Climate Change Bill: response to public submissions; with Minister

Meeting report

Ms Tyhileka Madubela, Committee Secretary, noted that the Committee Chairperson was still unwell and would not be in attendance. The Committee needed to elect a chairperson for the meeting and called for nominations.

Ms S Mbatha (ANC) accepted nomination as meeting chairperson and asked everyone to keep Mr Modise in their prayers.

Apologies were noted from the Minister and Deputy Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment, the DFFE Director General and Mr Jongikhaya Witi, Chief Director, Climate Change Monitoring and Evaluation. Mr Themba Mnguni, DFFE Parliamentary Liaison Officer, noted that Minister Barbara Creecy would try her best to join the meeting.

Department response to public submissions on Climate Change Bill
Mr Tlou Ramaru, DFFE Chief Director: Climate Change Adaptation, noted that in their last engagement, they had gone through the 50-page document which summarised the public submissions and the Department's proposed amendment recommendations. He asked if the Chairperson wanted to revert to the 50-page document for discussion or proceed with the 650-page document which contained the Department responses to each and every public comment.

The Chairperson said the Committee Secretary had sent the Department responses to the Climate Change Bill comments to Committee members. She was unsure if the Committee needed to be guided by this document or the 50-page document.

Ms H Winkler (DA) said her understanding was that last week the Committee had looked at Department proposed amendment recommendations and engaged them. The objective of this meeting was to look at the further DFFE responses. The focus should be on DFFE responses that the Committee had not yet seen.

The Chairperson asked the Committee to weigh in as she was unsure if the Committee had read the document. There were concerns that might need DFFE’s attention.

Mr D Bryant (DA) thought that the 650-page document sent to the Committee was an internal one from the research department to assist the Committee. The document was probably not one that the Committee needed to flight and discuss. Ms Winkler’s suggestion made sense.

The Chairperson said the Committee should continue using the 50-page document as Mr Ramaru proceeded with the 650-page document.

Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment Responses on Climate Bill
Mr Ramaru said he would be going through the comments and responses contained in the longer version document. DFFE tried to capture comments in detail as they were coming through. These comments did not necessarily constitute an amendment recommendation but merely to consider and determine how these could be dealt with. 

Chapter 1: Interpretation, objects and application pages: 1- 43
Chapter 2: Policy alignment and institutional arrangements pages: 44 – 103
Chapter 3: Climate change response: provinces and municipalities pages: 103 – 139 
Chapter 4 National adaptation to impacts of climate change pages: 139 -194 
Chapter 5: Greenhouse gas emissions removal pages: 194 – 392
Chapter 6: General matters and transitional arrangements: pages: 392 – 499
Summary of oral submission pages: 499-650

Chapter 1: Interpretation, Objects and Application
Clause 1
Comment from ADCI (University of Cape Town): While the Paris Agreement and its Nationally Determined Contributions are listed in the “Definitions” section of the Bill, there are no further references to these in the text of the Bill. There is no mention of long-term low-emissions development strategies.

DFFE’s response: The preamble acknowledges the Paris Agreement as well as the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) and its variant, taking into account the changing nature and periods of regimes within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). As such, there is no need to amend the Bill if the UNFCC come up with a new regime. The long-term low-emission development strategies are part of the policies and measures that are in place to enable us to achieve the objective of addressing climate change.

Clause 7(2)
Comment from ADCI: It is proposed in section 7(2) that organised labour, civil society and business “may advise on the Republic’s climate change response”. There is no institutional mechanism for this in the Bill. This should be remedied, and such a mechanism or mechanisms should be transparent and inclusive.

DFFE’s response: It was laying the basis upon which the Presidential Climate Commission which constitutes various key stakeholders could be established. As such the institutional mechanism that is being indicated does not exist but in essence, it does exist as the PCC. 

General 
Comment from ADCI: The Act must provide a legal basis for dealing with Loss and Damage (L&D). This focused largely on the recent floods in KwaZulu-Natal.

