My biggest highlight of COP26 was to attend the live climate negotiations. Since Duke University is part of the RINGO group (Research and Independent NGOs), we are allowed as observers to the actual climate negotiations. However, this year, most of the negotiating rooms were closed for observers (with reasons ranging from COVID-19 protocol to parties insisting it to be closed). However, some negotiations were open in linked rooms through audio/visual. I had the chance to track the climate finance negotiation, which is the trickiest, stingiest, and most debated agenda item in almost all COPs.

Most of the negotiations revolved around legal jargon, with occasional trips down the grammar lane, with delegates discussing where a past participle should be placed. This was surprising because most delegates come from countries where English is not their first spoken language. Spending an abundant amount of negotiating time correcting grammar seemed to be imprudent. However, there were also heated discussions when the draft text had several interpretations and repercussions for different countries. For example, countries had a hard time deciding what to incorporate from the below two texts:

A. Expresses disappointment on the lack of efforts of developed country parties towards climate finance

B. Welcomes continued efforts of developed country parties towards climate finance

Evidently, developing countries were pushing for statement A, while developed countries wanted statement B. Deciding this one-line text took countries 45 minutes of discussions, several interventions, and an informal breakout meeting. This highlights the sensitivity around the topic of climate finance. Another example involved a lengthy debate, essentially between the choice of two words – urges or requests.

C. Urges developed country parties to continue to provide climate finance

D. Requests developed country parties to continue to provide climate finance.

Again, developing countries wanted statement C and developed countries wanted statement D. My other quick takeaways about international climate negotiations in general are:

1. Negotiations at COP can happen at multiple levels. Technical negotiations between subject experts and high-level negotiations between ministers and heads of state. The negotiators are highly intellectual but are limited by their subject expertise. Thus, for any technical negotiation, let’s say, climate finance, there will be a team of negotiators may be consisting of members from the finance department, environment department, and legal department. And some of the negotiations can get really technical with a lot of legal jargon with references to previous texts and documents. Having prior knowledge of the topic being negotiated is helpful here. The high-level negotiations between ministers and heads of state are generally closed for observers, but there is enough reason to believe that it would have a lot of action too.

2. Most negotiations happen informally outside the negotiation room, paradoxically. Since there is limited time allocated for a particular topic, parties are encouraged to breakout into several informal working groups either at the block level* or country level. The actual meeting time is only used for interventions by countries or blocks when the informal working groups cannot reach a consensus.

*There are several blocks or party grouping in UNFCCC, such as the African group, LDCs (Least Developed Countries), EIG (Environmental Integrity Group), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), etc.

3. There is a common tendency for similar nations to support each other’s intervention. A common trend that I witnessed was that Brazil, South Africa (on behalf of the African group), Guinea (on behalf of G77 and China), etc. generally support each other’s interventions, and on the other hand, European Union (EU), United States, Switzerland, etc. support each other’s interventions.

4. Even though negotiators are stressed and sleep-deprived, they are ultimately humans. They know everyone in the room and may even address them using their name instead of the country name, which in my opinion, humanizes the arguments. Surprisingly, they may also occasionally engage in casual banter (accompanied by nervous laughter).

The above points illustrate the complexity, commotion, and carefulness around climate negotiations in general.  The usage of strong words, accusatory tone, and causal references to previous documents are taken very seriously. Throughout our course (ENV 592:UNFCCC Practicum), we heard from guest speakers and past negotiators how a negotiation room looks like, but never could we feel it. However, having personally witnessed negotiations, there was no other place at COP26 I would rather be than in the negotiation room.