Article by Guest Contributor: Adalberto Maluf

The fourth meeting of the BASIC country ministers (Brazil, South Africa, India and China) on climate change took place in Rio de Janeiro on the 25th and 26th of July 2010 to further discuss their common positions regarding the Copenhagen Accord.

The BASIC countries were part of the final agreement reached in Copenhagen, although, officially, they left the conference “frustrated” with the final results. The joint statement after these two days of meeting in Rio “reiterated the importance of the two pronged approach – Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments by Annex I Parties” as crucial for an “equitable and balanced outcome in Cancun”.

The joint statement also shares concerns about those sensitive issues for the developing countries regarding differential (historical) responsibility between developing and developed countries, which is related to “equitable burden sharing” of past emissions within an context of sustainable development and also “demands the implementation of ambitious financing, technological support and capacity building.”

Despite the fact that the official joint statement didn’t differ much from what these countries have formally agreed in Copenhagen, there were some advances in Rio which can’t be underestimated. Overcoming Brazilian initial opposition, they all agree to develop a common methodology to assess their total emissions. The group, led by China’s chief climate negotiator, also agreed to have a “panel of experts” which would be responsible to establish a common baseline that could be equally measurable, reportable and verifiable (MRV methodology). Brazil opposed it but didn’t block the initiative.

It could be the starting point for the development of a common methodology to assess and measure the real implications of their pledges for the economic and social development of these key countries. It’s a direct response of the Chinese government to the agreement made in the last hours of the Copenhagen conference between President Obama and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao, with the intermediation of India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Brazilian President Lula da Silva.

There is a common feeling inside the BASIC countries that the Kyoto protocol won’t prevail in the near future, which could mean that they would have to change their positions for future negotiations. India insisted that it is rather clear that the Kyoto protocol is no longer a feasible route. With that in mind, they should all work together towards a single, inclusive climate change agreement.

The BASIC countries are still awaiting further developments around the world before moving forward with their pledges, however, there was a common understanding that developing countries with advanced economies, like Brazil and China, would have to abandon their rhetorical demand and start discussing ways to push concrete proposals in the table. The decision on a common methodology for MRV could be the beginning of that change.

South Africa’s Minister of Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, and former Minister of Environmental Affairs has emerged as one of the frontrunners to replace Yvo de Boer as chief of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC. In the follow up to de Boer’s resignation, candidates from Indonesia, India, Costa Rica and van Schalkwyk from South Africa, were promoted for the position by their respective national leaders. As the race draws to a close, van Schalkwyk and Costa Rica’s Christiana Figueres have emerged as the key candidates for the role.

 Despite the disappointments at Copenhagen, de Boer still leaves big shoes to fill, with regards to his unwavering energy, rigour and experience he applied to coercing paradoxical sovereign interests at key climate negotiations. His successor, van Schalkwyk as predicted, or Figueres, will have to ensure that the developed – developing country divides witnessed at Copenhagen do not exacerbate. Furthermore, the new Executive Secretary will have to illicit exceptional leadership and diplomatic skills if climate negotiations are to regain credibility and have any measure of success in carving out policy to abate and adapt to climate change.

A big feather in van Schalkwyk’s cap is the expectation of a formal legally binding treaty being ready by the time COP 17 occurs in December 2011 to be hosted by South Africa. Having developing country leadership of the UNFCCC and leadership from the country hosts is viewed as one of the best chances of securing a treaty and succession to the Kyoto Protocol.

van Schalkwyk has had a chequered political history under the apartheid regime, emerging as Minister of Environmental Affairs under appointment from South Africa’s former President Mbeki in 2004. This ministerial experience has given van Schalkwyk positive standing with high profile countries in the UN. In addition, South Africa has been praised for the emissions cuts it announced in the run up to Copenhagen, although the recent approval of a $3.75 billion from the World Bank for the Medupi power station has jeopardised these target’s and South Africa’s approach to climate change mitigation. van Schalkwyk may also face opposition in the form of Figueres’ importance in encapsulating gender issues in leading climate change action. UN general secretary Ban Ki-Moon has the ultimate authority to make the appointment, expected in the near future.

