Report back on outcomes of UNFCCC COP27; Just Transition Energy Investment Plan; with Deputy Minister
Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
27 January 2023
Chairperson: Mr P Modise (ANC) (Acting)
Just Transition Energy Investment Plan
The Portfolio Committee on Environment, Forestry and Fisheries met virtually for a report back on the outcomes of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP27 in Egypt, and for a briefing by the Presidential Climate Change Commission (PCCC) on the outcomes of the conference on the Just Transition Energy investment platform.
Members initially expressed concern about the absence of some Members who had attended the COP27 proceedings. Deputy Minister Maggie Sotyu assured the Committee that it was worth proceeding with the meeting in the absence of Minister Creecy, as the COP27 chief negotiator and his team were present in the meeting.
Members expressed the view that the presentation on the COP27 in Egypt did not inspire belief that there was a universal commitment to reduce the impact of climate change, and said they were concerned that money was the main focus. The Committee felt that rich countries had not entirely fulfilled their financial obligations, and questioned what was being done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It asked about grant funding transferred to South Africa, how it was utilised, and whether a project manager would be responsible for it.
The Committee asked the PCC to highlight its main successes. Members felt that the conference did not produce implementable and sustainable action to benefit the lives of South Africans. They highlighted the load-shedding crisis which was destroying the economy. They wanted to know the difference between "Just Transition" and "Energy Transition," and how to ensure that entities such as Eskom and Sasol complied with basic environmental laws to prevent environmental pollution. Members posed questions on South Africa’s position in relation to China's extremely high carbon emissions, which contributed 27% of global emissions and was amongst the top three in the world. There was concern that South Africa was still using coal and fossils, while a lot of coal was being transported to other countries, but South Africa still experienced load-shedding. Members pointed out that Uganda had established its own solar plant, distributed this energy to manufacture electric buses and cars, and urged South Africa to look into doing the same.
Members asked what the short, medium and long-term benefits of the outcome of COP27 would be, and why there was so much condemnation of developing countries when China was not held accountable. They questioned the impact on the employment contribution from renewable energy, and whether more job losses would be incurred. The Committee felt it had not received a clear picture of the outcomes of COP27. It resolved that it would invite the Presidency, National Treasury and other relevant parties to provide a holistic picture of moving forward without a silo mentality. The PCC would also make an updated presentation to the Committee on the ongoing energy crisis and the urgency in addressing this, while incorporating the views of the Committee.
The Chairperson welcomed all present in the meeting, and announced that Mr M Dlamini (ANC) was replacing Ms F Muthambi (ANC). The Committee hoped to learn from him and to share wisdom with one another. He also conveyed an apology for the absence of Minister Barbara Creecy, who had other commitments.
Mr N Singh (IFP) pointed out that many Members were absent from the meeting and asked how to proceed.
Ms S Mbatha (ANC) said she was driving, as she had to attend to urgent family matters, and apologised for being in and out of the meeting.
Ms A Weber (DA) supported Mr Singh, saying that this was a problem as the Committee had questions to pose to Members to make certain decisions. The Committee had no time to prepare when presentations were received in the morning of the meeting.
The Chairperson said the Committee may not do justice, given the low number of Members in attendance.
Ms Weber said Mr D Bryant (DA) would attend from 10h00, and it would be worth proceeding with the meeting.
Ms T Mchunu (ANC) said that the matters to be discussed were very important, and asked for the meeting to be rescheduled. She said a report would also be received from support staff for the Committee to make an effective input.
Ms Mbatha said she supported the previous comments made. She said it was necessary for the Minister to be present at the meeting.
Ms Weber said the meeting needed to proceed, as public participation would take place from the following week. There were enough Members present to provide inputs.
Mr Singh said he did not propose a postponement, but wanted to discuss the matter. The Deputy Minister (DM), Ms Maggie Sotyu, should provide input on the matter. The meeting should not be postponed on account of the absence of Members.
