Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

Back to COP30: from Belem to Delft

IHE Delft alumna Sherine El-Wattar came back to Delft as a guest lecturer to share her experience at the IPCC and the COP with the master students involved in a simulation game on climate diplomacy.

Credits: Sherine El-Wattar

Every year in November, IHE Delt Master students enrolled in the course “Introduction to Water Hazards, Risks and Climate” play a climate negotiation simulation game, often during the same days of the real negotiations at the COP (the annual Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – UNFCCC). The students are divided in teams corresponding to the different groups of countries involved in the negotiations: the European Union, the G77+China (the largest block of developing countries), small islands and insular states, oil producer countries. The US did not take part to COP30 in Belem (Brazil) and therefore were not included in the game this year. They were replaced by a US coalition of American majors and State governors. Other students play the non-state actors involved in the COP process, like fossil fuel lobbyists, civil society organisations, and the media. Usually, we organise a couple of negotiating tables on issues related to climate justice and finance, for instance the operationalisation of the loss and damage funds and who should pay for it, as well as on techno-political aspects such as climate mitigation and adaptation mechanisms.

The debriefing at the end of the game offers the opportunity to critically reflect on the relevance, challenges, and limits of the COP process and outcomes, including the role that scientific knowledge plays therein. This year we were particularly lucky as we got the opportunity to share our reflections and questions on the COP and climate diplomacy with Sherine El-Wattar, an Egyptian IHE Delft alumna who graduated in 2022 from the Water Governance programme. Sherine also served as President of the Student Association Board, and I am sure many remember the great speech that she gave in that capacity at the Graduation Ceremony of her batch!

Sherine currently works for the IPCC and got back from COP30 in Belem. just in time for her lecture at IHE. I invited her to share her experience in climate diplomacy, to observe and give feedback on the student’s simulation. The session was structured as an interview. Here below the questions and answers, that were followed by a discussion with the students.

Sherine at COP30 in Belem (Credits: Sherine El-Wattar)

Emanuele: What is your current role and work with the IPCC?

Sherine: I am currently the Science Network Officer of the IPCC Working Group II  (WGII) Technical Support Unit (TSU), This group works on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. My role is completely new for this group, and that means that I learned it by doing. Now, one year and nine months later, I like to describe this job as wearing two hats: the scientific hat, and the networking hat.

When I wear the scientific hat, I am part of the core science team of the technical support unit that supports more than 200 authors drafting the Working Group’s Assessment Report 7. My work includes: coordinating with author teams throughout the writing cycle; helping ensure scientific consistency and alignment across chapters; acting as the TSU focal point for the chapters on Water, Finance, and North America; and co-facilitating the Cross-Chapter Paper on Droughts. This side of the job is about precision, coherence, and making sure authors have everything they need to do their best scientific work.

Then there is the networking hat. This is all about engagement and relevance. Reports do not become impactful only when they are published, their influence grows throughout the writing process. This means I work on things like bringing in voices who are not typically involved in the IPCC process, or creating spaces where practitioners, youth groups, Indigenous experts, and non-nominated specialists can share insights.

Another part of my work is to design creative, informal, and formal ways to make the process more inclusive, and to ensure that stakeholders understand how the report is being developed and where their perspectives matter. For example, during the Special Report on Cities, I facilitated 10 thematic reviews for the First Order Draft. Each theme (finance, law, youth, Indigenous and local knowledge,…) was led by an external organisation that brought together its own disciplinary experts. I pitched the importance of leading this review to them and then coordinated invitations, webinars, timing, and reviewer registration to allow these groups to provide feedback from their unique perspectives.

This is just one example of what networking can look like. Some ways are official, others are informal, but the goal is always the same: to make climate science accessible, representative, and relevant.

E: How was your experience at the COPs?

S: My COP journey began in 2022, when Egypt hosted COP27. After finishing my master’s at IHE Delft, I returned home to apply what I learned in water governance to real-world policy. I joined the Egyptian Ministry of Environment’s organisation team. This was my first COP, not as a participant, but as part of the host country team.

Later, after joining the IPCC, I attended COPs again, this time in Azerbaijan and Belém, focusing on supporting IPCC side events, facilitating networking for the WGII Co-chair, engaging with practitioners and stakeholders, understanding global trends, gaps, and narratives to support the work of authors and the TSU. One of the most eye-opening parts of COP is witnessing the human side of climate multilateralism: the tension, the alliances, the fatigue, the subtle strategies, and the power dynamics that shape outcomes.

E: What did IHE students do well in the COP simulation and what is different in real life?

S: From what I’ve seen, I think that the students did exceptionally well in genuinely understanding the essence of negotiations: they seem to know what you can compromise on, what you cannot, and why.

They embraced roles that were not their own nationalities and still articulated realistic positions, identified gains and trade-offs, practised empathy, stayed open and respectful. But they were also stubborn when necessary, in a very diplomatic way. Their performance reflected the core spirit of COP negotiations.

I was especially impressed with the students representing Indigenous Peoples. They embodied the complexity of advocating for justice and recognition without having formal negotiating power. This mirrors the real COP dynamic where Indigenous delegates cannot speak in the governmental plenaries, yet they make a powerful presence.

