DEDICATED RESEARCH VESSEL

Dedicated Research Vessel - Ellen Khuzwayo Launched

20 September 2007 - Media Statement - Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
THURSDAY, 20 SEPTEMBER 2007: The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, today had the pleasure of launching South Africa’s new dedicated research vessel, the Ellen Khuzwayo. This new vessel will be the flagship of the research vessels that the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism operate. The two other research vessels are the Africana and Algoa.

The Minister announced that “the Ellen, as she is already affectionately known, is replacing the Sardinops after 50 years of loyal duty. The Ellen is named after the late Dr Ellen Khuzwayo, teacher, social worker, author and prominent figure in the struggle against apartheid. We are pleased to honour Dr Ellen Khuzwayo in our ongoing commitment to commemorate the significant role of women in our country’s history through the naming of our ships.

This replacement forms part of the department's strategy to upgrade the research fleet to provide us with the best possible scientific advice relating to our ocean environment and our marine resources.

The Ellen is a purpose-built research ship designed to operate anywhere within the South African EEZ, up to 200 nautical miles offshore. The ship has a steaming range of 2,500 nautical miles and can remain at sea for 18-20 days. She carries a crew of 13 and has accommodation for eight scientists. The systems on board allow the ship to operate anywhere in the SADC region.”

The Ellen Khuzwayo will be deployed primarily on inshore research, which includes scientific research on marine living resources such as rock lobster, linefish, large pelagic fishes, seabirds, marine mammals, and sharks. She will also be engaged in diving operations and monitoring and research of oceanographic conditions in our surrounding marine environment. To support these operations, she is equipped with two fully-fitted laboratories one for fish sampling and another for oceanographic studies. She is further equipped with advanced acoustic equipment for fish surveys, state-of-the-art oceanographic equipment, and winches for deploying and retrieving the equipment and instruments. These features, together with her excellent maneuverability and advanced stability, make her truly a world-class ocean research platform.

The Minister added that “with our combined fleet of four compliance and three fisheries research ships, South Africa has the most significant marine presence within the region, and on the African continent. The Ellen Khuzwayo represents our continued commitment to making a strong contribution to marine research and compliance in the region.”

The Ellen was specifically designed to operate in our regional waters, including the warmer tropics. She can freely range the 200 nautical mile zone and can have extended stays at sea for over two weeks.

The Minister further said “with the global community increasingly realizing the challenges of climate change, we will now be more prepared to monitor these changes in the oceans closer to our own shores, and to predict and reduce the impacts on our society.”

The building of the three protection vessels and now the Ellen in Cape Town has made a significant contribution to the development of the local ship-building industry. And even before she has sailed, the Ellen has broken records, in particular that of being one of the heaviest loads ever transported by road / rail in South Africa as she made her way from Farocean to the Syncro-lift on 23 May 2007.
Mava Scott (Acting Chief Director: Communications)

+ More

Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
For immediate release
STATEMENT BY THE OFFICE OF MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM, 21 September 2007

RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CONTAINER TERMINAL STACKING AREA IN THE PORT OF CAPE TOWN, WESTERN CAPE

The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, today authorised the expansion of the container terminal stacking area in the Port of Cape Town, after considering various alternatives. The alternative approved was to permit the reconfiguration of the container terminal whilst staying within the existing container terminal boundaries.

The expansion of the container terminal stacking area in the Port of Cape Town is subject to the conditions listed in the Record of Decision.

RECORD OF DECISION

RECORD OF DECISION FOR PROJECT REFERENCE 12/12/20/459, THE PROPOSED EXPANSION OF THE CONTAINER TERMINAL STACKING AREA IN THE PORT OF CAPE TOWN: WESTERN CAPE

By virtue of the power vested in me in terms of section 33(1) of the Environment Conservation Act, (Act 73 of 1989) (“the Act”), I hereby, in terms of section 22(3) of the Act, authorise the National Ports Authority of South Africa, Port of Cape Town, to undertake the activity specified/ detailed below subject to the conditions indicated in this Record of Decision (ROD).

1. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY

The National Ports authority applied for the expansion of the container terminal at the Port of Cape Town. Various alternatives were considered. The alternative approved to achieve the above mentioned expansion would entail reconfiguration which involves maximizing the potential stack capacity within the Cape Town Container Terminal (CTCT) while staying within the existing container terminal boundaries. This will also include the demolition of the non-essential existing infrastructure and buildings and resurfacing of this area to increase the stack capacity. The reconfiguration comprises of the following:

1.1 The conversion to a Rubber Tyred Gantry operation;
1.2 The relocation of the reefers to the long jetty (behind Berths 600 to 604);
1.3 The conversion of areas currently occupied by SACD and SAPO to increase stack area alongside Duncan Road;
1.4 Increase in reefer points to approximately 5 000;
1.5 Upgrading of the electrical reticulation system and power supply (including the substation);
1.6 The conversion of the terminal marshalling yard to a port security and terminal staging area;
1.7 Minor amendments to the rail lines to maintain continuity to the rest of the port, the main connection to the port is through Paarden Eiland;
1.8 The relocation of the entrance and exit gates (including the building);
1.9 The demolition of a part of the existing T-bridge structure;
1.10 The demolition of existing Transnet (NPA and SAPO) buildings, including the NPA Engineering building, the NPA and SAPO workshops; the existing terminal gate structures and other smaller NPA and SAPO offices and buildings;
1.11 The implementation of new communication and operating systems;
1.12 The alteration to the existing and the addition of a new stormwater drainage, sewer and pump stations;
1.13 The provision of new and relocation of existing high mast lighting;
1.14 The provision of new reefer steel access platforms;
1.15 The existing road access from Marine Drive will be maintained.

The proposed activity is captured as listed activity 1 (e) in terms of the Environment Conservation Act (Act No 73 of 1989) as follows:

1. The construction and upgrading of:
(e) marinas, harbours, and all structures below the high-water mark of the sea; (Marinas, harbours and all structures below the high-water mark of the sea means any facility where vessels arrive, depart from, handling cargo or receive services)

2. LOCATION

The proposed activity will take place at the Cape Town container terminal (berths 601-604) which forms part of Cape Town harbour in the Western Cape Province. The site in which the proposed activity is located falls within the boundaries of the City of Cape Town Metropolitan Municipality.

3. APPLICANT

National Ports Authority of South Africa, Port of Cape Town
Private Bag x4
Gallo Manor
2052

4. CONSULTANT

CSIR Environmentek
P.O. Box 320
STELLENBOSCH
7599

5. KEY DECISION-MAKING FACTORS

5.1 INFORMATION CONSIDERED:

In reaching my decision in respect of this application I have, inter alia, taken the following information into consideration:

5.1.1 The final environmental impact report;
5.1.2 The concerns raised by appellants, particularly with regard to beach erosion and the impacts of beach nourishment on nearby communities;
5.1.3 The CSIR’s response to the appeals;
5.1.4 The departments’ response to the appeals;
5.1.5 The specialist report by external experts, Mr Willem Botes and Mr Pieter Badenhorst, commissioned by the Minister; and
5.1.6 The alternative option study investigating the inland port and harbour redesign options: summary report, in response to my initial appeal decision.

5.2 FINDINGS

In reviewing the information referred to above, I have made the following observations:

5.2.1 The National Ports Authority (NPA) has clearly demonstrated the need to increase the capacity of the container terminal. The NPAs’ calculations have adequately shown the economic feasibility of expanding the container terminal in order to deal with the current and future container import and export needs;
5.2.2 There was a public participation process undertaken by the CSIR and they have satisfied the requirements as prescribed in the EIA regulations;
5.2.3 The option of utilizing other ports such as Saldanha is not feasible.

