 Welcome everybody who joined us today, good morning, good afternoon, good evening wherever you are in the world, and welcome to this event that's hosted by the Stockholm Environment Institute on the launch of a new report on building climate diplomacy back better. My name is Clarey Farrand, I'm a senior reporter at the news website climate home news and I will be moderating today's discussion. The report looks at whether online technologies can help increase the effectiveness, inclusiveness and transparency of the event process and was commissioned by Sweden's Environment Ministry. Before we delve into this really fascinating topic, just a little bit of housekeeping. We have a fantastic lineup of speakers and I would like to welcome Sweden's State Secretary for Environment and Climate, Annika Jacobsen, as well as our panellists that will be introducing a little bit later. Annika will deliver some introductory remarks and then we will have a bit of a discussion about the report and finally some conclusions and closing remarks. We have only an hour and a lot of interesting speakers to hear from, so we won't have much time for questions, please write them in the chat. We will try and raise some of the issues being raised, otherwise we, SCI will try and address some of those questions following the event. The event is being recorded and you will receive a link to the recording via email once it is made available after the event. So with no further due, I'm delighted to welcome Sweden's State Secretary for Environment and Climate, Annika Jacobsen, Annika, the floor is yours. Thank you and I would like to start by thanking Stockholm Environment Institute for undertaking this project and for producing this thought-provoking and very timely report. Thank you and also I would like to extend my sincere appreciations to everyone who has taken part in this project by responding to surveys or taking part in interviews, advisory board or roundtables. Thank you very much for dedicating some of your time to this project. Science is clear and the reality is even clearer. The impact of climate change and the nature crisis is here and now and it's now affecting all regions and we need to reduce our emissions drastically and rapidly in order to keep the 1.5 degree goal alive. However, I think this stands in stark difference to the pace of the given climate negotiations and the ambition and vision level that we have seen in countries national determined contributions to the Paris Agreement. And this was the case before COVID-19 and even more so now when meetings have been postponed and decisions absent. And it was against this background that we last year asked Stockholm Environment Institute to explore the feasibility of conducting a new climate negotiations align to enable progress despite the challenges in person meetings posed by COVID-19. However, I very much appreciate that the project and the report has taken this one step further and instead asked the question how we can build back climate negotiations better. How could an online process help us create a process that is more fit for purpose and able to deliver results and ambition that we need to combat global warming? A crucial element highlighted in the report and clear to everyone who has attended a UN climate negotiation is that factors such as power dynamics and trust and differing approaches do not always contribute to progress in the basic negotiations. And I'm glad that the report concludes that there is a possibility to transform the UN climate process to become more effective, more inclusive, more transparent. And this will obviously also require strong leadership from the UN system, from countries, from observers. We have the Paris Agreement and after COP26 we hopefully will be have finalizing also the fixed rule book. And as we move from a negotiation phase to an implementation phase, we have an opportunity to rethink how we want the climate process to look like. And I appreciate that the report delivers concrete recommendations on steps that can be taken to explore this further. Within the negotiations we then access part of the EU and thus we will discuss how we can take these ideas forward with our EU colleagues. And I hope that all parties to the Paris Agreement will be the same. As highlighted in the report there is a window of opportunity right now and I think we should take that opportunity to make sure that the UN climate process is tailored to deliver the ambition and the action that we need to accelerate implementation of the Paris Agreement, to keep the 1.5 alive, to enhance climate adaptation and to scale up finance. So thank you. Thank you very much State Secretary for for those remarks and introduction to the report. I'd now like to pass it on to Richard Klein who is Senior Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute and the lead author of the report who is going to present the key findings. Richard over to you. Thanks very much Chloe and thanks very much Anika Jakobsson and Matias and Kaiser from the Ministry. It was a really exciting project so thanks for coming to us to ask us to undertake it. I'm going to present a few slides explaining first of all what we did but then focusing specifically on key messages and recommendations. And as the State Secretary said we started off looking at the question are online negotiations or an online UNFCC process is that even feasible in both technically and politically but we we we found out over time that that much more was already happening than we thought. So we we shifted that question to can the UNFCC process be moved online in ways that actually increase the effectiveness, inclusiveness and transparency. And of course the background here is that the UNFCC process, especially following the agreement in Paris has has progressed very slowly and there has been a lot of frustration about about that slow progress and much discussion already before the pandemic about it not being fit for purpose. So the the approach we took was very much stakeholder led. There was a very intensive stakeholder engagement earlier this year both through open surveys and interviews as well as several roundtables with experts in digital technology with media with civil society. We had lots of interviews also with people involved in the UNFCC process as negotiators. We also looked at what was said publicly in social media and in the press and and use that to develop an understanding of of the various issues that actually went beyond just a pandemic. So also supported by a literature review the analytical framework we developed that analyzed the various components of the process and also background report that was prepared by the International Institute