COP21 Paris Climate Conference Agreement implementation: INDC climate response measures, adaptation and mitigation scenarios

Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

14 September 2016
Chairperson: Mr P Mapulane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Environmental Affairs briefed the Committee on key outcomes of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) held in Paris, France in 2015 and SA’s position heading into COP22 this year in Marrakesh, Morocco. The presentation looked at the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change COP21 and key features and details of the Paris Agreement to come out of COP21. Members were also taken through decisions covering the pre-2020 period, ratification of the Paris Agreement by SA and implication of the said Agreement for SA. The presentation concluded by looking at what was anticipated to happen at COP22 and SA’s approach to the impending COP in terms of the pre-2020 period and the Paris Agreement.

The Committee noted the urgency around ratifying the Paris Agreement and pleaded with the Department to finalise processes at its end so that the matter could be placed on the programme of Parliament as soon as possible – hopefully in the fourth term. The Committee felt that SA played a catalytic role in COP21 and so the country could not be one of the last countries to ratify the Agreement. Members requested an update on industry complying with minimum emission standards and views on why Eskom was no longer signing further power purchase agreements with renewables – the Committee felt it important to arrange a meeting with Eskom to further explore this matter. Discussion was also held on SA tapping into the loss and damage mechanism in terms of the Paris Agreement for the current effects of drought, capacitation of municipalities to meet nationally determined contributions and how the Department was coordinating the efforts of all national departments in this regard.

The SA National Biodiversity Institute briefed the Committee on its fourth quarter performance for the 2015/16 financial year and the first quarter of the 2016/17 financial year. The presentation outlined key performance indicators, targets and achievements thereof for all six programmes and sub-programmes of the entity. After looking at a consolidated dashboard of targets achieved and staff demographics for both quarters, Members were taken through the financial performance of the entity in terms of audited financial statements, material adjustments, revenue, expenditure and surplus.

The Committee highlighted that in future SA National Biodiversity Institute should look at the two quarters in separate presentations – this would be less confusing. Nevertheless, the Committee was pleased that 98% of targets were achieved for 2015/16 and it noted progress made in quarter one of 2016/17. Questions were posed around the low visitor numbers experienced by the Institute during quarter one of 2016/17 and biological assets. It was noted that the Committee should also receive a briefing by the SA National Biodiversity Institute on their interesting adaptation projects and for the Committee to visit the gardens to get a greater sense of the multidimensional character of the Institute in terms of academia/research, facilities management, policy advice and being a biodiversity custodian.

Draft Committee Minutes dated 30 August 2016 were adopted with one minor amendment.  

Meeting report

Committee Business

The Chairperson welcomed the new Committee Member from the EFF, Mr Z Xalisa.

The Minister would not be present – she had left for a trip to India for a BRICS meeting. At a previous engagement with SANBI, the Committee was not pleased that the CEO did not render apologies for her absence. It was only subsequent to the meeting that a formal apology was received. In future, absence should be communicated in advance whether through a call or a letter so that the Committee was duly informed. He was pleased to see the presence of the Deputy Chairpersons of the SANBI Board as the Committee emphasised the importance of the presence of the Board Chairperson (or Deputy if the Chair could not attend) for the entities, particularly when accounting on financial performance.  He hoped future interactions with SANBI would be more positive in this light.

Ms Nosipho Ngcaba, DEA DG, added that the Deputy Minister of DEA was also abroad. Entities did not have direct engagement on the programme and miscommunication was between the DEA Ministry and Committee Secretariat – she pleaded for SANBI not to be dealt with with scepticism for this error.

Department of Environmental Affairs: IMC Presentation on COP21 Outcomes and Key Elements of Proposed SA Position for COP22, 2016

Ms Judy Beaumont: DEA DDG: Climate Change and Air Quality, said the purpose of the briefing was to provide the Committee with information on the outcomes of the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) held in Paris, France in 2015 as well as SA’s approach for COP22 to be held in Marrakesh, Morocco from 7 – 18 November 2016.

COP21, under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was the culmination of a four-year negotiation which started in Durban during COP17. The key outcome of COP21 was the historical Paris Agreement (PA) which would define the global fight against climate change. The PA also outlined a set of decisions on the process over the next five years during which the details of its implementation will be negotiated.

