Volans Blog

In the two weeks since the launch of the Volans survey on ‘Social Entrepreneurship in a Downturn’, we had already received about 70 responses by year’s end, plus many notes of thanks from leading social entrepreneurs for this initiative - which they see as very timely. The survey is still ongoing - and social or environmental entrepreneurs not already contacted are invited to complete it by clicking here. The final report will be produced for the Skoll World Forum but we want to present here some of the initial findings.

The survey results indicate most of the social entrepreneurs have been affected by the economic downturn in some way or other, but only 10% of the respondents say that they have been severely affected. About 50% of the respondents thought that the downturn would last between 1.5 to 3 years and so the efforts towards gearing their organisations for the change have already been set in motion. Headline results will be released in early February, with the full results available in time for the Skoll World Forum in late March.

COP 14 was half-way on the timeline between COP 13 in Bali and COP 15 in Copenhagen. But has real progress been made? And are we on track to deliver a new treaty to take us into the post 2012 period?

Perhaps answering the key questions posed in my blog when I arrived in Poznan may give some clues.

Q1. How will the issues of respective and equitable obligations of developed and developing economies play out?

There was plenty of rhetoric in support of the Bali consensus on ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ (reflecting differences on development levels, historical responsibilities and current per capita emissions of various countries). But the polarisation continued and, if anything, hardened between the developed and the developing countries. The developed continue to focus on current and forecast emissions as the key to inclusion in mandated reductions while the developing economies demanded – even more vocally in Poznan - that cumulative historic emissions per capita should be the primary reference for determining ‘equitable’ outcomes. Brinkmanship rather than equity is likely to prevail in Copenhagen.

Q2. Will the issues of REDD (including avoided de-forestation and re-forestation in the post Kyoto treaty) show real advance or get bogged down in further complexity?

The simple answer is ‘bogged down’. There appeared to me to be a growing movement against ’privatisation (of forests) and dispossession (of indigenous peoples)’ as the Climate Justice Network describe REDD proposals. No substantive progress was made and it is hard to see how agreement can be reached by COP 15. Ominously, Yvo de Boer was introducing the notion, in the later days of COP 14, that Copenhagen will establish the overall agreement but that details would probably have to ‘fleshed out’ in 2010. REDD looks likely to be a key component without detailed agreement in 2009.

Q3. Will the polarised views on CCS (Carbon Capture & Storage) be reconciled?

Again, no serious progress was made. “If the Carbon Capture Storage and Nuclear technology transfer will be eligible (in CDM projects) is not clear. Will that change? If it will be allowed in full or allowed in part is hard to say at this point of time,” said de Boer. I think the most powerful players (countries and businesses) are committed to both CCS and nuclear playing a significant role in any post 2012 agreement, but there will be serious roadblocks along the way.

Q4. How will the US delegation behave – ‘lame ducks’ or ‘last chance saloon’?

To be fair to the US delegation, neither would be appropriate. The delegation’s declared brief was to keep all options open for the incoming administration. That could, of course, be read as blocking options which might in any way not serve America’s best interest. As far as I could tell, however, the US held a broadly neutral line; and, like the rest of the conference parties, suspended serious negotiation until Obama is in office. Furthermore, they did publicly commit to the broad goal of 50% emissions reductions by 2050. And some of the younger members of the delegation diplomatically expressed relief that a fundamental shift in the US position was imminent.

In the immediate aftermath of Poznan, it is generally felt that insufficient progress was made for the Copenhagen COP to deliver a robust, consensus-based and effective treaty: the serious negotiations will start on the inauguration of the new US presidency. COP 15 is, frankly, unlikely to provide the global commitments necessary to avoid dangerous climate change. The real action – and our only serious hope - is, therefore, likely to rest with the unilateral commitments being made by countries, cities, businesses and (yes!) individuals. But agreeing the frameworks, methodologies and rules for managing the critical components of mitigation and adaptation activities and investments is still absolutely vital. Even limited success and an imperfect treaty warrant every effort over the coming 12 months. Book your Copenhagen hotel now!

More Gore

Given this somewhat depressing assessment, I’d encourage any reader to watch the webcast of Al Gore on the final day of COP 14. Inspiring!

