Introduction
In the last decade, debates on the global impact of climate change have become topical among policymakers, civil society organisations and the corporate sector, despite the link between greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change being ignored in mainstream policymaking little more than 20 years ago. Moreover, conservative groups with ties to the hydro-carbon industry in Western countries were the most vocal critics of climate change and global warming. However, within the last decade, there is now substantial and compelling evidence linking industrial capitalism to the current climate crisis. Although there remain climate change denialists among policymakers in major Western capitalist countries such as the United States, growing evidence on the rise in temperature and its implications globally forced governments (including conservative ones) to sign the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC 2023a) during the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2015 (COP21). The Paris Agreement is legally binding and has been signed by 196 countries. It seeks to ‘hold the increase in global temperature to well below 2 degrees below pre-industrial levels’ as a way of reversing global warming. According to a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2023, 14) ‘global surface temperature will continue to increase until at least mid-century under all emissions scenarios considered. Global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C will be exceeded during the 21st century unless deep reductions in CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions occur in the coming decades.’ The report also notes that without deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, especially by 2040:
many changes in the climate system become larger in direct relation to increasing global warming. They include increases in the frequency and intensity of hot extremes, marine heatwaves, heavy precipitation, and, in some regions, agricultural and ecological droughts; an increase in the proportion of intense tropical cyclones; and reductions in Arctic Sea ice, snow cover and permafrost. (IPCC 2023, 15)
The contradictions of the environmental emergency on the African continent are particularly stark, with the region contributing the least, proportionally, to destructive carbon emissions. Extreme weather events such as cyclones are now a regular occurrence in Southern Africa, affecting thousands of people in South Africa, Madagascar, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Zambia and Malawi. A World Food Programme report on climate change in Southern Africa (2021) notes that in the last decade, the region has recorded cereal deficits of between 0.1 to 8.9 million metric tons. In addition, Southern Africa faced its most severe drought during the 2016 El Nino, which left many people across the region vulnerable to food shortages. Due to histories of colonial subjugation and underdevelopment, the former settler colonies of Southern Africa are already suffering from economic stagnation, de-industrialisation (in the cases of Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi and Mozambique) and high levels of unemployment and inflation. This makes them poorly prepared to deal with extra burden that climate change imposes, with the severe weather patterns which are regularly affecting their populations.
This article examines how the climate crisis is unfolding across Southern Africa, arguing that it must be conceptualised from a decolonial perspective in order to highlight the West’s historical role as a major contributor to GHG emissions and thus responsible for global warming. Given this historical role, the West must shoulder the financial responsibility for climate disasters disproportionately affecting global South nations. This approach echoes the concept of ‘loss and damage’ introduced by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2023b), through which nations would be owed compensation by the globe’s polluters. The article does not claim to be exhaustive; it is a broad overview of the climate crisis in Southern Africa. There is a need for more in-depth studies to investigate the long-term impact of the climate change-induced extreme weather events on economies in the region. The article is largely based on a review of literature and other sources such as IPCC, NGO and media reports on climate disasters.
The climate crisis in Southern Africa
The regularity and intensity of cyclones and other extreme weather events in Southern Africa and other regions of the world have demonstrated that it is often poor and economically marginalised people who suffer most from the vagaries of climate change. In the last five years, Pakistan, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Mozambique and Malawi have all been affected by floods which destroyed homes and crops and left people economically vulnerable. The European Union Emissions Database for Atmospheric Research (EDGAR 2023) indicates that global GHG emissions are on an upward trajectory, with Western countries being the major contributors while Southern Africa countries contribute insignificant amounts. However, these Southern African countries bear the brunt of the climate crisis, often without the social and economic capacity to quickly recover from them.
What is more worrying is that these extreme weather events are now occurring regularly, with devastating consequences for the region’s poor rural communities. For example, Cyclone Freddy, which swept across the region in 2023, broke several records. Its:
reemergence … baffled meteorologists with its constant shift of direction and multiple record-breaking feats. In an unusual pattern, the cyclone intensified four separate times, a first for a tropical cyclone in the southern hemisphere. It also now holds the world record for what is known as accumulated cyclone energy, a metric to gauge a cyclone's strength over time. (OCHA 2023)
Some reports also show how climate change is accelerating the regularity of cyclones and their tendency to ‘reemerge and shift direction’ and in the process cause widespread destruction along their paths. Moreover, climate change is making ‘hurricanes wetter, windier and stronger as oceans tend to absorb much of the heat from GHG emissions and when warm sea water evaporates, its heat energy is transferred to the atmosphere thus fuelling more destructive storms’ (Dickie 2022). The recent IPCC report (2023, 15) notes that:
With every additional increment of global warming, changes in extremes continue to become larger. For example, every additional 0.5°C of global warming causes clearly discernible increases in the intensity and frequency of hot extremes, including heatwaves, and heavy precipitation, as well as agricultural and ecological droughts in some regions.
