• Version
• Download 70
• File Size 265.16 KB
• File Count 1
• Create Date March 25, 2025
• Last Updated March 25, 2025

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY HANSARD 25 MARCH 2025 Vol 34 No 36

PARLIAMENT OF ZIMBABWE

Tuesday, 25^th March, 2025

The National Assembly met at a Quarter-past Two o’clock p.m.

PRAYERS

(THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER in the Chair)

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER

MEETING ON PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCY INFORMATION CENTRES

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  I have to inform the House that there will be a meeting on Parliamentary Constituency Information Centres tomorrow 26^th March 2025 at 0845hrs in the Multi-Purpose Hall.  Only Members of Parliament whose constituencies were allocated land by their respective councils are invited to attend.  For more details, contact Mr. F. Muchimba, PCICs officer on 0776448686, Office Number 230, Second Floor.

VACANCY IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

         THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  I have to inform the House that on 17^th March, 2025, I was notified by the Zimbabwe African Union Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) party that Hon. Benjamin Ganyiwa, Member of Parliament for Gutu East Constituency had ceased to be a member of ZANU-PF party and no longer represents the interests of the party in Parliament.  Section 129 (1) (k) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe provides as follows:-  the seat of a Member of Parliament becomes vacant if the Member has ceased to belong to the political party of which he/she was a member when elected to Parliament and the political party concerned, by written notice to the Speaker or President of the Senate as the case may be, has declared that the member has ceased to belong to it.  In this regard, a vacancy has arisen in Gutu East Constituency by operation of the law.  The necessary administrative measures will be taken to inform His Excellency, the President of Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) of the existence of the vacancy in line with Section 39 (1) of the Electoral Law Act [Chapter 2:13].

MOTION

TABLING OF REPORT

THE MINISTER OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION (HON. T. MOYO):  Thank you Madam Speaker. I wish to lay on the Table the Value for Money Audit Report of the Auditor General on the Facilitation, Provision and Construction of Schools by the Ministry of Primary and Secondary Education.

*HON. TOBAIWA:  Thank you Madam Speaker. Some time back, there was concern over the accidents occurring along the road coming to the Parliament Building. The Minister promised that he was going to put restricted route signs in the area but nothing has happened to date. I am pleading with the Minister to look into the issue because there are many accidents happening and we are losing lives.

*THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Thank you. The word is going to be delivered to the Minister.

HON. TOGAREPI:  Thank you Madam Speaker. I stand before this House to congratulate our very own Hon. Kirsty Coventry for doing Zimbabwe proud by winning and becoming the first African President of the International Olympic Committee. She is also the first woman and the youngest. Her achievement was no mean. She won with 49 votes against 97, above half of the possible votes.  I would also want to emphasise because I heard Hon. Ziyambi with me here, he wanted me to emphasise that she also comes from Mashonaland West.

Hon. Kirsty Coventry did us a lot of pride as a country when she was still in the sport of swimming. We would watch whenever there were Olympics taking place throughout the world knowing very well that she would lift the Zimbabwean flag high. I would want to say to her and her family together with the people of Zimbabwe, we are excited, proud of her achievement and we hope and trust that she is going to hold high the Zimbabwean flag. We will continue to support Hon. Kirsty Coventry and would want to say to the girl child and many other people out there, the sky is the limit, even beyond. If you put your time and commitment to your talent, you can achieve a lot. Here today, we have a Zimbabwean and an African on top of the world. I thank you.

*THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Thank you Hon. Togarepi. Indeed, it is big congratulations to her family and the nation at large.

*HON. HAMAUSWA:  Madam Speaker. I feel that it is pertinent that we respect the congratulatory message by the Chief Whip. I thought as Government Chief Whip, he was going to plan a congratulatory party with the Hon. Minister Kirsty Coventry because she is someone who rose from this august House and she is one of the people whom you used to ask questions. We are not sure if she is going to leave the Ministerial position and focus on the big post. Can the Government Chief Whip put the word forward so that we can have a congratulatory party for her? She has raised the flag of our nation. Hence, we believe that it is going to be a big event.

*THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Thank you Hon. Hamauswa. I believe the Chief Whip has heard that and is going to do something.

HON. TOGAREPI:  I think his request is in order. I think Madam Speaker, with your deep pocket, you will assist us to have a small cocktail in recognition of Minister Coventry. I think we should come up with something. The Clerk, fortunately is in this House and it is in his ears. I know they do not fail me. Thank you. 

*THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Thank you. We have taken note of that.

HON. KARIKOGA:  Thank you Madam Speaker. I rise to congratulate our Minister of Transport and Infrastructural Development and his team for being named the best performing Minister. Us as a Portfolio Committee, we are grateful and we welcome the honour that was given to our Minister. We also extend our congratulations to the Permanent Secretary of the same Ministry because she was also named the best performing Permanent Secretary.

We have also seen the commitment demonstrated by the Honourable Minister here in Parliament on Wednesdays. He is always here, available to answer questions. I also commend his commitment to the business of our Portfolio Committee. He always avails himself and his team to support the Portfolio Committee.

The ZINARA Board Chairman and CEO of ZINARA, Dr. Manyaya and Mr. Ncube respectively, were also named the best performing Board Chair and the best performing CEO. We all know ZINARA was a crime scene but the recognition by the President is welcome to our Portfolio Committee. I also want to thank the wisdom of our President, His Excellency, for committing our ministers into signing performance contracts.  This is welcome and gives our citizens confidence in ensuring that our ministers are somehow accountable to their principals. I thank you.

HON. BAJILA: On a point of national interest and it is with regards to the continued shortage of health cards at our maternity hospitals throughout the country. Madam Speaker, when children are born, our traditional system is that they are issued a health card, which becomes a record of their growth until they reach the age of six. For the past six months or so, we have had a shortage of these cards throughout the country. This creates a problem Madam Speaker, particularly at a time when we are having challenges in health financing. The problems emanate from the fact that the health cards were an indicator, even to people at family level of the health and the growth trends of our children. Without these cards, it becomes very difficult for the families to be able to trace how the child is growing.

The alternative is that they are now using books like adults and to have to peruse page by page to see how the child is growing, creates more problems, more complexities as opposed to just looking at the graph as it appears on the health card.

The other challenge Madam Speaker, is that there seem to be some workers in the health sector who may have anticipated this shortage and are now selling these health cards on the black market because the young mothers and fathers need them. They will get them.  The Government must step in and ensure that the health cards are available to all maternity clinics throughout the country.  The problem we are going to have is that in the long run, these cards are going to be continually for sale and it will create problems.

 To that end, Madam Speaker, I wish this House to emplore the Ministry of Finance to provide funds to the Ministry of Health and Child Care to ensure that such tools for this resource are made available at every hospital throughout the country. I thank you.

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you Hon. Bajila.  You have raised a very valid point. However, I advise you to ask a question to the responsible Minister tomorrow or you can raise a motion on that so that all the Hon. Members can debate it.

Unfortunately, Hon. Members, time for a one-minute statement is up.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HON. TOGAREPI: I move that Orders of the Day, Numbers 1 to 10 on today’s Order Paper be stood over until Order of the Day Number 11 has been disposed of. Thank you.

HON. C. MOYO: I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

MOTION

REPORT OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE ON NON-SUBMISSION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL BY SOME LOCAL AUTHORITIES

Eleventh Order read: Adjourned debate on motion on the report of the Public Accounts Committee on non-submission of financial statements to the Auditor General by local authorities.

HON. HWENDE:  Thank you very much Hon. Speaker.  First and foremost, I want to thank all the Members of Parliament that took part in the debate.  I will not be in a position to mention them but all the views, all the points were considered and I would want to thank the whole House for that debate.  I now move that this report be adopted by the House;

Motion that this House considers and adopts the Report of the Public Accounts Committee on Non-Submission of Financial Statements to the Auditor-General by some local authorities for the financial year ending 31 December, 2022…

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  On a point of order Madam Speaker.

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  What is the point of order?

HON. MADZIVANYIKA:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  I do not remember this motion being debated in this Parliament. I have never missed a single Session of Parliament.   I do not know how we can adopt a report which was not even debated in this House.  Thank you.

HON. TOGAREPI:  Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has just forgotten because this report was debated on 27^th.  The record is there.

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Hon. Members, the record is there.  It was debated on 27^th of November.

HON. TOGAREPI:  It must not have been debated many times.  We keep to the mover of the motion, not yourself Hon.  Member.

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  It was debated.

Motion put and adopted.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HON. TOGAREPI:  Thank you Madam Speaker.  I move that we revert to Order of the Day Number 5 on today’s Order Paper.

