Yvo De Boer on why present COPs are good for building political will

Guest blog by Yvo De Boer, former  Executive Secretary United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

 Is what has become a cause for criticism actually critical to success?

During the 14 INC’s (Informal Negotiating Group meetings) that bridged the gap between the Rio Earth Summit and the first CoP (meeting of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)), sessions were attended by some 500 government delegates and a scattering of observers, almost exclusively from the NGO community. 

How things have changed! CoP29 was attended by some 65000 participants, with government representatives significantly in the minority. Sessions that were once “cheap” to host, now cost upwards on some $ 150 Million. The negotiations trudge-on doggedly, while the events held in parallel have exploded beyond recognition.

Huge halls are host to hundreds if not thousands of events, attended by tens of thousands. 

Not to far removed from what a World Expo looks like, large venues and small spaces are used for workshops, media events, presentations and discussions. 

Although there might not always be many present physically, most of these events are live-streamed to a larger audience, around the globe. The organizers come from all of the UNFCCC constituencies: the NGO community in all its’ shapes and forms, indigenous groups, scientists, the business community, etc.. The list goes on. The location of the event determines to some degree which groups are present in greater or small numbers. For example recent gatherings in Egypt, the UAE and Kazakstan have attracted greater interest from within the fossil fuel community.

Over time these “side events” have been increasingly criticized. They distract from the core purpose of the CoPs. They are an orgy of navel gazers. 

They bloat the process to a degree that CoPs become impossible for smaller and poorer countries to organize. Like the World Economic Forum gatherings, they are an intellectual puff of smoke. Nothing sticks to them, nothing lasts. 

People come together, hug, embrace, ask when you arrived and drift apart again. I confess to having been among the critics. But, rather than write this part of the process off, perhaps we, certainly I, should first think about their utility. The purpose they serve. The purpose they could serve. After about four decades of various forms of climate negotiations the international process still needs a little help. Well, actually, all the help it can get.

As an intellectual exercise, the “side events” are useful. They are a pressure cooker of ideas. Over a two week period thousands come together to share ideas, network and launch new initiatives. This makes these events useful in and of themselves. They probably don’t add much to the substance of the intergovernmental negotiations, but then that was never their purpose. More significantly - much more significantly - they are worth considering in answering the question: what does it take to finally make climate action happen at the scale required?

Of course the core answer to this question is: political will. Political will is driven by public support. Public support is driven by attractive solutions, pathways and opportunities. As I sit here in this world where many don’t care if the most appalling atrocities are committed beyond their horizon, I consciously don’t mention “moral principles” or so-called “humanity” as effective change drivers. Business responds to public support when it believes that support will be sustained and translate into clear policy directions. If society cries-out for something, business will provide it.

So what does any of this have to do with “side events”?

Why on earth would world leaders travel to attend a climate event. Obviously, because they care. Some really very nasty characters aside, world leaders are people who care. But can they assume that the issue is taken seriously? Will they not be laughed off stage and out of power if they show they care? So can they afford to care about climate change? 

Can they offer a climate solution that their voters - assuming they have voters - will buy into? Can they show a way (forward) sufficiently attractive to create enough of a will to act? This is where the “side events” are useful from multiple perspectives.

Shakespeare once wrote that “all the world’s a stage, and all the men and women merely have their exits and their entrances”. 

65000 people is actually not a bad-sized audience to address. Especially if among that audience are hundreds of journalists who, in turn, reach billions with the message that climate change is real, that politicians and people care, that the journey is long but solutions are being found and that the choice is between getting on board a gravy train, or turning into a dead-end street. 

Pardon the inappropriate analogy, but these annual climate events are a great opportunity to poke a dipstick into public opinion, hobnob with your peers, stand on a stage in front of UN flags and have meetings with all the other species that have gathered there and who could help build your confidence that there is a way forward which does not mean running people, planet and prosperity into the ground, all at the same time. 

Of one thing you can be sure of; if we returned the process to what I described at the beginning of the first paragraph, you would be hard-pressed to find a leader willing to attend, beyond perhaps the Prime Minister of the Grand Duchy of Wherever.

Assuming there is even the smallest kernel of truth in what I am purporting, the question then is not; should we down-size the side events or hold them somewhere out of sight, but rather how can we capitalize on their potential to build momentum and drive change, while fostering all their other legitimate purposes and values.

More on that another time!