for Sustainable Development looking at online experiences in 2020 in six multilateral processes. And there's a link there you can find the full report there as well as a background information and survey results. So as we were doing the project it became clear quite quickly that much more of the UNFCC process could actually be undertaken online than than was anticipated just 18 months ago at the start of the pandemic when the SB sessions were postponed when then COP26 was postponed and there were real questions about what was actually going to be possible. A lot of discussion about poor connectivity, about the changing dynamics but we saw in June at least that with the SB meetings that a lot can actually be done. And the results that I show here on this slide are actually from before the June meeting. So through the survey we asked if people could see parts of all of the UNFCC process go online before that actually happened in the SB and you could see already then that people felt quite confident that at least parts of the UNFCC process could be held online. It's a slight missing I'm afraid. Anyway, that's unfortunate. I think I have got the wrong presentation. This is really painful. Let me just double check if I can quickly get my other presentation on. I'm not quite sure how that happened. This is because of PowerPoint Live not doing what I think it should be doing. Apologies, this will take a few seconds. This is the one we should be using. I gave this presentation earlier to EU negotiators and that one focused later on much more on the EU recommendations. Can you see my slides now, Chloe? I'm afraid this is now not going live but not using the live PowerPoint. Is this visible for everyone? Yeah, OK, great. So apologies for that. In more detail we asked what types of activities could be held online in the future and you could see that split up the various activities. Certainly workshops, expert meetings, informal consultations, meetings of constituted bodies, activities under the American partnership for global action. All of that could be seen as taking place online but there were also activities like negotiations itself and decision making, the lobbying and advocating that groups were involved with that would be seen as much more difficult to take place online. So if we go quickly to the key messages, as the State Secretary already said there is a window of opportunity to transform the UNFCC process now. Why is that? It's not just because of the pandemic but it's also because, first of all, the frustration about slow progress after Paris is building up. There is pressure on the UNFCC process to reduce its carbon footprints and of course also internet technology is spreading throughout the world including in some of the least developed countries that were able to participate in the June sessions. So the window of opportunity to transform the UNFCC process goes beyond the digital transition to make it more effective, including and transparent. But at the same time we found there is no clear champion for that transition. There is nobody standing up and take the lead and say this is what we should be doing and how we should be doing it. At the same time the window is closing because some are arguing that we should all go back to in-person talks completely and forever. What we found and very much informed by the stakeholder engagement is that the greatest hurdle to overcome is a pervasive lack of trust among parties, some argue irrespective of the format online or in-person or hybrid. There is no chance that the UNFCC process could actually make progress unless that pervasive lack of trust is being addressed. And there are also concerns that structural inequities, the power dimension that the State Secretary mentioned could be reinforced by going online. So there is a need for this visionary leadership with the imagination to design a process that works. And this is clearly not a process that is or an issue that is limited to the UNFCCC itself. And that's also why we argue that UN-wide ordination and guidance and leadership from the Secretary General Katera's himself are crucial. And looking also at what lessons are learned in other processes. And that within the UNFCC, the special role for the presidency, bureau and secretariat to advance this agenda is also recognized. Then when it comes to actually designing and managing a process, it is very important not to be looking at replicating what is already out there. Because as many people told us, it would create the same kind of issues in terms of trust and power and not lead to much more progress. This is a picture of the loss and damage huddle in Warsaw. And it also shows the kind of way in which agreement was reached before Paris at least. The idea is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. So there is a lot of pressure on reaching agreement at the very last minute in the middle of the night, often way beyond the deadline. And we heard from several people that there is a need to rethink these kind of practices because they are unfair, they are opaque, they are male dominated and fundamentally unjust. This is an illustration of what we may not want to replicate online. There are trade-offs involved in going online, especially if we want that to be effective. An online meeting could be effective when there is a full agenda but with limited participation or with broader participation with a narrower agenda or it could have a full agenda and broad participation but not be very effective. There is also extra effort needed to make sure that transparency and accountability, especially through media and civil society, are ensured. We spoke to civil society, they felt that there is concern that online process could be exploited to restrict access and reduce transparency and limit the activities that they feel are essential for them in terms of being a watchdog to the process. And finally, some recommendations. We suggest that this is a time to propose a task force under the agenda item arrangements for intergovernmental meetings of the subsidiary body for implementation. Clearly, such a proposal will need to be made by one or more parties but it would be an opportunity to start a conversation about the desired format of future UNFCCC sessions online or otherwise. It is important to make an active effort to better understand the long-standing grievances and concerns that we've heard, particularly from developing countries, about trust and about power imbalances, including those that stem from non-delivery on past commitments. This is an important issue to restore the trust that we've heard about. It will be important to continue to conduct analysis about particularly those concerns about