COP 27 raises many questions. Does COP work? Does it make any difference at all to global decision making? Does Cultural Relations have any role at all to play?
Certainly the existing scale of mobilisation around climate is very impressive. As a recent article by Chan et al in Nature points out: ‘Since 2014, there has been an enormous mobilization of climate action as well as growing research interest in such processes… The UNFCCC records over 27,000 climate actions by more than 187,000 actors; UNEP Copenhagen Climate Center’s (UNEP-CCC) ‘Climate Initiatives Platform’ records 284 large-scale cooperative initiatives that engage over 30,000 participants’.[1] However, the only reference to Cultural Relations on the Climate Initiatives Platform is to the United Smart Cities initiative which narrowly aims to: ‘meet the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social, environmental as well as cultural aspects’.
This is disappointing as international efforts towards cooperation should in theory be fertile ground for Cultural Relations practitioners. This may appear to be a small point in a much bigger picture, but this blog suggests that it also may not, and that this warrants further investigation. The reason why this is the case is that even at the high (summit) level, the evidence base for assessing impact is alarmingly incomplete. Chan et al point out that ‘despite the growth of transnational initiatives and their estimated potential, there is … little evidence regarding (ex-post) effectiveness due to limited systematic tracking of initiatives’. This lack of evidence also bedevils the practice of Cultural Relations, but this is not a similarity which is to be celebrated, rather it should be addressed.
Notwithstanding this knowledge gap, it can be said that many of the practices of Cultural Relations are prima facie highly relevant to efforts to support cooperation for climate change. Firstly, there is the call for international organisations and governments to engage non-state actors towards collective climate goals. One way to approach this is through the idea of ‘orchestration’, which is being promoted by scholars as an important governance strategy. This suggests that there will be a growth in activity as public actors (orchestrators) such as governments and international organisations convince non-state actors and networks (intermediaries) to leverage efforts by their peers and network members (target actors).
The ‘orchestration’ approach has many points of contact with Cultural Relations approaches, especially in its focus on the need for public actors to work with others in ways which depend on cooperation and buy-in, rather than commanded, contracted or delegated tasks. This implies the idea of mutuality: ‘Orchestration operates on an assumption of mutual dependence between a multiplicity of actors and a strengthening of horizontal relationships, which seem particularly fitting with current climate governance.’(Chan et al).
Secondly, what does scholarship tell us about how well summits have contributed to positive change? Less than might be expected or hoped. Rather, it has concentrated on whether summits can create ‘constitutional moments’ - the power to ‘launch something unprecedented’ (Roy, 2022). The analogy is with constitutional change within a state. Such moments ‘create a point in time at which constitution-remaking occurs, when decisions are made by the public and politicians that will define the foundational contours of the next extended regime order.’ (Burnham, 1999). Examples can include the impact of summits on actors other than states, for example, women’s rights organisations or businesses. By stimulating transnational interactions, summits have undoubtedly strengthened the capacity and role of some non-governmental actors, but the question remains whether summits orchestrate effective transnational initiatives.
But what about Cultural Relations at summits? Is it even a thing? The slim body of recent literature on Cultural Relations and summits refers – as already suggested – to ‘extending the scope of civil society involvement’ (Zaremba, 2022). It also identifies ‘performative practices’, especially by BRICS countries (Baciu and Kotzé, 2022), and ‘harnessing youth’ (Mauleon and Dalizon, 2022)[2] as relevant.
So, where does this leave us? Undoubtedly unsatisfied. There simply is not the evidence on what, if anything, summits such as COP themselves change, let alone that Cultural Relations approaches even figure in the consciousness of summiteers, especially given the sheer quantity of activity generated.
However, to leave it there may be to miss a very important trick. If Cultural Relations practices are in line with expert opinion on how summits probably achieve impact, both as cut-through events, and as stimulants for civil society and others, then it would seem perverse not to factor them in as one helpful addition to the rich mix. After all, they are state-led activities that have resources at their disposal, and they have the potential to ‘orchestrate’, and even to engage the imagination in ways that may just help to bring about a ‘constitutional moment’.
More importantly perhaps, they are focused, and have been for many years, on working with independent actors, in order to create mutual benefit, and thereby build trust. This may sound like the standard apology for Cultural Relations approaches as opposed to traditional diplomacy or commerce, and no doubt it is. But that does not mean that we should turn a deaf ear. It is good to see these traditional goals and methods of Cultural Relations being cited and to some extent vindicated by disinterested contemporary scholars.
To sum up this very short post, the evidence suggests that Cultural Relations approaches do indeed have a role to play at global summits and in addressing the complex issues that these summits address. Most importantly, they can typically contribute to processes of ‘orchestration’, mobilising civil society activity and building cooperative action based on mutual benefit. They can help to preserve the interests of cultural practitioners. They can inform how leaders and others perform, and they can reach out to youth and others who may not normally pay attention to global summits. They do not support zero-sum games, so may not be popular with ‘strongman’ leaders, but the chances are that in the long run they will be popular with the people on whom these leaders depend for their power. The problem is that we lack evidence. A more important problem is that there may not be a long run.
[1] Source: Chan, S., Hale, T., Deneault, A. et al. Assessing the effectiveness of orchestrated climate action from five years of summits. Nat. Clim. Chang. 12, 628–633 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-022-01405-6
[2] This blog ignores ‘culture’ summits which tend to focus on the needs of cultural sectors and producers.