Search results

The research journey reflected in this thesis emerged from fifteen years of practice of (predominantly South African) climate mitigation policy from 2001 - 2016; from a dissatisfaction with the pace and depth of progress, and a realisation that the South African climate mitigation policy community of practice approaches what we do in a particular way. Guided by a complex transdisciplinary methodology, in this thesis I explore this realm of 'approach', asking whether it is consequential for the decarbonisation policy agenda in South Africa, and considering complexity thinking as an alternative. A four-part research question acts as the central attractor to this exploration: 1. What is the current dominant approach to SA CM policy? The thesis starts by articulating the 'dominant approach' of the SA CM community of practice (CoP) observed during the research and building on my experience in the field. I reveal this approach as being influenced by the perspective of the international climate mitigation policy process, and the 'hegemonic worldview' - using Capra's (1974) term as a heuristic to convey the set of assumptions and beliefs dominant in the cultural values and form of scientific knowledge that holds power. A normative undercurrent and an environmental perspective that discounts the social realm further shape the dominant approach, an approach that has particular implications for how the SA CM CoP engages with its key policy concepts of transformative change and development. 2. What does the dominant approach illuminate and what does it obscure about the policy issue? I find in the thesis that the dominant approach illuminates aspects of the climate mitigation policy issue: the greenhouse gas constraint; its macro and sectoral scale and temporal implications; technology and finance mitigation options; how various policy instruments work; with a focus on data. However the dominant approach also actively obscures other aspects: the implications of the complex, systemic and long-term aspects of the SA CM policy issue for policymaking; how policy implementation happens; the roles of power, values, culture and behaviour in transformative change; and how to engage perspectives and contestation. 3. How can a complexity approach contribute towards revealing SA CM policy more fully? The thesis then turns to complexity and complex systems thinking to explore how a view from complexity opens up these important but currently obscured spaces for climate mitigation policymaking. The SA CM policy issue is described in terms of complex systems, and a complexity view is offered of: the relationship between the SA CM policy issue and policymaking, the 'mitigation- development complex', power patterns relevant to SA CM policy, the SA CM policy objectives, and deliberate transformative change. Building on this view, complex SA CM policymaking is described as a journey, reflecting a shift in focus away from content, plans and evidence towards principles, process and emergent strategies; a re-ordering of policy priorities and leverage points, all premised on the complexity observation that top-down control of a complex social system is impossible. A set of policymaking initiatives arising from this complexity approach is offered, including the establishment of a permanent stakeholder engagement platform, a sense-making function, a dedicated strategic and political policy capacity, and a complexification of CM policy instruments and research practice. 4. What is the usefulness of this inquiry to the SA CM Community of Practice (CoP)? Finally, the usefulness of the inquiry to the SA CM CoP is assessed. I conclude that 'approach' is consequential to our work, and that reflecting on our approach can reveal how it might be constraining us and support our explicit consideration of alternatives. The complexity exploration is useful in two ways. First, it offers the set of practical initiatives referred to above for the SA CM CoP's consideration as SA CM policy is advanced. Second, it offers an alternative underpinning for approaching SA CM policymaking based on rigorous science, aligned with both the complex, systemic nature of the SA CM policy issue and with the increasing complexification and pace of change of the twenty first century. Whilst the gap between the hegemonic worldview and its organisational and physical manifestations and those of a complexity approach is significant - perhaps sufficiently so as to undermine the immediate usefulness of this aspect of the research to most members of the SA CM CoP - a complexity view of transformation as non-linear and episodic proves encouraging. The research journey traverses the territories of practice and academia, the specifics of South Africa and the breadth of global environmental and societal change, disciplines, perspectives, paradigms and worldviews. Essentially, the research comprises a heuristic move which calls attention to the relevance of policy approach in increasing the pace and depth of climate mitigation action in a development context. As required by a transdisciplinary inquiry this contribution - which lies in the realm of knowledge - has both the societal usefulness described above and academic relevance. In the academic realm the thesis opens a new, multi-disciplinary research agenda around 'approach' at the intersection of climate mitigation, energy, public policy and development studies. By scoping out a complexity interpretation of the mitigation policy issue in a development context, the research contributes to both the climate mitigation and complexity fields, and to thinking on issues of sustainable development. Finally, the thesis provides a rare example of transdisciplinary research and method in climate mitigation and energy studies. It is my hope that these transdisciplinary and reflexivity inroads will some day become paths well trodden.