DFFE response: Loss and Damage issues are dealt with through the National Disaster Management Act where once a disaster happens there is a legal process to respond to disaster. 

General 
Comment from the ADCI (University of Cape Town): The Act should provide for a transdisciplinary scientific body which will provide independent advice to policymakers, based on assessing the best available or latest scientific work. 

DFFE response: The PCC is being empowered to establish the working group. When going through the 50-page document there was more elaboration on the amendments proposed in terms of the PCC. The DFFE believes that the PCC with the current proposed losses will be empowered to have scientific working groups to ensure their advice is based on science.

Clause 31
Comment from ADCI: In its current iteration, the Bill provides for very limited access to information.

DFFE response: The Bill has a dedicated provision to access information (see clause 31). The Bill will not contradict the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2000 (Act No. 2 of 2000), and the Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013 (Act No. 4 of 2013). It will be a bit difficult for the Bill to create a completely new regime in terms of access to information. It is operating also under the principal tools of the National Environmental Management Act.

General
Comment from ADCI: The Bill tasks many organs of state, including national, provincial and local government, with additional functions related to climate change. There is no provision in the Bill to fund these additional activities.

DFFE’s response: There is no provision in the Bill to fund these additional activities. It is common cause that the allocation in terms of the resources is done through Treasury. This Bill cannot necessarily be addressed in the financial resource allocation. The Bill provides empowering legislation for spheres of government to now look at those activities as mandated activities and this can ensure that there is better motivation for the provision of resources to carry out these activities. 

General 
Comment from ADCI (University of Cape Town): There is no guidance in the Bill as to how South Africa should engage with the potential providers of international climate support. 

DFFE response: The issue of funding falls within the purview of the National Treasury. The allocation that falls within the purview of the National Treasury will not necessarily be inscribed into this.

Clause 1 
Comment from BUSA: Definition of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is missing.

DFFE response: The IPCC concept is not used in the content of the Bill and therefore there is a suggestion that there is no need to provide a definition because it is not used substantively. 

Clause 2
Comment from BUSA: Enhancing adaptive capacity, and strengthening resilience to climate change will require financial resources and the objective of the ACT should be to ensure that adequate financial resources are made available. 

DFFE response: The funding allocation is dealt with through Treasury. The Bill provides empowering legislation for different spheres of government.

General
Comment from BUSA: South Africa is experiencing a low growth path, with sub-2 % growth expected in the medium term. This has a significant impact on employment, inequality and long-term sustainability. The need for sustainable economic growth must be incorporated into the principles as a key part of the just transition. Related to this, the conversation must also focus on supporting South Africa's long-term competitiveness.

DFFE response: The principle of ecologically sustainable economies remains central to the Bill. The matter of sustained economic growth is implied and cannot be too explicit as this is a cross-cutting policy.

Clause 3(f)
Comment from BUSA: The need for decision-making to consider the special needs and circumstances of localities, economic sectors and people that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, including vulnerable workers and groups such as women and the physically challenged.

DFFE response: The circumstance of localities is inclusive of all the socio-economic elements of the surrounding. This is broad enough to take into consideration the vulnerable communities. 

General 
Comment from BUSA: Has the regulatory impact assessment been conducted on this Act to assess the short-term, medium- and long-term issues?

DFFE response: DFFE undertook a socio-economic impact assessment study on the Bill which is part of the Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME) requirements. DFFE also will be working on various regulations that give effect to and enable the implementation of the Bill. 

Clause 6 
Comment from BUSA: Does this imply that the Act prevails in fiscal-related aspects of climate change? For instance, carbon taxes are part of the national climate change response but certainly, the powers for taxes are assigned to the National Treasury, through the fiscal framework process. Similarly, energy governance is under a separate ambit, how would these conflicts be managed in reality, and will this Act still trump?

DFFE response: The Bill once enacted will take precedence over all on climate change regulation. Work is being carried out to ensure alignment with other related legislation. However, the Bill will not regulate the allocation of resources.

