Note and Agenda SCBP Pre COP Prep LONG
Agenda : Southern Civil Society Pre COP 16 Preparatory Meeting
( ) * + , %
-+ . * . . ) * . /. . .
.. . ) . . " " * . . . 0 * )
. . " . + , $
1 - 2 " . . * " . . * . . )
. * . .. . * . . ) . .
. . ) .. . ) .1
#1 3 * . ) . * - 2 . .. . "
4 . * . . * . ) . * . )
. ) " . ) ) $ 1
5 .- 6 . + , * ) ) * . . ) "
" 2#! #1
Agenda otes:
Day I: Context Setting and Mapping REAL Expectations:
$ ) * . ) 7 & . . * . ) 2political (regime and policies)? economic? financial? technological? social? existential?1 . " .. * . * . . . " $
Matching expectations and decoupling the “G77” and vulnerable developing country groupings into countries with similar socio economic political groups and similar political aspirations as far as possible to cull out the fact that the South is not a uni dimensional entity. Is there Historical precedence for the South forming a single strategy for tackling global problems? Is climate change creating a unique opportunity in a
(2)
post liberalization / rapidly industrializing world? Which of CA,’s current policies and strategies be improved upon to reflect concerns of members in developing countries and regions appropriately?]
8& +
.-4 . ) . . . 3 * .$
9 . : . )
Day II: Developing common goals and tactics
$ ; . < " )) * . * . ) .. ) = 4
* . . * ) * .. * * ) ) * . .= ; .
. =
[This should include some articulation of BOTH challenges and opportunities within CA,’s current strategy could be worked upon in small or plenary style setting to evolve into a strategic plan based on the outcomes of the CA, Retreat and this meeting. These discussions on goals and tactics should address the political feasibility of the options on the table (in a post Bonn 3 world), for example the Cancun Package and the outcomes/lack of outcomes at COP 16 and its’ impact on the need for survival of the most vulnerable countries. The range of tactics
identified (media, domestic lobbying, outreach, campaigns) must ensure their compatibility with broader CA, policies and concerns must be highlighted. If there is a mismatch between the policy asks of specific regional nodes of CA, then there should be a possibility for discussion on identifying these gaps and to develop complementary narratives that ensure an effective lobbying strategy across CA,. This should be broken down to the level of discussing appropriate tools at our disposal for lobbying, campaigning, advocacy and activism. The outcomes of this discussion should a priori be mindful of socio economic and political reality currently in play the group of 77 & China. So that wins losses can be determined in a Post Cancun meeting/assessment and in determining a strategy for South Africa]
8& + .
(3)
Day III: Process/Roles and Way Forward + Mexican Government and GO Dialogue.
) ? . ) . *
.-+ . * . " ) . . * " . " " @
. ) @ . ) + , . $
+ . * . . " " * . * * ) . . ) .
.. " . . . * " ? . $
" . * " . " . * )
. " . * ) . . ) . " .
$
. . ) " . .. " . )
Day IV: Media Training for Participants from Vulnerable Developing Countries (limited)
( )
-5 * . . . ) * . ) . . .. . ) * " *
. 2) . . ) 54 . . " . ) 3 A3 . ) .1$
1 3 . .. .. . ) * " * . * )
B 6 . .. .$
#1 < . . ) * . ) .. * . 2 5C1 .. ) .$
?1 B . % 24 ) . . * " .. . "
(4)
+"7 *
.-3 . 2 . ?1 . * " .. . ) B 6 . .. . 5 7 $
B . . " . . * .$
( . . ) * . . . " . .. ) .
3 .
.-. .. . " ) "
A " .
A D E .
A .
(5)
Day 1 [7th of September, 2010]: Context Setting and Mapping REAL Expectations
+"7 * - ) * . ) 7 & . . * . ) 2political (regime and policies)? economic? financial? technological? social? existential?1 . " .. * . * . . . " $
Objective Context Setting and Mapping REAL Expectations Who ?
1000 * ) .
1015 ; 3 * @ @3
1030 .
1045 F * A
1100 % 8& . F - ; " . )
+. = . * . # & . . .@
. ) ) '
1115 3 . .. - ; . ## .
. * =
C . ) * . . 8 * % * $ 4 *
. .. . .. F 3
* . . " $
F . . ) . . *
)) "
G 7 G G (
G% % '
1145 +6688
12:00 F * . . " . ) "
12:15 3 . .. - ; ; ow ; ; 4 .
