Climate Change Bill: public hearings

Meeting report

Submission: African Climate and Development Initiative

Dr Britta Rennkamp, Senior Researcher, ACDI, said that climate change was a transversal issue and it was important to bring all the actors together. Ensuring the Climate Change Bill aligned with the legislation already in place was important. The Bill should be used to make the constitutional right to a healthy environment for future generations more prominent.

She said that the Bill builds on the national development plan, but needs to be coordinated with the national determined contributions (NDCs). The Bill mentioned the Paris Agreement and the country’s NDC in the definitions section, but it also needed to be included in the operational sections of the Bill. The ACDI also felt that the process for Just Energy provision was not well reflected in the Bill due to the timing. The Bill also needed to enable coordination across all government departments.

See attached for full submission  

Discussion

Mr D Bryant (DA) said that it was refreshing to hear from a group of academics from the number one university in Africa on issues relating to South Africa and climate change. He hoped that the officials concerned were taking note of the group’s submissions and ensuring they factored in the key points raised. He asked, if the University of Cape Town found out that their submissions on the Bill were not taken into account, and it was passed as it stood, would they feel that a climate change bill in the current format was important to go through, or if there was still room to delay the process further.

Ms H Winkler (DA) asked what ACDI would like to see in terms of the reporting mechanisms, to ensure that there was going to be oversight and effective accountability, especially when it came to the spending of the climate finance coming from the Green Climate Fund and in terms of the non-profit companies (NPCs). She asked them to expound on what they meant by the inclusion of the NDCs and Paris Agreement in the operational sections of the Bill.

Ms A Weber (DA) said that the Bill was an important one. There was mention of the National Development Plan (NDP), which was 27 years away, but there was an immediate effort to try to reduce the carbon emissions in the same breathe. Some of the fuel power stations were close to expiry. The issue of minimum emissions was not a priority because the immediate need was energy and while this was being handled, emissions just kept going on as usual. Regarding extending the power stations for another five years, the stations were too old and refurbishment was also a problem. She asked what could be done in the Climate Change Bill to help the situation. The Bill was a great idea, but there was still the issue of enforcement.

The Chairperson asked if they had presented as the University of Cape Town on the earlier versions of the Bill and, if so, what response they had got. Was UCT asking for the Bill to be updated to reflect the evolving realities, but aside from that, did it support the Bill as an institution?

Mr N Paulsen (EFF) said that many human rights aspects had been left out around the issue of climate change. The people most affected by climate change were not people whose voices were being heard. He therefore asked what UCT thought Parliament could actually do to popularise the issue of climate change and climate change mitigation, and also to get people to raise their concerns about the impact of climate change and around the adaptation towards climate change.

Mr M Dlamini(ANC) asked what UCT’s broader understanding of stakeholder consultation was.

Ms S Mbatha (ANC) said that the presentation was a good one, but she wanted to know what the involvement of tertiary institutions on the issue of climate change was, and how best the country could deal with it as a team.

ACDI's response

Dr Rennkamp said that she could not speak for the whole university, but for the colleagues that had helped put the presentation together, it was a good idea to have the Bill and to move it along. It aligned a lot of the dynamics that other countries were also doing. It also meant that the South African government was responding and acknowledging the problem, which was not a given everywhere in the world. There was still a lot of denial about climate change.

She said that there was a trade-off on the decision on whether to pass the Bill as is now, and let it simmer for a while. It would depend on who the Bill was meant for and who actually needed legal protection from the state in a climate change crisis. That was the question the country needed to ask, particularly in a country as unequal and diverse as South Africa. In her perspective, the next step would depend highly on stakeholder engagement, where there was a lot of dominance from the energy sector and emission-intensive industries that came with a particular stance. However, there was a lot of vulnerability, as could be seen from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report that inequality and climate change did not do well together. Whatever wounds and vulnerabilities created through climate change would only get worse, and those may well be the ones whose voices need to be heard on the issue of climate change and who need actual protection.

There were different forms of protection. One was the ability to regulate output and emissions reductions and to consider the alternative that relates to the question of the energy sector -- if the power plants were still in use,  but it was difficult to maintain them. South Africa was blessed with renewable energy resources with accessible technology cheaper than all the big infrastructural coal or nuclear alternatives. There had been research that actually showed the more one procures in terms of renewables, one can actually have a prosperous economy, healthy communities and the impact of mining, and still have security of supply so that an up-to-standard economy was run close to a knowledge economy. The Bill should be used to strategically to align it with the policies that the government already has, the NDC process and the Just Transition partnership. There were a lot of leads in the integrated resource plan (IRP) that could be used to amplify the Bill to get to the point of just transition so that the country was not playing a game of catch-up.

