Note
to editors: Minister van Schalkwyk is currently
in Washington DC, where he is engaging with
key role-players close to the incoming Obama
administration on the climate change negotiations,
which will culminate in an agreement in
Copenhagen at the end of the year. The Obama
administration is currently shaping its
climate policy and Van Schalkwyk is focusing
on what developed countries can expect from
developing countries, as well as our expectations
for the new US administration. In addition
to various bilateral meetings, he delivered
the following address at a public event
on Capitol Hill.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY MARTHINUS
VAN SCHALKWYK, SOUTH AFRICAN MINISTER OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM, AT A
HIGH-LEVEL SEMINAR AND DISCUSSION ON "EMERGING
STRATEGIES FOR INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE &
INVESTMENT POLICY", WASHINGTON DC
Introduction
Chairperson,
I would like to express
my appreciation to the NRDC and Climate
Change Capital for hosting this event at
such an historic moment in US history. The
election of President Obama signals a much
anticipated fresh start in our efforts to
negotiate a fair, inclusive and effective
international climate regime for the future.
We look forward to the unlocking of a new
dynamic in international climate negotiations
as the United States assumes an international
leadership role which is underpinned by
ambitious domestic action and solidarity
with developing countries. We are indeed
encouraged by the new voices of reason emerging
with the transformation of leadership in
the US.
Before I address our
expectations for the Copenhagen agreement
at the end of 2009, let me refer to what
we are doing in the developing world, and
in South Africa in particular, to address
this urgent challenge.
South Africa's long
term mitigation scenarios and policy framework
Increasingly, developing
countries are making substantive proposals
to move us forward. During 2008 the G77&China
produced detailed proposals on financing
and technology. Africa adopted a roadmap
for climate negotiations. China published
their climate White Paper. Brazil tabled
their Climate Bill, and India published
their national plan. During the G8 Summit
the G5 developing countries made proposals
for an ambitious long term climate policy
consistent with the most ambitious stabilisation
scenario assessed by the IPCC.
As a developing country,
South Africa has stepped up its efforts.
In July 2008, our Cabinet agreed on an ambitious
national climate framework. This framework
is motivated by climate change concerns,
but very importantly also by our energy
access, energy security, sustainable development
and poverty eradication imperatives.
In South Africa, the
climate question is both an energy question
and a development question. On the one hand,
some 30% of households do not yet have access
to modern energy services. On the other,
the energy sector is responsible for some
80% of our greenhouse gas emissions, with
electricity generation responsible for some
40%. Coal is the fuel used for 90% of our
electricity supply. Needless to say, we
have built economic competitiveness around
coal, which is similar to the United States'
reliance on fossil fuels. If we continue
with a business as usual growth path, our
emissions will almost quadruple from 446
megatons CO2 equivalent in 2003 to some
1600 megatons by 2050. Continuing along
this path will be a high risk approach.
We are clear that it would be socially,
economically, politically and environmentally
unsustainable. We cannot continue to grow
without a carbon constraint.
We find ourselves at
the southern tip of the continent most vulnerable
to climate change. In a "do nothing"
scenario, the IPCC tells us that global
average temperatures will increase far beyond
2 Degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
The projected impacts
of this level of temperature increase for
South Africa are alarming, with deep social
and economic implications. Up to 55% of
our current biomes will be detrimentally
affected in the next 50 years with unmitigated
climate change. Infrastructure, industrial
production, income-generating activities
and human livelihood strategies will be
significantly affected. The number of people
exposed to water stress will multiply, and
productive land area will decrease. If no
action is taken, vector borne diseases such
as malaria will spread into disease-free
areas with considerable associated costs.
In terms of food security
we face a significant decrease in agricultural
crop yields such as corn, which could decrease
by as much as 20% in the drier western regions
within decades, while heat stress is already
having impacts on productivity in the deciduous
export fruit sector. In the face of these
risks, the debate on climate change in our
country is one on national, economic and
environmental security. Those least able
to adapt are the poor, and thus this is
also a poverty issue. We have therefore
decided to take decisive action.
