Report on

‘Mammalapuram Equity Summit’

20th to 23rd October 2008Mammalapuram, India

Steering Committee +1. Rajen Awotar, SARCAN - Mauritius2. Ramon Jun, CANSEA - Philippines 3. Peter Bahouth, USCAN - USA4. Valentin Bartra, CANLA – Peru5. K Srinivas, Greenpeace - India6. Nelson Muffuh, Christian Aid, UK7. Antonio Hill, Oxfam International8. Irina Stavchuk, NECU, Ukraine9. Diane Mcfadzien, WWF - India10. Mozaharul Alam (Babu), BCAS, Bangladesh11. Vanya Leigh Walker, Malta12. Beatrice Schell, Oak Foundation, Switzerland13. Lili Fuhr, HBF - Germany 14. Michael Koeberlein, HBF - India15. Karim Harris, CANE - Belgium16. Ingvara, CARITAS - Australia17. Stephan Singer, WWF - Belgium18. Tom Athanasiou, ECOEquity - USA19. Tom Picken, FoEI, UK20. Saleemul Huq, IIED - UK21. Fred, USA

Process & Activities• Regular interactions of

Steering Committee with operational Mandate

• Mobilising Resources from CAN Members and CAN Friends

• Setting coordination mechanism between CANI-CANSA/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”

• “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”

Evaluation – What Worked?

What could be better?

“The varying and differing opinionswere not debated and concluded on - maybe needed more time forchallenging each other through

responses and counter-responseson 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 / Conclusions1. 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 & sequencing1. ‘Deepening the spirit of Bali’2. ‘Bali plus’3. A ‘third way’?

Proposed Follow-upPre-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

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.

Proposed Follow-up

Thanks for an opportunity to make difference...

The Operational Team in CAN-South Asia