Fever is rising for Copenhagen, as delegates and key global players in the climate field descend on the Danish capital in readiness for the official opening of the 15th Conference of the Parties on Monday. Expectations have rollercoastered in the last few weeks, with negative sentiment peaking when it was plausible Obama would not attend and the key emitters, namely the USA, China and India were yet to stipulate plans regarding emissions reductions.

The recent email scandal from the Climate Research Unit based at the University of East Anglia and James Hansen, NASA’s head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, vehemently stressing the talks ‘must fail’ will add further dent to expectations.  However pledges for emissions cuts, announced by the USA and China and the anticipation that India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh will today announce cuts in carbon intensity by 24 percent in 2020, bring hope. The cumulative result of these pledges is a positive signal that the COP could deliver a tangible structure for an agreement by the closing on December 19th.

One of the most contentious issues likely to dominate the discussions is the standoff between developing and developed countries, referred to as Annex 1 under the existing Kyoto Agreement. The key emerging emitters from the developing world, China, India, Brazil and South Africa have remained firm that developed countries must provide finance and technology to help developing nations fight global warming. This was further reaffirmed this week in Copenhagen, when the key negotiators from these four countries indicated after a preparatory meeting that they would represent a “different position” compared to a separate outline for the global climate talks by Denmark.

After a recent meeting in Beijing it also emerged that this group at Copenhagen will formally ask “developed countries to assume responsibility for emissions reduction targets in the second commitment period (from 2013)”. As Kim Carstensen, head of WWF’s Global Climate Initiative, further advocated “the developed world needs to have deeper emissions cuts, more new money on the table and much more willingness to share the technologies for low carbon development”. Developed nations are however adamant that this group of big emerging economies must also commit to mandatory emissions cuts.

Arguing aside, the fact remains that the world must cut its emissions, by around 80% of 1990 levels by 2050 if any form of climate stabilization is to be achieved.  Nonetheless discussions are likely to stumble and potentially get deadlocked over the issue of historical responsibility. This issue of ‘burden sharing’ is hugely sensitive as it ultimately involves responsibility to give money, billions of dollars of it, needed for low carbon investment and in adaptation funding, especially in key areas vulnerable to the onslaught of climate change.

Developing countries will not vacillate over the need for comprehensive adaptation funding, and will not compromise on the need for this to be in addition to official development assistance (ODA). The EU’s negotiators recent written blunder, referring that they “cannot accept reference to ‘additional to’, and ‘separate from’ ODA targets” could gravely undermine discussions on this issue.

In addition to the issue of funding, developing countries will be pressing for a firm agreement on Reduced Emissions from Degradation and Deforestation (REDD), where large swathes of land covered by forests of high biodiversity have the potential to earn countries money by keeping forests standing. However, as with many negotiations at Copenhagen, issues need to be ironed out with regards to the details.  A major hurdle for REDD is corruption and mismanagement in the forestry industry in developing countries. For example this costs Indonesia, which has one of the highest deforestation rates, two billion US dollars a year, equivalent to its entire health budget as a Human Rights Watch report released on Tuesday indicated. Many feel the negotiations surrounding REDD are fundamental if Copenhagen is to achieve anything, and will be hoping there is not a ‘no deal’ on this.

I will be traveling to Copenhagen for the second week of deliberations to cover issues related to developing countries.

The announcement, made by the World Bank on the sidelines of the UN climate meeting taking place in Barcelona, will bring music to the ears of the millions of Africans suffering from climatic changes.  The decision made by the trustees of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF), will commit $1.1 billion dollars to six African nations.  The choice of benefiting countries illustrates both Africa’s opportunity and potential international competitiveness within the emerging low-carbon economy but also its extreme vulnerability and limited adaptive capacity to the implications of climate change. 

The six nations will receive the money in a combination of grants or low-interest loans from the CIF which was launched in 2008, and has pledges of over $6 billion dollars to date. The CIF is a collaboration of public development financiers and is run jointly by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the International Finance Corporation and World Bank.

