Download CLIMATE CHANGE – FROM COPENHAGEN TO MEXICO AND

CLIMATE CHANGE –
FROM COPENHAGEN TO MEXICO
AND BEYOND
PRESENTATION TO PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON WATER
AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
01 September 2010
Climate Change National Interest
• Climate impacts will undermine our & Africa’s development,
therefore need
• An internationally binding regime beyond 2012 that is ambitious,
fair, inclusive and effective, which
– Is based on “equity” and “common but differentiated responsibilities &
respective capabilities” principles
– Prioritises both mitigation of emissions & adaptation to impacts
– Balances both climate and development imperatives
– Ensures equitable sharing of the limited remaining carbon space
• And therefore must specifically provide for
– Developed country – verifiable ambitious & binding emission reduction
targets (preferably under Kyoto with the USA under the Convention)
– Developing country – verifiable relative mitigation action providing time to
develop
– Adaptation – a comprehensive international programme
– Verifiable support - finance, technology & capacity building support for both
adaptation & mitigation
2
Negotiations up to Copenhagen
• 2 Ad Hoc Working Groups – 1 under the Convention (AWG –
LCA) & 1 under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG – KP)
• Negotiating since 2007 with deadline of 2009 in Demark
• Evident that agreement would be difficult in Denmark –
therefore Danish COP President intervention
– Final days – convened 30 heads of state – to formulate a political
agreement – the Copenhagen Accord
– But was non-inclusive – particularly excluding ALBA countries
– Created distrust and
– Due to process issues – Accord not adopted only noted
• Actual 2009 outcome –
– The Copenhagen Accord was noted and
– Agreement to continue negotiations till 2010 in Mexico
• Fundamental issue is economic competitiveness & challenge
of achieving equity & differentiation
3
Copenhagen Accord Follow Up
• SA has associated with the Accord
• SA has listed it’s announced action to reduce
emissions by 34% by 2020 and 42% by 2025
conditional on a legally binding outcome in Mexico
and provision of finance, technology and capacity
building.
• 120 other countries have either associated with the
Accord or listed action. Many listings also
conditional
• SA envisages a way forward through the multi-lateral
process and UNFCCC negotiations.
4
Political Challenges of
• Differentiation – how to reflect commitments, that
– Quantified absolute targets for emission reduction for developed
countries (including the USA)
– Relative actions by developing countries emission reduction
– Support (finance & technology) for developing country action
– International verification of targets, action and support
• Copenhagen Accord solves this challenge but not the ? of
• Fairness/equity – prevent dangerous impact on vulnerable
economies & livelihoods & sharing the carbon/devm’t space
– Quantifying the global goal (global temperature limit & peak)
– Equitable sharing of responsibility & effort between developed and
developing countries; (adequate & comparable developed country mid- &
long- term targets; developing country contribution with time to dev)
• And linked to this, the question of Legal form
– Whether Kyoto will continue beyond 2012; or replace it
– Whether to adopt a new Protocol which includes USA as well as China,
India, Brazil, SA etc;
– Or abandon an international binding system (leading back to the question
of differentiation & how to verify & ensure compliance)
5
Leading up to Mexico
• In the first 7 months of 2010 - a number of political
and technical meetings - indicating
– A loss of momentum
– Developed country emphasis on the Copenhagen Accord
rather than a global agreement
– Increasing trend of adopting a non-multilateral
(partnership) approaches
– No willingness to discuss the challenge of fairness/equity &
legal form (inclu comparability & compliance issues)
– Continued efforts to collapse the 2 negotiation tracks &
“kill Kyoto”
– Therefore, broad acceptance of a limited outcome in
Mexico (due largely to inability of the USA legislate their
binding target & obtain a negotiating mandate; which
prevents the EU & others to seriously negotiate Kyoto
targets)
6
Possible Outcomes for Mexico
Three possible outcomes for Mexico
• A Comprehensive Outcome: early agreement to negotiate legally
binding instrument(s). Depends on
– USA readiness & passage of their domestic law
– China’s willingness to commit action in a treaty
• Fragmented Outcome: abandon prospects of any global
agreement. Adopt decisions and non-multilateral approaches
• Two-step Outcome: middle road on the current political
divergence & defer final agreement to SA. Involves
– Decision to implement early action (some elements of the Copenhagen
Accord)
– Transfer the framework of the global agreement to SA
• In the absence of serious negotiation on questions equity & legal
form, the fragmented or two-step outcome most likely
7
Implications
• Copenhagen characterised by a breakdown in trust and process
challenges
• Negotiations in 2010 are focused on rebuilding confidence to
achieve a multilaterally agreed outcome in Mexico or South Africa
or beyond
• Emerging position from some that Copenhagen proved that the
multilateral process is unworkable and that the Accord provides
an alternative to the UNFCCC
• Others reject and question the Accord
• South Africa committed to an inclusive approach and for political
agreements in the Accord to be used to unblock the multi-lateral
UNFCCC process
8
SA Deviation from Business As Usual
• Commitment to reduce emissions by 34% by 2020 and 42% by
2025, conditional on international deal with enabling
framework and provision of finance, technology and capacity
building.