The devastating Tropical Cyclone Freddy which has ripped through southern Africa in a rare second landfall has killed at least 216 people in Malawi and Mozambique … with the death toll expected to rise. Heavy rains that triggered floods and mudslides have killed 199 people in Malawi, authorities said Tuesday. President Lazarus Chakwera declared a ‘state of disaster’ in the country's southern region and the now-ravaged commercial capital, Blantyre. Some 19,000 people in the south … have been displaced, according to Malawi's disaster management directorate.
Tropical Cyclone Freddy hit Malawi as the country was facing one of the worst cholera outbreaks in recent history, as well as high food insecurity at the peak of the lean season. More than 50,000 cholera cases and 1,700 cholera deaths had been reported in Malawi prior to the cyclone, and even though a decline in cases had been observed, the situation is likely to worsen as result of the impacts of Tropical Cyclone Freddy. Additionally, 3.8 million people were facing acute food insecurity.
Cyclone Freddy struck only a few years after the deadly Cyclone Idai swept across the region in 2019, displacing thousands of people and damaging infrastructure in Madagascar, Mozambique and Zimbabwe. In Zimbabwe, Cyclone Idai affected an estimated 270,000 people, with some losing their lives and many injured by mudslides and flooding. An Oxfam report (Chatiza 2019) notes that the ‘storm and subsequent flooding and landslides left 340 people dead and many others missing. Agriculture, schools and infrastructure all suffered heavy impacts.’ A few years after the devastating effects of Cyclone Idai, another slow-moving storm struck KwaZulu-Natal province in South Africa in 2022, bringing ‘long periods of heavy rain … which caused flooding and mudslides in Durban and surrounding areas, affecting over 40,000 people and leaving a trail of destruction’ (JBA Risk Management 2022).
Apart from triggering waterborne diseases, cyclones displace people by damaging their houses and public infrastructure such as roads, schools and hospitals. For example, in Madagascar, Cyclone Freddy displaced thousands of people:
At least four people … have died and 11,000 have been displaced by the storm’s passage. More than 4,500 houses have been flooded or damaged (2,276 flooded and 2,267 damaged), mainly in Vatovavy Region, according to preliminary estimates from the National Bureau of Risk and Disaster Management (BNGRC). Ahead of Cyclone Freddy’s arrival, BNGRC pre-emptively evacuated 7,000 people in the coastal region who were in the storm’s path, while schools and public transportation were suspended. Cyclone Freddy followed a similar path to Cyclones Batsirai and Emnati, which made landfall near Mananjary city on 5 February and in Manakara town on 23 February 2022, respectively, affecting over 423,800 people. (Africa News 2023)
In Mozambique, Freddy has brought strong winds to Zambezia province, as well as heavy rains (above 200 mm/24 h) to Zambezia, Sofala, Manica, Tete and Niassa provinces. Some of these provinces received as much rain in 24 hours as they would usually experience in one month. In Zambezia province alone, over 22,000 people have sought refuge in temporary accommodation centers, 10 people have died and 14 have been injured. About 1,900 houses have been damaged (1,050) or destroyed (832), according to preliminary data from the National Institute for Disaster Management (INGD), and these figures are expected to rise ahead as further information becomes available. Basic services and public infrastructure have also been affected.