Leading Africa’s position in renewable energy and energy efficiency investments, South Africa will receive US$500 million which will be channelled into helping the country achieve its ambitious target of 4% renewable energy generation by 2013.   The money will be instrumental if South Africa is to achieve the target of a 12% increase in energy efficiency by 2015, a difficult task considering its dependence on coal.  Another large benefactor, Egypt, which is set to get $300 million dollars will also utilise the money to improve its power sector and the urban transport system in Cairo which is grossly under prepared to serve one of the world’s largest cities of over 17 million people.

A promising development for climate investment and possible innovation in low carbon growth is the pledge of US$150 million to Morocco for a fund dedicated to low carbon growth.  The fund will also boost energy security, a development which is likely to be viewed with keen interest from investors in the DesertTec Foundation. 

The climate finance will not all be focused on large scale infrastructure, with some of the money for South Africa dedicated to the distribution of solar water heating to millions of households, especially those with no access to electricity and in remote rural locations.

The CIF also earmarked between US$60 million and US$70 million for individual grants to Mozambique, Niger and Zambia which the World Bank felt all ‘shared dramatic risks in potential loss of land, life and livelihoods as a result of climate change’. These countries will utilise the money to pilot an initiative aimed at creating ‘resilience strategies’ against the impacts of climate change. 

With hopes fading for a comprehensive climate treaty as the clock ticks down to Copenhagen, increasing focus will be placed on interim measures and incremental agreements that can be formalised at Copenhagen.  Coming just six weeks before the summit, the United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) is hosting its Global Roundtable in Cape Town.  The first time the event has been hosted in Africa, the Roundtable, which opens this evening, aims to partner environmental groups under the umbrella of UNEP with representatives of the financial sector and provide a forum for discussing and setting new agendas for sustainable finance.

 The summits focus, ‘Financing Change, Changing Finance’ is timely, especially in lieu of flagging momentum for a comprehensive agreement at Copenhagen. Governments and political momentum has illustrated its weakness this year in overcoming major barriers to enacting an agreement at Copenhagen, for example Congress’s inability to implement and legislate binding targets on emissions has resulted in many feeling Copenhagen might be a wasted opportunity before it has begun. This does however mean focus may now shift more in favour of the private sector, which has an opportunity to show what collaborative and innovative financing architecture can achieve. 

The volatility of the finance and evolving capital markets means there is no simple step to implementing sustainable financing mechanism, especially with regards to ecosystem services where there is not a fixed or easily measurable metric or asset. However the planetary implications of climate change and global ecosystem loss mean there is momentum to get discussions on the table and integrate climate, poverty and social dimensions into financing mechanisms.

The Roundtable will have wide representation from major financial institutions including Peter Blom, CEO of Triodos, the Financial Times Sustainable Bank of the Year as well as a host of South African and international private banks, financial analyst firms, global players in the insurance business and suite of the leading global environmental NGOs like the WWF. The event is unique in bringing together top calibre financing institutions and venture capitalists with the leading brains behind innovations in environmental finance like Pavan Sukhdev, the ‘Stern’ of ecosystem services, as study leader for The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB).

The timing of the event and amalgamation of speakers and attendees means there is an opportunity to deliver some hope before Copenhagen in working towards incremental financing mechanisms. One hopes the ‘butterfly effect’ of changing finance can inspire the existing political barriers in building momentum before Copenhagen.

This week, many South Africans, like millions of other climate conscious citizens around the world, are preparing for the Global Day of Action on Saturday the 24^th.  The day, which is focused on citizen action and engagement, has been organised by 350.org, an advocacy organisation promoting global action to tackle climate change.

Many parts of South Africa are feeling the increasing impacts of climate change such as shifting vegetation zones, erratic rainfall and seasonal temperature anomalies, particularly evident in arid areas.