8 * % * =
5 ) " .. . . .roadblocks . common
vision) * ) '
- 7 5 * F ( )) 9 . (
4 ( . % F *
. . .. $
. - % ; ;
H . ) 3 . .. . " @ 5 .
(6)
1430 ( ; - 2 % & F F . 1
Identify juxtaposed that developing countries face, which must be addressed to develop a cohesive response strategy to global warming. H . .
.. - 3 % 6 0
1530 - F . ) ( . ) ; ( . " ..
- F 7 3 * 5 "
1615 +6688
1630 F ( ;
-% + . 2) # . .. .1 %
+A 5 A F8 A 5I A 5 + +F5B 5 8 )
countering push back) ( * " % . . . ) .$
6 - A
. J > . . This exercise works towards Matching expectations and decoupling “G77” into countries with similar socio economic political groups as far as possible to cull out the subtleties around “the South” being a multidimensional entity locked into a common future]
1730 . ) F ( . 2H: 1- 6 )
+%%+ . ) .. ) * .$
5 . - % 7 3 % %
1800 F * ) 3 I . . .. $ A @
1815 . %
19:45 WELCOME DI ER
Outputs 4 . ) . . . 3 * .$
9 . : . )
1- Is there Historical precedence for the South forming a single strategy for tackling global problems? Or are we setting a new precedence ? Is climate change creating a unique opportunity in a post liberalization / rapidly industrializing world?
(7)
Day 2 (Wednesday,8th of September,2010) : Developing common goals and a Roadmap for Collaboration
$ ; . < " )) * . * . ) .. ) = 4
* . . * ) * .. * * ) ) * . .= ; .
. =
Objective Developing common goals and tactics
0900 : .
0915 +* * ) 3 I
0930 F * 7
0945 . - +* * ) 8< 3 "
" 2 G (3FG 3FG " .1 '
. - 7 2 . . .1
. - A . K F 7 * .
H:
-.- % ; ;
1045 8A- & ) & . )
. . ) . * ) *
.. * * ) ) *
. .$
. . 26 8& 1
F . 25 * $1
" % " 0
. .- ( F "" G 8 (
4 B (
- C .
1130 +6688
1145 ( ; 2F 1- 3 * . .
) . " ) . ) . . " .
? $ ; =
6 - A
1200 ) .- F F .$
1215
1230 F " ) " ( . .- % 3 *
1245 ) F . " 6 5 .
(8)
1400 3 . .. - F 3+5 ; . 3 " 3 * ; from a on Annex 1 lense,What are the key points of debate? What is the likely scenario in Cancun? What political arguments matter to them? Political situation in Emerging Economies, Africa? SIDS? LDC’s? Where do we see solutions emerging?
Q&A.
3 . .. .- * . K (
% 7 5
. - 5 * 28B1 K 2B 1
.- . % 7 3
1500 . - F ) C " 3 * .
3 " 2 . )) .
. . " ) 3 A3 /.1
3 % ) 0
.- F 7 4 * A * : %
%
1530 ( . 2% & 1
9 < . . . ) * /. .
-- What are the potential political entry points for vulnerable groups and countries?
- What are the interrelations between the developed countries and between the developing countries & their various blocs(e.g. emerging economies) ? - What opportunities are there for building alliances between various blocs
in G 77 in other forums?
- What opportunities are there for building pressure to raise the level of ambition?
6
-1630 +6688
1645 F
H:
.- % 5 *
1715 ) (+ ( * $ 3
-. . ) +
. @% & 3 9 .. . . ) .
. .@ & .
6 - F
2Volunteers from each of the groups (Africa, LDCs, AOSIS, SIDS, EEs) for a WG to identify key Questions for discussion – To work in the evening).
1745 F * - 4 6 4 * ; = ( .
1800 . %
19:45 Dinner
(9)
Day 3: (Thursday,9th of September,2010) Process/Roles and Way Forward + Mexican Government and GO Dialogue. Objective Way Forward (Process/Roles ) + Mexican Government and GO
Dialogue
0900 : .
0905 . ) +B5 B5 ) 3 #
0915 F * B
0925 - F . * . ) /. . *
A "" . . . )
< .
What modifications would they be looking at in terms of their messaging based on the information sharing and learning in the past 2 days?
What are potential points of leverage for ,GOs from developing countries in the Western media?
How can the “moral and polluter pays arguments” be used to pressure big emitters forward in the climate change negotiations through the Western media?