5.3 ALTERNATIVES

The National Ports Authority initially explored the following six alternatives:

a) The expansion of the existing stacking yard through reclamation of an area 300m wide, parallel to and seawards of the existing container terminal to increase the container terminal size by about 47.5ha;

b) Locations within the inland of port of Cape Town with a minimum extent of 70ha including the:
• Culemborg site (East of Church Street)
• Culemborg site (West of Church Street)
• Port Industrial Park site
• Transnet land near Century City
• Belcon Intermodal Facility on the Cape Flats;

c) Reconfiguration of the existing container terminal and the clearing and development of the onshore areas of the container terminal to make provision for stacking areas;

d) Remote stacking areas with a minimum extent of 47.5ha;

e) The complete relocation of the container terminal to Duncan Dock which requires infilling of Duncan Dock and relocation of Duncan Dock facilities to Ben Schoeman Dock;

f) The infilling of Eastern Mole to create new berths on the Ben Schoeman Dockside and relocation of existing facilities on Eastern Mole to an alternative location.

5.4 FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES

Three potentially feasible alternatives were identified out of the six alternatives discussed above and these were investigated and compared in detail. These were:

- The expansion of the existing stacking yard through reclamation of an 300m wide area parallel to and seawards of the existing container terminal to increase the container terminal size by about 47.5ha;

- The reconfiguration of the existing container terminal and the clearing and development of the onshore areas of the container terminal to make provision for stacking areas; and

- The development of an inland port at Belcon Intermodal Facility on the Cape Flats.

The detailed comparative analysis has shown that the development of the inland port at the Belcon Intermodal Facility on the Cape Flats is a feasible option, but that it will have major impacts on the working culture, it has the highest cost (Net Present Value) in terms of port operations, the logistics of transporting goods between the port and Belcon will be complex, and that the disruptions to the flow of goods between the Cape Town Container Terminal and Belcon would have major impacts on the ability of the port to handle the required throughput.

The expansion of the existing stacking yard through reclamation of an area 300m wide parallel to and seawards of the existing container terminal to increase the container terminal size by about 47.5ha is the best option for improving operational efficiency. However, this would have an impact on the wave climate and the coastal processes. This finding is based on the indications from the investigations that were undertaken for exploring this option. This option has an alternative borrow site for sourcing reclamation fill that has far less negative impacts than the original borrow site identified in the Environmental Impact Report. Notwithstanding its lessened impact, this option is not recommended.

The reconfiguration of the existing container terminal and the clearing and development of the onshore areas of the container terminal to make provision for stacking areas is recommended, although it is not the preferred option with regard to the efficiency in operations. Nonetheless, it is possible to make it operationally viable and it is considerably cheaper when compared to inland port and reclamation alternatives.The most compelling reasons for recommendation of this option is that it has limited environmental impact as it eliminates the need for reclamation and other marine construction activities as well as the fact that it is an existing brown field site used for purposes similar to the proposed development that does not require additional land beyond the existing terminal boundaries. The required land for this option belongs to NPA and this limits the need for additional land negotiations.

5.5 CONCLUSION

Based on the above, I have concluded that this development, as authorised according to the provisions and conditions stipulated in Section 6 of this record of decision, will not lead to substantial detrimental impact on the environment, that potential negative impacts resulting from this development can be mitigated to acceptable levels and that the principles of section 2 of National Environmental Management Act (Act no. 107 of 1998) can be upheld.

I have accordingly decided to grant National Ports Authority of South Africa, Port of Cape Town authorisation in terms of regulations under Government Notice No. R. 1183 (as amended) promulgated under section 22, 26 and 28 of the Environment Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989), subject to the conditions and provisions stipulated in Section 6 of this record of decision.

6. CONDITIONS

6.1 DESCRIPTION AND EXTENT OF THE ACTIVITY

The authorization applies in respect of the reconfiguration of the existing container terminal together with the clearing and development of the onshore areas of the container terminal to make provision for stacking areas as further described in Paragraph 1 of this record of decision (RoD).

6.2 GENERAL CONDITIONS

6.2.1 This authorisation is granted in terms of section 22 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989) and does not exempt the holder thereof from compliance with any other legislation.