HON. MOYO:  I second Madam Speaker.

Motion put and agreed to.

MOTION

REPORT OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION (IPU) MEETING AT THE TWENTY-NINTH SESSION OF THE CONFERENCE HELD IN BAKU, AZERBAIJAN

HON. MATEMA:  I move the motion standing in my name;

That this House takes note of the Report of the Inter- Parliamentary Union (IPU) meeting held at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Conference of Parties (COP 29) on 16^th and 17^th November 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan.

HON. MATSUNGA:  I second Madam Speaker.

HON. MATEMA:  Thank you very much Madam Speaker. I rise to present a report of the delegation to the 29^th Session of the Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. UNFCCC held from the 11^th to the 22^nd of November 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan

1.0 Introduction

1.1 The Chairperson of the Portfolio Committee on Environment, Climate and Wildlife, Hon. S. Matema, led a delegation that travelled to Baku, Azerbaijan, to attend the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP 29) that was held from 11^th  to 22^nd  November, 2024.  The other Members of the delegation were:

• Sen. Mupfumira Priscah, Chairperson of the Thematic Committee on Climate Change;
• Tsitsi Zhou, Environment, Climate and Wildlife Committee Member;
• Tafanana Zhou, Environment, Climate and Wildlife Committee Member;
• Sen. Tshabangu Sengezo, Thematic Committee on Climate Change Member;
• Sen. Daniel Mackenzie Ncube, Thematic Committee on Climate Change Member;
• Susan Matsunga, Environment, Climate and Wildlife Committee Member;
• John Mazani, Principal Committee Clerk
• Nigel Tobaiwa Mugweni, Security Aide and
• Caroline T. Muyambo, Executive Secretary

2.0 Objectives

1. To understand the key negotiation issues on climate change.
2. To appreciate diverging views from the negotiations on climate change.
3. To identify the key outcomes of the Climate Change COP 29 negotiations, and
4. To make policy and legislative recommendations on climate change issues.

3.0 Meetings at the Baku Climate Change Conference

3.1 The Baku Climate Change Conference convened from 11-22 November 2024 in Baku, Azerbaijan. The conference consisted of the 29^th  Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 19^th  meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP 19), the 6^th  meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA 6), and the 61^st  sessions of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA 61) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI 61) which the delegation attended.

3.2 The opening of the COP29 World Leaders Climate Action Summit was marked by high-level statements from Heads of State and Government on Tuesday, 12^th and Wednesday, 13^th November 2025. However, a significant absence underscored the challenges facing international climate action: thirteen leaders from major polluting nations, including the United States, China, Russia, Germany, France, India, Brazil, and South Africa, did not attend. Collectively, these nations are responsible for over 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions, making their participation crucial for meaningful progress in combating climate change.

 The recent election in the United States has introduced further uncertainty into the climate negotiations. The President-Elect's public statements have cast doubt on the U.S.'s continued commitment to the Paris Agreement. His previous actions, specifically withdrawing the U.S. from the agreement in 2017, combined with his characterisation of climate action as a "scam" and his stated intention to increase domestic oil production, have raised concerns about potential setbacks in international cooperation. These positions contrast sharply with the urgency and scale of action needed to address the climate crisis.

Adding to the complexities of the negotiations, Argentina withdrew from COP29 early on, with its President dismissing climate change as a "socialist lie." This withdrawal and the dismissive rhetoric surrounding it demonstrate a worrying trend of some nations downplaying or outright rejecting the scientific consensus on climate change, posing a significant obstacle to achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. The absence of key world leaders and the outright rejection of climate science by other nations highlighted the significant political challenges confronting COP29 and underscored the difficulty of achieving consensus on effective climate action.

3.3 Ministers also delivered their high-level statements on Wednesday, 20 November 2025. During the first week, negotiations were largely conducted under the Subsidiary Bodies (SBs). The Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) are two permanent bodies under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). These are Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) and Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA).

 The SBI focuses on the implementation of climate policies and actions. It deals with issues like mitigation, adaptation, reporting, review processes, financial mechanisms and capacity-building. SBSTA provides scientific and technological advice related to the UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. It assesses the latest scientific findings, technological advancements and methodologies relevant to climate change. These two bodies work together and play a vital role in preparing the agenda and decisions for the annual Conference of the Parties (COP), which is the main decision-making body under the UNFCCC.

The closing plenary of the SBs took place on Saturday, 16 November 2025, during which parties adopted a number of conclusions and forwarded draft texts to the governing bodies for further consideration in the second week. However, on several issues, parties could not reach agreement and therefore the SBs could not forward any text to serve as a basis for further discussions.

4.0 Key Negotiation Issues 

4.1 Finance

4.1. 1 New Collective Quantified Goal

Finance discussions were dominated by the crucial issue of the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), intended to set a new post-2025 finance target for developed countries' climate finance contributions to developing countries, building upon the existing USD 100 billion per year floor. Debate raged over the NCQG's structure, with developed countries pushing for a blend of public finance and private investment, while developing countries rejected the private investment component due to existing inequities in accessing such funding. The sheer quantum of the NCQG also proved highly contentious. Developing nations, represented by the G-77/China, called for a staggering USD 1.3 trillion by 2030, while AOSIS and LDCs demanded specific funding allocations for their particularly vulnerable members. Developed countries remained noncommittal on a specific figure, though numbers in the USD 200-300 billion range were informally floated. The final agreement settled on USD 300 billion, a figure far below what developing countries deemed necessary.

The negotiations surrounding the NCQG were fraught with disagreements, particularly concerning the composition of the contributor base for climate finance, the transparency and tracking of these flows, and the very access to these crucial funds. Developed nations sought to expand the contributor base beyond the traditional developed countries, likely aiming to dilute the concept of historical responsibility and potentially lessen their own financial burden. This push was met with resistance from developing countries, notably China, who emphasized the historical responsibility of developed nations for climate change and distinguished South-South cooperation as a separate, voluntary endeavour.

The inclusion of voluntary South-South finance in tracking systems became a point of contention, with developing countries fearing it might be used to reduce pressure on developed countries to fulfil their commitments. Access to climate finance also proved a sticking point, with developing countries voicing concerns about existing barriers hindering their access and calling for streamlined procedures, while developed countries tended to focus on improving existing mechanisms rather than fundamentally overhauling the system. These disagreements reflect a fundamental tension between developed and developing countries regarding responsibility, financial obligations, and the mechanisms for providing and accessing climate finance, highlighting the complexities and challenges in achieving a fair and effective global climate finance architecture.

4.1.2 Long-term Climate Finance

Negotiations surrounding long-term climate finance proved to be a significant point of contention during the negotiations. The existing goal of developed countries mobilising USD 100 billion annually in climate finance, particularly its fulfillment, remained a major point of dispute. Developing countries argued that this goal had not been met and that the reported figures often included inflated or repurposed aid, while developed countries may have presented data suggesting they were on track or had met the target.

The link between the long-term finance work programme and the NCQG was also debated, with developing countries pushing for stronger linkages to ensure adequate financial support for implementing their NDCs.

The role and mandate of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF), including its very definition of what constitutes "climate finance," were subjected to scrutiny. Developing countries advocated for a broader definition encompassing various forms of support, while developed countries might have preferred a narrower definition focusing on specific climate-related activities. This definitional debate has significant implications for how climate finance flows are measured and reported and ultimately, who is considered a contributor.

Guidance to the Green Climate Fund (GCF) covered several key areas. Streamlining access to GCF funding was a major concern, with developing countries pushing for simplified procedures and more direct access modalities.

Regional balance in funding was also debated, with concerns raised about equitable distribution of GCF resources across different regions. Collaboration with the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) was another topic, focusing on how to better leverage the CTCN's expertise to support technology transfer and capacity building in developing countries.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF)'s role was also discussed, particularly its support for developing countries in meeting their reporting requirements under the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF). The GEF's role in providing finance for loss and damage, an increasingly critical issue, was also on the agenda.

The operationalisation and funding of the newly established Loss and Damage Fund were key topics, generating intense debate. Developing countries pushed for substantial and predictable funding for the fund, while developed countries were cautious, emphasising the need for further discussion on the fund's structure and operational modalities.

The transition and funding of the Adaptation Fund also garnered attention. Discussions revolved around ensuring a stable and predictable funding stream for the fund, including the potential role of proceeds from Article 6.4 mechanism (related to carbon markets) and the crucial importance of doubling adaptation finance by 2025, a commitment made at COP26. Particularly concerning loss and damage and adaptation, underscore the ongoing tensions and competing priorities between developed and developing countries in the global effort to address climate change.