Nine social enterprises make it it to Fast Company’s Honor Roll of 2009 Social Enterprises of the the Year.  They are: Do Something; Mercy Corps; the Academy for Urban School Leadership; DataDyne; Civic Ventures, the Institute for OneWorld Health; the Acumen Fund; and Husk Power Systems.  Our congratulations to them all.  One of the highlights of my year was picking up the Social Capitalist 2009 Award for SustainAbility in January.

For some reason, I forgot to cover this session in my last blog. One of the webcasts from the High Level sessions was billed as an ‘informal roundtable’ of ministers. In fact, it was neither informal nor at a round table. Instead, the session was in the traditional format of serried rows of ministers and aides with set speeches which – as the COP President in the Chair kept reminding them - were not on brief.

The brief, however, was issued in advance and challenged the delegates to offer their views against the following questions (with about four minutes for each speaker!):

- How, as part of a balanced outcome at COP 15, can industrialized countries specify quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives and how can developing countries state their efforts to undertake and implement nationally appropriate mitigation actions, enabled by an agreed set of supporting elements?

- What strategic cooperative actions would be most effective in supporting measurable, reportable and verifiable actions by developing countries while allowing their sustainable economic development to accelerate?

- How can countries, especially the most vulnerable, be assisted in preparing themselves for unavoidable climate change? How can resilience be built and economic diversification accelerated?

- How can vulnerable regions assess risk, put in place risk management and risk reduction strategies?

- How can scaled-up international cooperation and support be provided to assist in the urgent implementation of adaptation actions?

- What role should the UNFCCC process play in enhancing international technology cooperation? How to promote more focused action-oriented regional and international technology cooperation programmes and initiatives to accelerate the deployment, diffusion and transfer of technologies?

- What are the most promising approaches for generating measurable, reportable and verifiable financial resources?

(a) What needs to be funded?

(b) How can new and additional funds be generated? (On the basis of voluntary contributions by industrialized countries; through assessed contributions; by reserving a portion of assigned amount units `upfront’; through levies on instruments or mechanisms that are created or continued through the outcome at COP 15?)

- What type of institutional framework will be required?

(a) How can existing institutional arrangements be improved to avoid proliferation of institutions and funds;

(b) What new institutional arrangements can be established to provide new and additional financial resources and investment;

(c) What would be the nature of governance structures;

(d) How should financial support provided through different bilateral and multilateral channels be deployed for measurable, reportable, verifiable action and nationally approved adaptation strategies.

Answers on a postcard, please. Who said the UN lacks ambition?

Day 10 of COP 14 – 10^th December 2008

Having been back in the UK a few days, I’m suffering withdrawal symptoms. I signed up to a range of network lists in Poznan, and am now receiving a continuous stream of alerts and invitations to COP 14 events – many of which I would have loved to attend. It’s rather like people texting you from a party you could not make, saying how wonderful it is! But, even from a distance, it’s possible through webcasts, daily summaries and Oxford colleagues’ blogs (see, for example, http://www.climaticoanalysis.org/) to get a sense of what is happening. And expectations of substantive achievements are lowering by the day. I thought, therefore, that I should offer some notes of optimism.

So, a few high points of the past 10 days:

• The EU has expressed willingness to consider 80-95% cuts if developing nations commit to smaller reductions
• A draft agreement on including forest conservation in the next climate treaty has been concluded
• The Chair of a key working group emphasised that 95% of the technology needed for climate solutions already exists: imagine what four decades of additional innovation and invention can achieve by 2050
• The Mexican government announced that it will reduce its emissions by 50 percent of 2002 levels by the year 2050: a remarkable public commitment
• The Prince of Wales’s Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change The Corporate Leaders Group on Climate Change issued their Poznan Communique, demanding ‘a transformational change in how we manage our global economy’: a genuinely ambitious and coherent approach from global businesses
• The EU, Chinese, Japanese, UK and US ministerial opening statements for the High Level segment all promised positive, cooperative and ambitious contributions on the road to Copenhagen, and
• According to EU environment commissioner Stavros Dimas, referring to current meetings in Brussels on climate goals: “There are a few issues left but I cannot imagine that we’re not going to get an agreement on Friday. We are going to deliver the targets.” A brave forecast!