This paper considers the alignment of energy policy in South Africa with the Cabinet's mitigation vision of a 'peak, plateau and decline' greenhouse gas emissions trajectory to 2050. First, the term 'policy' is defined as having a number of components, ranging from the broad 'policy paradigm' which guides the approach to policy development in a particular area, to statements and intentions, written documents and institutional orientation and capacity. Following from this definition it is argued that, at the level of written and stated energy policy, the intention exists to move towards a more diverse, efficient and less carbon-intensive energy sector. A number of policy instruments are being developed which go some way towards achieving this. However, the targets set are too low, and all initiatives are hampered for institutional and financing reasons. On the other hand, however, the dominant energy policy paradigm and the orientation and capacity of the country's energy institutions are fundamentally misaligned with climate mitigation policy. In particular, conflicts between these institutions constrain policy co-ordination and hence alignment. The primary causes of misalignment are argued to be, firstly, existing and entrenched institutional orientation and capacity and, secondly, the lack of a single, overarching, co-ordinating energy policy institution which has sufficient power and influence to deal with the vested interests of the existing energy institutions. The paper then explores, by means of thought experiments in the areas of renewable energy and energy efficiency, what would be required to align energy policy with Cabinet's mitigation vision. The establishment of a single, overarching, co-ordinating energy policy institution is identified as a pre-requisite to any chance of alignment. This institution would then establish and govern appropriately oriented institutional capacity, either by creating new institutions, or mandating existing institutions to deliver on low carbon initiatives. It is suggested that whilst new capacity would be optimal, it may be unrealistic to attain this level of sector transformation within the timeframes required by mitigation policy, given the strongly entrenched interests in maintaining the status quo. The paper concludes that intervention at the highest political level is required to enforce energy institutional co-ordination and achieve actualisation of emissions mitigation aligned energy policies.

Strong climate institutional governance is necessary for countries to meet their international climate mitigation commitments. This article shows that while South Africa steadily created climate institutions up to 2011, these failed to take hold in the following years. Also, despite the systemically critical energy sector dominating the emissions profile, these climate institutions had no purchase over it. This situation is largely due to South Africa's political economy of energy, which gave powerful actors the sustained ability to block meaningful institutionalisation of decarbonisation in the energy sector. As a result, South Africa's climate institutions play few of the roles expected for successful institutionalization of climate action, with energy institutions instead playing a shadow climate governance role. This case suggests that conceptions of climate institutional governance in countries where single sectors dominate in emissions and power must accommodate the roles of institutions affecting climate outcomes despite this not being their primary objective.

Emissions trading is fast becoming one of the most popular policy instruments for reducing greenhouse gas emissions internationally. This hybrid instrument combines the certainty of mitigation volume delivered by regulation, whilst also harnessing the power of the market through an economic approach to deliver migitation price discovery and least cost mitigation opportunities. Theoretically, this is a powerful combination.However, the realities of uncertainty and lack of information result in international emissions trading experience deviating substantially from the instrument's theoretical potential. This is of particular relevance in a developing country context. Scheme design is therefore very important to counter these market failures, and policymakers are required to strike a balance between this and introducing distortions. Given that the instrument is in its infancy, performance of the various schemes up and running internationally is inconclusive. Emissions trading proponents argue that the benefits will be realised over time, once the initial teething problems are overcome. The paper is the result of research conducted in 2008 and presented at the South African Climate Policy Summit in 2009. It considers theory and international experience in application to the potential establishment of an emissions trading scheme in South Africa. Lack of data, capacity and experience with markets in the energy sector present complications in the use of the instrument as a central part of the nation's mitigation policy suite, as do market concentration issues. Should an emissions trading be proposed, the paper argues for ways in which its design could address these complications, and align with the current energy security imperative resulting from the electricity crisis in the country, the twin political objectives of poverty reduction and employment creation of the recently elected government, and the timeframes proposed by the Long Term Mitigation Scenarios.

Climate change and poverty mostly fall into the adaptation category in the current research literature and relevant policy-making. The strong connection between poverty and adaptation rests on the assumption that poor countries produce only low carbon emissions. They will also be most affected by the impacts of climate change. Therefore, efforts on poverty and climate change concentrate mostly on adapting to the consequences of climate change. If we acknowledge current findings of poverty research, we find that this separation between mitigation and adaptation does not hold anymore. Recent research suggests that poverty demographics have changed between 1990 and 2010. The majority of the poor nowadays live in middle-income countries, and not only in low-income countries. Emissions in middle-income countries increase, while their governments try to reduce emissions in the long term without jeopardising socio-economic development. Climate change presents a threefold policy challenge for middle-­income countries. They need to: i) design mitigation actions in such a way that they contribute to alleviate poverty; ii) reduce emissions, helping to slow global warming in a way that does not compromise the competitiveness of their economies, because without collective action by all, the costs of inaction affect mostly the poor; and iii) prepare to adapt to the unavoidable consequences of climate change. The paper unpacks the linkages between low-­carbon development, mitigation and poverty in middle-­income countries (where the majority of the poor live). Most middle-­income countries pursue carbon-­intensive development paths and will need to mitigate emissions towards low-­carbon development paths. How can mitigation actions contribute to poverty alleviation? An explorative analysis of mitigation actions in five middle-­income countries shows that mitigation has moved on the political agendas over the past five years. Yet, these efforts are not necessarily linked with poverty alleviation instruments. Most mitigation action can have positive and negative poverty effects. Their impacts depend on an adequate pro-­poor policy mix.

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.