A New Strategy to Build Sustained Peace?

Earlier this week (week #2 of COP27), I attended an event at the U.S. Center entitled Fragility, Conflict, and Climate Change: A New Strategy to Build Sustained Peace. Not only did the session title catch my attention, but also, in the introduction to the session, it was mentioned that our Department of Defense had its first ever delegation at a COP and their representative in the session was the sustainability director for the DOD. Last year, during a stakeholder roundtable with Gina McCarthy (then first White House National Climate Advisor for President Biden), the mandate requiring all agencies within the federal government to consider climate change in terms of solutions, national strategies, and efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of the U.S. government was discussed at length. (See a previous post about this event.) It appears that some of this is happening!

As with every session at a COP, several sound-bytes and a lot of jargon and acronyms were used: 

• HDP nexus (HDP = Humanitarian Development and Peace)
• DRR (Disaster Risk and Reduction) 
• PREPARE 
• Emergency Adaptation and Resilience
• Feed the Future 
• Global Fragility Act (I hadn’t heard of this before) 
• 3D (Defense, Diplomacy, Development) or 5D (adding Defining Decade before the three previous terms)

Instead of talking about the details of each of these, I have included some references at the end of the post. The "cliff notes" version is that to achieve peace, we need to provide development aid in conflict-prone regions, address food and water insecurity to prevent new conflict and displacement (or "human mobility" as is the phrase at COP27), and address climate change – in an integrated fashion. Apparently, there is now a commitment to interagency cooperation within the U.S. government representing a degree of collaboration that hasn’t happened in the past.

One might ask whether it takes threats of war to move us to action on other fronts such as humanitarian aid or climate change. And for some reason, having representatives from US Agency for International Development and the DOD (aka Pentagon) on the stage together oddly reminded me of the very unsettling book by Dave Eggers, The Parade. (A partial description of this book from Amazon.com: An unnamed country is leaving the darkness of a decade at war, and to commemorate the armistice the government commissions a new road connecting two halves of the state. Two men, foreign contractors from the same company, are sent to finish the highway.) 

Setting aside the cynicism and looking at global problem-solving through the lens of a scientist, the idea of having science and foreign aid as arms of diplomacy and peacekeeping isn’t inherently a bad idea. The prestigious organization, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), even has a Center for Science Diplomacy. Scientific discoveries can lead to clean energy technologies, carbon removal mechanisms, and climate-resilient agriculture as well as provide the data and monitoring for early warning systems. If we can overcome barriers such as intellectual property and technology transfer, innovative technologies arising from science might help address climate change mitigation and adaptation, protect livelihoods and lives, and enhance food security. Can sharing innovations from research and development be considered foreign aid? 

The U.S. Center panel discussion and these random post-session reflections have me thinking about how we, as educators, might prepare future diplomats and agency staffers who can work across agencies, national boundaries, and disciplinary specializations. Alas, too often, those of us in higher education still work in silos (disciplinary-specific departments). Distinct packets of information are taught through these departments, sometimes even more finely subdivided (e.g., biochemistry vs. ecology as opposed to thinking about "life sciences" holistically). There are, of course, examples of campus interdisciplinary centers developed around key themes, and some academic programs are, by nature, dependent on interdisciplinary collaborations, including the environmental sciences and studies. But in such programs, do we have students work at the interface of policymaking, consider transnational-boundary issues, or evaluate the ethical dilemmas of technological “solutions” especially if they are implemented and impact people who have had no say in the decision to deploy? In higher education speak, if a program like environmental studies includes an array of requirements across disciplines, are these requirements integrated in intentional ways? Do students understand why they are taking the different requirements and the interrelationships between what they are learning in different courses? Do they realize that the information can and should be applied to solve complex global problems? Do students (and faculty) feel comfortable working across language and cultural differences – both across disciplines and national borders? 

The American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) are advocates of liberal education and a 2020 publication entitled “What Liberal Education Looks Like” which is described as: 

In distilling the principles, practices, and contemporary challenges of liberal education, this signature AAC&U publication presents a clear vision of the learning all students need for success in an uncertain future and for addressing the compelling issues we face as a democracy and as a global community – regardless of where they study, what they major in, or what their career goals are. 

The American Council on Education, in discussing their global learning outcomes, refers to international education and education diplomacy. 

