The mission is bilateral meetings with other youth delegations during COP21, to understand what other youth groups are doing in COP and to gain exposure from their experiences. We are newbie and they may have been here for years. I think this exposure is worth an article because it was one of my exciting parts in COP.
Each of the MYD members were in charged of “adopting” a country’s youth coalition and arrange a meeting with them. I was in charge of contacting New Zealand Youth Delegation (NZYD) but it did not happen in the end because they were very occupied and it was a problem to find a mutual free time for all the members. The secured ones include meetings with the United Kingdom Youth Climate Coalition (UKYCC), Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC) and Taiwan Youth Climate Coalition (TWYCC).
Fun fact: UKYCC and AYCC have more female members than male, but it is another way round for TWYCC.
UKYCC meeting was our first one on 10th Dec, in green zone. There are around 6 to 8 of them. We were quite excited as we have no experience in handling such big number of participants in such meeting. It was a bit delayed and I tried to take lead and to conduct the flow, just a simple one- introduction from both side on what we did before COP and during COP; then it will be a free Q&A or chatting session. It was fine initially but when it reached the free chatting part, the note taker – Shak got a bit lost because everyone was kinda split into small groups; with various diverse topics. I was sitting in the middle, trying to bridge the gap without spoiling the anticipated conversations, so you could imagine how challenging it was ! :/
The next day, we had lunch with AYCC, there were only 4 of them. Conversation was much converged given the advantage of us seated in a roundtable (now I know the significant role seatings play in a discussion!).
The session with TWYCC was in the evening and we did some serious walking to our meeting venue. TWYCC intended to interview and film some of us, resulting our meeting started a bit late. There are around 4-5 members from TWYCC (not the whole team). However, only 2 of them are the “real” members as the other 2-3 people were from the media team who exclusively worked on recordings and shootings (interesting team structure!). So those are the kind of problems that you would probably face when it comes to bilateral meetings- many things are uncertain- timing; venues; unexpected incidents like delays and number of people who turned up.
Lesson Learnt: It could be better if we could know more about the logistical information beforehand- e.g. number of people attending, so we can find a suitable place to comfortably fit us; and location, whether it is blue zone or green zone (travelling between these 2 places can take 15-20 minutes to and fro).
I personally felt at ease after talking to these bunch of youths because I am not the only one who was overwhelmed and lost in this COP circus; and I am also not the only one who thinks team problem is a shame because that’s what happened to everyone. Most importantly, I learnt from these youth coalitions that they all have a proper structure within the team, so at least they know how to coordinate stuff although they are all moving around individually. Great learning from them! I think this bilateral should be made another MYD traditions for the upcoming batches.
Spot me at Youth Forum in Indonesia Pavilion, COP21
While I was still in Malaysia preparing for COP21, I received a short email from Adrian and Lastrina asking if I am keen to share my climate initiatives and experiences for the coming Youth Forum event organized by Indonesian Pavilion in COP21.
Well, the moment I say “Yes” is the day I am glad I did it.
I have decided to attend one of the session they organized that is related to Coffee and Climate. I am not a coffee lover but I am curious of how climate change may impacts coffee’s life-cycle?
I decided to grab some of their booklets to read. Based on Coffee Barometer 2014 report prepared by Humanist Institute for Co-operation with Developing Countries (HIVOS), coffee is ranked as one of the world’s most valuable agricultural commodities with 80% of coffee produced in the world is traded internationally amounts to USD 33.4 billion and retail sales may sum up to USD 100 billion.
Apparently, Arabica and Robusta (please learn the difference) are two most commonly produced coffee beans in the world where Arabica are commonly grown at high altitudes in Latin America [including Brazil] and Northeast Africa [accounts for 60% of world production] and Robusta, commonly grown in humid areas at low altitudes in Asia, Western and Central Africa and Brazil [currently encompasses up to 40% of world production]. Four countries dominated the global coffee production, Brazil (35%), Vietnam (15%, world’s largest Robusta coffee produce), Indonesia (9%) and Colombia (7%).
Coffee production provides livelihood for 20 – 25 million farming families. The Barometer report stated coffee is cultivated in more than 80 countries in Central and South America, Africa and Asia. Well, not to be surprised these are the regions the developing countries which are prone to climate-induced disasters.
According to recent research published in Journal Plos One, by 2050, yields of Arabica bean – which accounts for 75 percent of the coffee produced worldwide – in some countries are expected to fall by up to 25 percent. Whereas Uganda produces both coffee beans are also at threat with reduction of suitable land to produce the specific climate growing coffee beans. Coffee needs an annual rainfall of 1500-3000mm. The ideal temperature range for growing coffee is 15-24 degree Celsius for Arabica coffee and 24-30 degree Celsius for Robusta. With the increasing global temperature predicted by IPCC, these coffee beans are facing more heat stress and water shortages.
