SLU student’s impressions from COP24

Published

Two students from SLU went to the 24th Conference of the parties (COP24) in Katowice, Poland. Read their blog posts with impressions and experiences from their stay.

A student at the COP24 – Why I would go again

By: Charlotte Ponzelar, MSc student in Environmental Communication and Management

Overwhelming, massive, colourful. These three words can barely describe all the impressions from my visit at the 24th Conference of the Parties (COP24) in Katowice, Poland. Since three years I wanted to be part of it and this year I am thrilled that I got my chance. My interest in environmental communication and education for sustainable development guided my journey through the exhibition halls in these four days of my stay. While decision-makers negotiated about detailed guidelines in the ‘rule book‘ for the implementation of the ParisAgreement from 2015, I found myself joining the ECOS (Education, Communication, Outreach Stakeholders) community in their daily meetings, exchanging experiences with environmental communication experts and I listened to different lectures and solution-oriented project presentations. 

The mission of Article 6 of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is to improve Climate Change Education and was the topic of one of the round tables, that I had joined. The concept of education does not only provide knowledge about risks and challenges. It is a concept that is embedded in every subject to enable an understanding that everything we do has an impact and is affected by climate change. Climate Change Education can change the discourse to see the opportunities of finding solutions and adopt them for a better future by perceiving its critical components in interdisciplinary, local-action based collaboration. Still, participants of the discussion shared several experienced challenges in implementation. Among other things, they pointed out missing tools for educators and the lack of funding for their education. Climate Change Education provides an understanding that can enhance climate action. Nevertheless, knowing does not necessarily mean doing. It’s a controversial topic because there is a gap between knowledge and action, as in we know what would be right to do but we don’t do it. Which way of communication can lead to the behavioural change that is needed? Some of my course literature argues that connecting the human beings actions to Climate Change will cause the feeling of guilt and resistance within the individual. Sarah-Mae Nelson, a member of the National Network for Ocean and Climate Change Interpretation (NNOCCI), is convinced that  „We can’t be part of the solution if we don’t see ourselves as part of the cause!“

Through my stay in Katowice, I had the chance to experience the power of many nations coming together to work towards a better future as a community. I strengthened my knowledge about the challenges we are facing and saw once more that the connection of Education and Communication is imperative to reach the societal and behavioural change that is needed.

I want to say thank you to SLU and SWEDESD (Sweden’s Academy for Sustainable Development), who enabled this rewarding opportunity and trusted me and my will to report from the COP24 and to get the best out of it.

My COP24 experience

By: Wiebke Homes, MSc student Environmental Sciences (EnvEuro), SLU

This October, in the lead up to this years’ COP24 (Conference of the Parties) in Katowice, Poland, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) published a special report on 1.5°C. The report outlines the impacts of climate change if global warming reaches 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Currently, the world has already warmed approximately 1°C but under current trajectories, and the nationally determined contributions which every country needs to develop under the Paris Agreement, it is estimated that we will reach a shocking warming of 3°C by the end of the century. The differences between 1.5°C and the targeted 2°C are already immense and it is hard to imagine what would happen if global warming exceeds 2°C. This special report showed the urgency of climate action and the need for stronger commitment.

The report made clear that at a 2°C warming, more than 99% of all coral reefs will disappear. Since I am very passionate about our oceans and the marine environment, this fact broke my heart. It was not the only time during the week at COP24 that it got very emotional for me. To get a better understanding I attended many scientific side-events about climate change and oceans, also in the pavilions. The British Pavilion showcased a way to grow corals five times faster than in nature by making use of the energy produced from waves. What was surprising to me as well, were the many partnerships that are already in place. The Commonwealth Blue Charter is one example and the exchange between Norway and the Pacific is another, as the melting of the glacier in the North has a direct effect on Pacific Island States which are threatened by sea-level rise. To withstand the challenges of climate change (sea-level rise as only being one of them), ambition, ambition, ambition, ambition and ambition are UN chief António Guterres five priorities, as stated in his speech about the climate crisis last week. The goal of COP24 was to adopt the rulebook for the implementation of the Paris Agreement and to give more support to developing countries from the developed countries.