Clause 3
Comment from Biowatch: We suggest the inclusion of an additional guiding principle: ‘the need for an intersectoral approach to transforming our food and agricultural systems using agro ecological approaches to mitigate and be more resilient to climate change while ensuring the Rights of all South Africans to adequate healthy and nutritious food and safe drinking water.

DFFE response: The approach in the Bill is intersectoral on both mitigation and adaptation. On adaptation, various sectors are empowered to develop strategies, whilst on mitigation the policies and measures are central towards the intersectoral manner.

Clause 1 
Comment from Sasol: Sasol recommends the inclusion of the definition of "resilience" which is used repeatedly throughout the Bill.

DFFE response: The definition of the term resilient is agreeable and has been included. 

Clause 2
Comment from Green Peace Initiative: By revising section 2 (Objects of Act) so that it begins with the principal object of transforming to an ecologically sustainable society, for example by inserting the following: “(a) to facilitate a rapid and just transition to an ecologically sustainable society.

DFFE response: Clause 2 already includes objectives that address the just transition.

(See document for the remaining responses)

Committee's highlighted concerns
Acting Chairperson Mbatha interrupted the presentation saying they did not want a repeat of what had already been done the previous week. When comparing the DFFE responses to the public’s input, clear responses were given on climate change mitigation. However, several concerns needed clarification so the Bill could be effective in climate change adaptation and building resilience in communities. These concerns included the absence of a dedicated climate change finance mechanism to help marginalised and disadvantaged communities adapt to climate change and provisions on compensation for climate change-related loss and damage. Other concerns are the reliance on the Disaster Management Act for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction despite its ineffectiveness when looking at recent extreme weather events. The example of Kwa-Zulu Natal (KZN) and other areas where people were still staying in halls and had not been allocated proper housing. Even up-and-coming farmers had not been assisted, only those with proper insurance could survive.

These concerns needed to be discussed and thoughts on improving the Bill to ensure effectiveness were also needed. The second part of the meeting should deal with the continued consideration of the Consolidated Public Hearing Report. This was to inform the next steps in processing the Bill. Once the Committee was satisfied that all issues were adequately addressed the legal teams will have to work on the A-list of the Bill. This included all agreed-upon agreements. Municipalities had to deal with actual implementation and climate change as a disaster. Municipalities did not have assistance with climate change financing and and this affected communities. She had interrupted to guide the DFFE presentation on these grounds.

Mr Ramura thanked her for the guidance as these were the concerns raised and why he asked for guidance on whether to continue with the 650-page document or respond to those concerns.

The concern about a financial mechanism and the need for financial support for climate change was a reality. To effectively address climate change, resources were needed. Resources came in two parts. The first was accessing financial resources through the multilateral financial mechanism which was part of the obligation of developed countries to make resources available for developing countries. The second part was in terms of South Africa’s financial mechanism, and we worked together to leverage resources. However, there was a limitation in the Bill designing the financial mechanism. Resource allocation to a greater extent was done through National Treasury and through, amongst others, a Money Bill. This perhaps was outside the scope of the Climate Change Bill in its current form. He asked for the Committee’s guidance on this.

Mr Ramaru replied that a dedicated financial mechanism for loss and damage was difficult to access even in the global space. It was being dealt with through a philanthropic approach within the global discourse. Developed countries were pushing back on a dedicated mechanism for loss damage; it was a liability in terms of their responsibility to address loss and damage. However, there was ongoing work in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to establish a fund dedicated to loss and damage. If successful in the negotiation, the fund might be approved for establishment at COP 28.

Mr Ramaru replied that the Disaster Management Act was the main act managing disasters which to a greater extent included climate change-induced disasters. He suggested that if there were limitations that there be consideration for strengthening the Disaster Management Act itself and not creating another mechanism of disaster response through the Climate Change Bill. This warranted discussion because the Disaster Management Act was established to address disasters – climate change induced or otherwise.

