A movement for people and the world.

“There is no satisfaction whatever at any time. There is only a queer, divine dissatisfaction, a blessed unrest that keeps us marching and makes us more alive than the others”.

-          Martha Graham quoted in Blessed Unrest by Paul Hawkin

How do I sum up my first experience of COP into a measly blog post? Does the complexity of language used, action seen, colours viewed, emails exchanged, conversations had, thoughts entertained over the past two weeks even lend itself to being described? I now sit, post-Durban, in front of my computer screen and try to envision what I want to say.

I had wanted this post to summarise nicely what happened in Durban. Did the nations agree, what was the impact of us being there? However, my experience of COP was too complex, too volatile. It can’t be described simply. At times over the last two weeks I found myself wondering, why am I doing this? Am I making an impact? Dangerous thoughts weaselled their way into my brain, challenging my dedication and impact in the world. What if I’m misguided in my struggle and could concentrate my energy more productively to making the world a better place?

Maybe I felt this way because it was almost impossible to quantify what my being there actually achieved. There are so many people. So many youth. So many vegetarians. So many loud voices. So much enthusiasm. At the same time, there is intense fragmentation. Different claims. Different solutions. Different organisations. Different approaches.

Many people who I’ve spoken to about the experience agree when I describe the paradox of COP17: it felt so fragmented, so complicated, but at the same time, the reason we were all there seemed so simple: we want to address climate change, to stop the damage we’ve already done.

On the last Friday of COP17 I took part in a demonstration. After a clash with some UN police and last minute phone calls to ensure that we had “permission” for our event: Wearing our “Green Police” overalls, we walked backwards, holding signs which asked “why are we going backwards?”. The ridiculousness of the last two weeks seemed nicely symbolised by that action. It was innocent and simple, and our message was clear. But even to do it – to walk backwards – we were caught up in a chain of bureaucracy, layers of protocol; so much so that we were confined to one area, a time limit, and what we were allowed to do.

Does COP feel like an impossible task because of the way in which environmentalists, youth, and even well-meaning politicians are restricted by bureaucracy, by the “politics of knowledge”? And if so, what does this mean for our fight: do we continue, do we fly all the way to Qatar next year? And if so, what do we achieve?

Despite these questions, which still need a lot of mulling over in my head before I attempt to answer them, I can say this: COP made me realise that I am part of something big, something fundamental. The environmentalist movement spans all levels of thought, social injustice, political ability and articulation. It spans all races, ages, occupations. There’s something profoundly human about it, some recognition that we’re not doing stuff as well as we could, and a deep desire to change that.

And if for all the fragmentation of the movement, we’re relentlessly working towards something better, then, well: I’m in.

“Then finally,
we opened the box, we couldn’t find any rules.
Our heads were reeling with the glitter of possibilities, contingencies...
but with ever increasing faith we decided to go ahead and just ignore them,
despite tremendous pressure to capitulate with fate”

-          The Books, Smells like Content

Translating willpower into action: a challenge for the “African COP”.

It’s not everyday you get to see Jacob Zuma, Nicholas Stern, Rajendra Pachauri, Jean Ping and various Nobel peace laureates sitting around a table, chatting about the future of the world. But this is how my second day of COP started – at something called a “high level dialogue” – a discussion on adaptation and sustainability for Africa between policy makers and scientists.

What was really encouraging was the nature of the event: both scientists and politicians sitting around a table and acknowledging each other (or at least appearing to). More often than not in the climate discussions there has been a separation of the two actors: the scientists presenting the hard, cold facts, with the politicians squabbling over who’s responsible for what, who owes who, and how to get the best deal.

The dialogue was focusing on adaptation, which is one of Africa’s most important issues: how do we adapt our industry (mostly reliant on the natural environment) around inevitable changes in climate and weather patterns? The swirling of big brains around the table were tangible: these guys know a lot of stuff and can present it eloquently. Amongst the discussion were ideas that the re-shuffling of economies to be more eco-friendly should happen and be a “win-win” situation, that there needs to be more research coming from African institutions and especially (thanks to Naledi Pandor’s remarks) indigenous knowledge, that political will and transparency are needed.

At the "high level dialogue" - political will, scientific knowledge

It was great to listen to the issues being discussed so openly and also being agreed upon: I came out of the session feeling uplifted and hopeful. But later I started to think, “what about action?”. The political will to take action is there. The scientific facts are there. But why does action not seem to be happening?

Perhaps, I found myself thinking, our political systems are just too archaic to deal with rapid changes and action. After all, there is a huge dichotomy: on the one hand, there are the problems, and on the other, fantastic solutions. Why are they not being carried out?

