>
> CJN meeting
>
> Bonn, 2 June 2010
>
> (Attendance: I didn´t manage to transcribe this, but there were 19
> people from the following organisations and networks: Biofuelwatch,
> Carbon Trade Watch, Econexus, ETC Group, FERN, French Climate Justice
> Network, Friends of the Earth, Global Forest Coalition, Jubilee South,
> PACJA, Institute for Policy Studies. Apologies for any omissions)
>
> WHAT HAS CJN DONE WELL?
>
> * Morning briefings at UNFCCC. CJN holds a “space” in climate talks. The
> Secretariat recognises CAN and CJN (no longer just CAN). Good to have
> that strong space at a time when it is reviewing how different
> constituencies are treated in UN talks
>
> * It has provided a transitional space, bringing in groups that have not
> worked on climate
>
> * Cochabamba was partly a result of CJN impetus
>
> * CJN has brought a broader ethical perspective in addressing climate
> change
>
> * It has set out a joint vision based on diverse movements
>
> * It has inspired the formation of other national and regional networks
>
> * The analysis (and statements) have helped shape the CJ movement in the
> US, and how to move forward without being reformist
>
>
>
> WHAT COULD BE IMPROVED?
>
> * Many of the process and content issues were discussed in Cochabamba,
> and previously in Bangkok. There seems to be a disconnect between who is
> at a certain meeting, and the wider dissemination of information across
> the network – giving a sense of going around in circles. The minutes of
> those previous meetings need to be recirculated
>
> * The listserve needs to be improved and moderated, and/or have a clear
> code of conduct
>
> * There is a need to improve and clarify how we function. There are
> basically 2 concepts we can aim for:
>
> (i) a meeting point of many movements, through which we can converge
> around common initiatives without everyone necessarily agreeing, in
> which case it is fine to have looser structures. This is valuable and
> needed, if decided
>
> (ii) a tighter movement, if the aim is to plan actions, take common
> initiatives, and claim a representative function. That requires a
> tighter and more accountable structure. If CJN is identifiable as a
> movement, there needs to be a structure that is identifiable and
> provides a way to join and decide in those things
>
> We haven't clarified which of these two we want to be – and this can
> lead to tensions. eg. can we have a position on REDD? We need this
> conversation
>
> We aren't united either in how we treat the UNFCCC – many engage, and
> many don't. This kind of difference is fine in a broad loose structure,
> but doesn't work for a tighter movement.
>
> We need to decide either way.
>
> * CJN doesn´t really play either of these roles effectively right now –
> there are a number of practicalities of structure and communication that
> need sorting out, including the listserv and creation/reactivation of
> working groups, that are compatible with either a loose or tight
> structure
>
> * We need a longer discussion on the broader nature of the network, and
> its political goals, but how do we have that discussion when we have no
> money ? Can we raise the resources for a meeting to have a longer
> discussion on these fundamental questions?
>
> Action points.
>
> A facilitation group of Kate Dooley (FERN), Mithika Mwenda (PACJA) and
> Lidy Nacpil (Jubilee South) was created to prepare the meeting agenda
> (integrating the above discussions) for Saturday:
>
> A summary of previous CJN process and content agreements (and points of
> divergence) will be compiled, drawing on Cochabamba and Bangkok notes,
> to help avoid the “going round in circles” problem. This summary will be
> made by Janet Redman (Institute of Policy Studies), Oscar Reyes (Carbon
> Trade Watch) and Diane Bronson (ETC Group)
>
> BRAINSTORM ROUND ON WAYS TO IMPROVE CJN
>
> Simone Lovera, GFC: We had fruitful discussions in Bangkok, so we should
> try to recuperate those. We shouldn't be afraid that a tighter structure
> creates some kind of IUCN of CJN, with a large bombastic secretariat. It
> would be better to be a little tighter now, without strangling it. In
> terms of accountability it would be good to have at least one person to
> be accountable – one or two people feeling responsibility. It helps in
> terms of accountability
>
> Nicola Bullard, Focus on the Global South: There were sub-groups created
> in Bangkok and, with the exception of the facilitation group, these were
> working in the run up to Copenhagen
>
> Kate Dooley, FERN: Don't know whether loose or tighter, but something
> needs to shift. If two of the three sub-groups worked well, we should
> revisit that structure
>
> ?, French Climate Justice Coalition: Regular declarations are relevant
> to help build our movement in France. We prefer to try to build a more
> structured coalition
>
> Helena Paul, Econexus : If it could remain loose and not run the risk of
> becoming ideologically driven that would be good – that helps people
> come in and participate
>
> Willy ? : Loose, but with some structure to ensure coordination,
> accountability and transparency
>
> Deepak Rughani, Biofuelwatch: A degree of dynamic flexibility is useful
> – not an incredibly tight group. But there need to be key principles
> that we're all aligned to
>
> Lidy Nacpil, Jubilee South: Both are needed. Starting with what we have,
> the range of groups means it will be difficult to move it towards a
> tighter formation, because a lot of positions are far apart. So CJN
> needs to fill the role of a looser network in an effective way – it
> isn't effective, hence frustration. The implications are that those of
> us who want a clearer position-taking group will have to seek that.
