Reflections on the UN Climate Change negotiations in Cancún (Mexico)
I recently attended the Cancun climate change negotiations as a representative of the International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA) , of which the Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA) is a member. Our delegation consisted of 6 medical students from Norway, Denmark, Bolivia, New Zealand and Australia.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference is the peak forum for international negotiation held between the 192 Governments party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (under which the Kyoto Protocol was created). In 2010, this conference was widely known as COP16, the 16th Conference of Parties, following from COP15 in Copenhagen 2009. I attended as a representative of the International Federation of Medical Students' Associations (IFMSA), of which the Australian Medical Students' Association (AMSA) is a member. Our delegation consisted of 6 medical students from Norway, Denmark, Bolivia, New Zealand and Australia.
Climate change has been identified by AMSA, IFMSA, the Australian Medical Association, World Medical Association and the World Health Organisation as a key concern for public health (in no small part due to the efforts of Doctors for the Environment Australia and the International Society of Doctors for the Environment). However, the health professions have been poorly represented in the international negotiation process until very recently. Naturally, health should be a key framework under which the impacts of climate change are assessed. However, we often frame climate change as a purely environmental and economic problem. Environmental, economic and agricultural changes all have health impacts (for example, through food access and nutrition), and health is a common overarching goal for all people, providing a moral and social motivation to address climate change. The health sector has much work to do in bringing the health impacts of climate change, and the health co-benefits of mitigation, to the negotiating table.
So what happened?
While at no point during the two weeks of sleep deprivation did I ever see a delegate relaxing or swimming in the picture-perfect pools at the conference venue, perhaps the incredulous expression on the American customs official when I told him I was going to Cancún for a conference was more telling than I first thought. What did the world achieve in this coastal resort town? Well, the negotiations went a bit like the security. There were heavily armoured military patrols driving around town, but a certain suspect looking member of our delegation managed to walk into the venue without scanning his ID properly. Likewise, youth who were standing on the venue steps slowly chanting numbers (counting the number of climate change related deaths in 2010) were, amidst great media interest, apprehended by UN security and dragged onto a bus, only to be released down the road by the bus driver who didn’t seem to know where they were supposed to be taken. That is to say, everyone seems to be hoping that the facade will distract us from the detail.
No, we didn’t save the world. No, we didn’t solve climate change. But, by carefully ensuring expectations were low, and by ensuring positive media coverage, we kept faith in the UN process! Is that a good thing? Yes... surely... probably... I’m not sure...
This is perhaps to be expected for, in public policy terms, a 'wicked problem' with a convoluted history and a confusing and (at times) opaque world of negotiation in which to consider the efforts of our delegation and the health sector.
So let’s start with the small stuff. There were 'small wins' for our delegation:
-Working with the Youth Constituency, and with the help the G77, we pushed a proposal through the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) where it reached consensus in 90 minutes - a deed the SBI Chairman described as 'virtually impossible'. The proposal dealt with Article 6 of the negotiating text (which discusses education on climate change). The SBI is one of two subsidiary bodies of COP where much of the ‘detail’ is worked out (the other being the SB for Scientific and Technological Advice). And yes, the UNFCCC as many acronyms as problems to solve!
-We worked tirelessly helping the WHO establish the presence of health considerations in the negotiations, distributing information, speaking to delegates, assisting in side events including a WHO and World Food Programme event on improving resilience, and a Roundtable organized by the Mexican Government and WHO on "Climate Change and Health: Threats and Opportunities". In recognition of our commitment and nous, the IFMSA was subsequently appointed as the WHO's focal point for NGO relations on Climate Change and Health. This was a positive outcome for our organization, the role of youth, and for health.
-With the help of a number of academics such as Prof Hugh Montgomery (UCL/UK Climate and Health Council), we conducted a survey of delegates on their awareness of the health impacts of climate change, the health co-benefits of mitigation, and the economic impact of climate change on health. 457 delegates were surveyed, and we hope the results will soon be published in The Lancet. While I shall not preempt the findings and publication, I certainly hope it will convey a picture the state of health knowledge being brought to the UN climate change negotiations. This is a crucial first step in developing an effective strategy for engagement.
-Our delegation learnt a great deal through various meetings and discussion, including with Kristie Ebi (Executive Director, IPCC Working Group on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability).
What hurdles are there to the health message?
-Currently, we have a situation where negotiators have a vague awareness of health as an important issue, but low specific awareness of the health impacts of climate change. Health needs to be a lens through which various impacts are seen, not 'just another impact'.
-While there are problems such as controversy over the discount rates used in economic modelling of health impacts of climate change and mitigation, these are relatively minor hurdles, especially since research into the health economics of climate change is new. Indeed, there is a need for more publications that link climate science (for example, ocean acidification) to health impacts, and a need for us to be more effective in publicising and advocating on the existing literature. Such links could have a great impact, allowing negotiators to see the human consequences of environmental changes.
-The key problem is that the health sector tends only to talk to itself, while everyone assumes that the World Health Organisation will take care of any health issues. There is a need for health experts to be included in government delegations and negotiating teams.
How do NGO’s fit into the UNFCCC process?
-With some countries only able to afford to send delegations of one person, they are severely disadvantaged in the UNFCCC process, which has many negotiating streams running all at once. NGOs wanting to help developing nations (the “global south”) should work on assisting these delegations (whether this be through offering to take minutes etc., or through fundraising) rather than sending large NGO delegations to create noise outside the negotiating room.
-Climate science will not become ‘certain’ through endless research. It is the very nature of the climate for it to have inherent limitations to prediction. But this is not to say that we cannot work in terms of probability, for example a ‘tipping point’ for runaway climate change within the ‘next few years’. So a precautionary risk-management approach should be taken.
-We tend to view climate change as a global, catastrophic event that will occur unless we do something by a particular date (e.g. 2015). This creates the view that progress can only be made at conferences such as this one, and when progress is inevitably slow and cumbersome it is seen as a disastrous outcome. This is a rather disempowering state of affairs. Despite its obvious importance, as Kris Ebi said, “COP is a circus.... the opportunity to intervene here is limited”. We must recognise that climate change is a process, and so is negotiating. The most effective place to effect change is within our own countries – both by influencing our delegations before they go to COP (i.e. when they actually decide their negotiating positions) and also by direct action. Just as the effects of climate change can be seen in our own backyards (if we look for them!), we can turn off our laptops at night, eat a little less meat (a ‘weekend vegetarian’), catch a bus or cycle a bit more often, etc.
Was COP16 merely dragging out a dying process? Should we focus our energies on domestic policy? Probably. What did I learn? Keep trying, try harder, and do it at home. At COP16 I saw glimpses of the best in humanity. I saw the passion of inspired youth. I try not to forget that.
Arthur Cheung
MBBS/BSc Year V and also studying Grad. Cert. in Governance and Public Policy, University of Queensland
Member of DEA Students