Key features of the Paris Agreement included:

  • A strong, legally-binding international framework to guide the global effort in response to the global challenge of climate change
  • Recognition of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities between developed and developing countries consistent with the UNFCCC
  • The key goal of limiting global temperature increase well below 2 degrees Celsius, while urging efforts to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees
  • A global adaptation goal led by the African group
  • Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by all countries every five years, to contribute to the global goals for mitigation and adaptation - each NDC will be a progression
  • Countries must report on implementation of their NDCs

Ms Beaumont gave some details of the Paris Agreement which included:

  • New Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) would be submitted every five years (for 2025, 2030 etc.);
  • A global stock take would occur every five years to assess progress in implementation and countries will consider the outcomes of the stock take in their NDCs
  • Adaptation was central to the PA – it established a global adaptation goal and regular reporting
  • Developed countries would continue to provide and mobilise finance to support developing countries in the post-2020 period
  • A new market mechanism with similarities to the CDM
  • Loss and damage from impacts of climate change was dealt with separately from adaptation
  • Provisions for technology transfer, capacity-building and response measures

In terms of decisions covering the pre-2020 period:

  • The Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement (APA) was established to develop rules for the Paris Agreement in the period before 2020
  • CMP 11 concluded the rule set for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (end 2020) after four years of negotiations
  • CMP 11 also concluded a Review of the modalities and procedures for the Clean Development Mechanism
  • A Technical Examination Process on Adaptation was established to identify concrete opportunities for strengthening resilience, reducing vulnerabilities and increasing the implementation of adaptation actions in the pre-2020 period
  • Financial pledges to the Adaptation Fund - $75 million
  • Financial pledges to Least Developed Countries Fund - $248 million.

Looking at the ratification of the Paris Agreement by SA:

  • To consolidate the success of Paris, all countries were urged to ratify the Paris Agreement as soon as possible
  • It was important that SA continued its leadership role in the international negotiations by ratifying the PA early – ratification of the Agreement by China and the USA added a new political dynamic
  • On 22nd April 2016, SA became a signatory to the Paris Agreement, which in terms of its Article 20 the Agreement, would be open for signature at the UN Headquarters in New York from 22 April 2016 to 21 April 2017
  • The Paris Agreement enters into force on the 30th day after the date on which at least 55 parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least 55% of the total global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions had deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the depository (55 parties and 55% = double trigger)
  • The UN Secretary-General (UNSG) had arranged a high-level event in New York on 21 September 2016 to encourage Parties to deposit their instruments of ratification
  • The USA in particular, was focused on exerting political pressure for all the leading economies in the G20 countries, including SA, to join the Paris Agreement at the UNSG´s event. Should the majority of G20 countries do so, the Paris Agreement may even come into force as early as this year
  • Currently, 29 countries including the US and China as well as two African countries (Cameroon and Somalia) have ratified the PA and accounting for 39% of total global emissions.
  • SA’s process was guided by section 231(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 and this included national stakeholder consultations, a socio-economic impact assessment and Parliamentary approval
  • All preparatory work was currently underway

Ms Beaumont noted that implications of the Paris Agreement for SA included:

The Paris Agreement required SA to:

  • submit a Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) every five years. SA submitted its Intended Nationally Determined Contribution to the UNFCCC in 2015 which applied to 2025 and 2030. The next NDC (applicable to 2035) will be due in 2023
  • develop policies and measures (PAMs) to implement our NDCs and to report on progress. This work was well underway.
  • account for our NDC (the extent to which we have met the goals of our NDC). A national climate change response tracking system was in place and the first annual climate change response report had been published.
  • submit biennial reports to the UNFCCC on national circumstances, emissions, adaptation and other facets of climate change. The 2nd Biennial Update Report had been published for public comment earlier this week (https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/default/files/reports/2ndBUR2000_2012_draftforpubliccomments.pdf)

In terms of what SA was doing and what it would still need to do:

  • The development of SA’s National Climate Change Adaptation Strategy was well underway and a framework for reducing GHG emissions had been agreed by Cabinet
  • A climate change response monitoring and evaluation system had been developed to track SA’s transition to a lower carbon and climate resilient economy
  • However, SA will have to increase the pace of implementation
  • SA will have to scale up investments significantly in renewable energy, public transport, energy efficiency, waste management and land restoration initiatives country-wide, in order to reduce the GHG emissions intensity of our economy
  • All spheres of government will need to refine their strategies for adapting to the impacts of climate change and for enhancing the capacity of institutions, services, infrastructure, human settlements and ecosystem services to respond to and bounce back from the impacts of climate change.

