Delayed plenary session (left), action taking place in an open location (right), all taking place in different parts of the Blue Zone
For those who do not know what “COP” is, it stands for “Conference of the Parties”, which probably does not ring a bell either. Terms used by the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) are full of jargon, contrary to what climate should be – accessible to everyone. This was evident at this year’s COP in Baku, Azerbaijan through the physically divided space within the COP venue.
While I cannot make an empirical comparison with the previous COPs as this was my first time participating as well as attempting to follow the news filtered out from all the discussions, COP29 was a highly regulated space.
The limited Bus and Metro stops available for COP attendees in Baku (Image source: COP29)
COP29 took place in the Baku Stadium, located on the outskirts of Baku. With rather inconvenient public transportation around the venue, attendees are instead guided to take the “Conference Shuttles”, powered by electricity. The shuttles take you “everywhere” you “need” to be from the city center, hotels, the airport, and the stadium – dedicated just for COP. However, due to the lack of bus routes, people often have to use the Bolt app to call a local taxi, with an option to use “COP29” coming with an inflated price tag. Apart from the limited time people had off on Sunday in between the two weeks the high-level negotiations took place, mobility was heavily constrained within these limits. The official transportation guide also provided information on the metro, but it was mostly locals flooding out of the station near a large supermarket while COP attendees including me were using the station as an underground path to cross the street in the non-pedestrian friendly part of the city.
“COP29” option on Bolt, supposedly matching drivers who can speak “English”
After the first few days at COP, a colleague made an analogy that attending COP in person is like watching a football match in a stadium – you get the hype but it’s easier to follow the highlights online. I began to resonate with this even more after recollecting my thoughts on the weekend. All the different events taking place in multiple layers are separated by the corridors and walls of the venue. From actions taking place on designated spots, and an IPCC session explaining how the mismatch in definition causes difficulty in measuring emissions, to high-level discussions lacking transparency all happen in the stadium simultaneously. Yet, it is difficult to find a dialogue going on between the three segments, physically divided in the actual space of COP29.
Floor plan (Image source: UNCTAD)
From an individual’s perspective, attending COP can be summarized as walking back and forth in an insulated space with no windows, full of CO2 and eating food where prices are equivalent to New York City levels. The space had a unique ambiance, where participants would anticipate the start of the day as they entered hearing the same theme music played at the entrance every day. After hours in the bubble, participants would eventually become fatigued from the lack of natural light and clean air. During my first week, my average step was 10,215, mostly from walking inside the stadium. Most of my activity was confined to the spaces inside the artificial venue, with access denied to some events that I previously thought I was able to access with my badge. I confronted a lot of uncertainties with official events being postponed and regulations that were not fully explained. While participants gathered from almost 200 countries, the regulated nature of the space allowed every unique person to act in unison, with friendly volunteers directing the flow of pedestrians in the congested corridors connecting different zones.
Number of steps per day from Nov 10 to 16, first week at COP29
COP has also raised some questions for me as a person who recently joined the Communications side of the climate sphere. During the first week, I attended three sessions on effective storytelling in different pavilions, including one prepared by our team at Solutions for Our Climate (SFOC). It seemed like communication is something undermined at COP, just speaking in terms of the number of events focusing solely on this topic. The three events had individuals share successful stories of delivering narratives on climate. However, if communications within COP are so fragmented and also segregated from the rest of the world, how much have we actually achieved in delivering key messages on climate discourse? One of the messages I picked up during these sessions is that we need to target the lay people – it is not only those interested in climate who can bring change.
“Don’t Gas Asia” action taking place on November 15th
It was “interesting” that they permitted actions, and some had quite a tradition in the COP scene. These “actions” are registered and approved formally by the UN, also contributing to the regulated atmosphere. Certain actions are not selected, and some are postponed for various logistical and often political reasons. The action guideline specifically mentions that activists should not shame a country, resulting in activists calling Japan the “Pikachu country” and South Korea the “BTS country”. Reporters on the ground are interested in these actions and media coverage is generally high, but how is this communicated among different stakeholders who need to care? The people in suits on the other side of the stadium, having discussions behind closed doors are barely aware of what is happening outside their invisible boundaries. Important agendas will only reach them after climbing up a ladder of hierarchies. It is not surprising that there have been voices criticizing the current state of COP.
There is no doubt that COP, especially COP29 which took place entirely indoors, is a gigantic bubble, or a small society. Although the venue was prepared just before COP, attendees grew accustomed to this artificial space in a very short period of time. As people spent the bulk of their time within the confines of the venue, this created a temporary culture specific to the space that would disappear after people leave. Moreover, the different types of badges (Party, Party Overflow, Observer, Press, etc.) people carry limit the areas where individuals can access. Activists gather in empty spaces in the corridors whereas media people spend most of their time at the “media centre”, observers walk around the pavilions demanding pins, and high-level people stroll across different meeting rooms booked in lieu of them. As such, badges act as a social status in COP. Though thousands of people invested in climate gather in a single space, participants are segregated based on their association, represented by badges. In a late-night conversation with another colleague, they spoke on the dangers of being only fixated on climate issues and indifferent about other social and political issues. It is indeed a dangerous trap, especially for those who are immersed in the artificial bubble of COP.
While COP has evolved into a giant “climate marketplace” over the years, it may have become an ecosystem where it is difficult to have constructive discussions. It is time where all stakeholders should be contemplating on how to improve getting across key messages and connecting different statuses to come to a more robust discussion on climate. On an individual level, it also took some time to get used to gathering information. Schedules for sessions hosted in the negotiation rooms, side and special event rooms were all available on a single page online. However, event schedules for pavilions in Area E were not as straightforward. Participants had to walk around, taking pictures and scanning QR codes for all the different pavilions. While some pavilions had the entire schedule posted online, some only revealed them at the pavilion space. Often, events were cancelled last-minute and people only found out after going to the venue. The sheer size of the event may not serve as an adequate excuse for the lack of transparency at COP; rather, it may be a sign that we need to work more on communications at all levels. The very nature of the fragmented landscape of COP29 may be reflective of the broader climate discourse.
On a more hopeful note, for Azerbaijan, a nation heavily invested in the oil and gas industry, but not as well-known to most of the world, hosting COP29 will be remembered as a positive experience with lasting implications. Most of the COP participants appreciated the local volunteers and their courteousness. Many young volunteers used their spare time to look around pavilions, attend events, and learn about climate issues. This may have become a turning point for those to take this as an opportunity to direct change in the future, which may not have happened if Azerbaijan did not host COP.