6.2.2 One week’s notice, in writing, must be given to this department before commencement of the construction activity. Such notice shall make clear reference to the site location details and reference number given above.

6.2.3 The applicant must, within 7 calendar days of receipt of this record of decision inform all interested and affected parties of the following that the authorisation has been issued to the applicant to proceed with the construction and operation of the activity. If requested, provide copies of this record of decision.

6.2.4 The applicant must notify this department, in writing, within 48 hours therefore if any condition of the authorisation is not complied with.

6.2.5 A copy of the authorisation should be made available on site during construction and all staff, contractors and sub-constructors should be familiar with or be made familiar of the contents of this authorisation. In addition the applicant must take measures necessary to bind such persons to comply with the contents of this authorisation.

6.2.6 Records relating to the compliance and non-compliance with the conditions of this authorisation must be kept in good order. Such records shall be made available to this department within seven days of receipt of a written request by the department for such records.

6.2.7 Changes in the project resulting in significant environmental impacts are only permissible if approved in writing by this department.

6.2.8 This department may add to, change and or amend any of the conditions in this authorisation if, in the opinion of the department, the addition, change or amendments are environmentally justified.

6.2.9 This department must be notified, within 30 days thereof, of any change of ownership and or project developer. Conditions imposed in this authorisation must be made known to the new owner and/or developer and are binding to them

6.2.10 This department must be notified of any change of address of the applicant within 48 hours.

6.2.11 If any conditions imposed in terms of this authorisation are not being complied with, the authorisation may be withdrawn after 30 days written notice to the applicant in terms of section 22(4) of the Environment Conservation Act (Act No. 73 of 1989).

6.2.12 Failure to comply with any of these conditions shall be regarded as an offence and may be dealt with in terms of sections 29,30,31 and 31A of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 ( Act No. 73 of 1989), as well as any other appropriate legal mechanisms.

6.2.13 The applicant shall be responsible for all costs necessary to comply with the above conditions unless otherwise specified.

6.2.14 Any complaint from the public during the construction and operation of the development must be attended to as soon as possible to the satisfaction of the parties concerned. A complaint register must be kept up to date and shall be produced upon request.

6.2.15 Any changes to or deviations from the project description set out in this authorisation must be approved, in writing, by the department before such changes or deviations may be affected. In evaluating such changes, the department may request such information as it deems necessary to evaluate the significance and impacts of such changes.

6.3 SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

6.3.1 The NPA must appoint or designate an official (environmental control officer) whose duty will be to ensure that the conditions stipulated in this record of decision are implemented. The name of such an environmental control officer shall be made available to the authorities for communication purposes.

6.3.2 An integrated waste management approach that is based on best practice that incorporates reduction, recycling, re-uses and disposal should be used. Any solid waste must be disposed of at a landfill, licensed in terms of section 20 of the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989).

6.3.3 All provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, 85 of 1993 and any other applicable legislation must be adhered to by the holder of this authorisation.

6.3.4 Mitigation measures stipulated in the environmental impact report become part of this authorization. Non-compliance with any of these mitigation measures constitutes non-compliance with this record of decision.

7. SITE VISITS

Site visits were undertaken on different occasions by:

Mr V Matubane - National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Mr Fezile Ndema - National Ports Authority of South Africa
Ms Marelize Oosthuisen - Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning

And again consequent upon the appeal process by:
Mrs L McCourt - National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Mr W Fourie - National Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Mr R Basson - National Ports Authority

8. DURATION AND DATE OF EXPIRY

If the activity authorised by this record of decision does not commence within a period of 5 (five) years from the date of signature of this record of decision, the authorisation will lapse and the applicant will need to reapply in terms of the applicable legislation or any amendments thereto.

9. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE

The applicant must comply with the conditions set out in this record of decision. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions may result in, inter alia, the department withdrawing the authorisation, issuing directives to address the non-compliance including an order to cease the activity as well as instituting criminal and or civil proceedings to enforce compliance.

Please note that this revised record of decision is issued as part of the Minister’s decision on the appeals lodged in terms of Section 35 (3) of the Act against the authorisation granted by the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism on 12 November 2004.

MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MP
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
Date: 21 September 2007
Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Embargo: 15:00 on Monday 24 September 2007

NOTE TO EDITORS:

Marthinus van Schalkwyk, Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, will today be addressing a High-Level Event on Climate Change at the United Nations in New York on invitation from the UN Secretary General. Minister van Schalkwyk will speak on behalf of South Africa at the plenary dealing with mitigating climate change. For more information please go to http://www.un.org/climatechange/2007highlevel/

Minister van Schalkwyk will be traveling from New York to Washington where he will on Wednesday 26 September 2007 deliver a keynote address at the International Emissions Trading Association.

On Thursday and Friday 27 and 28 September 2007 Minister van Schalkwyk will be representing South Africa at a meeting called by President Bush, the Major Economies Meeting on Climate Change and Energy Security, which Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, will Chair. Minister van Schalkwyk will be delivering the statement on behalf of South Africa at this meeting. South Africa is the only African country to have been invited.

STATEMENT BY MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM, DELIVERED AT THE HIGH-LEVEL CLIMATE CHANGE EVENT ON 24 SEPTEMBER 2007 AT THE UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK

Co -Chairs,

On behalf of South Africa I would like to thank the Secretary General for creating this opportunity to reflect on ways of urgently advancing the multilateral negotiations under the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol.

The science is clear. Climate change is a fact, and d elaying climate action will hit poor countries and communities hardest. The economic case for action is simple: the costs of inaction far outweigh the costs of action and early action costs less.

With the scientific and economic case so clearly made, we have to reach agreement, by the end of 2009, on a fair, effective, flexible and inclusive framework that builds on the existing climate regime and the established principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities'. To this end, when we meet in Bali at the end of this year, we must agree to a Road Map for negotiations for the next 2 years.

Though countries have different responsibilities, we have a common responsibility to act in accordance with our respective national capabilities. Moving forward will therefore require participation by all developed countries under the Kyoto track, and the conversion of the key issues that emerged in the Convention Dialogue into meaningful negotiations for enhanced and incentivised developing country action.

Ultimately, political consensus by 2009 will depend on a package deal that balances the key interests and concerns of all Parties. The starting point must be equity. A core balance between sustainable development and climate imperatives, and between historical responsibility for the problem and taking responsibility for the future, will have to be the basis of any agreement. It must be flexible enough to accommodate country-specific aspects. And it must be inclusive.

Women and children are particularly vulnerable in the face of the devastating impacts of climate change. For South Africa the mainstreaming of gender and youth in climate policy, decision-making and implementation, is therefore a cross-cutting priority.

Co-Chairs, in designing a strengthened regime we should focus our efforts on five key building blocks. These are (i) adaptation, (ii) mitigation, (iii) dealing with the unintended consequences of response measures, (iv) technology development, diffusion and commercialization, and (v) financing and investment.

If an equitable balance is not achieved, or a building block is left out, it will be very difficult to reach an agreement by 2009.

Turning to the theme of this Plenary, it is clear that there are three mitigation strands that have to be woven into one multilateral framework.
o Firstly, more ambitious and quantified emission reduction targets for all developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol.
o Secondly, re-engagement of the USA and Australia in the full multilateral process and binding emission reductions.
o And thirdly, recognition of, and incentives for enhanced mitigation action by developing countries.

The global leadership required from developed countries is well defined in the Convention and Protocol. Carbon markets will be a key element. To fuel demand in the carbon market, deeper emission cuts based on ambitious mid-term targets for all developed countries will be required. Linked to the creative development of market-based instruments on the supply side, this will support developing countries to do more.

On the part of developing countries, building on our existing contributions, a range of measurable actions could be undertaken. In addition to participation in up-scaled CDM activities, this could include sustainable development policies and measures (SD PAMS), or reducing emissions from deforestation (REDD). Such measurable, reportable and verifiable policies and measures would have to be supported by technology and should be enabled by financing and investment.

