A feeling of failure swept like a wave over the Bella Center, where the Conference was held for two weeks. It started in the early hours of the morning when the first drafts of the ‘Copenhagen Accord’  began to circulate among journalists and participants.

In a day of cancelled press conferences and delayed sessions the general mood was of frustration and disappointment. Sentiments even expressed by some negotiators and heads of state to explain the final result that emerged.

The ‘Copenhagen Accord’ emerged as a political agreement built by Brazil, India, China, South Africa (the BASIC group) and the United States. The document however, failed to agree any global reduction target and is practically a revision of commitments already made by rich countries in previous months not to exceed 2 degrees centigrade in global temperature increase.

When it comes to money, the accord only creates a fast start fund of US$30 billion to help developing countries on climate change mitigation and adaptation between 2010-2012 and has a commitment between developed countries to mobilize jointly US$100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.

The last hours of Brazilian President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva in Copenhagen were spent in the closed meeting discussing this document, with heads of other BASIC countries joined later by the United States. After reaching a common position and thinking the work had been done at COP15, Lula left the meeting for Brazil, taking with him Minister Dilma Rousseff and chief negotiator, Luiz Figueiredo Machado.

A couple of hours later the face of President Barack Obama appeared on screens in the Bella Centre corridors saying there was finally a deal. “I believe that what we achieved here wasn’t the end, but the beginning of a new era of international cooperation,” he told a small group of American journalists in the only press conference he gave in Copenhagen.

“This deal is better than any deal. It’s a step forward, but, of course, below our ambition. I won’t hide my disappointment for it not being binding”, commented the European Union president, José Manuel Barroso. According to him, EU accepted it because it would not be good to interrupt the process.

But his thoughts were not shared by Sudanese nedotiator Lumumba Di-aping (also Chair of the G77 + China negotiating block), and other delegates from small island countries (AOSIS group) which said before the beginning of the final COP15 plenary that they could not accept the Accord.

Even with Obama practically saying that Conference had finished before he left it, the game actually had not finished yet.  The papers still needed approval by the plenary with unanimity from the 193 countries of the UN Climate Change Convention.

The plenary started at almost three on Saturday morning and the key point to be discussed was the Copenhagen Accord. It took just a few minutes for the first delegation to ask for the floor to start the revolt against this document.

“They offered us 30 pieces of silver for us to betray our people. Our future isn’t on sale. I regret to inform you, but Tuvalu can’t accept this deal”, said a delegate from Tuvalu as the plenary started showing the first sign of what would come over the following hours. In the end the Copenhagen Accord was simply ‘noted’  and failed to gain full consensus of the plenary.

 Hugo Chavez slammed US President Barak Obama in his speech to the climate summit before staging a walkout of countries in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA).

Venezuelan President Chavez said: “We are leaving we cannot wait any longer, together with the countries that we are representing, we are leaving knowing that it was not possible to have an agreement here.”

His ally Evo Morales, President of Bolivia said: “We would like to denounce the fact that there are groups of presidents working on the document – but not all.”

Chavez mocked Obama saying: “Obama came, spoke, and went out through that little door over there. That is the emperor who comes in the middle of the night and cooks up a document that we won’t accept and we will never accept.”

The two Presidents reflected widespread frustrations by delegates that a secret deal is being hatched between a limited group of leaders behind closed doors.

“We were not invited to participate – certainly not. We would like to state clearly all countries are equal. We don’t have first category people and second category people.” Chavez said.

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA) comprises: Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Cuba, Dominica, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda.

Seven individuals from Australia , France , Sweden and the US are hungry for climate justice, but have vowed  not to take a single bite until 18 December, when they hope a legally-binding climate resolution will be reached by negotiators at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen (known as COP-15).

Essentially, the strikers want to see a resolution that recognises the need to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations below 350 parts per million.

Five of the seven fasters actually began their strikes more than a month ago on 6 November, at the final UN climate talks before Copenhagen that took place in Barcelona. Two additional activists joined in later in November.

All are following in the footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and other notable political activists who went on hunger strikes to draw attention to their causes. But this uses tools they never had -  the internet, blogs, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and other media outlets.

These efforts are apparently working, as over 100 people from 14 countries have begun their own hunger strikes, ranging from one day to three weeks in length.

