The latest round of talks in Bonn failed, and that does not bode well for Copenhagen. The last thing we need is for emissions to go unchecked when the first regime of the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. A Failure to commit to binding, measurable, reportable and verifiable targets that will bring emission to a safer level in the short term — based on the most current climate science — would be catastrophic.
Gloom and doom for Africa
The Scientific Congress on Climate Change, which was convened on 10-12 March 2009 by the University of Copenhagen, heard that failure to strike a deal in December could tip the global climate system beyond critical thresholds. The resulting runaway climate would overwhelm human societies’ adaptive capacity even in the rich world. This would mean gloom and doom for Africa and other vulnerability hotspots around the globe.
Worryingly enough for Africa, the current climate crisis is direr than had been previously thought. The author of the Stern review recently admitted—in a stark warning that business as usual is tantamount to playing with fire—that he underestimated the risks and the scale of the damage that climate change could inflict on the world. Fresh scientific evidence that has been emerging since the publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) is increasingly ruling out the possibility that the world could achieve the overly ambitious 2°C target. It appears that carbon dioxide emissions have accelerated from 1.3 per cent per year in the 1990s to 3.3 per cent per year between 2000 and 2006 (despite the Kyoto Protocol’s coming into force in 2005).
In Copenhagen, African negotiators should strive for the most current science to be taken into consideration. Meanwhile the continent should brace for the worst. It looks like we are hurtling toward a 4°C temperature rise. This will have terrifying consequences: at the Copenhagen Scientific Congress there was talk of the tundra turning into a carbon “time bomb”, 85 per cent of the rain forest being decimated, and half of the world becoming uninhabitable.
Adaptation and mitigation in Africa
Securing resources for adaptation in Africa will be the utmost priority. This will not be plain sailing for African negotiators. The rich nations, who traditionally “run the show” in climate negotiations, have different priorities, mainly in the field of mitigation. But even Africa, the continent, which contributed the least to creating the climate problem, has a huge stake in the final outcome of talks on mitigation.
On both adaptation and mitigation, African negotiators will have to secure access to implementation means, namely adequate financial resources, effective technology transfer and assistance as well as capacity-building. Again, this will not be an easy ride, but Africa has a rock-solid case. Firstly, the industrialised countries must settle their climate debt to Africa by fully acknowledging their historical responsibility, and providing sufficient resources to enable effective climate change adaptation in Africa. Secondly, in line with the “common but differentiated responsibilities” principle, Africa will need additional resources, including technology transfer, to avoid emissions. Africans should take the moral high ground and join the global endeavour to steer clear of dangerous tipping points. However, mitigation in Africa cannot possibly take the form of reductions, but rather would come from clean, low-carbon development which would be underpinned by a fair and equitable post-2012 climate regime.
A new opportunity for Africa
Against all odds, the forthcoming climate negotiations may well be Africa’s long-awaited chance to catapult itself toward a thriving, low-carbon future. Most importantly, the talks will present Africans with a unique opportunity to take control of their future.
In order to achieve that vision, the continent’s negotiators will have to push an integrated climate and development agenda. They should demand the required resources and assistance for a wholly new development paradigm to be implemented in the continent, because no one can afford to see Africa go down the rich world’s development path, which, as it turned out, leads to nowhere. Africa’s demands would also make sense because in many important sectors such as energy, infrastructure and transport, the real work has yet to begin.
Africa should therefore negotiate to obtain the means and resources required for its transition to low-carbon poverty reduction and development. To this end, the continent’s negotiators should “development-proof” the climate negotiations and ensure that transition to clean development in Africa be at the heart of any global deal in Copenhagen. Provided the financial resources eventually flow and the required technology is effectively transferred, Africa could position itself as a competitive continent in a new low-carbon world order. This process could begin by generating development-mitigation co-benefits through scaling up renewable energy. This will initially be an expensive option in the short term, but a wise investment in the long term given the continent’s considerable hydropower, solar and wind energy potential.
In any case, adaptation remains a vital concern for Africa. The continent will remain extremely vulnerable even if emissions peak and start declining in a decade from now—an ambitious scenario given the sluggish progress achieved so far. Resources available for adaptation are woefully low and far from meeting the most conservative estimates. The UNDP says up to 86 billion dollars could be required annually for adaptation in developing countries by 2015.
No excuses for procrastination and half-measures
New and additional financial resources must be provided as part of the new climate deal, and should not interfere with official development assistance. Governance will also be another burning issue for the continent’s negotiators. A transparent, fair, conditionality-free, equitable allocation system should be part of the post 2012 climate regime. Otherwise, the continent might find itself on the sidelines with a sense of déjà vu. Due to conditionality and other barriers, including complex procedures, African countries have been unable to benefit from existing adaptation funds. To make things worse, Africa has hardly benefited from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) with only a paltry proportion of investments. The mechanism must be revised to consider Africa’s needs.
The African negotiators’ skills and ability to convey consistent messages based on a concerted negotiating position will be key to a successful outcome. The African Ministerial Conference on the Environment is playing an import role in coordinating stances ahead of the crucial Copenhagen talks. This process should be further supported by the African Union and the Regional Economic Communities. The competence, experience and expertise of the African delegations will also be important.
Let us hope that the representatives of the international community will steer clear of a lame deal in Copenhagen. There are no excuses for procrastination and half-measures. Avoiding climate mayhem is still possible, and the required knowledge, know-how and technology exist. Let us also hope that this time, when the music stops, Africa will not be left standing. Under a fair and equitable post-2012 regime, there should be enough chairs for everyone—including Africa.
This article is most friendly loaned to us by United Nations' Climate Thinkers Blog, and was originally published here: The post-2012 regime talks could well be Africa’s lucky break