In 2011 South Africa will host the UNFCCC climate change negotiations that seek to shape the future of the climate change regime. This is one of the most politically divisive and broad-ranging areas currently under discussion within the multilateral context. Careful consideration will need to be given not only to the planning of the conference (logistics), but also to building an understanding of current international geo-political divisions. Drawing Africa and other vulnerable states into the centre of the discussions will be paramount.
The South African government will also face the challenge of drawing together competing national priorities and interests and ensuring interaction with civil society in underpinning transparency, equality and fairness within the negotiation process. South Africa’s own historic success in reaching political agreement sets the stage for these difficult negotiations. This has given rise to high expectations around the country’s role as host, yet there have been concerns about the importance South Africa has attributed to the UNFCCC climate change negotiations following the omission of climate change in President Zuma’s State of the Nation Address. This was, however, addressed by the President in his response to the Address, wherein he highlighted the importance of the negotiations as an opportunity to demonstrate the impacts of climate change on the continent. The appointment of the Minister of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) as the chair of the conference, with the Minister for Environmental Affairs leading the South African delegation, has signposted the emphasis that has been given to managing the international diplomacy of climate change. Indeed, South Africa faces a number of challenges in its role as host of these negotiations.
Building bridges
From the outset, government has indicated its democratic approach to multilateralism. Nevertheless, a number of concerns have been raised concerning the country’s role in the bourgeoning ‘club diplomacy’ groups such as BASIC (Brazil, South Africa, India and China). While South Africa’s inclusion in these groups signals the country’s significance as a key country of the South, this is something of a double-edged sword. Although it provides a platform for engagement, it also raises a number of challenges in managing international geo-political dynamics.
As COP 17 draws near, South Africa will need to give critical consideration to the role that BASIC can play. The group played a significant role in the outcome in Copenhagen (the Copenhagen Accord). It served to raise the voice of the developing world and played a central role in maintaining the two-track process and the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities. Despite indications that it is more than just a forum focused on the negotiations, BASIC remains a loose political association dependent on the whims of its political leaders. Concern has been expressed that individual states may pursue their own national economic and political expediencies. For instance in the case of the Copenhagen Accord, South Africa was among the first to ‘note’ the Accord, with India and China only noting it after the initial date set for the end of January. In addition, there are a number of underlying tensions between countries. These include unresolved boundary disputes, as well as emission patterns, and outstanding questions around expanding the group to a ‘BASIC Plus’ which would include states like Indonesia. Extending membership could strengthen legitimacy, but would bring with it difficulties in sustaining a common position on further interests and priorities. BASIC countries are also facing increased pressure from both developed and developing countries to undertake a more pivotal role in addressing issues of emission reduction.
Through the BASIC group, South Africa has pursued a clear position as a leading voice of the South. This is a position that has been increasingly apparent following the Bali talks and the ardent criticism of developed country positions. This, however, has seen relations with developed country partners languishing on the periphery. In bringing divergent positions together at COP 17, South Africa will need to adopt the role of bridge-builder. Employing this ‘middlepowermanship’ within the international community is not new for the country as it has brought disparate parties together on a number of divisive issues before. The question has become one of political will and whether the South African government is set to take on this mantle ahead of the Durban talks.
‘Team SA’
At the national level, South Africa faces challenges from the socioeconomic divisions that have seen a growing gap between rich and poor. In rectifying disparities of the past, coupled with the growing demand for energy, the government has given priority to its electrification programmes and energy security. In protecting its future socioeconomic development, South Africa has been an ardent supporter of developing country access to the ‘carbon-space’. This has raised a number of questions on the government’s commitment to its climate change objectives of 24% emission reduction below ‘business as usual’ by 2020 and 42% by 2025. ESKOM, South Africa’s power utility, has been at the centre of controversy concerning its loan application to the World Bank - which received approval in 2010 - aimed at supporting the building of the coal-fired power station at Medupi. The move has been criticised for maintaining the country’s dependence on ‘dirty’ energy. The country also remains one of the largest users and exporters of coal internationally.
The South African government has come under pressure from civil society groups for its continued emphasis on fossil fuels, despite the rhetoric emphasising a move towards clean and sustainable energy. On the other hand, elements in business and industry highlight the adverse impact that energy shortages have had on income and employment as a result of electricity shortages. There have also been significant divisions around the use of nuclear energy as ‘clean’ energy and the role played by carbon capture and storage (CCS). In other words, civil society does not represent a homogenous position. Indeed, there are a number of different interests, positions and ideologies represented. The importance of second-track diplomacy, or citizens’ diplomacy, should not be overlooked, as civil society and business have played a prominent and visible role at the climate change negotiations.
South Africa has had some success in drawing in key elements from within civil society and business to inform the country’s negotiation position. The Department of Environmental Affairs has actively encouraged stakeholder engagement on the country’s own National Climate Change Response Green Paper (2010). At an open meeting on 1 April 2011 Minister of Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa, indicated that cooperation was necessary between government and all stakeholders in support of COP 17. Indeed, although businesses have been critical of the lack of an international framework for climate change to encourage action and investment in low-carbon industry, South African companies have taken up a number of initiatives concerned with the green economy, including the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP). The focus by the Zuma government on job creation has also lent urgency to the focus on green jobs, although there is still some debate on the number that will be created and what constitutes a green job. While there is still much to be done on this front, questions of international competitiveness and the threat from green border protectionism and non-tariff barriers (NTB) have seen businesses moving forward in developing their own climate change initiatives.
Conclusion
South Africa continues to push for a comprehensive, fair and legally binding agreement with equal prioritisation of mitigation and adaptation. While Cancun may have seen these multilateral negotiations ‘back on track’, many of the difficult questions remain to be resolved at Durban. These include the low level of ambition from developed countries, the legal form of an agreement, the second commitment period and the future of the Kyoto Protocol, as well as rising concerns on the international economic impacts of national climate policies. As such, South Africa will need to employ all its diplomatic capability in bringing together divergent positions at both a national and international level. The ability of the country to build on its position as a middle power in the climate change negotiations will facilitate the diplomatic process. Indeed, in the main there has been broad consensus on the science of climate change and the need to keep temperature increases below 2°C. The challenge facing Team SA is in the international politics of climate change and the need to build the political will to address the challenge facing the global commons.
Lesley Masters is a Senior Researcher for the Institute for Global Dialogue, South Africa, in the foreign policy and international diplomacy programme. She is responsible for research on climate change and natural resource governance with a particular focus on Africa.