During the week of November 17th through the 21st, I attended the 30th United Nations Climate Change Conference, more commonly known as COP30, in the city of Belem, Brazil, with the Emory delegation of students led by Professor Eri Saikawa. It was an opportunity to understand the challenges that emerge from international climate change negotiations. Each day was tightly scheduled with: COP30 negotiation updates from the Research and Investigators NGO group, plenary sessions, side events, pavilions, while also complying with our roles as observers in negotiation sessions.
Our participation at COP Village began sharply at 9:00 AM, and we left the premises at around 8:00 PM or later. The venue itself was extensive, taking about 15-20 minutes to walk between side event rooms and plenary sessions, mildly exposed to the amazonian heat and humidity. Ventilation and air conditioning were, to my surprise, seldom available. Country pavilions stood high at the core of COP Village, highlighting mitigation and adaptation efforts promoted by both developed and developing countries. The plenary room was proportional only to the size of the ambition reflected by parties seeking a global shift from current frameworks.
Our schedule was optimized in a way that we would not only learn from this high-stake international event but also play a participative role. We organized a side event titled “Amplifying Global South Voices for Climate Action & Evidence-Based Policymaking,” where I had the opportunity to speak about the limitations of open access data in Latin America for climate and health research. The other panelists were renowned for their research in the Global South context, and litigation efforts, aimed at defusing damage set to local environments. We engaged with lead experts and country-level advisors in 1-2 hour meetings, thanks to Professor Saikawa’s extensive network.
Some of these experts were:
- David Wirth, a professor and Dean’s Distinguished Scholar at Boston College Law School, where he has worked on a variety of international environmental issues;
- Kavita Sinha, Director of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) Division of Private Sector Facility (PSF), who is an experienced climate change and clean energy executive and corporate leader;
- Arunabha Gosh, an internationally recognized public policy expert and founder-CEO of the Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), who was recently appointed to the Commission for Air Quality Management by the Government of India and appointed by the government of Brazil as a Special Envoy for COP30 climate negotiations;
- Michael Franczak, a Senior Researcher in Multilateralism and Global Governance at UNU-CPR, expert on climate and development finance and reform of the international financial architecture;
- Saqib Huq, Managing Director at the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD), a dedicated international development practitioner specializing in climate change adaptation, loss and damage, climate finance, and governance.
Negotiations were well underway before our arrival at COP. As observers, we had the opportunity to participate in sessions which normally lasted throughout the night. Prior to these negotiation sessions, I had not come across any article, video, or image of what I witnessed. The negotiation room was hot, humid, spacious and yet uncomfortable. Some might say you could cut the air with a knife. But never have I seen a group of 40 or so grown professionals move from one extreme end of the room to another, sit on the floor, and discuss an international accord, word by word, line by line. We bore witness to one of the many COP specialties, known as a “huddle.” In today’s modern world, there are so many technological tools available to conduct the most complex administrative tasks. Yet, it is a consensus framework bounding each COP that makes facilitators go back to the basics: sitting in a circle, pen and documents in hand, and long-lasting discussions. Agreements are tedious, and frustrations quickly emerge, fueled by room conditions and a tense environment.
Since the conference, several media sources have published what occurred in Belem, mostly centered on goals reached or failed agreements. What is seldom found in media outlets are the details. The details are my take-home experiences. For a week, we were part of a global framework and observers of a dynamic consensus system. We were there when facilitators laid their heads down on a table to rest after a late night’s work, we were there when a fire broke out at the pavilions, we were there when the Russian delegation scolded Latin American nations to “refrain from behaving like children who want to get your hands on all the sweets” during the closing ceremony, and we were present at side events led by industry. These experiences are just a few examples of what goes on at COP. As I reflect on this global summit, I am certain about one thing: COP30 did not change my perspective on climate change because it created a completely new one. One in which global climate change efforts are bound by financial challenges and political pressure. Surely, a new layer of information that I will undoubtedly integrate into my formation as an environmental health scientist.