The Professionals Aren’t Any Better

By Dana Thomas

Last Fall, in Professor Gallagher’s Climate Change and Clean Energy Policy class, we held a mock COP21. Each student was assigned a different country to negotiate on behalf of as we attempted to write our own Paris Agreement. Another student and I were assigned to the COP Presidency, both of us laughing nervously about how ill qualified we were to take on this role. We were asked to set up the format for the entire day of negotiations, the subjects we would focus on, and preparing draft texts. On the day of the negotiations, we struggled to keep small group and plenary sessions on topic. Voting on the final text came down to the wire and I think our cheers of success may have drowned out a few last-minute objections. I thought the chaos of that day was due to our inexperience and limited understanding of international climate policy. Seeing the facilitators of COP25 struggle with the same issues was reassuring on a personal level but makes me a little less optimistic about the success of the Paris Agreement.

Sessions on the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Climate Agreement at COP25.

During week one of the COP I attended several sessions on implementation of Article 6. Yet, very little of my time in those rooms was spent discussing the heart of this issue like how to avoid double counting and procedural challenges. Most of them began almost thirty minutes late, sometimes longer. On Wednesday, I went to the scheduled “SBSTA Article 6 Informal Negotiation” and the co-facilitator announced early on that they had a hard stop at 5pm because the room was booked for another meeting. The first half hour was then spent discussing what to call the meetings; should they be bilaterals? Or group meetings? Or multilaterals? Bilaterals might be confusing and could refer to many other meetings. Is this a good use of such limited time?

Once conversation finally moved to discussion of the draft text, it was amazing to see how similar the proceedings were to our mock negotiation at Fletcher. The use of sideways name tents to note parties’ request to speak, parties making very polite (yet slightly passive aggressive) remarks addressed to the facilitators and not each other, and the cofacilitators becoming increasingly impatient when parties did not follow instructions. On Friday, the 5pm session began close to 5:30pm with Egypt making a lengthy statement reviewing their previously disclosed preferences for the entire draft text. Finally losing his patients, the cofacilitator told parties, “I have tried to be polite. I’ve tried to restrain myself. We have asked over and over again for parties not to restate their preferences. We’ve been doing this for four years. Some of you are like family. Every time I try to push you along, I’m accused of being rude.” While his impassioned speech finally forced parties to keep comments brief, there was still not a targeted conversation of the text. India pointed out their objection to language on human rights, Costa Rica raised the issue of double counting and clear timeframes, the EU discussed coordination of terminology, while Australia brought up the question of permanence.

Panel discussions at the COP.

As a first-time attendee, the COP was an overwhelming experience. Trying to manage my own schedule was a challenge when a meeting on the Adaptation Committee took place at the same time as negotiations on long-term finance. How do smaller parties manage to engage in this process substantively? Reflecting on my experience in Madrid and the mock negotiation we held in class, I’m surprised at the similarities. Given a week to prepare for the simulation, my co-facilitator and I established a similar disorganized format and wrestled with the same issues. Five years after Paris the parties are still struggling to formulate a system to coordinate emissions reductions and Madrid was another chance to kick the can down the road. Despite this, the fact that a room full of students managed to make it just as far in a day keeps me hopeful for the future.

Dana Thomas was a Tufts delegate to COP25 made possible by the Tufts Institute of the Environment (TIE) and financially supported by the Center for International Environment and Resource Policy (CIERP). Should you be affiliated with Tufts University and interested in being a Tufts delegate to COP in future years, please visit: https://environment.tufts.edu/initiatives/events/unfccc-cop/. For more information on CIERP, please visit https://sites.tufts.edu/cierp/.