At Moravian University, we have had a unique cross-cutting academic program known as InFocus that had its roots in discussions going back to 2010. In my opinion, it was a rare example of interdisciplinary teaching, scholarship, debate, collaboration, problem-solving, service, and advocacy. The program focused on 4 key thematic areas reflecting grand challenges of the 21st century:

• Poverty and Inequality
• Sustainability and Eliminating Environmental Degradation
• Health and Justice
• War and Peace 

This program was named to the Phi Kappa Phi Honorable Mention list for the 2020 Excellence in Innovation Award which, according to the Phi Kappa Phi website is “given once per biennium, recognizes one institution of higher learning for achievement in finding powerful answers to important local, regional, national or global challenges.” In the portfolio submitted for this recognition (CONFRONTING GLOBAL CHALLENGES: 2020 Phi Kappa Phi Excellence in Innovation Award Portfolio), the program was described as follows: 

InFocus grew from a 2010 series of dialogues held by small groups of faculty at Moravian College who pondered the question how can we better link our educational mission with the real problems and needs that face all of us, both locally and globally? We deliberated about the most pressing sets of problems facing humanity, and how to shift our common educational life to seriously address them. We questioned how to link research, advocacy, and action; increase multidisciplinarity; and multiply alliances between our college, the local community, and the wider world. We stressed the need for students to envision their education in accordance with their lives beyond the college campus. This critical dialogue led to the eventual spearheading of an open-ended, ambitious cross-college initiative, InFocus at Moravian College, that would be organized around four yearly rotating “Centers of Investigation.” Each year the Moravian College community dedicates itself to one “challenge area” facing humanity that demands greater investigation, understanding, imagination, collaboration, and advocacy if we are to build toward a more sustainable, just, and democratic society. 

For reasons many of us cannot understand, the upper administration recently announced that this would be the last year for InFocus. The stated reasons were that this program it is not something that attracts students to the institution or retains them (although I have no idea how they know that), and it wasn't included in the institutional strategic plan. (For that matter, neither are most of the existing academic programs.) What those of us who have participated in the program know, through program assessments as well as student testimonials, is that students demonstrate intellectual growth and have a greatly expanded view of the world and a sense that they can make a difference in that world. It is more difficult to measure or even articulate what value this has had for faculty, but, personally, the impact has been profound.

Given the theme of the event I attended at the U.S. Center, it is perhaps ironic that the InFocus theme this final year is "War and Peace". In an InFocus event earlier this year, one of the faculty co-directors handed me a pin that says “The more you sweat for peace, the less you bleed in war.”

I am wearing this pin here at COP27

I doubt that whoever created this slogan was linking climate change (global warming) and peace. However, perhaps some of that sweat equity needs to be directed towards addressing climate change which, in turn, will reduce conflict and come with many other co-benefits (food and water insecurity, better health, sustainable development, etc.) 

[An interesting note: 5-5 ½ % of global greenhouse gas emissions are from war and military action. I don't have a source, but this was mentioned in the Emissions Gap 2022 report launch here at COP27 when someone asked about the consequences of the Russian - Ukrainian war on climate action. My friend Heidi Svestre, a glaciologist, noted that one consequence -- largely because Russia is currently chairing the Arctic Council -- is that the work of the council has been suspended, including critical polar research in the Arctic.]

Some sources for further reading

On the humanitarian-development-peace nexus:

A short brief entitled The Humanitarian-Development-Peace (HDP) Nexus: Challenges in implementation

A report entitled The Humanitarian-Development-Peace Nexus: What does it mean for multi-mandated organizations? 

On PREPARE:

The PREPARE action plan (a U.S. initiative)

Action Plan Released for the President's Emergency Plan for Adaptation and Resilience (PREPARE)

National Security Strategy (interagency cooperation)

On the Global Fragility Act

The 3 D's publication  

2022 Prologue to the United States Strategy to Prevent Conflict and Promote Stability 

The Global Fragility Act  

A press release on this act 

Hotel Prices and the Local Economy

 This year, one of the early concerns for attendees was finding affordable lodging.   Many booked hotel rooms months ago, only to find that the reservations were cancelled and they were rebooked at much higher prices.  Rooms booked for $100 are now booking for $500 or more.  The ECO-NGO Newsletter writes that "COP observers have the right to a safe, secure and accessible accommodation, at the prices agreed to when reservations were confirmed, and not to be left out on the streets."  To me, that seems like a common-sense request ... especially since I had booked a year ago and was afraid until the moment we checked in that I would be one of the people on the street! 