Looking at what will happen at COP22 (targets):

  • COP22 will be focused on beginning the process of developing rules to guide the work of Parties under the Paris Agreement
  • The Ad hoc Working Group on the Paris Agreement will provide further guidance on the features of nationally determined contributions (NDCs) and their adaptation component and/ or other adaptation communication
  • It will also begin consideration of modalities and procedures for the enhanced transparency framework under the Agreement and modalities of the global stock take outlined in Article 14 of the Agreement
  • COP22 should provide a roadmap to ensure that all the work will be concluded in time to be adopted by the first meeting of the Parties to the PA in 2020 and also make rapid progress with important issues to be addressed re the pre-2020 period particularly on finance.
  • There will be a High-Level Ministerial Dialogue on Climate Financing at COP 22 focusing on adaptation finance and needs for support for readiness activities.

Ms Beaumont then outlined SA’s approach to COP22 and its focus on pre-2020:

  • Scaling-up of finance for adaptation in the pre-2020 period given that impacts of climate change were already having impacts and specifically a discussion on the future of the Adaptation Fund
  • Scaling up funding for mitigation, technology transfer, capacity-building in the pre-2020 period
  • Ensuring progress in the technical examination process for mitigation, and especially in the newly-established technical examination process for adaptation and how to link these to implementation
  • Ensuring a successful launching of the Paris Committee on Capacity Building and its work plan between 2016 and 2020

Ms Beaumont explained SA’s approach for COP22 in relation to the Paris Agreement was a clear work programme leading up to entry into force of the PA which also addressed the potential problems of entry into force before 2020, iinclusion of adaptation in NDCs as agreed in Paris and for Developed Parties to provide a clear pathway to realise the $100 billion per annum by 2025 (and scaled up thereafter) and on the provision of technology and capacity building.

Ms Ngcaba added that the question to ask was what SA had to do to ratify the PA before COP22 – SA’s voice on inclusivity on the outside might not as effective as having that voice on the inside as part of the countries which would have ratified the Agreement. SA also had the credibility to speak on behalf of the G77 plus China and take on that leadership role displayed in Paris. SA would be a more trusted broker of the SA continent if it ratified the PA and there was a bit of urgency to get these processes done.

Mr Alf Wills, DEA DDG: Environmental Advisory Services, added that SA was also under pressure to ratify because if the PA came into force by 20 January 2017 then the US was bound to the Agreement. Currently, the US ratified the agreement by Executive Order i.e. processes did not go through Congress or the Senate. Should there be a Trump Administration, they had already pronounced that the Order would be reversed on the first day of the Administration coming into office. However, if the Paris Agreement was legally in force before then, that could not be done and the US would be bound. Looking at the numbers, 27 countries (39% of world emissions) had ratified the Agreement so, working backwards on the calendar, by about 20 December 2016, 55% would be needed. Theoretically, this was possible to achieve but it was not possible before COP22 in November. It was unlikely then that the first meeting of the parties to the PA would take place this year because the double trigger would not have been met. Also looking at the numbers theoretically, 54% of world emissions was doable but 55% was not because SA emitted 1.2% of global emissions and this also explained why the country was under pressure as to so-called “saviour” of the Paris Agreement if the Trump Administration came into place. Many countries that had already ratified, including Brazil, were cognisant of the fact that the allocation of the five-year cycles was the responsibility of no other body but the CMA (meeting of parties) and this work of allocation was critical to making the Agreement work. There would be pressure to begin this work. Another issue was that the 2020 – 2025 contributions would be under review in 2018 with the view of increasing ambition. Countries who wanted to be part of the rulemaking process in the Paris Agreement, have to ratify before 2018 or else they would be excluded from decision-making.

Discussion

The Chairperson asked when COP22 would be hosted.