Climate change is also contributing to regular droughts across Southern Africa. This has led to crop failure and the depletion of water in major dams, undermining hydroelectric power generation and irrigation. As a result, the region is experiencing severe power cuts, disrupting manufacturing and agriculture, and affecting access to electricity. According to a Southern African Development Community (SADC) report (2023), an estimated 50% of people in the region have access to electricity, but only 32% of those in rural areas. In Zimbabwe and Zambia, climate change-induced droughts have undermined electricity generation at the Kariba Dam, destabilising the region’s integrated power grid. The region’s energy crisis has further exacerbated an already difficult economic situation, characterised by high unemployment and an inflationary economic environment, which has triggered a cost-of-living crisis among poor working-class households and the peasantry. A report by the National Security, Military and Intelligence Panel on Climate Change (NSMIP) (2020, 20) argues that:
Warming temperatures create the atmospheric conditions for more likely natural disasters, including heatwaves, drought, flooding, wildfires, and storms, which can upend local communities through sudden instances of mass death and devastated lives and livelihoods. These disasters directly impact on the drivers of insecurity, because of the reality that underdeveloped states face increased vulnerability and instances of severe weather. Major storms can exacerbate social inequality, tensions, and conflict, which may hamper immediate recovery responses. Destruction caused by severe weather can restrict access to food, water, and resources, thus creating conditions for competition described above, and the potential for both large-scale displacement and trapped, immobile populations.
Southern Africa countries continue to be subjected to an unjust and unfair trade regime underpinned by neoliberal markets dominated by global monopoly capital. Exports from these former colonies tend to be mostly unprocessed goods such as commercial crops (tobacco and cotton) and extractives, including so-called transition minerals for use in sustainable energy sources. Although Africa hosts large reserves of lithium, copper, cobalt, nickel and manganese needed for the electric vehicle revolution, most African countries lack the technical capacity to beneficiate these minerals by, for example, manufacturing lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles. Corruption and bad governance has further worsened an already dire situation. Africa thus remains a major source of cheap raw materials for the industrialisation of mostly wealthy countries from the global North and China while the production of commodities for export (largely favoured by neo-colonialism) has undermined industrialisation across the African continent. As a result, an estimated 80% of countries are still dependent on commodities for their export earnings. This confirms Walter Rodney’s (2012, 20) observation many decades ago that ‘Africa has not yet come anywhere close to making the most of its natural wealth’ as most of the ‘wealth … being produced is not being retained within Africa for the benefit of Africans.’ Rodney’s words still ring true today.
Economic structural adjustment programmes popularised by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the 1990s further crippled economies in the region and left countries debt ridden and unable to repay international creditors. For example, Zambia defaulted on its debt payment in 2021 and had to negotiate with its creditors to reschedule debt repayments, while Zimbabwe is in arrears and struggling to repay its debts to foreign creditors. Mozambique, Malawi and other countries in the region are also unable to repay these debts. This reinforces Moyo, Jha, and Yeros’ (2019, 6) observation that the opening up of the African ‘continent in the 1980s by means of neoliberal structural adjustment programmes … intensified the penetration of monopoly capital and the deepening of the continent’s dependence on the west … through an externally coordinated system of debt management’. Many countries in Southern Africa and indeed across the global South are therefore heavily indebted and unable to deal with the impact of climate change.
An important point to highlight is that since Western countries are responsible for most GHG emissions, they must be held accountable for the climate crisis. A United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP 2022) report notes that:
the African continent … contributes the least to climate change yet is the most vulnerable to its impacts. African countries that contribute so little will have to spend up to five times more on adapting to the climate crisis than on healthcare. G20 countries, meanwhile, represent around 75% of global greenhouse emissions.’
[c]limate change has an inordinate impact on the world’s poor, who have done the least to contribute to warming and now are bearing the brunt of the negative impacts of mining the minerals needed for the transition to renewables. (Ghosal 2023)
Climate change and environmental justice: a decolonial perspective
UN-sponsored initiatives to reduce carbon emissions have typically accepted a framework that assumes humanity could pay its way out of the climate crisis. Moreover, most initiatives to cut carbon emissions do not seek to challenge the capitalist logic which has brought us to where we are. Since the climate crisis is a problem of global capitalism, the logic behind the fossil fuel-dependent global capitalist economy must be challenged as we seek to decouple from our over-reliance on fossil fuels. It has been argued that mainstream processes such as carbon offsets ‘risk deradicalizing the revolutionary anti-colonial anti-capitalist struggles at the heart of grass-roots social movements’ defence of the land’, the earth and life in the broadest sense and that ‘ultimately climate justice is inextricably linked to, and directly dependent upon social justice and other forms of justice’ (Milanez et al. 2022). Many of the solutions popularised in mainstream debates, such as carbon offsetting through voluntary carbon markets, are problematic as they seek to maintain the status quo rather than decouple industrial capitalism from its reliance on fossil fuels. Moreover, these ‘greenwashing’ schemes have created a new carbon-credit trading industry which allows transnational corporations to offset their carbon emissions by buying carbon credits on the open market, which are then used to justify their continued emissions. While the carbon trading industry is thriving, the problematic logic of this UN-endorsed system rests on unreliable market forces as a driver of sustainable practices of unproven value. Carbon offsets do not seek to de-carbonise but to instead buy time for polluting companies aiming to prove to their investors that they are offsetting their carbon emissions to meet their environmental, social and governance (ESG) requirements.
