Paris COP21 Agreement: ratification

Meeting report

The Chairperson noted the Minister’s apology, and said that a written apology was expected from the Director General (DG) of the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA).

Briefing on South Africa’s ratification of the Paris Agreement on Climate Change under the UNFCCC
Ms Judy Beaumont, Deputy Director General (DDG): DEA began the presentation by noting that the department needed the Committee’s approval on the 2015 Paris Agreement, which was a legal instrument that would further guide the process for universal action on climate change.

The main objective of the agreement was to sustain an increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees Celsius pre-industrial levels, and also to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

The ratification of the agreement by 79 parties called for great celebration, as this implied an achievement of double the threshold. It also meant that the conference of the parties that served as a meeting of the parties (CMA1) for the Paris Agreement would be convened during COP (Conference of the Parties) 22 that would be held in Marrakech from 9 to11 November 2016.

Even though it was likely that CMA1 would be suspended until 2018, it was still important that South Africa ratified the Agreement. This was because South Africa played a leading role as the custodian in the landmark agreement during the initiation at COP17 that held in Durban in 2011. Also, only parties that had ratified the agreement could have decision making powers at the CMA meeting.

Despite the fact that the African continent experienced the effects of global warming through droughts and other incidences, there were other benefits of the agreement for the continent. This included the following:
- The agreement was a strong, legally-binding international framework that would guide global response to the global challenge of climate change from 2020.
- Ratification would ensure the maintenance of the political momentum at the international level (including momentum on finalizing the rules set to operationalise the Agreement). Momentum was created for domestic implementation.
- Global co-operation in limiting the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees.
- Mobilisation of multilateral effort to achieve the global adaptation goal.
- The agreement required parties to undertake and communicate nationally determined contributions that must represent a progression over time towards achieving the purpose of the Agreement.
- It also required a global stocktake to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the Agreement and its long term goals.

The COP22 would need to take a decision on how to handle the early entry into force of the Paris Agreement. Four options were currently available to resolve the debate between the suspension of the CMA and continuation of the work under the ad-hoc working group on the Paris Agreement/Conference of the Parties (APA/COP). These options were as follows:
1. Discontinuance of the APA while CMA would undertake preparatory work;
2. Continuation of CMA work with the support of APA or Subsidiary Bodies (SB);
3. Suspension of CMA and continuation of APA work program;
4. Suspension of CMA and continuation of COP’s work with support of APA or SB.

The first two options were not in favour of South Africa. It was therefore, recommended that the ratification process should be prioritised in support of the last two options.
South Africa would be required to:
- Submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) every five years.
- Account for the extent to which goals in the NDC had been met.
- Submit biennial reports to the UNFCCC on national circumstances, emissions, adaptations and other facets of climate change.
- Scale up investments in renewable energy, public transport, energy efficiency, waste management and land restoration initiatives country wide.
- All spheres of government would need to refine their strategies for adapting to the impacts of climate change.

South Africa was currently in the process of achieving the following:
- The development of South Africa’s national climate change adaptation strategy was well underway and a framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions had been agreed by Cabinet.
- A climate change response, monitoring and evaluation system had been developed to track the country’s transition to a lower carbon and climate resilient economy. However, there was a need to increase the pace of implementation.
- Work was underway to develop policies and measures to implement the NDCs.
- Work had been initiated to submit regular communications on adaptation and develop a long-term strategy on low-carbon development. 

Discussion
The Chairperson noted that a colloquium had been scheduled for Friday to further unpack the country’s readiness. The DDG was expected to be present at the said colloquium. It was quite urgent to get the matter programmed for consideration by the house because South Africa was one of the countries that played a catalyst role in the adoption of the agreement and it should not be the last to ratify.
There was such momentum to get countries to ratify the agreement because it was the US president, Barack Obama’s flagship project for when he would leave the office. This momentum was a good thing because it was the first time in history that such effort would be made for climate control, as not as many countries came to the table for the Kyoto Protocol.

Mr P Makhubele said that the Committee was on board with the ratification. In his view, South Africa could claim the agreement as its own and should therefore be on the forefront to ratify it.
A concern was raised on the process that was outlined and further explanation of the options was requested. He wanted to know if the options would apply after ratification had been done.
Clarity was sought on the Chairperson’s recommendation to put the issue of ratification of the agreement before the Parliament before it arose this year.

The Chairperson replied that that was indeed the recommendation.

General B Holomisa (UDM) said he had no problem with the ratification. He was more interested in finding out if any more programmes had been put in place to educate the people since Cop 17; how easy it would be to access the global funds for projects if ratifications were to be paid; and what possible returns to the environment would be achieved.

