The most recent round of climate change negotiations started with a bit of a furor. At the very last minute, constituencies and parties were suspended from giving interventions. The SBSTA Chair came around, asking the constituencies if they would be agreeable to this. Safe to say, the request was more of a formality than anything else.
As one of the people who was supposed to deliver an intervention on behalf of Climate Action Network, I was somewhat annoyed. It was an inconvenience, especially since several of us had spent time drafting and editing the intervention. However it was nowhere near the level of the Youth NGOs. A heated exchange ensued between a YOUNGO representative and the chair. Both parties brought up salient points which I thought served as interesting talking points to the principles and practicalities of the UNFCCC.
Me eagerly (with a hefty dose of nervousness), looking forward to delivering an intervention for the very first time ever.
The UNFCCC process is built on being inclusive. However, many civil society groups complain that they do not get enough of a say in the process. At this point in fleshing out the Paris Agreement Work Programme, inclusivity is an important factor because if a document is not inclusive and representative of everyone’s viewpoints then inevitably people are less likely to adhere to something they cannot relate to. It is also important that people have confidence in the UNFCCC process so that they will have faith in the outcomes such as the Paris Agreement Work Program. These were some of the arguments the representative brought up.
The Chair on the other hand, highlighted that the UNFCCC is a party-driven process, which means that ultimately the text will be written and finalised by parties alone. Time is of the essence here as parties aim to have an agreement on the Paris Agreement Work Program by the end of COP 24 in Katowice and therefore it is essential that parties get as much time as possible to work on the text.. Hence this additional 6-day session in Bangkok. Cutting out this section would save an hour and a half. However, it could be argued that parties interventions can be cut while keeping the opportunity for civil societies. Parties already have plenty of opportunities to voice their opinions. This was certainly a point YOUNGO representatives reinforced over and over.
Members of the youth constituency sitting down with the SBSTA chair.
The move to cut out the interventions was a pragmatic one. However, it has ideological and substantial repercussions – it signals that the voice of non-party stakeholders are not as important to the process. While there are of course other opportunities for non-party stakeholders to interact with the text, such as through and bilaterals, this is much less than the opportunities parties receive. Also, interventions are one of the few formal avenues that is visible to the outside world as the sessions are video-recorded and uploaded online.
After the heated exchange and some discussion among the other youths, once again YOUNGO chose to go up to the Chair to have a sit-down discussion on this matter. Youths are a key stakeholder because they are one of the most vulnerable to this process and also climate change in general. Firstly, because youths are usually self-funded and are not experienced in this arena. They are usually students who are passionate about climate change issues and have to study while doing this on the side. Secondly, youths will feel the impact of climate change much more in the future and will be the most impacted by the policies to combat climate change.
The outcome of the decision was that the chairs and the secretariat agreed that this would not set a precedent for things to work out like this in the future. They apologised for the impromptu decision and said they really believed this was the best choice. This incident reflected an interesting clash between practicality and principles. Which should be prioritised is up in the air. As a youth I would definitely be inclined towards principles as someone who is going to live the rest of my 60 years or so under the governance and impacts of the Paris Agreement.
It was a struggle at first. To attend, or not to attend. But when the YOUNGO speaking opportunity was secured, I knew it was a sign. I had been quite detached from the climate negotiations conversation and I guessed it was time I immersed myself once again, even for a short few days.
Pre-work of preparing for my session, “Unlocking opportunities for NDC enhancement and implementation’ was rather limited. All of it was done in a rushing manner as I was drowned with work. Yet, while drafting the key points with assistance from other members, I was pleased that my knowledge in both MYD and my full time job have been able to contribute nicely. The most exciting part was that a subject matter expert of this area had agreed to share his thoughts and inputs on top of mine and it was all done in the nick of time.
Looking at the panelist profile, I felt small. Sitting with these people working on NDC implementation on a national and inter-governmental level, I asked myself, what can I bring to the floor? YOUNGO (insert link), the official youth constituency of UNFCCC had entrusted me to represent the youths. How do I strive to establish the balance between not being the typical “hoo-ha-youths-who-only-know-to-make-noise” and being able to deliver my pressing message?
