Impediments in the way of a green transition
WHEN it comes to climate change, Africa and Europe have one thing in common: countries in both regions are either signatories or parties to the Paris Agreement, which entered into force in 2016. This is not a trivial matter.
It means that the 2017 Abidjan AU-EU Summit climate ambitions were based on a firm and approved framework. The EU, Africa’s main trading partner, has demonstrated its ambition to lead the climate transition with its European Green Deal. Africans should commend these policy goals and emulate them as much as possible, while at the same time warning their Northern partners about the possible negative impact of several Green Deal-related EU legislation on the continent.
Countries’ commitments to the Paris Agreement are a legally binding process recognising that the climate challenge transcends borders. The agreement captures several principles, which are important for Africa to re-affirm, such as the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities; and, with it, respective capabilities.
Accounting for only 2 – 3% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions from energy and industrial sources and with a population leaving a carbon footprint of 0.8 metric tons per person compared to the 3.9 tons per person of the global average, Africa certainly cannot be considered a major polluter.
The Paris Agreement recognises the centrality of the financing and technology transfer to facilitate the transition in developing countries. In the Abidjan Summit, leaders agreed to the “full implementation” of the agreement, “taking into account the commitments on climate finance made in Copenhagen (2009) with a target of reaching $100 billion (about R1.47 trillion) per year by 2020 (extended to 2025), to support developing countries in responding to climate change”.
The implementation of these agreements will be challenging, even more so in the aftermath of the Covid-19 crisis. The slow pace in accessing vaccines will delay the recovery and put more pressure on the fiscal space of African countries.
There are many impediments in the way of a forceful green transition. One of them is the clear withdrawal of OECD countries from financing commitments towards developing countries, as well as a drastic repurposing of programmed ODA to subsidise vaccines and offer humanitarian relief and medical support.
The attention to climate justice, enshrined in the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, is getting further and further away. As major economies propagate the idea of “building back better”, African countries wonder whether the need of some to just build has been forgotten.
The industrial transformation process – facilitated by the AFCTA – is perceived in Africa as the structural response the continent needs to speed up. It also offers opportunities for industrialising differently, with a much lower carbon footprint; enhanced by renewable energies and sustainable infrastructure.
These choices were made by African countries before the slogan “building back” came into being. Africa does not need patronising about whether it is hesitating on climate concerns but calls for a space to carve out its own climate and development policy choices.
Current discussions around intellectual property and vaccine access may be a precursor as to how international players will engage in green-related technologies. Is it going to be a demonstration of “me first”, responding to domestic political pressures or a more robust “global public goods” approach, based on solidarity and long-term gains? For the moment, the balance is tilting in one direction.
If Africa remains dependent on goodwill and leftovers packaged as the only viable response for it to deal with the pandemic, the odds are its structural transformation will be compromised.
We can wait for the Covax vaccination scheme to help Africans attain herd immunity and remain a recipient of the technologies and products of others, or accept the waiving of patents – resulting from research amply funded by public resources – and enhance the established pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity, allowing Africa to manufacture its own vaccines. Measures introduced by partners, including those with whom Africa trades, can contribute positively if well-crafted, or negatively, if they fail to consider their structural impact.
One possible worrisome spillover is the proposed Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, which foresees the introduction of a tax on imports entering the EU from third countries. Although the recent resolution of the European Parliament backing the tax states that the “least developed countries and small island developing states should be given special treatment”, it excludes several African countries whose economies cannot afford the shock generated by the introduction of such tax.
It is evident that both continents are committed to climate change, but additional dialogue is required to flesh out the details of a common agenda. It is therefore urgent to establish an adequate instrument for a partnership where dialogue can help both continents move towards a win-win relationship.
¡ Lopes is Professor at the Mandela School of Public Governance at UCT and AU High Representative for Partnerships with Europe. This article was first published in Accord’s Covid19 Conflict & Resilience Monitor