Ms N Ganthso (ANC) said she also wanted guidance on the matter from DM Sotyu.
DM Sotyu agreed with Members' comments, but said the DG and the team that were part of COP27 and its negotiators, Mr Maesela Kekana and his team, were present so the meeting should proceed. It would have been good if Minister Creecy were present, as she had been a part of the conference.
The Chairperson said Members should be unequivocal regarding how the Committee should proceed. He summarised Members' comments and asked whether they wanted to postpone or proceed with the meeting.
Ms Weber said the team was present and competent, and the Committee should proceed with the meeting.
Ms Mbatha said the meeting should proceed as the relevant officials were present.
Mr Singh said the Committee should proceed with the meeting.
DM Sotyu said a lot of media had detailed the outcomes of COP27. The DG's team was ready to take the Committee through the outcomes.
Ms Nomfundo Tshabalala, Director-General, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE), said the full team who participated in COP27 was present, and was led by the Acting DDG.
Presentation of COP 27 outcomes
Mr Maesela Kekana, Chief Director: International Climate Change, DFFE, who was Chief Negotiator at COP27, presented the COP27 outcomes to the Committee.
The presenttion outlined that South Africa and the Africa group had put forward key asks before the COP, including but not limited to Operationalising the Global Goal on Adaptation, Mitigation, Finance, Loss & Damage Financing facility, recognition of the Special Needs and Circumstances of Africa.
• Results were disappointing as SA did not get the concrete framework with targets and indicators.
• Instead, got a process to develop a framework. In that process, SA/AGN can continue to push for science-based indicators, targets and metrics.
• This was largely due to the conduct of the developed countries who were unwilling to take this seriously
Special Needs And Circumstance of Africa:
• The proposal to place the item on the agenda did not enjoy consensus.
• Informal consultations by the Egyptian COP 27 Presidency also reached an impasse.
• The issue will be taken up by the COP 28 President
• COP 26 initiated a work programme on scaling up mitigation to 2030
• COP 27 agreed the modalities of the work programme
• COP 27 also affirmed Glasgow agreement to keeping the 1.5 degree temperature goal alive
• However, parties could not agree on the language to phase down or out ALL fossil fuels in addition to coal-phase down.
Loss and Damage:
• The key milestone agreed to at COP27, was on funding arrangements to address loss and damage due to climate change, as part of the funding arrangements.
• Sources of funding will be part of further negotiation; mandates to UNSG,IFIs to convene processes, while reiterating importance of Financial Mechanisms under the Convention.
• COP27 agreed to set up a fund on loss and damage.
• It established a Transitional Committee to work on the modalities of this fund with a view of taking a decision at COP28 in 2023.
• The Santiago Network for Loss and Damage (SNLD) was also finalised with agreement on TORs for its Secretariat, The Supervisory Body and the Financing sources.
• SNLD is tasked with providing technical assistance to developing countries
Just Transition Work Programme:
• A work programme has been established at COP 27 on the just transition.
• Annual high-level Ministerial round-table on Just Transition, starting at CMA5 in Dubai.
• Modalities of the work programme to be negotiated in 2023.
• However, it has been agreed that the work programme will consider longterm pathways to meet the Paris temperature goal, and that it must be based on nationally defined development priorities.
• We need to continue to argue that just transitions are plural.
• COP27 called for increased momentum to reform the Multilateral Development Banks and International Financial Institutions;
• Called on the shareholders of these institutions to take decisive action to scale up climate finance in 2023 and make their institutional arrangements fit for purpose;
• On Paris Goal, 2.1c, the COP agreed to establish two separate but linked work programmes, one focusing on the role of the Just Transitions in making financial flows consistent with low emissions and climate-resilient development and second one on the relationship between Articles 2.1c and 9;
• On long-term finance, the COP expressed serious concern that the goal of developed country Parties to mobilise jointly USD 100 billion per year by 2020 has not yet been met and urges developed country Parties to meet the goal;
• On the Green Climate Fund (GCF), the COP urges developed country Parties to provide resources for the second replenishment of the GCF while demonstrating progression over previous replenishments and in line with the programming capacity of the Fund.
