The above item is a correction of the announcement on page 2256 of the ATC of Tuesday, 28 June 2011.
The average pattern of weather, called climate, usually remains much the same for centuries if it is left to itself. However, the climate of the earth is not being left alone; people are taking actions that can change the earth and its climate in significant ways. The single human activity that probably has the largest impact on the climate is the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil and gas. These fossil fuels contain carbon and burning them produces carbon dioxide gas. Since the early 1800s, when people began burning large amounts of coal and oil, the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere has increased by nearly 30% and average global temperature appears to have risen, causing climate change. Carbon dioxide gas traps solar heat in the atmosphere, fundamentally in the same way as glass traps solar heat in a sun-room or a greenhouse. Consequently, carbon dioxide is called a greenhouse gas and as more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere, it traps solar heat, preventing its escape from the earth's surface leading to the warming of the climate and hence inducing the rise in the average temperature of the atmosphere.
Indeed, rising levels of greenhouse gases are already changing the climate and are expected to continue to do so throughout the 21st century and beyond.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 84â2011 environment through increases in temperature, increases in sea levels, changes in levels and patterns of precipitation, changes in the severity and frequency of extreme climatic events and so on. Although, it must be hastily added, there are uncertainties about the scale and impact of climate change, particularly at the regional and lower levels. Climate change could shift climatic zones pole-ward; vertically disrupting ecosystems and threatening the survival of some species. Human society will also face new risks and pressures due to climate-related threats to food security and the availability of water resources. As a result, human societies will need to mitigate the negative consequences of the changing climate and also adapt to future climatic regimes.
South Africa, especially in terms of the efforts needed to arrest it, by reducing carbon emissions and adapting to its impacts. Tackling climate change has far-reaching implications for economic and social development, for production and consumption patterns, and thus for employment and income levels and poverty reduction. South Africa is not only a victim to the impacts of climate change, but it is also a major contributor to the process, owing to its high emissions profile: it is the 13th major greenhouse gas emitter globally and ranks 10th in terms of per capita emissions globally.
Change (UNFCCC) in 1993 and subsequently ratified it in 1997.
Response White Paper have been initiated to enable the country to effectively observe the Convention.
1 Asamoah et al. (2000).
2 Kim (2003); Davidson et al.
Dr Scotney Watts, Content Support.
Hon Dr. S. Kalyan, MP, from the NA and DA, joined the delegation, but represented the Pan African Parliament at the COP16 meeting.
Hereafter follows the report of the delegation.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC) is a multilateral environmental treaty produced by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), popularly known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992. The objective of the Convention is to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the earth's climate system. The Convention itself sets no mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions for individual countries and contains no enforcement mechanisms. In that sense, the Convention is considered legally non-binding. Instead, the Convention provides for updates, commonly called protocols, that would set mandatory emission limits. In this regard, the principal update is the Kyoto Protocol, which has become much better known than the UNFCCC itself.
The UNFCCC was opened for signature, after an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee produced the text of the Framework Convention as a report, following its meeting in New York in April/May 1992. The Convention entered into force on 21st March 1994, and comprised 194 Parties in December 2010. One of the first strategic tasks of the Convention was to establish national greenhouse gas inventories of greenhouse gas emissions, which were used to create the 1990 benchmark levels for accession of Annex 1 countries to the Kyoto Protocol and for the commitment of those countries to greenhouse gas reductions. Updated inventories must be regularly submitted by Annex 1 countries.
South Africa acceded to the Kyoto Protocol, in June 2001, although it is not an Annex 1 country, meaning that it is not legally required to commit to emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. South Africa's stated intention to mitigate climate change derives from its unique position in the climate change regime. For example, South Africa is Africa's greatest emitter of greenhouse gases, despite the fact that emissions from the African Continent are low and expected to remain so for the immediate future.3 3 Asamoah (2000).
It is important to note that the UNFCCC is also the name of the United Nations Secretariat responsible for supporting the operation of the Convention, with its offices in Bonn, Germany. The Secretariat, augmented through the parallel efforts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), aims to gain international consensus around Climate Change matters through meetings and the discussion of various strategies.
The UNFCCC established the Conference of the Parties (COP), as its supreme body, with the responsibility of overseeing progress towards the aim of the Convention. The membership of COP consists of countries that have signed, ratified or acceded to the Convention. The Parties to the Convention have met annually from 1995 in Conferences of the Parties (COP) to assess progress in dealing with climate change.