In terms of stakeholders, she said it was important to try to reach out to people which the Committee had been doing quite well. The Committee should also consider using non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in trying to popularise the Bill, but there was a need to understand the actors really well. If emissions were not reduced, the impact would only worsen.

UCT tried to engage in their scholarship to work with government to respond to invitations where they can actually submit their knowledge. They had been working quite closely with the NDC process, with the Climate Commission, where they were able to put their research into the processes. They would also like to hear from the Committee what it is that they need to understand so that their scholarship goes both ways. She said that if the Committee sees UCT's input as valuable, they could also organise a colloquium with their IPCC office on specific issues. They had been trying to put the science out there, but they also wanted to be in a dialogue to also understand what was needed.

Mr Paulsen asked whether renewables could replace coal as a base load for energy in South Africa.

Dr Rennkamp said that it could, but not instantly. Over time, renewables could, but the transition needed to happen over time and there was still coal. The transition away from coal, as the global economy had done, would happen in SA anyway, so it was not just about the power plants, but also the mines. One could be proactive and fill that gap with renewables early on. The more renewables one has, the less base load is needed, especially regarding wind. There was also gas infrastructure, which was also burning a bit cleaner than coal. It was a transition fuel that could be looked into with what the country has in terms of remaining coal, with abundant renewables and possibly gas where one needs to fill into the base load, so one was in a very good position from a  technology perspective to manage the transition quickly.

Submission: OXFAM

Ms Nkateko Chauke, Head of Programmes, Oxfam, said the organisation's submission focused on the social inclusivity aspect, and that they had taken time to engage with the communities with which they worked at the grassroots level to ensure that they understood the provisions of the legislation as it stands. The Bill should establish mechanisms for addressing grievances raised by communities regarding the transparency of the processes, fairness and adequate compensation, income restoration, and security of tenure.

Oxfam was of the opinion that the Bill ought to prioritise investments in smart climate agriculture and – more in general - prioritise the establishment of provisions for loss and damage. Section 29 of the Bill on public participation should also be more deliberate on how it promotes public participation and also how it entrenches sound accountability mechanisms. The Bill should also define a pathway for a deeper conversation between citizens, government and the private sector (social compacting) for addressing worker’s rights issues as a consequence of new climate investments.

See attached for full submission  

Discussion

Ms Winkler said that her concern with the Bill had always been the fact that there did not seem to be substantial capacitation and resource placement for local municipalities. With the current governance crisis that exists, local municipalities are struggling to serve the basic mandate of municipalities. How did Oxfam envisage the Climate Bill interacting with the fact that municipalities were going to be able to play their role if the governance in itself was not empowered?

She wondered how Oxfam envisaged women’s rights and women’s empowerment in terms of their inclusion in the Bill.

Ms Mbatha said that she did not understand why Oxfam brought up the issue of compensation under the Bill. Would the compensation be based on a disaster that had occurred, because, according to her, climate change was not a man-made concept that would be subject to compensation? She asked Oxfam whether it understood that there was a unit handling disasters at all levels of government because climate change cuts across all programmes and departments -- it did not belong in just one department.

Was Oxfam aware that service delivery was at the local level, where municipalities had their own local NDP programmes which they usually undertake to plan for in their budgets for the coming year?

She said the issue of workers’ rights was covered in the Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Act and did not need to be in this Climate Change Bill. She asked for Oxfam's opinions on politicians who usually place communities in areas not supposed to be used for human settlement.

Mr Dlamini asked for an explanation of what smart climate agriculture meant, how exactly climate change affected workers' rights, and whether it was linked to their climate investment, or if it was something else.

The Chairperson asked Oxfam how they would like the Bill to address the grievances of the communities in a sustainable manner. Were there examples from other countries where Oxfam was based where they would recommend the adopted solution there, because some of the social development issues seemed to be beyond the scope of the Bill?

