The Sunday News
Charity Chikara, Sunday News Reporter
THERE is no doubt that the climate change phenomenon has become a global issue that requires collective efforts from countries rich and poor to combat.
It is with that spirit that treaties of commitments have been signed at various Conference of Parties (CoP) meetings some of which have not been fulfilled.
This is so because behind the veneer of collective action and commitments, the subject of climate change is riddled with politics and a lot of finger-pointing as it involves a meeting of minds between the Global North and the Global South — the developed and developing countries and accusations on who is causing what and who should stop what have been inevitable.
Developing countries feel and justifiably so, that developed and industrialised countries should fund them so that they are able to put in place adaptation and mitigation measures.
The reason is that developed countries are the ones that contributed more of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere that are depleting the ozone layer leading to changes in climate.
The resolution to ban coal at the just ended CoP 26 in Glasgow is one such sticking issue.
Most developing countries, Zimbabwe included, rely on coal for electricity generation and its ban without a sustainable alternative is a slap on many countries who don’t have the financial muscle to develop power alternatives.
Coal has been considered one of the major contributors in global gas emissions hence one of the COP26 resolutions centred around the phasing out of coal use for energy generation.
The fight therefore is on the need to find equilibrium between the need to develop industry and the need to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
The war therefore becomes economic.
Politically, sanctions have been an impediment too.
These have taken different forms and in pursuit of a variety of goals.
They have ranged from comprehensive economic and trade sanctions to more targeted measures such as arms embargoes, travel bans, and financial or commodity restrictions and much of them have been imposed on developing countries.
Admittedly, sanctions are not the main cause of environmental problems, but there is no doubt that they intensify the situation.
They lock countries into unsustainable ways that adversely affect the health and quality of life of citizens.
And President Mnangagwa put it clearly in Glasgow when he said the call to ban coal was impossible as long as sanctions were still in place.
“Climate change has increased the frequency of severe droughts and cyclone-induced floods and with economic sanctions, Zimbabweans’ lives have been adversely affected and development stunted,” President Mnangagwa told the United Nations Climate Change Conference.
He said Zimbabwe was without privileges that other African countries have as it remains bound by sanctions.
This continues to restrict engagements with developed countries that pledge their assistance in the fight against global emissions.
The support for environmental policies is susceptible to economic downturns, especially higher levels of unemployment.
In bad economic times, and in the absence of support, priorities are shifted away from environmental issues to striving to secure comfortable livelihoods for citizens.
It is notable that besides sanctions that impede progress in affected countries, developing countries need to use all resources possible to develop their countries without hindrance.
Unpacking the politics of climate change President Mnangagwa made it clear that it was easier for developed countries to be quick to agree to the banning of coal because their counties were already developed.
He however, stressed out that in order to develop, these countries used coal and were the main causers of the majority of emissions that were responsible for climate change today.
“The developed countries used coal to develop their countries but they now want us not to use coal to develop Zimbabwe or African countries.
So, Africa, Latin America and Asia we united and rejected their position.
We must be allowed to use coal to develop our countries.
We told them that after all, climate change has been caused by them not us.
We will use our resources to develop our country.
That is why I always say a country is developed by its people,” President Mnangagwa was quoted as saying.
He said after developing countries rejected the proposal, developed countries including Britain, the United States amongst others pledged financial assistance for developing countries to migrate to green energy sources.
They were however, mum on what will happen to developing countries that are under illegal sanctions to bridge the gap in terms of support.
In an interview, Climate Change Management Department Director Mr Washington Zhakata said the banning of coal investments would negatively affect the country as high temperatures affect the amount of hydroelectric power the country can produce, which is barely enough.
“Banning of coal is not our wish as a region because we are heavily dependent on coal for our energy.
It is notable that it is coal that made developed countries quickly develop, not renewable energy.
Without ignoring the potential of the Zambezi basin, we cannot deny that banning of coal will gravely harm our region considering the predicted low rainfalls and high temperatures that will negatively impact hydro electricity production,” he said.
He said it was unfortunate that global politics was influencing efforts of certain countries in the fight against climate change.
“The issues of sanctions will definitely derail implementation of some actions stated in the Paris Agreement.
It is very clear that our mitigation actions for example our Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) require international support since our NDCs are situational.
“At the negotiation we called upon all countries to desist from involving politics in climate action agenda.
We as a country would also like to access funding to ensure that we implement the programmes and projects like the large renewable energy projects and this would require funding from the multilateral agents, bilateral and funds from international banks and so forth,” he said.
He added that Zimbabwe shares the same plight as other African countries and sourcing adequate funding for climate change efforts was difficult.
“However, if the country is put under sanctions generally those who put in funds have the influence on who has access to the funds and to what magnitude.
Countries like Botswana, Zambia, Malawi and Swaziland also share the same plight.
“We are currently in the process of coming up with an implementation framework for the NDCs and we have started working on a climate change bill that will assist in the enforcement of some of the provisions of the Paris Agreement to ensure that we move in the direction of water use efficiency and energy efficiency, for both the public and private sectors,” he said.
Lifting sanctions can open up international financial resources, pave way for the transfer of technologies as well as exchange of carbon credits.
Iran is facing the same sanctions problem with the global community as sanctions continuously impede its attempt to migrate to green energy.
Iran, the world’s fourth-largest oil producer and sixth-highest greenhouse gas emitter, has been faulted by the global community as well as climate watchdogs for not ratifying the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.
The country’s mitigation efforts have been rated “critically insufficient” by the Climate Action Tracker, a research group that monitors action on greenhouse gas emission reductions, pointing to minimal action and non-compliance with the Paris Agreement.
Iranian authorities, however, blame the international sanctions for the country’s refusal to ratify the landmark Paris Climate Agreement, as well as growing environmental challenges.
In a report on how sanctions bar Iran from joining the Paris Climate Accord, Iran’s top environmentalist official told the UN that Iran was being affected by sanctions in their attempt to use renewable energy.
He said the imposition of unlawful sanctions has not only prevented their access to much needed financial resources and technological means to tackle challenges associated with climate change but has also adversely affected its capacity to carry out undertakings with regards to the Paris Accord.