However, today I took a taxi to another part of town for a sponsored panel discussion.  I ended up at a hotel that had only a skeleton security staff in what looked like a once-thriving but now abandoned part of the city. There were no residents at the hotel -- they were renting out a couple of meeting rooms to an organization for meetings. This is the other story of Sharm el-Sheikh.  Many of us are staying at the (mostly newer) hotels that have managed to stay open.  But daily we pass dozens of abandoned construction sites left undone.  Other hotels and venues are simply boarded up. Other than the construction of the COP facilities, there is no current construction.   

According to my taxi driver, Sharm el-Sheikh was booming in 2015. Resorts were being built, and the infrastructure was updated. The first blow was when the Islamic State claimed responsibility for downing a Russian plane, which caused a six-year moratorium on direct flights. Then, COVID hit tourism hard, and everything was put on hold.  Just as tourism started up again, with Russians and Ukrainians representing the bulk of the tourists, Russia invaded Ukraine.  I remember reading an article at the time talking about how the resorts were beginning to recommend different restaurants to the tourists, in an effort to keep the peace.  So now, there are no Ukrainian tourists, and the Russians are much fewer in number.  There are some tourists from other countries, but not as many.

In addition to the severe reduction in tourists for Sharm, Egypt is also facing its own financial concerns.  Six years ago, Egypt was forced to devalue its currency and take out a loan from the International Monetary Fund. Like much of the world, they are experiencing inflation, reaching 18% in September. It is estimated that the Egyptian pound has lost up to 25% of its value against the US dollar in 2022 alone, and foreign investments are dwindling. 

With this backdrop, I am just a bit more understanding about the letter from the Egyptian Hotel Association to the Sharm-el-Sheik hotels describing the UNFCCC as a "unique tourism opportunity."  This letter, as reported in the ECO-NGO Newsletter,  suggested the higher pricing models, with five-star hotels charging at least $500/night.  With much of the pricing from taxis to meals stated in US dollars, the COP must have been seen as a temporary relief from a dismal outlook.  

Unfortunately, there have not been appropriate alternatives for the young activists or others for whom even $120/night is out of reach, and suggestions like camping venues were turned down by the Egyptian organizers.  While I understand the price gouging a bit from the local perspective, there must be more done to be inclusive and inviting to the civil society observers.  

Will We Be Drawn to Action With Art?

 

Most years, Diane Husic and I teach a course about climate change and negotiations, and we have always discussed the importance of art for communicating climate change.  In this blog, we have highlighted art installations at the COPs over the past decade. This year, I was happy to see that art was highlighted at the Egyptian pavilion.  As the host country, Egypt has one of the most prominent and largest pavilions at the COP.  This year, they have chosen to exhibit the "natural heritage, biodiversity, and Egyptian culture linking humanity to nature through the expression of art."  There are four or five large areas in the pavilion, and walking through them is much like strolling through a museum. Check out the "Pava Bean Bronze Sculpture" or the lovable "Garden Creatures" at the base of the "Tree of Mary." 

So, yes, despite my love and support for the arts, and my genuine belief that arts have an important role in communicating climate change, I'm a bit puzzled.  At the nearby pavilions for UK/Scotland (COP 26 host) and United Arab Emirates (future COP 28 host), the exhibits are about education and solutions.  Scotland shows off a virtual reality platform, with its awe-inspiring "Space Safari," while UAE features interactive exhibits on solutions ranging from mangroves to hydrogen.  For COP 27, however, Egypt is not using their platform to tout their achievements.  I appreciate that there is a lot of discussion about "nature-based solutions," but these artworks are more of a celebration of nature. So is that the message?  We need to celebrate and preserve our natural world? It may be.  The artwork is beautiful, and hopefully it will inspire the parties to increase their ambition to "keep 1.5 degrees alive."

Welcome to COP27: Another year, another COP

 

Since 2009, Moravian University has sent a delegation of observers to the COPs (Conference of the Parties) – the annual meetings of the signatories (“Parties”) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC. In a welcome message to COP27 attendees, Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, President of the Arab Republic of Egypt said: 

COP27 in the green city of Sharm El-Sheikh this year marks the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In the thirty years since, the world has come a long way in the fight against climate change and its negative impacts on our planet; we are now able to better understand the science behind climate change, better assess its impacts, and better develop tools to address its causes and consequences. 

I couldn’t help but be reminded of a T-shirt that youth delegates were wearing at COP15 in Copenhagen – our first COP: 

And here we are, 13 years later, still negotiating. Those teenagers are now likely in their early 30’s debating if they should have families, how to work and live in a sustainable manner, and worried about not only their future and well-being (climate grief is high), but also the fate of future generations. 