The first session of the Conference of the Parties (COP1) was held in Berlin, Germany, in March/April 1995, where it was decided that post-2000 commitments would only be set for Annex 1 Parties.
The second session of the Conference of the Parties (COP2) was held in Geneva, in July 1996, where heads of delegations instructed negotiators to accelerate negotiations on the text of a legally-binding protocol or another legal instrument, to be completed in due time, for adoption at the third session of the Conference of the Parties. This was the conceptualization of the Kyoto Protocol.
This instruction, made at COP2, led at the COP meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, to a legally-binding set of obligations for 38 industrialised countries and 11 countries in Central and Eastern Europe, with the aim of returning their emissions of greenhouse gases to an average of approximately 5.2 percent below their 1990 levels over the commitment period 2008-2012. This is called the Kyoto Protocol to the Convention, which was concluded in 1997.
COP4 was held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in November 1998, where the status of ratification of the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol were assessed. The COP meeting took note that, as of November 1998, 174 States and one regional economic organisation were Parties to the Convention. It also took note that 59 States had signed the Kyoto Protocol and that two States had deposited its instrument of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. At its 8th plenary meeting, on the 14th November, the Conference of the Parties was informed that the United States of America had signed the Kyoto Protocol.
COP5 took place in October/November 1999, in Bonn, Germany. It was primarily a technical meeting, and did not reach any major conclusions.
4 Lee (2004).
COP6 took place in November 2000, in The Hague, Netherlands. The discussions evolved rapidly into a high-level negotiation over major political issues. These included: the major controversy over the United States' proposal to allow credit for carbon sinks in forests and agricultural lands, satisfying a major portion of the United States emissions reductions in this way; disagreements over consequences for non-compliance by countries that did not meet their emission reduction targets; and difficulties in resolving how developing countries could obtain financial assistance to deal with adverse effects of climate change and meet their obligations to plan for measuring and possibly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the final hours of COP6, despite some compromises agreed between the United States and some European Union (EU) countries, notably the United Kingdom, the EU countries as a whole, led by Denmark and Germany, rejected the compromise positions, and the talks in The Hague collapsed. The President of COP6, suspended COP6 without agreement, with the expectation that negotiations would later resume.
COP6 negotiations resumed in July 2001, in Bonn, Germany, with little progress having been made in resolving the differences that had produced the previous impasse in The Hague. However, this meeting took place after President Bush had become the President of the United States and had rejected the Kyoto Protocol, in March 2001. As a result, the United States' delegation to this meeting declined to participate in the negotiations related to the Protocol and chose to take the role of observer at the meeting. As the other parties negotiated the key issues, agreement was reached on most of the major political issues. The agreements included: the "flexibility" mechanisms which the United States had strongly favoured when the Protocol was initially put together, including emissions trading; Joint Implementation (JI); and the Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM), which allow industrialised countries to fund emission reduction activities in developing countries as an alternative to domestic emission reductions. One of the key elements of this agreement was that there would be no quantitative limit on the credit a country could claim from use of these mechanisms provided domestic action constituted a significant element of the efforts of each Annex B country to meet their targets. Similarly, it was agreed that credit would be granted for broad activities that absorb carbon from the atmosphere or store it, including forest and cropland management, and re-vegetation, with no overall cap on the amount of credit that a country could claim for sinks activities. Meanwhile, final action on compliance procedures and mechanisms that would address noncompliance with Protocol provisions was deferred to COP 7, but included broad outlines of consequences for failing to meet emission targets that would include a requirement to "make up" shortfalls at 1.3 tons to 1, suspension of the right to sell credits for surplus emission reductions, and a required compliance action plan for those not meeting their targets. Furthermore, there was agreement on the establishment of three new funds to provide assistance for needs associated with climate change: a fund for climate change that supports a series of climate measures; a leastdeveloped-country fund to support National Adaptation Programmes of Action; and a Kyoto Protocol adaptation fund supported by a CDM levy and voluntary contributions.