> These 2 processes don't contradict each other – what we don't find in
> one formation, we can find elsewhere
>
> ?, Jubilee South Secretariat: we need to be creative and realistic with
> our structure. Burdening a few people happens whether or not you have a
> Secretariat. We need a more collective format – I´m a bit sceptical
> about staffing, etc. You can have a structure without hiring, and have a
> loose network with a more collective structure. Whatever is decided it
> has to be the result of a process
>
> Augustine Njamnshi, PACJA: CJN is brought together by people who think
> CJ issues should be at the forefront – any structure that promotes that
> is good for me. A proper organisation with principles, executive, etc. -
> I´m not sure that's what we need for now.
>
> Diane Bronson, ETC: Structure should be minimalist. There should be a
> minimal secretariat based in the South. I agree with that. It is a
> practical issue. I was part of the non-functioning “facilitation” group.
> For the network to function as a network we need that minimal
> coordination. We don't need an executive secretariat, just some real
> coordination capacity. Without it, we lose people. That needs a paid
> co-ordinator at the service of the collective
>
> ? : The network could benefit from internal communication improvements –
> eg. profiles on listserv. , Such tools already exist
>
> Janet Redman, Focus on the Global South: Those tools are relevant.
> Ideally, there would be some people paid to do the support work – those
> small pieces of work that would allow for transparency. Not necessarily
> a secretariat. We also need to think about how individuals as well as
> groups plug into the network
>
> Oscar Reyes, Carbon Trade Watch: The political gaps are too wide, and
> CJN is currently too disorganised to create a tight strcture with a
> secretariat. There is a real need to tackle the current
> “structurelessness” problem, where there is no transparency and de facto
> roles are created, but this can be done by dispersing responsibility –
> for example, getting the working groups going, having a way for regional
> networks to feed in. If there are secretariat functions, it could be
> better if these were rotating so that the structure created doesn´t
> ossify
>
> Anne Petermann, Global Justice Ecology Project/ Global Forest Coalition:
> I prefer the loose network concept. A space for political debate is
> really important. The Poznan statement was really powerful, after strong
> debate that created that – and it has been essential for inspiring other
> movements, and helping others frame their own climate justice arguments.
> CJN can have many different faces as long as there are core principles.
> It would be good to plan for a larger, more concerted CJN meeting – with
> regional representatives, and each region having a conversation prior to
> that. A facilitator role would be helpful too. What Deepak called
> “dynamic flexibility with key principles” was good – critical,
> effective, radical.
>
> ?: I was not part of CJN before. Is the N for Now or Network? CJN needs
> to be quick and responsive. Not too loose so that it becomes everyone's
> and no-one's responsibility. Championing climate justice causes rather
> than building empires is important.
>
>
>
> Camila Moreno, Friends of the Earth Brazil: Climate Justice Now! is a
> key space and actor to shape what “climate justice” is – period. The CJ
> concept has become a political force – helping to shape a march of
> 100,000 in Copenhagen; even Via Campesina now identifies with “climate
> justice”. This idea wasn't “ground up”, but the reception of the concept
> is. I want to stress that CJN intrinsically relates to the “official”
> UNFCCC process – which has a key structural relation to what's going on
> inside there, and how mainstream climate discourse is being shaped
> worldwide. The format, loose or tight, is not a priority – the content
> is going to determined the form. This dilemma on loose or tight
> structure has a direct connection on whether or not CJN takes positions.
> I miss having a clear political reading of the landscape, of what is
> going on. We have an incomparible diversity of people who could put
> together a clear idea of what's going on with REDD, for example. There's
> no more doubt that they're instrumentalising the UN to have all their
> parallel negotiations – they being the Norway, Japan, Papua Partnerhsip.
