3. AFRICAN COMMON POSITION POST-CDM
3.2 The Common African Position on Climate Change 2009
To further develop the African position, the Conference of African Heads of State and Government on Climate Change adopted the Common African Position on Climate Change in 2009.50 The Common Position was built on the Bali Action Plan (the Plan).51 It emphasised issues such as adaptation, mitigation and the transfer of finance and technology.52 This position informed Africa’s arguments at the 15th Conference of the Parties held in Copenhagen, Demark. During this conference, state parties to the UNFCCC were expected to adopt a framework for climate change mitigation beyond 2012 (the end of the first period of the Kyoto Protocol).53 It was, thus, very significant and a turning point in the evolution of the international law on climate change.
50 African Union Assembly of the Heads of State and Government, 12th ordinary session, 1-3 February 2009, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, Assembly/AU Dec 236/XII Decision on the African Common Position on Climate Change Doc Assembly/AU/8 (XII) Add 6 available at https://au.int/sites/default/files/decisions/9559- assembly_en_1_3_february_2009_auc_twelfth_ordinary_session_decisions_declarations_message_congratulati ons_motion.pdf (accessed 5 March 2021).
51 Bali Action Plan FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1 available at
https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2007/cop13/eng/06a01.pdf#page=3 (accessed 4 January 2021).
52 Para 1 of the Bali Action Plan, FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add 1 1, Decision 1/CP 13.
53 IISD Reporting Services – ‘Upcoming meetings’ available at
https://web.archive.org/web/20091212101150/http://www.iisd.ca/upcoming/linkagesmeetings.asp?id=5 (accessed 4 January 2020).
126 As noted above, the Common African Position was premised on the Bali Action Plan adopted by the Conference of the Parties held in Bali in 2007. The Plan was a roadmap to promote ‘the full, effective and sustained implementation of the Convention through long-term cooperative action’.54 It focuses on four major areas: adaptation, mitigation, technology and financing.55 The adoption of the Plan was based on the following previous demands: the exclusion of developing states from substantive duties under the Kyoto Protocol and the provision of adaptation and mitigation finance to developing states.56 The Bali Action Plan recognised that climate change action in the developing world would only be equitable if it incorporated developmental objectives within its framework.
Adaptation was another issue of importance in the Common African Position. The Common African Position sought to address the region’s vulnerability and the need for international cooperation to enhance the region’s adaptation capacity.57 The position proposed an Adaptation Action Programme, which would be country-driven and the funds available had to be predictable and additional to existing development funds. The African Position set the target for adaptation funds at $67 billion per year by 2020.58 This is slightly lower than the World Bank target of $75 to $100 billion for the same period.59
On the issue of finance, African states demanded financial support as recompense for the natural, economic and social resource that had been lost due to climate change.60 In this Position, African states re-stated the historical liability of developed states for climate change and requested that these states contribute not less than 1.5 per cent of their GDP to climate change finance in developing states.61 Financial obligation, according to the African position, was not an act of charity or an obligation arising only from the superior capacity of developed states. It was a duty arising from the need to do justice by compensating African states for the
54 Para 1 of the Bali Action Plan.
55 Para 1 of the Bali Action Plan.
56 Jean-Christophe Hoste ‘Where was united Africa in the climate change negotiations?’ February 2010 Africa Policy Brief 1-2.
57 Werner Scholtz ‘The promotion of regional environmental security and Africa’s common position on climate change' (2010) 10 African Human Rights Law Journal 14.
58 Ibid.
59 http://beta.worldbank.org/content/economics-adaptation-climate-change-studyhomepage (accessed 5 January 2021).
60 Common African Position 2009 available at https://au.int/sites/default/files/documents/30876-doc- executive_council_decision_500_-_july_2009_engl.pdf (accessed 5 March 2021).
61 Hoste (n56 above) 1.
127 loss suffered from a problem caused by developed states. The objective was to do restorative justice by making up for the harm caused.
The African Common Position maintained that the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities, as enshrined in the UNFCCC, must be observed. The differences in the contributions of states and in their capability to address climate change was important and should determine the distribution of rights and responsibilities. In line with this, the Position provided that developed states should limit their greenhouse emissions by at least 40 per cent less than 1990 levels by 2020, and 80-95 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.62 The Position expressly stated that the African region would reject any attempt by developed states to defer the date for reduction of developed country emissions.63
On the future of international climate change law beyond 2012, African states, arguing through the Common African Position, insisted on maintaining two separate tracks of negotiation. One to develop a framework for the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol and a second negotiation track to develop another legal instrument (a second protocol) under the UNFCCC. This separation would ensure that developing states continue to benefit from the strict differentiation between developed and developing state parties provided under the Kyoto Protocol.64 Benefits such as finance and technological transfer and the absence of emission reduction obligations were non-negotiables for the region.
Moving forward, the African position was clear. They argued for exemption from any stringent obligations in the future climate change agreement. Instead, African states were to have rights to necessary finance and technology from their developed counterparts. African states cite the historical responsibility of developed states for climate change as justification for taking up such liability. This restorative justice conception was to be the basis for the negotiation of African states in the (then) forthcoming COP 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark, where parties were
to deliberate on a climate change framework after 2012 (the expiry date of the Kyoto Protocol).
62 Ibid at 3.
63 Anwar Tsega ‘Africa in global climate change conference: Analysing its position and challenges’ (2016) 4(1) International Journal of African Development 9.
64 Hoste (n56 above) 1-2.
128