In the adaptation area of work, South Africa favours an approach where implementation goes beyond the mainstreaming of adaptive activities with development planning. In terms of multilateral funding for adaptation, the challenge will be to up-scale the available resources with two to three orders of magnitude, without introducing new conditionalities for, or diverting existing overseas development assistance away from the urgent development and poverty reduction challenges faced by developing countries.

Co-Chairs, in summary , achieving a balance between climate stabilization and sustainable development is essentially in the hands of developed countries. The trigger to strengthen the regime must come from the North. Full participation by the world's largest historical emitter, the United States, is a prerequisite. Likewise, a credible and substantive offer from developed countries to address development and distributional issues in the future climate regime will be required. This will create the necessary trust and incentives to conclude, by 2009, negotiations on a fair, effective, flexible and inclusive climate regime after 2012.

In Bali we must lay the foundations for an agreement that will enable future generations to look back and know that we understood the gravity of the problem at hand and that we turned talk into action and discussions into negotiations.
ENQUIRIES: RIAAN AUCAMP

Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Embargo: 14:00 on Wednesday 26 September 2007
Note to Editors:

Marthinus van Schalkwyk, Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, will today deliver a keynote address at the International Emissions Trading Association in Washington DC. On Thursday and Friday 27 and 28 September 2007 Minister van Schalkwyk will be representing South Africa at a meeting called by President Bush, the Major Economies Meeting on Climate Change and Energy Security, which Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, will Chair. Minister van Schalkwyk will be delivering the statement on behalf of South Africa at this meeting. South Africa is the only African country to have been invited.

On Monday 24 September 2007, the Minister addressed a High-Level Event on Climate Change at the United Nations in New York on invitation from the UN Secretary General.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, SOUTH AFRICAN MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM AT THE 7TH FORUM ON THE STATE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE GREENHOUSE GAS MARKET, INTERNATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING ASSOCIATION (IETA), WASHINGTON DC, 26 SEPTEMBER 2007

INTERNATIONAL EMISSIONS TRADING ASSOCIATION (IETA)

The pace of climate change negotiations is out of step with the urgency indicated by science. With the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol ending in 2012, we are approaching a key point in the increasingly urgent task facing us.

Achieving climate stability requires individual nations to rise above short term self-interest for the benefit of the long term common good. And though we have different responsibilities, we all have a common responsibility to act in accordance with our national capabilities.

In working towards a fair, effective, flexible and inclusive climate regime beyond 2012, the message from a developing country perspective is clear: We take our responsibilities seriously. We are already making a meaningful contribution within our respective capabilities. We are willing to do more. But the trigger must come from the North. Besides broadening participation to include the world’s largest historical emitter - the United States - creating a more empowering technology and financing framework will be a precondition. A core of the solution underpinning any future agreement must be a balance between sustainable development and climate imperatives, and between historical responsibility for the problem and taking responsibility for the future.

When we meet in Bali in December this year, we should agree on a process to conclude negotiations, by 2009, on a strengthened climate regime that builds on the UNFCCC and its Kyoto Protocol. This process should be outlined in a Bali Road Map.

Chair, success by 2009, and beyond, will depend on our collective political will to strike a balance between five key areas of work, namely adaptation; mitigation; managing the unintended consequences of climate policies and measures for the economies of other countries; technology development, diffusion and commercialization; and also financing and investment.

No agreement on the international climate architecture will be complete, or politically feasible, if adaptation is not accorded much higher priority in our deliberations. Moving from vulnerability assessments to the implementation of those adaptive activities indicated in such assessments is critical. This will require financial resources to be up-scaled by two to three orders of magnitude. New sources of funding could come from both market and non-market sources, for example, the proceeds of the auctioning of emission allowances in Annex B countries, involuntary levies against emissions, user charges and/or the extension of the 2% Adaptation Fund levy to all 3 Kyoto Protocol flexible mechanisms.

Chair, turning to mitigation, there are three strands that have to be woven into one multilateral framework.