Oxfam's responses

Ms Chauke said they ensured substantial capacitation on the part of municipal offices that were hamstrung by many of the challenges they faced. They had seconded a technical expert who sits in the Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) office and provides technical guidance and training. They also partner with institutions such as Old Mutual in terms of rolling out capacity development initiatives that were particularly focused on climate governance at the municipal level. One such project they were starting in Namakgale in partnership with Old Mutual and the local government. They were focusing specifically on disaster risk reduction aspects.

She said that one of the recommendations they were making was already in play -- putting in place consultation processes which also trigger other departments to engage women further to participate.

In response to Ms Mbatha, she said that they are recommending that the Bill be more articulate in terms of what processes it was giving to relevant governments to deal with situations that arise from the Just Transition period, particularly recognising that through their work, they were an organisation recognising that in some of the communal land rights, households may not necessarily have ownership.

On compensation, she said that some of their global advocacy was particularly looking at partnership pledges that tackle the question of loss and damage, and what finance mechanism one can use to invest in that can compensate communities impacted by climate change. This was also a real opportunity to ensure that the legislation provides a real opportunity to ensure that the legislation provides the country with the freedom of a financial mechanism or structures that would respond to the issue. They were therefore interrogating how they worked with municipalities on how to tap into resource pools.

Oxfam were not refuting that the issue of workers’ rights sits with a different governmental department, but there was a need for policy harmonisation to ensure that the provisions of the Bill give effect to certain arms of government that are actually able to take on the execution of those responsibilities. Therefore there was a need to recognise the fact that a lot of what was projected around the transition would result in massive disruptions in the job market, and this could be both negative and positive. On a global scale, she did not think that the issue should be ignored in the Bill, because it had been suggested that there would be at least 85 million Just Transition jobs from solar installation. She therefore wondered how the Bill was ensuring that it was mindful of the evolution that was happening. The impact on the job market and ensuring that they entrenched progressive language around workers’ rights protection was a key element of the kind of new climate investments they were seeking to make.

Ms Benedetta Hollande, Humanitarian Programme Lead and Resilience Advisor, Oxfam, said they provide technical assistance through COGTA on disaster risk management. On alignment of the different policies, they looked at the urban climate crisis as a cascading effect of climate change. That was also why they included disaster management within the Bill. There was also climate displacement as a consequence of urban climate crises. The way that urbanisation was managed had a big impact on the climate risks. They also worked to align urban planning and urban development at the community level, alongside municipal disaster risk management planning. Creating a formalised mechanism for integrating the different mandates- from human settlements to disaster management risk agencies and the social department- would go a long way to truly ensuring that the connection and alignment policy was implemented, particularly in the urban environments.

Submission: Just Share

Ms Robyn Hugo, Director: Climate Change Engagement, Just Share, said that the Bill lacked effective penalties, and without consequences for noncompliance, it would not be able to achieve its objectives. The regulation and the reduction of emissions were urgent and important and should not be delayed by the excuse of needing to align the carbon tax and carbon budgets. There was no need to align the carbon tax and the carbon budgets. She said that the extensive corporate lobbying on the carbon tax had not only delayed the passing of the Bill, but also weakened the tax. The lobbying was still ongoing despite the fact that the tax was low, and was lower than what was required to incentivise climate action aligned with the 1.5 degrees limit.

The Bill lacked provisions or any penalties for failure by companies to implement a greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation plan. There was also no penalty for failure to report, monitor or remedy noncompliance with the mitigation plan. The Bill also did not go far enough to ensure accountability for those who contribute significantly to and/or exacerbate the impacts of the climate crisis.

She said that skilful corporate lobbying had created and reinforced harmful and false arguments that served to avoid and delay climate action and to preserve the status quo.

See attached for full submission  

Discussion

Ms Weber commended the presenter for bringing out the issues relating to enforcement related to emissions, which never happens. The way in which she had unpacked the enforcement mechanisms in the Bill was something to be considered moving forward. She agreed that the Bill was implementable, but the issue was on enforcement.

Mr Bryant asked for Just Share's perspective on identifying organisations and groupings to be represented on the Presidential Climate Commission. He said that there was a view from the fossil fuel sector that there was a need to be realistic in terms of how quickly the country committed to measures that could effectively slow down the country’s energy production and, in a way, impact the availability of electricity. He therefore was wondering how much state intervention there should be in business. What was the difference between the government engaging with an organisation and lobbying? Was there a fine line between the two?