President El-Sisi continued in his message:

Thirty years and twenty-six COPs later, we now have a much clearer understanding of the extent of the potential climate crisis and what needs to be done to address it effectively. The science is there and clearly shows the urgency with which we must act regarding rapidly reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, taking necessary steps to assist those in need of support to adapt to the negative impacts of climate change, and finding the appropriate formula that would ensure the availability of requisite means of implementation that are indispensable for developing countries in making their contributions to this global effort, especially in the midst of the successive international crises, including the ongoing food security crisis exacerbated by climate change, desertification and water scarcity, especially in Africa that suffers the most impacts. 

Indeed, there is clear science about what is changing and what the likely long-term impacts of climate change will be on human health, cities, infrastructure, biodiversity, and so on. The UNFCCC, one of three “conventions” or international agreements related to the environment that came out of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, bound member states to act in the interests of human safety even in the face of scientific uncertainty. At that time, the first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report had been published in 1990 and there was still much to understand about the science of climate change. Nonetheless, 198 countries (Parties) – including the United States – ratified the UNFCCC which was then enacted in 1994. It had as its ultimate aim to prevent “dangerous” human interference with the climate system. Now, three decades later, the three working groups of the IPCC have published the sixth assessment report (AR6, 2021 – 2022), and there is significantly better scientific information and strong consensus about the anthropogenic causes of climate change. 

There appear to be four main goals of COP27 related to mitigation, adaptation, finance, and collaboration.

1. Mitigation: As always, mitigation is a key focus -- that is, the aim to limit global warming to below 2°C, relative to pre-industrial levels. Ideally, ambitious action by all countries in the world will keep the global temperature to no more than 1.5°C warmer. Throughout the airport and on the drive to the hotel, there were signs referring to ambition to action – an apparent rallying cry for COP27. The Mitigation Work Programme (paragraph 27 of decision 1/CMA.3 of the Paris Agreement) calls for an urgent scaling up for mitigation ambition and implementation. The aim is to have countries submit lower GHG emission development strategies than their original NDCs (nationally determined contributions) by COP27 – i.e., low-emission and long-term strategies. You can learn more about this through the third webinar in a series that was developed by the Research and Independent NGOs (RINGOs), Second Nature, and the University Climate Change Coalition (UC3) from October 24, 2022. 

It should be noted that a report published ahead of COP27 shows that while countries are “bending the curve of global greenhouse gas emissions downward,” efforts remain insufficient to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5°C by the end of the century. In other words, to avoid the worse impacts of climate change, more ambitious goals and action are needed. Interestingly, according to a report from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (IISD), 

COP 26 President Alok Sharma reflected on achievements made at, and since, COP 26, noting that over 90% of the global economy is now covered by net-zero targets. 

In contrast, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hoesung Lee, confirmed on November 6th that the world is not on track to meet the 1.5°C target. Alas, the political posturing and the science are at odds. Shocking.

2. Adaptation: The original framework recognized that climate change impacts will be inevitable and thus there was a need for adaptation as well as mitigation: 

We must plan for the adaptation of natural and human systems to the unavoidable impacts of a warming climate. 

In an IPPC event at COP27 entitled "Assessing adaptation needs: Findings from the IPCC Working Group II contribution to its Sixth Assessment Report," adaptation needs were defined as "circumstances requiring action to ensure safety of population and security of assets in response to climate impacts." This includes adapting to extreme weather events and enhancing resilience of communities, including those most vulnerable to the impacts. Ideally, there should be a focus on disaster and risk reduction. Assessing adaptation needs is best done at the local and regional levels; for instance, what is needed to adapt to areas prone to flooding is quite different from what regions dealing with extreme drought should be doing. Coastal areas and small islands have unique challenges due to sea level rise, salinization, and storm surge damage. The process should be participatory in nature – utilizing local expertise and indigenous knowledge. This is not the stuff of academic, peer-reviewed publications. The need for a greater focus on adaptation has become more evident the longer we delay ambitious mitigation measures. In the 6th assessment report of the IPCC, there is increased attention on maladaptation – unintended negative impacts from adaptive responses such as having plantation forests (versus native forests) that are monocultures, absorb less carbon, and diminish biodiversity. Currently, there is very little evidence of implementation of truly transformative adaptation measures to date and there has been little monitoring and evaluation for accountability and learning on what works and what does not. 