- Firstly, more ambitious and quantified emission reduction targets for all developed countries under the Kyoto Protocol.
- Secondly, re-engagement of the USA in the full multilateral process and binding emission reductions.
- and thirdly, recognition of, and incentives for enhanced mitigation action by developing countries.

In this context, initiatives such as the US hosted Major Economies Meeting are welcome as meaningful contributions to the multilateral process. The outcome of this initiative should contribute to the building of bridges to enable the transition from the fragmented status quo to a coherent regime where all Annex I Parties take on quantified emission reduction targets.

Chair, the science tells us that greenhouse gas emissions must peak and decline within the next 10 to 15 years. We cannot delay taking real action. Therefore, commitments by some Annex I Parties which focus on voluntary “pledge and review”, or emissions intensity or long term research and development, will not be an adequate substitute for absolute emission reduction targets.

Chair, carbon markets will remain an important element in the climate architecture after 2012. In this regard, three issues deserve some attention, namely (1) broadening the scope of the Clean Development Mechanism, (2) de-fragmenting the status quo, and (3) ensuring a more equitable geographic spread of CDM projects.

Long term ambitious commitments and much stricter mid-term targets for emission cuts by all developed countries would be critical to fuel demand in the carbon market. This would also ensure that we maintain price levels, it would provide adequate time horizons for investors, and at the same time it would increase investment in low carbon economic growth in developing countries. Should the regime evolve to include new gasses or asset classes after 2012, there should be a concomitant increase in stringency of emission reduction targets.

An all-encompassing global carbon market regime which includes all developed countries is the first and ultimate aim. However, it may be that the market does not evolve this way in the short term. In this instance, it is essential to create linkages between the various national or regional cap-and-trade carbon markets, as a first step leading to full de-fragmentation.

On the supply side, several approaches for extending the architecture of the CDM have been suggested. This includes proposals to extend the CDM to economic sectors and/or policies. Common to these proposals is the recognition that we can achieve more for both the atmosphere and sustainable development under an enhanced CDM. Likewise, a number of proposals have been made to appropriately scale the CDM to also incentivise smaller mitigation projects.

South Africa recognizes that the evolution of the Clean Development Mechanism and the further creative development of market mechanisms could provide up-scaled incentives for developing countries to enhance their climate action. But then this should be based on the modification of the existing architecture, drawing on the valuable lessons learned during the first commitment period, rather than a newly designed framework.

Chair, whilst the development of large scale CDM projects is important, many of the economies in Africa have small to minor mitigation potentials. We must therefore find a way to seize the opportunities that exist to develop appropriate small scale mitigation projects, simple in structure and finance, but with high contributions to sustainable development.

Finally, Chair, we should also recognise that carbon markets can assist in driving investment in low carbon technologies up to a point. In addition to participation in Kyoto carbon markets, South Africa supports a strategic approach of sustainable development policies and measures, or so-called SD-PAMS, for developing countries.

An SD-PAM would be a commitment to implement a policy or measure that makes the development path of a country more sustainable, and with climate co-benefits. Because SD-PAMs focus on large-scale policies and measures and are not limited to projects or programmes, the co-benefits may be substantial.

Funding for implementation could come from both climate and non-climate sources; and from public as well as private investment. Some SD-PAMs can also be designed to provide market-based opportunities, linking them to this potentially large source of climate-friendly investment. But policy actions should ideally be linked to other incentives that address incremental cost gaps and facilitate the deployment of low carbon technologies on preferential terms.

The SD-PAMS approach makes it possible for developing countries to pledge measurable, reportable and verifiable mitigation actions, supported by technology and enabled by finance, and consistent with their sustainable development objectives. These would be measurable mitigation actions, but of a different kind than quantified targets for developed countries.

Chair, in conclusion, we realize that we must all act with a greater sense of urgency. We are looking to the US as the world’s largest historical emitter to play a global leadership role. No nation has the inherent right to hold to ransom the future of all nations. We need a clear and credible signal from the North - and for our part, we stand ready to take on our fair share of responsibility.
Riaan Aucamp