Yesterday I was lucky enough to see Norbert Röttigen, the German minister for the environment, speak on Germany’s energy policy for the future. Some of my doubts, at least, about archaic political systems were disputed. Germany is one of the most progressive countries in terms of their energy policy. Not only are they talking about change, but they are actively carrying it out.

Germany is a hugely industrialised country, reliant on using large amounts of electricity. However, it is spearheading renewable energy and is fully committed, both politically and on the ground, to changing from fossil fuels to renewables.

What is interesting to note (not forgetting that my view is slightly superficial, coming from the outside), is the fact that whilst Germany is using a similar political and economic system to much the rest of the rest of the world (and that with a conservative government!), it is being a lot more effective about institutionalising changes to it’s energy policy. Why is this so different and what can the South African government do to follow in their footsteps, so that the change on the ground is actually carried out?

Of course, South African society is very different so Germany – we’re much less industrialised, have a huge vested interest in producing cheap coal, and face substantial inequality and poverty. But what would our country start to look like if the government were as dedicated, not only to talking about changing, but actually putting in the sweat and grime to carry it out?

    

The organised chaos and its legitimacy: the second week of negotiations begin

It’s officially week two of the climate negotiations in Durban, South Africa. Yesterday was also my first day as an official delegate, and as I joined the throngs of people heading through security I felt a tangible excitement (or nervous energy perhaps?) at the prospect of the week.

Having spent the previous week at Howard college in the Civil society space, which was particularly disorganised,  the chaotic atmosphere seemed similar in COP – amongst the masses of people, sessions, side events, negotiations, the atmosphere was overwhelming.

However, unlike Civil society, COP has an aura of being “the real deal”. The ritual around attending COP gives its delegates legitimacy, a kind of importance and agenda which makes it differ from the happenings at Howard College; the delegates differentiate themselves from the public, both physically and symbolically. To enter the conference, delegates get on a conference shuttle, walk through the CCR into a restricted area, go through security and into sectioned and partitioned hallways; they all wear the UNFCCC lanyards. Joining business men in suits, African women in traditional dress, press wielding cameras in their morning ritual gave me a sense of importance and excitement; I too was entering the world of the “official”.

How scary it is that, despite being as chaotic in nature as the civil society events, COP itself has real legitimacy and power. Is the power arbitrary? Is it simply created by an unequal amount of political and economic agency?

It certainly appears so. Despite wearing the right uniform and legitimising lanyard, I was restricted from attending the high level negotiations of the Parties, who differentiated themselves even from the other delegates. Despite being in the conference, we were restricted by layers of exclusivity; hierarchy.

But over the course of the day, unlike our experience in Civil society, we did come to find some general awareness about what was happening in the negotiations. There were whispers of the Green Climate Fund’s controversial move from the COP proceedings into the G20; the EU’s alternative proposal to Kyoto and surrounding support or decline; the ALBA countries’ and youth support of a Kyoto second term. Nothing was very clear, but there were general feelings, issues which were tangible in the general “delegate psyche”. More then that, however, was difficult to grasp amongst the complexity and sheer amount of events happening throughout the day.

Overall, from speaking to people who have been to many other COP’s, it is clear that everyone finds the first COP experience rather overwhelming and chaotic, which is encouraging. However, what is rather underwhelming is the fact that the chaos is something which is legitimising or enabling high-level decisions about the future of the world to be made in an environment of unequally-shared power. It is our job to remain aware of this - and in turn hold leaders to account on their amount of power.

Civil society on crutches

I know I haven’t written in quite a long time. Partially, it’s because we’ve been fantastically busy, and partially it’s because I’ve been trying to formulate this blog post in a mind for a while now, rather unsuccessfully. How do I summarise the complexity and vastness of the past few days so that it’s coherent, readable? So perhaps I should start with a disclaimer: I might not be able to explain my experiences clearly, perhaps because the experiences themselves were not particularly clear.

I’ve been in Durban for about a week and a half now, and I’ve not yet been in the official COP negotiations – my accreditation only starts next week – but I have experienced a lot of what the civil society and side activities consist of. I did not have too many expectations about what the unofficial COP would present, but I must admit that I had expected slightly more evidence of “action” and organisation. After all, these are the people who actually do stuff on the ground, rather than make abstract decisions.

Perhaps it was watching the formation of various separate youth climate groups all with the same objectives, or experiencing the disorganisation of Howard Campus for C17, or the rather white-middle-class “Occupy COP17” which contributed to my sense of disappointment. To a large extent, I’ve been struggling with a cynicism about the whole thing; a niggling disappointment which echoes quietly a sad resolution in my head: perhaps we’re not effective; perhaps we’re not helping. It’s difficult to retain a clear sense of solidarity and motivation toward solving a problem which seems gigantic when there is so much going on; so many whistleblowers; so many events.