We are not willing to
compromise our long term development, competitiveness
and survival by not taking action in the
short and medium term. We understand that
all nations would have to do more, albeit
in a differentiated way. As a country that
relies heavily on fossil fuels, like the
US, we have therefore conducted an evidence-based
process to determine what the risk threshold
should be and to determine what South Africa's
contribution to global efforts could be
to keep the climate at safe levels. We have
asked how we can simultaneously avoid the
risks, and seize the opportunities of the
global transition to a low carbon economy.
We have also done extensive economic modelling
which has shown that taking early action
is affordable, and that in the long term
"green growth" is the best option
for welfare, job creation and poverty eradication.
Based on this two year
process and considering the fact the climate
change solution must be global, the South
African Government has committed to our
emissions peaking between 2020 and 2025,
then stabilising for a decade, before declining
in absolute terms towards mid-century. The
political commitment to a "peak, plateau
and decline" path is highly ambitious
for a developing country. We have achieved
something remarkable by building a national
consensus on a climate change framework
that brings together government, business,
labour and civil society. In the context
of the global nature of the climate challenge,
we could only justify this domestically
if all developed countries, including the
US, committed to absolute emission reductions:
a commitment to a peak and decline path
with a near-term peak.
In Government's decision,
three areas - i.e. technology, investment
and policy - are brought together into a
coherent vision. State-led regulation will
play a key role, complemented by getting
the economic incentive and investment structure
right and increasing long-term research
and development spending. Government has
also made clear its intent to put an escalating
price on carbon, be that through market
mechanisms, a carbon tax, or a combination
of these instruments.
We will also continue
to set ambitious and mandatory domestic
targets for energy efficiency and the transport
sector. We will continue to diversify the
energy mix away from coal whilst shifting
to cleaner coal, by for example introducing
more stringent thermal efficiency and emission
standards for coal fired power stations.
Incentivising renewable energy through feed-in
tariffs and user charges is on the cards,
and we have already set a requirement that
all new coal fired power stations and coal-to-liquid
plants must be carbon capture ready.
Chair, we are putting
our best efforts into making a fair contribution
to this global challenge - but the extent
to which South Africa will be able to realise
its ambitious vision will depend on the
support that the international community
gives through finance, technology transfer
and the building of human and institutional
capacity.
By implementing existing development plans
we are already deviating from baseline.
By implementing additional policies and
measures, we can deviate even further from
baseline, but we need predictable international
support.
Reflections on climate
negotiations in Poznan
Let me now turn to the
recent climate negotiations in Poland.
In Poznan, we agreed
to move into full negotiating mode in order
to conclude negotiations in Copenhagen at
the end of 2009. Yet, when reflecting on
Poznan, we have to acknowledge that although
the process is now in place, the politics
are not.
We are in particular
concerned about the trust deficit; the widening
gap in trust between developed and developing
countries; and generally, we are disappointed
by the lack of leadership by some developed
countries. This includes (i) the inability
of some developed countries to come forward
with credible and ambitious mid-term targets;
(ii) the deafening silence from developed
countries in response to detailed G77&China
proposals on technology and finance; and
(iii) adaptation funding taking a back seat.
Yet, we are as determined
as ever to reach an ambitious agreement
in Copenhagen. What will be required is
a transformation away from the politics
of distrust. It will require bold leadership
from all sides. In particular, we need clear
signals on mid-term targets from all developed
countries, including the USA, as well as
credible proposals on financing and technology
in support of developing countries. Developed
countries will have to make good on their
promises, dating back to the signing of
the Climate Convention in 1992.
Our expectations for
the Copenhagen agreement
Turning to our expectations
for Copenhagen: The agreement in Copenhagen
must balance climate and development imperatives,
and adaptation and mitigation, and it must
be supported by adequate means of implementation.
