Making a Case for Natural Gas as a Transition Fuel to a Renewable based Future for Sub-Saharan Africa:
'CBDR-RC' Principle to the rescue
Given the recent proposal by the European Commission (EC) to label natural gas and nuclear power as ‘Green’ energy sources as part of the European Union’s (EU) classification scheme for energy investments, and my earlier position on the subject, it is worth considering whether natural gas can be considered as being a ‘transition’ fuel across Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). I posited in a previous write-up that it may be worth labelling both natural gas and nuclear power sources as ‘transitional’ energy sources but not ‘green’ energy sources, on the basis that they do not emanate from natural sources and hence cannot be labelled as ‘green’ which would amount to what is popularly known as ‘green washing’- a false/irresponsible claim made by companies under the guise of cleaning the environment.
The key question is whether a case can be made for natural gas as transition fuel across Sub-Saharan Africa, to serve as a gateway for the region to transition to a ‘renewable-based future’, albeit on a longer trajectory, and on what basis?
Based on a computation of the percentage of energy usage per country, given the fuel mix dynamics across SSA, fossil fuel has the highest composition at 58.13%, hydro has the second highest composition at 36.57%, followed by geothermal (2.99%), solar (1.35%), wind (0.86%) and nuclear (0.10%). It is thus clear that fossil fuels constitute the majority share in the overall energy mix. On a granular basis, there are at least 15 countries in SSA with natural gas composition in their respective domestic energy mixes, with the top three performers being Equatorial Guinea (90%), Ivory Coast (83%) and Nigeria (80%). From a regional perspective, West Africa has the highest share on natural gas composition in the regional energy mix, with a percentile of 42% and from a global standpoint, natural gas accounts for 22.8% of the world energy mix with SSA’s composition amounting to 9.5%. There is no doubt that natural gas is a mainstay fuel source across SSA, given its large composition from a national and regional perspective.
How can SSA adequately label natural gas as a ‘transition’ fuel as the region journeys towards a ‘renewable-based future’ in line with the global energy transition? Natural gas is a relatively low carbon energy source when compared to oil and coal. It is worth mentioning that the energy transition pathway for SSA, given its peculiarities may witness a longer trajectory in the race to ‘Net-Zero’. SSA is at the point where all available resources must be explored and deployed to address the challenges of energy access and energy poverty, whilst recognising domestic and global environmental responsibilities.
The principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities and Respective Capabilities (CBDR-RC or CBDR) which is a principle of international environmental law, acknowledges that all states have shared obligations to address environmental destruction but denies equal responsibility of all states regarding environmental protection. It is a principle that was formalized in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, 1992. The principle is captured in Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration stating that ‘…States have common but differentiated responsibilities’, UNFCCC 1992, Article 3.1 ‘…the Parties should protect the climate system…on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities…’ and Article 4.1 ‘…All parties taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances…’.
What makes the responsibility ‘Common’ is the shared obligation towards the protection of an environmental resource, in this case ‘Natural resources’ which although has been arguably viewed as the ‘property’ of a single state has also been viewed by another divide as being a ‘shared resource’ subject to a common legal interest, thus in effect belonging to no state. These arguments border around the ownership and control of natural resources and the attendant principles under international law (such as permanent sovereignty over natural resources) which is outside the scope of this piece.
‘Differentiated’ responsibility on the other hand is widely accepted and recognised in treaties and other practice of states. It encompasses differentiated environmental standards hinged on a range of factors including special needs and circumstances, future economic development of developing countries and historic contributions to the environmental problem. In the context of climate change, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identifies four categories of inequality- (i) asymmetry in contribution to climate change (past and present); (ii) vulnerability to the impacts of climate change; (iii) capacity to mitigate the problem; and (iv) power to decide on solutions.
CBDR is posited to be based on the relationship between industrialization and climate change as the more industrialized a country is, the more likely that such a country has contributed to climate change. Thus, developed countries have greater responsibility for climate change mitigation than developing countries and should therefore take the lead in combating climate change and the attendant adverse effect. This is further buttressed in Articles 2.2 and 4.4 of the Paris Agreement which states respectively that:
‘This Agreement will be implemented to reflect equity and the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national circumstances’ (Article 2.2).
‘Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances’ (Article 4.4).
The provisions are applicable to all signatories of the Agreement given the bindingness of the Paris Agreement in terms of its legal nature and procedural commitments which several countries have adopted domestically. It has been stated that the Paris Agreement has achieved a balance between the drive for ambitious climate action and the requirement for fairness in effort sharing amongst parties.
Whilst this is not a pass for developing countries, the point is that given the large share of natural gas reserves and the level of industrialization across SSA and Africa in general, with minimal contribution to climate change (per capita energy consumption across Africa is generally low) viewed alongside the huge electricity access gap across the region that has resulted in significant energy poverty across the region, natural gas being the cleanest of all fossil fuels has to be utilised alongside strategies and mechanisms to achieve carbon neutrality; but more importantly to lift the region out of energy poverty.
The approach adopted for SSA must be tailor-made on the back of the CBDR principle that acknowledges the common goal (abating the effects of climate change) but also recognises the different capabilities and responsibilities of countries. For SSA, it is a case of survival, as over 700 million people without access to electricity is too large a gap to ignore. To do that will be unjust, inequitable and in flagrant disregard of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030 Agenda which seeks to ‘leave no one behind’. The energy transition pathway for SSA must be fair, just, and equitable. It is worth mentioning that as developing countries become industrialized and increase their pressure on the global environment alongside their capabilities, it is expected that they will assume greater responsibilities within the framework of international environmental law.