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?

    

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 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.