This poorly regulated industry is now worth billions of dollars and is growing as pressure to meet net-zero targets intensifies globally. The money generated from selling carbon credits provides little benefit to so-called third-world countries who are the major victims of climate change, in the context of global net-zero goals that typically shift pollution to frontline communities in the global South. Moreover, Western greenwashing companies have set up shop in countries where they are operating carbon offsetting initiatives in collaboration with local communities. Poorly regulated, these schemes invest very little into local communities, while the offsetting companies pocket millions of dollars. This unjust system was recently challenged by the Zimbabwean government, which demanded a 50% share of revenue generated by local carbon offsetting schemes. A Reuters report (Reuters 2023) notes that:
Zimbabwe's government will closely regulate voluntary carbon offset trading in a bid to curb greenwashing and ensure benefits for local communities, its environment minister has said. The global $2 billion voluntary carbon offset market involves companies buying credits from emission reducing projects such as renewable energy or planting trees to offset their own emissions. Zimbabwe says organizations operating carbon credit projects in the country were largely unregulated as they were only registered with local councils and traditional community leaders – a result of which there is no reliable data on the size of Zimbabwe's carbon market. The government now wants all carbon projects to be registered with authorities within the next two months. It will take 50% of all revenue from carbon projects, with foreign investors limited to 30% and the balance of 20% going to local communities.
Similarly, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate (UNFCCC), which seeks to mitigate climate change through its Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) programme, is problematic as it aims to transfer the burden of emissions reductions to poor countries in the global South (Myers et al. 2018) where countries are offered incentives to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (UN REDD Programme 2016). REDD+ has dubious efficacy: the incentives promised do not necessarily provide enough financial resources to local communities to conserve forests. In some places, REDD+ programmes have been blamed for the enclosure of local forests from local people whose livelihoods are dependent on such forests as a source of natural fruits, fuel, timber and medicinal plants (Skutsch and Turnhout 2020). Given this, REDD+ programmes are yet another form of greenwashing which do not seek a radical shift towards decarbonisation.
These critical questions have dominated UN Conference of Parties (COP) meetings. Most recently, the issue of compensation to achieve climate justice was hotly debated at the COP27 meetings in Egypt in 2022 (Atwoli et al. 2022 c.f., Adger 2001). This culminated in a historic agreement requiring major polluting countries to pay compensation for climate disasters. An OECD report (MacGuire 2022) notes that ‘at COP27, parties agreed that major climate polluting nations will contribute to a global fund, known as the Loss and Damage Finance Facility (LLDF), to assist low polluting countries that are already experiencing devastating climate impacts.’ The finer details of this compensation framework are yet to be worked out and are likely to be clarified at the forthcoming COP28 meetings (to be held in Dubai in late 2023). This is positive step in the right direction, although it does not go deep enough to challenge the legacies of colonialism and industrial capitalism and their contribution to the current climate crisis.
Central to the compensation debate was the need for wealthier countries from the global North to provide financial support to so-called third-world countries to help them cope with extreme weather events (Allen 2015). Calls for a clean energy transition must therefore also be accompanied by a clear action plan to assist developing countries with financial resources in the process of transitioning to cleaner energy. To achieve climate justice, countries from the global South must think beyond the limitations of the UN conventions which tend to privilege dominant Western narratives to the detriment of alternative epistemological approaches which reflect the diversity of regions and cultures in terms of how they are affected by the unfolding climate crisis. Milanez, Menton, and Machado de A. Souza (2022) highlight how alternative epistemologies are deployed by indigenous communities in Brazil to challenge Eurocentric notions of the ‘climate crisis and what should be done’ to reverse ‘the end of the world’. Their work shows how ‘Tupinambá and Yanomami shamanic perspectives’ can be deployed to ‘challenge the idea of development based on cannibalizing and extracting from the Earth’ (ibid.). This demonstrates how ‘bottom up’ epistemic views can be useful in making sense of the unfolding climate crisis and what could be done to reconnect humanity to the earth beyond the capitalist logic.