Mr T Hadebe (DA) asked if the country could tap into green fund to carry out its adaptation as a country or if it would have to wait till 2018 to apply; what the country’s instrument of ratification was; and if the first annual climate change response report was available on the DEA’s website.

Mr P Mabilo (ANC) used the principle that “any harm done to the environment is harm against humanity” as a departure point. The Committee was deeply encouraged by the current figures of ratification but clarification was sought on whether other countries would be expected to join the move towards the COP22.
South Africa should not be found wanting, especially because it had a moral voice in the global space. The global support was encouraging and should be sustained.

The Chairperson mentioned that he had time to look at the documents and that the Marrakech CMA meeting had been billed as the first. He wanted to assured the department that the meeting would be postponed.

Ms Beaumont noted that the Chairperson’s question was an important point of departure. COP22 would have many parallel meetings. The conferences of parties under the UNFCCC had a number of different subsidiary bodies such as COP, the subsidiary bodies and the APA. The first meeting of the parties (CMA1) and other meetings with other subsidiary bodies were held in parallel. The Moroccan Chairperson had billed this meeting as a meeting of action, implementation and the convening of the first meeting of the parties. The issue at hand was how to balance a view to the world, that is implementation and action, as well as continued momentum from the Paris Agreement (that created a moment of celebration worldwide) - with the inclusivity of as many parties as possible, to be part of the decision making process.

In terms of the options outlined, options one and two implied that only parties that had ratified would be in decision making seat and South Africa would like to ensure that no one was left behind. A widely supported view at the meeting in Marrakech before COP22 was that additional time should be allowed for parties to ratify, as this would maintain the CMA’s solid credibility.

The Chairperson asked for an explanation of the term CMA

Ms Beaumont replied that it was an acronym for the Conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties for the Paris Agreement. This “meeting” would be the decision-making body for the Paris agreement and parties should be ratified in order to make decisions. It was for this reason that the last two options were recommended. Also because the APA was functioning appropriately, a meeting had been held in Bonn, Switzerland. APA was expected to conclude as much was possible for a very solid process.

2018 seemed like a reasonably time to allow for parties to ratify and conclude the multilateral rule set to underpin the Agreement. The concern was to ensure that momentum was not lost in giving parties a longer period within which they could ratify. However, there were other legal and procedural matters yet to be clarified; for instance, China had some issues that its lawyer was already looking into.

It was pointed out that the green fund was fully and could be accessed by South Africa. The country had two accredited entities – The Development Bank (DBSA) and the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), whose role was to support countries in packaging proposals. The Green Fund sought programmes that were catalytic of transformative action. It had a programmatic approach and countries needed to formulate programmes that understood the barriers facing implementation and scale-up. Therefore, a number of capacity building workshops would be held organised for proper understanding of the green fund.

The Chairperson wanted to know what the maximum that a country could apply for was.

Ms Beaumont answered that there was no limit.

The Chairperson asked what the current capitalisation of the Green Fund was.

Ms Beaumont replied that the current capitalisation was $10.2 billion. $745 million had been disbursed already.

The Chairperson asked where it was disbursed to.

Ms Beaumont answered by listing the projects where funds were disbursed to. These projects included an urban flood management programme in Senegal, a climate resilient agriculture in Namibia, and a landscapes programme in Madagascar. It was emphasised that the key issue was to package applications to the Green Fund in a manner that was clear on catalysing transformative change. The Department had put together a framework in that regard. Proposals could be submitted by civil society, government and businesses.

In terms of the question asked by General Holomisa, it was noted that there were a number of programmes launched at COP17, for example a solar programme that was wrapped up in the national energy efficiency programme. A number of provinces are conducting awareness programmes and, the department was working with the Department of Education.

The Chairperson reminded Ms Beaumont of Mr Hadebe’s question on the meaning of depositing instrument of ratification.

Mr Alf Wills, DDG: DEA answered that once it had been approved by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and the National Assembly, it would then be referred to the Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) where a legal instrument would be drawn up. The Minister of DIRCO will sign that legal instrument, after which the Mission in New York would deposit the instrument at the office of the Secretary General of United Nations

General Holomisa was of the view that government should take the lead in coming up with a national programme to transform or improve the quality of life, especially in the township. It was not wise to only rely on non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to access this funding. The state itself should lead to access funding.
Due to past segregation, there was still an ‘apartheid environment’, where the cities looked green but the townships were brown. A comprehensive programme was needed. A workshop should be organised and all stakeholders including traditional leaders and farmers, should be involved, to cater for rural areas and ensure the return of the eco-system to areas that were now barren. Allowing only established institutions to access this funding prevented the reach of people on the ground. There was a need to demarcate land for grazing and planting.