Alongside thes scientific events, I was also working for the UNFCCC Secretariat. I am currently doing an internship within the Adaptation team in Bonn. Since I am responsible for supporting the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) for the PacificIslands States, I met with the Ministers and/or other government officials from different countries in that region, for example Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Samoa and Fiji. Before COP24, I had already examined the progress of these countries with regard to their NAPs and needed to verify my collected data and fill in gaps. This was a great opportunity to meet climate leaders in person, build up trust between institutions and look behind the scenes of how climate politics works. It felt a bit weird and unreal to be surrounded by so many high-level politicians and heads of states and to walk alongside them in the corridors. Fun fact: It seemed like that the Russian and Saudi-Arabian lead negotiators were best friends, I only always saw them in a pair. Another cool fact: on Friday, high school students from Katowice followed Swedish 15-year old Greta Thunberg and did not attend school that day, striking for the climate under the motto of ’12 years left’. I once more noticed how important the voice of youth – future generation – is.

Sleep-deprived but very, very relieved; that is how I felt on Saturday night. After several sleepless nights, hard work on the draft texts, consultations with different groups such as the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG), the Group 77 + China or the High Ambition Coalition, closed meetings from the Green Climate Fund (GCF)and revisions upon revisions, the closing plenary finally started Saturday night after being postponed seven times with a 17.5 hours delay. Thanks to India, who in the spirit of pursuit accepted the rulebook last minute, the COP24 President MichaƂ Kurtyka was able to say: “Hearing no objections, it is so decided.” Cheers and applause followed. This once again showed what multilateralism is capable of: 196 states, all with different intentions, found consensus on one single text (with the exception of Article 6 on carbon markets, which has been postponed to next years’ COP25 in Chile). Although the adopted rulebook is far from perfect, it is a step towards a low-carbon future. If we are to achieve reductions in emissions in half by 2030 and reach net zero by 2050, which would keep global warming well below 2°C, much more needs to be done.

It was an honor for me to go to COP24, as a representative of both SLU and the UNFCCC. I was able to connect to other students from around the world, to meet and have a chat with renowned scientists (e.g. Johan Rockström), and to speak up for climate action, pulling me out of my comfort zones several times. Going to COP was highly rewarding for me, especially because I got to be involved in background work to make the Paris Agreement actually work. As David Attenborough said in the first week of the COP, “every small bit matters”. Just by being in the middle of high climate politics was already fascinating enough.I have learnt so much during COP24 and I am very thankful for SLU for giving me this special opportunity. It was definitely the cherry on the cake of my Master’s degree and I hope to be able to go to next years’ COP25 as well – this time as an ambassador for our oceans!

What are the effects of something that never happened?

Published

By: Dr. Linda Engström, Department of Urban and Rural Development, SLU

It is early morning when we leave a cool, overcast Bagamoyo town and the beaches of the Indian Ocean behind us. We are driving north-west towards Razaba Ranch, the area in eastern Tanzania where the Swedish company Eco Energy is planning to plant thousands of hectares of sugar cane and construct a sugar factory. Over the years, I have visited the area many times. This time, as well, I want to talk to the people living on the land targeted by the project, to understand their perceptions of it and the dynamics on the ground. The rainy season has just started and we expect a muddy, slippery trip. As we approach Razaba Ranch, we round a bend in the road and see that the Ruvu river has burst its banks, covering the bridge in slowly simmering, brown water. Two young men have seen the potential to make some money and are doing the important job of guiding cars through the water in order to avoid invisible rocks and to direct drivers to the shallow waters. Our car cannot pass through with us inside it. We pull off our shoes and start wading through the brown water until we reach across to the muddy road. Over the years, these floods have caused delays in project timelines, since they reduce access to the project site, and they have been repeatedly omitted in new timelines. We stop at one sub-village on the left side of the road, the side that is promised to the investor. We greet the village chair, people appear from nearby houses and some people travelling along the road stop, all gathering under a huge tree to talk to us about the planned investment, sitting on logs and, as the group expands, on yellow plastic containers. I know several of them by now, others are new acquaintances. Outside the nearest house are rows of white plastic rice bags packed with charcoal. In the meeting, we are told, among other things, that due to restrictions on agricultural practices while awaiting resettlement, more people have become dependent on charcoal production for their livelihoods. People are hoping that, after the ongoing rainy season, something will progress as concerns the resettlement as the roads are opened up again.