As I type this blog (Thursday), I have been switching between three live webcasts. In one, a press conference with Ban Ki Moon, Yvo de Boer picked up (not intentionally) on the theme of my earlier blog – ‘Poznan’s glass: half full or half empty?’ (see below) – and suggested that in the final two days he sees the glass as two thirds full. “On the whole, things are looking pretty good. It looks as though we will have cleared the decks for when the ministers arrive,” he said just yesterday. The next 24 hours will test whether his optimism and the goodwill expressed by virtually all ministers speaking today will translate into a meaningful set of outcomes.

Two eyes and two ears are inadequate for following three webcasts simultaneously

.

I will explore the actual outcomes in my final blog - particularly in relation to the questions posed as I arrived in Poznan:

• How will the issues of respective and equitable obligations of developed and developing economies play out?
• Will the issues of REDD (including avoided de-forestation and re-forestation in the post Kyoto treaty) show real advance or get bogged down in further complexity?
• Will the polarised views on CCS (Carbon Capture & Storage) be reconciled?
• How will the US delegation behave – ‘lame ducks’ or ‘last chance saloon’?

Prepare for a mixed report.

Day 7 of COP 14: 7th December 2008

I returned to the UK yesterday as COP 14 reached the half way stage. I will continue to blog through this week, relying in part on webcasts but mainly on reports from colleagues who are there for the second week. Oxford’s term has finished and a significant contingent arrived on Friday and Saturday – just in time (by chance I am sure) for two NGO parties on Friday and Saturday.

On the plane back, I tried to assess whether progress was being made, at this point, with slightly more than half of the conference over. Using the half-full versus half-empty analogy, I think ‘half-empty’ would best characterise where COP 14 has got to so far. There were never great expectations of Poznan, given its role as a staging post to Copenhagen and the disempowering effect of the US presidential vacuum. Even allowing for lowered expectations, there was a growing feeling when I left that inadequate progress was going to be made. Yvo de Boer acknowledged on Thursday that the likelihood of having negotiating text before March was low and, more realistically, that it would be June. Only then will the really difficult negotiations start; and the five remaining months until COP 15 leave an unbelievably short timeline to agree final terms for our post-Kyoto climate regime.

In the RINGO meeting I attended with the COP President, he described Poznan as developing ‘concrete pieces of mosaic for the Copenhagen meeting’. The metaphor works – at least to the extent that until the pieces are all laid out together it is impossible to see the bigger picture. But, according to IISD (International Institute for Sustainable Development) in their excellent daily briefing, one COP veteran sees too little progress to deliver the completed mosaic. “We’re going to have to work hard to salvage this meeting” he said. I’m no veteran, but that fits with my own intuition.

Day 6 of COP 14: 6th December 2008

Given my conclusion (see ‘Heading for the third degree’ blog entry below on meeting with Bill Kyte last week) that we are far more likely to hit three degrees of warming than two, I was reminded of a meeting I had in Oxford recently with Mark Lynas. He is the author of Six Degrees which outlines the implications of each degree of warming. At three degrees, they are profound: consider some of the likely effects he describes:

• Permanent El Nino, with worldwide weather shifts
• Collapse of Amazon rainforest
• Eventual total disappearance of Greenland ice sheet
• Near-extinction of tropical coral reefs
• New spreading deserts in western United States and southern Africa
• Stronger hurricanes across the tropics
• Global net food deficit with grain prices soaring
• Crippling water shortages in western South America and Australia
• Extinction for between a third and half of all life on Earth

Much of the talk at Poznan in relation to adaptation has (understandably) focused on the developing countries who will be in the front live of climate change and worst placed to cope. But the likely affects of three degrees on developed countries is being overlooked in the process. With two grandchildren who should reasonably expect to live to 2100 (climate change apart), I find it extraordinary that we struggle to create the political will to deliver a two degree world. Time for intergenerational apologies?

Shipping

In another earlier blog, I mentioned the sudden collapse in sea trade resulting from the economic meltdown. I was especially interested, therefore, in an assessment given by the EU of the impact of shipping on climate change. It drew on widely accepted research that shows shipping to have a net cooling effect on the average global temperature. This is because the fuels used by ships emit disproportionately high levels of SO2, NOx and black carbon (soot) - which have a global cooling effect. So, presumably, a decline in shipping may actually accelerate global warming? To be fair, this is likely to be heavily outweighed by the reduction in CO2 emissions which will result from the economic downturn.