4.1.3 Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement

The negotiations concerning Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement, which focuses on aligning financial flows with low-emission and climate-resilient pathways, revealed several points of contention. A central issue was the relationship between Article 2.1(c) and Article 9, which deals specifically with developed countries' climate finance obligations. The discussions explored whether Article 2.1(c) broadens the scope of financial considerations beyond just the obligated climate finance flows under Article 9. Developing countries argued that 2.1(c) implies a much wider transformation of all financial flows, including private investment, towards climate-friendly activities, thus placing a greater responsibility on developed countries to incentivise and regulate their private sector. Developed countries, on the other hand, preferred a narrower interpretation, linking 2.1(c) more directly to the existing climate finance commitments under Article 9, potentially limiting their perceived obligations regarding private sector involvement.

The role of the private sector in aligning financial flows with climate goals was a key point of debate. Developing countries emphasised the need for clear regulations and incentives to guide private investment towards sustainable projects and prevent greenwashing. They called for developed countries to provide support and capacity building to help them create enabling environments for responsible private sector engagement. Developed countries, while acknowledging the importance of private finance, focused more on market-based mechanisms and voluntary initiatives, potentially resisting binding regulations or significant financial commitments to de-risking private investment in developing countries.

These finance negotiations were characterised by deep-seated disagreements across virtually all major points. The fundamental divide between developed and developing countries shaped the discussions, with developed countries emphasising private investment and expanding the contributor base, while developing countries stressed the primacy of public finance, historical obligations and their specific vulnerabilities. Disagreements on the quantum of finance, the definition of climate finance, the inclusion of South-South finance in tracking, access to finance, funding for loss and damage and the role of the private sector all reflected these underlying tensions. The final outcomes represented compromises, but many developing countries felt their needs, particularly concerning the scale of financial support were not adequately addressed.

4.2 Mitigation

4.2.1 Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme

Mitigation negotiations at this session centred on several key areas. The Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme was a major focus, with much discussion about how to align it with the outcomes of the Global Stocktake (GST) and ensure it contributes to the 1.5°C goal. Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme is a programme established under the UNFCCC to drive urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in this critical decade. It is meant to help countries increase their ambition in setting emissions reduction targets and to support them in actually implementing the policies and measures needed to achieve those targets. This is more like a platform for sharing best practices, identifying opportunities and addressing challenges related to mitigation. This is important because the world needs to drastically cut emissions to stay on track with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting warming to well below 2°C, preferably 1.5°C. Hence, this program is a key tool for accelerating progress on that front.

The Global Stocktake is a process under the Paris Agreement where the world collectively assesses its progress towards the long-term goals of the agreement, including mitigation, adaptation and means of implementation. It takes stock of where we are, where we need to be and what needs to be done to close the gap. This is also crucial because the GST provides a comprehensive picture of the global effort to tackle climate change. Its outcomes inform countries' future climate pledges (Nationally Determined Contributions or NDCs) and guide international cooperation. It essentially serves as a health check on the Paris Agreement's effectiveness. If the GST shows that current mitigation efforts are insufficient to meet the 1.5°C goal, the work program would need to focus on how to significantly ramp up ambition and accelerate implementation.

While there was broad agreement on the need for increased ambition, differing views emerged regarding the structure and focus of future Mitigation Ambition and Implementation Work Programme events. Developing countries prefer a "party-driven" approach, meaning they want to have a strong say in setting the agenda and priorities of the work programme. This reflects their concern that developed countries might dominate the process and push for solutions that do not adequately address the needs and concerns of developing countries.

 Developed countries wanted the work program to focus on supporting countries in implementing their existing NDCs. This could be seen as a way to ensure that countries follow through on their commitments. These procedural disagreements eventually stalled progress on the work program itself highlighting the challenges in achieving consensus on how to effectively address climate change mitigation.

4.3 Article 6 of the Paris Agreement

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement addresses international cooperation on climate mitigation, exploring both market and non-market mechanisms. Market mechanisms, such as carbon trading, aim to incentivise emissions reductions by allowing those who exceed their targets to sell "credits" to those struggling to meet theirs, theoretically lowering the overall cost of mitigation. Non-market mechanisms, conversely, involve cooperation on climate action without credit trading, encompassing joint projects, technology transfer, and capacity building.

Within Article 6, section 6.2 focuses on cooperative approaches, enabling countries to collaborate on mitigation projects and transfer emission reductions, known as internationally transferred mitigation outcomes (ITMOs). This allows one country to reduce emissions in another and count those reductions towards its own targets. However, this approach faced disagreements concerning the definition of "cooperative approaches," the authorisation and tracking of ITMOs, the handling of reporting inconsistencies, and the design of the international registry for tracking ITMOs, with varying preferences for a robust, centralized system versus a more flexible, decentralised one. Article 6.4 establishes a centralised mechanism, similar to the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), where emission reductions from specific projects can be generated and used by countries to meet their targets. Discussions around this mechanism centred on the Supervisory Body's work, the development of rules and procedures, the timing of ITMO authorisations, and the transition of existing CDM projects.

The CDM, a key mechanism under the Kyoto Protocol, allowed developed countries to earn emission reduction credits by investing in projects in developing countries, which they could then use to meet their Kyoto targets.

While the CDM provided valuable experience in project development, emissions accounting and verification, it also faced criticism regarding additionality, environmental integrity and social impacts. In essence, Article 6 seeks to establish frameworks for international cooperation on climate mitigation, including market-based approaches. However, the specifics of these mechanisms, particularly concerning transparency, environmental integrity and their genuine contribution to emissions reductions, are complex and politically sensitive, reflecting the diverse priorities of developed and developing countries.

The framework for Non-Market Approaches (NMAs) under Article 6.8 also saw considerable discussion. While there was agreement on the need for NMAs, differing views arose during the assessment of the programme's first phase and the planning for the second. Developing countries, in particular, emphasised the need to address specific topics and ensure that NMAs effectively support NDC implementation. Nationally Determined Contributions themselves were a topic of discussion, specifically regarding further guidance on their features.

However, parties could not even agree on what constituted an NDC feature, hindering progress on providing further guidance. This disagreement reflected a fundamental tension between the nationally determined nature of NDCs and the desire for greater international oversight and standardisation. While there was a shared understanding of the need for greater mitigation ambition, significant differences persisted regarding the means of achieving it, the role of market mechanisms, the level of international oversight and the specific actions needed in various sectors.

4. 4 Adaptation

4.4.1 Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA)

Adaptation negotiations revolved around several key themes. The Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) was a central point of discussion, particularly the development of indicators to track progress towards its targets. The GGA, a long-term objective under the Paris Agreement, aims to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience and reduce vulnerability to climate change, though without a specific numerical target like the mitigation goals. Instead, it provides a framework for global action focused on improving the world's ability to cope with climate change effects.  While parties agreed on the need for further guidance to the expert group working on indicators, differing views emerged regarding the number and content of these indicators, the balance between global aggregability and context-specific relevance and whether indicators should track means of implementation.

Developing countries strongly advocated for means of implementation indicators, while developed countries generally opposed. Disagreements also arose about the relationship between the GGA and the Global Stocktake (GST), with varying opinions on how GGA reporting should feed into the GST process. Despite these differences, there was progress when additional criteria for the expert group to consider and setting a target for a manageable set of globally applicable indicators was outlined, while also affirming the GGA as a standing agenda item and establishing a high-level dialogue on adaptation.

4.4.2 National Adaptation Plans (NAPs)

National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) were another key area of focus, with discussions centring on how to accelerate their formulation and implementation. NAPs, are the practical tools countries use to achieve the GGA's aims at the national level. Through the NAP process, countries identify their specific climate vulnerabilities, assess associated risks and develop strategies and actions to adapt. NAPs are crucial for understanding adaptation needs, prioritizing actions, accessing funding and promoting a coordinated national approach. NAPs translate the GGA adaptation vision into concrete national plans. However, parties could not reach a consensus on key issues, including the reference to developed countries' obligations to provide means of implementation for NAPs, the role of the private sector in adaptation finance and language on mainstreaming adaptation. This lack of agreement resulted in the matter being deferred for further consideration.

While progress was made in defining GGA indicators and streamlining related processes, disagreements regarding means of implementation, the role of the private sector and procedural matters related to the Adaptation Committee and NAPs hindered progress in other areas. These challenges highlight the ongoing need for consensus-building and compromise to effectively address the growing adaptation needs of vulnerable countries.