Ted Glick, a New Jersey policy director and Jen Rowe, a Vermont university student, began their fast across the street from the UN building in New York City, while Sandeep Srivastava is fasting with his organisation in Lucknow, India.

Oxford University graduate Dominic Rowland and project manager Howard Balmer are fasting in London ’s Parliament Square , while a Filipino International Youth Council Director, Esperenza Garcia, has embarked on a rolling fast.

The fasters’ website ClimateJusticeFast.com lists the rationale for the hunger strike as follows: “We are offering the strongest form of moral protest against climate inaction, and standing up for true climate justice. We call on both the global public and their political representatives to fulfil their moral responsibility to halt and reverse climate change, and to protect the world’s most vulnerable people and our children from its effects.”

Daniel Lau, a Hong Kong-born Australian studying in Denmark, began fasting on 13 November and plans not to eat until the end of COP-15. So far he has subsisted on water and salts for nearly a month. But even though he isn’t eating, he is still in high spirits, though admittedly delirious at times.

Nonetheless, he still cooks for others and tries to maintain his high spirits. On his blog, Lau wrote: “I am not an activist. So why am I on a hunger strike?”

He answered the question quite simply: “Building a climate movement is a complicated process. But finding an opportunity for individual action and acting on it was surprisingly straightforward.”

But other members of the group take a more aggressive approach. “This is a political cop-out”, 23-year-old Australian hunger-striker Anna Keenan said. “The nations negotiating within the UN framework have been delaying real action on climate change for the last 15 years.”

“Whether it’s engaging in civil disobedience, joining our hunger strike, or something as simple as calling your political representatives, or writing letters, we need people to get active”, said Keenan. “Every year of political delay brings scientific tipping points closer.”

Observers believe that even though the strikes may not have the desired effect on the actions of politicians and negotiators in Copenhagen , they may achieve the goal of drawing global media attention to the activists’ cause.

Kenyan Environment Minister, John Michuki, announced today that Kenya expects US$10 billion per year from rich countries to cope with the impacts of climate change. He made the announcement at the Copenhagen climate change summit flanked by Grace Akumu Executive Director of the African Climate Action Network.

It’s “an opportunity the world cannot afford to miss, “said Danish Prime Minister Lars Loekke Rasmussen. Most big world media make space for it with hourly updates. But a survey by this reporter of top Vietnamese online media yesterday showed not a single prominent headline about the climate talks. Why do most Vietnamese media and public tune out, when the country is one of the most vulnerable to climate change?

The UN climate talks, known as COP 15, run from Dec. 7 to 18. More than 15,000 people are expected to attend, including delegates from 192 countries and 100 world leaders. It is being called an historical summit, and the challenges the negotiators face to find a common agreement are said to be huge.

Negotiatiors in Copenhagen face each other over large gaps in agreement on almost every climate issue: pollution cuts by rich countries, money to help poor countries adapt to a changing climate, how to transfer clean technology, and how to protect forests as carbon sinks. In opening ceremonies yesterday, the leaders spoke about millions of people already being affected by climate change.

However, the awareness of media and the public in Vietnam about climate change and its relevance to human life seems tiny compared with the seriousness of the issue. Vietnam is one of only 11 countries recognized by the UN as particularly vulnerable to climate change. But many Vietnamese, even reporters, don’t care, and don’t understand about climate change and these historic talks to address it.

The full story in Vietnamese is below.

COP 15 – Vì sao mình hờ hững?

Phạm Hoa Lài

Các nhà quan sát gọi COP 15 là “hội nghị quan trọng nhất kể từ sau khi chiến tranh thế giới thứ hai kết thúc” bởi ý nghĩa của nó đối với tương lai của hành tinh. Còn Thủ tướng Đan Mạch Lars Loekke Rasmussen phát biểu: “Đây là cơ hội mà toàn thế giới không thể bỏ lỡ”. Các kênh truyền thông hàng đầu của nhiều quốc gia đều dành dung lượng đáng kể ngay trên trang đầu hoặc mở chuyên mục riêng để cập nhật tin tức hàng giờ về sự kiện này… Trong khi đó, đối với giới truyền thông nói riêng và dư luận tại Việt Nam nói chung, COP 15 vẫn chưa được thực sự quan tâm và chỉ được đề cập khá thưa thớt bên cạnh các cuộc thi hoa hậu lớn nhỏ vốn được nhiều kênh báo chí cập nhật từng ngày.

