As the final week of COP29 got underway, Fiji’s delegation, alongside other Pacific nations, remains steadfast in advocating for progress on critical climate issues despite the diplomatic challenges in the negotiation rooms.
Ensuring team-Fiji stays the course is its Permanent Secretary for Environment and Climate Change, Dr Sivendra Michael, who also serves as the country’s lead negotiator at COP29.
In virtual Pacific State of Play briefs, he shared insights with journalists on unpacking the complexities of negotiations and the hurdles faced by Pacific delegations at what has been pitched by Azerbaijan as the Finance COP.
Dr Michael admitted that the first week of COP29 was a challenging one for many negotiators.
“The first week of COP was a little bit disappointing for many of the negotiators, as we wanted to conclude many of the relatively straightforward agenda items,” Dr Michael said. “But as you know, COPs are a party-driven process. It is a very diplomatic process.”
Despite the frustrations, Dr Michael rejected the idea that COPs could ever be labeled as failures.
“When people come to me and say that COP has failed, I am in complete disagreement, because no COP is a failure. These decisions, it’s a process. If you don’t agree to decisions this year, then it goes on to next year,” he explained. “But some of the decisions that come out of COP can be seen as very disappointing.”
Added to the small size of Pacific delegations, which makes sleep deprivation a key challenge for negotiators as the intensity mounts in the committee rooms, Dr Michael highlighted the difficulties faced in negotiating adaptation issues.
“We had a really challenging time in the adaptation committee room, where the group negotiators from the African region had done a complete block on any progress on text,” he said. “We ended up with a one-paragraph decision, which was just welcoming the adaptation committee report.”
Negotiators from the Pacific often found themselves on the defensive.
“We were called ‘point of order’ on every intervention we made, and we had to get the legal team inside to guide us on whether we could interact,” he added.
Similar struggles were encountered in discussions on the Global Stocktake (GST), the Just Transition, and the Mitigation Work Programme.
“They are waiting for some progress in one room to use that as compromising leverage in another room,” Dr Michael said. “These are techniques that have been used for many years, including by the Pacific, when we want to hold up discussions in a room. It’s a strategy.”
Dr Michael underscored the importance of holding countries accountable for their mitigation commitments, despite the heavy focus on adaptation for Pacific Island countries.
“We did not receive a decision on that at the stock take plenary,” he explained. “The chair of the subsidiary body on implementation and the subsidiary body on science and technology heard more than two-thirds of the room express utmost disappointment that the mitigation work programme is going to be a ‘COP decision on a blank paper.’”
He continued, “We are going to send a decision to the presidency with no text—no annex, nowhere to start from –again.”
Dr Michael also took questions around the potential influence of fossil fuel lobbyists, especially as the second week of negotiations intensifies.
“When you say fossil fuel lobbyists, we have to be very careful, because you have to see how they are in the room,” he said. “If they are on a badge that says ‘observer,’ they cannot contribute to the process at all. But if they are on party badges of countries that are fossil fuel-driven or fossil fuel-heavy, it’s a bit of a process, because then they can influence discussions in the room.”
Dr Michael emphasised the vital role of the media in amplifying the Pacific’s cause and holding stakeholders accountable.
“We really call on you to take the messaging through articles to the public,” he said. “It is important to note that all parties are struggling to ensure that they are reaching decisions, but the Pacific continues to push.”
