Two Summits – two dynamics – social development and climate justice

The city of Doha, its glass skyscrapers rising overwhelmingly, and menacingly, from desert lands, hosted the 2^nd World Summit for Social Development (3 to 6 November). Belém, at the mouth of the lush green Amazon river, was the site for the 30^th Climate COP (10 to 22/23 November). The venues of the two Summits obviously differ in terms of their geography. More crucially, however, the Summits differed fundamentally in their very divergent politics.

In terms of numbers, in Doha, circa 40 heads of state and government, 200 ministers and officials, and approximately 8,000 representatives from civil society and the business world came together. The Belém event was considerably  larger –  which perhaps explains its much higher visibility in general and social media-  with an estimated 60 heads of state, 12,000 delegates, and 12,000 observers, comprising progressive civil society – but also 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists. The US federal government remained absent from both Summits, but state-level representatives re-confirmed their climate justice partnerships at Belém.

In terms of the political environment, in Doha, civil society was muzzled, given the authoritarian nature of the Qatar government, to which the UN had acquiesced in the host country agreement. No demonstrations of any sort were allowed – and even passive markers of protest such as political buttons or T-shirts, or coloured shawls, were nowhere to be seen. The most subversive object was Louise Bourgeois’ gigantic bronze spider at the crossroads of all the assembly halls in the convention centre. This sculpture symbolises feminist agency.

Conversely, in Belém, in recently re-democratised Brazil, civil society was able to play a key role – with actions and demonstrations inside the conference venues, as well as massive marches in the streets of the city. Indigenous peoples and gender justice activists united to present their grievances and political demands, visibly, vocally, firmly, for instance in the Great Peoples’ March. The UN Secretary-General’s closing remarks  conveys this dynamism.

In terms of conference dynamics, too, the differences were huge. For the World Summit for Social Development, the anodyne political declaration had been pre-negotiated and was adopted unemotionally in the first few opening minutes of the summit. Thus, over the Summit’s days, governments did not wrestle with each other and with civil society over positions: the text was already set.

At the climate COP, there were many tracks, from tackling the climate catastrophes to financing mitigation and adaptation, to debating a just transition away from fossil fuels, to issues of gender justice. The negotiations, bargaining and contestation exposed political divides, the post-colonial posturing, the domineering might of petro-states. On the other hand, progressive governments or (dissenting) ministries and civil society used the climate COP proactively  to find and deepen old and new alliances. One shining example is the Alliance of Small Island States, another is the initiative of Colombia and the Netherlands  to convene, in Colombia in 2026, the first international conference on transitioning away from fossil fuels – which could bring conceptual and political steps forward on just transition. 

Some thoughts on the urgency to interconnect the social development and climate agenda will follow soon. But, in a first take: we ought to have had one  single truly dynamic eco-social summit.