Ms Beaumont replied that it was 7 – 18 November 2016.

The Chairperson wondered why it was earlier as it usually took place in December.

Mr Wills said there was no agenda to the change and it was just the timetabling system of the UN. It was known four years ago that COP22 would be held in November.

Ms Ngcaba outlined that the Biodiversity Conference of Parties would also be taking place at the end of November in Mexico – this meeting happened every two years unlike COP which happened annually. Working backwards on the calendar and given that Parliament would rise in November, if Cabinet could ratify the Agreement, it would be tabled in the House around about the first week of October for consideration.

The Chairperson noted that SA played a catalytic role in COP21 by brokering the Paris Agreement during the negotiation process and this role was also acknowledged on international platforms. SA could not have played such a critical role and then be one of the last countries to actually ratify the Agreement. He doubted that the Agreement would be ratified before COP22 but all opportunities should be used.

Mr T Hadebe (DA) was pleased to see that the DEA team was on top of the game in terms of ratifying the Agreement. Domestically, he requested an update on industry complying with the minimum emission standards and if it were being monitored. He recently heard in the media that Eskom indicated it would no longer sign any further Power Purchase Agreements for renewables which he thought worked against efforts to reduce the country’s carbon footprint. How would this affect SA’s INDC commitments? In terms of loss and damage, SA was currently in a drought and he asked if the country could tap into this loss and damage mechanism in terms of the Paris Agreement or would it only come into play once the Agreement reached the 55 countries and 55% double trigger? What was the Department doing to ensure municipalities were capacitated to meet nationally determined goals? In terms of local government, if priorities were not in the Integrated Development Plans (IDPs), they would not get budgeted for – what was the strategy of DEA in this regard? Perhaps the SA Local Government Association (SALGA) should be brought on board especially in terms of INDCs.

Ms Beaumont explained that the minimum emission standards were particularly in relation to sulphur dioxide and the “noxes” i.e. air pollutants that affected the health of people. DEA was doing compliance monitoring and compliance reporting and working with and pushing companies to conclude the offset proposals and developments included in their plans to remain within minimum emission standards up to 2020. These minimum emissions did have some relationship with the GHG emission reduction efforts in that there were co-benefits – when GHG emissions were reduced, there was potential for a reduction in sulphur dioxide and the particulate matter that affected the breathing of people. The air pollutants however were not necessarily the issue being addressed by the work under climate change although there was a close relationship. DEA was starting to apply more pressure on the companies that received the postponement decisions because there were already informal indications that some companies would be seeking additional postponement – this was a complete none start. A bit more work was done with the compliance team, the Department would be able to update the Committee on the status of the minimum emission compliance. In terms of Eskom, SA’s Power Purchase Agreements for renewables was quite a flagship effort in reducing emissions but in any economic transition process, as the one SA faced, practical challenges were bound to arise and this was what Eskom acknowledged in that the agreements signed required the entity to purchase renewable energy produced at any time of the day or night. DEA was doing some research work with the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to come up with some solutions to the technical challenges Eskom faced. In terms of loss and damage, this mechanism was completed in Warsaw and was called the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage – Minister Molewa played a very key role in facilitating conclusion of this mechanism. The big challenge with the mechanism was the complex issue of cross-border compensation and liability. The mechanism looked at process of support to countries experiencing loss and damage that may not necessarily be directly related to compensation and liability. The mechanism was still finalising modalities to make it fully operational but there was funding available from various sources to support impacts such as those relating to drought. SA did not apply for funding support for drought because at this stage the drought was seen as longer term cyclical climate variability within the country.  

Ms Ngcaba added that GHG emissions were different from air quality emissions – the latter concerned nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide and other particulate matters but they came from the same GHG emitting industries in a sense. With the power purchase agreements, energy policy in SA focused on mixed energy options including renewables, nuclear and future clean coal to limit emissions. This work and research was led by the Department of Energy. In reality the situation was not “either or” – a certain percentage was outlined in the energy plan for renewables to assist SA in the transition. With low economic growth, practical challenges experienced by Eskom could be understood in terms of mitigating costs. The Departments of Energy, Public Enterprises and DEA were to have a meeting to ensure everyone was on the same page on this matter.