In the morning, after saying goodbye to our host, Cheryl from Singapore Youth Climate Action (SYCA), I travelled with Hanis to Resorts World Sentosa, the conference site for my 9am session. As if weeks of sleep deprivation wasn’t enough to torture me, the purple line on the MRT decided to freak me out at the final moment – with just 3 stops to the designated station, it broke down and delayed our journey for more than 10 minutes.
Time was ticking. With no time to spare, we rushed for a cab and went straight to the conference site. A rush of relief went through us both. We reached just on time, at 9am sharp. Not knowing if the other MYD members would make it on time to set up and live stream the session (as they too were stuck on the purple line). We ran through the corridors and met the session moderator, Mr. Stefanos Fotiou, Director of United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP), who was kind enough to brief me through with patience and reminded me “not to worry”. Of course, a big thanks goes out to Hanis for being my luggage guardian at this crucial moment. Another blessed moment was Melissa Low’s presence, a research fellow at NUS Energy Studies Institute who showed up at the session and calmed me down with providing me guidance on what to speak about. In chaotic times as such, you see kindness in people.
When all the courtesy introductions to the panelist were done, I sat down as the fourth speaker from the left. When the first speaker, Mr. Albert Magalang, Head at Climate Change Office, Philippines started his take on NDC implementation, my heart was thumping at the speed of light. All of my pre-drafted speech was all over the place in my mind. I was screaming for help from the inside but I knew that I still had to look cool and collected. Soon, it would be my turn.
Mr Stefanos took an unexpected and refreshing approach while cueing me in. He asked the floor “How many of you in this room were born at the end of the 60s or beginning of the 70s?” Few hands were raised, including Mr Stefanos himself, exposing their age (oops). He then turned to me and said, “Emily, for us who have raised our hands, we have completely failed to deliver a better planet to your generation.” He then asked what should youths be doing to deliver a better planet to the next generation and also our roles in NDC implementation. Amused by his introduction, it cracked me up a little and prompted me to share my thoughts.
I started off with one of my favourite framing sentences: “While our future is being negotiated, we, the youths need to be part of the process”. I shared that youth participation is in fact, another form of capacity building to nurture talents and to ensure succession and a just transition. I proudly slipped in the Malaysian government as a good example in allowing MYD to engage with them and learn from the national delegation in COP, hoping this could urge other nations’ participants in the room to mobilise their government to do the same. NDC implementation is a long term strategy and thus, sustainability in ensuring the talent pipeline to continue the work is vital.
The second point I raised was on adaptation. It was one of the strongest messages from my heart, yet, I felt a sense of intimidation to share my message with the crowd. Gathering all my guts, there it went – I said it. I shared my sentiment on how the whole conversation in climate negotiations have been very mitigation-centric. It channels out to affect how corporate, cities, and even financing opportunities lean towards being mitigation-focused. We should now have more tools and mechanisms to enhance adaptation projects’ environmental and social impact assessment and the respective ROI to let investors see the value of it. I witnessed a few nodding heads from the floor and even from the panelists, which was a very assuring response for me, as this was my first time voicing my views out in a public forum as such.
After I spoke, other panelists also voiced their thoughts on adaptation. When the session ended, a lady from FAO came and thanked me for raising up adaptation matters. It was a humbling experience to hear from everyone. I hope I did my part to raise the youths voice, especially on our concern about adaptation. Mr. Stefanos concluded my part fittingly with “If the youths talks about it, it is a signal that it is not in a very optimistic situation. And therefore we should pay more attention and look more into it.”
Dear world, it is time for a paradigm shift within the climate circle.
MYD is currently tracking the negotiations on the Paris Agreement Work Programme
United Nations Conference Center in Bangkok Pic: UNFCCC
UNFCCC climate negotiations resumed today in Bangkok, kicking off with opening plenaries for SBSTA 48-2, SBI 48-2 and APA 1-6. But why are we in Bangkok?
In a typical year, intersessional negotiations are held in Bonn between COPs. These additional sessions allow for negotiations to take place in the subsidiary bodies, namely SBSTA, SBI and APA. This year a second intersessional conference has been organized in Bangkok due to the urgent nature of having to complete the Paris Agreement Work Programme (PA) by the end of 2018.
