Report on CAN Pre COP Workshop
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
19
thto 21
stOctober 2011
Climate Action Network International
October 2011
1. Background
In recent years, Climate Action Network – International (CAN) has developed Southern Capacity Building Programme (SCBP) in order to bolster the voices of developing country member organizations and partners working on climate advocacy at both domestic and international levels. Often, due to resource
constraints and lack of information on the issues, voices from developing countries have been marginalised. What’s more, it has often been the case that participation from developing country advocates has been inconsistent and often with limited knowledge on the subject matter due to lack of exposure.
Through the work of the SCB programme of CAN over the last two years dedicated policy analysts and activists have been empowered, with some building their capacity so far as to become experts in their fields. This program has helped CAN’s Southern NGOs and networks to build their knowledge and experience in the areas of policy advocacy, lobbying governments, media relations, and mobilization around policy work for broader civil society agenda. It has further built their relationships with their respective governments and to influence them through their ability to articulate policy perspective and their agenda of the poor and vulnerable people.
As a part of capacity building and to enhancing the dialogue on policies issues within CAN members and partners in the Global South CAN organized a Pre COP capacity building and knowledge sharing workshop. Attending the international climate negotiations alone will not be sufficient. Participants will also have to share their knowledge and skills gained at the negotiations with other civil society members and government in their country and
region. Given the political dynamics in climate change negotiations, it is becoming a complex phenomenon. In this context, it is important that more southern people build their knowledge and capacity to work around these issues. In order to do so, they will have to engage in dialogue and discussion among themselves and have time and space to further sharpen this debate. This workshop is a milestone in achieving such goal.
2. Pre COP workshop in Addis Ababa
CAN International organized a "Pre COP Workshop" for developing country CAN members in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia from 19th to 21st October 2011. This is a part of CAN’s ongoing efforts under the Southern Capacity Building program. Roughly 50 participants from over 35 countries from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Pacific regions attended the workshop.
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 and/or the African Union.
4. Workshop methodology
Different methodologies were practiced in the workshop. Since the workshop was designed to build the capacity and share
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 and/or 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 17th 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
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
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 panel/presentations and the floor.
‐ Ewan Cameron, Cook Islands
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.org/sites/default/files/CAN_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
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
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.
Shirley 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
Experience sharing and providing constructive feedback was an integral part of the workshop. Since this workshop was focused around policy discussions at the national, regional and international level, in support of this process, participants were encouraged to share their experiences for the benefit of all. The idea was basically to learn from different countries and regions to help shape the climate agenda and polices at various levels to execute the relevant strategy and insights.
It was also stressed how the work done at national or regional level in different region would feed into the international
climate discussions. Some participants shared their learning of policy work from the local level. For instance, CAN Uganda was set up to start information dissemination
We need to engage with the government
Congratulations on an exceptional workshop to CANI, its sponsors and partners for being able to assemble an impressive array of panelists and participants. I found the workshop very enlightening and informative as participants from various regions shared their opinions on issues such as low carbon development including other issues like adaptation, mitigation, technology and REDD and their implication in our countries.
The workshop further enhanced my capacity on the need to engage with various government agencies on climate change issues. Currently Ghana is reviewing all of its policies and various inputs are required from civil society. I intend to share my learning experiences from the CAN pre‐COP workshop with persons working in the field of climate change.
‐ Gloria Akaba, Ghana
and also advocacy on appropriate policy. They also help the government negotiators on some specific positions preparation. Similarly, CAN South Asia was strengthening its members and establishing itself as a regional network to advocate on regional issues at SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation) level.
Also, a new CAN regional node is in the process of being established in the Pacific region to push for their agenda and work in unison. This is an encouraging sign, as not many networks exist in this region working on climate issue. This highly vulnerable and spread out region needs support and inspiration.
8. Dialogue with the African Union
As a part of the program, a dialogue with the African Union was also planned and organized. This was primarily intended to learn the strategies of African Union in the lead up to COP17, which will be held in Durban, South Africa. Similarly, as civil society we also wanted to show our support for the Union for fruitful outcomes in Durban as the COP was being held in Africa ‐ one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change.
A representative from the Division of Environment and Natural Resources of the African Union attended the program to brief the group on the Union’s plan. He explained how the African Union worked and shared on some of the challenges and strengths of the institution. This discussion was slow moving due to having sequential translation from French to English, but nonetheless lively. Participants
interacted with various questions related to the upcoming COP.
In order to be sure the group was prepared for a productive discussion, a
preparatory session was held the previous day, which made the discussion move smoothly. Participants clearly delivered their message stating that since this COP is being held in Africa it should be considered as an African COP and the Union should work in harmony to make the best out of it. African being one of the vulnerable region and already suffering the impacts of climate change should work strongly for the success of the COP.
