Will the Kyoto Protocol be sent off the field?

Things are warming up for COP 17 in Durban, or the Conference of the Parties to be held under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from 28 November to 9 December. That is when South Africa can expect to be in the global spotlight once again after last year’s successful Fifa Soccer World Cup and Nelson Mandela’s birthday this year.

 But this time round, it is not about competing international soccer teams kicking the same ball into opposite nets, nor a happy occasion around a world icon. It is about getting scientists, politicians, businesspeople, environmental agencies and others to agree on ways to reduce global emissions in a common way forward.

For the past 14 years, countries have been working around that objective, which should commit to reduction of global emissions by at least 80% below the 1990 levels by 2050.

But the finer details of such a deal remain sticky.

The challenge has been – and still is – one of implementation due to lack of a measurement, reporting and verification system that brings to the limelight how much each country has achieved on emissions reduction.

And while the superpowers wrestle over how to go about carbon emissions reduction, poor countries are paying the price for the emissions.

South Africa is expected to be playing the leading role in making COP 17 an international success story, not only by playing the host to the between 20 000 and 30 000 people expected, but also by bringing the conference itself to a successful finale. This under the presidency of South African Minister of International Relations, Maite Nkoana-Mashabane.

Waiting in the wings, so to speak, will be Trevor Manuel, South Africa’s minister in the National Planning Commission of the Presidency, who was recently tipped (but never offered) to lead the World Bank, but instead took on the challenge of co-chairing a transitional committee to establish the world’s Green Climate Fund – a fund that has to be ‘operationalised’ at the Durban talks to help finance developing countries achieve their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions.

In South Africa’s case, these reductions are ambitious; while the international spotlight will fall on the global picture, the Department of Energy is expected to reveal its long-awaited strategy at the conference, having failed to reveal by June its White Paper on its response to climate change.

COP 17 is seen as the end point for the Kyoto Protocol, a legally binding document signed in 1997 by 191 of the world’s countries and enforced from 2005. It outlines emissions reductions for 37 developed country signatories, with the first commitment period coming to an end in 2012; and the establishment of a carbon market where carbon “credits” can be traded.

The records show that the United States, Emitter No. 2, did not sign, as it did not like the fact that its biggest competitor and Emitter No. 1, China, was not obliged to reduce emissions, as it was not classed a developed nation.

It took four years of negotiations before a compromise was reached at COP 15, in the Danish capital of Copenhagen, where 100 heads of state and government – including South African President Jacob Zuma – gathered during December 2009.

This is where President Zuma and others demanded that the developed world not only cut its carbon emissions as required under the Kyoto Protocol, but also provide funds to help vulnerable states fight global warming as well. This is where he made the ambitious pledge that South Africa would reduce GHG emissions by 34% by 2020 and 42% by 2025 below business-as-usual levels, but conditional on financial and technical capacity.

COP 15 turned into a shambles and it nearly failed.

In Copenhagen, leaders of the big economies such as the US and China broke off from the main meeting to discuss issues behind closed doors, locking out the poor nations. There was heated debate and the threat of parties walking out of negotiation rooms.

Eventually, after a marathon emergency meeting that ended just after midnight on 19 December, a selected group of rich and poor countries dramatically emerged with a deal that was brokered by US President Barack Obama, backed by the US and embraced by China, India, Brazil and South Africa.

It promised the establishment of an international fund worth $100 billion a year to assist poor nations; but this on condition that developing countries such as China, South Africa and India also reduce their GHG emissions.

The deal further extended the negotiations of a legally binding agreement to the next climate change conference (COP 16) that was held in Cancún, Mexico in December last year.

The Cancún Agreements contain a variety of decisions ranging from a general recognition of the need for deep cuts in global emissions to specific decisions on new institutions or processes such as the Technology Mechanism, the Adaptation Committee and Green Climate Fund.

Developed countries further agreed to deliver a new and additional $30bn in the period from 2010 to 2012 (referred to as “fast-start finance”) and $100bn per year by 2020 for adaptation and mitigation (referred to as “long-term finance”).

These issues were again discussed at an inter-sessional conference in Bonn in June this year to make progress for a smooth path to success in Durban later this year.