the inadequacy of the UNFCCC process that we are seeing now in advancing ambitious climate action. And it will be important to strengthen coordination and there are opportunities to do that, as Egypt has shown by hosting the African hub during the SB sessions in June this year. We suggest that there should be a UN-wide effort, as I mentioned, to modernize multilateral diplomacy, whether UNFCCC take the lead on that or whether that should be left to other agencies or programmes is something to be considered. But I think the UNFCC secretary could certainly play an important role and help explore the technical procedural and other means to ensure that sessions are fit for purpose and cost efficient. And then finally, in order to ensure meaningful participation and meaningful interactions, space needs to be created among not just the party delegates, but also observers and media representatives. Online infrastructure will need to be strengthened and capacity will need to be built. So I'll close with a quote of one of our stakeholders. I think it was one of the members of advisory group who said that if Steve Jobs had designed what people wanted, he would have designed something very different from the iPhone. And for the UNFCCC, we need to design what people did not know they wanted. Now, I think that will leave some space for conversation and discussions with the panel and thanks very much, Chloe, over to you. Thank you very much, Richard, for this summary of the findings of the report. We'll now move on to the discussion section of today's event. We have three brilliant panellists with us today and about 35 minutes for conversation. So hopefully we can get through as many topics as possible within that time. I'm delighted to welcome Mathias Frumari, who heads Sweden's climate delegation to the UNFCCC and is an instigator of the report that's just been presented. We also have June Budrum, who's a former secretary of the governing bodies of the UNFCCC. She currently is with Irina and is a co-chair of the advisory group that supported SCI's study. And finally, we have Tasneem Eesop, who's the executive director of the Climate Action Network and will be able to talk on behalf and about concerns of civil society to move the process online. So thank you all for joining us today and I'm looking forward to this discussion with you. I'm sure we've got a lot to talk about. So let's try and keep the answers fairly concise so we can go through as many questions as possible and maybe you could also respond to each other's comments. It'd be great to kind of drive a bit of a discussion here. I think first off, I'll turn to you, Mathias. As Richard mentioned, so the report does show there is some strong consensus for moving parts of the process online, particularly preparatory and technical work. However, there is also this 24% of respondents that agree the negotiations could be held online in the future. A majority of respondents didn't see a possibility for political negotiations to happen online. As we enter this era of implementation of the Paris Agreement, do you agree that some parts of the process could be held online? And referring back to that picture that Richard just showed, do we still need these late nights, mouth and talks and huddles to advance the Paris agenda as we enter this implementation era? I think you're on mute, Mathias. Great. Is that better? Yeah, we can hear you. Great, great to be with you. Greetings from Stockholm. On your question, do I agree? Yes, definitely. I do believe that some parts of the UNFCC process can be conducted online. Just sort of a couple of takeaways from my perspective on the report itself. I think what Richard mentioned, the original outlook which was made to other processes is sort of one, a good basis for taking this discussion forward, that looking not only to the UNFCC itself, the wide stakeholder consultation process which has been made, ensuring that we get a lot of voices into this process, which also builds the legitimacy for the kind of conclusions which have been put forward. And I think also what Richard said that much more of the discussion can be moved online. Now, obviously, if we take those steps, we will need to discuss amongst each other what parts of the process could be taken online. And I would think that some very sort of crucial negotiation items would need to be kept in person, whereas you would have other parts of the agenda being for both SBs and COPs which probably could be conducted online and maybe sort of also throughout the year, not only at the actual COPs and SBs. And I think a key word here in the report is what Richard mentioned on leadership. And I think that it's leadership from all of us, us here in this group, from individual countries, from stakeholders within the UNFCC process, from the UNFCC Secretary of the South, and from the wide UN, sort of to create that momentum and building these opportunities and making best use of these opportunities in the one of the first two to take these steps. Thanks. Great. Just one quick follow-up question on that. I mean, you mentioned that, you know, so some maybe political negotiations would need to happen in person. What kind of negotiation are you thinking about when not thinking in the long term? So beyond, you know, the current finalizing of the Paris Agreement Rulebook but maybe thinking more about implementation, can you give us a few examples? Are you talking about finance? Are you talking about other reporting processes? What are the negotiations that would need to happen in person? Well, maybe not so much related to individual topics like transparency or finance within the negotiations but rather sort of specific moments within related to specific gender items. I mean, one item that springs to mind is the global stock take. At some point when we will come to an end of the global stock take, I would assume that parties would want to meet in person to sort of decide on how successful have we been and what are we going to do in the coming years. So, I mean, that would be, I would say, one item where it would be preferable to meet in person whereas probably parts of the process of the global stock take could be done virtually. So it wouldn't be specific items themselves but rather sort of what part of the process we would be in. Okay, interesting. Tasneem, I'll come to you. Civil society plays a critical role in accountability and as this role as Richard mentioned as a watchdog to the process. What do you make of the report? And maybe just responding to Matias' comments just now, do you agree that much of the process can be moved online? And what are your biggest concerns regarding trade-offs if that was to be the case? Thanks, Chloe, and