To try to describe my impression of the Climate movement during the last few days is very tricky, but perhaps the keywords complex and dispersed help me a bit. The vastness and diversity of highly motivated people’s movements working toward an ultimate goal is staggering and overwhelming. On the one hand, thinking about the amount of people working toward something is fantastic. On the other, seeing these people together in Durban in a situation which can only be described as “chaotic confusion” is rather disheartening.

On a plus side, it seems that the confusion within the actual COP negotiations equal, if not outdo, those amongst civil society. I’ve been very cynical about politics and the way that it restricts fast action and creates power disparities amongst people – it’s been no different in COP. With an emergency situation pending, our political negotiations are like a wheelchair on a sandy beach: trying to move forward but ineffective to match the speed of the incoming waves.

But the civil society does seem restricted to crutches in its attempts to be a real lobbying force for the climate movement through its dispersion and complexity. Perhaps it’s unity which we need – and by that, I do not mean the lack of diversity. There is no doubt that there are millions of fantastic initiatives around the world doing real changes and with diverse experiences and approaches – this is a strength, not a weakness, of the civil society movement. But our skills and forces could be utilised more effectively if we were more humble, more open to delegating and sharing our vision and tasks. Let’s not reinvent the wheel if it’ll get stuck in the sand; let’s airlift ourselves out of the reach of the waves.

Experiences from the “People’s Space”: C17

8am, Howard College, 28 November 2011. I arrive at Howard College once again, following the weekend of madness that was COY7. Set up on the hill, spatially and symbolically far from the COP17 proceedings at the ICC, it felt strange to be on the side of civil society whilst Juli and Nick (along with Jacob Zuma) were down in the official space below.

Expecting to find the C17 more organised than the weekend, we were surprised to find the campus a hub of disorganisation – the programme and events were unclear, and the “youth space” which we headed to eventually was spectacularly empty. I couldn’t help but feel a sigh of disappointment. I could just imagine the politicians in their protocol-controlled sessions tut-tutting and saying, “typical”.

But despite this, we eventually stumbled upon a joint Eskom-UJ working group for youth on “Paradoxes of climate change: the green economy and sustainable development”. The delegates in the working group were actually there as part of a programme which will spend the next 10 days of COP working on this problem: addressing a workable solution to the “green economy” question. After the craziness of the first few days of COY, which – while amazingly educational – were pretty ideological and complex, finding ourselves in a space which was not only talking about the actual issues at hand but actually doing something about it was a great breath of fresh air. 

After taking part in this workshop, I started to understand a bit more about what the C17 space is about: providing workable solutions to the issues at hand. And as much as politicians feel indignant about the civil society’s disorganisation, so do many NGOs about what the “Conference of the Polluters” achieves, because they are actually already working out solutions to the issues at hand, but don’t have the political support needed to make larger changes.

And during this event, which is like a “global brainstorm” about a world-wide problem, one has to ask, why is there division between those thinking about what happens on the ground and those doing stuff on the ground?

To some extent, the fact that there is a separate “people’s space” to the “negotiator’s space” for COP17 points to a larger, more subtle problem. The separation of political rhetoric and what actually happens on the ground seems to be the status quo everywhere. Why is this? And could addressing this start to solve the political deadlocks and lack of progress over the last 16 COPs?

The Debate Begins

Monday the 28th November brought with it the official opening of COP17. The day began early with a youngo meeting that established the youths approaches to the conference and how they hoped to influence the negotiations at hand. In their meeting the global youth representatives used every opportunity to remind their colleges that what they, the youth, wanted from these talks was not another half measure by governments to prolong the fossil fuel generation. 6 of the members within the youngo meeting were even selected, by vote, to join the official plenary sessions. Although the selection process was open and fair there was a definite lack of African presence in those chosen. The main plenary sessions although late went on without a hitch, and unfortunately as expected the major leaders omitted the call for an extension to the Kyoto protocol or a legally binding agreement. The words of welcome from delegates like those of South African president Jacob Zuma were certainly warm. There was however the consensus that climate change is a devastating process that must be stopped and that the prior 20 years of stunted negotiations have taken far too long to have resulted in a lack of consensus. The official proceedings throughout the day followed suit. As a first time conference go-er the amount of formalities and greetings that preceded every parties statement was hard to adjust to. It is understood why they occupy this place yet the question that must be asked is, how much more negotiations could delegates get through if these endless greetings were removed from the official program.Along with the official proceedings cop17 also consists of many side events. One of these included a presentation by The Energy Research Institute, on India's response to climate change. This presentation consisted of an in depth look into local level mitigation measures that have been put in place by Indian local municipalities. This presentation not only included Indian officials but also academics, representatives of industry and other organisations. What this presentation showed was that even though these initiatives were of a local scale their principles could be put in place at an international level.