Sustainability of coffee are becoming one of the dominant factors of brand choice other than consumer’s taste and price quality considerations. This can be verified via the implementation of voluntary standards systems (VSS). The Committee on Sustainability Assessment (COSA) study confirms that certified coffee and cocoa farms, perform better economically and their farmers are better trained and pursue more environmentally friendly practices in comparison to non-certified farmers. But the success rate depend on local context and the entry cost can be challenging for small holders.
In all coffee producing countries, 70% coffee producers are small scale farmers. They face particular challenges in building their livelihoods from agriculture and in overcoming poverty. Generally, these coffee growers are:-
Not Well Organized
Lack of Market Information and Bargaining Power
Low and Volatile Prices for their Green Beans
Increasing Production Costs (rising prices of fertilizers, transportation, abour, discourage entrepreneurial activity and necessary long term investments in their farm)
Addressing climate change in the coffee sector and overcoming poverty require enhanced cooperation and communication between various stakeholders (companies, donors, farmers, researchers). Interestingly, in 2010, “The initiative for Coffee & Climate (C&C)” has initiated holistic projects focusing on how coffee production can be improved while simultaneously increasing the coffee resilience of growers in coffee- producing landscapes. They have pioneered four pilots in various regions including Guatemala, Vietnam, Tanzania and Brazil with reaching out to more than 4,000 farmers. These initiatives are also supported by some of the top ten coffee roasters that dominate almost 40% of the coffee consumption in the world; including three largest transnational corporations – Nestle, Mondelez and DE Master Blenders 1753.
This was how a negotiation room in COP21 looked like
Have you ever wonder how does a United Nation meeting looks like? You might have watched them at YouTube before but I bet you did not even have the patience to finish a session of it because it might be boring if you are not tracking it live.
Much thanks to the Minister of the Natural Resources and Energy (NRE), the Malaysian Youth Delegation was able to gain the opportunity to enter negotiation rooms of the 21st session of the Conference of Parties (COP21) as “Party Overflow” badges (national delegate badges).
I would like to share some of my experience of observing the negotiation processes:
What kind of meetings that have in COP21?
Informal informals – Negotiators come together to discuss about ideas and stand, not as Parties. It usually happened with the delegates of the same bloc or regional group. The outcome of the discussion will not be take into formal text but might be raised in a spin-off group. It is more like a strategy discussion meeting to understand the opinions of the Parties.
Spin-off Group – Parties will discuss and negotiate about clauses in a particular article of the draft agreement text. The co-chair or co-facilitator will go paragraph by paragraph. If there is any Parties do not agree with the paragraph, other Parties will gives their opinion on the suggestions of the former. There will be several spin-off groups going on simultaneously. Hence the delegations have to split and focus on different articles in order to join the negotiation for topics that they are concerned on.
Bilateral – Different blocs or regional groups will meet up and build understandings among each other or discuss on certain topics that they disagree on in order to increase the efficiency of the whole process.
Contact Group – All of the spin-off groups outcome will be brought up in the contact group. It is sort of like a concluding meeting that gather all the small negotiations together. Parties may give an intervention or negotiate upon issues that have not reach any consensus. This is like a finale and it usually only allow Parties with special secondary badges to enter the meeting room but is televised in overflow room(s) that everyone, including observers, can access and watch.
Which one I enjoyed the most?
I enjoy Spin-off groups the most because it is more specific, easier to follow and Party Overflow delegates usually is allowed to be in the room. It is more open and less sensitive than a bloc meeting as there will not be any discussion on strategy in the spin-offs. In some Spin-offs, I got the chance to learn from the Head of Malaysian Delegation, Dr. Gary Theseira. He will be evaluating the situation and explaining the stand of the main players in the negotiations. I do not have to opportunity to do so during the Contact Group meeting.
The best part of following the negotiations is that you get to learn a lot more about the stand of the Parties and to observe how the members of similar bloc work together and back up each other. The repetition of certain hot topics will arouse your curiosity to read up more about it. Besides, you will push yourself to read through the text properly, word by word. It might be very daunting to read the whole draft text (which went up to nearly 50 pages). But if you follow the negotiation, you will have to read the text during the negotiation in order to keep track. You will get to know which are the important/controversial paragraphs too.
The worst part of following the negotiations is that you will have to battle your sleepiness very hard while jotting down your notes at times. Have you ever had the feeling which you know you are awake and listening every word other people said but at the same time you know you are dozing and you can’t comprehend a single word that you heard? You’ll have to struggle in this almost everyday when you are tracking negotiations! Even negotiators faced the same problems. That’s why the cafes in COP21 always have long queue!