thank you to the Swedish government and SEI for doing this research and coming out with this report. I think it's really a time-yous report and I'm hoping that it does in fact trigger the wider discussions around transformation of the global governance system to address the climate emergency, right? The point that was made by the State Secretary for Environment that we need something that is fit for purpose and we all obviously recognize that we're trying to address a climate emergency. And within that frame therefore, I would suggest that even considering the role of civil society or these major constituencies that we have as a recognized constituencies within this process should change. The idea that we only play a watchdog role, the idea that we use these opportunities to hold governments accountable, those are important parts of the role we play. But we also, these key constituencies, see ourselves as fundamentally important partners in addressing a climate emergency. So we also have solutions. We've presented many of these solutions over the years within the UNFCCC space. And so I'd like the frame of this conversation to understand that role that we play as observers. That's the first thing I would say. So I would, in Richard's recommendations, I see that civil society, we must create these spaces for civil, that's the business as usual approach. I would want to see an equal partnership as we do in dialogues on the just transition, for example, we are social partners. We should be equal partners at that table and because we're addressing implementation. Then of course, the issue of inclusivity, of transparency and accountability is important. One of the things that we have missing in the Paris Agreement is an enforcement mechanism. So the only enforcement mechanism really will have to come through the kind of moral pressure, if I can call it that, by through processes being inclusive, that means we are also at the table and transparent so that the wider public can also put pressure on those who are not implementing the Paris Agreement, for example, or fulfilling their commitments. And the final point that I want to make is, this presents, this window of opportunity presents a really exciting opportunity for us to reset global governance for a climate emergency, right? And so I wouldn't want to see this as purely the end result in the UNFCCC, but the entire, if I can call it that, value chain of the process. So what happens domestically, for example, how democratic are the processes at a domestic level in terms of NDCs and how they've drawn up, et cetera, the accountability at a domestic level and then how that then connects to the international UNFCCC process. If we have deep democratic processes across the value chain, I think that is going to go a long way to improve the effectiveness of the global governance system and go a long way in terms of this important reset that we need to do. And so I do think we need to look at this if we're designing this process that we want to transition, we have to look at what's possible in the short term, in the medium term and in the long term. Yeah, I think that's an important point. I mean, your point about being equal partners and changing the framework of engagement, that's a really interesting and important point you're making. I mean, can you give me, do you have examples or have you got ideas about how the digital transition could help observers going through observers to the process? Maybe there were fears that online, the online shift meant that observers became passive and lack to the meaningful engagement that maybe they could have in person. So if we, following your idea of completely transforming that framework, can you give me maybe a couple of examples of way in which organization, the organization of this new talks could take place? I mean, what do you imagine it to look like? Well, I think, you know, I'm hoping that we can get these recommendations through in time for the global stock take, for example. And Matthias has raised that. So in a global stock take, it would be really great if we had all the social, I'm calling them social partners, right? So you had all these constituency bodies, the parties, the technical experts, et cetera, around the table doing that work together, being able to look at what countries are doing in terms of their commitments, where the gaps are building an understanding maybe of the challenges and why countries have not been able to do X, Y, and Z in terms of their commitments, proposing solutions for that, or if they've just been belligerent and they're not fulfilling the commitments, hold their feet to the fire. But let us do this together. We cannot be reduced to a one-minute intervention in a preliminary session as observers. We, our rights-based organizations, we come with massive constituencies, most of whom are feeling the sharp edge of the impacts of climate change. And I think it's important for us to be recognized as that valuable partner and not just the little irritation that's invited to make a one-minute or shut out of negotiations. Well, I think that message has been made very strongly here. I'll move on to June and get your views on the report. What role, I mean, Richard was mentioning that there could be a role for UNFCCC to help make this digital transition happen, maybe to help reimagine the system. What role do you see UNFCCC could have in this process? And maybe your response to both Matthias and Tasnim as comments that the global stock take could be a critical moment for that digital transition to take place. Thank you, Chloe. And thank you to the organizers for having me. Let me also thank the members of our advisory group because I think our contribution to the report was quite timely because one of the things that I think we need to recollect here is the conditions in which this discourse started. Inclusiveness, transparency, these were always principles and tenets of not just the UNFCCC process but all intergovernmental processes. What happened though is that our climate process was calling for urgency of action and then everything came to a standstill. So for 18 months, the process wasn't moving. And so that was the conundrum and the backdrop by which this study was prepared. Now I would like to introduce a new word to our discussion and that is the need for agility because whatever kind of table negotiations take place in whether it's an in-person table or a virtual table, we have to take certain boxes. For example, several other international organizations had continued their work after four or five months of learning during the pandemic period where they introduced modified processes and procedures. Of course, these processes