A number of operational details attendant upon these decisions remained to be negotiated and agreed upon, and these were the major issues considered by the COP7 meeting. At the COP7 meeting, in Marrakech, Morocco, in October/November 2001, negotiators set the stage for nations to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The completed package of decisions is known as the Marrakech Accords. The United States delegation maintained its observer role, declining to participate actively in the negotiations. Other parties continued working toward achieving ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the requisite number of countries to bring it into force (55 countries needed to ratify it, including those accounting for 55% of developed-country emissions of carbon dioxide in 1990). The date of the World Summit on Sustainable Development that was to be held in Johannesburg, South Africa, in August/September 2002, was put forward as a target to bring the Kyoto Protocol into force. The main decisions at COP7 included: operational rules for international emissions trading among the Kyoto Protocol Parties and for the CDM and joint implementation; a compliance regime that outlined consequences for failure to meet emission targets, but deferred to the parties to the Protocol, once it came into force, the decision on whether those consequences would be legally binding; and accounting procedures for the flexibility mechanisms.
COP8 took place in October/November 2002, and resulted in the adoption of the Delhi Ministerial Declaration that called for efforts by developed countries to transfer technology and minimise the impact of climate change on developing countries.
COP9 met in Milan, Italy, in December 2003, where the Parties agreed to use the Adaptation Fund established at COP7, primarily to support developing countries to better adapt to climate change. The fund would also be used for capacity-building through technology transfers. The parties also agreed to review the first national reports submitted by 110 non-Annex 1 countries.
COP10 convened in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2004. COP10 discussed the progress made since the first Conference of the Parties, 10 years ago and its future challenges, with special emphasis on climate change mitigation and adaptation. To promote developing countries to better adapt to climate change, the Buenos Aires Action Plan was adopted. The Parties also began discussing the post-Kyoto mechanism, on how to allocate emission reduction obligations following 2012, when the first commitment period ends.
COP11 took place in November/December 2005, in Montreal, Canada. It is worth noting that this was the first Meeting of the Parties (MOP1) to the Kyoto Protocol since their initial meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. The Montreal Action Plan that extended the life of the Kyoto Protocol beyond its 2012 expiration date was agreed upon at the end of the Conference. Canada's Environment Minister at the time noted that the agreement provided a roadmap for the future.
COP12/MOP2 took place in Nairobi, Kenya, in November 2006. There seemed to be a disconnection between the political process and the scientific imperative during the COP12 negotiations. However, certain strides were made at COP12, in the areas of support for developing countries and the Clean Development Mechanisms. The Parties adopted a five-year plan of work to support climate change adaptation by developing countries, and agreed on the procedures and modalities for the Adaptation Fund. They also agreed to improve the projects for CDM.
COP13/MOP3 met in December 2007, in Bali, Indonesia, where an agreement on a timeline and structured negotiation on the post-2012 framework, which is the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, was achieved, with the adoption of the Bali Action Plan. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) was established, as a new subsidiary body, to conduct the negotiations aimed at urgently enhancing the implementation of the Convention up to and beyond 2012.
COP14/MOP4 took place in December 2008, in PoznaÅ, Poland. Delegates agreed on principles for the financing of a fund to help the poorest nations cope with the effects of climate change and they approved a mechanism to incorporate forest protection into the efforts of the international community to combat climate change.
COP15/MOP5 took place in December 2009, in Copenhagen, Denmark. The overall goal of the COP15/MOP5 was to establish an ambitious global climate agreement for the period post 2012 (when the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol expires). However, on 14th November 2009, the New York Times reported that the President of the United States and other world leaders had decided to put off the difficult task of reaching a climate change agreement, agreeing instead to make it the mission of the Copenhagen Conference to reach a less specific politically binding agreement that would put the most difficult climate change issues on ice for possible consideration in the future. Ministers and officials from 192 countries and participants from a large number of civil society organisations took part in the Copenhagen meeting. It became evident that many Annex 1 industrialised countries were reluctant to fulfil their commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, causing the ongoing uncertainty about the future of the Protocol. The conference did not achieve a binding agreement for longterm action. A political accord, the Copenhagen Accord, was negotiated by approximately 25 parties, including South Africa, but it was only noted by COP15, as it was considered an external document, not negotiated within the UNFCCC process.
The Copenhagen Accord was notable in that it referred to a collective commitment by developed countries for new and additional resources and investments through international institutions that would approach USD30 billion for the period 2010 - 2012. Longer-term options on climate financing mentioned in the Accord were being discussed within the UN Secretary General's High Level Advisory Group on Climate Financing that was scheduled to report in November 2010. The negotiations on extending the Kyoto Protocol remained unresolved, as did the negotiations on a framework for long-term cooperative action. The working groups on these tracks to the negotiations were expected to report to COP16/MOP6. It suffices to state that COP15 was the first Conference of the Parties meeting attended by a South African parliamentary delegation.