All in all, it is definitely an awesome experience to observe and to understand more about the UNFCCC processes. Hopefully in the future I am able to comprehend more about the interventions and the big pictures of the meetings.
At the last day of the #COP21, the thousands of people with diverse nationality gathered to voice out their wants to the people in the plenary halls. People dressed in red hats, red clothes, red scarfs, red gloves holding red umbrellas and red banners to draw their #RedLines, from Arc de Triomphe to the renowned Eiffel Tower.
The #D12 action is the largest civil disobedience movement during the period of COP21. It only obtained the police’s consent a few days before the action day as Paris is under emergency state.
First time participating in large scale climate movement like this, I was very impressed by the pumped-up atmosphere of the rally. The high-spirited chants and rallying calls are very influential; I felt so agitated when I heard them before I exit the train station! I immediately joined the troop, holding the hundred-metre long banner and thrusting the inflatable cobblestone, as I amplified my cries.
A video posted by #PowerShiftMsia (@powershiftmsia) on
Another thing that caught my attention was the attendance of the senior citizens. Not one or two, there was hundreds of them. I saluted them for standing up for the future generations and making the movement an all-age one, instead of youth only.
The chants were very creative and rhymed, which strengthened the voice of the people and enhanced the “oomph” of the calls. My favourite ones was “The people, u-ni-ted, will never be de-fea-ted” and “It’s up, to us, to keep it in the ground”. Till now I can still hear the deafening chants vividly repeating beside my ears.
In a nutshell, I am very glad that I joined the march and I appreciate the sense of belonging that the people at the action gave me. Although I failed to participate in the planning and preparation of the #D12 movement, I felt proud of my teammate, Amalen who joined the process of making the astounding banner and of coordinating the movement! It might be even better if we are allowed to sit in the bridge across the Seine river longer instead of moving towards the square under the Eiffel.
A video posted by #PowerShiftMsia (@powershiftmsia) on
It was as exhilarating as the first-time experience of I giving an intervention during the SBSTA closing plenary. The fun and epic moments of occupying the bridge in front of the Eiffel Tower and speaking to random strangers (which I like to address them as my yet-to-know friends) is one of the most enjoyable time that I had in Paris.
For more details and photos, search #D12 and #redlines @ Google!
The Climate Action Network (CAN) is the Environmental NGO (ENGO) network in the UNFCCC. It has different daily activities such as the Fossil of the Day and the CAN Daily Meeting. To enter the daily 2.00pm meeting, you’ll need a sticker proving that you are a CAN member. They even have a “sticker check” which the attendees will have to show before the meeting commences. I like the exclusiveness they have over there. The meeting usually starts with updates from different work groups, followed by some strategy planning such as messages that we, as a network, want to deliver to other stakeholders such as ministers, negotiators and investors. The planning and guidelines look really awesome because it is detailed and comprehensive. Although the CAN members are from different organisations all over the world, they still cooperate and work together, and share information from different events to create a holistic view of the whole COP21. The “Fossil of the Day”(FOTD) nomination will be closed at 2.30pm everyday. “Fossil of the Day” is an “award” for the country or countries that is/are reckoned to be blocking the progress of the climate discussion. So after several agendas, the CAN members will announced the nominated countries and reasons of them being nominated. The agenda on reporting and sharing will continue after that while a huddle (a small group debate) often be conducted outside of the room in order to pick the Fossil. I joined one of the huddles during COP21, the one where the members discussed about crowning Malaysia as the “Ray of the Day” (opposite of FOTD) *excited*. From the discussion I get to know different views about Malaysia. The main reason of Malaysia being put forward for this honour is that the Malaysia voiced on behalf of the Like Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) to urge the French presidency to increase the transparency of the negotiations by allowing civil society members to observe the meetings.
Some people supports the notion because they think that it will be a good way to “condemn” the exclusiveness of the French presidency and to push the Secretariat to be more democratic and get the NGOs involved. However, there are also some points opposing that idea: Malaysia suppresses media at home, it did not protect their mangrove properly, forests are given up for palm oil industry, it was voicing on behalf of LMDC and lastly, giving out a Ray for civil society’s own sake will ruin the credibility of the FOTD/ROTD. In the end, Malaysia did not get the Ray; nevertheless it was lauded in an ECO (Newsletter published by CAN) article and walked away with a Honourable Mentioned in the “Fossil of the Day” ceremony. I felt very proud when Malaysia was nominated to receive the Ray of the Day because it meant that Malaysia’s voice was remarkable and praiseworthy. I learnt that not only the effort in the international platform is important to have a good image, the endeavour in our own land plays significant role to leave a good impression. Seeing the CAN members who voiced out their opinions confidently with supporting facts during the huddle encourage me to be one of them in the future. I hope I can be knowledgeable enough to comment someday.