The final official session met in order to deal with a number of administrative matters and it also have the opportunity to parties to voice their expectations for the conference which lay ahead. Here again there was the consensus that there was a great opportunity for having up a legal agreement and that the time in Durban should not be wasted. Many parties like those of small developing island nations called for responsibility to am taken a developed nations for the sold they played in climate change and that developing nations should not bear the brunt of climate change alone. Observer organisations were also invited to voice their expectations and this is where the most inspiring calls came from. Pleadings like those of Gambia which noted that "No country is insignificant enough to be lost to the effects of climate change". Finally it was the turn of the African youth to voice their concerns. A member of the climate caravan from Nairobi, Ester, was given the honour of this task. She noted that "We cannot allow to leave durban without a legally binding agreement, it cannot be the death of the Kyoto protocol". It was inspiring messages like these that highlighted a day that was otherwise flooded by protocol.

COP17 opening ceremony

Just to give everyone a bit of background to set the scene of what happens at a COP. After being body searched and sent through a scanner upon arrival I walked around for a while trying to get my bearings. The amount of people is overwhelming, everyone is there for buisness and has a definate goal they are trying to acheive. Is amazing how insignificant you can feel walking amongst all the international delegates and representatives. Nick and myself watched the opening ceremony from the room next to the offical delegation room (which no NGOs were allowed into)- in our 'non-offical room' there must have been around 3000 people- the scale of this conference and volume of people is mind-blowing. App, 40 000 people have flown into durbs for this.

Every person gets a set of air phones so they can hear any translations so mis-understandings are not a factor. We heard Jacob Zuma, President of Chad and Vice-president of Zambia speak which was fascinating. Jacob Zuma spoke exceptionally well I thought and kept reitterating how SA should be aiming for a Green Economy. He also spoke about projects which are in the works for SA such as hydrological schemes and wind energy capture. The most interesting thing he said which I didnt know is that one small island state, Grapati, has already started being evaculated due to sea-level rise. So we have already began losing countries of the world due to human action :(

The hardest thing for myself and Nick to get used to was the formalities and protocol which goes into the whole process. Each speaker takes 5 min to welcome everyone correctly before he/she can even begin speaking...it seems crazy that time is wasted on formalities when there are so many issues that have to be tackled the next two weeks. The conference could probably be one week if there were not so many protocols. Also the countries which oppose a point which arises on the agenda also do so in such a polite, correct way. It is amazing to see such benign interaction among states with such different interests. Maybe the next few days will heat up with developing countries trying to make their voices heard.

And so it nearly begins...

Nick and myself registered for COP17 today and boy oh boy are we in for a treat. There are two massive exhibition halls- the AFRICA section where all the African countries have their stalls I assume is amazing. They have split the section into the different ecosystems found in Africa. For example, there is a Rainforest area, Desert area (i think) and other ecosystems- will check properly tomorrow when we are actually allowed in.

Today at COY was great. Hearing Kumi Naidoo speak was wonderful- he is the executive director of GreenPeace international so it was amazing hearing such an inspirational man speak. The video who Bill McKibben (founder of 350.org) recorded for us was great. What an amazing man- he has spent more days in jail this year then in his own bed because he has been campaigning for environmental issues. Go Bill- you are my hero. I also went to a wonderful, informative workshop on the Green Climate Fund which am so glad I did. I feel like I knew of the Green Climate Fund but it was great hearing all the details about it and hearing people talk about it who have been studying it since inception. I very long story short- the Green Climate Fund was started to raise funding ($100 billion) which will be used in adaptation and mitigation measures for developing countries. It is one attempt at climate justice but unfort it is still in draft form because at the last Tranfer Committee meeting in October the USA and Saudi Arabia would not sign off on the report and it therefore won't be finalized this COP, as was hoped :( Dam! is a pity considering the other 38 countries agreed on the report and because of 2 countries yet another attempt to combat climate change and empower vulnerable countries won't happen :(

COY is over but there is so much to come. Between COP and the civil proceedings (C17) I think the next 2 weeks are going to be JAM PACKED. Well done to all the COY people who partied til 3am and still made it today...very impressive!

