The summit was very well facilitated and organised. In the opening plenary we were all told to make sure that we join a table whose members we don’t know. I thought that was the best way of getting to know each other. At the end we had to put down a question that we felt must be answered by the end of the summit. They were compiled and hung on the wall. Looking at them up, made one feel very focused and motivated towards finding a solution and it somehow also helped in focusing our energies, streamlining our goals and identifying issues that we wanted to resolve. 

This was followed by an equity dialogue wherein we were paired opposite to a person and had to share our interpretations of equity,what it meant to us, to our organisation, and to our country.  It then struck me that more than bringing about equity, the issue was more of how one defines equity. And since there was so much ambiguity regarding the terms of equity , the political factors such as the government or organisations took advantage of this and had an excuse for not solving the debate.

We then got to listen to one of the CAN “fossils,” (the ones who are the oldest and senior most in the network,) Bill Hare of Greenpeace and coauthor of the IPCC Synthesis of the 4th Assessment Report on climate change, who presented to us the relation of equity to climate science . He made us realise that the temperature rise just has to be below 2 degrees otherwise things will spiral out of control. He had loads of interesting graphs and statistics to show us , especially relating to the “ppm ” (parts per million) values and their projected values in the nearby future.

After the much needed tea break we had a very interesting presentation by Dr Ambuj Sagar who had put together a new way to measure the role of each country towards the emission reduction, which took into account its GDP, the social factors like poverty etc, population and also the steps and initiatives taken by that country to adapt and mitigate. The index constructed had India as low as 2.3 and China as high as 10.8 and US of course blew off the charts in comparison to other countries if it carries on the way it has so long.

We were again split in groups of 5 on each table and were given three different coloured sheets which had to be filled with things that we agree on , we agree to disagree and agendas that have conflict and need to be resolved. On my table I had a Ukrainian, Britisher, African and an Indian.

We agreed that the license to pollute does not mean we have a right to pollute and that we can  have a global sustainability regime which does not limit development. We agreed to disagree on the definition of equity and we felt that the common but differentiated responsibilities is an area of conflict that needs to be resolved.

Right when I thought that I had a little too much to digest, we had a session by Bill to answer the most stupid questions we could come up with regarding COP, UNFCCC or climate change. That came as a relief since I realised I wasn’t the only one for whom the jargon was flying over my head.

Next day we were split into two major groups into adaptation strategies and effort sharing principles and key issues for a fair global deal. After the brainstorming sessions , each group was told to report to each other and I gathered the courage to voluteer to do that.

The first we had to figure out the principles. The adaptation plan should be a people centered approach which will safeguard the poor and the vulnerable. It should be modelled on principles of equity, fairness and and resilience and gender equity. We also believed in the “Polluter Pays” principle. Further its should monitored, transparent, inclusive mechanism where we unite with respecting indigenous and local values at the same time. also, food security, Public Health, Education and awareness also figured in our principles.

These principles should be operationalised in the following ways.  We strongly believe that the UNFCCC should set up a mechanism for funding NGOs and civil society groups, communities probably youth groups. Funding sources should be from different countries.  We should review all are actions, identify groups at risk and involve local participation at all levels. There should be a dialogue and mobilisation in civil society and government organisations and the South Nations should unite for operationalising of principle of adaptation. We find it ok to disagree whether CDM can bring about any constructive adaptation.

Further we believe that there should be definitely some trust building measures between the north and south countries within CAN and otherwise.

The day ended with a storytelling session where Gaines, the oldest man in the summit told us about how he reached here and that story really moved me. He like most other success stories has risen from the ground, where he was rejected by college once to then getting a full scholarship to MIT and marrying the Portuguese woman he fell in love with.

Next day , we had broken up into proposed working groups. I essentially was in the Development with Climate action and had proposed it along with Nazria Islam who also happened to be my roommate, but also lent a helping hand to the gender equity group.

In the development and climate action group our major thrusts were on the:

-trade offs between them or whether we consider them to be complimentary goals

- politics of development

-economic development vs mitigation

-poverty alleviation and climate justice

We reached to the following conclusions

-redefining or comprehending the true sense of development.

-decentralisation of production , consumption and distribution activities.

-knowledge, governance , resources to be liberated from control

-community and village autonomy to be established

-ecological and cultural values

-solidarity between movements

-rich lifestyles need to be adapted.

-CAN should move beyond in terms of its outreach from Bali to copenghagen ,accra etc

-prioritization of CAN beyond international negotiations

-more open dialogue within CAN and also with NON CAN members

-Southern face of CAN should be projected.

In the gender equity group we reached the following conclusions.

-Building a CAN gender group, projecting the reality and communicating within CAN and also with other gender groups.

-its important since women suffer more as a section of society due to climate change disasters.

- transforming the role of women from being victims to enablers by intervening and bringing change into their everyday lives.

- Involve women in decision making and especially get adequate representation in the UNFCCC.

In all , combined with the shells and waves of the beach it was one trip worth remembering considering I am very lucky as a college student to get the opportunity. But I guess the experience is better when you meet people who share similar goals and are more determined than you. It really makes you realise that you have to keep fighting and that you aren’t alone in the fight .

Thanks to all who made it possible.