Social PreCOP: But, first, process

The Social PreCOP began this morning here on Isla Margarita in Venezuela. In true Caribbean style, the opening plenary kicked off about an hour late. And, in true UNFCCC style, it kicked off with a detailed procedural debate (and, in true YOUNGO style, they just gave us all free t-shirts). Plenary just resumed, and the process is still up in the air.

Here’s the thing though: I’m impressed by this debate. While I’ve heard a few people here getting frustrated and calling it a waste of time, it proves a genuine commitment to engaging civil society on our terms. That matters.

It’s been an interesting ride getting here. I’m here leading a three-person team from P3 Foundation, New Zealand’s youth movement against extreme poverty in Asia and the Pacific. We were excited to be invited - especially because we appear to be one of the only (if not the only one) civil society organisations here from Asia or the Pacific. Our last team member arrived this morning, after negotiations started - and the conference organisations only booked our flights 36 hours before we left!

But this week’s Social PreCOP is unique. It is the first global public consultation or dialogue between the world’s social movements and government ministers and climate negotiators. Today and tomorrow, civil society organisations are discussing what we want to pitch to the government ministers and negotiators present on Thursday. Then, on Friday, there’s the Ministerial session itself.

Discussions planning the Social PreCOP have been going on since the June 2013 Bonn intersessional. Poland’s decision to host business and industry PreCOPs in 2013 added impetus to the idea. Leading up to a new deal in Paris in 2015: 2013 was the year for business consultation and 2014 the year for civil society consultation.

Venezuela held a preparatory meeting in July. That’s where things got rocky. While most accounts from those on the ground were generally positive, a lot of the coverage published by those outside the PreCOP was sceptical. Some was very critical indeed. The Margarita Declaration, drafted in July, represented radical civil society - but not all civil society organisations. I know my fellow trustees in P3 Foundation would be pretty hesitant about us signing onto a Declaration demanding the end of capitalism.

The radicalism and anti-capitalism of the Declaration prompted finger-pointing from the Global North towards Venezuela. I’ll be honest - even I wondered what political machinations undermined the Declaration’s drafting. Was the Margarita Declaration the view of the 130 social movements in the room, or of the government chairing the discussion?

This morning’s procedural debate has shown me that it’s the social movements here driving the PreCOP’s radicalism.

In October, Venezuela called for submissions on the revision of the Margarita Declaration. The Venezuelan government then worked with a small drafting committee to compile a new zero draft, released this afternoon.

To a critic, this might confirm the narrative that Venezuela is hijacking the PreCOP to advance its own political goals.

But I don’t agree. What I’ve seen this morning is a very robust, open debate about how to run the PreCOP process. It’s easy to call that a waste of time, and it did cut our redrafting time by one quarter. But it showed civil society’s active role in the process not just the content. A government hijacking a civil society process probably wouldn’t let civil society debate and determine points of process.

Don’t get me wrong - I still have a lot of questions on the process, but this first morning has convinced me that it’s the social movements in the room driving things down the radical track.