How can the ‘right to develop’ be addressed so that it is not treated by larger developing countries as a right to pollute.
7 G 7 G 8 G ( G % . G
10:25 . 2% &
1-- What are the potential political entry points for vulnerable groups and countries?
- What opportunities are there for building alliances amongst southern CSOs?
- What opportunities are there for building pressure to raise the level of ambition especially as CA,?
6 - A (
11:10 . ) ( .- 3 . .. 6 - A (
.- % ; 3 * 5
11:30 11:45 . ) C ( ) " < . . )
. .. (+ 3
(10)
1200 %8L (+C8F %8 5 3 (+ 3 A+(B8- 5
. " . * . . * .
) % & ( * .
* % . . ) + , " $
; " F 2 . % & . ) +.
% & 1$ . " 3 * "
$ % - @
+58 - 6 28 . 1 G % ; 28 . 1 G
( . F 2 . 1 G K . 7 2 . 1
1330 1430 AB 4 6+F % 5FI +66 A 3 ;+F9 4+ F5 5
14:30 15:45 - F * . . ) . ) (+ ( *
3 (+ 5 M' . .. )
+ & )
H:
* . 9 . . G 5 * F G G K
G F 7 G (
15:45 +6688
16:00 Identifying the PEGs(people/institutions):
Determining their role in relation to their nodes and CA, Secretariat.
6 - ( .
* . * @
) . .
2 .1 . +48 C8 )) . . *
. " ) . ) $
17:00 ; - ; ; 48 383N= 6 < )
. ) . ? .$
3 . .. ) * .
( . 3 8
17:45 C ) 5 . % ;;6 (
18:00 Check Out ) . . ) . $
19:45 Dinner
Outputs + . * . " * . * * ) . . ) . .. " . . .
* " ? . $
(1)
Day 1 [7th of September, 2010]: Context Setting and Mapping REAL Expectations
+"7
* -
)
* . ) 7 &
.
.
*
. )
2
political (regime and policies)? economic? financial?
technological? social? existential?
1
. "
..
*
. *
.
. .
"
$
Objective Context Setting and Mapping REAL Expectations Who ?
1000 * ) .
1015 ; 3 * @ @3
1030 .
1045 F * A
1100 % 8& . F - ; " . )
+. = . * . # & . . .@
. ) ) '
1115 3 . .. - ; . ## .
. * =
C . ) * . . 8 * % * $ 4 *
. .. . .. F 3
* . . " $
F . . ) . . *
)) "
G 7 G G (
G% % '
1145 +6688
12:00 F * . . " . ) "
12:15 3 . .. - ; ; ow ; ; 4 .
8 * % * =
5 ) " .. . . .roadblocks . common
vision) * ) '
- 7 5 * F ( )) 9 . (
4 ( . % F *
. . .. $
. - % ; ;
H . ) 3 . .. . " @ 5 .
(2)
1430 ( ; - 2 % & F F . 1
Identify juxtaposed that developing countries face, which must be addressed to develop a cohesive response strategy to global warming. H . .
.. - 3 % 6 0
1530 - F . ) ( . ) ; ( . " ..
- F 7 3 * 5 "
1615 +6688
1630 F ( ;
-% + . 2) # . .. .1 %
+A 5 A F8 A 5I A 5 + +F5B 5 8 )
countering push back) ( * " % . . . )
.$
6 - A
. J > . . This exercise works
towards Matching expectations and decoupling “G77” into countries with similar socio economic political groups as far as possible to cull out the subtleties around “the South” being a multidimensional entity locked into a common future]
1730 . ) F ( . 2H: 1- 6 )
+%%+ . ) .. ) * .$
5 . - % 7 3 % %
1800 F * ) 3 I . . .. $ A @
1815 . %
19:45
WELCOME DI
ER
Outputs 4 . ) . . . 3 * .$
9 . : . )
1
-
Is there Historical precedence for the South forming a single strategy for tackling global problems? Or are we setting a new precedence ? Is climate change creating a unique opportunity in a post liberalization / rapidly industrializing world?(3)
Day 2 (Wednesday,8th of September,2010) : Developing common goals and a Roadmap for Collaboration
$ ;
.
<
"
))
*
.
*
.
)
..
)
= 4
*
.
. *
)
*
..
*
*
)
)
*
. .= ;
.
.
=
Objective Developing common goals and tactics
0900 : .
0915 +* * ) 3 I
0930 F * 7
0945 . - +* * ) 8< 3 "
" 2 G (3FG 3FG " .1 '
. - 7 2 . . .1
. - A . K F 7 * .