4.4.3 Loss and damage

Negotiations on loss and damage at this session focused on the Warsaw International Mechanism and the Santiago Network. The Warsaw International Mechanism, established in 2013, serves as the overarching framework for addressing the impacts of climate change that exceed adaptation limits. Loss and damage encompasses irreversible harms, such as displacement from sea-level rise or the destruction of infrastructure by extreme weather events. The WIM recognises the reality of these impacts and provides a platform for international cooperation to enhance knowledge, foster dialogue and support action on loss and damage.

The Santiago Network, launched in 2019, functions as the operational arm of the Warsaw International Mechanism. Its purpose is to provide technical assistance to developing countries, enabling them to effectively address loss and damage. The Santiago Network connects vulnerable nations with the expertise and resources necessary to assess risks, develop strategies and implement measures to minimise and address these unavoidable impacts. Therefore, the Santiago Network is integral to the WIM's success, translating the framework's goals into tangible support for countries on the front lines of climate change impacts.

Parties considered the joint annual report of the Warsaw International Mechanism Executive Committee and the Santiago Network, welcoming progress in operationalising the Network. However, calls were made for swift establishment of regional offices, particularly in Africa and for the delivery of outstanding pledges to the Network, distinct from funding for the Loss and Damage Fund. Despite identifying potential areas of agreement, such as regional offices and coherence among loss and damage bodies, the African Group's objection prevented the Subsidiary Bodies (SBs) from forwarding a joint note capturing the progress. This issue was then deferred to a future SB session.

The 2024 review of the Warsaw International Mechanism itself generated considerable discussion. Many parties expressed disappointment with the WIM's performance, describing it as "low-ambition and insufficient." Developing countries criticized Warsaw International Mechanism’s outputs as inaccessible and suggested strengthening bottom-up approaches with greater involvement of practitioners, local communities and Indigenous Peoples. Proposals included annual reports on loss and damage needs and gaps.

Discussions in the SBs and in informal consultations covered increasing the accessibility of Warsaw International Mechanism knowledge products, enhancing coordination among relevant bodies, the potential for regular reports on the global state of loss and damage, and the work of expert groups and national contact points. However, no agreement could be reached on these substantive issues.

A key procedural disagreement arose during Presidency consultations regarding the governance of the Warsaw International Mechanism. Some parties, like the EU and the US, maintained that the Warsaw International Mechanism fell under the CMA's authority alone, while others, including G-77/China, argued for joint governance by both the COP and Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Paris Agreement (CMA). This disagreement remained unresolved, leading parties to continue the practice of including a footnote clarifying that decisions did not prejudge the ongoing discussions on governance. Despite these challenges, the CMA did adopt a decision welcoming the ExCom's progress and adopting the rules of procedure for the Santiago Network's Advisory Board. The SBs were requested to continue considering the joint annual report and the Warsaw International Mechanism review, aiming to recommend a draft decision for consideration by the governing body or bodies at a future session. The COP endorsed the CMA’s decision.

4.5 Global Stocktake

Discussions surrounding the Global Stocktake (GST) centred on implementing its outcomes and improving the GST process itself. The Global Stocktake (GST) is a cornerstone of the Paris Agreement, serving as a comprehensive evaluation of the world's collective progress in addressing climate change. It functions as a periodic assessment, examining global efforts across mitigation, adaptation and the provision of support to developing nations. The GST's primary objective is to gauge progress toward the Paris Agreement's long-term goals, including limiting global temperature rise, enhancing resilience and aligning financial flows with climate-friendly pathways. By meticulously analysing these efforts, the GST identifies critical gaps and areas where action falls short, highlighting where increased ambition and accelerated implementation are necessary. Crucially, the GST's findings inform the development of future Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), empowering countries to strengthen their climate pledges based on a clear understanding of current progress and required action.

The GST enables the world to collectively assess its climate action, learn from both successes and shortcomings, and continuously enhance efforts to combat the climate crisis. It is an essential component of the Paris Agreement's ambition cycle, driving a continuous process of improvement and ensuring that global efforts remain aligned with the urgent need for climate action.

A key point of contention was the dialogue on implementing GST outcomes. Parties strongly diverged on the dialogue's scope, with some, particularly the Arab Group and African Group, arguing that it should focus solely on finance, given its placement in the finance section of the GST decision. Developed countries advocated for a broader scope, encompassing all GST outcomes not already addressed by existing bodies, citing mitigation, particularly the energy transition package, as a key area needing attention.

Modalities for the dialogue also sparked debate, with a preference for a focused set of inputs to avoid replicating the GST itself. Ultimately, despite a draft decision being introduced, it failed to gain consensus, with several parties expressing strong reservations about its content and perceived shortcomings. These disagreements, along with other procedural issues, prevented the CMA from adopting a decision, leading to the matter being referred to a future SB session.

4.6 Technology Transfer and Development and Capacity Building

4.6.1 Technology Executive Committee and Climate Technology Centre and Network

Discussions related to technology transfer, development, and capacity building, covered several interconnected areas. The joint annual report of the Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) was considered, with parties welcoming the enhanced collaboration between the two bodies. The Technology Executive Committee (TEC) and the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) are two interconnected bodies established under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to promote and accelerate the development and transfer of climate technologies.

The TEC serves as the policy arm, analysing technology needs and recommending policies to support the development and diffusion of climate-friendly technologies. It identifies barriers to technology transfer and suggests ways to overcome them, providing guidance to the broader climate negotiations on technology-related issues. Essentially, the TEC acts as a think tank and advisory body on climate technology.

The CTCN, on the other hand, is the operational arm, putting the TEC's policy recommendations into action. It provides direct support to developing countries, helping them identify their technology needs, access information and expertise, and implement climate technology projects. The CTCN acts as a bridge, connecting developing countries with technology providers and facilitating the transfer of knowledge and know-how.

While the TEC focuses on policy analysis and recommendations, the CTCN focuses on practical implementation and capacity building. They work in tandem, with the TEC informing the CTCN's activities and the CTCN's on-the-ground experience feeding back into the TEC's policy work. Together, they play a crucial role in accelerating the development and transfer of technologies needed to address climate change.

A key outcome was the decision to review the functions and potentially extend the term of the CTCN at a future COP and CMA, taking into account various reviews and assessments. The SBI was tasked with initiating this review process. The ongoing discussion on linkages between the Technology Mechanism and the Financial Mechanism continued, focusing on strengthening collaboration and cooperation between the two. However, despite discussions, parties could not reach a consensus on a request for a technical report consolidating information and data on these linkages, particularly regarding support from the GEF and GCF for technology needs assessments. This matter was deferred to a future SBI session.

4.6.2 Poznan strategic programme on technology transfer

The Poznan Strategic Programme on Technology Transfer represents an international effort under the UNFCCC to accelerate the transfer of environmentally sound technologies to developing countries. Originating from the 2008 climate conference in Poznan, Poland, the program focuses specifically on facilitating access to technologies that support both climate change mitigation and adaptation. Recognising that developing nations often encounter significant barriers to acquiring and implementing these crucial technologies, such as financial constraints, limited access to information, and capacity gaps, the Poznan Strategic Programme aims to provide targeted support to overcome these challenges.

The programme encompasses several key elements, including Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs) to help developing countries pinpoint their specific technology requirements, the establishment of the Climate Technology Centres and Network (CTCN) to provide on-the-ground technical assistance, the implementation of pilot projects to demonstrate the effectiveness of priority technologies, and the fostering of public-private partnerships to leverage private sector expertise and investment. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) plays a vital role in funding and implementing the Poznan Strategic Programme, ensuring its objectives are translated into tangible action.

Regarding the Poznan strategic programme on technology transfer, which has seen many of its activities completed, discussions aimed to take stock of progress, successes and lessons learned. Parties debated whether to continue the agenda item, the implications of closing it and the possibility of extending the program. A key focus was how to capture lessons learned to inform the operationalization of the newly established technology implementation programme (TIP). Ultimately, the COP requested a report evaluating the Poznan program for consideration at a future SBI session, aiming to inform the TIP and support implementation of technology-related activities in developing countries.

4.6.3 Technology implementation programme

The Technology Implementation Programme, a fresh initiative emerging from the first Global Stocktake under the Paris Agreement in 2023, represents a significant shift towards a more action-oriented approach to climate technology. Recognising that access to and transfer of technology are insufficient on their own, this programme prioritises the actual implementation of climate-friendly technologies, particularly within developing countries. It aims to bridge the gap between planning and execution, focusing on translating identified technology needs into tangible projects and on-the-ground action. Crucially, the programme is designed to directly support developing countries in implementing the technology priorities they have already articulated in various planning documents, including their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Long-term Low-emission Development Strategies (LT-LEDS).

