the uneasy feelings we had were not unique to the Swarthmore delegation. These structural issues are pervasive, evident, and people are getting louder about them.


Suggestions for the Swarthmore COP Program

Both the POLS 081 Global Environmental Governance seminar and the ENVS 092 UNFCCC COP and the International Climate Regime preparatory half-credit taught me so much about how the UN  attempts to govern global climate change issues. We covered the history of the meetings, the different pillars of COP, the different state and non-state actors that contribute, the different financing mechanisms, the presence of activism in and around the conference, and the various goals and outcomes different actors are advocating for. Being a very complex system to address the magnitude of global climate issues, the syllabi did an excellent job of covering a lot of ground and providing a deep understanding of the way the UNFCCC operates. The readings were intentional, the in-class conversations were enriching, and the outside speakers represented a diversity of involved sectors. I have so much gratitude for Professor Kaya, Melissa Tier, and the ENVS department at large for preparing me for the COP experience, teaching me the ropes of the current governance structure, providing me with the funds and resources to attend, and investing in me as a student, learner, and global citizen. 

Attending COP 26 will forever be one of the most memorable and meaningful experiences of my early life and was the most definitive moment of my undergrad environmental studies education. I feel strongly that Swarthmore students like me continue to have this real-world educational opportunity on the international stage, as it will be pivotal in their understanding of international affairs, global governance, and our accelerating climate crisis. This experience is central to Swarthmore’s commitment to developing, supporting, and graduating critically-minded, globally-aware change agents. Knowing that some members of the ENVS department have expressed concerns with sending Swarthmore students to COP, the continuation of the program is not necessarily a given, and that it requires significant funds and resources, I sincerely hope that the impact that the experience (start-to-finish) had on me is heard loud and clear.

Hearing some of the concerns of the department and acknowledging the flaws and fractured nature of the conference as a global governance function, I brought the topic to the ENVS Capstone to get feedback from other ENVS seniors. The two general questions I posed were the following, “How could we strengthen the COP program moving forward? and “How can we better prepare Swarthmore student delegates for the bigger picture of COP?” Secondly, in line with this year’s Capstone theme, “How could we take a more intersectional approach?” I gave a short presentation, delivering  key statistics regarding representation at the most recent COP, in addition to trends over time to provide critical context that those who were less involved may not have had. Additionally, we reviewed the preparatory course syllabus, bounced ideas off each other, and critically discussed some of the deeper rooted structural issues of the UNFCCC. The following list details the thoughts and feedback of the group:

 

While not all of these suggestions may be realistically feasible within the context of the course and recognizing that there are already efforts to accomplish several of these things, I have three concrete personal suggestions for ways of bolstering the Swarthmore COP program and preparation that address specific aired concerns.

1. “Should we really be contributing significant CO2 emissions by sending Swarthmore students and faculty to the very conference that is discussing the adverse effects of greenhouse gas accumulation in our atmosphere?” 

Rather than doing away with the program as a whole, I see a middle ground in which we 1) recognize the impact that each delegate has and 2) offset those emissions. Emissions data is becoming increasingly more accessible; several airlines even provide the carbon footprint associated with your flight in the ticket confirmation. I think that it would be a really impactful learning experience to add performing a life-cycle assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions associated with each individual attending the conference. I believe this would teach students how to perform life-cycle assessment, show them how to access emissions data, expose them to the varying carbon intensities of travel-related activities and the cumulative impact of them, and provide more intentionality to their travels, as they recognize what is at the cost of their attendance. Secondly, the school is taking part in on-going research with regards to carbon offsets that the college could invest in for other carbon emissions that Swarthmore is responsible for. I would imagine that we could purchase offsets for COP travels, as they are part of our larger college footprint. As I recognize this could take time to approve, student delegates could do limited research about different carbon offset projects and elect which one they felt most adequately addressed the impact that they would be having. At the least, this would bolster our appreciation for the carbon emissions we are complicit in.

2. “The curriculum doesn’t adequately address the structural and social issues associated with the UNFCCC framework.” 

Rather than simply adding a unit that gets into the problematic nature of COP, I see potential for approaching the syllabus from a more intersectional perspective. The layout of the syllabus shouldn’t change, but each unit could be supplemented with accounts of more critical perspectives. Readings and speakers that push against the representation, accessibility, structural oppression, and lack of ambition issues of COP. This would provide the students with a wider array of perspectives that could help them establish an individual critical lens from which they prepare for their travels and experience the conference. This doesn’t have to require digging up a ton of new content or overburdening students with extensive additional readings. There are news articles recounting reflections from both indigenous people who made the sacrifice to attend and those who made the conscious decision not to attend, colorful and interactive graphics that convey gender representation over the past several COPs, UNFCCC-published quantities of country-specific delegates at the expense of a simple Google search. These resources, as additions to the syllabus, could earn a lot of mileage with each attendee, in terms of providing a fuller picture of COP, helping to frame the problematic nature of the operating framework, and offer more critical perspectives to their toolbox they take abroad.

3. “This program only serves the few students who have the privilege of attending. There is not enough community engagement from the student delegates.” 

While community-engagement projects are a major component of the half-credit course for the students attending COP, the time, effort, and creativity we were able to designate to the projects were limited. Only taking 3.5 credits in the fall, COP dominated my semester. I spent the first half of the semester committing copious amounts of time on pre-departure logistics, researching to best prepare myself for making the most of my week at the conference, coordinating for my community engagement project, and trying to stay ahead on all of my other coursework in preparation for missing a week of classes. The second half of my semester was spent playing catch up from what I missed while I was gone and wrapping up my community-engagement project. I would suggest making the ENVS 092 UNFCCC COP and the International Climate Regime course that is mandatory for all student delegates a full-credit. This would accommodate my above two suggestions, in addition to students being able to more meaningfully and extensively “engage with the community.” The amount of time, work, and effort that the course and experience already requires felt like at least a full credit, but in the spirit of striving for a dynamic, ever-evolving program that does justice to the intersectional nature of global environmental governance, students earning a full credit for the course would enable them to accomplish more, invest more, and share back more. The learning takeaways from COP prove invaluable, but being able to disseminate these messages is limited by the preparatory course trailing off after returning from the conference due to designating more than a half-credit’s worth of work and time before attending.

Demonstration of resistance at security of the Blue Zone.
Protest within the conference halls.