Report on CAN Pre COP Workshop, Addis Ababa, 19‐21 Oct 2011
3 strengthen its participants’ capacities and work towards a common Southern civil
society voice within CAN and like minded organisations in the lead up to COP 17. This event built upon the similar and successful pre‐COP workshop held last year in
Mexico City in which roughly 50 CAN members and partners attended. The CAN‐International Secretariat had the pleasure to plan the workshop in
collaboration with a large variety of CAN members and partners, whose financial support not only made this event possible but also whose engagement brought
richness to the discussions. CAN‐International received support from the Heinrich Böll Foundation Ethiopia Office, Bread for the World, Greenpeace International,
WWF‐International, Oxfam International, the Norwegian Environment ForUM, the Development Fund, the Southern Voices Program consortium and CARE Denmark.
We’d like to thank these organizations and partners for making this event a success. 3. Objectives of the workshop
Primarily, this program aimed to strengthen the capacity and voice of CAN southern members and like‐minded organisations on climate policy to advocate at the
national, regional and international level. In addition, the workshop aimed to build their capacity to influence the climate negotiations and engage in constructive
debate while they also had the opportunity to share their experiences in network institution strengthening. Their active participation helped enhanced their ability to
articulate policy, understand the complexities of climate negotiations and work in cooperation with wide range of networks.
Some of the specific objectives included:
1. Provide space for developing country CAN members and other stakeholders to work on a common and unified southern voice for greater influence at the
Seventeenth Conference of Parties in Durban. 2. Strengthen the South–South dialogue and discussion in order to support the
CAN‐International policies to have impact in the climate negotiations through broader understanding and knowledge base.
3. Strengthen and reinforce the connections between the southern
civil society members to continue dialogue and strategize for future
advocacy and actions in their respective country and regions.
4. Have dialogue and interaction with African governments andor the
African Union.
4. Workshop methodology Different methodologies were practiced in
the workshop. Since the workshop was designed to build the capacity and share
lessons learned, a participatory process was utilized, where participants had
Report on CAN Pre COP Workshop, Addis Ababa, 19‐21 Oct 2011
4 opportunities to present, share their opinion and break out into groups for more
rigorous discussions. Apart from a selected few invited experts who served as resource persons, methods
were used to recognize and utilize the participants themselves as resource people in their own rights. Many of them played the role of presenters, group moderators,
session chairs and facilitators. It was a very participatory workshop encouraging participants to be highly engaged. This style seemed to have worked well and the
participants enjoyed it. Often the participants were broken into smaller groups for theme discussions,
regional planning etc. This allowed participant to interact and know each other better.
5. Participants of the workshop CAN members and like‐minded organisations from developing countries having
policy experiences especially related to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC process either at national, regional andor international
international levels were invited. Participants came from developing countries from a variety of regions.
Participant selection was done in a transparent manner to make it inclusive of different regions where gender, organisation, country and regional balance was
considered. One of the criteria of selection was also such that these participants from the workshop would go back to their home country or region and share
information and learning from the workshop with wider stakeholders. Participants showed commitment to this requirement and many had already made plans to do so
once they returned. 6. What was discussed?
The workshop covered a wide range of topics from debate on low carbon development strategies to policy choices for adaptation and sharing of experience
from different networks. However, the main focus of the program was on policy framing and influencing the outcome of the 17
th
Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC COP17. While looking at the national and regional level issues, attention
was given to major areas within the UNFCCC processes, including thematic issue discussion such as low carbon development, adaptation, and institutional
strengthening. The participants also met within regional groupings in order to identify and prepare
work plans around key issues relevant to their region. 6.1. Low carbon development pathways
The workshop started with a panel discussion on low carbon development and sustainable future from a developing country perspective. Speakers from different
regions presented their opinions. They highlighted what was happening in their
Report on CAN Pre COP Workshop, Addis Ababa, 19‐21 Oct 2011
5 regions and what more needed to happen. It was an interactive session where
participants had varied thoughts and questions. Shirley Atatagi from Samoa shared that low carbon development stays true to
principles of sustainable development, and that development should happen in a low carbon manner. She conveyed her opinion that low carbon development now is
not driven by moral reasons, but mainly due to economic reasons and essentially survival to exist.
In South Africa for instance the issue is who will pay for the transition from cheap
coal to currently more costly renewable energies. But in Small Island Developing
States, where fossil fuels are expensive because of the high import prices, the
switch to renewables may be less costly. The transition to low carbon development
is then ideally easier for SIDS and Pacific states and is very much an economic
driver.