Four preparatory rounds of negotiations, that is, sessions of the AWG-KP and the AWG-LCA, were held during 2010, in preparation of the COP16 meeting. The first three of these were held in Bonn, Germany. The Bonn talks ended in failure. The fourth round of talks that was held in the Chinese port city of Tianjin, made minimal progress and was marked by a clash between the United States and China. COP16/MOP6 was held in Cancun, Mexico, in November/December 2010. Furthermore, the two permanent subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC, the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) held their 33rd sessions on this occasion. COP15 had extended the mandates of the two temporary subsidiary bodies, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex 1 Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA). Consequently, they met in Cancun, Mexico, as well.
Although the South African parliamentary delegation attended COP16 as Parties, they were not directly involved in the negotiation process, but rather played a supporting and facilitating role for the South African Government's negotiators. The parliamentary delegation was regularly updated on the status of the negotiations by our negotiators, who provided useful insights in the negotiation process. The parliamentary delegation also attended certain crucial meetings besides the Cancun Climate Summit, for example, a part of the delegation attended the Globe Climate Change Legislators Forum (the GLOBE Mexico Forum). The Forum, organised jointly by GLOBE International and GLOBE Mexico, was hosted in the Senate of Mexico, in Mexico City, from the 3rd - 5th December 2010. The Forum provided a political platform at the midway point of COP16 and ahead of the arrival of the ministers to agree to a political message from parliamentarians to be delivered to COP16, especially on recognition of national legislation within a future climate agreement. The Forum also built on the outcomes of the China Globe Legislators Forum hosted earlier that year in Tianjin. The Inter-parliamentary Union (IPU) Conference on the role of parliamentarians in climate change was also attended by a part of the South African parliamentary delegation, on 6th December 2010, in Cancun, Mexico. It was evident from the IPU Conference discussions that MPs have a critical role to play in averting climate change.
The South African Parliamentary delegation also met with their European Union (EU) counterparts to share experiences and exchange views on climate change interventions undertaken in South Africa and the EU, respectively. The role of EU MPs in engaging the EU Member States to implement deeper emission cuts was duly noted by the South African MPs and highlighted the need for South African parliamentarians to play an active role in the fight against climate change. The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs, also met with the representatives of the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) at the Cancun Climate Summit. The IIED team promised to provide relevant information, especially data, to help South African MPs to formulate evidence-based policy and legislation on issues relating to climate change.
The outcome of the COP 16 summit was an agreement, albeit not a binding treaty. Find annexed hereto a copy of the agreement. We raise but a few issues from the agreement which are noteworthy. The agreement includes an agreement to limit global warming to less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels and a call on developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions. The agreement includes a "Green Climate Fund," proposed to be worth $100 billion a year, by 2020, to assist poorer countries in financing emission reductions and adaptation. However, there was no agreement on how the $100 billion a year for the Green Climate Fund would be raised. The Agreement also set up an adaptation committee to help developing countries cope with the floods and droughts that climate change could cause. In the same vein, the Agreement requires nations to consider "a climate risk insurance facility" to help developing countries cope with extreme weather impacts. The Cancun Agreement promotes the sharing of green technology between rich industrialised countries and developing countries. It agreed on paying developing countries not to chop down trees. The new scheme Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) protects the rights of indigenous peoples and promotes biodiversity. It also leaves the door open for big business to get involved in protecting trees through the carbon offsetting market.
The document appeared to have made significant progress from COP15 in Copenhagen in December 2009, although there is much work still to be done. The achievement of Cancun is the consensus on the establishment of the Green Climate Fund, a financing system for poorer countries to tap in order to decrease their use of pollution intensive energy sources, and adapt and respond to climate change related natural hardships. Another positive initiative to note is the establishment of a Technology Executive Committee, a group that will oversee the process of transferring clean energy technologies to developing nations.
