Environmental Affairs and Tourism, at the National Climate Change Summit
3 March 2009
When we met here in Midrand three and a half years ago for the first
National Climate Change Summit, our understanding of the climate challenge was
vastly different to what it is today.
Four years ago climate change was hardly discussed in government, or
internationally by heads of state. Today, it is amongst the foremost priorities
on our governmentâs agenda and that of nearly every major international meeting
involving heads of state.
Four years ago there were still a few climate sceptics in the corridors.
There was no fourth assessment report from the intergovernmental panel on
climate change. Today the scientific consensus resounds with one clear message:
climate change is happening now and will get far worse unless we substantially
reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and start doing it now.
Four years ago, there was no stern review on the Economics of Climate
Change. Today the economic case for the most comprehensive possible
international co-operation is abundantly clear. And rather than falling into
despair over the costs of action, we understand today that action on climate
change is an investment in the future.
Four years ago, business and government were rather ignorant about finding
new competitive advantages in clean and renewable technologies. Today we
understand that the development of these technologies is imperative. Rather
than viewing action on climate change as a burden in the current global
financial crisis, we realise that it holds myriad opportunities for green
investment and green jobs.
Four years ago, climate change did not feature prominently in the
international trade arena. Today we know that if we continue to grow without a
carbon constraint we face the threat of border tax adjustments or trade
sanctions from key trading partners and the destruction of thousands of jobs in
the high emitting trade exposed sectors.
Four years ago, the pressure was largely on developed countries to do more
to mitigate climate change. Today strong leadership is coming from amongst the
ranks of developing countries. Last year China published a white paper on
climate change, India published their national plan, Brazil tabled a climate
bill, and South Africa completed its Long Term Mitigation Scenario (LTMS)
study.
Four years ago we did not have an LTMS to inform our climate policy
framework. Today we understand that, in a âdo nothingâ scenario, South Africaâs
emissions will quadruple by 2050, rendering our economy and society extremely
vulnerable.
Four years ago it seemed as if the major negotiating blocks were so far
apart that a fair, effective and inclusive climate regime was beyond reach.
Today we have the Bali roadmap and Bali action plan as a basis for negotiating
a strengthened climate regime for the period after 2012.
And finally, we were still in the middle of eight dark years of the Bush
administration. Today we are witnessing the emergence of new voices of reason
in Washington.
Chairperson,
As we meet here today some four years later, I am encouraged by what I
believe is a common understanding, namely that no nation has a plausible excuse
for not doing its fair share.
That âfair shareâ is inextricably linked to questions of global equity. No
one disputes that the developed countries carry the bulk of the responsibility
for cumulative historical emissions since the industrial revolution. Similarly,
no one disputes that emissions from developing countries are growing rapidly.
The key challenge is to balance the sharing of the carbon space with affording
developing countries a fair chance in the development space.
Where we draw a line is when some developed countries argue that the
developing world should help them carry a part of their burden. The fact of the
matter is that the carbon space is finite and 70% of the âsafeâ 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 little
remaining âsafeâ carbon space will therefore be counter productive in the
current negotiations.
Turning to December 2009 in Copenhagen: the agreement in Copenhagen must
mobilise political will on the basis of a shared vision. It must balance the
international adaptation and mitigation responses, it must balance climate
stabilisation and sustainable development, and it must address the means for
developing countries to implement effective policies and measures.
On adaptation, the Copenhagen agreement must provide massively scaled up and
predictable support for implementation. The global mitigation effort should be
informed by the most ambitious IPCC scenario for climate stabilization. For
developed countries this means a cut in emissions of at least 80%-95% below
1990 levels by 2050, underpinned by credible mid-term targets towards the upper
end of the 25%-40% range below 1990 by 2020.
From the United State of America (USA) we expect comparability of efforts,
captured in a legally binding manner under the convention. The US must
negotiate its commitment together with all nations, and these commitments must
be encoded in US domestic legislation. 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.
The signals from President Obama have been encouraging, even though in
substance the new administration is still on a zero reduction below 1990 levels
by 2020 a level that is clearly not acceptable. And although this is an opening
bid, the USA would need to come forward with a meaningful negative percentage
soon. The same applies to Japan, Russia and Canada, and to the very
disappointing announcements by Australia.
For developing countries the Copenhagen agreement could set up a register of
nationally appropriate mitigation actions in a new legal instrument under the
convention. As a developing country we are saying that we take our
responsibilities seriously and that we are already making a meaningful
contribution. We are willing to do more and to substantially deviate from
business as usual emission trajectories. But the trigger must come from the
North.
Therefore we also need a legally binding instrument for measurable,
reportable and verifiable finance, technology and capacity support from
developed to developing countries. Predictable funding holds the potential to
trigger matching mitigation actions. In fact, I do not foresee an ambitious
agreement by Copenhagen without an agreement on predictable, stable and
adequate financial flows from developed countries.
Chair, we have noted with concern that a few developed countries continue to
raise the issue of âfurther differentiation between developing countries.â This
is simply not open to negotiation. The United Nation Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) creates two categories of parties: Annex I (developed
countries and economies in transition) and Non-Annex I (developing countries).
There is no mezzanine level.
From our perspective, any attempt to redefine the categories of countries in
the UNFCCC or to dilute the founding principles of equity and âcommon but
differentiated responsibilitiesâ raises the broader political question of
graduation of countries between categories within the whole United Nations
system and the Bretton Woods institutions. It therefore becomes a much larger
geo-political issue than just climate change.
Our approach is that the application of the principle of âcommon but
differentiated responsibilitiesâ has changed since 1997 when the Kyoto protocol
was negotiated, but the concept remains valid. In 1997, these principles
practically translated into quantified mitigation targets for developed
countries, and none for developing countries. What has changed informed by the
science is that we must all do more.
Therefore, in the mid-term, developing countries such as South Africa are
saying that we are willing to enhance our actions and to differentiate
voluntarily between ourselves through the actions that we take. But this
entails differentiation through actions, not through the top down creation of
new legal categories.
Finally, let me briefly turn to an immediate challenge for our own industry.
Business is a key partner and it is engaging pro-actively. For the most part,
it is repositioning itself to face the changing economic landscape in a carbon
constrained world.
But I do get the impression that in some quarters, business does not yet
fully appreciate the implications of the developing worldâs commitment to a
substantial deviation below baseline emission trajectories in a measurable,
reportable and verifiable way.
Not only do proper tracking, reporting and managing of emissions make
business sense, it is also an indicator of good corporate governance and of
taking co-ownership for the future.
I therefore wish to reiterate that industry must prepare itself for a new
era in which mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions will become part
of the regulatory landscape. DEAT has initiated a process of developing
greenhouse gas measurement, monitoring and reporting regulations that will
shift our work in this regard from a voluntary to a mandatory level.
Chair, I started off today by reflecting on how far we have come in the last
four years, what progress has been made, how the challenges have become more
urgent, and how this unlocks opportunities for green growth and development.
Let me conclude by posing a challenge: When this summit meets again in four
years from now, our reflections should be on how our country has met the
challenge of implementation.
We cannot allow ourselves to dither at the point when action and
implementation are most critical. The decisions we have to take are tough, but
I have never been more convinced that they are right and necessary.
I thank you
Issued by: Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
3 March 2009