In just two days, I have heard quite a bit about putting "people at the center" of negotiations and actions and "climate-resilient development." At the IPCC event, it was noted that adaptation cannot be addressed in isolation from mitigation and sustainable development; or in the words of one of the IPCC WG II authors, Siri Eriksen: “We cannot adapt our way out of climate change.” Eriksen went on to discuss the need for an integrated process across society. 

3. Finance: Countries have yet to achieve the finance goals of the Paris Agreement (2015) of annual contributions of USD 100 billion. There are existing (and sometimes unmet) pledges dating back to Copenhagen (COP15, 2009) and Cancun (COP16, 2010). Such finance is critical to meet the clean development needs of Africa, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) – all being hit hard by climate change impacts despite having done little to contribute to historic greenhouse gas emissions. The often contentious debate over Loss and Damage (i.e., who pays for the consequences of climate change) also continues. Today, I bumped into a friend, Marlene Achoki, who I met at a Community Based Adaptation conference in Uganda many years ago. She is now a Party (official country negotiator). I asked her what her country's priorities are for COP27. The answer: finance and loss and damage.

As I write about this particular COP27 goal, I can’t help but think of the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk and how that $44 billion could have been put to such better uses. 

4. Collaboration: There are many forms of collaboration: private and public partnerships, community stakeholders working together, global collaborations, scientists and decision-makers, etc. In other words, we need "one international community working for the common good of our shared planet and humanity." From UNFCCC COP27 news:

The advancement of partnership and collaboration will help deliver our four goals and ensure the world is adopting more a resilient, and sustainable economic model where humans are at the center of climate talks. The UN negotiations are consensus-based, and reaching agreement will require inclusive and active participation from all stakeholders. Governments, the private sector and civil society need to work, in tandem, to transform the way in which we interact with our planet. We must introduce new solutions and innovations that help alleviate the adverse impacts of climate change. We also need to replicate and rapidly upscale all other climate-friendly solutions towards implementation in developing countries. 

The Egyptian COP27 Presidency has set out an ambitious vision for this COP that puts human needs at the heart of our global efforts to address climate change. The Presidency intends to focus the world’s attention on key elements that address some of the most fundamental needs of people everywhere, including water security, food security, health and energy security. Sameh Shoukry, Egyptian Minister of Foreign Affairs and COP27 President said: “We’re gathering this year at a time when global climate action is at a watershed moment. Multilateralism is being challenged by geopolitics, spiraling prices, and growing financial crises, while several countries battered by the pandemic have barely recovered, and severe and depleting climate change-induced disasters are becoming more frequent. 

With that reference to geopolitics, I was reminded of both Christian Parenti's book: Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the Geography of Violence and the ongoing, senseless Russia – Ukraine war. Besides the unfathomable toll on human lives, infrastructure, and the environment, there has been a global focus on disruption to fossil fuel exports from Russia, the destruction of energy grid in Ukraine and threats to nuclear power plants, and loss of food security with critical shipments of grain from Ukraine being used as a political bargaining chip. 

The first part of the high-level segment of COP 27 (and CMP 17 and CMA 4 -- lots of UNFCCC jargon) is happening during the Sharm El-Sheikh Climate Implementation Summit from Monday, 7 November to Tuesday, 8 November 2022. Delegates in that plenary room or watching virtually will hear statements from Heads of State and Government or sometimes a Vice President designee. The list of speakers includes the brand new prime minister of the UK Rishi Sunuk (interestingly, there were also sightings of Boris Johnson in the room) and there will even be a video message from Mr. Volodymyr Selenskyy, President of Ukraine. Noticeably absent from the list of speakers is the president (or VP) of the United States (perhaps due to campaigning for key elections). President Biden will, however, arrive later in the week. 

Today is election day back in the U.S. and it has been a contentious campaign season, even though it is for mid-term elections. This isn’t the first time we have been at a COP during election day (I voted by mail both times, for the record). The most notable was in 2016, the presidential election when we also were in northern Africa (Morocco that year) and we woke up to the news that Donald Trump had defeated Hilary Clinton. For several reasons, including ones related to climate change and global relations amidst a campaign season of xenophobic and deeply divisive comments, the mood was extremely dark. I was prompted to write three blog posts which spoke to the mood at the time:

• An Accidental Ambassador (also published for Huffington Post)
• Day 3 at COP22 Part II: Trying to make sense of it all
• Moral Courage

It remains to be seen what I will write in 2022 post-elections.