Potential for, and costs of, reducing greenhouse gas emissions from nonenergy sources in South Africa

Abstract

The South African Government commissioned a detailed study entitled Long-Term Mitigation Scenarios (LTMS). This study defined and quantified the mitigation options and associated costs available under several energy and economic futures. Following a high-level process based on the outcomes of the LTMS, Cabinet adopted a vision, strategic direction and framework for policy on climate change mitigation. Most of the studies on mitigation costs focus on the energy sector, but less is known about the costs of mitigation in non-energy sectors. This is of particular importance in many developing countries where non-energy sectors are substantial contributors to national emissions. The non-energy sectors include waste management and several forms of land use: forestry, crop agriculture, animal management. The options for mitigation were assessed and prioritized. The following six options were selected for more detailed analysis: 1) increasing afforestation; 2) shifting to low or non-till farming practices; 3) changes in livestock management to reduce emissions from enteric fermentation; 4) improvements in manure management options; 5) fire control and 6) improved waste management. A spreadsheet-based financial model was developed to analyse annual and cumulative mitigation potential and costs of the mitigation options, compared to baseline scenario costs. Only CO2 and CH4 emissions were considered. Levelised annual costs, expressed as a marginal cost of CO2-eq reduction were calculated. The results showed that fire control is the most cost effective option per unit of avoided emission and has the highest mitigation potential. Fire control has a negative mitigation cost because of the cobenefits from reducing fire damage. Its mitigation potential is further enhanced by the concurrent process of bush encroachment, which provides a CO2 sink lasting several decades in the affected areas. Many recent studies have shown that actual levels of greenhouse gases (GHG) mitigation are far below the technical potential for existing mitigation options. The gap is caused by mitigation costs and other barriers. This study improved understanding of the mitigation potential and provided some quantitative assessment of the costs for the non-energy sector for South Africa. The study limitations were also described and areas of further research recommended