But if it looks as though rapid development of the shipping industry could be a positive climate offset, think again. First, the atmospheric lifetime of SO2 and NOx is a tiny fraction of CO2, giving only temporary and short-lived relief; and, secondly, these pollutants have a range of other negative environmental and health impacts. For those reasons alone, we will see a progressive tightening of regulations to clean up these very fuels.

Where there’s a will or a war…

I was struck in today’s RINGO meeting by an observation made by Ambassaodor Bo Kjellen, Sweden’s former Chief Negotiator in the UN talks and now with SEI (Stockholm Environment Institute). Discussion had centred on the failure to advance negotiations around Technology Transfer – a critical component of post 2012 mitigation efforts. He pointed out that the seemingly insuperable obstacles in the way of technology transfer for climate solutions bemused him in light of the ease with which military technology can and is transferred around the world when national interests demand. Perhaps when the real global battle to stabilise our climate begins, the current hurdles will be swept away and a different perspective will emerge: balancing IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) against the benefits to the IPR holders of avoiding catastrophic climate impacts?

Day 5 of COP 14: 5th December 2008

Heading for the third degree

I met Bill Kyte for a coffee; Bill is a veteran of the climate debate both in terms of business and policy. He is currently Advisor on Sustainable Development at E.ON, Chairman of the UK Emissions Trading Group and Chairman of the EURELECTRIC Environment & Sustainable Development Committee.

Bill Kyte - COP veteran

.

Apart from catching up on life in general, we talked about the likelihood of holding temperature increases below the critical 2°C threshold. I am increasingly pessimistic on this, not only through lack of confidence in agreed targets being achieved, but also in the face of the multi dimensional complexity of reversing current trends. Bill is in a way more optimistic – believing that transformative changes will happen across whole industries – and especially in the energy industry which he knows intimately. But pressed on whether he would tell his children that they should adapt to a 2° world, he said not. He believes that with a global dictatorship it was clearly possible to stay below 2°. In the real world, however, he thinks that we will commit to a 2°C goal but overshoot to possibly three degrees. I have to agree, and, as Tom Burke – a leading UK voice on environmental issues – put it recently, ‘My somewhat more pragmatic advice in the face of climate change is ‘don’t be under 40’!’

Giving new meaning to ‘equity’

I was amused and then alarmed at a side event where a European Commission speaker noted very matter-of-factly that the Commission had to ensure, when developing automotive standards, that countries were treated ‘fairly’. He explained that it would be unacceptable for a country which had a company making smaller, fuel efficient cars (e.g. Fiat) to derive competitive advantage from their climate friendlier market offering. In a stroke, he completely undermined my argument with business leaders that climate responsibility will offer competitive advantage. I now know that this is an unfair principle, in Europe at least. Where does fairness to climate victims come into play?

A trillion here, a trillion there and we’ll soon be talking real money

At a presentation here today on technology transfer, the leader of the negotiating process referenced that the best estimate currently circulating for the annual budget to deliver the scale of innovation needed to deliver required emissions cuts was in the order of $5.6 trillion a year. Sadly, a business representative rapidly dismissed the possibility. ‘So we have the money but how quickly do you think we could build 30 nuclear plants or put pipelines across California to transport the CO2 for sequestration?’ he asked. Another reason to believe Bill Kyte?

COP 14, Day 4: 4^th December 2008

Before I report on an interesting day’s events, I must report that the International Trades Union groups here have been very vocal. Their acronym is TUNGO, but would today have been more appropriately TONGUE-GO. They see the economic crisis as a rare opportunity to drive the case for a new green deal – investing in economic and technology shifts which would create huge employment opportunities. One spokesperson referred twice to their goal: to create a new generation of ‘green and decent’ jobs. The implication was that people increasingly want to be employed in jobs which deliver social and environmental benefit rather than harm. An interesting development and closely aligned with our own business case for corporate responsibility. They are, of course, alarmed by the massive job losses emanating from the economic crisis; and naturally see that the choices being made around climate mitigation could replace a huge proportion of those job losses.

The day began with an average review and briefing of Wednesday’s events. The only significant highlights were that the US has publicly endorsed a 50% cut by 2050 for the first time; that a debate is developing on whether the forward targets need to reflect progress in the first commitment period to 2012, including the possibility of carrying forward shortfalls into the second period; and that the BINGO (Business NGO group ) meeting with the COP President had shown his interest in how the economic crisis is playing out and whether it could actually help in addressing climate change.