Furthermore, the Technology Implementation Programme seeks to address persistent challenges that have hampered effective technology implementation in the past, such as resource constraints for the Technology Mechanism, difficulties in measuring the impact of technology initiatives, and insufficient follow-up on technical assistance provided by the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN). While still in its nascent stages, the programme signals a move towards a more results-driven approach, emphasising concrete outcomes and prioritising support for developing countries in their implementation efforts. Future climate conferences are expected to further define the programme's activities and operational modalities, solidifying its role in accelerating the deployment of climate technologies worldwide.

The technology implementation programme (TIP) itself was a major topic. Negotiations centred on the TIP's modalities and governing arrangements. While there was general agreement on including in-session dialogues, differing views emerged on their number, topics and how to ensure the programme's effectiveness. Some parties proposed a multi-faceted approach with global and regional dialogues, an implementation accelerator and national innovation hubs, while others suggested leveraging existing bodies like the TEC and CTCN. Disagreements also arose regarding the TIP's governing body, with some advocating for CMA oversight and others for joint COP and CMA governance. Despite these differences, the CMA launched a process for elaborating the TIP and requested the SBI to further consider the matter, using a non-consensus draft text as a basis, to recommend a decision for adoption at a future CMA session.

4.6.4 Paris Committee on Capacity-building

The Paris Committee on Capacity-building (PCCB) is a crucial body established under the Paris Agreement to address the critical need for capacity building in developing countries as they tackle climate change. Recognising that effective climate action requires strong national capacities, the PCCB plays a key role in supporting developing countries in enhancing their abilities to implement the Paris Agreement. This includes strengthening their institutional frameworks, developing technical expertise and improving access to information and resources.

The PCCB works to identify capacity gaps and needs, and then facilitates the provision of support to address those needs. It acts as a coordinating body, connecting developing countries with relevant organisations and initiatives that can provide capacity-building assistance. The PCCB also promotes knowledge sharing and best practices, helping countries learn from each other and accelerate their capacity development efforts. Essentially, the PCCB serves as a central hub for capacity building related to climate change, working to ensure that developing countries have the necessary skills and resources to effectively participate in the global effort to address climate change. The negotiations on PCCB underscored the importance of capacity building for effective climate action and aimed to strengthen its role in supporting developing countries.

5.0 Key outcomes of COP 29

5.1 New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance

After two difficult weeks of negotiations, the Baku Climate Change Conference delivered a disappointing agreement for many negotiating blocks. The agreement is a new collective quantified goal (NCQG) on climate finance. The NCQG decision calls on all actors to work together to scale up financing to developing countries for climate action from all public and private sources to at least USD 1.3 trillion per year by 2035. It sets a goal of: at least USD 300 billion per year by 2035 for developing countries’ climate action from a wide variety of sources—public and private, bilateral and multilateral, including alternative sources—and with developed countries taking the lead. Developing countries are encouraged to make contributions on a voluntary basis.

In the context of the NCQG, parties further agreed to pursue efforts to at least triple annual outflows from the key climate funds from 2022 levels by 2030 at the latest. The decision also acknowledges the need for public and grant-based resources and highly concessional finance, particularly for adaptation and responding to loss and damage, especially for those most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change and with significant capacity constraints, such as the least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS).

Negotiations towards the definition of this new goal, which is an extension of the USD 100 billion per year by 2020 goals were tense.

Developed countries urged expanding the contributor base to include other parties in a position to contribute. Developing countries called for a higher quantum, with some calling for specific targets on the provision of public finance and the mobilisation of finance, and LDCs and SIDS calling for minimum allocation floors for their groups.

5.2 Market-Based Cooperative Implementation Operationalisation

Another major outcome was the operationalisation of the market-based cooperative implementation of the Paris Agreement (Articles 6.2 and 6.4). Parties had been negotiating the modalities for setting up the Agreement’s carbon markets for many years, with the aim to ensure that activities thereunder effectively deliver an overall mitigation in global emissions and comply with agreed-upon environmental safeguards, monitoring and reporting provisions. The expectation is that this will support progress toward the goals of the Paris Agreement in a cost-efficient manner.

However, parties could not reach agreement on a range of issues, including:

1. the dialogue on the implementation of the outcomes of the Global Stocktake (GST);
2. the just transition work programme;
3. linkages between the Technology Mechanism and the Financial Mechanism;
4. the report on the annual dialogue on the GST informing NDC preparation; and
5. procedural and logistical elements of the overall GST process.

Many groups and countries expressed their disappointment over the fact that no agreement was found in Baku, especially considering the importance of the next round of NDCs, to be submitted in 2025, to avoid overshooting the 1.5°C goal.

6.0 Observations

The Baku Climate Change Conference presented several key observations;

• Negotiations highlighted the persistent and deep-seated divide between developed and developing nations, particularly concerning climate finance. The protracted discussions around the New Collective Quantified Goal and long-term climate finance demonstrated the challenges in securing adequate and predictable financial support for developing countries' climate action.
• Debates surrounding Article 2.1(c) and the role of the private sector underscored the need for clear national policies and regulations to guide private investment towards climate-friendly activities and prevent greenwashing.
• The complexities of Article 6 negotiations, dealing with market and non-market mechanisms, highlight the need for capacity building and expertise within the Parliament to understand and engage with these intricate issues. The Parliament should invest in developing its own understanding of carbon markets and other cooperative approaches to ensure Zimbabwe can effectively participate in and benefit from these mechanisms.
• Discussions on adaptation, particularly concerning the Global Goal on Adaptation and National Adaptation Plans, emphasise the importance of prioritising adaptation planning and implementation at the national level.
• The challenges faced by the Warsaw International Mechanism and the Santiago Network in addressing loss and damage underscore the need for continued advocacy for dedicated and accessible funding for loss and damage.
• Finally, the disagreements surrounding the Global Stocktake implementation dialogue highlight the importance of Zimbabwe to actively participating in the GST process and advocating for its outcomes to be translated into concrete action, particularly in areas like finance and technology transfer.

7.0 Recommendations

• The Ministry of Environment, Climate and Wildlife should report all international climate finance inflows to Parliament for scrutiny to ensure transparency in reporting and advocating for Zimbabwe's fair share of available resources by 31st December 2025.
• Ministry of Environment, Climate and Wildlife should play a proactive role in developing a framework on private investment towards climate-friendly activities, balancing the need to attract private investment with the imperative of environmental integrity and sustainable development by 31st December 2025.
• Parliament should conduct a capacity building workshop for Hon. Members on market and non-market mechanisms to help legislators to understand and engage with these intricate issues by 31^st August 2025.
• Parliament should allocate sufficient budgetary resources to the Ministry of Environment, Climate and Wildlife towards the implementation of NAPs and oversee that they are aligned with national development priorities and effectively address Zimbabwe's specific vulnerabilities to climate change by 31^st December 2025.
• Parliament should join other developing countries in calling for developed nations to fulfill their funding for loss and damage commitments to support vulnerable countries in dealing with the irreversible impacts of climate change by 31^st December 2025.

8.0 Conclusion

The Baku Climate Change Conference, while achieving some progress in areas like operationalising carbon markets and setting a new climate finance goal, ultimately revealed significant and persistent divisions between developed and developing countries. These divisions centred primarily on issues of finance, including the scale and source of funding, the definition of climate finance and access mechanisms. Disagreements also arose regarding the role of the private sector, the scope of mitigation efforts and the mechanisms for addressing loss and damage. While the conference produced some agreements, many developing countries felt their core concerns, particularly regarding the adequacy of financial support and the need for greater equity in the climate regime were not sufficiently addressed.

 The conference highlighted the ongoing tension between developed and developing nations, underscoring the challenges in achieving a truly collaborative and equitable approach to tackling climate change. Moving forward, bridging this divide and ensuring that the needs and priorities of developing countries are adequately reflected in future climate negotiations will be crucial for achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement. I thank you.

         HON. MATSUNGA: Thank you Madam Speaker Ma’am for giving me this opportunity to debate. I rise to express my sincere gratitude to our delegation led by the Speaker of Parliament, Hon Adv. J. F. N. Mudenda for representing our nation at the recently held global climate conference, COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Climate change has become a pressing issue that demands our collective attention. It is essential that we engage with the international community to address this global challenge.

         The devastating effects of climate change are being felt season after season and it is impressive that there are measures to sustain life, particularly in the face of these conditions. As a nation, we must acknowledge the importance of adapting to the realities of climate change and work towards preserving our planet for future generations. Regrettably, global powers demonstrate a lack of commitment to addressing climate change as evidenced by their tendency to renege on agreements. Nevertheless, we must remain resolute in our pursuit of the climate action and continue to push for the meaningful progress.