• Above figures calculated on basis of Long Term Mitigation
Scenarios (LTMS), Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity
Sector (IRP) of Dec 2009 and activities in the Clean Technology
Fund Investment Portfolio
• Presumes that with conditionalities met + that all actions can
be achieved
• Need to ensure alignment and integration with other
processes such as IPAP, IRP as well as with climate policy
process
9
10
Potential South African NAMAs
• Focused on the following sectors
– Land use change
– Agriculture
– Waste
– Industrial process and efficiency
– Transport (public and liquid fuels)
– Electricity supply and efficiency
– Building efficiency
11
Composition of the National
Climate Change Committee (NCCC)
The composition of the NCCC is designed to provide
representation from the main stakeholder groups involved in
climate change issues across South African society.
It is constituted to consist of at least two (and at most five)
representatives from each of the following stakeholder
groups:
12
Composition of the National Climate
Change Committee (NCCC) contd.
STAKEHOLDER GROUP
NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS
STAKEHOLDER LIST
Department of Environmental Affairs
Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Department of Energy
Department of Health
Department of Human Settlements
Department of International Relations and Cooperation,
Department of Trade and Industry,
Department of Housing,
Department of Transport,
Department of National Treasury
Department of Public Enterprises
Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
Department of Science and Technology
Department of Social Development
Department of Water Affairs
13
Composition of the National Climate Change
Committee (NCCC) contd.
STAKEHOLDER GROUP
PROVINCIAL ENVIRONMENT
DEPARTMENTS
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
STAKEHOLDER LIST
Gauteng
Northern Cape
KZN
Western Cape
Mpumalanga
Free State
Eastern Cape
Limpopo
North West
South African Local Government Association (SALGA)
City of Cape Town
City of Johannesburg
Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Mangaung Municipality
Buffalo City Municipality
14
Composition of the National Climate
Change Committee (NCCC) contd.
STAKEHOLDER GROUP
DEA PUBLIC ENTITIES
STAKEHOLDER LIST
South African National Botanical Institute (SANBI)
South African Weather Services (SAWS)
NON-GOVERNMENTAL AND Climate Justice Network (CJN)
COMMUNITY BASED
Climate Change Adaptation Network (SACN)
ORGANIZATIONS
Earth life
South African Climate Action Network (SACAN)
World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
Climate Action Partnership (CAP)
Birdlife South Africa
Southern African Faith Communities' Environment
Institute (SAFCEI)
15
Composition of the National Climate
Change Committee (NCCC) contd.
STAKEHOLDER
GROUP
BUSINESS AND
INDUSTRY
STAKEHOLDER LIST
Business Unity South Africa (BUSA)
Anglo Gold Ashanti
ESKOM
SASOL
Hernic Ferrochrome
Chamber of Mines
Chemical and Allied Industries Association (CAIA)
Paper Manufactures of South Africa (PAMSA)
South African Petrolium Industry Association (SAPIA)
Palmer Development Group (PDG)
PricewaterhouseCoopers
PETROSA
Delloite & Touché
16
Composition of the National Climate
Change Committee (NCCC) contd.
STAKEHOLDER
GROUP
ACADEMIA AND
RESEARCH
STAKEHOLDER LIST
National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA)
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR)
Energy Research Centre (ERC)
Agricultural Research Council (ARC)
Central Energy Fund (CEF)
South African National Energy Research Institute (SANERI )
National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA)
University of Pretoria
17
Thank you
18