Anya Boyd

A case study of South African mitigation actions (For the special issue on mitigation actions in five developing countries)

This article seeks to understand how mitigation actions (MAs) are approached and conceptualised in South Africa, and then to capture the particular sets of issues and characteristics relating to these actions. As such it considers three main areas of enquiry from a bottom-up methodological perspective: first, what is the South African approach to individual MAs, second, what are the barriers and challenges to their implementation, and third, what by way of domestic measures and international support could assist in overcoming these challenges. Four examples of potential South African MAs are described and then analysed: the Bus Rapid Transport in Cape Town, the South African Renewables Initiative, the carbon tax and the National Sustainable Settlements Facility. We find from considering these examples that there are significant challenges to defining an MA. We also find that, generally, South Africa is good at identifying, analysing and designing activities to mitigate emissions, but lacks in effective implementation. Two main areas of implementation risk are suggested, namely, counteracting vested interests and the availability of finance. Suggestions are made regarding how these implementation challenges might be overcome with appropriate support at the domestic and international levels.

Developing country perspectives on ‘mitigation actions’, ‘NAMAs’, and ‘LCDS’

The MAPS programme, which seeks to deepen mitigation ambition in developing countries, is engaged in exploring the concepts of Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) and Low Carbon Development Strategies (LCDS) from a developing country perspective. Here, climate mitigation practitioners in six developing countries were surveyed for their understanding of these concepts (anonymous, personal communications with climate mitigation practitioners in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, India, and South Africa). It is found that there is much scope for clarity and conceptual elaboration in this policy space. NAMAs are largely interpreted as mitigation activities packaged for submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) registry, but are not held to constitute the full set of mitigation activity in a developing country. New terminology may be needed to describe this broader set. A tighter interpretation of LCDS to distinguish between a strategic or coordinating policy action may be useful. Other themes arising include the way ‘national appropriateness’ is reflected in the concepts, and the role of international policy in deepening mitigation action in developing countries.

Technological capability and transfer for achieving South Africa's development goals

Technological capability and technology transfer both play important roles in achieving low-carbon development targets and the concepts of both have appeared in national development and climate policy debates. Yet, they differ. Improving capabilities and transfer mechanisms are two differing approaches to technological development. Technology transfer is associated with a key political dynamic within international climate policy, in that developing countries request support from industrialised countries. Whereas technological capability focuses on building internal capabilities and is often framed in the context of national industrial policy plans rather than relying on external support. We argue that technology development, a combination of these approaches, can contribute to South Africas low-carbon development through innovation and technology-based mitigation actions that increase domestic technological capabilities. Technological capability needs to become a determinant of mitigation action to effectively contribute to achieving South Africas low-carbon development goals. International technology transfer and cooperation should contribute to boosting domestic capabilities to advance technological development. Technology transfer based on pure sales will not contribute to achieving long-term low-carbon development goals.

Reconsidering development by reflecting on climate change

Reconsidering development by reflecting on climate change means rethinking development goals, more than pursuing climate targets. Much analysis in the development–climate literature has framed development as a co-benefit, while the objective has been climate stabilization. This misses the point that development drives emissions, not vice versa. A different approach must address low-emission technologies, but also the high-emission parts of ‘development’. Politically, climate change must be understood as a development problem. In this conception, a key task for climate policy is to explore different development paths, with the difference in emissions being a result. Development goals need to be represented as explicit objectives, both in analytical modelling and as political goals. Methods that treat climate policy as a self-control mechanism in the development system, or back-cast from development goals, need to be improved. The article further considers levers to change development paths, considering lessons on how to influence change in complex systems. The obsession of the existing economic order is with economic growth and development; what needs to be considered is the quality of development and what it means to live well. A social contract for low-carbon development requires the rich to pay for mitigation, use less, and assist the poor; lift the poor out of poverty; and change the aspirations of the middle class. Such a contract requires thinking beyond short-term political and economic time frames, with much longer-term thinking and vision.

Current approaches to MRV in South Africa: a scoping study

It is shown that there are MRV-related activities underway in South Africa, particularly focusing on measuring electricity consumption and monitoring GHG emissions. Yet currently many of these activities happen in parallel systems within multi-polar governance structures. A bottom-up perspective of MRV in South Africa, informed by interviews, workshops, desktop research, and stakeholder consultations, is provided and the systems, data, methodologies, and the institutional environment relevant to a South African MRV system are examined. The development of the local monitoring and evaluation system, and its relevance within the international MRV context, is also discussed. Some recommendations are made: most importantly, there is a need for a coherent approach to be developed, one that is coordinated by government and built on existing MRV systems.