         In our own country, we have witnessed first hand effects of climate change last year. We experienced a severe El Nino induced drought which significantly impacted crop production and resulted in the loss of livestock. This year we are facing above normal rainfall which poses a new set of challenges. The predicament of climate change is a stark reminder of the need for adaptation. During our visit to Gonarezhou National Park, we observed the difficulties faced by our wildlife which affects our tourism industry. This highlighted the far-reaching consequences of climate on our economy.

         In conclusion, I firmly believe that it is essential to incorporate climate change education into our schools curriculum focusing on the effects of adaptation and mitigation strategies by imparting our children with knowledge which can inspire a new generation on climate leaders who would drive positive change and ensure sustainable future to our planet.

         I urge my fellow Hon. Members to join me in emphasising the importance of climate action, in supporting initiatives in promoting environmental sustainability. Together, we can make a difference and create a better future for our generation to come. I thank you.

         HON. MUROMBEDZI: I would like to thank the Chairperson of the Committee on Environment for this report. Today, I rise to address the grave injustices highlighted at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Once again, the world’s most vulnerable nations were left demanding real action while the biggest polluters evaded responsibility. The climate crises are not a distant threat as was highlighted in the report. It is happening now. The signs are clear, the planet must not exceed 1.5˚C of the global warming yet the outcomes of COP29 showed that we are heading in the wrong direction. Meanwhile, the developed nations continue to dictate climate policies that leave countries like Zimbabwe at a disadvantage.

         Africa is not just a victim in this crisis. We hold the key to the global green transition that has been reported in the report. Our continent is home to the critical minerals needed for renewable energy technologies and if managed well, this represents a transformative opportunity for economic growth but we must not allow history to repeat itself. Africa’s resources must not be exploited for the benefit of others while our people remain poor.

         The climate injustice exposed it at COP29 revealed how deep the divide remains between the developed and the developing nations. Absence of major polluters: thirteen leaders from the world’s biggest emitters.  How can we expect meaningful progress when those most responsible for the crisis refuse to take part?  I am going to premise my debate on the opportunities there are for Africa, climate justice and Africa’s strategic role in the green transition.  The recently concluded COP 29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, once again exposed the deep-rooted inequalities in climate negotiations.  While developed nations continue to pollute the planet, it is countries like Zimbabwe that bear the greatest consequences; droughts, floods, food insecurity and economic instability as was highlighted by the seconder of the motion, Hon. Matsunga.  Yet amidst this crisis, Africa stands on the brink of a historical opportunity.  The world is transitioning to clean energy and Africa holds the critical minerals needed to power this transition. 

The global demand for renewable energy technologies, electric vehicles and battery storage systems is skyrocketing.  These industries heavily rely on lithium, cobalt, nickel, graphite and many rare earth elements - minerals that are abundantly found in Zimbabwe and across Africa.  This presents a historic economic opportunity for our country and continent but only if managed strategically. 

Africa’s Wealth in Critical Minerals

Madam Speaker, the world cannot transition to clean energy without Africa.  Our continent possesses 70% of the world’s Cobalt reserves (mainly in the DRC and Zambia) 40% of global manganese (key batteries), 30% of the world’s bauxite (used for aluminum production.  Significant lithium reserves – Zimbabwe alone is among the top 10 lithium producers globally. This means that the global green transition depends on African resources.  But this has taught us painful lessons.  Having resources is not enough if they are extracted cheaply and exported raw, leaving our people in poverty.  If managed wisely, this could be the catalyst for economic independence, industrialisation and a stronger global standing for Africa.  However, without climate justice and fair trade agreements, we risk becoming mere suppliers while wealthier nations reap the rewards of green technology.  This House must ensure that Zimbabwe does not repeat history.  The future is in our hands but only if we take control of our resources and demand our rightful place in the global economy.

The Climate Crisis and the Injustice of COP 29

Madam Speaker, in order for us to understand the climate crisis. Let us first understand fully the injustice that is at the centre of the climate crisis.  The injustice is that the least polluting countries are bearing the full brunt of climate crisis as was highlighted by Hon. Matsunga.  The world has committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees celcius yet COP 29 showed us that this goal is slipping away due to: broken climate finance promises as has been highlighted in the report, where developed nations pledged $1.3 trillion per year by 2030 to support developing nations yet the final agreement settled on a mere $300 billion, most of it tied to private loans instead of grants.  Hypocrisy in emissions reduction while African nations are being pushed to decarbonize, the biggest polluters continue expanding their fossil fuel projects.  Delays in the loss and damage fund – Zimbabwe and other vulnerable countries suffer climate- induced disasters yet the promised funds remain under discussion rather than implementation.

This is climate injustice.  The nations most responsible for the crisis must be held accountable and must pay their climate debt.

Africa’s Strategic Role in the Green Transition 

Despite this injustice, Africa holds the key to the future of clean energy. If the world wants to move away from fossil fuels it cannot do so without Africa.  This places us in a strong bargaining position but only if we use it wisely.

Opportunities for Zimbabwe and Africa in the Green Economy

 

We must move beyond just supplying raw materials and instead maximise economic opportunities from the green transition.  Here is how:

Strategic Trade Agreements and Climate Finance – The world is in a race for critical minerals but Zimbabwe must not allow itself to be exploited.  We must negotiate fair trade agreements where minerals are exchanged for infrastructure, technology and long-term investments not just cash.  Push for climate finance reforms, ensuring that funding for green projects in Africa comes as grants and investments not high interest loans. 

Demand technology transfers so that Zimbabwe can develop its own green industries rather than relying on foreign expertise.  Environmental protection and community benefits, mining from green energy must be sustainable.  We cannot replace one form of environmental destruction with another.  Mining projects must include strict environmental regulations to prevent land degradation and protect water sources.  Revenue from mining must be reinvested into rural development, ensuring local communities benefit from the resources on their land.  We must establish a green industrial fund to support Zimbabwean companies in clean energy innovation and manufacturing.  In terms of strengthening regional cooperation Africa must act together to avoid being exploited.  Zimbabwe must work with the African Union to create a unified strategy for mineral trade preventing underpricing and resource exploitation.  Develop regional clean energy partnerships so that lithium from Zimbabwe. Cobalt from DRC and manufacturing expertise from South Africa can create a fully African battery supply chain.

In conclusion, the world is changing and Zimbabwe must not be left behind. We stand at a crossroads where we can either take control of our resources or allow history to repeat itself where others profit from our wealth while our people remain poor.  Africa has been ignored in climate negotiations for too long, yet without our resources the green transition cannot happen.  This gives us leverage but only if we demand a fair-treatment, investment in our own industries and take control of our economic future.  Let this Parliament be remembered as the one that secured Zimbabwe’s rightful place in the green economy.  Let us not be just suppliers of raw materials but let us be the ones who shape the future.  I thank you.

HON. TOGAREPI:  I move that the debate be now adjourned.

HON. C. MOYO:  I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

Debate to resume:  Wednesday, 26^th March, 2025.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HON. TOGAREPI:  Madam Speaker, I move that we proceed to Motion Number 6.

HON. MUJEYI: I want to move motion number 6 on behalf of Hon. J Tshuma.

HON. MAKUMIRE:   I second.

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am being advised that if you want to move the motion on behalf of another member who is not in the House. That Hon. Member should write a letter to the Clerk.  In your case, the Clerk did not receive the letter. So, you cannot move the motion on behalf of Hon. Tshuma unless the letter has been received by the Clerk.

HON. MUJEYI:  Madam Speaker, I am aware that the letter was sent to the Clerk.

THE HON. DEPUTY SPEAKER:  Hon. Government Chief Whip, I advise you to speak to the Clerk.

HON. TOGAREPI:  Madam Speaker, the Clerk insisted that he did not receive the letter. So, we can leave that business and go to the next Order.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

HON. TOGAREPI:  Madam Speaker, I move that all other Orders of the Day be stood over until Order of the Day Number 4 has been disposed of.

HON. C. MOYO:   I second.

Motion put and agreed to.

MOTION

IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN LANGUAGE POLICY ACROSS ALL PUBLIC HEALTHCARE FACILITIES

HON. MAKOPE:  Madam Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name that this House: -

COGNISANT of the linguistic diversity in Zimbabwe and the significant impact that language can have on the quality of healthcare services particularly on the deaf community;

ACKNOWLEDGING the critical role that communication plays between healthcare providers and patients;

NOTING with concern the challenges that the deaf community faces owing to the absence of sign language interpretation services in the country’s health facilities;

NOW THEREFORE calls upon the Ministry of Health and Child Care to:

1. to implement a comprehensive sign language policy across all public healthcare facilities in the country by June 2025; and
2. b) incorporate sign language interpretation services in medical training programmes to mitigate communication challenges faced by the deaf community in Zimbabwe.

