Author: Tasfia Nayem (Page 1 of 2)

Cai May Tan

Today was my last day of COP24. While finalizing my day’s schedule, I had to consult my mental checklist without getting too distracted by everything that is going on. So as planned, I sat in on a few informal consultations on agenda items that I have been following for the past few days, namely SBI agenda items regarding Adaptation Committee and the public registry, and APA item 4. My first session was turned into an informal informal consultation (dubbed ‘inf inf’), so I was not able to sit in as an observer. Under the pressure to produce clean iterations by today, I could observe high pressure coming from both the body Secretariat and Parties. The time crunch did not work so much in favor of finalizing the agenda items I was tracking, because Parties became less collaborative and more staunch on their positions. This scenario prevailed in the final session (APA item 4) that I attended. Parties were unhappy over the new iterations produced by the Secretariat. I had the opportunity to catch the Malaysian negotiator tracking the session, and was able to confirm that the iteration was very different from what Parties have worked on in the past two years. Thus, I noted that Parties were taking opportunities to interpret the language in the new text, and also insert their own preferred language. In particular, Saudi Arabia held strongly onto the inclusion of co-benefits in the texts. The session ran double than the allocated time, but observers and Secretariat alike anticipated the reactions coming from Parties. As COP24 heads into the second week, I know I’ll be following negotiations outcomes closely to see how things transpire.

Amanda Ullman

Somehow my last day of attending COP24 has already come and gone. My final day was spent tieing up loose ends and completing my COP bucket list. One thing I realized I hadn’t done in my time here was attend a negotiation! There have been so many incredible energy talks spanning from fossil fuel subsidies to maritime policy that I have wanted to attend, and I realized late last night that I hadn’t made any room in my schedule for negotiations, the reason for which this entire conference takes place. I knew my client was interested in response measures so I thought a SBSTA meeting on the topic would be the perfect wrap up event.

During the negotiations, I was surprised by how hesitant the parties were to talk. The chair of the meeting really had to twist the country representatives’ arms to get anyone to talk about how to move forward with editing of the chapeau (the intro paragraph) of a summary document with recommendations on how to move forward with response measures. The chair worked so hard to solicit feedback from the country representatives that he even had to throw in a couple quips about how he wished Norway was around to “break the ice.”  Eventually so little progress has been made that the chair decided to have the group take a 5 minute break to reset the situation. During the break, I joked with the person sitting next to me about how the group was surely on the verge of a breakthrough. After some back and forth jest, I was shocked to find that my conversation partner was one of Spain’s delegates! I would have been more embarrassed about how candid I had been, but he had laughed at all my jokes, so I took our brief interaction as a win for Spanish-American relations.

P.S. Those that are wondering about the final form of the chapeau will be displeased to hear that the negotiation ended with nothing to show for the chair’s efforts. They had taken so long to make a decision that the negotiation ran into the time slot of another scheduled meeting and the group was kicked out of the room.

Paelina DeStephano

The last day of COP was full of meetings and wrapping up work for my client. I went to the second session of multilateral assessments and listened to Germany talk about their progress towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions. They are not on track to make their 2020 target, and that garnered a lot of attention today, including the honor of “fossil of the day”. In the assessment the very first questions, from Marshall Islands, asked Germany what it would take to reduce their dependence on coal. This question went unanswered. With all the talk of just transitions and the need to diversify economies, there is still a major reticence to wind down fossil fuel extraction. Resource extraction is seen as such a strong element of national sovereignty that it collides awkwardly with UN attempts for multilateral action. I think we’ll need to see even stronger market signals and domestic pressure in order to start turning stubborn states, like Germany, around.

Amanda Ullman

They say don’t meet your celebrities, but today I threw that advice to the wind. I started my morning attending a presentation by ITER, a nuclear fusion project created in collaboration by 28 different countries (the US, Russia, Japan, South Korea, India, China, and all of the countries in the EU.) Ever since a lecture on nuclear energy in my Energy and Environment class, I have been completely fascinated by nuclear fusion. Nuclear fusion has the potential for incredible efficiencies. It’s estimated that just 1 g of deuterium-tritium, the fuel used in nuclear fusion, could produce the same amount of energy as would 8,000 L of oil. While ITER hasn’t produced anything yet, presenter Greg de Temmerman explained that the actual construction of the machine (which is 42 hectares tall) still needs to be completed. He noted that the first component was just recently installed, which was a huge milestone.

