Emily Tyler

Aligning South African energy and climate change mitigation policy

The alignment of energy policy in South Africa is considered in the context of the countrys emerging climate mitigation vision. The term ‘policy’ is first defined as having a number of levels and components. It is then argued that at the level of written and stated energy policy, the intention exists to move towards a more diverse, efficient and less carbonintensive energy sector. A number of policy instruments are being developed that go some way towards achieving these emission reductions. However, at a policy paradigm level, the energy paradigm and institutional orientation and capacity are fundamentally misaligned with the mitigation vision. In particular, vested interests constrain policy coordination and hence alignment. How could greater alignment be secured? First, government must ensure sufficient capacity, leadership and influence within its energy institutions as a prerequisite. This would prioritize and enable appropriately oriented sector institutional capacity, either by creating new institutions, or by mandating existing institutions to deliver on low-carbon initiatives. It is suggested that, while new capacity may be optimal, it would be unrealistic to attain this level of sector transformation within urgent time frames, given the strongly entrenched energy sector interests in maintaining the status quo.

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.

Comparative analysis of five case studies: commonalities and differences in approaches to mitigation actions in five developing countries

In light of the ongoing international discussions about the Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Action concept, this study takes instead a more ‘bottom-up’ approach through a comparative analysis of five studies of mitigation actions (MAs) in Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Peru and South Africa. The analysis shows that MAs are driven by both developmental and climate objectives. The character, scope, policy horizon and potential success of an action are closely linked to the developmental path of countries such that MAs that directly address poverty and development seem to have a better chance of being implemented since they address issues higher on the policy agenda of developing countries. Where international support is sought, all five countries have some existing measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) and technical competence capacity that can be built upon. The choice of MAs is evidently linked to institutional capacity (both for design and implementation of MAs and possible MRV), emissions profile and the relative resource endowments of countries. The policy environments – from highly planned to less coordinated – and time-horizons – from 4-year plans to 40-year scenarios – differ substantially between the countries. Thus, the comparative analysis underscores the diversity of possible MAs and capabilities and the concomitant need for flexibility in definition, design and implementation.

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.

Lessons from co-impacts assessment under the Mitigation Action Plans and Scenarios (MAPS) Programme

The MAPS Programme has been active in Brazil, Chile, Colombia and Peru in supporting the development of an evidence base to inform the processes involved in climate mitigation policy-making. The programme combines detailed quantitative analysis with an extensive stakeholder engagement process to provide policy and decision makers with the information required for long-term climate mitigation planning. In recognition of the critical need to consider the developmental context and agenda in climate policy-making, the projects undertaken in these countries have experimented with various types of assessments of developmental impacts at both the macro and micro levels. These impacts have been collectively termed co-impacts to reflect the fact that these may be either positive or negative. In this article the value and challenges associated with co-impacts work for climate mitigation policy are considered. The value of including co-impacts analysis in the MAPS processes included increased stakeholder buy-in, making the case for mitigation action, informing INDCs and the prioritization of particular mitigation actions. Challenges include those associated with obtaining locally relevant data, the selection and operation of appropriate macro-economic models and analytical approaches and working with multidisciplinary teams. The article concludes by making some suggestions to optimize co-impacts work, through reference to other bodies of literature. The authors highlight that this article is situated within a dominant approach to climate mitigation policy work in developing countries, which implicitly places the non-climate benefits of any action as secondary to the primary benefit of climate change mitigation and constructs an artificial separation of policy formulation and implementation. Practitioners are encouraged to reflect on the implications of these considerations in future efforts. Policy relevance One of the primary challenges to advancing climate mitigation policy in developing countries is that of perceived relevance: near-term development priorities are overwhelming. Identifying, understanding and engaging with the co-impacts of mitigation actions has emerged as one way of addressing this challenge. Although still at an experimental phase, experience with co-impacts analysis in the MAPS countries provides some useful lessons in how to develop this area of work.

Combining price and quantity instruments: : insights from South Africa

A carbon tax will form the central carbon pricing instrument in South Africa. The country, however, is also in the process of setting specific short-term emissions limits at a subnational level. Additional mitigation policy instruments will thus be required to meet these targets. Although it is possible to combine sector-level quantity targets with a broad-based carbon tax, this article finds that this greatly complicates mitigation policy design, increasing both the information requirements and the likelihood of unintended consequences. The trade-offs between economic efficiency (optimized by the use of a broad-based price set by a carbon tax) and environmental effectiveness (optimized by using instruments that ensure emissions reduction targets are met) are ever present. A clear understanding of subnational quantity targets and an appreciation of the characteristics of the instruments to achieve such targets (quantity-based instruments, QBIs), the framework through which the instruments are combined, and their possible interactions, are required for effective policy making. Three possible frameworks for combining instruments are identified in the article, and some specific implications of interaction between particular QBIs and a carbon tax are suggested. Policy relevance This article explores the interaction of a carbon tax with mitigation policy instruments to meet subnational emissions targets in the South African context (where both a carbon tax and subnational emissions targets are currently being developed). As international negotiations progress towards countries accepting binding GHG emissions restrictions, quantity-based mitigation policy approaches become more important. In countries where a broad-based emissions trading scheme (ETS) is not feasible in the short to medium term, combining a broad-based carbon tax with subnational emission targets provides an alternative mechanism for achieving the economic efficiency and emissions certainty benefits derived from an ETS. This paper considers the mechanisms through which such a combination of instruments can be achieved. Three possible frameworks for combining instruments are identified, some specific implications of interaction between particular QBIs and a carbon tax are suggested, and guidelines and concept tools are presented to assist policy-makers in designing efficient and coherent mitigation policy.