The aim of global action day is to engage citizens in the science of climate change, hence the reference to 350 which is used as the recommended baseline with regards to carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.  Figures for 2009 indicate that levels are already at 390ppm, hence the urgency in curbing emissions growth and aiming for stabilisation at 350ppm.  Although there is much debate within the worlds elite climate modellers’ about correct targets and the use of temperature or concentration, 350.org have used the 350 figure as their campaign theme.  Bill McKibben, organiser of the 350 group is cognisant of the complexity in the climate system dynamics and says the 350 figure gives campaigners a metric to work with.  The 350 initiative has big name support with endorsement from Al Gore, Sir Nicholas Stern and Rajendra Pachuari, it is therefore an effective viaduct between local campaigns and their influence on political action.

The 350 figure will form the centre of many of the global actions planned for the 24^th of October.  South Africans will be engaging in a variety of demonstrations including a meeting at Johannesburg’s Emmerentia dam, where people are encouraged to dress at superheroes to represent the need to save the planet.  At Muizenberg Beach, Cape Town’s surf mecca, giant blocks of ice in the shape of a 350 will be melted and a freeze frame movie made. Cape Town’s largest township, Khayelitsha, located in the Cape Flats region, will be holding a ‘blue under the sea event’ where blue clothing will signify the areas vulnerability to flooding and predicted sea level rise. Activities will also be taking place on the beach front in Durban where sand, art and music will be the focus to inspire action on climate. In addition an open letter will be circulated, lobbying President Jacob Zuma to attend the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

The global day of action, aimed at lobbying the global political agenda is particularly timely and prudent. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently told Newsweek he felt the prospects of states agreeing to anything at Copenhagen was ‘looking worse and worse’.  Consequently the more national citizens can engage with their political leadership the more momentum will grow before Copenhagen. As Gordon Brown, at the recent Major Economics Forum in London reiterated, there is a need to break the leadership ‘impasse’ as there was no ‘Plan B’ in the absence of united firm agreement at Copenhagen.

 The South African Council of Churches (SACC) has recently launched a document citing the challenges climate change poses to churches in South Africa and the response that is needed. Churches, as with multiple public and private sector organisations and associations, are critically analysing their part in tackling climate change.  In light of this many church groups have become highly engaged and vocal in their commitments to tackling climate change.

The document released by SACC refers to the importance of the Conference of the Parties meeting in Copenhagen in December and the need for direct leadership and impact on climate change.  This follows on from the work of the All Africa Conference of Churches at the Bali Conference in 2007, calling for ‘responsible church leadership’.  The momentum in church leadership on the issue of climate change has grown exponentially, especially in lieu of Copenhagen.  The Lutheran World Federation is currently holding their annual summit in Nairobi, with climate change being a key issue.  This follows on from a mandate from the World Council of Churches encouraging discourse on significant climate policy issues.

The impact of engagement by the church in climate issues should not be understated, especially in developing countries. In terms of total congregation attendees, South Africa is fourth highest in the world and associations like the World Lutheran Federation have wide global presence. Countries like Nigeria, with huge emerging populations, and over 16 million Catholics alone, can utilise the Church as an effective method of education and support for pro climate policy and incremental changes.  The value of information from the church, illustrated by the SACC’s most recent documentation, is the emphasis placed on the individual and the impacts consumer change and individual behaviour can have.  

South Africa is not alone in targeting climate change action through religious entities. ‘Eco-Congregation’ in Scotland has just published a report ‘Climate Change: managing your carbon footprint’.  The aim of the document is to initiate enthusiasm across congregations in Scotland and to educate them on the Climate Change Act (Scotland). The Church of England is also engaged in a ‘Shrinking the Footprint’ initiative, which through the Climate Justice Fund encourages parishes and diocesans to calculate their carbon footprint.  The United Church of Canada is another example where positive climate change lobbying is occurring. The Church is currently engaged in promoting its’ Kyotoplus petition which calls for the Canadian government to make strong commitments to climate action in the run up to the Copenhagen negotiations. The church has also been proactive in chairing a ‘Week of Action’ which takes place from the 17^th – 26^th October and aims to highlight linkages between justice and climate policy.  

