By Tigere Chagutah
That climate change is happening is unequivocal. However, while science can tell us what is happening, it is now clear that how we deal with the threat will require a commitment to extensive social and political dialogue. The threat of climate change is not only global, it is also multidimensional, invisible, unpredictable, and transcends national borders. For this reason nation-states will increasingly look to foreign policy to do its part in confronting the climate menace. Simply more or 'better' climate science will not suffice.
Traditional strategies and alliances are becoming ineffective to address the multiple threats that climate change has for all countries, but especially for the most vulnerable. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change calls for new thinking in foreign policy. The government of South Africa is on record as saying that climate change is a common threat that necessitates all parties, including the EU, the G77 and China, the US and other geopolitical formations, to take up their responsibility.
This synopsis looks at defining features of the relationship between South Africa and the major negotiating blocs within The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and seeks to evaluate the importance given to climate change within these alliances.
EU relations
South Africa shares cordial relations with the European Union. Besides the EU's commitments to Africa at a continental level, it has also made significant headway in elevating its bilateral relations with South Africa. By virtue of the importance and relevance that South Africa holds in its region - politically, economically, and militarily - it is now considered a key strategic partner to the EU in Africa. EU-South Africa relations have flourished since the latter’s first democratic elections in 1994, and both sides entered into a Strategic Partnership in May 2007. Besides trade and economic development, other areas of collaboration include cooperation in peace and security; migration; energy, environment and climate change; transport, customs and social dialogue; and food security.
The EU remains South Africa's biggest trade and investment partner, accounting for over 35 percent of total trade, as well as for 70 percent of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). In comparison, the United States of America accounts for 9.4 percent of total trade, China (9.2 percent) and Japan (7.8 percent). The EU is also South Africa's largest development partner representing approximately 70 percent of all Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) – with the country earmarked to receive €980 million in the period 2007-2013. In addition, the European Investment Bank has approved a loan of €900 million for South Africa.
A Joint communiqué issued following the Second South Africa-European Union Summit held in Cape Town, on 11 September 2009, emphasised that moving without delay to a low-carbon economy, including a clean energy access perspective, is not only a necessity, but also an opportunity to promote continued economic green growth and sustainable development. The parties agreed that scaled-up funding for adaptation in developing countries is needed, especially for the most vulnerable countries. Towards mitigation, it was agreed that the developed countries would provide measurable, reportable and verifiable finance and technology to South Africa.
A key element of the relationship between the EU and South Africa - and an issue that underlines South Africa's entire approach to the establishment of the Strategic Partnership - is that both parties declared themselves as fully committed to the development goals of Africa. In fact, the EU-SA Joint Action Plan makes specific reference to "the EU's full support of South Africa's commitment to the African Agenda". In this regard, South Africa is fully supportive of the Africa-EU Partnership on Climate Change, which seeks to (i) Build a common agenda on climate change policies and cooperation; and (ii) Cooperate to address land degradation and increasing aridity, including the "Green Wall for the Sahara Initiative" through a battery of joint activities and financing mechanisms.
In terms of the progress to date on climate change and environment, the EU-SA Energy Dialogue Forum has set up three working groups that deal with Clean Coal Technology, Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), and Clean and Efficient Energy. Contentiously, one of the energy options under discussion is nuclear generation. Development of both CCS technology and nuclear energy has been heavily criticised on the basis of local studies that have shown the technologies to be financially non-viable, while the latter has grave consequences for human and environmental health and safety. Meanwhile, the South African government is cautiously optimistic about the EU’s response to climate change and has lauded the European Commission’s stance that the current global financial and economic crisis does not necessitate the postponement of action against climate change.
G-77 and China relations
In its engagement with the Group of 77 and China (G-77/ China), the South African government pursues the cooperation and solidarity of the South on issues of major concern in climate change negotiations and views unity among developing nations as vital for sustainable development in the global South.
The G-77/ China, established in 1964, is the largest coalition of developing countries in the United Nations. It includes a few very rich countries, amongst them the oil producing member states, a few emerging economies and a vast majority of poor countries. The G-77/ China has consistently pursued its vision of fair and equitable multilateral relations, the commitment of its member States to the well being of the peoples of the South and their commitment to mutually beneficial co-operation.
Although member states of the G-77/ China share key concerns, there are many issues in which members have diverging interests, one of these being environmental issues. While the G77 was conceived primarily to achieve a strategy of coalitional bargaining to restructure the international economic system in favour of the South, the group has also been used as a negotiating framework for environmental issues.
However, G-77/ China member countries are affected by a range of ideological dilemmas in relation to environmental negotiations, including the failure to agree on a common articulation of what sustainable development should entail. Due to widespread poverty among member countries, many face the dilemma of choosing between rapid economic growth through unsustainable use of dwindling resources, or losing a short-term opportunity to grow. Often, the choice of rapid growth severely undermines low carbon development. Another dilemma faced by member states is how to demand equity in international environmental negotiations without being held accountable by other countries and local actors for domestic equity related issues.
