Presidency’s Open Dialogue: A flop?
Post by: Anna McGinn
Last year, the Fijian COP presidency established what they hoped would be a new COP tradition—the Presidency’s Open Dialogue. The idea is to bring together country representatives (parties) and non-party stakeholders (like us) for an extended session (2.5 hours in this case) to talk to each other about a central theme of the COP. Last year, I reflected on the first open dialogue in this post.
To summarize what happened last year, there were 80 people seated around the “roundtable” with only 9 being from the non-country groups. The rest were country representatives. This was exciting because it meant that the countries intended to invest at least some time in engaging with us. It was a constructive first meeting, and I had high hopes for this year’s second iteration.
So, what happened?
To give away the punchline first, this year’s Open Dialogue did not live up to expectations.
The set-up of the room was a lecture hall, not a round table. This meant that you had no idea who was in the room because the countries did not have their name plates.
The President of COP24 gave an opening address, and then passed the facilitation to a minister from Poland—he did not have a co-facilitator. He first provided space for each constituency group to give a statement. There are nine constituency groups including our group, the Research and Independent NGOs. Some of the other groups are the Environmental NGOs, the Business and Industry group, the Indigenous Peoples group, and the Trade Unions.
The theme of the dialogue was the just transition which is the buzzword of the year. Each constituency group provided its support for the concept of a just transition, and many pledged support to help implement it. The Business and Industry group and the Trade Unions highlighted their particular interest in this topic, which is the idea of providing support to the people whose industries need to be in decline in order to decrease fossil fuel use. Both energy and agricultural workers were at the center of the conversation. How do these workers get the support they need to transition to jobs that contribute to a low-carbon economy instead of a carbon intensive one?
After the presentations from the constituency groups, the packed room was excited to hear from the parties. How would they like to engage with us on the issue of a just transition? In the case of the Research and Independent NGO group, we would love to hear what information they need to aid their decision-making processes in this area.
To her credit, a European Union delegate took the mic and expressed her interest in working with the constituency groups and said she was taking notes. But, after her intervention no other country representatives would take the floor despite the pleading of the minister from Poland. A delegate from Malaysia did speak briefly, but only to ask a question.
The remainder of the time—over an hour—turned into a question and answer between anyone in the crowd and the minister from Poland. While this was informative, it was not the intent of the only 2.5 hours of the whole conference dedicated to conversations between countries and constituency groups.
The demands on countries this week to be at so many negotiating sessions at one time is intense, but it is still disappointing that the Polish presidency did not enforce the Open Dialogue as a priority for parties like the Fijians did last year. I hope that this is not a short-lived tradition, but rather a bump in the road that will ultimately lead to more stakeholder engagement in the process in future years.
Last year, the Fijian COP presidency established what they hoped would be a new COP tradition—the Presidency’s Open Dialogue. The idea is to bring together country representatives (parties) and non-party stakeholders (like us) for an extended session (2.5 hours in this case) to talk to each other about a central theme of the COP. Last year, I reflected on the first open dialogue in this post.
To summarize what happened last year, there were 80 people seated around the “roundtable” with only 9 being from the non-country groups. The rest were country representatives. This was exciting because it meant that the countries intended to invest at least some time in engaging with us. It was a constructive first meeting, and I had high hopes for this year’s second iteration.
 |
| COP23 Presidency's Open Dialogue (2017) |
To give away the punchline first, this year’s Open Dialogue did not live up to expectations.
The set-up of the room was a lecture hall, not a round table. This meant that you had no idea who was in the room because the countries did not have their name plates.
 |
| COP24 Presidency's Open Dialogue (2018) |
The theme of the dialogue was the just transition which is the buzzword of the year. Each constituency group provided its support for the concept of a just transition, and many pledged support to help implement it. The Business and Industry group and the Trade Unions highlighted their particular interest in this topic, which is the idea of providing support to the people whose industries need to be in decline in order to decrease fossil fuel use. Both energy and agricultural workers were at the center of the conversation. How do these workers get the support they need to transition to jobs that contribute to a low-carbon economy instead of a carbon intensive one?
After the presentations from the constituency groups, the packed room was excited to hear from the parties. How would they like to engage with us on the issue of a just transition? In the case of the Research and Independent NGO group, we would love to hear what information they need to aid their decision-making processes in this area.
To her credit, a European Union delegate took the mic and expressed her interest in working with the constituency groups and said she was taking notes. But, after her intervention no other country representatives would take the floor despite the pleading of the minister from Poland. A delegate from Malaysia did speak briefly, but only to ask a question.
The remainder of the time—over an hour—turned into a question and answer between anyone in the crowd and the minister from Poland. While this was informative, it was not the intent of the only 2.5 hours of the whole conference dedicated to conversations between countries and constituency groups.
The demands on countries this week to be at so many negotiating sessions at one time is intense, but it is still disappointing that the Polish presidency did not enforce the Open Dialogue as a priority for parties like the Fijians did last year. I hope that this is not a short-lived tradition, but rather a bump in the road that will ultimately lead to more stakeholder engagement in the process in future years.
Anna, I read with interest your blog post on the Open Dialogue. From it I infer that the format is one determined by the hosting Presidency, Poland. The Law and Justice party that governs Poland is both populist, but deeply skeptical about the role of NGOs and civil society in general, even though it is riding high in opinion polls. Was Environment Minister Szyszko in the chair? Or, was it FM Czaputowicz, who replaced the much more pugnacious Witold Waszykowksi in Sept?
ReplyDeleteAs you may know, this Polish Govt has a contentious relationship with the EU and is highly resistant to being pressured to change its reliance on coal. Indeed, if there is a country in Europe that is well placed to make the hard choices on economic restructuring, it is Poland. The country has experienced strong growth over the last 20 years (the only EU member not to experience negative growth during the 2008-09 global recession). But history and the rise of populism also push in the opposite direction.
The President of COP24 has an ability to influence the conference on the margins. The question is how Poland uses its position. I am not optimistic, but would enjoy any insights.
Thanks for your posts.