Chandra Bhushan from India highlighted that India is a high emitting country and has growing energy intensive industries. Energy cost is high which is a major driver
for change. Therefore, low carbon relates to technology for these industries. Developing countries are actually enhancing their technology efficiency ‐ for
instance India is building up its infrastructure now. Low carbon is hence built in to their development pathways of business as usual anyway. Fair effort sharing needs
to be the basis of negations for India. Similarly, Jiayi Xu from China shared that China is one of the major emitters in the
world. Coal consumption is very high in the power sector and low carbon is the only sustainable way for China in the future though there is a price to be paid. Poverty
alleviation needs to be considered for a country like China with continuing development needs. The presentation suggested that even with nuclear plants,
China will still suffer from a large gap in energy demand in the future especially for industries. China may have a higher ambition for emission reduction in the future,
but there are many challenges currently. The eastern part of China differ from Western part of China in its energy demand and vulnerability, which presents
further challenges. All that said, low carbon development is currently thoroughly incorporated into the national five‐year plan.
Mithika Mwenda from Kenya then highlighted the challenges facing Africa in its transition from fossil fuel development to low carbon development. Given its level of
development, Africa needs major resources to transit to low carbon development but the questions remains; Who will pay? For Africa low carbon could be an
investment opportunity. CDM was originally developed as a financer for developing
Report on CAN Pre COP Workshop, Addis Ababa, 19‐21 Oct 2011
6 countries including those in Africa for low carbon development, however Africa
remains the continent with the least benefits from this mechanism due to lack of capacity. Capacity building is essential for low carbon development in Africa. Will
low carbon solve the problem for Africa? The problem in Africa is not mitigation but actually adaptation. Hence low carbon development must be seen as working in
concert with the priority of adaptation. Similarly, Mohamed Adow, also from Kenya, reminded the group that Africa is the
most vulnerable and least responsible for the cause of climate change. Africa can however be a leader for low carbon development. The threat of poverty is a problem
and is now exacerbated by climate change. Addressing poverty is a direct link in addressing climate change
and financers need to understand this and not
distinguish between them separately. Roughly eighty
per cent of energy in Africa is fossil fuel – coal, oil, and
natural gas. Irregular power outages are common
in Africa, and inadequate power distribution across
continent remains a challenge. The majority of
people globally that do not have reliable energy live in
sub‐Saharan Africa. The forty TW of power used by
all of sub‐Saharan Africa is the same amount as the
New York City alone and this shows the problem in
equity and fair sharing globally. Africa is endowed
with renewable energy, and hence it is possible to
power Africa that does not have access to energy
demand with clean energy. Africa requires preferential
finance, technology and capacity to tap into this
renewable potential and move to low carbon
development.
Low carbon development is the solution
I believe a low carbon future is possible with the agreement of all parties contributing to change their ‘Business as Usual’ practices, it
might be an expensive goal in the short term, but the long term advantages outweigh the short term expenses, and for small islands a
low carbon future makes sense, and various bodies like the Small Islands Developing States SIDS can be an effective entity to influence
and make a difference within the G77+China group.
By participating in the pre COP workshop I felt that it added a great value in enhancing my understanding. There was a wide range of
presentations, which were informative, and I learnt new things. I found the panel presentations really interesting, especially the discussion
that gave me more insight to G77 and China.
The regional and thematic breakout groups helped me understand more about climate change; identifying major regional issues such as
climate change impacts, low carbon development drivers and capacity building. In the thematic breakout groups, I followed the mitigation
group and it was very helpful to be a part of a group where people with different perspectives participated. Being a part of the mitigation group
helped me understand the current situation of the Kyoto Protocol
.
One really beneficial part of this three‐day workshop was the sharing of experiences from other countries and different regions as I learnt
more about the situation of other countries. Knowing this will help me take this into account when I plan or share information amongst my
colleagues and organisation in the Pacific region. Being a part of this workshop has helped me understand how NGOs view and influence the
climate negotiations
I recommend that it would be of added value to have one additional day to allow bit more interaction time in between sessions from the
panelpresentations and the floor.
‐ Ewan Cameron, Cook Islands
Report on CAN Pre COP Workshop, Addis Ababa, 19‐21 Oct 2011
7
6.2. Thematic issue discussions To give an overview of what is happening in the climate negotiations, a selection of
CAN’s policy working group coordinators and other experts presented on various building blocks that are under discussion at the UNFCCC. These themes included
adaptation, mitigation, finance, technology, reducing emissions from deforestation REDD and capacity building. The presentation were made based on CAN’s agreed
policy document prepared for COP17, called the ‘Durban Expectations.’ The full document can be accessed from the CAN’s website.
http:climatenetwork.orgsitesdefaultfilesCAN_durban_expectations_septembe r2011_web.pdf
In order to further flesh out and understand these building blocks participants were divided into smaller groups based on their interest. While discussing these issues
with the help of the experts, participants were also asked to relate to their country or regional interest and importance.