• There are various perspectives on whether COP 27 was a success or not.
• For us, success is measured in terms of what our mandate was.
• In this regard, we believe that COP 27 delivered on its mandate.
• The Africa group also believe that COP 27 delivered on its mandate.
• We are disappointed in the conduct of developed countries around issues of adaptation. They do not seem to take this as a serious area of work. – Some developed countries have not fulfilled the financial pledges they made in Glasgow to the Adaptation Fund.
• There is also a need to work within the G77 & China to reach an understanding of the recognition of Africa’s Special Circumstances and Special Needs.
(Please see attached document for details)
Mr Singh said he had a number of questions. He confirmed that he had not attended COP27. The conclusion of the presentation did not inspire him to believe that there was a universal commitment to reduce the impact of climate change. It seemed to be all about money. Rich countries wanted to throw their money around but did not fulfil the promised financial obligations. What was being done to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions? It seemed these conferences were all talk, with no implementable and sustainable action to benefit the lives of people in South Africa. South Africa faced extremely difficult circumstances with load-shedding, which was destroying the economy.
He asked what the difference was between just transition and just energy transition. Looking at people employed at coal-fired power stations, where was the balance to ensure Eskom and Sasol complied with basic environmental laws to prevent them from polluting the environment? These were modern plants, but they still experienced load-shedding. He asked what the role of the Department of Environmental Affairs was. It had been announced that half a billion dollars from France had been granted as concessional loans -- what progress had been made? They were going nowhere when rich countries threw their money around. He had read that rich countries were planting trees in Africa and receiving carbon credits for this, but the trees being planted were not indigenous. They were using the land of indigenous people.
Mr Kekana said the Paris Agreement was arranged around a five-year cycle. There were Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and at the end of the cycle, there would be a stock take to see where the parties were at. They were still in the first cycle of implementation, which was from 2021-2025, and they always revised the NDCs. When they reached Egypt, they were slightly above 2 degrees, indicating progress. The real test lay in implementation, and many parties had presented a ten-year implementation plan, so the real test would only be in 2030. There were compliance committees to address when commitments were not fulfilled.
Mr Kekana said National Treasury had negotiated the finance part, and he could not speak to this.
Mr Bryant posted his question in the Zoom chat, and the Chairperson read it out. He asked which definition was used for developing countries. What was South Africa’s position on the extremely high emissions in China? They too should pay their fair share, though they did not define themselves as a developing country.
The Chairperson said a university professor had made a submission to the Committee, urging that financial institutions such as International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank should classify South Africa amongst some of the well-developed countries due to its wealth and investment terrain and associated infrastructure. The minerals of South Africa, which included fossil fuels and hydrocarbons, would become a climate liability, making its children liable to other countries for climate change. Did this sentiment underlie multilateral climate change negotiations at the level of COPS? Was there a lack of commitment to pay for adaptation?
Mr Kekana said it was the view of the USA that developing countries needed to isolate China. South Africa worked on the UN classification that China was a developing country, and it did not want to see any fragmentation of developing countries. The US raised the issue again, and African leaders had agreed that China was a developing country. South Africa did not subscribe to the view of the US and the "divide and conquer" aspect.
He said a small island developing country had sought an opinion from the International Court of Justice under the UN General Assembly. The outcome was awaited.
The Chairperson asked if Members had follow-up questions.
Mr Bryant said China was contributing 27% of global emissions, which was among the top three in the world. One could not pretend this was not the case. Did the Department not recognise that this was a very high emission and therefore China should make some type of contribution to the transition within Africa?