Although church attendance continues to drop in many Western countries, the opposite trend is occurring across many developing nations, where the church is hugely influential. Consequently much value can be gained through these activities, as the message often given through the church is the need for a metanoia, a fundamental change of mind.  Key Policy makers would do well to take heed of this message at Copenhagen if any of the expectations are to be fulfilled.

Voters in South Africa’s 5^th democratic election will mainly be concerned by a 21% unemployment rate, fundamental problems with service provision and the economy’s track for 2009, but for a few climate change will be on their agenda.

The African National Congress (ANC) leader Jacob Zuma is widely anticipated to become the next President of South Africa with a sweeping two thirds majority.  The emergence of the Congress of the People (COPE) and the strengthening power of the Democratic Alliance has reignited the democratic process in South Africa and  polling stations are anticipating record number of voters.  Zuma, a populist anti-apartheid hero has ascended from being a stalwart freedom fighter with the exiled ANC during the apartheid regime to becoming the probable next president.

The manifesto of the ANC focuses on climate change through the promotion of ‘green jobs’ and if successful the ANC must maintain the promise of the resolution made in Polokwane, to ‘develop and invest in programs’ to create the green jobs, especially prudent with South Africa’s high unemployment rate. Ironically despite the huge failings of the ANC in service provision to the poorest citizens of South Africa it is this demographic group which remains stalwart in their support for Zuma and the ANC.

The ANC have framed their focus on climate change on the public works programme on energy efficiency and renewable energy for job provision.  This is where COPE comes out stronger as they aim to ensure the Expanded Public Works Programme must be successful in the creation of work to ‘clean and green’ the environment’.  However their manifesto doesn’t make explicit links to climate change which has to compete against the prioritization on a list of ‘important global challenges’ including reform of the United Nations of transnational organized crime, international terrorism.  Placing climate issues amongst these weighty and largely intangible problems to solve significantly weakens their commitment to earnestly implement climate policy.

If predictions are correct and the Democratic Alliance (DA) is able to secure a victory in the Western Cape, the ‘mother city’ – Cape Town, seriously afflicted by water shortages and predicted declines in the annual winter rainfall may be lucky with a stronger commitment by the DA to climate and energy issues.  These are both mentioned in their manifesto and their commitment to ensuring that South Africa does not wait in its ‘response to the challenges of climate change’ is clear.  If my vote was based on climate policy the DA’s focus on mitigation, which will be fundamental to South Africa, illustrates a better understanding of the importance of a strong climate policy.  Their energy section supports the tariff and a roll out of one million solar water heaters, and ultimately my confidence lies in their understanding of the importance of establishing a price for carbon.

The smaller parties such as the Independent Democrats (ID) have a much clearer stance on climate change than the ANC, for example facing the fact that South Africa is the 14^th greatest emitter of greenhouse emissions and being explicit about the implications – flagging up biodiversity, water and salt- water intrusion impacts as key.  The ID’S manifesto is one of the best in terms of climate policy because of its clear proposition of renewable energy as the solution, and illustrating their appreciation of all forms they discuss ideas of radioactive waste disposal and radiation level studies at Koeberg, South Africa’s only nuclear energy facility.  The ID’s manifesto encapsulates the potential South Africa has in leading a global energy revolution and dominating the market for some technologies, namely solar thermal and solar photovoltaic’s.  Its value also comes in the proposition of applicable, tangible and necessary policy reforms that need to occur for example the ending of Eskom’s monopoly of electricity production, and the importance of implementing feed-in tariffs and investment in research and development into renewable technologies.

The smaller parties are also much more clear in their understanding of the intrinsic links between poverty and climate change, for example the Unites Democratic Movement (UDM) flags up soil erosion, water pollution and deforestation’ as a direct result of climate change.  However for the millions of South Africans that vote in the elections and take advantage of their democratic right, ganined through a tumultuous transition from the apartheid regime, most people will think of their basic individual needs not the collective need of South Africa’s climate.  Therefore Zuma’s personality, his history and character, have struck a chord in the hearts of millions of largely rural and poor voters.  One must put their faith that the largest party, despite having one of the weakest manifesto’s on climate policy will remain true to their statement on green jobs and do good in this way.