Taken as a whole, the Cancún outcomes and discussions in Bonn suggest that Durban will be judged largely on how it addresses three main topics:

• Agreement on a second commitment period for the Kyoto Protocol (under which developed countries would take on legally binding commitments post-2012);

• Progress on a broader, comprehensive agreement that includes all major emitters; and

• Progress in operationalising new institutions such as the Technology Mechanism and Green Climate Fund.

There have been further inter-sessional meetings: the so-called Petersberg Climate Dialogue I and II meetings held in June and July in Germany at the invitation of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, German Environment Minister Norbert Röttgen, UNFCCC deputy executive secretary Christiana Figueres as well as South Africa’s Nkoana-Mashabane. These meetings were attended also by high-ranking representatives from 35 countries.

According to a summary prepared by Röttgen and Nkoana-Mashabane, ministers acknowledged the successful outcome of the Cancún Climate Change Conference and agreed to build on its success and the trust it created.

They identified key political issues under negotiation that needed to be dealt with before, during and after Durban, including the legal form, the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, equity, and the level of ambition of mitigation pledges that so far had not met the below-2°C target.

Ministers further proposed that Durban give political direction to the shape of, and timing for, a future comprehensive, global rules-based system that ensures global warming stays below 2ºC or 1.5ºC, noting the need for further discussion in the run-up to Durban and beyond on how to address equity in the negotiations.

Ministers stressed the need to: avoid a financing gap after 2012, when the fast-start finance period ends; meet the long-term financing goal of US$100bn per year by 2020; ensure meaningful mitigation action and transparency on implementation; and explore further sources for long-
term financing. It is also they who agreed that Durban should take a decision to operationalise the Green Climate Fund.

The global cost of combating and adapting to climate change is estimated at $46 trillion up to 2050, or $1 trillion a year.

With regard to funding, commitments have been made to establish a Green Climate Fund by the time COP 17 gets under way in Durban. Its resources will help poor countries brace for the effects of climate change and will be used for investing in projects that mitigate it, such as renewable energy and protecting forests.

An online finance portal has been established and can be accessed through the UNFCCC website at http://unfccc.int.

Reservations

Will the Road to Durban be a smooth ride, as Germany, the European Union and Africa are hoping for? Or will it be full of potholes and end up in a cul-de-sac?

There certainly are a number of potholes to be fixed – either on the way to Durban or at the city conference itself.

Apart from the US not having signed the Kyoto Protocol from the start, Japan, Canada and Russia have said in Bonn that they would not sign on to a second commitment period under the Protocol.

A remaining problem with the Copenhagen Accord is that it is a non-binding agreement that fell short of what developing nations were demanding. It failed to produce ambitious gas emissions reduction targets.

A major concern is that there is little clarity on how and when the fast-start finance of $30bn between 2010 and 2012 – promised under the non-legally binding Copenhagen Accord and brought into the UNFCCC fold under the Cancún Agreements – will be disbursed.

Developed countries claim that over half of it has been or is in the process of being delivered, but there are further claims that the developing countries have not yet received the committed fast-start financing.

Serious questions have been raised on how much is actually new and additional to regular aid.

There has been no progress on raising public finance through innovative sources for the mid term (from 2013 to 2020), following the phase of fast-start financing.

The truth is that the transitional committee has started work only recently, with Manuel saying it would be “challenging but feasible” to get the $100bn-per-year fund up and running. But there was no actual mechanism in place to make the fund work, nor any detail on how to ramp up from the fast-start finance from 2010 to 2012 to the $100bn per year by 2020, he told reporters.

There were many discussions required on how to distribute the funding once it was collected and stored in the fund, but Manuel has said that he was most concerned with how to actually get the money into the kitty.

Some observers argue that the Durban meeting has some of the hallmarks and issues that haunted the Copenhagen meeting of 2009, and are still there today. They cite the ongoing suspense between China and the US, a fragile global economy recovery made worse by Europe’s debt woes, and fractures between the poor countries, to mention a few.

South Africa

South Africa emits only about 1% of global emissions but, in terms of gross domestic product, its contribution is among the world top 20 in the world list. Its commitment to respond to climate change is therefore serious.

Work on South Africa’s National Climate Change Response Strategy started in 2004 and continued in 2005 when the National Climate Change Conference brought together 14 ministers and South Africa’s deputy president, this serving as a key political statement on the issue.

Many discussions and workshops involving government departments and the private sector led to the drafting of a Long-Term Mitigation Strategy, which was released in October 2007 and approved by Cabinet in 2008.