The dominance of Western narratives in climate change debates must therefore be challenged. A decolonial approach to addressing the climate crisis must start by challenging the capitalist logic which has so far dominated climate change debates, in pursuit of a more holistic approach which incorporates the voices of people from diverse geographical, cultural and linguistic spheres. This approach is based on the basic principle that people’s conceptualisation of the climate crisis is grounded in their cultural and linguistic experiences which are heterogeneous in nature. For example, there is no word for ‘climate change’ in many southern African languages; the concept of climate change (as viewed from the West) must be defined and translated from English and other Western languages for it to make sense to local people. This is brilliantly captured by Milanez, Menton, and Machado de A. Souza (2022) in their work on epistemological justice, decoloniality and climate, in which they deploy indigenous wisdom gathered with indigenous communities in Brazil to challenge the false dichotomy between the natural and humans. They argue for the return to ‘notions of respect, relationships and accountability’ as a way of addressing the climate crisis through a reorientation of humanity towards a holistic relationship with the earth. Given the above, ‘decolonization must not only be a discourse but also affirmative action’ (Rivera Cusicanqui 2012, 12). Furthermore, decolonisation must go beyond Eurocentric notions to put the earth and the environment at the epicentre of our existence. This conceptual reorientation should be centred on ‘decolonizing the relationship with earth and nature; this is necessary not only to adapt, but to build new forms of existence and to create new words’ (Milanez, Menton, and Machado de A. Souza 2022).
The dominant transition frameworks carry epistemic risks, including privileging Western notions of climate change, while undermining the ability of local people to utilise local epistemological approaches (grounded in their own cultural experiences) to make sense of climate change. For example, across many cultures in Southern Africa, the environment in which people exist and their daily lives are intertwined. The environment is not something external or alien to human existence. Rather, any human activity that negatively changes the environment poses a threat to the very existence of humanity as it is perceived to alter the natural order of things. Addressing climate change is akin to addressing a life-threatening phenomenon beyond capitalist interests. It is this kind of epistemological approach to addressing the climate crisis which is missing in mainstream debates on climate change. This must be corrected in our quest for climate justice and epistemological pluralism.
Conclusions
The climate crisis remains one of the biggest challenges facing humanity. IPCC reports show that without a significant cut in carbon emissions by 2050, global warming will increase, with the potential to intensify extreme weather events such as cyclones, hurricanes and droughts across the world. Extreme weather events are already affecting millions of people, with those in poor and so-called underdeveloped countries in the global South being the most affected. Climate change is also gendered; women tend to be disproportionately affected by severe weather events such as floods and droughts (Terry 2009). In Southern Africa, regular cyclones threaten the lives of millions of people across Madagascar, Mozambique, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Malawi and Zambia, and extreme weather events are now happening on a regular basis with increased intensity. Climate change has a disproportionate impact on poor countries, yet these countries have historically contributed insignificant amounts of carbon emissions compared to their industrialised counterparts in the global North.
There is now a need for a radical shift to cleaner energy to achieve net-zero targets by 2050, in line with the IPCC recommendations. Current UN targets on carbon emissions through carbon offsets are problematic as they are heavily influenced by the capitalist logic of maintaining the status quo of profit-driven extraction rather than radically challenging the thinking behind fossil fuel-based industrialisation. The trade in carbon credits to offset emissions does not go deep enough to reduce emissions, but only seeks to buy time.
Since many countries in the global South are the major victims of the climate crisis, calls for climate justice have intensified at global convenings such as UN meetings. The tentative compensation agreement arrived at COP27 in Egypt is a step in the right direction, although the details of the proposed compensation regime are yet to be fully disclosed. This agreement provides the basis for a deeper discussion on the historical role of industrial capitalism in contributing to GHG emissions and the need for those behind the historical emissions to take responsibility for their actions. The proposed compensation must not be viewed as a charitable exercise, but a moral obligation to correct historical injustices inherent to capitalist industrialisation and a necessary step to effect a ‘just transition’ on a worldwide basis. Given the issues associated with UN-sponsored initiatives such as carbon offsetting and UN REDD+, there is a need for a shift in thinking towards a radical departure from fossil fuel industrialisation in order to drastically reduce carbon emissions. This requires new ways of seeing and thinking beyond the limitation of the current capitalist logic which is responsible for the climate crisis.