COP 15 là hội nghị về biến đổi khí hậu toàn cầu lần thứ 15, diễn ra từ 7 – 18/12/2009 tại Copenhagen (Đan Mạch). Hội nghị này mang tính lịch sử bởi sẽ quyết định nhiều vấn đề quan trọng liên quan đến chính sách và hành động chung của toàn thế giới trước vấn nạn biến đổi khí hậu và những hệ quả trực tiếp của nó đến nhân sinh. Trong đó, mong đợi lớn nhất là các bên sẽ đạt được một thỏa thuận chung về cắt giảm khí thải sau Nghị định thư Kyoto. Hiện cục diện đang rất phức tạp và giằng co giữa nhiều bên, nhiều quan điểm và yêu cầu khác nhau. Tiêu biểu là cuộc đối đầu giữa 193 quốc gia đã tham gia Nghị định thư Kyoto và Mỹ – nước muốn xác lập một “luật chơi” khác.

Cuộc đối đầu tiêu biểu nữa diễn ra giữa nhóm G77/Trung Quốc (gồm 130 quốc gia đang phát triển) và Liên minh châu Âu – EU (gồm 27 quốc gia phát triển của châu lục này). G77/Trung Quốc cho rằng các nước phát triển là tác nhân chính của vấn đề khí thải và phải chịu trách nhiệm chủ yếu trong việc cắt giảm cũng như khắc phục những hệ quả của biến đổi khí hậu toàn cầu. Ngược lại, EU cũng yêu cầu các nước đang phát triển như Trung Quốc, Ấn Độ phải cam kết mức cắt giảm khí thải và chịu trách nhiệm thỏa đáng khi lượng khí thải từ các nước này ngày càng lớn và tăng lên nhanh chóng theo tốc độ phát triển kinh tế… Bản thân nội bộ các nhóm cũng tiếp tục phân thành nhiều nhóm nhỏ khác. Ngoài ra, còn có nhóm các quốc gia xuất khẩu dầu mỏ (OPEC), Liên minh các đảo quốc nhỏ (AOSIS), nhóm các quốc gia kém phát triển nhất (LDC)… Một thỏa thuận chung để dung hòa quyền lợi và trách nhiệm giữa các bên thực sự là mục tiêu rất khó khăn.

Trong lúc các cuộc đàm phán còn chưa ngã ngũ thì hệ quả của biến đổi khí hậu đã tác động nghiêm trọng và cụ thể đến đời sống, ngay cả ở các nước giàu, với ước tính hằng năm có khoảng 300.000 người thiệt mạng, 130 tỷ USD bị tổn thất và khoảng 1/10 dân số thế giới bị ảnh hưởng trực tiếp. Diễn biến và hệ quả của vấn nạn này đang tăng nhanh chóng và ngày càng phức tạp. Theo một tính toán của Liên Hiệp quốc, từ nay tới năm 2020, chi phí khắc phục hậu quả của biến đổi khí hậu sẽ lên tới 200 tỷ USD/năm. Ngoài ra, thế giới sẽ phải chịu khoản chi phí khoảng 100 tỷ USD/năm để thích nghi với hiệu ứng nhà kính.

Riêng Việt Nam, được xếp vào nhóm 10 quốc gia dễ bị tổn thương nhất bởi biến đổi khí hậu, đã không còn ngạc nhiên trước sự bất thường của thiên nhiên những năm gần đây. Một viễn cảnh điển hình khác: Nếu nhiệt độ trái đất tăng lên 2^oC, 45% diện tích của đồng bằng sông Cửu Long sẽ chìm trong mực nước biển dâng cao. Điều này không chỉ ảnh hưởng đến an ninh lương thực của quốc gia, mà còn của cả khu vực và thế giới khi nguồn cung cấp lương thực bị biến mất. Đây không còn là cảnh báo xa xôi, mà là diễn biến thực tế tác động cụ thể đến đời sống hằng ngày.