Mr Ramaru replied that there were several comments on the lack of municipal capacity in the local sphere. This was a municipal governance issue. The DFFE response to this was that the Department continued to work with the local and provincial spheres to provide technical support and the needed capacity to implement the provisions of the Bill. DFFE worked with the local sphere to develop an Adaptation Response Plan across each district. DFFE also worked with provinces to develop their Climate Change Adaptation Response Plan.

Resourcing for implementation was a challenge but as indicated resourcing across the board remained a limitation. DFFE was committed through their donor partnership to ensure there was building and support of the local sphere’s capacity. Particularly with the provisions of the Climate Change Bill. This was because this Bill could not address all local government governance issues, but the DFFE was committed to working with them. When developing the chapter on adaptation that looked at mainstreaming and the alignment of both the national adaptation strategy to the provincial and local climate change response plans, there was an inclusion of the allowance of sharing the alignment from national to local and provincial spheres. This was so that it did not become business as usual but rather time was taken to ensure alignment.

He again acknowledged the biggest challenge was financial resources for the full implementation of key instruments. He would await the Committee’s guidance on how to proceed in this meeting.

Mr Sibusiso Kobese, DFFE Director of Law Reform, said that the ideal approach would be for the Committee to send the Department their follow-up questions from the last meeting. This was so DFFE was in a position to respond to these questions. Without these follow-up questions, it would be difficult for the Department to engage properly.

On the financial issue, Mr Kobese said that the Climate Change Bill was section 76 Bill. This meant that if more financial provisions were added, that could lead to the reclassification of the Bill to bring a Money Bill. The state law advisors would question the Department and be against express provisions on the financial aspects. On the Disaster Management Act, the approach that DFFE adopted was not to duplicate what already existed but to ensure alignment and integration to the extent that more damages were covered under the Disaster Management Act.

The Chairperson had two questions. The first was how the Bill’s adaptation would be financed. Would the financing be from developed countries and philanthropists? Secondly, what was the cost estimate for the DFFE developed plans on climate change?

Mr Bryant was unsure of the meeting’s procedure. His concerns were on the ACDI input about a scientific response which also took into consideration socio-economic impact. He assumed that the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC) would be taking into consideration science and socio-economic impact to ensure the needed balance.

Mr Bryant said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) being referenced only once in the Bill was concerning. His understanding was a significant amount of science would be guided by IPCC recommendations. DFFE had stated that the IPCC information was not being utilised substantively. He did not understand this as his impression was the IPCC was the foremost guide for the Climate Change Bill’s provisions. He asked if his impression was factual or if there was another scientific body that would be consulted. It was important to flesh this out. These comments were valid.

Mr Bryant noted sustained economic growth was implied in the Bill. It was obvious that the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) was intended to grow the economy, but South Africa was in serious trouble at R19 to the dollar. Economic growth was important. Climate change and economic growth were intrinsically linked. This needed more attention than a vague implication. Mr Bryant agreed with Sasol’s input.

He repeated the Chairperson’s financing mechanism comment that the financing aspect was central to the success of the legislation. On JETP plans, the obligations of municipalities and drawing up local plans and frameworks, this was not a Money Bill but legislation that would guide how money was spent at a later stage.

Mr Bryant said they needed to be realistic and all of this needed to be taken into consideration. DFFE had mentioned that donors were going to fund the local municipal plans and frameworks. If donors were not going to provide funding, where was it coming from? Was consideration given to this because this could not be left for someone else at a later stage. Where did DFFE envision the funds coming from for local development plans which would require a significant amount of scientific expertise that did not exist in smaller district municipalities?

Ms A Weber (DA) noted that the Minister was now in the meeting. Mr Bryant had mostly covered her concerns about finances. Her concern with finances was that it was mentioned last week that it was not "our mandate" to put it in this legislation but someone else’s responsibility.

When DFFE spoke about National Treasury and donors, were donations lined up? Were the donors aware or was the Department going to look at this after the legislation was done. What if funding could not be secured?