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) thought it was clear when dealing with this subject that there were culprits and victims in terms of the countries and it was in the interest of the victims to get the Agreement ratified but it appeared to be the culprits who had been quick to ratify – what motivated this? Could the victim countries be mobilised to ratify the Agreement quickly as it was in their favour/interest anyway – what was the cause of this delay amongst the victim countries? He questioned whether global efforts were closer in meeting the 2-degree objective in global warming or was this target still far off? In October, there would be a climate change and air quality conference of the Department and he wanted to know what the objective of this conference would be in relation to COP22 in terms of outcomes.

Ms Beaumont said victim countries which had not yet ratified had more to do with their domestic parliamentary processes and procedures. The early entry into force was not anticipated so to some extent, countries were caught slightly by surprise. There was no agenda around not ratifying the Agreement because the sooner it was ratified, the sooner the developing countries would be supported. With the 2-degree ceiling, work so far done by the UNFCCC in adding up collective/aggregate outcomes of the nationally determined contributions, was not very positive and indicated a 3-degree warning with all pledges on the table so far. The UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) did an annual emissions gap report and it indicated what was required from global effort to stay within the 2 degrees.

Ms J Edwards (DA) noted that the presentation made reference to all spheres of government having to refine strategies for adapting to the impacts of climate change, and wanted to know about the role of local government in this regard. How would the efforts of all spheres of government be implemented and monitored? Was DEA working with specific departments to reach the goals for the anticipated outcomes of COP22?

Ms Beaumont responded that the Department was doing extensive work in assessing the vulnerabilities of provinces from a draught, temperature and flooding perspective. DEA was also working with organisations like the Agricultural Research Council in terms of crop suitability and vulnerability studies. DEA also worked with other national departments around climate change response to make the interlinkages. 

The Chairperson wanted to know what other countries contributed significantly toward global emissions. Who were the biggest polluters in SA which contributed to our emissions into the globe? He emphasised that SA should do all in its power to ensure the Agreement was ratified before the end of the year. He could understand why the Obama Administration ratified the Agreement through Executive Order because he wanted to leave a legacy of contributing to reduce global emissions and all progressives sought to do.

Ms Beaumont answered that the electricity sector made up 42% of SA’s total GHG emissions, the energy sector contributed 80%, the industrial sector was 8%, the agricultural sector was 9% and the waste sector was close to 4%.

The Chairperson thought the specific information around the emission percentages of the largest contributing sectors would assist the Committee with its oversight work.

Ms Ngcaba added that GHG was generated through carbon dioxide, methane and other gas emissions in the main. Coal burning also generated emissions and this was still SA’s primary energy source as used by Eskom. There was also the petrochemical industry and transport sector with emissions coming from exhaust fumes but there were efforts in SA to reduce the lead in the fuel and other refinements. Landfill sites generated methane in terms of waste so while this was within the ambit of DEA, other GHG contributors fell under other sectors.

On the Eskom issue, the Chairperson was also taken aback by the announcement. SA‘s energy plan spoke to an energy mix and this was a big blow to the independent power producers and the contribution to green energy then dropped. Eskom needed to be engaged to find out where it was coming from.

Ms Ngcaba said one of the key issues was the availability of energy during peak and non-peak hours and storage capacity availability and who then could invest in those technologies. It was known that there were also challenges with the use of coal like water usage and of course, emissions which needed to be confronted.  Nuclear remained an option as it allowed for a cheaper base load of electricity over time but fundamentally the decision was not either nuclear or renewable – all solutions could be explored in terms of affordability etc.

The Chairperson reiterated that a discussion should be explored with Eskom around the options. Perhaps this could be arranged when the House returned from recess.

Ms Ngcaba highlighted that an air quality lekgotla would be held which would look at the capacity of local government and compliance. This lekgotla however was not directly linked to COP. Mitigation work showed that nuclear was one of the energy sources which would make SA meet its long-term objectives in terms of transition. This was not related to affordability however. This could perhaps also form part of the discussion.

The Chairperson said a discussion with Eskom was definitely on the table. In terms of ratifying the Paris Agreement, the Committee urged DEA to finalise processes and Cabinet approval as soon as possible for it to get onto the parliamentary programming. If the programming committee was alerted to the urgency of the matter, he was sure it could be on the agenda for ratification in the next parliamentary term.