Thế nhưng, như thực tế đang có, nhận thức và hành động của cộng đồng về biến đổi khí hậu còn ở mức rất thấp. Điều đó có nghĩa rằng chúng ta đang sống trong nguy cơ nhưng lại tự tách mình ra khỏi bối cảnh thực tế, dòng chảy thông tin, cảnh báo, tiên liệu, tất yếu sẽ không đủ kiến thức, kỹ năng và thái độ để đối phó, thích nghi và góp phần khắc phục vấn nạn chung này. Hơn nữa, phát triển kinh tế sẽ gắn chặt với các vấn đề môi trường. Nhận thức, nắm bắt về vấn đề này cũng chính là cách nắm bắt các xu hướng phát triển của kinh tế – xã hội để xác định đường đi của mình trong dòng chảy ấy.

Do vậy, “hờ hững” với COP 15 không chỉ là chuyện bỏ lỡ một sự kiện quan trọng, mà còn phản ánh nhận thức xã hội đối với những vấn đề mang tính nhân sinh. Nghĩa là, chúng ta đang hờ hững với những vấn đề liên quan trực tiếp đến tương lai của chính mình.

Box 1:

Copenhagen “nóng” giữa mùa đông

Những ngày này, dưới thời tiết khoảng 4^oC, thủ đô Copenhagen vốn yên tĩnh của Đan Mạch gần như “sôi” lên bởi sự đổ về cùng lúc của hơn 15.000 người từ khắp thế giới cho COP 15. Trong đó, có 5.000 nhà báo, còn lại là đại biểu của 193 quốc gia, đại diện của các tổ chức phi chính phủ về môi trường và giới nghiên cứu, quan sát. Đặc biệt, COP 15 có sự hiện diện của khoảng 100 lãnh đạo cấp cao của các quốc gia. Hầu như khắp Copenhagen, biểu ngữ, tờ rơi, hoạt động tuyên truyền của các tổ chức xã hội tranh thủ thu hút sự chú ý của từng người qua đường. Cảnh sát Copenhagen thiết lập đường dây nóng riêng cho các vấn đề an ninh liên quan đến COP 15. “Climate Change” (biến đổi khí hậu) và “COP 15″ là những cụm từ có mật độ được đề cập nhiều nhất trong giao tiếp bằng mọi phương tiện.

Box 2:

Chính phủ Việt Nam tăng tiếng nói tại COP 15

Theo thông tin từ Bộ Ngoại giao, Thủ tướng Nguyễn Tấn Dũng sẽ dẫn đầu đoàn Việt Nam tham dự COP15 từ 16-18/12/2009. Các ban ngành có liên quan được ghi nhận có sự chuẩn bị khá kỹ trước khi lên đường tham dự hội nghị này. Dự kiến, đoàn Việt Nam sẽ có buổi chia sẻ tại COP 15 về kinh nghiệm từ chương trình Mục tiêu quốc gia về Ứng phó với biến đổi khí hậu.

Field trips play a vital role in any environmental journalism training session. It takes the reporters away from the talks in the classroom and let’s them practice their craft on the ground. It gives them material for actual stories that will be published or broadcast directly from the workshop (and on the workshop’s topics). It gives them experience in interviewing a variety of sources: from villagers to scientists to government officials. Once in the field, journalists find they are taken in many different and unexpected directions – as is often the case when reporting on their own — which generates many lessons that might not otherwise have been learned.

And let’s face it: field trips are just more fun than staying in the classroom. But they’re not junkets. In fact, they can be rough going, even in an idyllic place such as Bali.

During our field trip last Thursday, for instance, it was blazing hot, and the island we went to – Serengan — is hardly a Garden of Eden. In fact, it’s not even an island any more. Land reclamation has created a land bridge to Bali itself, and enlarged the size of the Serengan four times over, according to Wayan Patut, a community activist who has long fought against the project.

The reason for all the opposition is that the reclamation has destroyed much of the coastal habitat, and thus the livelihoods of many local people. Also, 24 families lost their homes. So why was it carried out in the first place? A company affiliated with the local military and the sons of former President Suharto had the necessary connections, and the necessary might. They wanted to turn the area into a resort. But the project was suspended in 1997 and has instead become something of a wasteland.

During the trip, we also learned about a fascinating new industry: coral harvesting (as opposed to coral mining). We visited a factory that is exporting ornamental coral to foreign aquarium shops, and with the help of Telepak, an Indonesian NGO, are trying to make it sustainable by also planting coral. This is a process Wayan helped to establish, and he has the local community helping with the planting – in some cases, kids now plant coral where their parents harvest(ed) them.

