Chair, the first national parliamentary seminar on climate change held on 28 and 29 October 2011 provided space for the engagement of various stakeholders. Over those two days there was much talk about the form and content of the outcome for the 17th Conference of Parties, Cop 17, focusing specifically on: maintaining the integrity of the multilateral process; operationalising institutions agreed to in Cancun; obtaining a second commitment period under the Kyoto protocol; and placing adaptation at the centre of the Green Climate Fund. The question is: How does one balance these four issues to ensure a fair and equitable outcome taking into account the conditions of developed and developing countries?
In the build-up to Cop 17-, to be held in Durban, South Africa - a number of meetings were held. The contestation of agreements regarding the above demonstrated the rigidity of positions held by nation states, reflecting national interests being pitched against the collective good of the environment. If this is the case, then how does one apply Article 3.1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC, which talks of common but differentiated responsibilities within the contested terrain of climate change and, most especially, in relation to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the setting of targets to undertake this in the future?
In contrast, the terminology underpinning the climate change discourse in developing countries has ranged from food security; poverty alleviation; climate risk management in relation to adaptation; mitigation; capacity- building; and transparent financing to technology development and transfer.
The negotiators and the heads of state at Cop 17 and CMP 7 have the difficult task of balancing and retaining the principles of multilateralism while, in contrast, reducing or eliminating the existential struggles of millions of people in the developing countries, which will be further exacerbated by the potential ravages of climate change.
The impact of climate change, at a political level, is arguably the most difficult political problem the world has ever had to face. It is the only global crises to date for which grave consequences are predicted to occur on a planetary scale. The crisis is expected to impact adversely on the security and wellbeing of all human populations.
The policy solutions required to address this crisis have highly divisive consequences. The necessary policy solutions are divisive and, with a scientifically based approach, require radical policy changes at national level. This will require from nation states a fundamental transformation of modern societies to low-carbon development based on new energy production and consumption. This becomes problematic because the resulting process of transformation is perceived as highly inequitable. For instance, while large developing countries, such as the United States, are primarily responsible for the most greenhouse gas emissions that currently exist in the atmosphere, it is small developing countries that will be affected by impending climate change. Large developing countries such as China and India, though not yet responsible for the largest share of emissions in the atmosphere, will also be required to drastically reduce their future emissions in order to avoid the direct predicted consequences of climate change. This is particularly controversial as high per capita growth domestic product, GDP, is strongly correlated with high per capita emissions.
No large country has ever experienced sustainable economic growth without increasing its greenhouse gas emissions at the same time. The objection of emergent emitters, such as China and India, is that their scientifically recommended climate change policies will inhibit their continued economic development.
As the hon President Zuma said in his 2011 state of the nation address:
As South Africa we look forward to successfully hosting Cop 17 through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December in Durban, where world nations will meet and build consensus on a sustainable model of development that will leave a world worth living in to future generations.
The global problem of climate change requires a worldwide response. Moving toward Cop 17, there is a degree of global co-operation but we have to be realistic. A future co-ordinated and consented response is not on the immediate horizon. Governments are unlikely to reach consensus on an equitable burden of shared responsibility for emission reduction or on an international carbon price in the near future. Therefore it is important for domestic agendas to proactively engage its citizenry on the need to change from high carbon usage to low carbon development.
The South African government, led by the ANC, in its response to the greenhouse gas emissions issue at a global level, has moved forward to advance responsibility as reflected in the 2007 long-term mitigation scenarios and, most recently, in the Green and White Paper processes. Its balanced approach to adaptation mitigation, emission reduction, impact on sectors, carbon tax and technology transfer - as per the principles contained in the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol - provides a useful framework for the debates on commitment from nation states at Cop 17.
When debates arise about further emission cuts, there is always a counterargument that the national economic interest of a particular nation state should always be factored in with broader global interests. During the 2009 Copenhagen climate change negotiations, South Africa voluntarily announced that it would act to reduce domestic GHG emissions by 34% by 2020 and 42% by 2025 below the "Business as Usual" baseline, subject to the availability of adequate financial, technological and other support.
Between 2005 to date, South Africa has concentrated on working on national efforts to address the future impacts of climate change. This culminated in the National Climate Change Response White Paper 2011. If one looks at the national interest, then one needs to focus on South Africa's advancement to assist with the global effort to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
South Africa's position, outlined in the National Climate Change Response White Paper 2011, provides a framework that enables economic, social and environmental development to proceed in a sustainable manner. The White Paper presents the South African government's vision for an effective climate change response. The response is guided by principles set out in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the National Environmental Management Act, Millennium Declaration and the UNFCCC.
When it comes to gender mainstreaming and climate change, during the public hearings process on the Green Paper on climate change by the Department of Water and Environmental affairs as well as during the parliamentary public hearings held by the portfolio committee, a common complaint by many stakeholders was the limited attention paid to gender mainstreaming and, more particularly, to the participation of and consultation with women by government departments in addressing the potential ravages of climate change. The department of Water and Environmental Affairs noted these comments and as the process of the White Paper further develops, all these concerns will be taken on board.
The argument made at the National Consultative Seminar on Climate Change focused mainly on the limited participation of women in the planning of programmes and interventions. This was emphasised because most often women are the agents of change and a source of practical knowledge.
There was a call for a strategy of information, education and communication on climate change. This should crosscut all the departments, supported by the necessary budgetary provisions. The green economy must include all branches of society to ensure that climate justice equals social justice. Special emphasis should be placed on gender-based budgeting and monitoring in relation to climate change issues at all levels of government in South Africa.
In conclusion, the implementation of that section of the White Paper therefore places an enormous obligation on Parliament, and particularly on us as legislatures, to hold government accountable in its difficult pursuit of moving towards a low-carbon development economy. But, as always, factoring in our developmental agenda to ensure food security, job creation and the alleviation of poverty, the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, guided by my inspirational chairperson, Comrade De Lange, has taken the first step in projecting a long-term programme to analyse and oversee the future path of the White Paper and particularly its impact at a sectoral level.
Future public hearings will be held in 2012 and onwards with various government departments and other relevant stakeholders from the energy, transport and mineral resources sectors. This will further assist and strengthen the climate change White Paper and the government's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The ANC supports the Report.