Mr Kekana said the risk agreement catered for the NDC, and the plan must include a section motivating why South Africa believed what it had put forward was its fair share. Developed countries should provide leadership and resources to developing countries
Ms Mbatha said there had been part-funding transferred to South Africa, and asked how this was utilised and what percentage of it still needed to come through. President Ramaphosa led the Climate Change Commission. She wanted to know who sat on the Commission. She knew Mr B Holomisa (UDM) was on the Commission, and was of the view that a Minister should also be on it. She asked if a project manager is employed at present, and how they could trust that a proper job would be done. South Africa was still using coal and fossils, and a lot of coal was being transported to other countries, but South Africa still suffered from load-shedding. How was this possible? Issues relating to financing should be fixed as soon as possible.
Mr Kekana said he could not speak to the agreements signed by National Treasury, as this was out of the scope of the Department. He would be speculating to speak on the progress and issues related to the President being in charge. He could also not speak to the other issues raised by the Member. He referred other questions to other representatives of the Department.
Mr Singh asked if there was a plan for utilising the loan of half a billion dollars, and for the Department to explain the short, medium and long-term benefits of the outcome of COP would be.
Mr Kekana said if South Africa reduced its emissions to zero, it would still suffer. Only a collective impact would be helpful. There was a need to engage and push everyone to do their fair share under the system to make progress.
Mr Zaheer Fakir, Chief Policy Adviser: International Relations and Governance, DFFE, said two funds were managing the financial mechanism -- the Global Environment Facility and the Green Climate Fund. South Africa had access to both funds, and accessing financing required project proposals. Co-financing was also needed to leverage funds. South Africa had a portfolio of R179 million with the Green Climate Fund. It had received approval for a project looking at climate investment in water sanitation and the ocean.
Other funds did not form part of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). South Africa presented a proposal to the Climate Investment Fund to accelerate its position. The fund would support South Africa in decommissioning coal power stations and putting in place batteries. It was not only the energy component, but the social and economic component was also covered. Part of the funding went to Mpumalanga community projects and the re-skilling of workers. The investment plan was approved in October for R500 million in concessional finance. This meant there was a low-interest rate of below 2%, and allowed for 11 years before repayments needed to be made. There was also finance from the World Bank and the African Development Bank for R2.1 billion.
He said access to grant funding was diminishing, and South Africa was often marginalised in the financial system as it was classified as a middle-income country. This also caused higher interest and concessional rates to be levied. This was why the COP27 decision around financial architecture was important, because it looked at how to gain financial instruments to prevent the burden of risk, and allow for much greater financial opportunities.
Mr Jongikhaya Witi, Chief Director: Climate Change Monitoring and Evaluation, DFFE, said that looking at the emissions inventory for greenhouse gases, South Africa was at 440 million tons. That was above the upper range target of 420 million tons by 2030, and was due to a number of things such as the COVID-19 pandemic, load-shedding, and the suppressed demand for transport. Looking at the latest emissions until the end of this year, an increase of 10 to 20 million tons was expected due to increased economic activity.
From a policy point of view, there has been a carbon tax since 2019, which would go through reforms to reconsider the price. National Treasury would communicate the reforms. Two years ago, Cabinet approval was given for two important frameworks, such as the carbon emission limits imposed on companies and a reduction of targets allocated to sectors such as the transport and energy sectors. These had already been implemented. They had estimated and quantified what tariffs should be charged to various companies by sectors, and this would be concluded between the end of 2023 and June 2024. Sectoral emission targets had been split into two parts, such as environmental sets and those related to other departments. The limits had already been quantified, and they would have to engage with broader stakeholders before publishing this early next year. Targets had been divided into two parts. The long term looked at 2050, and the short term looked at 2030 for the NDC targets.
The Chairperson asked whether it was advantageous to the African group of negotiators to have China in the G77 group, as their economy was by far superior to South Africa and many other countries. China had also been accused of colonising many other economies and encouraging land grabs in some parts of the continent. Did it make sense for South Africa to suffer the collateral damage?
