The room where it happens

Katie Williams - COP Working Group

As a first time attendee to a UN climate conference, I didn’t know what to expect. The bureaucracy and minutiae of international climate negotiations is far removed from most of our daily lives, and it’s not easy to explain, but in the interests of demystifying this process for others, this blog attempts to summarise my experience at the June climate talks in Bonn. 

Katie and Nicky arrive at the conference centre in Bonn

The first thing you have to get your head around is the jargon. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has two sets of talks per year - the Conference of the Parties (COP) in November, which gets more attention in the press, and the intersessionals in June, which are generally a smaller affair. The talks are facilitated by the Secretariat, the UN staff who organise the talks and make sure everything runs smoothly. There are two main groups who participate in the talks: ‘Parties’, which is the UN’s way of referring to countries taking part, and ‘Observers’, which refers to non-governmental organisations (NGOs), who can watch the talks and are occasionally allowed to speak, but have no decision-making power.

Observers are organised into ‘constituencies’, groups of NGOs representing youth (YOUNGO), environmentalists (ENGO), researchers (RINGO), businesses (BINGO), women and gender (WGC) and other civil society groups. UKYCC is an observer organisation under YOUNGO, and we work with other groups within YOUNGO, ENGO and WGC on our campaigns within the UNFCCC space. 

As if that weren’t enough acronyms to be getting on with, when it comes to the negotiations themselves, there are many, many more. The Just Transition Work Program (JTWP), Global Stocktake (GST) and Global Goal for Adaptation (GGA), were among some of the more challenging areas of negotiations this time around. Often it comes down to the sticking point of finance - who will pay for the transition away from fossil fuels and adaptation to climate change impacts, and how much are they willing to give? 

For our ongoing campaign on conflicts of interest at the UNFCCC, we were following the less glamourous talks on ‘Arrangements for Intergovernmental Meetings’ (AIM), where parties decide on the rules of the negotiation games. Topics that come up here include planning for future conferences, rules around party and observer participation at the talks, and governance procedures. The outcome of the discussion is a document detailing what rules have been agreed for future conferences. Bureaucratic as it sounds, this is where vital measures to improve transparency and address the influence of fossil fuel lobbyists could be introduced. 

In the negotiation room, over the course of four days I began to understand how things work around here. Negotiators take turns to share their views around the table, with observers allowed to sit at the sides of the room. Some countries negotiate as a group, such as the Arab Group, Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), Least Developed Countries (LDC) and African Group of Nations (AGN) - the list of acronyms truly is endless - others speak on their own, but everyone gets to raise suggestions or objections, chiming in to support their allies or finding ways to oppose things they don’t like. 

When Parties are struggling to agree on something in a formal negotiation, they may retire to an ‘informal-informal’ negotiation - what I have been referring to as the ‘cigars and whisky’ negotiations (pure speculation on my part). No minutes are taken, and observers are not allowed in, but that’s the room where it really happens. For the talks we were following, the informal sessions didn’t lead to any surprises, but they have been known to cause major upsets at previous talks. 

Decisions are made by consensus, meaning any country can block an agreement if it includes something they don’t like - this could be an obligation for rich countries to give money to poor countries, or an agreement to phase out fossil fuels. Watching it in real time, you can see how the need for consensus can lead to thoughtful dialogue, but also becomes a major blocker to progress where countries have different positions on an issue. You begin to see who has made alliances to get a particular agreement approved, and what the priorities for different countries and regions are. Despite opposition from some parties, we watched in frustration as language on human rights was watered down, and saw parties agree to disagree on some issues, leading to sections of text being erased completely. The importance of language cannot be overstated here, with wording being rejected for being too vague, too specific, or just not-quite-right. 

Occasionally, observer groups are permitted to speak, but opportunities are few and far between. On more than one occasion, observers ended up sitting on the floor due to lack of seating, which felt more than a little ironic as we listened to countries debate whether or not we should be allowed to speak first on matters that directly affected us. However, outside of the formal negotiations, NGO groups are able to meet with negotiators to explain our concerns and priorities. If you manage to get them on board with your cause, they might bring your ideas to the negotiating table - we were particularly happy to see representation of people with disabilities raised in a session after a meeting with delegates.

Pim speaks at a press conference about our Conflicts of Interest campaign

As the conference drew to a close, we saw proactive discussions to agree a way forward on some of the sticking points, but ultimately, we were disappointed that measures to enhance transparency at the talks were not included. We felt much of what was agreed was of little substance, with anything actually meaningful kicked down the road ‘to be agreed at a future date’. No wonder progress here is slow.

The negotiations themselves aren’t the only things going on. Observers are allowed to stage protests inside the conference centre within the confines of UNFCCC rules, and can do what they like on the outside. We took part in protests against the ongoing genocide in Gaza, as well as getting our hands dirty for a protest on conflicts of interest at COP. Other activists were raising awareness on sustainable food systems, decrying the lack of financial support for Global South countries, and speaking out against oil extraction in the Amazon. There was a strange juxtaposition when it came to protest; we heard some parties wax lyrical about freedom of speech within the negotiation room, but observers had been told by the UNFCCC they could not use phrases such as ‘End the Siege’ in reference to Gaza, or, bizarrely, ‘Baku to Belem’ in reference to the locations of the COP29 and COP30 conferences.

Further afield, (and literally in a field) for the last two years, local activists have organised the Bonn Climate Camp as a space for activist groups to come together outside of the conference centre. This space, offering workshops, free dinner, a place to chill out and even a drag show one night, has been a lifeline to us and many young people navigating the confusion of the UNFCCC. Connecting with other activists from around the world over food, poetry and music provided a stark reminder to us of what is at stake for young people.

Oscar takes part in a protest with Kick Big Polluters Out

Back at the conference centre, the final day concluded with a closing plenary, where parties and observers give short statements summarising their reflections on the talks and the road ahead. Many parties looked forward to COP30 in Brazil, hoping that this will deliver the meaningful outcomes that weren’t quite agreed this time around. A powerful statement delivered by Palestinian activist Mohammed Osraf on behalf of environmental NGOs reminded us of the ongoing genocide in Gaza being ignored within the halls of the UNFCCC. The escalation of violence in the Middle East was at the forefront of our minds throughout the week; this not only results in innocent lives lost to conflict and genocide, but also threatens progress on climate action, as trust between Parties is at risk of breaking down. 

A week at the UNFCCC talks has proved exhausting. As a young person engaging with this formal and bureaucratic environment, these talks are a rollercoaster of figuring out who to speak to, what you can and can’t say, and what anyone is even talking about when everyone speaks in acronyms all the time. The imposter syndrome here is no joke. Meanwhile, time is running out to build a better future for today’s young people, and the negotiation halls can feel like they’re in a separate universe from real world solutions. 

The thing that gave me hope this week was getting to know activists from around the world who are all pushing for change in their own way both at the UN and in their home countries. I am grateful to the seasoned campaigners who have been so generous with their time when helping me and other young people navigate the conference. It is easy to feel that you are a tiny fish in the vast, vast ocean, but as a friend pointed out to me, we are many, and we are all swimming in the right direction.