and procedures have to be agreed by the membership always but there was political will to make this adjustment. So first to move from an in-person to hybrid virtual there has to be the political will to move. And I agree that perhaps one shouldn't at this point be talking about which agenda item lends itself to that sort of movement but rather to leave the process to define this. Why I say that is because the climate process it is a complex process but at the same time it's one that delivers. For me, the magic of the moment when you start during a COP with diverse positions and then at the end of the COP whether the COP ends on Friday or a Saturday or a Sunday to get to one deliverable it requires that political will to do so. So I think that the secretariat because you did say what role can some players make I think that one of the things is to explore and Richard mentioned under an existing discussion theme called arrangements for intergovernmental meetings is to actually enumerate what opportunities exist based on the mandates that we have that the digital space could offer to enhance the consultative processes. And so I wouldn't want to venture which that could be but I think it requires the secretariat working with the bureau and the chairs of the bodies the various bodies to come up with that so that there's a complete understanding of what is the landscape we're talking about. The second point I'd like to that's agility. The second thing I think it's clarity and certainty the climate process wants clarity on how consensus building and decision-making procedures will function. Where are we starting on these processes and where we are going? What is our objective? What's our delivery and the modalities between the two? That requires a combination of things because the process as was mentioned there are political aspects, technical aspects organizational aspects, even organizational aspects sometimes become political operational aspects sometimes become political. Then you have issues of representation and now the issue of participation how many people are permitted in a particular environment as we have the pandemic. So these are just a few of the issues that need to be looked at as we modernize diplomacy. I think this term was also mentioned because part of that adjustment to the processes and procedures will include modernizing diplomacy whether it's through PR systems or coming up with a process where delegations can now be in hybrid form. You can expand the numbers of delegates. So these for me are some of the first thoughts I have with regard to making that shift to the virtual space work and modernizing the way the delegations work and making the process agile. And as was said by Tasmin under any circumstance whether we have a pandemic or another plan B. So this report I have to say for me is a very welcome thing because it makes a proposal on a business continuity model for the climate process, rethinking modalities and finding champions and leaders to make this happen and to socialize the process in that direction. I'll leave it there Chloe, thank you. Great, well thank you for those remarks June that's kind of an interesting starting point maybe for further questions to be asked down the line but I would like to come back to something that Matias has said that I think is an interesting debate and certainly among the climate journalist community has sparked some quite strong reactions is this idea that do we need the COP as a single moment in the year where there is global attention to climate policy? I think Matias you mentioned that maybe we could have a system whereby we have negotiations happening maybe online, maybe propostory work, technical work around the throughout the year. So what do you think about do we still need to have this big COP single moment where the world's media and headlines are focused on climate which allows maybe to explain a bit to the public as well what this process is about. What do you think about that? Was that back to me? Yeah, sorry it was back to you Matias, yes. Right, well obviously there is a balance of the structure because as you say just looking at the kind of headlines for getting our COP from the six it does generate momentum in itself and it does create sort of it focuses minds on what we need to achieve at COP from the six. So there is an element of value added to having sort of these kind of big events where political attention is focused to that particular point in time. On the other hand I think it's fair to say that there are elements in any climate any COP agenda and also for the SP's agenda where which could be sort of be part of a process which we sort of spread throughout the year. And I mean that's something which of course parties would have to agree on which parts could be taken throughout sort of a more annual process and which parts could be need to be part of that sort of the political moment as it were. But I'd also like to come back to one point which does need mentioned and that was the sort of the value chain approach. And I think that's fine. It's an appealing thought also in terms of work at the national level. And if you allow me just sort of to think outside my national box here and just sort of thinking out loud mean let's take the transparency framework. Imagine a situation where you would have all that data reported and being available and accessible online where then any part any actor parties, non-parties, civil society, business actors could go into that data and sort of look at so what does this come to report on? What are the challenges? What are the achievements? What can we learn from each other on the kind of data which has been reported and how do we support each other in sort of implementing, accelerating implementation based on the data which is available. Now that is something which I assume would be a process which could be open-ended throughout the year. And obviously you could sort of construct moments in time where you would maybe do deep dives in a specific region or specific topics. But it's not, I would imagine an issue which you would need to come to a particular COP meeting to discuss but rather have this as an open-ended source of sharing best practice and information and making that kind of data available. So I think that kind of working method could also be part of this whole debate on moving the UNESCO policy process online and not only looking solely at the negotiations themselves but also the kind of capacity of building and sharing on best practice which is normally part of COP as well. Tasneem, that's coming back to you on that. You might want to respond or add comments but also interested in that question about whether a single COP