I left the meeting early to change hats: today it was the turn of the RINGO (Research and Independent NGOs) group to send a delegation to meet with the COP 14 President who (as is the custom) is also the Environment Minister in Poland. I offered to join and to pose one of the questions which I had submitted in advance. Maciej Nowicki proved to be very engaged and open to positive help in his task (see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ii_fsElpFDU for a pre-Poznan video). My question was roughly: ‘Governments accept scientists assessment of the climate problem, but do not appear to adopt and pursue the climate solutions which scientists and researchers have assessed both environmentally and economically – this is of real concern and does he think the scientific and research communities could or should be doing more on this aspect of the debate?’ I cited the IPCC’s reference to improvements in energy efficiency (as in an earlier blog) as evidence. He became very engaged and treated me as a world expert on the topic. I was rapidly wishing that my Environmental Change Institute colleague Brenda Boardman (for whom, unknown to her, I was pursuing the issue) had been at my side. The real learning for me was that there is no value in asking questions in this sort of forum unless you can offer practical and realistic options to help those able to influence the debate and the process. I did not score well on that.

Shortly after the meeting ended, we had a RINGO’s meeting. I was delighted to find familiar Oxford faces in the meeting (the last week of Oxford’s academic term is just closing and a major contingent is heading for Poznan). I would have to say that the RINGOs have none of the resources or commercial motivation of the BINGO and are struggling to find a clear role and position. This presents a problem in agreeing the strategy for – let alone the content of - the official two-minute statement they can make to the plenary conference next week. I volunteered to help draft it even though I return to the UK on Sunday.

I moved to the adjacent conference room for briefing on Cap & Trade in the US. Another inspiring side event. Jonathan Pershing of World Resources Institute gave a brilliant exposition of the latest status and outlook for emissions trading in the US. It reinforced my general view that we need a post-Kyoto protocol for the frameworks, mechanisms and common methodologies necessary for co-ordinated action, but that unilateral actions by cities, states, regions will set higher hurdles that we can get agreement for at the global level. Jonathan’s conclusions slide is included below:

.

The European Union’s Head of Unit ‘Climate, Ozone and Energy’, Artur Runge-Metzger, offered insights into the status of and issues relating to emissions trading in Europe. The probability of interlinked trading to include OECD countries seems quite high. Overall, surprisingly optimistic.

Straight on to an NGO briefing with Yvo de Boer. It ran for 90 minutes and, as in Bali, de Boer was disarmingly open and undiplomatic. He offers a very simple and honest assessment of progress, blocks as well as his personal perspectives and frustrations.

Yvo de Boer (second from right) on the panel with the RINGO, BINGO and TUNGO organisers

.

It was heated at times with de Boer turning on the business community when the plea was made for increased certainty to enable the necessary investments to be made. I’d like to share his views in more detail, but he did ask at the end that we observe Chatham House rules. My question to him turned out to be less contentious. ‘What impact,’ I asked, ‘was the economic crisis having on the COP talks?’ The essence of his answer was that in the current negotiations which are focused on the frameworks and methodologies, he saw no direct connection or impact. 2009 is likely to be another story, however, as finance ministers weigh up the financial implications of Copenhagen’s commitments.

.

Tomorrow? Coffee with this man (see back of head below). In that brain are years and years of COP experience and climate strategy planning.

COP 14 Day 3 - 3rd December 2008

The difference between GEF and Geoff

I generally avoid the main plenary sessions which are simply a stream of timed speeches by the country representatives. But I also feel an obligation to sit in and get a sense of where the mood of the meeting is going. Given the brilliant wireless broadband coverage, I and most of the others in the hall are logged on and doing real work and it is easy to get absorbed in our laptop worlds. But the UN has created a central fund – the Global Environment Facility – which has a key role to play in addressing climate change. Unfortunately, in this UN world of acronyms, GEF is pronounced identically to Geoff. Anyone filming me with my translation headphones on would spot the occasional head-jerk reaction as I hear my name called out by governments around the world. I have a meeting with the COP President in the morning and I am toying with the idea of asking him to request a change of title to Joint Investment Monies. His limited English may let the acronym slip unnoticed into the UN vocabulary – and I will be able to get on with my daily work undisturbed. Sorry, COP-attending Jims!