6.3. Effort sharing Effort sharing is considered one of the most important and challenging debates in
the climate negotiations. Sanjay Vashist from India made a brief presentation and participants provided further input through discussion. The presentation was also
very much framed on the ongoing discussion taking place within CAN International. Some of the equity principles he put for discussion based on the issues being
discussed in the UNFCCC context were:
• Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities • Developed countries should take the lead
• Full consideration for needs and circumstances of developing country
Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change
• Precautionary approach to avoiding climate change and its adverse effects. • Approach is cost‐effective, and comprehensive, while accounting for different
socio‐economic contexts • Approach is appropriate given Parties conditions and development needs
• Preserves the right to sustainable development • Supports sustainable economic growth and development
Participants gave various opinions and discussed on the above principles. There were also additional thoughts put forward and interpretation done on the above
principles. From the discussion it was also realized that not many participants were aware about this debate as for some it was the first time. They needed time to
understand and read more materials. The presentation has been shared among the participants for their benefit.
6.4. Regional dynamics and synergy Regional dynamics and synergy was another important session that was discussed.
Panel speakers from different regions shared the dynamics going on in their regions
Report on CAN Pre COP Workshop, Addis Ababa, 19‐21 Oct 2011
8 and how these regional groups would leverage into the climate negotiations to
strengthen the Southern Voice. Habtemariam Abate from Ethiopia briefed the group regarding the Africa region. He
stressed that there are many African organs but the three major ones to discuss climate change are The Assembly of the Union, African Union Commission and The
Economic, Cultural and Social Council. Habtemariam suggested that Africa has a serious fragmentation and no unified voice. He recalled that strength often lies in
unity and recalled that Africa had demonstrated this when they walked out of the
climate negotiations in August 2009. Africa is now focused heavily on
adaptation but it needs a paradigm shift to focus on mitigation too.
Sanjay Vashist from India shared that South Asian Association for
Regional Corporation SAARC is comprised of 8 countries of South
Asia. Among these countries is a mix of least developed countries LDCs,
a major emerging economy and some other G77+China countries
like Sri Lanka and Pakistan. SAARC
as an entity does not have a unified climate change strategy and mainly focuses on infrastructure development – dams, etc. Sanjay suggested that more collaboration
on equity principles and resource sharing is needed. Lessons learned from each SAARC state are important; for instance Bangladesh has strengths on adaptation it
can share, etc. Gurmit Singh from Malaysia talked about the Association of Southeast Asian Nations
ASEAN. He suggested that Myanmar is holding up negotiations in the ASEAN context. Like other regions discussed, ASEAN as an entity does not speak as a unified
voice in UNFCCC. This is a diverse group so they cannot come up with a common understanding on climate issues. Gurmit suggested that the role of ASEAN could be
strengthened as it is an integral body for the region. Gaines Campbell from Brazil spoke on the BASIC Brazil, South Africa, India and
China dynamics – a grouping of countires not based on geography but rather on similarities in economic status. BASIC leaders became visible in Copenhagen at
COP15 but these four countries may have similar characteristics but not necessarily have similar interests. They all are committed to the two‐track process – the Kyoto
Protocol and the working group on Long‐term Cooperative Action. The BASIC group seems to be committed to the UNFCCC being the only forum for climate
negotiations. They demand that mitigation actions by developing countries must be accompanied by support. They strongly advocate for second commitment period of
Report on CAN Pre COP Workshop, Addis Ababa, 19‐21 Oct 2011
9 KP and insist that there should not be a gap between the first and second
commitment period. Technology transfer is also a vital agenda item for them. S
hirley Atatagi from the Pacific stated that different interests lies within Small Island Developing States SIDS and the Alliance of Small Island States AOSIS; for
instance the position of Singapore is much different from other members. Fourteen Pacific island states are working to harmonise their positions. But G77+China as a
whole has lots of competing interests and often struggles to find harmony. Shirley suggested the position of Pacific states can sometimes become watered down by the
time it reaches G77+China. AOSIS, LDCs, and the Africa Group are most vulnerable and hold the most representation in G77+China, but have the least influence in the
same . When unity is needed there is competition happening amongst these 3 groups on who is the most vulnerable especially to see who will get the very limited
funding available. AOSIS concerns are being blocked on all issues so now they have started to talk to Cartagena Dialogue. Pacific states are starting to think whether or
not UNFCCC is worth it, and whether it’s the right platform. Mahomad Adow from Kenya spoke on the dynamics of G77+China. He stressed that
China is the biggest polluter with 19 world population. But the world needs to realise how the equity debate is phrased and responsibility taken by looking at the
emissions vs. population aspect. Annex 1 countries have 18 of world population but their responsibility and capability index RCI responsibility is 88 of
emissions. G77+China is reactive to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol.
7. South‐South experience sharing among participants