Since parties adopted the Paris Agreement in 2015, they have been working on drafting guidelines to implement and operationalize the PA, beginning in 2020. With that deadline approaching quickly, parties are feeling the pressure to deliver texts to be negotiated and agreed on at COP24 in Katowice this December.
While this session in Bangkok is the result of the inability of parties to come to a definitive negotiation text at the last intersessional in May, the parties have also displayed the willingness and motivation to complete the PAWP on time.
10 MYD members are in Bangkok, tracking the negotiations at SB48-2
So what needs to be done in Bangkok?
As negotiations in SBSTA, SBI and APA get underway today, parties will only be discussing agenda items relating to the PAWP. This is so that there can be a strict focus on the most pressing issues that are holding back its completion. The absence of side events and UNFCCC-sanctioned actions at this session further stresses the importance of making complete and strong progress on the negotiations on the PAWP.
Finance is proving to be one of the crucial issues that will be negotiated here, specifically in SBI agenda item 15, relating to Article 9.5, which calls for developed countries to provide adequate information on a roadmap of potential financial contributions, as well as SBSTA agenda item 13, relating to Article 9.7, the modalities for the accounting of financial contributions provided and mobilized. There is the expectation that the African group will continue to ask for more robust text on Art. 9.5, something they have been adamant about since COP23 last year.
Finance is going to be key as it is most commonly seen as a factor in building trust. With higher financial flows, or even commitments to providing more quantitative and qualitative information on potential funds in the future, it would go a long way in galvanizing parties from both developing and developed nations to push for higher ambitions.
NDC enhancement will also be negotiated this week, with features and the accounting of NDCs, yet to be agreed on. Along with that, there is a question mark on the general timeline of NDC periods. Agreeing on these common timeframes around the submission and reporting of NDCs over a short interval of five years is crucial to opening up transparency on the collective contributions of all parties and will better push for stronger ambition in each iteration of NDCs.
The one thing I’ve noticed today, however, is the lack of follow through in the themes from COP23 specifically global stocktake (GST) and the Talanoa Dialogue. A lack of emphasis on GST may be a result of good and timely negotiations in May, however, the Talanoa Dialogue is more important than ever. The process, which involves collecting stories from parties, CSOs, and non-party stakeholders, is meant to build understanding and boost ambition for stronger climate action. It is still underway and should last until COP24 where it should see some sort of political input. If not, this all will be have been for nothing.
Lastly, where does Loss & Damage sit within this Bangkok session? All parties are scrambling to complete the PAWP in time and it feels as if L&D is being left behind. It’s been reiterated by many that the PAWP should be inclusive and an all-round package. No one stream should take precedence over the other. With L&D being tied to the WIM, it will be interesting to see how it fits into the PAWP.
All I can hope for, as we begin the week, is that parties do not waste time and start serious work in completing the PAWP in time to facilitate good negotiations and a decision in COP24. If not, we run the risk of accepting very loose and weak text should we run out of time at the end of this week. And that would just be doing a disservice to the Paris Agreement and its adoption three years ago.
Written by Mike Campton Peer reviewed by Daniel Teoh
MYD Annual Report 2017 is a recollection of Malaysian Youth Delegation’s highlight moments and our financial report for the period Jan 2017 to Dec 2017.
Once again, we wish to thank our sponsors and partners for their confidence in our work. Let’s make our environment GREAT again.
Below are some compilation of youth speak during COP23.
Xiandi and Mike delivered interventions on behalf of YOUNGO, the UNFCCC youth constituency. Xiandi delivered her intervention at the opening of APA 1-4, while Mike delivered his intervention at the closing of the COP.
.
Syaqil and Jasmin was interviewed by Climate Tracker, an NGO and research body that tracks negotiations at the UN climate change conference, to talk about the importance of youth involvement at COP.
.
Jasmin and Mike were interviewed for Self Made Future
As a part of our “homework”, I have approached a couple of people I’ve met at COP and ask them a few questions. Find out more about these amazing people from different parts of the world working towards a better, more sustainable future.
