Inside and Outside the Room Part 1: The Role of Fossil Fuel Delegations and Grassroot Movements at COP26
Background
COP26 was held in Glasgow from the 1st to the 12th of October and was announced to be the life changing event which would lead to worldwide change towards a greener, fairer future.
Then again, COP26 was said to be many things: the most inclusive COP of all times, the most ambitious, the most accessible, the most efficient. All these would have to be added to the list of ways in which COP fundamentally failed in its role.
But first of all, why are we talking about COP26? COP, or conference of the parties, is a conference organized annually by the UNFCCC (the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change). This year the event was the result of not one, but two years of work, due to COVID-19. The location of the Conference is determined by the country which holds the Presidency and this year it was the UK. While the general set up and organization of COP is one that would require an article of its own, in order to fully understand the role and relevance of fossil fuel companies and that of grassroot organizations, it is important to spend some words about the overall structure of the conference. COP is divided in different areas: the ones delegates have access to, and those accessible to the public. The Blue Zone, one for which you need a badge and accreditation, is where negotiations happen, where world leaders speak and debate, and it also includes a series of side events and networking opportunities. The Green Zone, and the rest of the city, are accessible to the public. Throughout Glasgow many many events took place discussing transformative change, the power of people and how to achieve the world that so many hope for.
The distinction between the inside and the outside is important: inside you have decision-makers and those who create policy. Outside, the focus is on how the world should be, rather than how it is, and countless voices who are not being heard.
Leaving Them Behind
If anyone heard any criticism on COP26, it was probably one of these two: it was one of the least inclusive COPs in history, and at the last minute it changed its policy account to having to "phase out" to "phasing down" fossil fuels. The reason why both of these things were deeply outrageous are interconnected: a lot of noise was created around the fact that fossil fuel companies had the largest delegation. Meaning, if they represented a country, they would be the most represented country in COP26 - and by a lot. Concretely in numbers, fossil fuels lobbyists in this COP amounted to 503, and Global Witness, among others, call this outrageous for how their over-representation will affect negotiations in delaying much needed change. If one was sceptical on how they would achieve this, looking at the last draft of the COP26 negotiations should be able to give a clear idea: from the original "phasing out of fossil fuels", countries now have agreed to "phasing down fossil fuel". The change in the language aims to delay the switch to sustainable resources and emphasises that corporate interests have prevailed over the needs of the climate crisis.
If one adds to this that grassroots movements, young people, and people from the Global South (including indigenous people) were terribly underrepresented at COP one can see where the criticism and claims of injustice are coming from. The obstacles faced by many coming from the most vulnerable communities to climate change to attend the conference in the UK were many. First and foremost, the visa process: obtaining a visa was no small challenge for many. Delegates from Haiti and the Dominican Republic were particularly affected by this but so was activist Disha Ravi whose passport was not even processed. Many activists and grassroots organizations coming from the Global South were also unable to attend the Conference due to vaccine inequality and the COVID-19 measures implemented by the UK. Some due to the high costs of quarantine, others due to the lack of vaccines recognized by the UK, were stopped from entering the country.
All in all, it was a fragmented event. All these factors fundamentally need to be outlined when evaluating the role fossil fuel companies can realistically have in a just transition, especially when they are not held accountable by grassroots movements and activists.
To be continued.
Guest writer: Paola Lupi
Edited by Ottilie Cheung