The Democratic Alliance notes the outcome of COP17, of which the most notable outcome, “The Durban Platform”, commits the 194 countries to negotiating “a protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force” by 2015 with implementation from 2020. The trajectory and focus of the international climate change negotiations game has changed, not necessarily unexpectedly, but sooner than many thought it would. South Africa, and its emissions profile, is now well and truly in the sights of the developed world.

And with the game changing, Parliament and relevant stakeholders need to hold the government accountable for its decisions at negotiations, and we have to more rigorously protect our domestic interests. With economic growth and job creation being a priority for South Africa, we need to do what is in the best interest of all South Africans.

The Durban Platform, and its ramifications, now needs significant public scrutiny within South Africa. The Minister of Water and Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa, needs to address Parliament on the implications of the Durban Platform soon after the opening of Parliament in 2012, and she needs to make a substantial input to the portfolio committee as soon as possible.

The EU, along with a handful of other developed countries, agreed to a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol, which is currently the only legally binding instrument to curb emissions. While the South African negotiating team had always publicly been aiming for developed countries, which are responsible for the vast majority of historic emissions, to commit to a second commitment period, the compromise of bringing South Africa, a developing country, under a future comprehensive climate regime, whatever form it may take, was not a mandate expected to be agreed upon by South Africa at COP17.

It is evident that we are entering a new stage in international climate change negotiations. Up until now the South African position, quite correctly, has been to get developed countries, under the Kyoto Protocol, to commit to absolute emission reductions, while developing countries, as agreed upon in Copenhagen in 2009, should take voluntary actions. But the developed world, most notably the EU, is now playing hardball with the major emerging economies. Negotiations are by their very nature about compromise, and a positive outcome of Durban is that the multilateral process of negotiations is still alive.

The Democratic Alliance is broadly supportive of a comprehensive climate regime including all the world’s emitters. However, we are cognisant of the fact that we are a developing country that requires the carbon space to grow. We are unfortunately heavily reliant on fossil fuels for energy, a situation that must change, but we need to achieve a feasible and just transition to a lower carbon economy that is right for our country. The Durban Platform will undoubtedly send positive signals to market players about improved prospects for a growing green economy, and subsequent new jobs, but the transition to a lower carbon economy also presents risks to economic growth and jobs.

Granted we do not know the form of a future comprehensive climate regime, and for now there are not any new voluntary emission commitments by South Africa, but now is the time for South Africa to do a proper stocktake.

Up until now, international climate change negotiations have been entirely executive-driven by South Africa. Accountability of the process has been weak, mainly because the country focus has always been on getting developed countries to take on absolute emission reductions. With the prospect of other countries wanting a say in the trajectory of South Africa’s emissions beyond 2020, this country needs to get its fact base right, and relevant stakeholders need to be brought on board, to ensure that we argue for what is in the best interests of South Africa in future negotiations.

Further, the prospect of a future and vague comprehensive climate regime must not be used by government to justify rash decision-making when it comes to its domestic climate change response in the immediate future. It cannot be used as a justification for implementation of a poorly planned carbon tax, nor for the purchase of a fleet of nuclear power stations if they are cost prohibitive or without the necessary due diligence.

That is why there needs to be better oversight by Parliament and stakeholders, otherwise a vague future climate regime, many years away from being ratified by Parliament, is going to be spuriously used for the justification of all manner of policy decisions and government procurements.