HON. C. MOYO:   I second.

HON. MAKOPE:  Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion on a matter of critical importance, the right to interpreter services for the deaf in Zimbabwe's healthcare system. The right to health is not only a fundamental human right but also a critical indicator of human development and economic growth.  It is our duty as legislators to ensure that every Zimbabwean, regardless of their hearing ability, enjoys full access to health services. Let me begin by acknowledging the solemn provision enshrined in our nation's supreme law, the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which unequivocally mandates the provision of inclusive and non-discriminatory healthcare services to all citizens. As legislators, it is our constitutional and legal obligation to uphold these rights, ensure that every Zimbabwean has equitable access to essential services, regardless of their physical abilities or linguistic needs. 

Today's motion speaks directly to that commitment, particularly for the deaf community, whose right to access healthcare continues to face significant barriers. The Constitution of Zimbabwe, in Section 76 provides a foundational guarantee of the right to healthcare for every citizen. It states that “every citizen and permanent resident of Zimbabwe has the right to have access to basic healthcare services, including productive healthcare services”. 

This right is universal, encompassing every individual without exception. It calls on us to ensure that no one, regardless of their circumstances is deprived of essential medical care.  Moreover, our Constitution's dedication to language inclusivity is embedded in Section 6, which recognises Sign Language as one of Zimbabwe's officially recognised languages. This inclusion affirms the State's broader dedication to ensure that all citizens, including the deaf, can communicate effectively in all spheres of life. The Constitution states, that “the State and all institutions, agencies of Government at every level must ensure that all officially recognised languages are treated equally and that measures are taken to promote their use”. 

This speaks to a clear commitment to the principle of linguistic equity, which in the healthcare context means ensuring that deaf citizens have access to interpreter services so they can communicate with medical professionals and fully understand the care they are receiving. Furthermore, Section 22 of the Constitution emphasises the rights of persons with disabilities, stating, “the State and all institutions and agencies of Government of every level must recognise the rights of persons with physical or mental disabilities, particularly their right to be treated with respect and dignity”.

It calls for the State to take appropriate measures to ensure that the needs of persons with disabilities, including those who are deaf, are addressed comprehensively in every sector, including healthcare. Madam Speaker, let me also cement that the right to health is not merely a domestic legal obligation, it is a universal principle embedded in numerous international and continental frameworks to which Zimbabwe is committed signatory.  These included the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights.

Each of these frameworks mandates the removal of barriers that hinder persons with disabilities from fully accessing their right to health. In our context, this translates directly into the need for interpreter services within healthcare settings. Madam Speaker, regardless of the international and domestic frameworks, the deaf community in Zimbabwe faces profound and persist in challenges in accessing healthcare services due to the absence of sign language interpreters. Without qualified interpreters, there exist a significant communication barrier between healthcare providers and deaf patients, leading to dangerous consequences such as misdiagnosis, mistrust and substandard healthcare outcome. Imagine the stress of a deaf patient unable to convey their symptoms accurately or a doctor failing to communicate diagnosis or treatment plan effectively.

This communication breakdown compromises the quality of care and alienates an entire segment of our population from their fundamental rights to health.

According to the Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency, approximately 11% of the disabled population in Zimbabwe is afflicted with hearing impairments. These statistics, combined with the broader disability demographics, 31% with physical disability, 24% with visual impairments, paint a picture of a healthcare system that is struggling to meet the needs of its most vulnerable. Let me also add that the World Health Organisation (WHO) has projected that by 2050, nearly 2.5 billion people globally will experience some degree of hearing loss, with 700 million requiring rehabilitative care. Zimbabwe cannot afford to ignore this impending crisis.

For the deaf community, the lack of interpreter services leaves them stranded, often forced to rely on untrained family members or friends to act as interpreters, further eroding their privacy and trust in the health care process.

 Madam Speaker, the gap in our constitutional status is precisely where we might begin if we are to effectively provide interpreter services with the Zimbabwe health care system, while the right to healthcare is enshrined in Sections 29 and 76 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, Amendment Number 20 and further reinforced by sections 81, 82 and 83, there remains a glaring omission concerning the language accessibility. Section 29 mandates that the State must take all practical measures to ensure the provision of basic, accessible, and adequate health services throughout Zimbabwe, emphasising the way it must underline the binding nature of this obligation. The same section also insists that no person is denied emergency medical treatment and calls for preventive measures such as public education and awareness programmes.

However, critical analysis of these provisions reveals a significant shortfall. There is no explicit reference to language or communication methods suitable for people with a disability. The term accessible in section 29 (1), appears to primarily denote physical accessibility and affordability without encompassing the critical aspect of linguistic and communicative accessibility.

This oversight becomes specifically apparent when considering that the legislative instruments intended to actualise the constitutional right to healthcare remain silent on the issue of language services, such as an interpreter or a translator for the deaf community.

Therefore, there is an urgent need to enact supplementary legislation that explicitly defines accessibility in a way that includes the right to healthcare services and information in a language and forms of communication suitable for all individuals, including those with disabilities. Such legislative measures would provide a concrete constitutional foundation for interpreter services, ensuring that no person is denied their fundamental right to understand and be understood in healthcare settings. As it stands, the current provision lacks the legal clarity necessary to guarantee this critical aspect of healthcare access for our deaf and hearing-impaired population.

Madam Speaker, gaps are not only found in our Constitution, but there are fundamental deficiencies in international frameworks, and the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 3, lie in the stark omission of language accessibility in healthcare settings. A critical oversight that profoundly impacts our deaf citizens, while SDG 3 ambitiously aims to ensure healthy lives, and promote well-being for all, SDG 10 seeks to reduce inequalities, neither explicitly addresses language as a fundamental determinant of healthcare access, particularly concerning sign language interpretation services.

The United Nations Convention on the Human Rights of Persons with Disabilities, despite advocating for accessibility, fails to establish concrete enforcement of standards for language access in medical settings.

The legal rights to language access in healthcare interpretations remain ambiguous in both international and continental policy frameworks, yet it constitutes an absolute precondition for meaningful, understanding and effective healthcare delivery. The World Federation of Deaf reports that approximately 80% of the world's 70 million deaf people face significant barriers in accessing basic healthcare due to language barriers and the absence of qualified medical interpreters.

This gap has resulted in life-threatening miscommunications, delayed diagnosis and compromised medical care. The use of relevant languages and forms of communication suitable for people with disabilities, particularly sign language for the deaf community, must be addressed as an urgent priority in guaranteeing the fundamental human rights to healthcare access. This situation demands immediate legislative intervention to ensure that language rights are explicitly recognised and protected within our healthcare system.

Madam Speaker, we must establish interpreter services in our healthcare system without further delay. By doing so, we honour our national and global obligations and ensure that the deaf community in Zimbabwe is no longer left behind in their pursuit of accessible, dignified and equitable healthcare.

Hon. Speaker, to dismantle the communication barrier faced by our deaf community, I urge the Ministry of Health and ChildCare to embed comprehensive sign language training within the core curriculum of all medical and healthcare training programmes.

This initiative would go beyond mere basics. It must include advanced modules on medical sign language, focusing on healthcare-specific terminology to ensure accuracy in patient-provider exchanges.

Furthermore, training should encompass cultural competencies and effective communication strategies tailored to the unique needs of the deaf patients.  Such a curriculum will prepare our future healthcare providers not only to communicate but to empathise, to approach deaf patients with an understanding of their experiences and challenges.

This depth of training is vital for creating a more inclusive, equitable healthcare environment that respects linguistic delivery as well as cultural aspects of the deaf community.  Madam Speaker, through this policy, Zimbabwe can cultivate a medical workforce that is not only medically proficient but culturally competent and responsive to the needs of all citizens, regardless of their hearing ability.

This initiative will also reflect Zimbabwe's commitment to uphold human rights standards set by international frameworks, positioning our country as a leader in accessible and inclusive healthcare.  By equipping our healthcare providers with these essential skills, we take a significant step towards a health system that truly saves and values every Zimbabwean.

Madam Speaker, there is also a pressing need for a national sign language policy.  In Zimbabwe's healthcare sector, it is our responsibility to ensure that deaf patients in Zimbabwe receive the same quality of healthcare as other citizens, free from barriers that have long hindered their access to critical health information and services.  The Ministry of Health and Child Care must lead the way in creating a comprehensive, inclusive sign language policy across all public healthcare facilities, a policy that should be fully implemented by June 2025.  This policy would mandate the presence of qualified professional sign language interpreters within healthcare settings to guarantee that deaf patients can fully understand every aspect of their medical journey from diagnosis and treatment options to follow-up care and health advice.