In May 2009, a policy development round table was held, which was to have produced a National Climate Change Response Draft Green Paper the same year. But the 38-page document was finally released in November 2010.

In March this year, the Cabinet approved a National Energy Master Plan, which sees South Africa’s renewable and nuclear energy programme accounting for two-thirds of new power stations to be built over the next 20 years. The new plan foresees 42% of all new plants coming on stream between now and 2030 to be based on green power, 23% on nuclear and only 15% on coal – and cut its reliance on coal.

The government revised earlier targets for the different energy sources after a draft of the plan was heavily criticised by industry, bankers and environmentalists who questioned its costs, timelines and feasibility.

The government said it would not freeze its planned nuclear expansion despite concerns over nuclear safety following the tsunami and earthquake disaster in Japan.

The target for nuclear was revised only slightly downward to 9 600 megawatts over the next two decades, while that for renewable energy was increased by nearly half to provide an estimated 17 800MW.

As things stand, the approach to a workable White Paper has been to find a balance between adaptation measures (primarily in water, agriculture and human health) and mitigation measures (primarily in energy, industry and transport), based on quality information and research, and using incentives (tax breaks and investment) as well as disincentives (carbon tax and legislation).

Legislative measures to be expected (in terms of the Green Paper) within the next two to five years are expected to include:

• Escalating carbon tax;

• Mandatory targets for energy efficiency;

• Mandatory annual greenhouse gas emissions reporting by significant emitters;

• Mandatory appliance labelling;

• Minimum energy performance standards;

• Mandatory energy-management systems in office buildings; and

• EU-imposed emissions caps on aviation, and international export taxes on carbon intensive products.

The next steps that were committed to by 2012 include the following:

• To compile and publish a climate change response action plan for the commercial and manufacturing sector;

• To revise and amend the minimum requirements for landfills;

• To conduct a review of all government policies, strategies, legislation, regulations and plans to align with the National Climate Change Response policy;

• To design, develop and roll out a climate change awareness campaign;

• To develop, test and commission a Web-based GHG emissions monitoring and reporting system for significant emitters;

• To publish a draft climate change response monitoring, reporting and verification system aligned with international requirements.

Workshop and other discussions on the draft Green Paper (leading to a White Paper) this year have been held and co-ordinated by the Department of Environmental Affairs on behalf of the government and representatives from various sectors and companies such as Earthlife, the World Wide Fund for Nature SA, Eskom and the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation.

Eskom sustainability manager Mandy Rambharos commented that the Green Paper did not acknowledge the vulnerability of the electricity sector. A gap on food security was also noted.

General response was that the White Paper should accelerate South Africa’s response by providing more specific plans, mechanisms and targets than the Green Paper did.

Although described in other green quarters as a well-considered, comprehensive and emphatic statement by the Department of Environmental Affairs, the Green Paper makes few actual commitments; implied commitments were expected to be fleshed out in more detail in the White Paper that was to have been released in June/July this year.

The department’s acting deputy director-general for climate change Peter Lukey said in July at the Southern African Transport Conference (SATC) in Pretoria that the department had missed its own deadline, but that it would release the White Paper before COP 17 to show that South Africa was “globally responsible” and saw climate change as “one of the biggest threats to our existence”.

He said the first draft of the White Paper had been completed, but needed refinements including a review of the deadlines set in the Green Paper and defining who would be held accountable for which targets.

It would refine a continuing audit and review process, and define South Africa’s “peak, plateau and decline” emissions trajectory.

Climate change featured strongly at the SATC, where Louise Naudé again stated that despite global attempts to curb GHG emissions to ensure the greenhouse effect did not increase global average temperatures by 2° C from pre-Industrial Revolution average temperatures, there was still a 20% to 35% chance that the 2° C outer limit would
be exceeded.

Meanwhile, Nkoana-Mashabane, who is hopping around the world ‘selling’ COP 17, stated in New York that more inter-sessional meetings were required and that a proposed meeting in the last week of September, to be hosted by Panama, was supported by a number of countries.

A leaders meeting, tentatively scheduled for 20 September in South Africa, co-chaired by President Zuma and Mexican President Felipe Calderón, and attended by heads of State, has been arranged under an initiative by Mexico.

 Udo Rypstra