Our Reporter caught up with the Principal Climate Change Scientist in the Ministry of Environment, Climate, and Wildlife, Mr. Tirivanhu Muhwati, on the sidelines of the preparatory technical meeting recently ahead of the 29th Conference of Parties (COP29) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
- Given the current state of the carbon market in Zimbabwe, what key reforms and institutional structures do you believe are necessary to ensure its integrity, effectiveness, and equitable benefits for the country and its communities?
We need to have a stand-alone institution that governs the carbon markets in Zimbabwe that registers all projects and ensures that all projects give back to the communities in which they are implementing those projects. An institution that looks at the technical aspects of the implementation of these projects. Are the carbon credits really being generated? Is there any climate action that is really taking place when these carbon credits are being claimed globally? And then there’s also the need to ensure that we check all the carbon credits that are generated in Zimbabwe from the time they are generated to the time they are sold internationally to ensure that Zimbabwe benefits financially from those transactions. And then the legislative framework will also be there to ensure that it empowers society; it empowers local governments to ensure that they have a stake in the carbon projects that are being undertaken in Zimbabwe. It also will come up with guidelines in terms of making sure that there is pre- and prior-informed consent before a project is undertaken and that communities agree to a project before it’s implemented.
- Could you please provide an overview of the current state of the carbon market in Zimbabwe, including the key players, existing regulations, and challenges faced?
Currently, we have several players that are within the carbon credit space. They are mostly exerting their carbon credits on the voluntary market. And as you might know, there’s a regulation, SI 150 of 2023, that aims at regulating that market. But through the Climate Change Act, we would want to strengthen what is within the statutory instrument. And then trading on the voluntary markets does not provide the maximum benefits to Zimbabwe. One in terms of the impact on the environment, the systems that are there to regulate, monitor, and verify the carbon credits are a bit lax on the voluntary market. And then we need to strengthen them by making sure that we move all our projects to the compliance market. The compliance market is a market that has more environmental integrity and where the prices of carbon credits are many times higher than on the voluntary market. Because on the voluntary market, you understand you are selling to someone or an organisation that is buying at its own will. But on the compliance market, this is where you buy because you need to meet the needs of a law or of a policy in a certain country. And some countries actually say that for the carbon credits you are buying, the minimum price you are supposed to pay for that particular credit is so much. So that then gives price guarantees; it also provides much more money. Rather than getting $10 per credit in the voluntary market, you can be able to get $50 or $60 US dollars per credit on the compliance market.
- In your presentation, you emphasised the interconnectedness of climate action and nature conservation. Could you elaborate on how these two areas can be more effectively integrated into Zimbabwe’s environmental policies?
As a nation, we should break the silos between climate action and action that is happening in the other fields of environment, looking at biodiversity and so forth. So you find that there is a lot of action happening in terms of conservation of nature and so forth. And then there’s a lot of action happening in terms of preserving the climate system. But things are happening in some kind of silos, and yet these things are connected together. You look at the issue of wetlands; addressing wetlands also addresses climate change in a lot of ways in terms of preserving water and so forth, and preserving the methane that is within the wetlands so that it’s not emitted and so forth. Preserving forests at the same time assists in terms of fighting climate change. But these things are being done; they are fragmented. So you have resources that are dedicated for forests and then resources dedicated for climate. To make better use of resources, since we are addressing largely the same kind of things, we are supposed to have these things meshed together. Then we can be more efficient in terms of the use of resources, which I’ve discussed at the moment.
- Given the upcoming update of Zimbabwe’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), could you elaborate on the process and timeline for these revisions? Additionally, what are the key areas of focus for these updates, and how will they contribute to Zimbabwe’s climate goals?
They are already in place. They need to be updated. Yes, every country needs to update. In what way are we yet to conduct these studies because you conduct mass studies in terms of economic activity that’s happening within your country? And then from the study, you can then be able to tell the sector, we are emitting so much from where. As a country, realistically, we can reduce by taking action in a certain way. And then you put that as a contribution to your national determination that Zimbabwe is going to undertake conservation agriculture for two million hectares every year until we get to the end of it. So it needs to be scientifically based, and it needs to be in tandem with the rest of your policies as far as we can implement it.
- Given the critical role of climate finance in addressing Zimbabwe’s climate challenges, what strategies does the government envision to attract and incentivise both domestic and international investors in this sector?
There are supposed to be incentives. This is why we want to come up with the National Climate Fund. So if a national climate A fundis a standalone or quasi-government body that has powers to undertake some of the works that are needed; for example, if you have resources, you might have private companies that want to reduce emissions, but they don’t have the upfront capital for them to invest in new equipment and machinery. So the government can provide those resources through such a fund. And when these companies are running, they can then pay back the money over a long period of time, probably provide favourable interest rates, and so forth, which are maybe lower than the interest that you might get from a commercial entity, just as an example. But you would also want to incentivise communities that are also already doing a lot of work, planting trees, and so forth. There can be direct benefits to them as they undertake such work.