According to Ketut Sudiarta, an academic from Warmadewa University, the planting process works pretty well. Coral “seedlings” are grown in nurseries. After being planted in reefs, they reportedly mature quickly and can be harvested after one or two years. The coral can then be exported with a CITES letter and a forestry permit, but there is as yet no certification process to ensure the system is sustainable, as there is for aquarium fish.

One problem, Ketut says, comes in finding parent coral to serve as donors for seedlings. Theoretically, there is a plan to set aside 40% of reefs for natural coral, 30% for parent coral, and 30% for plantations, but there is still plenty of illicit mining. Surprisingly, coral plantations sound more diverse than those in forestry, as according to Ketut, there can be as many as 30 species planted, rather than the monocultures usually found in tree plantations.

All very interesting, but what does it what have to do with climate change? Well, Ketut claimed coral is a powerful carbon sink. Other sources describe it as a modest one, but important nonetheless. After the success communities have seen with their re-planting, however, Ketut says “they are facing defeat by global warming”, which could affect coral by changing sea temperatures (coral bleaching occurs when the water gets too warm), currents, winds and precipitation patterns.

Reclamation, meanwhile, could be an adaptation strategy adopted by coastal cities eager to stem off the effects of rising sea levels. But Wayan says Serengan’s experience shows it is not an advisable one.

To be honest, such links to climate change are real, but are also probably secondary. The issues we explored on our field trip are more local and global, and that is a problem we as journalists face all the time. Most people are primarily interested in local news and want clear explanations of cause and effect. Reporters focusing on climate change find it hard to satisfy them while also remaining true to science. It’s a major dilemma, and something we at the Earth Journalism Network have to work on.

The challenge was underlined by the final stop of our field trip, at a fishing port in Jimbaran. The fishermen said they noticed changes in the weather in recent years, and that they found themselves going farther and farther to catch fish. But they didn’t know why, and of course neither do we. It’s possible climate change is affecting fish yields and migration patterns. It’s also possible (likely, even) that there is a lot of overfishing going on. Unless we have access to an in-depth study, how do we differentiate the impacts of these dynamics?

We need to think globally, and report locally. But it’s not going to be easy.

Government officials pass on their analysis to their superiors. Scientists send their research findings to academic publications, or in some cases to international agencies like the IPCC. When there is the occasional press conference, or even a information campaign, these experts are often woeful at communicating complex ideas to journalists, who in turn often fail to understand the technical complexities.

So the information goes up to people who already understand the implications. If it comes back down to the public, it’s usually in the form of local media carrying the reports of wire agencies or international broadcasters reporting on, say, the latest IPCC report. Local journalists covering the environment often lack the training or the time to do a proper job of it, since they’re often asked to produce lots of stories on topics ranging from science to agriculture to health.

And yet, these local journalists are ideally placed to pass on climate information and analysis to the public, to translate the technical jargon into terms their audience can understand – if only they could gain the necessary experience, training and resources. That’s where Internews and EJN comes in.

The Earth Journalism Network held a meeting on Wednesday with about 30 of our country partners and other fellows to discuss what we could do to improve climate change coverage in our home countries after Bali.

Current EJN partners Harry Surjadi (Indonesia), Tran Thi Thuy Binh (Vietnam), Miguel Angel de Alba (Mexico), Myint Zaw (Myanmar), Kamol Sukin (Thailand) and our 5 fellows from China all presented on their current efforts. There was general agreement about what a struggle it is to get editors to accept climate change stories see Li Hujun’s blog and to produce stories that are both scientifically accurate and easy to understand. Translating such a global story into a local one is extremely challenging.

In addition to the research by Internews on climate change coverage in Vietnam and by Panos in South Africa and the Caribbean, it was also revealed that the British Council had some research results on media coverage in the Chinese press from 2005. The sampling was pretty small, but it certainly seems as if climate change gets more coverage in China than Vietnam, even though Vietnam is probably more vulnerable to devastating impacts.

So what can be done? The group brainstormed up a bunch of ideas. Some, like training or developing a handbook translated into different languages, weren’t new, but were emphasized as crucial. These and other recommendations – such as a training of trainers course and journalism exchanges between countries— echoed those made last August at the EJN Regional Conference in Chiang Mai, where the idea to make the handbook an online, open source document was put forth.