Of course, the real COP negotiations are more complex. While the simulation captured the logic of negotiation, real COPs involve layers that are harder to simulate. Observing the students, made me thinking about a few points.

First, the tone can be more aggressive. Negotiations in real life include tension, sharp remarks, and sometimes dismissive or discriminatory comments; behaviours that should not be normalised, but do appear. Second, backroom diplomacy is everything. Lobbying happens in corridors, hotel lobbies, and informal gatherings. Not everything unfolds in plenary rooms.

Third delegations often arrive with pre-set positions. They already know their red lines and compromises before landing at COP. At the same time, alliances are fluid. Countries cluster by interest, but alliances shift year to year. Friends in one COP may not be allies in the next.

And finally, the size of national delegations often determines their negotiating power. This is one of the most overlooked equity issues and one of my biggest personal lessons. Small delegations – often from low-income or climate-vulnerable countries –  cannot attend long discussions running until 3am with only two or three people. Larger, well-funded delegations rotate shifts, maintain presence, and secure better outcomes. This imbalance shapes negotiation influence and final text outcomes more than most people realise.

E: Is there something that you learned at IHE Delft that you are applying in your current work?

S: My time at IHE Delft shaped not just my academic path, but also the way I move through the world. The most powerful lesson I learned was that you never exist in a silo. You are always influencing and being influenced by the system around you.

Being in a multicultural environment, surrounded by students who carry the challenges and strengths of their home countries, taught me that no problem is more important than another. Every issue has context, history, and meaning. Listening is essential. Real dialogue requires curiosity instead of assumptions. And compromise and meeting halfway are not weaknesses: they are governance tools.

Another special lesson was the importance of questioning knowledge. IHE profoundly changed the way I relate to science. In every lecture we asked questions such as: Who owns the knowledge? Who produces it? Who feels the knowledge is imposed on them? And most importantly: who benefits (and who does not) from this knowledge?

Today, whenever I encounter a scientific statement, I no longer accept it passively. I ask myself: has this been questioned before? What worldview does it come from? And what worldview does it ignore?

IHE also gave me solid technical foundations. I learned how to model and quantify things that are difficult to measure, how to interpret uncertainty, how to frame complex systems scientifically. Equally important, I learned to be aware of my own epistemological lens, the worldview through which I interpret science, problems, and solutions. That awareness is crucial, because my lens shapes the questions I ask, and the answers I give or accept. And it also shapes the biases I unknowingly bring into the room.

IHE taught me that water governance is not only about institutions and rules. Governance is about awareness of yourself, of power, of voices, and of the spaces where silence exists.

E. What advice do you have for master’s students who want to work on climate change?

S: My biggest advice is simple: start with yourself.

Climate change and water are fast-evolving fields, and they receive waves of global political attention that rise and fall. Some years, every country feels urgency; other years, the topic is pushed aside. If you choose to work in this field, you are choosing a purpose that rarely gives immediate returns. Change is slow. Progress is uneven. And this is why your internal compass matters more than anything else.

That is why it is necessary for you to know your values and your positioning. Ask yourself about the values you stand for and what you’d like to bring into the world of climate and water action. You can reflect on the privileges you have and do not have and how your experience has shaped how you see the world.

I would encourage you to stay curious, and question everything.

Finally, I would pray you do not lose hope! Working in climate change can feel heavy. You will sometimes feel the weight of global injustice, geopolitics, slow decision-making, and rising polarization. It is easy to feel depleted. At least I share that from my own personal experience. Your community, connections, listening to opposing views with motivation to learn something new, and voicing your perspective makes a difference.

A more practical advice is to find mentors you trust and who can inspire you. I would also tell you to try different domains within the field of climate change and see where you feel most passionate and curious. Try different domains: policy, science, governance, modelling, networking and see where you feel at home.

And finally, if you’re not aiming to become a scientist, own your role. Climate action needs coordinators, networkers, and bridge-builders just as much as it needs scientists (and often those roles are hybrid. These roles are often invisible but essential. After serving as the IPCC’s Science Network Officer, I see firsthand how coordination and networking shape the success of the entire global scientific processes. But with these roles comes responsibility to act with integrity, honesty, and respect. Trust is your currency.

In conclusion, walking back through the halls of IHE Delft as a guest lecturer, years after graduating was deeply moving. Sitting beside one my professors, Emanuele Fantini, and watching students negotiate in a simulation reminded me of how far I had grown and how much IHE shaped me. I am deeply grateful for the education I received there!

You cannot control how your career unfolds. The world is too complex, too dynamic for that. But you can control your values, what you stand for, what you devote your energy to, and how you show up. When you know that, everything else eventually falls into place!

 

Emanuele Fantini
Emanuele Fantini
Emanuele Fantini is an Associate Professor of Water Politics and Communication at IHE Delft Institute for Water Education, interested in… Read more

The text only may be used under licence Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial No Derivatives 4.0 International. All other elements (illustrations, imported files) are “All rights reserved”, unless otherwise stated.


OpenEdition suggests that you cite this post as follows:
Emanuele Fantini (December 17, 2025). Back to COP30: from Belem to Delft. FLOWs. Retrieved June 14, 2026 from https://doi.org/10.58079/15d58


You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.