The G-77/ China has called for “a solution for the serious global, regional, and local environmental problems facing humanity, based on the recognition of the North’s ecological debt and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities of the developed and developing countries,” – a key principle which also informs South Africa’s engagement with developed countries in international climate negotiations.
With regards to the current climate change negotiations, there are three prominent aspects which make for sharp differences among member states of the G-77/ China. Namely: the dependence of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) countries within this group on oil revenue; the reliance of the majority of states on agriculture; and the small island states’ fundamental concern with the threat to their geographical survival posed by sea level rise.
A recent decision by African leaders to adopt a common position for the continent in climate change negotiations threatens to add to the fractious relationship within the G-77/ China. At a meeting of 10 African leaders in Ethiopia’s capital Addis Ababa, in August 2009, delegates agreed to demand a 67 billion dollar annual package by the year 2020 to counter the impacts of climate change exclusively in Africa.
The Science and Development Network reports that delegations from the EU and the US attending the meeting were favourable to a separation of the African group from the broader G-77/ China coalition. While the US delegation is reported as seeing “Africa as a partner," likely to be the recipient of much of the US$1.2 billion the US will be spending in 2010 on climate change adaptation, a European delegate noted that developed countries are pleased to see Africa setting out its own position for Copenhagen which separates it from the G-77/ China negotiating bloc of poor and emerging economies. However, South Africa, being an emerging economy and therefore seen by some developed countries as deserving of more responsibilities under a post-2012 climate agreement has in the past objected vociferously against such a dichotomy being established between developing countries.
IBSA relations
IBSA, a grouping of India, Brazil and South Africa, was conceived in 2003 to counterbalance the powerful Group of Eight alliance of industrialised countries and to promote South-South cooperation. The three regional powers saw themselves as champions of developing world causes, and they felt that by forging closer ties between themselves they would be able to improve cooperation and trade between their regions. Notably for the climate change negotiations, these nations are leading members of a group of emerging economies within the G-77/ China negotiating bloc.
In 2008 India, Brazil, South Africa and other countries including China, drafted various policy frameworks and draft regulations to mitigate the effects of climate change. However, the IBSA platform is largely one in which the group is brought together by the need to strengthen their positions on trade issues on multi-lateral trade negotiations such as the WTO. Even then, the group currently only offers potential and is sometimes undermined by divergent interests as well as having more differences than common issues around which they can rally.
Notwithstanding, dialogue on climate change is ongoing on the IBSA platform – albeit low key – with a working group on Environment and Climate Change being among many forums (more than ten other working groups) at which government representatives from the three nations dialogue. Successive IBSA summits in 2007 and 2008 have seen the three nations call for the international community to work together on climate change under the UNFCCC. They have called for all developed countries to pursue more ambitious and quantifiable green house gas emission reduction targets in the post 2012 period. IBSA has also emphasised the importance of adequate, new and additional financing for the adaptation efforts of developing countries without diverting resources from existing development assistance. The three nations continue to work towards the establishment of joint projects and collaboration for the increased use of alternative sources of energy to help achieve the objective of energy security and reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
US relations
By the same magnitude that US-South African engagement in the areas of trade and investment, HIV and AIDS, military and peace-building capacity enhancement is flourishing the two countries’ relationship on climate change issues is frosty and largely pessimistic.
In 2008, the then South African Minister for Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk aptly captured the tone of climate change related dialogue between the US and South Africa describing American President Barack Obama’s predecessor George Bush’s eight year tenure as president of the United States as a “disaster for climate change”.
During a media briefing on her recent visit to South Africa American Secretary of State, Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledged the existence of “differences” between the two countries and stopped short of stating any concrete cooperation in the area of climate change save to say “we want to work together on everything from climate change to (nuclear) non-proliferation.”
Conclusion
Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of this century. It is a global challenge that calls for global solutions. Climate change concerns have moved out of the margins of international discourse to occupy a central position, and must be dealt with appropriately at this level. As a member of the G77/ China, South Africa has been at the forefront of demands for equitable global climate governance. With its National Climate Change Programme South Africa has also set an example within the group which includes India, Brazil and some emerging economies – and therefore major emitters – of the South. In its engagement with the European Union, climate change dialogue is growing on the background of flourishing ties on other fronts such as economic trade and political dialogue. With the United States, however, climate change dialogue has yet to command equal and substantive attention compared to engagement in other spheres of cooperation. In this regard, the climate change debate is a major challenge and platform on which the influence of South Africa’s expanding diplomatic presence will be severely tested.
Tigere Chagutah is a PhD Candidate in Communication Studies at North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus – South Africa. He currently works for the regional office Southern Africa of the Heinrich Boell Foundation in Cape Town.
Download complete article including endnotes (pdf, 6 pages, 64 KB)