moment is important for you to galvanize attention on the climate issue and maybe whether this value chain approach could also help draw more attention to the national process of transmitting these global goals into domestic policies at a time when we are moving towards implementation. Yeah, no, look, I mean, as I said, we have to look at and I really support the idea that we have to be agile and part of the agility would be to look at what's possible now and just this report for France, the fact that in the now we have such unbelievable problems with trust, with power dynamics, with inequities. So moving to digital in the now is not going to be feasible. There might be elements like with the SB session but there were no outcomes in the out P sessions, right? It wasn't reflected as decision-making. So that again reflects the fact that parties are not comfortable that decisions can be made virtually at this point in time. So as you build up the system, I think we will be able to figure out what is possible online. If we do take a kind of holistic view of this and we see the Paris architecture build up the kind of national, the bottom up stuff, a lot of the attention will be at that level. Maybe over time, you might want to have a big moment of reconciliation and accountability every two years, not necessarily every year, but we do need these moments of galvanizing, of building momentum, of sharpening the focus. And so maybe over time, that can be less frequent than an annual COP, but we certainly will need to keep, as I say, the feet to the fire because we are dealing with an emergency. But I think that this whole opportunity to think far more creatively and out of the box is something that I'm getting excited about and I really sincerely hope that people are going to be willing to think out of existing frames for global governance, especially for climate. Yeah, thank you Tasneem. Coming back to June and maybe following up from some earlier comments, the agendas for the COPs right now are huge. I mean, there's so many issues, not only on the political level, but just in terms of the sheer amount of technical work of finalizing negotiations and so on. I mean, in this reformed format of climate discussions, do you think there could be a more streamlined approach to what the COPs or what those moments could look like? And is there a role for the UNFCCC to maybe think about what are the issues that really need to be in the agenda and maybe what are the issues that could be pushed back to some sort of year-round discussion, maybe things that there is no sort of immediacy in having to make a decision. What do you think about that? Should we be streamlining the agendas of these regular meetings in order for it to be really transformative going forward? Thank you, Claude. I think that the term streamlining the agendas is one that has pervaded the climate process since it started. It has always been in a process of trying to streamline agendas. And there are political aspects to streamlining, there are technical aspects, but the system, the process has evolved so that we now have an agreement that is a pledge and review system. So what needs to happen is already there in the Paris Agreement and in the other treaties. The how these things need to happen is what needs to be trashed out. And with regard to agenda streamlining, I think there are two aspects to this. How these connections on the issues, because on agenda at the end of the day are issues that need to be discussed. And there are opportunities for these issues that are linked to the science to be put together in their scientific context. Those that are methodological to be put there. And of course, there are political items which the process will have to decide how it would like to deal with it. But there is an opportunity to be able to cluster issues. At the same time, we shouldn't forget that the process has also come a long way. We now have the establishment of about 20 plus committees that deal with substantive issues. So the question is, do we want to keep issues on agendas that are discussed? Or do we want to delegate this? Delegate responsibilities and substantive issues of a technical nature to existing bodies that exist. That ultimately lies in the hands of the presidencies and the chairs and the bureau. And I would like to say the chairs of the negotiating groups. I see that they have a fundamental role to also play in this socialization process. So as Tasneem said, there has to be a fundamental shift in building up the system. And in building up the system, responsibilities must come and somebody mentioned accountability also. So that goes with streamlining the agendas, putting technical work where it needs to be. And the last point I'd like to make on streamlining is not just within the climate process. Going virtual opens up a huge new world for us to streamline the ecological landscape with the biodiversity discussions, with desertification, with other processes existing in the UN with the private sector, with various stakeholders. And that has to be given a lot of importance. So the streamlining, I think needs to be considered in the context of the work that the climate process does, but also that linkages to other processes because that's where the value added comes also. Thank you. Thank you. I'm not sure if you can still hear me. I think I have problems with my mic. Can you hear me? Okay, brilliant. Thank you very much for that, June. I'm just a little bit aware of time and we are sort of edging towards the end of our conversation. I mean, one short thing I would like to come back on, which is a bit more in the sort of nitty gritty of things, but there was one thing that really struck me in that report was the principle of maybe abandoning, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. And this kind of, how do we make decisions in this process going forward? And I'd be very interested in your reflections, all of you. Maybe Matthias or Tassanin, maybe Matthias, do you want to start us off? What do you think about that? Should we abandon that principle? Do we need to redesign how we make decisions within UNFCCC? Thanks, well, I'm not sure that we can, if it's feasible to take a decision to abandon such a principle because that would take a negotiation in itself, I assume. So, but definitely what the report points to is I think this possibility of looking at various types of agenda items. And I think, as someone said, sort of grouping them maybe in relation to what kind of outcomes they have. I mean, some agenda items would be maybe more focused on sort of capacity building and sharing best practice. I mean, that's not maybe for a decision to be taking sort of at the last