> They spoke at their side event of creating an “action track” rather than
> a “negotiation track.” They said “just do it” was their slogan, they
> chose the Nike slogan.
>
> Civil society is tired of negotiations, so they need something on the
> table . They said REDD is the fastest, cheapest, easiest to implement –
> but to do what? Address the climate crisis? No. Its to grow a biomass
> economy, green capitalism, a structure around carbon trading and
> biodiversity offsets
>
> Anne Petermann: I agree with Camila´s really important caution against
> this group becoming one that does nothing but talk about process. We
> should make space for the political discussions
>
> Simone Lovera: we should also pick up the Bangkok notes which developed
> 10 or so “calls”
>
> - and if things that need to go further, we should revisit it
>
> Diane Bronson: My sense in these UNFCCC meetings is of real apathy – who
> the hell cares, there won't be a Cancun agreement, so they'll get on
> with doing what they'll do in other ways. The same thing that Camila
> reports is happening in technology too – with all these side deals going
> on. For exampl, there was a debate in the technology track on whether
> the R&D (research and development) proposals needs to refer back to the
> UN Climate Convention. The discussion is run by the “Executive Group on
> Technology Transfer” which is all annex 1 countries, who are just
> interested in developing new markets. We're advocating a geoengineering
> moratorium, but we're suspicious to raise that in the UNFCCC because
> such things can be turned around here to become something
> pro-geoengineering
>
> Helena Paul: There is a shift, a corruption of this process – now people
> aren't prepared to stand up for g77 principles. There´s the “corruption”
> factor of markets, with everything being marketised
>
> Nicola Bullard: What wasn't mentioned in the Round is that there's a
> proliferation of national coalitions. CJN! SA, Belgium, France,
> Philippines, etc are emerging – this should be factored into our
> thinking.
>
> Mithika Mwenda: We have a general concern about the proliferation of
> national-based networks. In terms of engagement, we in Africa feel we've
> done a lot of work in consolidating ourselves as a climate network on
> the continent. Our member organisations want again to engage with CJN at
> the local level we don't want a situation where CJN evolves into a
> network which comes and takes the steam and undermines our existing
> gains and then kills the efforts that we have made, so we need to
> discuss more about how to coordinate the international, national and
> local levels
>
> Camila Moreno: In 2005 we went to the Brazilian government and said “get
> out of WTO.” They responded that everyone is in the WTO, and those who
> aren´t are trying hard to join – that if the WTO is so bad, why is it
> that Hugo Chavez wants to be in WTO? There´s a similar dynamic with REDD
> now. REDD is about more than forests- its about the entire land use and
> forest sector, so no country wants to be out. The Copenhagen Accord
> claims the sign up of 126 countries with 90% of global emissions. The
>
> REDD partnership is 58 countries including all the main forest
> countries. They create a de facto structure where the money is going to
> be, and then nobody wants to be outside of that club.
>
>
> --
> Oscar Reyes
> Carbon Trade Watch
>
> +44 7739 827208
>
> *** New Book ***
> "Carbon Trading: how it works and why it fails"
> http://www.carbontradewatch.org/publications/carbon-trading-how-it-works-and-why-it-fails.html
> ****************
>
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
> This e-mail may contain information which is privileged and intended for
> the recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise
> immediately, and do not disclose the contents, or take copies. / Rappel:
> Ce courriel pourrait contenir des renseignements qui ne concernent que
> le recepteur pour son strict usage personnel. Dans le cas ou vous ne
> serez pas ce recepteur indique, veuillez nous en avertir immediatement
> sans prendre connaissance du contenu, ni en faire des copies.
>
> --
> You are subscribed to the "ClimateJusticeNow!SA" group on GoogleGroups.
> To post : [email protected]
> To unsubscribe : [email protected]
> For more options :
> http://groups.google.co.za/group/climatejusticesa?hl=en?hl=en
>
>
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
--
You are subscribed. This footer can help you.
Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this
message.
You can visit the group WEB SITE at
http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options,
pages, files and membership.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You
don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put
anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this
address (repeat): [email protected] .
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service.
https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
--
You are subscribed. This footer can help you.
Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this
message.
You can visit the group WEB SITE at
http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options,
pages, files and membership.
To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You
don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put
anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this
address (repeat): [email protected] .