Ms Winkler asked the organisation to speak about the economic trade-offs used to justify leniency regarding carbon budget taxes. She asked for examples in terms of best practices of how other governments had been able to deal with the situation.

She asked what the quantifications of the negative externalities were, of not doing what was required under the climate change regulations. Was there any research or documentation that they could share with the Committee?

Ms Mbatha asked what the organisation would recommend to relieve the pressure exerted by the Bill on national departments, provinces and municipalities to provide training. She also asked for its advice on the financial aspects of the training expected by the Bill.

The Chairperson asked which department, in their opinion, should regulate lobbying in South Africa. Would the contents of the Bill be adversely affected by regulating lobbying and anti-climate advocacy?

Just Share's response

Ms Hugo said there was a set global standard on responsible corporate climate lobbying. In South Africa, there had been no regulation on any type of lobbying until last year, when the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) for listed companies created some non-binding disclosure requirements concerning lobbying. There was overwhelming evidence that key pieces of legislation had negatively affected constructive climate policy engagement. It was primarily the Climate Change Bill and the Carbon Tax Act in South Africa. Independent work had been done by a think tank called Influence Map, which had also looked at the main global corporations and rated them on their lobbying engagement -- the sorts of things they do, and why they were problematic. Responsible lobbying was lobbying that was aligned with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

What Just Share had tried to do was to get shareholder resolutions tabled at SASOL, EXXARO and several other places, and they had asked them if and how they were lobbying and what their policy engagement activities were. How did they align with the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit the rise of global average temperature, and what was the framework for identifying and mitigating the risks? If there was misalignment, under which circumstances were they going to escalate the matter?

They were going to do three briefings on corporate lobbying. The first one was included in their presentation slides, which explained what corporate lobbying was. The second one would share the specifics of the Climate Change Bill and the Carbon Tax Act. They were going to talk about their ideas concerning regulation in the third presentation.

It was clear that there was a need for disclosure and regulation. Research showed that obstructive lobbying had delayed engagement and weakened the Carbon Tax Act.

In response to Mr Bryant, she said that perhaps it might be far to call them out for refusing to reduce authorised emissions and ultimately looking at the global budget and figuring out who gets what share. They had assessed SASOL's climate reduction plan in detail, which had a lot to be improved upon.

Ms Hugo said that the issue of trade-offs could be a difficult one, but ultimately the poor and vulnerable were going to suffer the most and lawmakers must be alive to the fact that with the lobbying and co-option of the Just Transition narrative, it was very important to understand how it was being used and where it was not true. There were a lot of reports that had come out opposing the narrative that Africa needed fossil fuel, and that fossil fuels were the only way to alleviate poverty to get jobs for economic growth and development, which was simply not true, so being able to recognise that and having credible evidence that countered that narrative was very important. She insisted that such evidence did exist.

She said that government should, at the very least, interact with the industry. Lobbying must be well understood and the engagement and policy activities must be disclosed. There was a wealth of evidence about the negative externalities which they were happy to share where to find it, if it would help.

Mr Bryant asked for their perspective on the Presidential Climate Commission's inclusion of different role players. He asked whether there were countries that had implemented the global standards for lobbying that she had mentioned.

Ms Hugo said the global standards on lobbying had been widely signed on to and developed with extensive consultation with the corporate sector.

She said that she was not knowledgeable enough about the Presidential Climate Commission to give a substantive response. She had nothing concrete to say about the process followed in appointing the commissioners.

Submission: Climate Action Network South Africa (CANSA)

Mr Thando Lukuko, Coordinator: CANSA, took the Committee through the organisation's submission on the Climate Change Bill.

See attached for full submission  

Discussion

Ms Winkler asked if there were any other routes that CANSA envisaged that would help institutionalise the issue of climate action so that it was not incumbent just on whoever was in the current administration to ensure there was climate action continuity.

Mr Lukuko said he did not have any suggestions that immediately came to mind, but committed to spelling those out in an email and forwarding them to the Committee.

The Chairperson asked whether CANSA had any awareness or advocacy programmes they were currently engaged in with their respective communities and constituencies insofar as climate change, in general, was concerned, and the contents of the Bill.

Mr Lukuko confirmed that they did have climate change advocacy programmes created on a needs basis. They were also working on the Just Transition, where their awareness programmes were predominantly focused. Because of how the process of the Bill was unfolding, it was almost topical so it was quite difficult to engage people. Outside of that, there were social media platforms to really pass along the messages.

