Hello again from the Bella Center!

I spent much of my second day here planning with other members of the WWViews team. As a research body, we’re still trying to design our plan of action for this conference—who we will try and approach, what questions we will ask, and how we wish to define our goals. In many ways, we hope to explore this conference in terms of the efficacy of participatory democracy—how we can integrate citizen opinions more effectively into the actual deliberations. We hope to speak with delegation members, but there are no formal channels for this interaction—which leaves us resorting to crashing delegations at lunch. We are also hoping to speak with press and non-governmental organization members to see how we can make a project like WWViews more compatible with their efforts.

Part of what we did yesterday was probe the boundaries of the conference center to see where, as non-party members, we were allowed...

...As I mentioned, there are quite a few events that are closed to the public, or have limited tickets (distributed where, none of us know) for observer organizations. We actually found that we can go nearly everywhere, even back toward the delegation offices. In fact, I wondered why there weren’t more people back in the delegation center, stalking various important group members. Today found it more difficult to get to certain places, though this may have simply been due to the increasing volume of people here—it is noticeably more crowded than yesterday. The UN is actually talking about restricting the entry of non-governmental groups in order to keep this place from becoming a complete zoo. While I understand the necessity of controlling the population inside the Center, I believe it significant that the first groups to go are observer organizations. We—and by “we” I mean those most directly representing civic society—really are not important to the conduct of this conference, and are pretty easily disposable.  

The most interesting event I attended today was a meeting of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI), who meets assess and review the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. At this meeting, the parties were discussing the global financing mechanism as defined by this convention. This is primarily conducted by a body called the Global Environment Facility, the major source of resources for climate change mitigation. Since one of the most contentious issues surrounding any climate change treaty is who will be required to pay, I was interested to see what countries had to say.

The first party to take the floor was “Sudan”, though it was a Chinese delegate who spoke, through the Sudanese platform, on behalf of the G77 and China Group, calling for a more comprehensive and extensive financing program. “Sudan” was followed by Lesotho, speaking for Less Developed Nations (LDCs), thanking the GEF for its efforts but asking for increase transparency and reliability. China—now actually speaking as China—then criticized the GEF for the lack of finances provided to developing countries, and insisted “that developed countries do more” to “meet the urgent needs of developing country parties.”

Other groups then spoke up, notably Switzerland as one of the few developed countries to give a statement, pledging to provide further financial assistance. Otherwise, the African Group (represented by Algeria) and other LDCs (Gambia, Benin) continued to plead for more financial assistance. Though part of this call for monetary support for LDCs and developing countries was simply a practical matter—poor countries have fewer resources for adaptation, mitigation, and the like—the undercurrent seemed to be one of climate reparations. Though not explicitly mentioned, it seemed like many countries were calling for industrialized nations to pay for the harm they've committed. 

That Sudan gave its seat to China was shocking, particularly after the accusations surrounding the Olympics of Chinese financing of the Sudanese Genocide. Beyond that, however, I found the way that China has already begun dominating smaller states foreboding. The United Nations has always been a place where certain strong world powers dominate—think of the Cold War era stalemate. There are many small states, however, that have a crucial stake in global warming—island states threatened by inundation, African and Middle Eastern states facing desertification, and tropical areas rapidly undergoing deforestation and biodiversity loss. The G77 and other groups are a chance for these small and economically weak states to gain political agency in this process. The power dynamics, however, have been made clear: economic power so far has trumped state urgency.

I also noticed rather immediately that all statements in this meeting were pre-written. Every one. This brings me back to something I mentioned yesterday—where the real negotiation takes place. The group meetings—SBI, Conference of the Parties, etc—are where the official statements are read, where the documented action takes place. The actual negotiating, however, the time when delegates attempt to develop a compromise of policy, this happens behind closed doors, in the hallways outside of special events, or at delegate dinners in hotels. (Yes, I spied on U.S. delegation mail. No, I won’t crash. Maybe). This further exacerbates the power inequalities, it seems, for how many of these events is Grenada invited to? Or Gambia? Or alternatively, how can ordinary people have any say in this process, which is completely nontransparent and has negligible obligations to citizens?

Tomorrow I plan to attend the first Conference of the Parties (COP), which will begin discussing the actual protocol that will be involved in any treaty that is produced here. I can’t wait to see all these countries in action! More then!