Ms Weber asked if China recognised their role as one of the top emitters of greenhouse gasses during negotiations, and why there was so much condemnation of developed countries while China got a free ride. Was South Africa changing its targets, as it did not have the funds to reach its targets by 2025? What would happen with the ordinary communities and households in all of this, as there would definitely be a shortfall, and the other 90% of renewable energy jobs would definitely be temporary? What impact would this have on the employment contribution from renewables? Would more job losses be incurred, and what could be done to ensure that more people did not become unemployed and live in poverty?
Mr Witi said there were targets, and what was needed now was ownership. As the Draft Climate Bill was passed, the targets would be published and they would use a monitoring and reporting mechanism. Mitigation plans must be in place, stating what would be done to reduce emissions. This was already in place on an annual basis. For example, this year, in March, companies would submit progress reports on their mitigation plans, and the process would continue and be subject to review in five years.
On the impact and transition of jobs, around 2018, a national environment vulnerability assessment was conducted to have an understanding of the implications of climate change mitigation actions, such as phasing down coal. The Department had created sector job residence plans to understand what plans could be put into place to alleviate that impact. They were working with the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to take some of those concepts and implement them. For example, there were social job protection plans. The key issue was leveraging resources to implement them at scale. This required a lot of support across the board.
Mr Singh said the Committee had not received the full picture of the outcomes of COP27. This was no fault of the Department, but the finance responsibility lay with the Presidency and the National Treasury. He urged the Chairperson to negotiate with these parties to meet with the Committee for a holistic picture of how to move forward without a silo mentality.
The Chairperson asked again about a project manager, and whether this person would be responsible for the disbursement of funds.
Mr Kekana said he could not answer this, as the Presidency would have this information. The only issue he could deal with was related to the free-riding of China. He said no one was allowed to free ride in the system, and everyone had an obligation to justify what they put forward. There was a collective responsibility to report to the Compliance Committee when there was no compliance. He stated categorically that there was no free riding by China or anyone else. Everyone should be evaluated on their implementation.
Ms Mbatha said she saw Uganda had established its own solar plant and was distributing this energy to manufacture electric buses. She asked when South Africa would do the same. The late former Minister, Edna Molewa, had started the project to produce electric cars. Many buses and trucks were travelling on the roads -- when was South Africa going to take this route to resolve issues? A solar energy plant would solve many issues. African countries had resources, but established countries were taking them.
Mr Kekana noted the comments, but did not have any information on when the manufacture of electric cars and buses would take place.
The Chairperson noted the recommendations made by Members. He asked the DG to find out more information on whether a project manager had been employed.
He welcomed the team from the Presidential Climate Change Commission.
Presidential Climate Commission presentation
Ms Thuli Khumalo, Chief Operations Officer, Presidential Climate Commission (PCC), made the presentation to the Committee.
The PCC was mooted in the Presidential Job Summit Framework Agreement in October 2018. The Commission was appointed by President in December 2020 based on a Cabinet decision. Its purpose is to independently advise on the country’s climate change response and pathways to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy and society. The Commission consists of 12 Ministers and 26 Commissioners appointed on the basis of nominations from social partners. The Climate Change Bill to be considered by Parliament includes provisions for Commission as permanent statutory body.
The presentation outlined the main functions of the PCC and how it’s work complemented key govenrment processes. The presentation looked at the PCC’s particiption in COP27, particuarly on mitigation.
(Please see attached document for details)
Mr Singh said he did not have an opportunity to go through the presentation, as it had come quite late. The establishment of the PCC was not a done deal -- it was still being considered. He asked what the DFFE had to say about what had been presented. Were they forcing the DFFE and PCC to accept certain responsibilities? Who was finally accountable?
Ms Khumalo said the PCC had been established only to advise government, and was not an implementer of policies. The Commission was composed of different social partners, business, government and various Ministers.
