Botswana’s NDCs, like those of many other countries, most probably present a facade of commitment to climate action while failing to deliver substantive progress, writes DOUGLAS RASBASH
Botswana has finally submitted its revised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) to the United Nations some three years late. NDCs are pivotal to the Paris Agreement’s ambition of curbing global warming. They embody each country’s climate action plan to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and adapt to climate impacts. However, the effectiveness of NDCs is increasingly under scrutiny, with many nations underperforming and using these commitments as tools for greenwashing.
Botswana’s NDCs serve as a compelling example of this troubling trend. According to the UNPCC only a few revised NDCs show any enhanced ambitions, and with business as usual, threaten to increase global temperatures by 3.5C, which will be very serious for a high climate risk country. Botswana, while itself contributing little to emissions per se, is quite prepared to export and profit from millions of tons of coal.
Botswana’s NDCs: An Overview
Botswana submitted its first NDC in 2015, using 2010 as the base year. This document estimated the country’s GHG emissions and projected an increase to 22,098 Gg CO2eq by 2030, based on the expansion of thermal power stations and an annual population growth of 1.8% and GDP growth of 3%. The updated NDC, which uses 2015 as the base year, projects national GHG emissions to rise to approximately 22,732 Gg CO2eq by 2030. This slight increase is consistent with the first NDC, factoring in the development of a 600MW coal-fired power station.
Mitigation Measures and Projections
The updated NDC outlines various mitigation measures intended to reduce emissions. If fully implemented, these measures could potentially avoid approximately 4,130 Gg CO2eq, achieving a 15% reduction in emissions by 2030. The identified measures span multiple sectors, including energy, industrial processes and product use (IPPU), and agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU).
For the energy sector, Botswana’s NDCs highlight ambitious plans to diversify the energy mix, promote renewable energy and implement energy efficiency programmes. Key initiatives include developing solar photovoltaic (PV) plants, wind power, biogas power plants, and concentrated solar power (CSP) systems. The projections and targets seem promising on paper, with significant contributions expected from these renewable energy sources.
The Reality: Underperformance and Greenwashing
But inspite of these seemingly robust plans, the actual implementation and impact of Botswana’s NDCs tell a different story. Several factors contribute to the underperformance and potential greenwashing inherent in these commitments:
- Reliance on Coal: Botswana continues to rely heavily on coal for electricity production. The construction and operation of a 600MW coal-fired power station, projected to contribute approximately 10,176 Gg CO2eq by 2030, undermines the mitigation efforts outlined in the NDCs. Furthermore, the government supports Coal Bed Methane production despite methane being a highly significant greenhouse gas. The coalbed methane and coal-to-liquid projects are not included in the NDC. This reliance on coal and coal derivatives contradicts the country’s stated commitment to reducing emissions.
- Conditionality of Measures: Many of the proposed mitigation measures are conditional, depending on international financial and technical support. For instance, substantial GHG reductions from solar PV, wind power, and CSP are listed as conditional. This conditionality casts doubt on the feasibility of these measures because securing necessary support is uncertain.
- Inadequate Policy Implementation: While Botswana’s NDCs articulate comprehensive policies and strategies, the actual implementation has been sluggish. For example, the national renewable energy strategy and energy efficiency programmes, though well-intentioned, have seen limited progress. The private sector’s engagement in these initiatives has also been minimal.
- Overestimation of Emission Reductions: The projected emission reductions from mitigation measures appear overly optimistic. The reliance on technological advancements and large-scale deployment of renewables, without substantial groundwork, raises concerns about the realism of these targets.
- Lack of Transparency and Accountability: Monitoring, reporting, and verifying (MRV) the progress of NDCs is critical for transparency and accountability. Botswana’s NDCs lack a robust MRV framework, making it challenging to track actual emission reductions and assess the effectiveness of mitigation measures.
- Scant Public Mention and Lack of MDC Rollout: Despite the importance of NDCs, there is scant mention of them in public statements by the government. This lack of communication hinders public awareness and engagement with the country’s climate goals. Additionally, the transition from NDCs to more localised Mitigation Determined Contributions (MDCs) is missing, further complicating the implementation and monitoring of these commitments.
Conclusion
Given the tardy response by Botswana to revising its NDC and the fact that this public document is generally unavailable, one might be forgiven to thinking that the government lacks serious intent. Indeed, public statements are few, NDC compliant sectoral plans rare and media coverage non-existent. Botswana’s NDCs, like those of many other countries, most probably present a facade of commitment to climate action while failing to deliver substantive progress.
The reliance on coal, conditionality of key measures, inadequate policy implementation, overestimation of emission reductions, lack of transparency, and insufficient public communication contribute to this underperformance. As the world grapples with the escalating climate crisis, it is imperative that nations move beyond mere rhetoric and take decisive, tangible actions to reduce emissions and transition to sustainable energy systems.
Without this shift, NDCs risk becoming tools for greenwashing rather than genuine instruments of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Let us hope we are mistaken.