On adaptation, the Copenhagen
agreement must provide massively scaled-up
and predictable support for implementation
and consolidate an international programme
of work on implementation of adaptation,
established within a binding legal instrument
under the UN Framework Convention. New sources
of funding could come from both market and
non-market sources, including National Treasuries
and the proceeds of the international auctioning
of emission allowances.
Whilst recognising our
shared responsibility for the future, we
cannot wish away historical responsibility
for the problem. The fact of the matter
is that the carbon space is finite and 70%
of the "safe" carbon space has
already been used up, largely by industrialised
countries. Any attempt to place an absolute
cap on the access of developing countries
to the remaining "safe" carbon
space will therefore be counter-productive.
An equitable burden-sharing paradigm requires
that developed countries take leadership
by committing to absolute and legally-binding
emission reductions, whilst developing countries
take meaningful actions, supported by effective
means of implementation, to ensure a substantial
deviation from business-as-usual.
On mitigation, there
are three strands that have to be woven
into a multilateral framework. Firstly,
more ambitious, quantified and legally binding
emission reduction commitments for developed
countries under the Kyoto Protocol. Secondly,
re-engagement of the USA in the full multilateral
process. And thirdly, recognition of, and
incentives for enhanced mitigation action
by developing countries.
The science tells us
that greenhouse gas emissions must peak
and decline within the next 10 to 15 years.
Therefore, commitments by some developed
countries which focus on voluntary "pledge
and review", or emissions intensity,
will not be adequate.
In Copenhagen, we expect
Kyoto Parties in the developed world to
adopt, in aggregate, targets towards the
upper end of the range of minus 25% to 40%
below 11000 levels by 2020, and 80% to 95%
domestically below 11000 levels by 2050.
From the United States
we expect comparability of effort. By that
we understand comparability of targets and
compliance, captured in a legally binding
manner under the Convention, working in
harmony with the Kyoto Protocol during the
second commitment period. We cannot accept
anything that suggests that, because the
US has done so little for so long, we must
allow them to do less than required-by-science
in future.
Chair, we understand
that it is critical that these commitments
are encoded in US domestic legislation.
It would be our hope that a cap-and-trade
Bill can be passed as early as possible,
and that it is given top priority by the
incoming US Administration. Equally important
is that the US brings its action into the
multilateral process and negotiates its
commitment together with all nations. This
would provide highly significant impetus
for Copenhagen. For the global problem of
climate change, the message can only be
that together, we can.
In this respect the
signals from President-elect Obama has been
encouraging, even though in substance the
incoming Administration is still on a ZERO
reduction below 11000 levels by 2020. We
do however recognise that this is an opening
bid - and a much improved one. But what
we need is a meaningful negative percentage
compared to 11000 levels by 2020.
For developing countries
the Copenhagen agreement could set the framework
for a "toolbox" approach to mitigation,
dependent on means of implementation that
is also measurable, reportable and verifiable.
This could be facilitated by a register
of nationally-appropriate mitigation actions
under the UNFCCC.
The message from a developing
country perspective is clear: We take our
responsibilities seriously. We are already
making a meaningful contribution within
our respective capabilities. We are willing
to do more. But the trigger must come from
the North.
Besides broadening participation
to include the US, creating a more empowering
technology and financing framework will
be a precondition. I am quite certain that
binding support to developing countries
could trigger matching mitigation commitments
to act. A serious discussion is therefore
needed in the US on scaling up support for
climate change action - including what share
the US is willing to devote to support action
in developing countries.
Conclusion
Chair, in conclusion,
South Africa has signalled that it is serious
about negotiating on climate change. We
can do so on the basis of having done our
homework at the national level. South Africa,
along with other developing countries, is
saying that it is willing to face up to
its responsibility for the future. It will
be critical that all developed countries
respond by showing leadership and taking
on their responsibility.
I thank you.
Enquiries: Ronel Bester