Mr Bryant asked about the establishment of the PCC, and pointed out that this was still being discussed and was not a foregone conclusion. He asked about the PCC’s main success story so far. The PCC had expressed a desire to work with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other outside organisations -- had this taken place?
Ms Khumalo said the advantage the PCC had was that it could bring different stakeholders together to engage in one room on different aspects of climate change and transition. The transition phase was a success story which now needed to move to the implementation stage. The PCC ran consultation processes, and its NDC was adopted after the recommendations made to government and the UNFCCC. The PCC had been involved in the KZN floods and put together a response to this. The PCC would make recommendations on the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) development which Minister Gwede Mantashe requested in support of the work he had initiated in the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE). The PCC had established working groups for technical aspects such as mitigation, adaptation, monitoring and evaluation and reporting. Technical aspects were then brought to the PCC for consideration and decision-making. Different commissioners chaired different working groups. The PCC provided support to facilitate discussions for the Committees. She confirmed that consensus building was taking place in the PCC.
Ms Mbatha asked what percentage of grant funding had been transferred to South Africa, what had been used, and how much of the grant was left. How was the grant utilised? She thought the issue relating to the project manager would have been addressed by Ms Khumalo. When would such a person be appointed, and how would it assist South Africans? She asked how South Africa could benchmark with Uganda to have its own solar plant and electrified buses and trucks.
Ms Khumalo said she was not the correct person to address discussions on funds. The head of the Presidential Finance Task Team would be the correct person to speak to. This did not form part of the PCC’s mandate. The PCC had been tasked with consulting the public and providing a report on the consultation process. Manufacturing also did not form part of the mandate of the PCC. Minister Ebrahim Patel, Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC), presented a long presentation on electric vehicles in South Africa and what would happen with the existing manufacturers. She did not have an answer on how South Africa could benchmark with Uganda.
The Chairperson asked if the PCC would be funded as an entity of the DFFE in the 2023/24 financial year.
Ms Khumalo said she was aware that the process of public participation still needed to be concluded. The terms of reference for the establishment of the PCC indicated that it was a Presidential Climate Commission, and the DFFE and the Department of Performance Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) were responsible for providing resources and secretarial support for the PCC to function. The National Treasury had transferred the funds required for the PCC to the DFFEE and the DPME. The Cabinet had then decided that the PCC should be hosted by the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) in the interim. At the moment, funds were being transferred to NEDLAC through the Department of Employment and Labour (DEL), but administratively the PCC still reported to the two Ministers.
Mr Bryant referred to NGOs and consensus building, and asked which NGOs and members of civil society were being represented in those discussions. How often did the Commission go about identifying specific partners to work with? Was there a checklist for this or had a call been put out? He did not want Members of civil society to feel excluded.
Ms Khumalo said the PCC worked with Ms Melissa Fourie from the Centre for Environmental Rights, Ms Makoma Lekalakala from Life Africa, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was represented by Louise Naude, groundWork was represented by Mr Bobby Peek, and Ayakha Melithafa represented the youth. She added that she may have missed some represented NGOs. The establishment of the PCC had been decided at a job summit. The President had then requested nominations from those organisations for those who would serve on the Commission. These organisations had nominated people to represent them.
Climate change was an issue for all South Africans to deal with. The Commission held community meetings to discuss any issues, such as the implementation of the Just Transition Framework. The President had asked the Commission to do consultations on this. They needed to address members of the public about the recommendations the PCC would make. They hold these community meetings in parts of the country such as Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal and Gqeberha. There were insufficient resources to go to all parts of the country, but the Commission did mobilise the communities it goes to. It speaks with community radio stations and uses flyers.
She handed over to Mr Blessing Manale, who heads the Outreach programme in the PCC secretariat.