H:
-.- % ; ;
1045 8A- & ) & . )
. . ) . * ) *
.. * * ) ) *
. .$
. . 26 8& 1
F . 25 * $1
" % " 0
. .- ( F "" G 8 (
4 B (
- C .
1130 +6688
1145 ( ; 2F 1- 3 * . .
) . " ) . ) . . " .
? $ ; =
6 - A
1200 ) .- F F .$
1215
1230 F " ) " ( . .- % 3 *
1245 ) F . " 6 5 .
(4)
1400 3 . .. - F 3+5 ; . 3 "
3 * ; from a on Annex 1 lense,What are
the key points of debate? What is the likely scenario in Cancun? What political arguments matter to them? Political situation in Emerging Economies, Africa? SIDS? LDC’s? Where do we see solutions emerging?
Q&A.
3 . .. .- * . K (
% 7 5
. - 5 * 28B1 K 2B 1
.- . % 7 3
1500 . - F ) C " 3 * .
3 " 2 . )) .
. . " ) 3 A3 /.1
3 % ) 0
.- F 7 4 * A * : %
%
1530 ( . 2% & 1
9 < . . . ) * /. .
-- What are the potential political entry points for vulnerable groups and countries?
- What are the interrelations between the developed countries and between the developing countries & their various blocs(e.g. emerging economies) ? - What opportunities are there for building alliances between various blocs
in G 77 in other forums?
- What opportunities are there for building pressure to raise the level of ambition?
6
-1630 +6688
1645 F
H:
.- % 5 *
1715 ) (+ ( * $ 3
-. . ) +
. @% & 3 9 .. . . ) .
. .@ & .
6 - F
2Volunteers from each of the groups (Africa, LDCs, AOSIS, SIDS, EEs) for a WG to identify key Questions for discussion – To work in the evening).
1745 F * - 4 6 4 * ; = ( .
1800 . %
19:45
Dinner
Outputs ) ) ) . ) " * * . " $
(5)
Day 3: (Thursday,9th of September,2010) Process/Roles and Way Forward + Mexican Government and GO Dialogue.
Objective Way Forward (Process/Roles ) + Mexican Government and GO
Dialogue
0900 : .
0905 . ) +B5 B5 ) 3 #
0915 F * B
0925 - F . * . ) /. . *
A "" . . . )
< .
What modifications would they be looking at in terms of their messaging based on the information sharing and learning in the past 2 days?
What are potential points of leverage for ,GOs from developing countries in the Western media?
How can the “moral and polluter pays arguments” be used to pressure big emitters forward in the climate change negotiations through the Western media?
How can the ‘right to develop’ be addressed so that it is not treated by larger developing countries as a right to pollute.
7 G 7 G 8 G ( G % . G
10:25 . 2% &
1-- What are the potential political entry points for vulnerable groups and countries?
- What opportunities are there for building alliances amongst southern CSOs?
- What opportunities are there for building pressure to raise the level of ambition especially as CA,?
6 - A (
11:10 . ) ( .- 3 . .. 6 - A (
.- % ; 3 * 5
11:30 11:45 . ) C ( ) " < . . )
. .. (+ 3
(6)
1200 %8L (+C8F %8 5 3 (+ 3 A+(B8- 5
. " . * . . * .
) % & ( * .
* % . . ) + , " $
; " F 2 . % & . ) +.
% & 1$ . " 3 * "
$ % - @
+58 - 6 28 . 1 G % ; 28 . 1 G
( . F 2 . 1 G K . 7 2 . 1
1330 1430 AB 4 6+F % 5FI +66 A 3 ;+F9 4+ F5 5
14:30 15:45 - F * . . ) . ) (+ ( *
3 (+ 5 M' . .. )
+ & )
H:
* . 9 . . G 5 * F G G K
G F 7 G (
15:45 +6688
16:00
Identifying the PEGs(people/institutions):
Determining their role in relation to their nodes and CA, Secretariat.
6 - ( .
* . * @
) . .
2 .1 . +48 C8 )) . . *
. " ) . ) $
17:00 ; - ; ; 48 383N= 6 < )
. ) . ? .$
3 . .. ) * .
( . 3 8
17:45 C ) 5 . % ;;6 (
18:00 Check Out ) . . ) . $
19:45
Dinner
Outputs + . * . " * . * * ) . . ) . .. " . . .
* " ? . $