CANSA were not climate change denialists. They had strong views on issues such as oil and gas. The notion that environmental organisations were against development was erroneous, and was also not a true reflection of their work. They look at how they can best safeguard human lives today and the lives of those coming to ensure that they have a habitable environment and that they become the best version of themselves beyond what was expected of them outside of environmental constraints. Their view was that people must be able to look at how the country would be able to develop to achieve the kinds of goals that they wanted to achieve.

The Chairperson asked if it would be prudent to use the approach of the Waste Management Act, which requires that all spheres of government should develop integrated waste management plans. Could the Climate Change Bill be approached in the same manner?

Mr Lukuko replied that one of the most important filters that the Bill should be looked through was one of an integrated approach. Once this was done, one would be able to understand how it impacted other spheres like waste management, which may contribute to South Africa's broader goal of reducing carbon emissions. Implementing such an integrated system would be a response to how the country responds to the question of direct intervention by the state and non-state actors.

Submission: Natural Justice

Ms Jacqueline Rukanda, Programme Manager: Affirming Rights, Natural Justice, said the organisation supported the main purpose of the Bill, and commended the Minister for introducing it. However, its text and provisions needed to be improved upon. She highlighted the fact that the Bill was weak on transparency and access to information on climate change. It also lacked sufficient penalties to ensure compliance with the emission reduction requirements. The Bill also did not adequately mainstream climate change mitigation and adaptation in all government decisions.

They therefore recommended the establishment of an interdepartmental climate change directorate to oversee multi-sectoral implementation of the Bill. She asked the Portfolio Committee to give due consideration to their comments and work to ensure that the Bill, so amended, was promulgated as soon as possible, given the urgency of climate change mitigation and adaptation in South Africa.

See attached for full submission

Discussion

Ms Winkler expressed her gratitude for the presentation, and asked the organisation to leave behind details of their contacts.

The Chairperson asked how they thought South Africa should go about adequately mainstreaming the mitigation and adaptation strategies on climate change in all government spheres for decision-making. He also asked what they meant by stating that the Bill should give certainty on enforcement in terms of language and text.

Ms Rukanda said that when they spoke about a multi-sectoral approach, they felt that the institutional arrangements were already there. Therefore, in their perspective, there might not be a need for a new minister or someone else who came in afresh to lead such an initiative if it was adopted. They felt that in its Constitution, South Africa talks to corporate governance. She did not have the full details on how those directives should be led, but she felt the institutional arrangements and human resource capacity were there. What was needed was to import coordination and information sharing and co-creation of ideas between the different sectors of government so that the multi-sectoral approach could become a reality.

On language and text, she said that the penalties and compliance measures of section 32 should be strengthened. Therefore, the wording needed to be improved to ensure that there were really stronger enforcement and compliance measures. She said that the Bill provided only for one single offence, but failed to provide any penalty for the offence. The Bill should have provisions that focus on all of the kinds of situations where there was noncompliance and then come up with appropriate penalties for those kinds of noncompliance situations.

The Chairperson asked if Natural Justice was familiar with the British Climate Change Commission, and whether she was suggesting that South Africa adopt a similar approach of creating a committee to implement the Bill once it is passed. He said some of the inputs made by the organisation were quite valuable, and ought to find expression in the draft of the Bill. He asked whether Natural Justice had participated in the earlier versions of the Bill by the Department, or if this was the first time they were making oral submissions.

Ms Rukanda said she was unfamiliar with British Climate Change Commission, so she was reluctant to suggest South Africa adopt the same model. When it came to a multi-sectoral approach, the way in which she saw the South African situation was that of one capable of being a leader in Africa. South Africa had unique natural resources and had a democracy treading towards maturity, rather than looking at Western nations. South Africa could do its own thing which suited the context and the country's situation.

She said that Natural Justice had been following many of bills that had come from different portfolio committees. Currently, they are following the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Bill which, in their view, contradicts what the Climate Change Bill is trying to achieve. She hoped that the Portfolio Committee would go back and reflect on their submissions and see what other competing and conflicting legislation was coming out. She said that this was her first oral submission to a portfolio committee.

The Chairperson thanked the Members and the presenters for their participation. He said that any additional information could be forwarded through the Secretary of the Committee.

The meeting was adjourned.