Author: Laurel Pegorsch

My first day observing the COP23 negotiations serendipitously marked a momentous occasion in COP proceedings. I was swept up in the energy and excitement of what one delegate described as “a monumental and milestone achievement, likely to be the main success of COP23”.

On this first day of the second week of the Climate negotiations in Bonn Germany, it was agreed that agriculture and its contribution to climate change would be included into future talks, as well as into the COP23 final document, ending a gridlock over the last several years. Parties agreed to ‘jointly address’ agriculture’s link to climate change moving forward, setting a deadline for the end of March by when countries will submit their positions on what should be included.

Agriculture within UNFCCC has been discussed and disagreed on for years. The lack of consensus had prevented country delegates from moving forward on the more substantial content of the issue. Pictured above are country delegates following the agreement, with representatives from the United States, Gambia, and Malawi in the forefront who have been working on this issue for the entirety of the working group-since 2009. The many countries praising and congratulating each other also pointed out the important victory for the US delegate Mark Manis, the Senior Climate Change Policy Advisor from USDA, (picture above) who announced this would be his last Conference of the Parties (COP) and will soon be retiring.

This was an important “win” for this year’s climate negotiations because of the relative lack of ambition and progress in other areas. This COP did not necessitate a major decision or document, however was a vital step in establishing the ‘Paris Rulebook’ or roadmap for detailing and implementing the Paris Agreement. This included details on loss and damage, financing mechanisms, Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) plans for measuring and monitoring emissions, and specifics of the Global Stocktake, among others.

As an International Development Policy Masters student concentrating on food security, I was invigorated by this decision on agriculture and excited to witness these proceedings on the international stage. However, the lengthy amount of time focused on the process alone was a bit disheartening. As the week progressed more and more observers expressed their disappointment in the overall lack of ambition of COP23; those same observers were also unsurprised by it. This fact makes the importance of the smaller positive outcomes from this COP- agriculture, gender, and Talanoa dialogue process-all the more worth highlighting, in hopes of increasing the urgency for agreement and progress.

According to the UNFCCC, the official count of participants that attended to COP23 on behalf of a country (also referred to as ‘party’), totaled over 9,200 representatives. This number is down from the 11,300 registered participants published in a provisional list a month earlier. It is also much lower than the delegates that attended COP21 in Paris, however the stakes in 2015 were much higher than this year. However, this year’s UN Climate Negotiation focused on detailing the plan or “rulebook” to implement the Paris Agreement which has also taken much time and deliberation.

The countries with the highest number of delegates attending COP23 came from African countries, Cote d’Ivoire sent 492 participants with Guinea (355), Democratic Republic of the Congo (340), Congo (308) and Morocco (253) following (Carbon Brief, 2017). These numbers contrast with the size of developed country delegations: France sending 177, EU with 76, and the US only 48. Countries can, and often do, give some of their badges to NGOs from their country, so these numbers may be misleading.

Because all parties, journalists, observers, and participants must be registered and cleared by the UNFCCC, they can keep track of the totals and gender balance of the climate talks. The UN’s documents are public on their website, and my colleagues from Duke University appear on this list http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2017/cop23/eng/inf04.pdf on page 247. However, I question the accuracy of their process, because myself and several others from Duke University do not appear on this document.

Because I did attend COP23, despite what the list says, I was keen to observe gender balance during the negotiation meetings, press conferences and proceedings. TheFijian presidency had made gender a key agenda item, supporting a Gender Day in the Bonn Zone and the Gender Action Plan, which promotes gender equality and leadership in the international negotiation and policy process, and gender-responsiveness and capacity building into climate action implementation.

From the numbers the UNFCCC provided, on average 38 percent of country delegations were female. This was reflected in the negotiation meetings I attended, with women successfully represented, but largely in the minority. Albania, Guyana and Latvia sent all-female delegations, in contrast to Eritrea, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan who sent all male representatives (Carbon Brief). However, these countries sent quite small delegations, less than 5 people.

Although adoption of the Gender Action Plan is a ‘win’ for COP23, progress is slow. Perhaps this can be said for all areas of COP23 achievements, but I maintain a positive attitude, that any progress is still progress.

Gender Action Plan: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2017/sbi/eng/l29.pdf

Carbon Brief. (2017). Analysis: Which Countries have sent the most delegates to COP23? Retrieved from: https://www.ecowatch.com/countries-delegates-cop23-2507136533.html.

It is worth discussing the separate and distinct zones that this years’ Conference of Parties (COP) hosted. The geographical separation of these zones underlined the independent activities housed under them. Previous COP attendees told me repeatedly that the side events and actual negotiations normally don’t have much overlap but the physical separation of this year made it much more difficult for country delegates, representatives and observers -who totaled over 19,000 people-to attend events of interest.

Logistically, Fiji (as the COP Presidency) could not support the international community on their island, so COP23 was located in Bonn, Germany theheadquarters of the United Nations (UN) European offices. Proceedings were broken down into the Bula Zone, Bonn Zone, and everything else in between.

The Bula Zone was housed in the existing UN campus buildings, where country delegations and negotiations took place (Zones 1 and 2). With many working groups and country bloc meetings happening simultaneously, an additional tent was set up (zone 3) that housed a cafeteria and press conference rooms. This zone had an air of business-as-usual and casual calmness, with an undercurrent of “hurry up and wait” tension. My fellow observers (mostly Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) representatives) were hyper focused on specific issues- such as details of the Paris ‘Rulebook’ and APA (Advisory board to the Paris Agreement) Guidelines which were key outcomes of COP23.

Anxiously waiting outside of closed deliberations, we would get news of the latest draft text of a 2-hour-long (or more) negotiation session, followed by our own discussion of the implications of a slight change in language or which country was opposing or supporting a specific point.

            The Bonn Zone had a contrasting ambiance full of energy, music and panels of scientists, politicians, youth, and experts discussing issues ranging fromnegative emission technologies to appropriate financing for adaptation to climate change. These ‘side events’ to the negotiationswere just that, quite separate and disconnected to the actual proceedings of the international talks. This zone was a hub for professional networking, knowledge sharing and unveiling of new NGO or private company initiatives with mitigation or adaptation focus.

Amidst the busy schedule of events and open negotiation sessions, there were many other areas to explore in between the two zones. Subnational actors from the United States hosted the US Climate Action Center, as a statement of support for the Paris Agreement. Multiple domes housed panelists and speakers including governors from Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts and California. The brisk walk, bike or electric powered shuttle ride between the Bonn and Bula Zones was also filled with art exhibits, NGOs and advocacy stands.

Despite the geographical distance between them, the week’s activities certainly did not lack in their range and diversity. Although running back and forth between zones was bothersome at times, and often pushed schedules late the coordination of so many events and interests was quite impressive, and made every day a unique experience.

by Laurel Pegorsch

MIDP Fellow ’18

Duke University