minute in the last hours of the COP, whereas some other decisions would need to be seen as part of the package. So I think we'd need to find those specific agenda items where you could be working on a more sort of regular, maybe annual basis and others which we would need to come together on. And maybe in that, for those agenda items, that elements of sort of seeing the package would still be needed. Tasneem, what do you think about this? Everything is agreed, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Should we keep it? Should we get rid of it? Yeah, look, I must agree with Mateus now just to be pragmatic. I mean, this is actually an agenda item on the agenda of most cops. The finalization of some rule, I think. And I think Mexico keeps on putting it on the agenda. Look, I think at this point in time, getting into a big negotiation or a fight around this issue might not be helpful. And I do think if we, you know, we have to look at the spirit of what we're all trying to do in this UNFCCC. And the spirit, well, not necessarily as a spirit, but all our minds need to be focused on addressing an emergency, a global emergency. And so in that spirit, and if we had the systems that ensure transparency, that is inclusive in a way that I'm trying to present that is not just a party-driven process, but you have all of us at the table, I think that that spirit will be built up, actually. You know, people will feel less bold to try and block certain things. I mean, I can recall the time when we were pushing for, well, many parties also were pushing for the special report on 1.5, and it was blocked by one or two parties. That kind of practice will be done away with if we had the full weight of an inclusive democratic participatory process, right? All eyes are watching you. It's not going to happen in a dark corner somewhere that, you know, some big players will try and block important things, et cetera. So I think we should work on the spirit more than the letter of the law at this point in time. Hopefully over time, maybe we won't even need to have a voting system at all because we are all dedicated to sorting out the crisis. Well, thank you very much. And June, you might have some sort of very final words on how important is this legal process around the decision making? And again, like, are there any actionable measures, recommendations that you could see taking forward, for example, on this issue of decision-making online, you know, as we move on to this implementation area? Thank you. Thanks, Claire. I think that there are three issues that I think are critical as we move into, you call it an implementation phase. I call it a socialization phase. The climate change process has a culture onto itself. And therefore I do agree that this concept of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed is part of a principle. And therefore we have to distinguish between what are the principles of this process as part of its existing culture and what are the modalities that we would like to introduce as low-hanging fruits to start that movement into finding a new way of working. And we've got to get that right. If we don't get that right, then the whole system trembles. We have to show that it works and then move to a second phase and a third phase. And all these phases have to take into account some of the issues that Richard raised in his presentation, which was that the dichotomy of connectivity that we have between some countries and others. What does virtuality mean for everyone? And how to fix that? So in terms of decision-making, in moving towards the virtual platforms or digitalization of parts of the process, and I'm very careful when I say parts of the process because I am aware that there are some parts. I agree with Tasmeer that people want the big moment during a cup is to have that conversation with technology. So, and it's a reversible process. It's a process where we are thinking today with the technologies that exist, but we also have to involve the technologists there who can create a future for us, just like the iPhone analogy that was made. How can we do things for the future? We're just running it a bit at the time. But that, I think, is quite a good note on which to end this discussion section that we need to think, maybe beyond the technologies that are being used now and maybe there are ways to develop better platforms that fit for this specific purpose. So thank you very much to the three of you for this conversation. I know there was a lot more to ask in a little time, but I'm sure there will be more of this conversation going forward. To close this session today, I'm going to hand over to Cecilia Kinutian-Junger, who's the director of the Intergovernmental Support and Collective Progress at the UNFCCC, who is going to give us some reflections and take away some today's discussion. Cecilia, over to you. Thank you very much, Clore, and really exciting to be part of this and to just listen into very interesting perspectives that have been shared here. First, I'd like to thank the Stockholm Environment Institute and the Swedish government for offering this opportunity for us to engage with what will be the transformation of the future. And I think we cannot avoid, even as we speak, about the procedures and processes that govern intergovernmental processes now without thinking about the importance and the necessity that we are faced with embracing a digital option. I will use the word digital option as because as we discussed with our UK hosts and we talked virtual, they prefer the use of the word digital option and I will elaborate a little bit on what that means within the perspective of the conversation we are having now. So what opportunities do we have to embrace a digital option? And I think I'd just like to reflect a little bit on some of the panelists' views. Taslima said, we have a global emergency, we have to keep 1.5 degree alive and that's really what we need to do. And just like also to look at what was said that this is really a continuum. It's a value chain, it's not a one-time event. Going to COP26 and offering a digital option for COP26 is not an end in itself but I think a continuous process of engaging and finding a solution technologically and digitally that allows us to continue the conversation and to continue building platforms as well as positions around different aspects and issues is what would be most critical. I saw a comment by UNUS there saying that they made June experience around where the UNFCCC was quite successful and what happened? Why have we not continued with the same momentum as we move towards COP26? And I think for me, it's the whole issue and what I'm experiencing in my last one and a