Of concern to some countries, was the deferral of decisions on the legal form of a future climate agreement and level of emission reductions required, thereby making the Agreement imprecise on critical issues. As was widely expected, firstly, the agreement includes no legally-binding treaty, nor does it set any firm deadline for achieving one. Focus on such deadlines was moved to the next summit, COP17 in Durban, South Africa. Secondly, there was no agreement on whether developing countries should have binding emission reductions, or whether developed countries would have to reduce emissions first. Similarly, there was no agreement on the extension of the Kyoto Protocol. However, in the Cancun negotiations and the subsequent agreement, although no agreement was reached, many developed nations indicated that they would consider extending the Kyoto Protocol, but only as part of a wider agreement that commits all countries to making emission cuts. Similarly, developing countries would reduce their emissions as part of a global deal, with developed countries having to report on emission cuts against international standards. Developing nations would also have to report on emission cuts against international standards, but only after funding has been delivered to help build the appropriate mechanisms, from the $100 million per annum that developed countries should pay to developing countries, by 2020, to adapt to climate change and develop green technology. Ironically, many commentators remarked that the "Cancun Agreement" locks in emission reductions targets for 80% of global emissions, notably including China and the US, emphasising that this is the first time that the US together with China and all other major emitters anchored their national pollution targets in a formal UN agreement.
The Parliamentary delegation to the Cancun Climate Change Conference was concerned about the manner in which the travel and logistical arrangements were done. Delegates mandated the Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Water and Environmental Affairs to engage the presiding officers to avoid any similar recurrence.
The Parliamentary delegation thanks Ms Tyhileka Madubela, for her administrative and logistical support and Dr Scotney Watts for his content support, on this trip.
Against this background, the delegation supports the following recommendations. Firstly, we recommend the consideration of the formation of the South African Chapter of GLOBE International. Secondly, we recommend consideration of the adoption of two proposals being promoted by GLOBE International. The third recommendation deals with the formation of a Parliamentary Co-ordinating Forum on Climate Change. The fourth recommendation deals with the proposed role of our Parliament in the lead up to the COP17 meeting.
We recommend that Parliament should favourably consider the formation of a Chapter of GLOBE International in the South African Parliament. We do so for the following reasons.
GLOBE International events take place in the context that legislators need to work together outside of formal international, climate change, negotiation processes, around issues of climate change, with the further goal of increasing the ability of the environmental sector to attract greater political attention internationally. It is acknowledged that legislators can push the boundaries of what can be achieved politically, as well as develop new ideas without the constraints of formal Government negotiation positions. For example, they have the important role of drafting and passing domestic climate change legislation; and secondly, legislators have the responsibility to hold governments accountable on the environmental commitments they make at the domestic and international levels. The critical role of MPs underpins the work of the GLOBE International, with senior legislators from the major economies, being in the forefront of the drive to strengthen legislative action on climate change by developing a set of legislative principles and supporting GLOBE International members in advancing such principles in their national parliaments. It is precisely the supporting role that GLOBE International provides to its members on environmental matters (especially climate change) that Parliament should consider in choosing to form a GLOBE International Chapter in Parliament. The crosscutting nature of the impacts of climate change requires legislators to include climate change awareness and mitigation and adaptation techniques in their constituency work. GLOBE International provides a unique opportunity for doing this. Furthermore, the proposed hosting of the GLOBE Climate Change Legislators Forum, by South Africa, in the South African Parliament, during COP17, also provides an excellent context for the South African Parliament, within which to decide on the membership of GLOBE International.
Some background information may assist Parliament in making it's decision. The Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE) International was founded in 1989 by legislators from the United States Congress, European Parliament, Japanese Diet and the Russian State Duma, with the mission to respond to urgent environmental challenges, by coordinating national policy measures and through advancement of complimentary legislation. It was as early as 1992 that GLOBE International urged industrialised countries to take the lead in reducing carbon dioxide emissions through the introduction of fiscal instruments for the encouragement of energy efficiency. Since 2005, GLOBE International has brought together hundreds of legislators from the G8+15 countries (G8 countries refer to the major industrialised countries of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, whereas the +5 countries denote the major developing countries of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa), which form the bulk of the membership of GLOBE International gatherings.
Members of Parliament from the South African Parliament have been attending conferences hosted by GLOBE International, since October 2009. It was on this occasion, in the Danish Parliament (the Folketing), where South Africa showed a strong presence, and the Speaker of the National Assembly, Hon Mr Max Sisulu, MP, gave a keynote address at the GLOBE Climate Change Legislators Forum. Since then the South African Parliament has attended various other conferences hosted by GLOBE International.
At the Mexico GLOBE Forum, GLOBE International and GLOBE Mexico, during the Cancun Climate Change gathering, presented global legislators with Draft Accountability Principles on Climate Change, which recognises the critical role that MPs could play in respect of matters relating to climate change. A copy is attached.
We recommend that Parliament consider the adoption of these principles to guide our Parliament's future activities on Climate Change.
