Africa united at climate change negotiations

Africa’s position at climate change negotiations was viewed as unified and strong, in fact, as a region, Africa was “probably the most unified”, said Department of Environmental Affairs international cooperation DDG Alf Wills.

He added that developing countries, in general, were unified on the science of climate change, and agreed that the historical responsibility of climate change lies with the developed world. However, when it came to the finer details, and priority areas of focus, developing countries were very divided.

Wills further explained that within Africa, least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (Sids) placed adaptation to the effects of climate change as top priority, while oil producing countries said response measures were top priority, and the emerging economies, or rapidly industrialising developing countries, like South Africa, placed technology transfer at the top of the agenda.

Environmental Affairs DDG Joanne Yawitch noted that climate change was far reaching, and also ventured into the areas of trade and trade barriers, as well as competition and protection of industries.

“We need to be honest and say that this is an issue for South Africa, it will impact us and we must take it into account at all levels,” she said. She stressed that South Africa needed a clear national response to climate change, as this would put the country in a stronger position at international negotiations.

The Environmental Affairs department said that the impact of climate change on Africa would be devastating. By 2020, it was expected that up to 200-million people in Africa could be affected by water stress, agricultural yields could decrease by 50%, there would be increased food insecurity and stress on ecosystems that support people in rural areas. Coastal flooding from rising sea levels would also affect the continent.

South Africa would be affected by all these issues, which was why the country’s negotiating stance was that both mitigation, and adaptation would need to play a part in the global agreement on climate change.

REACHING A GLOBAL DEAL

It was hoped that an international climate change deal would be struck at Copenhagen in December this year. From the developing world, South Africa played an important role at the negotiations.

Wills and Yawitch represent South Africa at various climate change negotiations as chief negotiators.

Wills said he was still hopeful, and very optimistic that agreement would be reached at Copenhagen, but added that the deal from Copenhagen would likely be a framework, with political support, with the detail to be filled further down the line.

“The negotiations are very difficult,” Wills said, and added that this was for economic and development reasons.

There were three more formal sessions of negotiations leading up to the highly anticipated Copenhagen negotiations in December, starting with a session in Bonn, which would begin later this week.

The formal negotiations would focus on four building blocks of: adaptation; mitigation; technology; and finance.

SA's EXPECTATIONS

Wills said that South Africa had certain expectations from Copenhagen. These were to carve out a deal that was inclusive, fair and effective; strike a balance between adaptation and mitigation; and have a balance between development and climate imperatives.

“The climate regime must be based on the recognition that solving the climate problem will only be possible if it is undertaken within the context of developing countries’ priority of achieving poverty eradication and promoting development,” he said.

South Africa expected a comprehensive international programme on adaptation, which included “massively” up-scaled finance, technology and capacity building – to be established to reduce vulnerability and build resilience of African countries to immediate and future impacts.

Finance flows to the developing world for adaptation would need to come from the developed countries. This would support research and development, early warning and disaster response systems, the building of emergency response systems and the follow-up response, as well as developing sectoral resilience for slow longer-term changes in climate.

With regard to mitigation, South Africa wanted quantified, and legally binding emission reduction commitments for developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol. Wills stressed that the Kyoto Protocol did not expire – the finer details of the new commitment period for the post-2012 period were being negotiated.

Mitigation would also require re-engagement of the US in the full multilateral process, with comparable, binding emission reduction commitments and robust compliance.

South Africa was also insisting that the framework for mitigation action by developing countries should be supported and enabled by finance, technology and capacity building.

The negotiators emphasised that when it came to implementation, predictable financial, technology and capacity building flows were essential to enable developing countries to build more resilient economies and ‘leapfrog’ to low carbon growth and development.

“No money, no deal,” affirmed Wills and Yawitch. While the developed countries were expected to bring money to the table, the developing world would bring action, added Yawitch.

Developing countries would take on nationally appropriate mitigation plans. South Africa would explain to developed nations what mitigation actions it could take on, provided the finance and capacity building resources were available.

The top negotiating officials explained that South Africa was not opposed to a market-based approach to develop financial flows, but noted that this would only form part of a deal, as developed countries had an obligation to put money on the table to be used for mitigation and adaptation. The governance arrangements of these funds would need to be clarified, as conditionalities attached to funds were not desirable.