half months at the UNFCCC on this position is the importance of agility. Agility in the entire process but also identifying those parts of the process and particularly the political process that requires some level of agility for us to move much more quickly and engage. And I think for me the whole area of stakeholder engagement and how we broaden the space through embracing technology becomes fundamental. So first it's within intergovernmental processes but also within the way we enhance stakeholder engagement in that entire process. Leadership becomes crucial and this leadership is not just leadership in terms of technological innovation but leadership in terms of opening up that political space for negotiation but also for action. We are moving into a phase of implementation. I just recently came from being part of an implementer working in South Africa to now being part of the political process. And I must say the reason disconnect when it comes to what happens in the negotiating corridors and now we calling them the virtual corridors of negotiation to what really happens on the ground and for us to accelerate action then that connectivity must be made more visible. Of course the infrastructure needs to be robust. Participating even in a country level I had a lot of times to make space in my own office at the UN for many people to participate both non-state actors including state actors because the infrastructure they have on the ground is not robust to allow them to effectively participate. The internet connectivity whether it's Wi-Fi they're using perhaps there is a minute of delay. What does that mean when you are discussing a very important issue? There is a tendency that one could get impatient. You are disconnected for five minutes, et cetera. So again, the robustness of the infrastructure is important but as well as the capacity. I mean, there are many times you've seen people participate online and I was just reading this morning that neuroscience is teaching us that the importance of building trust goes also to do with the body language. Are you making connection? Are you speaking to the camera? Or are you speaking looking down, et cetera? And these are things and elements that needs to be brought as part and parcel of the entire package for ensuring a robust process. Secondly, how can we leverage from digital option for decision-making? And I think this is where the crux of the matter is. And June was mentioning this. Yes, we do have the governing bodies. We do have the subsidiary body chairs. We have an agenda-setting process and I'm starting to understand it as an insider now. How does this happen? How are agendas negotiated? How are agendas retained or carried forward? And I think it's a process that leads a better understanding once we start engaging on our virtual process. So it's procedural. I agree, June, very much, but it's also political. And there are aspects of organizational. Now, when we come to making decisions, if we put this in the agenda, it will be a political issue. And parties will say it's not about the technology, the technology can be the best. But if politically, that's not the aspired one and it goes on to the power relations, it goes on to the trust-building elements. And finally, because I'm aware of time, I'd like to spend a little bit of time, two minutes talking about enhanced stakeholder engagement. And I know Tasneem is very interested in this topic. I'll tell you today, we have over 16,000 registered for COP26. We had over 500 applications for new observers coming to us. This is the second time that we are seeing a peak in the number of observers that would like to be part and parcel of this process. And of course, the big question is, how do you enhance a participation of 3,000 observers into this kind of a process? And therefore the importance of how we can leverage from a digital option becomes very crucial. Can we be able to offer a two-way communication channel in order to enhance participation and collaboration? And I think those are the issues we are grappling with. At the moment, it is very clear that the UK host governments for COP26 has indicated for negotiations, this will have to be in-person, and therefore no negotiations would be undertaken through a virtual platform. But for the non-state actors, when it comes to the global action program and when it comes to the other side events, a two-way communication system and option will be offered. But I think for me at the end of the day, and I'd like to end with this, process, procedures, rules are made by us. They're made by human beings, they're made by governments, they're made by parties. I think there is an opportunity for us to rethink, remodernize how we are making these rules of procedures in order to enhance the very principles we talk about. It's about transparency. It's about inclusion and inclusiveness. It's about equity. But it's also about the way we conduct our power relations and more importantly, within the words of the sustainable development rules, we need to leave no one behind and we need to leave no issue behind. And that's the only way that collaboratively we can be able to embrace a digital option and reach a desired outcome. Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Cecilia, for the insightful closing comments. And thank you to all of you where we've gone five minutes over time. Apologies for my timekeeping, but there was so much to discuss and I'm sure there will be many more questions being raised on this issue. We haven't mentioned the carbon footprint radio view in the Czechoslovakia. We know there will be interesting conversations to be asked to freedom of the environment ministry. I'm sure that have the intent to take this report forward. So make sure you read it and please keep in the loop of this conversation. I'd like to thank you all of you for participating in this event. Many thanks to the State Secretary, all of our panelists and Cecilia for providing these closing remarks. Some just to remind you that this event was recorded. The recording will be made available as soon as possible and the link will be shared with all registered participants. You can follow SEI on social media at SDIclimate on Twitter and the website is SEI.org. As I say, it'll be interesting to see how this discussion is taken forward in the months and years ahead. And if you want to keep on top of all that's going on and I'm sure we'll be following this process closely, please do check out Climate Home News. We're at Climate Home News, we're Climate Home, sorry, on Twitter and climatehomenews.com online. My name is Chloe Farrand and it was a pleasure to have you today with us. Thank you so much for all of you for taking part.