Who speaks and who listens? Experiences from the first day of COY7 in Durban

COY7 stands for “Conference of Youth”, which happens as a gathering of youth organisations before the start of COP in order to give different youth organisations a chance to network and learn from each other, as well as about the COP process.

So, appropriately, our COP17 experience begins here: with the youth. And youth there were – 300 or so, packed into a lecture theatre at UKZN’s Howard College, bustling and waiting for the day to begin. Our team – about 6 of us – were feeling equally inspired after helping with registration and meeting a ridiculous number of delegates from around the world.

Diversity seems key – we learn from each other, share experiences and difference. But at the same time, unity forms an important underlying theme of the “global international youth climate movement”. It’s necessary for lobbying governments, for advocating change and forming a coherent force. But whose unity?

Conference of Youth plenery session, UKZN Durban

Treating the conference as an anthropological exercise raises many interesting questions about what I’d like to call (albeit rather snobbishly) the “politics of articulation”, or, the way in which stuff gets said, who says it, and who listens to it.

Impressingly there are lots of COY delegates from Africa – about half the delegation – with representatives from South Africa, Kenya, Malawi and many other countries. I was proud at this fact and felt a sort of entitled solidarity with the “African movement”, if it can be reified as such. Even though the people running COY sessions were mostly Austrailian or international, at least a lot of the delegates were local, I thought to myself.

But what does locality mean in the face of a global movement? Who speaks, and who gets listened to? In a lot of senses, “Africa” (the continent is sadly still not being diversified, even by myself) is being represented in global talks and movements around the world, just as it is at COY. But does this mean that “African” voice gets listened to in the same way in which other organisations from the global north get listened to?

I think that in a lot of ways, our ways of knowing and expression are listened to but not fully acknowledged or comprehended at these kind of gatherings. There are lots of African voices speaking out, but there is something very uncomfortable about the way in which we are ‘facilitated’ to speak by others, and the way in which they in turn listen to what we have to say.

Of course, the “global north”, in their experience and monetary advantage, do have a lot to teach us and “build capacity”, especially at the kind of political gatherings such as COP which require a specific kind of articulation to be taken even remotely seriously. And that’s what we need.

So perhaps, the “politics of articulation” debate is one to engage with at a deeper level, and not just the immediate proceedings over the next few days. In the long run, we need to be aiming to get African voice actually listened to, and not just heard, and we may need to put that on pause for the upcoming COP. But I’ll certainly be looking at how these ideas play out in the official delegation and civil society meetings next week.

The Meaning of Activism

"This is the largest social movement in all of human history. No one knows its scope, and how it functions is more mysterious than what meets the eye. What does meet the eye is compelling: coherent, organic, self-organised congregations involving tens of millions of people dedicated to change."  - Paul Hawken in Blessed Unrest.

 I'm writing this after making a giant polar bear head. True - after googling "climate change activism", creating a wire frame, some sketches, and some fluffy white material later - I'm the owner of my own polar bear. In stitches of laughter, I ramble around the house. My sister is sceptical. "Is this what COP17 is really about?" she sighs, clearly embarrassed at my antics.

"Of course! If you're serious about protesting about climate change, you have to dress up as a polar bear!" I laugh, ironically. But it's a good question: What the hell does dressing up as a polar bear mean in protesting about climate change? How does the average African citizen relate to such an expression, if at all? 

Indeed, polar bears and melting icecaps - which have somewhat characterised the environmentalist movement in the past - have little relevance for personifying the movement in Africa. Still, there’s something special about getting ready to be part of the global “climate camaraderie” around COP17. Wearing a polar bear outfit seems something of a rite of passage into the world of environmental activism; a ritual of solidarity in a global environmental movement. 

It’s a sad thing, I think to myself, that we still seem to thinking about climate change and sustainability in such ice-cap-melting metaphors of the West. Does our dressing-up point to larger systems of hegemonic dominance? And if so, what does it mean for me to adopt this system when representing Africa at COP17 in a week’s time?

Yes, the movement in Africa is manifest in ways much more practicable and appropriate than melting ice-caps. Our “polar bear” is more: it’s blood-red sunsets, it’s gorging rivers, it’s Wangari Maathai’s muddy hands, it’s seeds, and roots, and animals. Mostly, it’s hopeful, and diverse, and fundamental. 

And yes, I’ve made a polar bear. But it’s not necessarily a subservience to the west that made me do it. It’s a sign of solidarity; a connection to the global movement, which doesn’t take away from the fact that the movement in Africa is as alive and relevant – in fact, quite the contrary. 

In a weeks time Africa’s youth will join hands for what they believe in, and if it’ll help to be dressed as a bear, then that’s how they’ll do it.