STOP PRESS 1: Talking to the head of the US Press Corp yesterday, I was given a card with the email address for any enquiries of the State Department: I have just noticed that it is uspresscop14@yahoo.com. Any chance that their spam box is fuller than mine? I feel slightly guilty using AOL for professional email and definitely leave Yahoo to my children. How did I get it so wrong?

STOP PRESS 2: For avid followers of Non-Annex 1 Communications (you should be, according to Yvo de Boer on Monday) there is a new document released: FCCC/SBI/2007/10/Add.1,FCCC/SBI/2007/MISC.7,Adds.1-2, FCCC/CP/CP2008/2. That should do the trick for the sleep deprived. And I thought my filenames were complicated……..

From Wild Sheep to Aesculapian Snake

A late night email alerted us to a room change. The BINGO numbers are putting pressure on space and we now have a bigger room. The reports on the previous day’s meetings are, however, extremely helpful and un-biased. This is the business community interests group, but there is a genuine sense of wanting to be a proactive player in constructive and positive outcomes. As one of the staffers described it, a few years ago there were many climate deniers in the business group who saw their role as champions of reason against the climate fanatics. I will attend the RINGO meeting tomorrow and compare. I don’t expect to see a great difference in tone. The BINGOS, however, will probably have the edge in reviewing and monitoring more methodically.

Not much to choose between Bush and Obama…apparently

I have footage I took on video of the rout of the US delegation in Bali which I should have put on YouTube. The brilliant, Harvard educated Kevin Conrad speaking for Papua New Guinea made a final plea for the US to back down from their intransigence as the conference ran over time. The hall applauded his intervention and the US delegation went into a huddle, bruised by the humiliation of (undiplomatic) boos from the assembled nations and observers when they vetoed a final motion a few minutes before. The US relented - and the relatively minor change (minor in practice, but major in principle) was carried.

Given the impending change in US administration, I was keen to see how the US delegation was handling the transition. On the US desk was a young woman, part of the delegation (but a sub-contractor: they outsource many things including their email management – see Yahoo reference above). Having grilled her relentlessly over the credibility of her briefing (‘we are here to keep all options open for the incoming administration’), she looked highly relieved to be joined by the head of the US press corp. Presented with the same challenge, she was completely on brief (‘we are here to keep all options open for the incoming administration’). I was assured that a transcript of the previous day’s press briefing by the US delegation would be on-line within two hours. Having spotted the Yahoo connection I was worried it might not have made it to me and emailed for the latest status. To be fair, I received a reply 15 hours later and got my transcript two hours after that. At this point, I have to be honest: I went to the stand again and the same two delegates were there and seemed genuinely pleased to see me. In fact, all of the US delegates I have spoken to are really open and friendly and (though they cannot say it) seem relieved that the change in President no longer requires them to defend the indefensible.

Any observations on the transcript of the press conference are, therefore, no reflection on the current US team.

Clear positives:

1. The US have taken an active role in methane mitigation.

2. The US have also been active in connecting the Montreal Protocol into the climate debate since ‘ozone friendlier’ substances have high global warming potential.

No change:

1. ‘’….we need all Parties to the Convention involved, particularly major developing economies.”

2. “It is unclear here whether we’ll be able to get an agreement on a long-term goal. That remains to be seen.”

And on their differences with Obama: “..and so once again, I would say, don’t look so much at the differences domestically, I’m saying on the international scene, there’s broad–based agreement. With that, I think we’ll wrap up.”

The next 10 days will be interesting to see how consistent these messages are.

On re-reading the script, there is another positive for the US. They lay claim, rightly, to introducing the need for adaptation at the Delhi conference in 2002. I was at that meeting and reported after it that the US were hell-bent on shifting from mitigation to adaptation (in other words, keep emitting and spend our money – as promoted by Bjorn Lomberg and others – on coping with rather than avoiding climate change). History shows that adaptation was a significant missing component of the Kyoto Protocol and America’s insistence has moved it up the agenda. Those most threatened by the effects of climate change may have cause to give grudging appreciation to the country most responsible for the change itself.

Global democracy at work

I visited the Environmental Change Institute (ECI) stand and it dawned on me that the smallest organisations get the same stand space here as the largest countries. As you can see, the public face of ECI is at least as visible as the US (and often busier!).