SANBI Annual Performance Plan 2015/16 Fourth Quarter and Annual Performance Plan 2016/17 First Quarter

Dr Joseph Matjila, SANBI Board Deputy Chairperson, outlined that the entity would be presenting its fourth quarter performance for 2015/16 and first quarter of 2016/17 in terms of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and how performance matched up to what was targeted.

Ms Tanya Abrahamse, SANBI CEO, said the Chairperson of the Board could not attend because she had to go into emergency surgery yesterday but the Deputy Chairperson was standing in for her. The Committee was then taken through the presentation looking at the mission and vision of SANBI along with its policy and legal framework, what the entity did and who it influenced and SANBI’s contribution to national priorities, international obligations and Sustainable Development Goals.

After briefly touching on the six programmes of SANBI, the Committee was comprehensively taken through KPIs and targets for each of the six programmes and its sub-programmes and then if the targets were met for both quarter one of the 2015/16 financial year and quarter one of the 2016/17 financial year.

The presentation also covered the consolidated dashboard of targets achieved for the first quarter and fourth quarter of 2015/16 and 2016/17 respectively as well as staff demographics for the two quarters under review.

Ms Lerato Sithole, SANBI CFO, proceeded to take Members through the audited financial statements of SANBI for 2015/16 in terms of audit outcome, material adjustments, financial performance, revenue, expenditure, surplus and the financial position of the Institute. This part of the presentation also touched on the financial performance of SANBI for the first quarter of 2016/17.

Discussion

The Chairperson pointed out that in future SANBI should separate the fourth and first quarter reporting and not report on both periods in the same presentation – it would be less confusing this way. He congratulated SANBI on achieving 98% of its targets for the fourth quarter of 2015/16. He understood that the first quarter for 2016/17 was still work in progress and it was not a great indicator for predicting annual performance.

Dr Matjila requested the Committee please visit the gardens. It would be interesting for the Committee to see the four sides of SANBI – one of a hardcore academic and research organisation producing journal articles etc., the policy advice side of SANBI, facilities management and then the custodial role of the entity in terms of biodiversity. SANBI was also a growing and exciting Institution with performance to be proud of.

Ms H Nyambi (ANC) noted that Members were once given visitor cards but they had since expired.

Mr Moeketsi Khoahli, SANBI Chief Corporate Officer, explained that SANBI was working with the Committee secretariat to get the names of Members to issue new cards. The process would be expedited.

Mr Makhubele questioned the reasons SANBI experienced less visitor in quarter one of the current financial year.

Ms Sithole responded that reports showed that there was an increase of visitors to the gardens but there were less people going to the restaurants which rented space of SANBI property. This could point to issues of economy with people choosing to visit the gardens with their own picnic baskets instead of eating at the restaurants. 

Ms Abrahamse thought it would be interesting to inform the Committee of the adaptation projects SANBI was working on at some time. In terms of biological assets, SANBI had been asked by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Minister of Science and Technology to take over SA’s only remaining national zoo in Pretoria. The zoo had enclosed animals of all kinds for display but also did research – the zoo was the leading research body, for example, on genetics of biodiversity.  This would mean SANBI would take on board a whole other area of working in relation to managing animals in enclosures in terms of biological assets. This would be a new and interesting challenge for SANBI to come and report to the Committee on. The zoo was currently managed by the Department of Science and Technology through the National Research Foundation. The zoo concerned biodiversity so it was actually within the ambit of SANBI. SANBI was also applying to the Global Climate Fund and this would be huge for efforts in the space of adaptation – this was why she really would like for SANBI to present its adaptation projects to the Committee.

The Chairperson said he would look into this in terms of the Committee programme to be briefed on SANBI’s adaptation programmes. He noted that personnel cost was about 56% of the total operating budget. Perhaps in October when the entities reported on Annual Reports, it might be useful for the Committee to get a closer look at the staff complement of SANBI.

Draft Committee Minutes dated 30 August 2016

Committee minutes dated 30 August 2016 were adopted with one minor amendment

The meeting was adjourned.  

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: