Transcript Report Mammalapuram Equity Summit 20th to 23rd October 2008

Report
on
‘Mammalapuram Equity Summit’
20th to 23rd October 2008
Mammalapuram, India
Steering Committee +
1. Rajen Awotar, SARCAN - Mauritius
2. Ramon Jun, CANSEA - Philippines
3. Peter Bahouth, USCAN - USA
4. Valentin Bartra, CANLA – Peru
5. K Srinivas, Greenpeace - India
6. Nelson Muffuh, Christian Aid, UK
7. Antonio Hill, Oxfam International
8. Irina Stavchuk, NECU, Ukraine
9. Diane Mcfadzien, WWF - India
10. Mozaharul Alam (Babu), BCAS, Bangladesh
11. Vanya Leigh Walker, Malta
12. Beatrice Schell, Oak Foundation, Switzerland
13. Lili Fuhr, HBF - Germany
14. Michael Koeberlein, HBF - India
15. Karim Harris, CANE - Belgium
16. Ingvara, CARITAS - Australia
17. Stephan Singer, WWF - Belgium
18. Tom Athanasiou, ECOEquity - USA
19. Tom Picken, FoEI, UK
20. Saleemul Huq, IIED - UK
21. Fred, USA
Process & Activities
• Regular interactions of
Steering Committee with
operational Mandate
• Mobilising Resources from
CAN Members and CAN
Friends
• Setting coordination
mechanism between CANICANSA/Greenpeace India-CAN
Canada-CANI Board.
• Develop agenda with focus on
objectives and following a
participatory approach
Process & Activities (Cont)
• Identify and invite key Non
CAN Members
• Identify Speakers
• Content Support to
Facilitators
• Decision Support for
effective Coordination
• Monitoring and facilitating
the financial transactions
• Reporting to CAN
• Follow up and Integration
Strategy
Objectives of Equity Summit
• To move forward to a common understanding of what equity
requires in the context of responses to climate change around
the world. Including…
•
•
•
post-2012 regime, e.g. adaptation, mitigation, finance, technology
transfer
key principles that should guide decision-making, e.g. human rights,
developmental equity and the right to (sustainable) development,
historical responsibility and capability, the role and limits of per-capita
metrics, mitigation potential, etc…
salient and politically useful equity indicators
• To understand the implications of an equity framework for major
debates in the Bali Action Plan negotiations
•
•
•
Risk management (targets & trajectories)
mitigation, adaptation, technology transfer and financing obligations,
commitments, and/or actions of states (effort / burden sharing and
differentiation);
Dynamics, sequencing and graduation (i.e. how do obligations and
commitments change over time?).
Agenda
• Morning yoga (optional)
• Introduction to the Summit (Background,
Introduction to principles, process, and methodology of
the Summit, etc...)
• Concepts & perceptions of climate
justice
• Scientific Common Ground: The
context of our challenge
• Equity’s role in breaking the
international impasse
• Burden-sharing and Adaptation
• Effort-sharing
• Vision / Strategy
• Exchange and integration
Agenda Methodology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Plenary
Breakup Groups
Working Groups
Back to Back bilateral
meetings
Small group meetings
Social evenings
Story Telling
Musical evenings
Etc...
Expected Outcomes...
• Identify specific strategies and
tactics by which CAN and the
growing global movement for action
on climate change can deliver a
more equitable – as well as
adequate – outcome in
Copenhagen.
• Increase the coherence and
effectiveness of CAN-International
through greater inclusiveness,
mutual understanding, trust and
consensus building
• Advance the prospects for a fair and
adequate post-2012 climate regime
by linking a common vision of
greater equity to specific
opportunities
Evaluation – What Worked?
“Pulling together diverse
groups provided space
for diverse voices and
opinions”
“Climate change
policies are going to
need a lot of
dialogue. This has
been a very good
exercise and I hope
others will come”
Evaluation – What Worked?
•
“Understand positions better and the huge divides within CAN. Also that
national mitigation plans may be a way forward. * New kinds of facilitation
worked well”
•
“Opportunity to build capacity * opportunity to network with CAN/non-CAN
NGOs”
•
“Brought a lot of people together, good networking and relationship building
* Created opportunity to dig deeper into equity issues and begin to develop
consensus and sense of why others think what they think”
•
“I liked very much CAN board's position (open) towards working together
with other groups and movements in a collaborative way, in particular toward
southern organisations * I liked very much the way CAN members included
and welcomed non-CAN members views and comments recognizing the
value of southern perspectives. I think this must have been difficult for some
people and it showed solidarity, respect, and a sense that we need to work
together to tackle climate change and understand and communicate better”
What could be better?
“The varying and differing opinions
were not debated and concluded
on - maybe needed more time for
challenging each other through
responses and counter-responses
on some statements”
“It is not clear how it was decided that we should produce a declaration, but I
would have preferred to spend the time on practical planning for cooperative
activities”
What are you taking away?
•
•
•
•
•
A renewed understanding of the issues that can inform inputs into
both our national and international advocacy and policy work with
governments.
Deeper understanding of issues and perspectives and enriched and
enhanced contacts and commitment to put time into developing a
more coherent conceptualisation of what a climate safe future will/
could look like.
There are some difficult issues to resolve - differentiation, carbon
trading, maybe also Southern role in CAN. We need to find a
mechanism for reaching consensus on these issues within CAN.
Solidarity * renewed vision on CAN * renewed understanding of how
the decision processes work * a lot of common things unite us *
energy * stronger commitment
A better understanding of principles and areas where climate
movement can take advantage of other movements
Outcomes / Conclusions
1. Confirmed (or reaffirmed): Equity necessary component of post-2012 regime
2. Consensus: Climate equity is multi-faceted, and relates to all of:
• Vulnerability, adaptation and risk
• Development pathways
• Finance & technology
• Mitigation actions
• Gender equity
3. Consensus: Procedural justice especially critical, e.g.
• Voice / participation / transparency in govt decision-making at all levels
• Voice / participation / transparency in CAN
Outcomes / Conclusions (Conti)
3. Consensus: History and broader (than climate) geopolitics are critical
4. Identified: Deep-rooted strategic divide on effort-sharing & sequencing
1. ‘Deepening the spirit of Bali’
2. ‘Bali plus’
3. A ‘third way’?
Proposed Follow-up
Pre-Existing (modified):
•
Integration of consensus points in on-going CAN work streams:
• Draft and update synthesise report from outcomes from Equity
process for other WGs
•
Initiatives to increase southern participation and strengthen CAN
governance / transparency
Proposed Follow-up
New:
•
Publication
•
Effort Sharing & Sequencing task force–
• Time-bound (3 to 6 Months) aiming a Copenhagen Deal.
• Will work along with ‘Strawperson’ document within CAN as well as
synergise with Non CAN members with an objective of Equity Based
product (negotiating text) for Copenhagen.
Thanks for an opportunity to
make difference...
The Operational Team in CAN-South Asia