Mr Makubele welcomed General Holomisa to the Committee, since he had been absent for a while.

General Holomisa answered that the Committee meetings clashed with the meeting of the Joint Standing Committee on Internal Affairs and he only had the opportunity of attending the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs today.

The Chairperson welcomed him and said his input was also welcomed. It was noted that the General had raised cogent points, and was suggested that the General should excuse himself from his other committee more often.

Laughs were shared. 

Mr Makhubela said that he understood what should be put in place to access to the Green Fund but he was concerned that the people who need the money, especially those affected by draught would be side-lined. The workshops should take this matter into consideration. The country was expected to prepare for whatever might occur at the meeting, not minding whether the meeting was postponed or adjourned. In his opinion, certain things would be reversed in the Trump administration.
Even though the first two options would not affect South Africa once it ratifies, the options were not in favour of the principle of inclusivity.
The Committee and the department were urged to look into the issue of domestication of the principle.

The Chairperson noted that the colloquium would look into these issues at greater length. It would also consider the negotiation position, which the Cabinet would hopefully agree to, and which will be presented in the colloquium.  

Mr Hadebe said that a further consultation with the department was necessary. The department should be informed of the NDCs in order to avoid instances where it sounded like the contributions were sourced from different countries.

An example was seen in the way the CEO of Eskom purposed not sign any more power purchases, which sounded like he was coming from another country. Renewable energy was part of the intended NDC. It was important for government to speak with one voice. The department should therefore, draw the line; otherwise the signature would have no worth.

The Chairperson said Eskom had been invited to share its contribution on renewable energy to the Committee in the coming week. 

Ms Beaumont said domestication had many interpretations, one of which was the legal perspective from which the country carried out its activities, and the other being the programmatic perspective used by the country in implementing its commitment. From a legal perspective, the Department was in the process of analysing legislation that was applicable to either supporting or constraining South Africa’s interest to adaptive impacts of climate change. A full analysis was being carried out on the pieces of legislation that needed to be strengthened to ensure a coherent approach. At the moment, provisions in the National Air Quality Act was used to require from industry pollution prevention plans, but the Act could not be used for carbon budgeting.
An important part of the DEA’s work was to engage with the sector departments and be part of their processes. The integrated resource plan on the electricity strategy was an example and the Department was engaging strongly on this. The correct  opportunities in power sector was probably the low hanging fruits for reducing emissions whether by wind or renewables or other options.  South Africa was expected to reduce emissions between approximately 398 and 6140 megatons between 2025 and 2030. It was therefore necessary to ensure that every opportunity for reduction was harvested.

Mr Wills answered that the workings of the Green Climate Fund should be understood. Accredited entities were not project implementers but intermediaries. The Green Fund aimed to disburse huge sums of money and hold accredited entities accountable. Its responsibility was to facilitate exactly what General Holomisa was suggesting – something like a “municipality led greening of the township programme”. The money would then be dispersed through the DBSA (for example) to a number of municipalities. About $360 million had been allocated to the European Development bank for its sustainable energy programs in developing countries. 

With regards to the CMA1, the original anticipation was that the first meeting would only be in 2019. However, since the situation had changed, the challenge was how to comply with the legal requirement of the first session to adopt rules that were yet to be developed. The central backbone for the success of the Paris Agreement was universal participation. At the signing ceremony in April, 175 countries signed the Agreement, and this was the biggest multilateral single day signing ever in history (109 countries signed the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of the sea in 1982)

It was expected that the first CMA would do three things:
1) administrative things, such as adoption of procedure etc.
2) receive reports from subsidiary bodies who asked for an extension of their mandate.
3) discuss three to four issues and either make decision about them or allocate the work of decision making to one of the bodies to take further.

It was hoped that the outcome would be an adjournment of the meeting to next year. It was also anticipated that the meeting would be extended on an annual basis until the completion of the work.

The Chairperson asked if CMA met annually.

Mr Wills replied in the affirmative and said that the meeting was held alongside that of COP, which was now a permanent body.

The Chairperson said the Committee would consider the permutations at the colloquium where presentations on South Africa’s negotiation position and the country’s state of readiness were expected.

The formality to ratify the agreement was concluded with a unanimous resolution to approve.

Mr Mabilo moved for the approval and was seconded by Ms H Kekana (ANC).

There were no descending views or objections.

The Chairperson said that the people that worked on the Parliament’s programme would be urged to prioritise this issue.
The NCOP would meet in the following to discuss the same matter.

The meeting was adjourned.