CLIMATE CHANGE – FROM COPENHAGEN TO MEXICO AND BEYOND

1. CLIMATE CHANGE –FROM COPENHAGEN TO MEXICO AND BEYOND PRESENTATION TO PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 01 September 2010

2. Climate Change National Interest • Climate impacts will undermine our & Africa’s development, therefore need • An internationally binding regime beyond 2012 that is ambitious, fair, inclusive and effective, which • Is based on “equity” and “common but differentiated responsibilities & respective capabilities” principles • Prioritises both mitigation of emissions & adaptation to impacts • Balances both climate and development imperatives • Ensures equitable sharing of the limited remaining carbon space • And therefore must specifically provide for • Developed country – verifiable ambitious & binding emission reduction targets (preferably under Kyoto with the USA under the Convention) • Developing country – verifiable relative mitigation action providing time to develop • Adaptation – a comprehensive international programme • Verifiable support - finance, technology & capacity building support for both adaptation & mitigation

3. Negotiations up to Copenhagen • 2 Ad Hoc Working Groups – 1 under the Convention (AWG – LCA) & 1 under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG – KP) • Negotiating since 2007 with deadline of 2009 in Demark • Evident that agreement would be difficult in Denmark – therefore Danish COP President intervention • Final days – convened 30 heads of state – to formulate a political agreement – the Copenhagen Accord • But was non-inclusive – particularly excluding ALBA countries • Created distrust and • Due to process issues – Accord not adopted only noted • Actual 2009 outcome – • The Copenhagen Accord was noted and • Agreement to continue negotiations till 2010 in Mexico • Fundamental issue is economic competitiveness & challenge of achieving equity & differentiation

4. Copenhagen Accord Follow Up SA has associated with the Accord SA has listed it’s announced action to reduce emissions by 34% by 2020 and 42% by 2025 conditional on a legally binding outcome in Mexico and provision of finance, technology and capacity building. 120 other countries have either associated with the Accord or listed action. Many listings also conditional SA envisages a way forward through the multi-lateral process and UNFCCC negotiations.

5. Political Challenges of • Differentiation – how to reflect commitments, that • Quantified absolutetargets for emission reduction for developed countries (including the USA) • Relativeactions by developing countries emission reduction • Support (finance & technology) for developing country action • Internationalverification of targets, action and support • Copenhagen Accord solves this challenge but not the ? of • Fairness/equity – prevent dangerous impact on vulnerable economies & livelihoods & sharing the carbon/devm’t space • Quantifying the global goal (global temperature limit & peak) • Equitable sharing of responsibility & effort between developed and developing countries; (adequate & comparable developed country mid- & long- term targets; developing country contribution with time to dev) • And linked to this, the question of Legal form • Whether Kyoto will continue beyond 2012; or replace it • Whether to adopt a new Protocol which includes USA as well as China, India, Brazil, SA etc; • Or abandon an international binding system (leading back to the question of differentiation & how to verify & ensure compliance)

6. Leading up to Mexico • In the first 7 months of 2010 - a number of political and technical meetings - indicating • A loss of momentum • Developed country emphasis on the Copenhagen Accord rather than a global agreement • Increasing trend of adopting a non-multilateral (partnership) approaches • No willingness to discuss the challenge of fairness/equity & legal form (inclu comparability & compliance issues) • Continued efforts to collapse the 2 negotiation tracks & “kill Kyoto” • Therefore, broad acceptance of a limited outcome in Mexico (due largely to inability of the USA legislate their binding target & obtain a negotiating mandate; which prevents the EU & others to seriously negotiate Kyoto targets)

7. Possible Outcomes for Mexico Three possible outcomes for Mexico • A Comprehensive Outcome: early agreement to negotiate legally binding instrument(s). Depends on • USA readiness & passage of their domestic law • China’s willingness to commit action in a treaty • Fragmented Outcome: abandon prospects of any global agreement. Adopt decisions and non-multilateral approaches • Two-step Outcome: middle road on the current political divergence & defer final agreement to SA. Involves • Decision to implement early action (some elements of the Copenhagen Accord) • Transfer the framework of the global agreement to SA • In the absence of serious negotiation on questions equity & legal form, the fragmented or two-step outcome most likely

8. Implications Copenhagen characterised by a breakdown in trust and process challenges Negotiations in 2010 are focused on rebuilding confidence to achieve a multilaterally agreed outcome in Mexico or South Africa or beyond Emerging position from some that Copenhagen proved that the multilateral process is unworkable and that the Accord provides an alternative to the UNFCCC Others reject and question the Accord South Africa committed to an inclusive approach and for political agreements in the Accord to be used to unblock the multi-lateral UNFCCC process

9. SA Deviation from Business As Usual Commitment to reduce emissions by 34% by 2020 and 42% by 2025, conditional on international deal with enabling framework and provision of finance, technology and capacity building. Above figures calculated on basis of Long Term Mitigation Scenarios (LTMS), Integrated Resource Plan for Electricity Sector (IRP) of Dec 2009 and activities in the Clean Technology Fund Investment Portfolio Presumes that with conditionalities met + that all actions can be achieved Need to ensure alignment and integration with other processes such as IPAP, IRP as well as with climate policy process

11. Potential South African NAMAs • Focused on the following sectors • Land use change • Agriculture • Waste • Industrial process and efficiency • Transport (public and liquid fuels) • Electricity supply and efficiency • Building efficiency

12. Composition of the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) • The composition of the NCCC is designed to provide representation from the main stakeholder groups involved in climate change issues across South African society. • It is constituted to consist of at least two (and at most five) representatives from each of the following stakeholder groups:

13. Composition of the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) contd.

14. Composition of the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) contd.

15. Composition of the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) contd.

16. Composition of the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) contd.

17. Composition of the National Climate Change Committee (NCCC) contd.

18. Thank you