The Swedish sugar-cane project in Bagamoyo was initiated in 2006 through a Memorandum of Understanding between the company, then called SEKAB, and the Government of Tanzania. Since then, the original idea to produce ethanol for the European market has, for various reasons, changed into mainly producing sugar for the Tanzanian market. The plan has been to launch a 450 million USD project with a 300 million USD loan from the African Development Bank and a credit guarantee from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, Sida. The project, based on a 99-year lease of the land, was marketed by the Swedish company executives with great promises. For instance, the project was to produce 130,000 tons sugar and 10 million litres ethanol annually, produce reliable electricity supply to 100,000 rural households. It would employ 2000 people and 10,000–12,000 jobs as spin-off effects, provide  13–18 million USD in annual revenue for outgrower farmers and provide the state with 30 million USD in yearly tax revenues. In all, it would reduce poverty and bring rural development.

However, when we visit the area this time, ten years have passed since project initiation, and there is still not a single sugar cane in sight. Timelines have been repeatedly postponed; conflicts over land have arisen, negotiations over compensations, floods and issues of resettlement have interfered with the process, bureaucratic procedures and unexpected external events have grinded down the expected simple, linear project implementation process – it encountered reality. All the while, major proponents of the project, such as Sida, the African Development Bank and the Tanzanian President at the time, Kikwete (2005-2015), maintained their support of the project. Sida even supported the project with 54 million SEK from the Swedish development budget. One could assume that the transaction costs for the Tanzanian government must have been severe. And all the while, the approximately 1400 people living on the land and using it for their livelihoods have been regularly informed to be ready for an upcoming resettlement. They have been encouraged not to invest in their land, nor any other assets; they should not plant perennial crops such as trees, since they will not be compensated for such investment upon resettlement. Some people were lucky to get training in construction or driving, as part of the international best practice that was pursued for the resettlement process. Some farmer men decided to send away their wives and children to relatives, where the future seemed more predictable, or quit farming and took jobs with the company for minimum salaries. Many farmers we talk to have stopped investing in their land and houses, and postponed development plans. As indicated above, charcoal production became an interesting alternative way of earning an income, with subsequent environmental consequences. Most of all, the uncertainty, the lack of complete information about what was happening, when and why, are factors that caused great mental stress and frustration. I often received questions about what was actually happening. For instance they repeatedly asked me if I knew whether the inflation rate was going to be considered for their compensation payments, since many years had passed since the evaluation of their assets had been performed. As a matter of fact, they did not even have the information about how much their assets were valued at in the initial evaluation.

Thus, while many of the project proponents referred to the project as “nothing has happened”, there was a myriad of events, processes, negotiations and impacts going on, both on the project site and outside it. Most notable is the profound livelihood effects the non-implemented project had on the people living in Razaba Ranch. Moreover, when the newly elected President Magufuli in 2016 decided to withdraw the land-rights of the company, Eco Energy decided to sue the Tanzanian government at an international center for dispute settlement in Washington to get the allegedly invested 52 million USD back. In all, these processes have impacted on relations of all kinds, between and within different involved groups of actors.

While unintended outcomes of failed development projects have been rather frequently discussed in development studies (see, for instance David Mosse’s “Ethography of Aid” from 2005 or Tania Li’s “Will to Improve” from 2007), to my experience, it is rarely being reflected in development policy debates. Rather, delayed or non-implemented projects risk ending up “under the radar”, where impacts are irrelevant to monitor or mitigate. Moreover, it seems sparsely reflected in sustainability criteria, such as the IFC (International Finance Cooperation) standards applied in this case. Therefore, risks of failure and its effects should be paid more attention in policy debates, especially since projects that never happened apparently can have profound, and even negative, impacts on all involved actors, not least the people assumed to benefit from them.

Engström, L.(2018). Development Delayed – Exploring the failure of a large-scale agricultural investment in Tanzania to deliver promised outcomes. (Doctoral Degree), Swedish University for Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. Â