As stated, members of the South African Parliament have attended COP15 and COP16, as members of the South African Government delegation, but were not part of the negotiating team, probably correctly so. This is so as members of Parliament do not have any formal status at COP meetings. This means that members of Parliament who are not invited to be part of their Government's delegation, as non-negotiators, do not attend COP meetings, unless they are part of a delegation of an NGO or a Civil Society organisation.
In summary, delegations of government and delegations from accredited civil society organisations are granted membership status at COP meetings, but members of Parliament have no official or membership status at COP meetings. This seems incongruous. GLOBE International is promoting a resolution to provide members of Parliament with an official and specific non-negotiation status at COP meetings. A copy is attached hereto.
We recommend that Parliament consider supporting this resolution.
We recommend that Parliament agrees to establish a Parliamentary Coordinating Forum on Climate Change, which will consist of Chairpersons of the relevant Portfolio and Select Committees of Parliament and a few members of political parties in the appropriate ratio, with the function to coordinate and manage Climate Change activities of the relevant committees in Parliament. We elaborate on this recommendation as follows.
The parliamentary delegation to COP16 sees an urgent need to establish a Parliamentary Coordinating Forum on Climate Change, with a coordinating and management function of all cross-cutting climate change related activities in Parliament. This coordinating forum should derive its membership from the chairpersons of the parliamentary portfolio and select committees that oversee the work of Government departments whose activities include the management of climate change or involve activities that affect the climate and a few relevant members appointed from political parties. This Coordinating Forum should meet regularly to assess the cross-cutting climate change issues that parliamentary committees deal with and compile reports in this regard to objectively assess the entire work of Parliament on climate change. Furthermore, the coordinating forum should also serve as a pivotal forum that will interact with the Interim Ministerial Committee (IMC) on Climate Change, which is the focal point processing and dealing with Climate Change issues at the executive level. In other words, Parliament should establish a Parliamentary coordinating forum, as opposed to a Parliamentary committee, which only has the power to coordinate and manage Climate Change issues in Parliament, without the usual executing powers of a Portfolio or Select Committee. This Coordinating Forum can be established in the Joint Rules of Parliament or by way of a Joint Resolution.
Our Parliament should proactively facilitate the mandates of the Departments of Water and Environmental Affairs and other Government departments whose activities may involve climate change management, to ensure that COP17 leads to a legally-binding climate treaty. This is possible, considering the resurgence of optimism in climate change negotiations, after the Mexico Climate Change Summit, in December 2010 (COP16).
Engage on how the South African Presidency of COP17 aims to rise to the challenge of meeting the expectations about the success of the Durban Climate Change Summit in December 2011. Parliament should support and facilitate the South African Presidency of COP17 to avoid shortcomings of past COP's and, in whatever manner possible, pursue a transparent and inclusive negotiation process.
ANNOUNCEMENTS, TABLINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS NO 84â2011 of the decisions and hence the sense of ownership of the outcome of the negotiations.
Parliament must lobby and mobilise for a convincing display by Africa on its commitments in relation to the efforts to address and implement programmes that are aimed at combating climate change. Institutions such as SADC-PF, PAP, and African Parliament Union, IPU may be used for such initiatives.
Parliament must lobby and mobilise for expanded participation of stakeholders within each African country especially the involvement of civil societies during preparations for COP 17. ALL stakeholders have to be mobilised as part of ensuring adequate human resources for promoting a common position for COP 17.
Assess the country's preparations in greening the COP17 event, building on the progress made (for example, in terms of energy efficiency) in the hosting of 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. As a host country, South Africa must showcase its best in terms of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Parliament could, for example, consider using Parliament as a national forum to display and promote flagship renewable energy projects. In fact, the country received international tribute for hosting the Green Economy Summit that drew participants from the United Nations and other international development agencies in May 2010.
Consider embarking on all or some of the activities listed in the attached Annexure.
Asamoah, J. (2000) Darling Demonstrates the Power of Wind. African Energy. 2 (4), 32-35. Cited in Doppegieter, J. J., J. du Toit, and E. Theron. (2000) Energy Futures 2000/2001. Cape Town: Institute for Future Research, University of Stellenbosch.
Khor, M. (2010) Cancun meeting used WTO-type methods to reach outcome. SUNS No 7062, 16th December 2010.
Lee, M., (2004) CDM Information and Guidebook. UNEP RisÃ¸ Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development RisÃ¸ National Laboratory Roskilde, Denmark.