9. Developing a regional plan
In the third day of the workshop, participants built a work plan for their country and/or regions. These plans reflected the discussions from the workshop and incorporated what needs to be done in their respective regions. Participants were divided into four regional groups to do the planning.
The plans developed are to share the learning from the workshop and also initiate debate and discussion in the lead up to COP 17. Regional plans incorporate two set of activities – one in relation to the upcoming COP and the other beyond COP and Rio+20 conference. These activities will be followed up and
reported in the updates. The full detail of these regional plans can be viewed in Annex‐II.
10. Learning from the workshop
This Pre COP workshop is the second workshop in two years, and has built successfully from the lessons learned in the previous years’ workshop. Like last year, this workshop held in Ethiopia was seen as a success. There has been many leassons from organizing this workshop, such as the following:
• For a network like CAN, while conducting an international workshop having a strong host is important and in this Pre‐COP workshop the Heinrich Böll Foundation office in Ethiopia played a crucial role. We will continue to seek such partners for future programs.
• Wider reach and mixture of participants is very crucial. As in this workshop we will continue to invite members from diverse regions, countries and with different expertise. Gender balance will always be highly sought.
• Rather than having to invite separate specific resource persons, it was very fruitful to provide the opportunity for participants to act as resource persons themselves. This gave lots of confidence to the participants and also plenty of experience and information sharing was done to support the network
members.
• Some of the sessions in the workshop seemed heavy for new comers and time was short to get into details. However, in future workshops it could be useful to organize something a basic information session beforehand for new comers and also look into the length of each sessions to ensure they meet the needs of the topic at hand.
• The idea of having a dialogue with the African Union was well planned, however ensuring the right representative from the government bodies in the future will allow for more fluid discussions where language is less of a barrier and the expertise is aligned with information sought to be discussed.
• Preparing the country and regional plan at the end of the workshop was very strategic to see what the participants would do once they went back home. Having a good plan in hand gave encouragement for the participants to get engaged upon return to their home countries. However, follow up must be done to ensue that these plans are implemented.
11. Participant’s feedback from the workshop
Most of the participants seemed very content with the workshop and suggested giving continuity to similar activities in the future. This workshop helped build synergy among networks in the Global South. Some of the major feedbacks received from the participants are given below.
What went well?
• The workshop was educational, informative and helped build the understanding of climate negotiations.
• It helped build South‐South dialogue and cooperation while helping prepare for COP 17 in Durban.
• The sessions chosen were relevant and the mix of activities were motivating.
• Most of the participants feel the objectives of the workshop were met to large extent. However, some did mention that we might want to consider the choice of person from the government or African Union.
• Many participants who would not speak in regular CAN meetings were more vocal. This should be encouraged and continued in the regular meetings too.
• The organizing of the workshop was timey and the logistics were well organized.
• Participants thoroughly enjoyed the social evenings with cultural music, dance and food.
What could be improved next time?
• Presentations could be backed by more facts and figures and examples. We also need to work towards
solutions rather than just discussions.
• There should be a session on basics for the new comers and possibly doing event like this regionally first would be helpful. Some sessions were too technical and needed more
clarification.
• Would be useful to invite some developed country colleagues and
perhaps some government representatives so that there is also a dialogue with them and allows for greater understanding of respective perspectives.
• Need to consider the mix of participants and arrange a translator when needed.
• Having one extra day could be beneficial. Sometimes there was a rush or did not have time to finish the discussion for better outcomes in the group discussions.
• Could be good to have some concrete outcome at the end of the workshop that would feed into decision‐making bodies of CAN International.
Information sharing is crucial
This workshop was an agent of change to me. It really inspired me to get engaged in the policy discussion. Debates and experience sharing from different Southern countries enhanced my competency in climate change issues. It makes me feel that I have a lot to do in my home country. Tanzania needs information dissemination and awareness raising. Documents such as CAN’s Durban expectations and presentations made in the workshops should go to my government negotiators. This helps them to understand the community priorities and work accordingly. As an activist, I will put my effort in sharing the outcomes and learning from this workshop.
‐ Dominic Mtui , Tanzania
• Need more social activities – add fields visit too.
• Follow up process should be considered not to loose the gains and momentum established at the workshop.
Many participants have individually committed to go back and share the learning with wider stakeholders while some have vowed to continue getting engaged in climate policy work.
12. Conclusions
The pre‐COP workshop ended with good regional plans for the members in the Global South. To a large extent we fulfilled the objectives put forward initially. Fruitful and constructive discussions, lots of experience sharing and motivation to engage in the climate policy advocacy were well appreciated by the participants. Similar reflections were also received from the final evaluation of the workshop. The organizing of the workshop also went smooth due to an excellent collaboration with the local host, the Heinrich Böll Foundation.