In Bali, Aman Sethi from India has also suggested something I’ve long wanted to do: training in computer-assisted reporting. There’s just so much environmental and financial data online now that can be mined to dig up with great stories. Other ideas from the convening included an E-newsroom for mentoring and support, mapping out problems and success stories online, partnerships with major global media networks, fellowships to produce specific stories, and establishing dialogues not just with scientists and experts (long discussed) but with green entrepreneurs, as well.

Overcoming antiquated editors may be the biggest challenge. There was widespread interest in another idea that arose in Chiang Mai: prizes for editors, or rather for newsgroups (as opposed to individual journalists) with the best environmental coverage. Harry also suggested inviting editors to an “Advanced” briefing (even though many editors aren’t) that will let them “Meet The Experts”.

Perhaps the most intriguing idea came from Eneya Maseko of the Panos Institute in South Africa: create an Editor’s Network just as we have Environmental Journalist networks. What might this entail? How about identifying the most progressive editors in a region (or a country), gatekeepers who have demonstrated their commitment to environmental coverage, and bringing them together to identify the obstacles they face and ways to overcome them. With the right push, they could even become advocates amongst their peers. I think it’s worth a try…

Logistically, things have gone remarkably smoothly. All our fellows and support staff have arrived in one piece, and we are nicely set up at a hotel about half an hour from the Convention Center. In the morning, we shuttled back and forth to the Bali International Convention Center (BICC) to get accredited and check out the media facilities.

In the afternoon, we had an Orientation for our own Climate Change Media Partnership. All the fellows introduced themselves and commented briefly on how climate change is covered in their own countries. We went over the logistics and the agenda, which is chock full of activities – including panel discussions, a field trip, a media clinic, a radio pool, online reports, an MTV report and a virtual press conference on Second Life.

In the evening, we all traipsed back to the BICC for the first press briefing by UNFCCC chief Yvo de Boer, who outlined his expectations for the summit: launch negotiations on a post-2012 climate deal; define an agenda for these negotiations that will likely include discussions on mitigation, adaptation, technology and financing; and set a deadline for the conclusion of a deal – most likely 2009 at the COP15 in Copenhagen.

When it came to ask questions, the UN spokesman John Hay first pointed to the usual suspects, correspondents from the wire agencies whom he knew on a first-name basis. They asked questions on issues such as the “toolkits” – the mechanisms, such as trading and sequestration, that will be negotiated to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – and how they will be financed. But then our fellows started raising their hands, and their questions were quite different.

Tran Thi Thuy Binh asked how a country like Vietnam would benefit from hosting Clean Development Projects (de Boer answered that it would receive technology transfer and valuable financing and expertise in building a sustainable economy). Binh is working on a story as to why Vietnam has allegedly proposed 30 CDM projects, but only one has been accepted.

Sun Yu from China asked how the Annex 1 parties have performed in meeting the emission reduction targets (de Boer’s answer: “mixed”)

Anup Khastagir from Bangladesh asked what the role of the USA will be in the current negotiations (answer: “vital”).

Aijun Hou from China queried about the status of implementation with the Kyoto Protocol, and Salome Alweny from Uganda wondered why CDM projects are so inequitably distributed (they’re part of a commercial process, remarked de Boer, and so their distribution tends to follow the market).

I spoke to John Hay afterward, and he was pleased to have the questions from a more diverse array of journalists, although he also noted that many of the questions were “more entry-level” than those from the wire agency reporters, who have been attending summits for years. This is perhaps to be expected, given that many (not all) developing country journalists – not to mention their audiences – are newly engaged in the issue. It points out how essential it is to do more training on climate change for the media in the Global South.

It also revealed the different priorities that journalists from the North and South have. While the wire agency reporters were asking about toolkits and financing, the fellows were inquiring about the potential weaknesses of the Clean Development Mechanism and how well developed countries have done in meeting their commitments.

Mostly, however, for those of us who have been working to set up the Climate Change Media Partnership, it was extremely gratifying to see that the fellows we’ve worked so hard to bring to Bali were not afraid to ask the questions that mattered to them despite the imposing atmosphere. It seemed to confirm our initial impressions that we’ve selected the right journalists to be here.