Mr Manale said consultations for this quarter would include Lephalale, the Northern Cape and Kuruman. The PCC had also planned a religious and indigenous sector summit. It has also spoken to community radio stations to have weekly programmes and call-in programmes. The PCC’s recommendations must therefore come from its interactions. He submitted to the Committee that it would like to attend public consultations on the Climate Change Bill so that it continued to hear issues communities would have an interest in. The PCC also had other ambitious programmes, which aimed to mobilise the youth through art and non-traditional programmes.
Mr Bryant asked about members of civil society and the NGOs wanting to be involved in consensus building. How would an NGO get involved without being nominated?
Ms Khumalo said if NGOs wished to be included, they could write to the President or the Commission's deputy chairperson.
Mr Singh said everyone would be interested in the outcomes of the social and economic impacts on many communities. He read an article from the Ministry of Labour on occupational diseases. Applications were being received for compensation for health risks stemming from a mine in Zululand. Millions were being offered, and people were being requested to apply. He asked if this fell under the PCC, and if the Ministry of Labour then partnered with the PCC.
Ms Khumalo said this did not fall within the scope of the PCC. Its only concern was the closures of mines and the resulting job losses.
Mr Manale said newsletters had been issued, and it would initiate discussions on electronic pigeonholes. Every consultation was summarised, and there were also full video recordings. The PCC would continue to find ways to expand.
Ms Khumalo said the PCC had representatives from the CSIR and the Agricultural Research Council (ARC) who were also Commissioners, but occasionally research institutions were contracted for their expertise and long-term knowledge.
The Chairperson noted that the composition of the PCC was huge. He asked if the PCC was not sceptical that it may become irrelevant in the near future, given its scope of work and other functions. He commented that this work could be done by departments already in existence. Had areas of duplication in the PCC’s work been noted?
Ms Khumalo said the PCC was long-term in nature and dealt with issues that cut across different government mandates. It was her view that an outside body was necessary to consider what the overall response for the country should be, and for it then to present this to the various departments to be noted in policy implementation. The PCC did not have a policy-making function, and different stakeholders had different mandates. The Commission consisted of people appointed by the President, such as the secretariat, which deals with the technical functions.
Ms Mbatha asked if awareness could be created in local languages, and be directed at individuals who could not read and write.
Ms Khumalo said awareness was done in local languages, and those who could not read and write were also addressed in these consultations if they attended them. The Just Transition Framework was also translated into other languages, and much more could be done to make it available in all 11 languages if the funds were available for this.
Mr Steve Nicholls, Head of Mitigation, PCC, said the Commission had no intention of reinventing the wheel in its research programmes and worked with a wide range of partners in the City of Cape Town. There would be a continued role for the PCC in coordinating the activity for the Just Transition Framework.
The Chairperson said the PCC was complementing the work of various government departments. The Committee would recommend a meeting with a number of government departments so that they would all be on the same page. The Committee had previously resolved that the PCC should present to the Committee at least once a year.
In his closing remarks, the Chairperson said the Committee must revisit its decision on how often it interacted with the PCC and the work it undertook as a Committee on climate change to encapsulate the Commission’s views.
Mr Bryant requested a presentation from the PCC on the ongoing energy crisis, and the urgency of the matter. He also asked for an updated version of the same presentation which had been made in Egypt.
Mr Nicholls said he was willing to do this, and to incorporate the views of the Portfolio Committee.
DM Sotyu thanked Ms Khumalo, and commended her on her work. She was happy with the interaction with the PCC.
The Chairperson thanked the team led by the DM and all other stakeholders at the meeting.
The Portfolio Committee would be visiting Mpumalanga from 3 to 5 February, and he invited stakeholders to present their comments on navigating the promulgation of the Bill and, subsequently the Act.
The meeting was adjourned.
Modise, Mr PMP
Bryant, Mr D W
Dlamini, Mr M
Gantsho, Ms N
Mbatha, Ms SGN
Mchunu, Ms TVB
Singh, Mr N
Sotyu, Ms MM
Weber, Ms AMM
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.