Walking out of the presentation re-inspired by the collaborative nature of the project, I found myself heading to the Pavilion run by Itaipu. You’ll recall, Itaipu is my other energy production fascination, and is similar to ITER in that it is governed jointly by a treaty between Brazil and Paraguay. After speaking with an Itaipu environment representative on the work that Itaipu is doing in harnessing livestock waste for biogas production, I was ushered to sit for a presentation in the Pavilion. Because the presentation would be conducted in Spanish and I was the only non-fluent Spanish speaker present, Itaipu’s representatives found me my own personal translator. Perhaps the most exciting part of the situation was that my “translator” was not a translator at all, but actually one of Paraguay’s diplomats to Germany who’s friendliness and openness to conversation overshadowed the fact that he seemed to have forgotten he was translating the presentation for me about 1/3 of the way through the presenter’s speech. My time with Itaipu ended with a conversation between myself and 2 Brazilian Itaipu employees, who, upon discovery of my plans to study Portuguese next semester, took it upon themselves to teach me a quick overview of Brazilian geography and customs. Our time together was cut short by an afternoon meeting, so I will look forward to speaking with Itaipu’s residents a bit more during tomorrow, my last day at COP24.

Corey Sugerik

Today was my final day at the COP and I am walking away feeling a mixture of emotions, and an abundance of thoughts. After attending several negotiation sessions for the past few days, I decided that I wanted to attend a few sessions that would uplift my spirits and instill some hope. The event that really succeeded in providing that was about intergenerational inquiry. Several panels of youth representatives explained why they advocated for climate action and how climate change has impacted them. To see such young climate change activists fighting so hard for something was truly inspiring. My main reactions from the week boil down to an incredibly cautious optimism. I think that the fact that the Paris Agreement was even negotiated to begin with is an extraordinary feat and if Katowice can produce a rulebook, I may regain some confidence in the ability of the UN to make a meaningful impact in the world of climate change.

Paelina DeStephano

Yesterday I heard from some of the activists and government officials working in coal regions advocating for just tranisitons. Today I went to a complementary event held by research institutions investigating pathways and policy recommendations for just transitions away from coal. One organization detailed economic arguments for transitioning away from coal, supported by economic models comparing least cost transitions to  Paris-compatible transitions. While coal is declining in either case, there still needs to be a faster managed decline if we’re going to make our global goals. Then we heard case studies from Germany, Poland, South Africa, and Spain. Each situation is so unique, with different energy economics, different regional contexts, and different government capacities. But across all case studies one thing was clear – coal is in decline.

Cai May Tan

Day 5 of COP 24 came and went very quickly today. I think the adrenaline of attending COP started to wear off today, for I found myself at a self-imposed impasse because I just did not know what to do. To be fair, my first few days were a whirlwind of events because I was just trying to go to as many events as possible. Today, I split my time between YOUNGO and tracking adaptation negotiations. For the majority of the afternoon, I worked on preparing a press conference statement for the adaptation working group. I found it extremely challenging to produce a two-minute press statement because like the Paris Agreement, you can be nothing but vague. It was ironic to see this being mirrored in a process that criticizes the vague, un-transparent and unequal. In the second half of my day, I attended a negotiations on SBI 49 agenda item Article 7. As I have mentioned in a previous post, negotiations can be limited to just banter between a few countries. In this particular session, there were a lot of arguments between arbitrary item proposals and suggested edits. The session moderator stressed that tomorrow is the last day to confirm the language on operationalizing the public registry. But, it did not look like Parties were able to come together because negotiations ran much later than intended, and some negotiators started to look frazzled and nervous. Co-facilitators suggested informal informal sessions, but we’ll have to wait until tomorrow to find out.

Udit Gupta

I attended a session on the establishment of a public register for communication on adaption programs.     The decision to do so was arrived to in the Paris Agreement and as with other points, countries are supposed to agree to a work program. 7.5 hours of discussions were scheduled over three days and was today, was the second day of negotiations on the register. For over 2 hours today, the parties couldn’t agree on a small clause: if the pdf manual should have hyperlinks to external documents. While tomorrow is the last day to agree on the register – I believe a consensus on this small step is highly improbable.

Amanda Ullman

Today’s morning presentation was one of my best experiences to date at COP24. Prior to arriving at COP24, I had garnered a great interest in Itaipu, the most powerful hydroelectric dam on the planet, thanks to conversations with a fellow Nicholas school student and a Nicholas School faculty member. Itaipu is situated between Brazil and Paraguay, and its power generation is governed by a treaty between the two nations. The dam itself powers 50% of Brazil’s energy needs and 91% of Paraguay’s. Use and development of its energy represents great opportunity for sustainable development within the two nations and has the potential to serve as a case study for developing Latin American nations.

During this morning’s presentation, representatives from both Paraguay and Brazil discussed the extensive efforts that their governments had generated on making Itaipu a hub for environmental conservation and sustainability. Not only does Itaipu produce clean energy for the country’s residents, it also serves as a biological safe haven for over 186 rare species, a hub for the world’s largest reforestation program, and a site for biogas and solar energy formation. Just having the chance to learn about how UNDESA and Itapiu Binacional partnered to create a global network to promote sustainable actions to reach SDG 6 (water access) and SDG 7 (energy access) was incredibly meaningful to me, so you can imagine the shock I felt when I saw Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC walk into the room. Her presence went above and beyond her initial presentation on the importance of reaching SDGs 6 and 7, as after the Itaipu presentation ended, she stayed and made a special announcement of a new global summit to take place in March 2019 to focus on the linkage of SDGs and NDCs.

Corey Sugerik

This week is absolutely flying by, and I finally got to attend my first negotiation sessions today for the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement discussing the topic of mitigation. One of my favorite sessions I attended today was led by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and discussed climate science and policy, which is the interface that I am most interested in for a future career. During the Q&A portion of the session, an audience member from the United States asked how US citizens and students specifically can bring science further into policy discussions when our administration denies the existence of climate change. Additionally, she asked how we can reach our goals of 2 degrees of warming if the United States does not do its part to reduce emissions. This is a very fair question and one that I have asked myself before. The panelists responded with sound advice that we should look within our own circles of influence and to look to cities and states to be the leaders in pushing towards reducing emissions. The representative from the IPCC concluded with the phrase “Every bit of warming matters. Every year matters. Every choice matters. Every life matters.”

Paelina DeStephano

Today, I went to a session on coal and just transitions. I’ve previously researched this topic in a US context, using a fairly quantitative approach. But the session today was an amazing mix of stories from activists and government officials in Eastern Europe. Each individual talked about how they managed to mobilize their community and find messages to communicate the benefits of a diversified economy. In some communities questioning mining operations was taboo, but when an economic shock made the future of the industry uncertain, people began discussing the need to diversify. Uncertainty and insecurity are alarming. Once people realized the size of subsidies propping up the coal industry, they felt less secure about those jobs. Diversification became an aim. The idea of a just transition has been contentious at this COP, with a strong feeling like it can be too easily co-opted by groups hesitant to transition. This event was an encouraging look at how impacted communities viewed coal and economic diversification.

Udit Gupta

SBSTA held an informal consultation on 3 draft texts relating to Article 6.8 of the Paris Agreement.

The parties said they hadn’t read any of it because it was released 3 hours prior. But everyone congratulated the co-chairs for pulling an all-nighter to deliver the text.

“We can be only at one place at a moment,” the delegation of Pakistan pointed out on the difficulty of managing multiple sessions. This seems fair, as most country delegations have anywhere between 5-20 members. And at any moment, there are 3-5 simultaneous consultations taking place. In response, the session chair pointed out that the schedules are arranged by subject matter – for example, the intention is not to schedule two Loss and Damage meetings at the same time, but, as the case today, it is not always possible.

Amanda and Udit during the announcement of the 2019 Global Climate Action Summit

Amanda Ullman

Today was a day for recognition of non-state actors at COP24. With the announcement of the newly scheduled September 23^rd, 2019 Climate Summit, the Secretary General of the UN took special care to announce his intention towards integration of subnational and non-state actors into discussion on mitigation and increased ambition. Particularly noteworthy was Special Advisor, Bob Orr’s, declaration of his intention to encourage high-energy users, like the cement, steel, and IT sectors, to develop stronger mitigation efforts.

The Secretary General’s sentiments were echoed by Japan in the High-Level meeting preceding the Partnership for Electromobility event. Japan referred to the “indispensable” nature of nonstate actors in the fight against climate change and announced his intention to build momentum amongst nonstate actors within the international community. Later in the Electromobility Partnership forum, which discussed the creation of an international partnership of countries focused on electric vehicle technology, Gabon called on the private sector to create innovative, affordable electric vehicle solutions and to act in accordance with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

What was lacking for me amongst this talk of nonstate actor involvement, though, was discussion from actual private sector representatives. I will be curious to see if future COP24 events will discuss specific examples of private sector plans and partnerships born out of this increased prioritization of nonstate actor involvement.

Corey Sugerik

Today was another full day of side events primarily focused on transparency and increasing ambition. One of my favorite moments from the day was during an event hosted by the German Institute for Development regarding lessons learned from the Nationally Determined Contributions. At one point the conversation turned to ambition, and the director of ICCCAD (International Centre for Climate Change and Development) made a poignant statement that one of the countries that was most prepared to adapt to climate change was Bangladesh, and the least prepared was the United States, and this is because Bangladesh takes climate change seriously. He further concluded that because developing countries have had to adapt to a changing climate for so long, despite being hit harder by climate change, they will be more prepared in adaptation.

Another observation that I made today is that during side events that have both developed and developing country representatives, the developed countries tend to talk longer with less consideration for their time limits, while the developing countries are reminded more of time constraints and given less time in general to speak. I am interested if this trend continues in other sessions, or it was a few instances.

Cai May Tan

Day 3 of COP 24 has come and gone. Subsidiary bodies meetings and negotiations are already well underway, in the race to cover technically-focused negotiations in the first week of COP. Prior to my trip, I already decided to track adaptation negotiations after completing a topic presentation for this course. Using this Climate Tracker cheat sheet, I formulated my agenda for the rest based on what agenda items that were up for discussion. Today, I sat in as an observer to four informal consultations sessions and took extensive notes on the different considerations of Parties. It was interesting to see the banter between different party blocs, as most disagreements were between developed and developing nations, which were per my expectations. The majority of issues that were raised during the negotiations had to do with increasing efficiency and clarity of vocabulary, and slight disagreements (but not completely antagonistic) over interpretations. However, I was not sitting in on contentious discussions. Most agenda items discussed were quick fixes to be completed in the first half of the week. More drafts and proposals are expected in the days leading up to Friday, before the second round of High Level Segment discussions begin next week. I am excited to follow up on the developments made during sessions on implementing adaptation fund, adaptation communications, and adaptation committee under the Paris Agreement.

IPCC Chair Hoesung Lee discusses the 1.5ºC Special Report

Udit Gupta

Today, the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) held an event on its recently released Biennial Assessment Report. It patted itself on the back for the increase in climate finance flows. Noticeably absent from the discussion was the criticism of inconsistent definitions of climate and green finance. The SCF members emphasized the importance of a broader vision over restrictive definitions.

At the IPCC event today, I was incredibly impressed with IPCC’s ability to convey complex modeling results and uncertainty effectively to a non-scientific audience. Lead authors of the IPCC 1.5ºC Special Report informed the delegates of the somber findings in their recently released report. Jim Skea, one of the co-authors, communicated without hesitation that national ambitions as laid out in NDCs were not large enough to restrict warming to 1.5ºC – a goal to be strived under the Paris Agreement. Interestingly, the IPCC report was released a month before the COP. Deborah Roberts, another co-author of IPCC report, emphasized their study on synergies between adaptation and mitigation efforts.

Paelina DeStephano

Today was full of side events for me as I supported Stockholm Environment Institute in publicizing some of their events. My favorite session of the day was on economic diversification. With all the focus this year on just transitions, there’s been a lot of talk about green jobs and economic transitions for fossil fuel dependent states. There was a panelist from the International Renewable Energy Agency who made a strong case for the potential of renewable jobs. Her agency is trying to identify overlapping skills and regions to map out areas where governments can support fossil fuel workers in a carbon constrained world. This conference has been a fascinating look into how NGOs can deploy research to strengthen the case for decarbonization.

Indonesia Pavilion at COP24

Udit Gupta

In the face of a news-storm on commitments not materializing, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) puts up a brave face in its pavilion and side events. The panel discussion was fairly technical but well tailored for the audience, all of which were involved in some way with GCF.

On the other hand, Indian pavilion is the talk of the town.  It has revolving robotic arms which showcases environment and forest policy. The Indonesian pavilion is a close second, while the United States is notably absent.

I also had the chance to meet with members of the Indian delegation, it was somewhat surprising to me how many Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Power officials negotiated for India.

Amanda Ullman

It was a day of Low Emissions Development Strategies (LEDS) for me at my first day of COP24. The Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) Partnership kicked off my evening with a panel of representatives from Chile, Colombia, and India who each discussed their countries’ unique approach to LEDS and served as case studies for countries facing similar developmental environments. The success of the collaborative nature of the event was most evident during the question and answer portion. It was then that a representative from Mexico, who happened to be sitting in the audience, jumped in the conversation to offer his experience in the effectiveness of using federal law as a motivator for subnational government action.

Similar lessons were conveyed in a side event on National Engagement for Low Emission Development Pathways. In this discussion, we again received a comparative glance into strategies for Low Emission Development success, this time between Tunisia, India, South Africa, Ethiopia, and Madagascar. Some key takeaways were the attribution of Tunisia’s success to the incredibly structured nature of their consultative and planning processes and the projected permanence of coal in India’s energy portfolio.

View of the opening ceremony from the YOUNGO seat

Cai May Tan

Today I had the opportunity to attend the Opening Ceremony of COP 24. After attending the morning YOUNGO spokescouncil meeting (huddle), I was able to cop one of the YOUNGO constituency green tickets to observe the ceremony. The highlight of my day was being able to sit at the official Youth NGO seat in the plenary and report on the messages delivered by the speakers. While you can watch the webcast here, I would like to give a short recap on the different perspectives of just transition coming from the plenary. The COP 24 president Michał Kurtyka, Polish President Andrzej Duda, and Polish Environment Minister Henryk Kowalczyk underlined the significance of just transitions, framing it to be human-centered. When presenting the Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration, the environment minister cited Katowice’s success in transitioning away from dirty coal to petroleum-based fuels that contributed to Poland’s achievement of Kyoto Protocol emission goals. However, given the legacy of coal in the upper Silesian region, the Polish presidency used the narrative to argue for a stronger socioeconomic consideration as Parties take on a higher Paris ambition. While we should not forsake socioeconomic weight when maneuvering the tensions between environmental protection and economic development, we should not undermine the message that the environment is a priority in a climate change negotiation conference.

Corey Sugerik

It’s hard to believe it’s the end of day 2 of the COP. My day was primarily filled with side event session regarding carbon markets, transparency, and increased ambition. The first main side event I attended involved Article 6, specifically carbon trading. It involved a lot of economics jargon, like discount rates and elasticity of supply/demand, but luckily my multiple economics courses this semester prepared me for this moment. I also attended a few sessions and took notes on behalf of my client, Environmental Defense Fund. The first session involved measurement, reporting, and verification of emissions, and the second session was a panel discussion on transparency and ambition in Chile, India, and Colombia. The most impactful moment of my day; however, was during a short session hosted by the World Resource Institute about increasing ambition. All of the presenters spoke with such passion and emotion about the urgency of tackling climate change and it spurred a renewed energy to continue to work towards this goal.

Paelina DeStephano

Today I watched the multilateral assessments and the facilitative sharing of views, two peer review processes enshrined under the UNFCCC. I’ve done some research on these processes, but seeing them in action really drove home the bifurcation in the current transparency framework. Canada, the EU, and France had detailed descriptions of policies and projections based on these policies. They were able to assess the likelihood of meeting targets, understand what action needed to be taken and what sectors were lagging. But countries in the FSV session were struggling to shift away from consultants and internalize processes for GHG inventories. The questions at the FSV gave insight into the national concerns of the countries. The US asked several questions about challenges in federalist systems. Overall the tone was incredibly collegial and delegates seemed deeply interested in each other experiences. But the question here is how effectively does that knowledge transfer back?