In developing this policy, Madam Speaker, we can look to other African countries that have already taken significant strides in improving healthcare access to their deaf communities.  South Africa, for instance, has successfully introduced interpreter services in key hospitals supported by state funding which has greatly provided healthcare access for the deaf.  Similarly, Kenya has made sign language interpretation a standard feature in selected health facilities in their major urban centres, ensuring that interpreters are on call and incorporated into standard healthcare protocols.

This policy for Zimbabwe should include standardised protocols across all healthcare facilities, guarantee interpreters are consistently available, medical proficient and bound by the highest standard of confidentiality and professionalism.  Additionally, Madam Speaker, to sustain the quality of service we must include a system for continuous training and evaluation of interpreters.  This would involve building a centralised database of certified personnel and establishing a feedback mechanism for deaf patients to report any issues, thus fostering accountability and ensuring their voices are heard.

Madam Speaker, adopting a national sign language policy would be a monumental step towards achieving truly inclusive, equitable healthcare in Zimbabwe, setting an example across the continent and honouring our commitment to uphold the fundamental rights of every Zimbabwean.  Another essential element in addressing the needs of Zimbabwe's deaf community and indeed all persons with disabilities lies in having precise, updated data.  Therefore, I call upon the Minister of Public Service, Labour and Social Welfare, through its Department of Disability Affairs, to conduct an independent comprehensive census for persons with disabilities with a focus on capturing detailed statistics that can give an accurate number of people with disabilities.

Such a specialised census will offer a gradual view of our population, ensuring that policy making and resource allocation are informed by empirical data rather than estimates.  Through distinguishing between various disabilities, the Ministry can better tailor healthcare services, education and employment programmes, specifically aligning resources with the unique requirements of each group.

Madam Speaker, this initiative will not only guide our efforts to establish interpreter services within healthcare settings but will also extend a cornerstone of national planning, aiding the Government in upholding its commitment to inclusivity and equitable services for all citizens.  An independent census of this calibre will underscore Zimbabwe's dedication to dignity, equality and inclusivity for persons with disabilities, mandated by both our Constitution and international conventions.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, as we stand at this critical juncture in Zimbabwe's healthcare evolution, we are compelled to evoke the profound philosophy of John Mbiti, I quote, ‘I am because we are, and since we are, therefore I am’.  This principle of ubuntu optimises our shared responsibility to ensure that no member of our society, regardless of circumstances, is left behind.  When even one among us is denied defined access to healthcare, we are all diminished.  Our deaf brothers and sisters who are facing challenging communication barriers within our health system must be brought into the centre of our national priorities. 

Madam Speaker, establishing a robust and comprehensive sign language service within our healthcare institutions is not merely a policy matter, it is an ethical and philosophical imperative that reflects our deepest values of ubuntu.  The actions we take today will echo through generations, making Zimbabwe a nation fortified in dignity, inclusivity and reverence for every citizen's wellbeing.  Let us call the wisdom of our ancestors who knew that healing physical cures is about restoring the bond of our community. 

The time for contemplation has ended.  We are now called to forge a healthcare system that truly honours ubuntu where no Zimbabwean is marginalised.  Every individual's dignity is upheld and where the language of hearing is accessible to all.  As our elders have said, when the drummers change their rhythm, the dancers must change their steps.  The rhythm of healthcare in Zimbabwe is changing.  Let us move to this new beat of inclusivity and universal access.  Together we can inscribe a legacy where every hand that signs is a hand that heals and every silent voice is heard in our hospitals and clinics.  The future beckons.  Let us answer with the courage of our conviction and the timeless wisdom of our ancestors.  I thank you.

         HON. MUTIMBANYOKA: Good afternoon Hon. Speaker Ma’am. I rise to second the motion brought forth by Hon. Makope, a motion that strikes at the very heart of human dignity, healthcare accessibility and the fundamental right to communication. Today we are not merely discussing a policy amendment, we are confronting a profound moral imperative that challenges the very foundations of our healthcare system. Beyond the profound human rights perspective there is a compelling economic rationale for establishing comprehensive sign language and operator services. When we exclude deaf citizens from effective healthcare communication, we are not just violating their rights, we are creating long-term economic inefficiencies that burden our entire nation and healthcare system.

The communication barriers faced by deaf individuals in healthcare settings create a complex web of economic inefficiencies that ripple far beyond the immediate medical encounter. When inadequate communication leads to misdiagnosis, it triggers a domino effect of prolonged treatments and more complete medical intervention, significantly increasing health care costs. These initial miscommunications force patients to undergo repeated medical consultations, draining our already limited healthcare resources.

Moreover, the impact extends beyond the healthcare services system. A deaf individual who cannot receive timely and accurate medical care may experience reduced workplace productivity, further straining our economic potential. Each communication barrier represents not just a personal challenge but a systemic economic burden that undermines the efficiency and effectiveness of our entire healthcare infrastructure.

Today, I wish to emphasise a crucial yet often overlooked aspect of this debate, the urgent need for a national census to gather disaggregated data on persons with disabilities, particularly those who are deaf or hard of hearing. Hon. Speaker Ma’am, without accurate data, our policies will remain reactive rather than proactive. We cannot solve what we do not fully understand. How many Zimbabweans rely on sign language as their primary means of communication? In which provinces is this need for interpreter services most urgent? How many healthcare workers currently possess basic sign language proficiency? The painful truth is that we do not have clear answers to all the questions above.

Currently, our national statistics on disability are broad and generalised, failing to provide the granular details necessary for effective policymaking. A specialised census on persons with disabilities conducted through the Ministry of Public Service and Social Welfare in collaboration with the Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency (ZimStat) will ensure that our healthcare interventions are evidence-based and precisely targeted.

This census must go beyond just numbers. It must capture the comprehensive landscape of disability experiences in our healthcare system. Specifically, we must gather critical insights that go to the heart of our healthcare accessibility challenges. This means meticulously documenting the prevalence of hearing impairments across different regions, understanding the accessibility of existing healthcare services for the deaf community, mapping the availability and distribution of trained sign language interpreters in medical facilities and comprehensively detailing the specific challenges faced by deaf Zimbabweans when seeking medical care. Without this data, we risk developing policies based on assumptions rather than realities and that is a risk we cannot afford.

A specialised disability census is not just about gathering statistics, it is about laying the foundation for sustainable and impactful policy change. With precise disaggregated data, we will be empowered to direct resources to areas with the highest demand for sign language interpretation, ensure equitable distribution of trained healthcare professionals with sign language skills and establish a robust mechanism to measure progress over time. This is not merely an administrative exercise but a transformative approach to understanding and addressing the healthcare needs of our most vulnerable citizens.

Madam Speaker, this is a call to action. Let us not legislate in the dark. Let us not draft policies based on estimates. If we are serious about making Zimbabwe’s healthcare system fully inclusive, then the first step must be a nationwide disability-inclusive census that prioritises accurate disaggregated data. I strongly urge this House to support this motion, not just as a legal obligation but as a moral, practical necessity.

As we consider this motion on sign language interpreter services, we are fundamentally addressing a critical gap in our healthcare system.

Establishing comprehensive interpreter services is not just a policy adjustment but a practical step towards fulfilling our constitutional commitment to inclusive healthcare. Our approach is rooted in the profound principle of Ubuntu, “I am because we are, we are because I am”. Recognising that the dignity of each citizen is intrinsically linked to the dignity of our entire society. By ensuring effective communication for deaf patients, we are not creating a special privilege but removing systemic barriers that have long prevented full participation in healthcare.

This initiative goes beyond humanitarian considerations. It represents a pragmatic approach to improving health care outcomes, reducing medical errors and ensuring that every Zimbabwean can access medical services with clarity, respect and understanding. The implementation of sign language interpreter services will make our healthcare system more efficient, more accurate and more responsive to the needs of all citizens.

Our actions today will set a standard for inclusive healthcare, not just in Zimbabwe, but potentially across the African continent. We are demonstrating that true healthcare is about comprehensive communication, mutual understanding and respect for every individual’s right to access critical medical information.  I thank you.

         HON. TOGAREPI: I move that the debate do now adjourn.

         HON. C. MOYO: I second.

         Motion put and agreed to.

         Debate to resume: Wednesday, 26^th March 2025.

On the motion of HON. TOGAREPI, seconded by HON. C. MOYO, the House adjourned at Six Minutes past Four o’clock p.m.