CAN will continue to seek similar opportunities to build the capacity of Southern members and institutionalize the learning. There is continuing needs for
information dissemination, local level policy dialogue, motivation to engage in policy advocacy and continuity to the actions already taking place. Only by continuous collective persistence we can achieve this. The pre‐COP workshop has been a milestone in achieving some of the vision and similar events need to take place in the future. With support from its members and partners CAN International will continue to engage in capacity building activities in different forms.
Annexes
Annex‐I: List of Participants Annex‐II: Regional plans
Annex‐I
CAN Pre COP Participants list (October 2011)
Title Name Organization Position Country
Ms Lama El Hatow IndyACT Climate Policy Officer Egypt
Mr Gurmit Singh CANSEA Reg. Coordinator Malaysia
Mr Patrick Adams San Juan
Philippine Rural
Reconstruction Movement
Development
Cooperation and Media
Relations Associate Philippines
Mr CHANDRA BHUSHAN
CENTRE FOR SCIENCE AND
ENVIRONMENT Deputy Director India
Mr Manjeet Dhakal Clean Energy Nepal Program Director Nepal
Ms Nazria Islam BCAS Sr Researcher Bangladesh
Ms Kashmala Kakakhel Lead Pakistan TA &KM Coordinator Pakistan
Mr
DOMINIC ALEXANDER
MTUI AGENDA Programme Officer Tanzania
Mr Philip Odhiambo Otieno Kenya Young Greens National Coordinator Kenya
Mr Geoffrey Kamese CAN‐Uganda Coordinator Uganda
Mr Isaac Kabongo ECO ED Uganda
Mr Mamady Kobele Keita Guinée Ecologie ED Guinea
Mr BRIDA ANGE‐BENJAMIN Envisciences ED Ivory Coast
Mr Surveyor Efik
Climate Change Network
Nigeria National Coordinator Nigeria
Mr Samuel Dotse HATOF Foundation CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Ghana
Ms Gifty AMPOMAH ENDA Action Researcher Senegal
Mr RajendranathAwotar Maudesco/SARCAN Regional Coordiantor Mauritius
Ms
Maike Pilitati (Pelenise Alofa)
Kiribati Climate Action
Network President Kiribati
Mr Ewan Cameron 350.org
Pacific Moving Planet
Coordinator Samoa
Ms Mona Matepi CAN‐Cook Islands Member Cook Island
Mr
Morrow Gaines Campbell
III Vitae Civlis Climate Advisor Brazil
Ms Sandra Guzmán
Mexican Center of Environmental Law
Head of Public Policy
Development Mexico
Mr Juan Carlos Soriano Yabar 350.org
Latin American Regional
Organizer Peru
Ms Jiayi Xu
Institute for Environment
and Development Program Officer China
Mr YARISSEM Jean‐Bernard WWF‐CARPO Country Director
Central African Republic
Mr Thomas Otim WWF ‐ Uganda Conservation Manager Uganda
Ms Gloria Akaba The Development Institute Programme Manager Ghana
Mr. Lawali Malam Karami
ONG s et Product
Aménagement des Terroirs et Productions Forestières
(ATPF) National Coordinator Niger
Mr
Ataide Francisco David
Sacramento CARE International
Advocacy Manager in Adaptation Learning Programme for Africa (ALP)
Mozambiq ue
Mr Mithika Mwenda PACJA PACJA Coordinator Kenya
Mr Ahmed Sékou Diallo
AFAD /Association de Formation et d’Appui au
Développement Executive Director Mali
Mr Mohamed Adow Christian Aid Kenya
Mr Sanjay Vashist CANSA Director India
Ms Shirley Atatagi Greenpeace Policy Adviser NZ
Mr Harjeet Singh Action Aid Programme Coordinator India
Mr David Turnbull CANI Director USA
Ms Julie Anne Richards CANI
International Policy
Coordinator Australia
Mr Raju Pandit Chhetri CANI Program Coordinator ‐SCB Nepal
Mr
Affana Affana Jean Paul Brice
Vital Actions for Sustainable
Development (AVD) Coordinator Cameroon
Ms Winnie Khaemba
African Youth Initiative on Climate Change (AYICC)
Advisor, Policy &
Partnerships Kenya
Mr Negash Teklu,
Population Health and
Environment‐Ethiopia (PHEE) Executive Director Ethiopia
Mr Dereje G/Michael
Institute for Sustainable
Development (ISD) Deputy Director Ethiopia
Mr Habtemariam Abate
Sustainable Land Use Forum
(SLUF) Executive Director Ethiopia
Mr Feyera Abdi SOS Sahel Executive Director Ethiopia
Ms Mahlet Eyassu‐ Forum for Environment (FfE) Program Manager Ethiopia
Ms Mahlet Tadesse Forum for Environment (FfE) Project Officer Ethiopia
Mr Ayele Kebede
Heinrich Boell Foundation
(HBF) Program Coordinator Ethiopia
Mr Patrick Berg
Heinrich Boell Foundation
(HBF) Country Director Germany