Important legislation was being drawn up and due to resources, there was no certainty the legislation could be enforced. A lot of responsibilities were being referred to local municipalities. Legal had told her that legislation was the responsibility of local municipalities. She asked what if municipalities did not want to include this in their legislation. It was not just about resources for people but there was a new budget line item. People were needed for implementation or at least people needed to be trained. Municipalities needed more people.

Ms Weber’s concern was that DFFE kept on saying that things could not be done because it was either the local municipalities' responsibility or National Treasury was responsible for the funds. What was needed was appropriate planning when doing this legislation to ensure the costs and source of funds were made clear. This was also because donors, DFFE and municipalities needed to budget. Municipalities were not in a good financial state at this stage. She asked if funds would solely be from donations and what these donations were.

Ms T Mchunu (ANC) said the answer given was that funding allocation was not part of the DFFE mandate. However, for effective implementation of the Bill when enacted, a discussion on funding allocation was needed – particularly for local government. She agreed with her colleagues that there were different structures from the PCC in national and provincial spheres and other forums. She asked how they were going to be funded. Would there funding be from National Treasury?

Ms Mchunu said the Disaster Management Act did already exist, but the Climate Change Bill was overarching. It meant once the Climate Change Act was enacted, it required DFFE work on disaster issues. The DFFE response stated that it did not want to act as insurance. However, looking into something that works for those affected by disaster was needed. Loopholes in the Disaster Management Act resulted in KZN communities affected by disaster not being assisted to date. There was assistance in some areas but people were still living in halls in need of assistance. The DFFE role as well as the Minister’s needed to be looked at in this Climate Change Bill. The Sasol submission reminded her that more engagement was needed with communities complaining about Sasol. At the hearings, the communities surrounding the Sasol plant discussed their frustrations with Sasol instead of engaging on the Climate Change Bill. Engagement with these communities was needed before the conclusion of the Bill, so the Committee had an idea of their concerns. It was good that Sasol was making contributions but what the communities had to say also needed to be heard.

Ms Winkler wanted clarity on the structure of this meeting and on how the Committee would proceed for the remainder of the meeting. She suggested that since the document was long that it be broken up into sections interspersed with Committee questions. The Committee was prematurely interrogating the entire document without having gone through it in its entirety. In the last meeting quite a few issues were raised on the 50-page document. She thought this meeting was for DFFE to respond to the concerns raised last week after seeking advice and clarity from the Legal Department. She asked if this was still happening.

Ms Winkler noted the document stated that the PCC at its discretion could implement a technical task team to supplement its work. It was important that it be legislated that PCC must supplement its work under the guidance and advice of the technical task team due to the scientific nature of climate change.

On the executive body that performed oversight over PCC and also interdepartmental coordination of the climate change response, she suggested that climate change response not lie solely with DFFE. It was a societal issue that required all of government. This was a better oversight mechanism to ensure the implementation of the Bill.

Ms Winkler noted the challenge of no specific reference made to the Paris Agreement, Nationally Determined Contributions and the emissions trajectory and how this was reinforced in the Bill. If legislation was not clear, it opened itself to ambiguity. These comments needed to be interrogated.

The Committee had outlined their concerns with the financing of the Bill as the effectiveness of this Bill hinged on the resources attached to it. It was now made clear that financing was a separate issue that required a Money Bill. One piece of legislation could not exist in isolation from a core competence such as the financing which resided in a completely different process. This did not make sense. There was a suggestion for a Money Bill that was in line with financing this Bill. She asked if there was a legal opinion on any other way to incorporate climate financing into the Bill that did not the creation of a complementary Money Bill to finance the Act. Could this process not be done simultaneously? This was to avoid having to implement the Bill and having to wait to implement a Money Bill as there was no time.

Another concern was the PCC’s discretion to decide which information was made available according to the Protection of Personal Information (POPI) Act and Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA). There was obvious confidentiality involved in industry emissions and targets but surely aggregate emissions could be made available to the public as a consequence of this Bill. This was for target and industry or governmental non-compliance tracking purposes. With this approach, POPI and PAIA would not be nullified but there would be a level of transparency as this was of public interest and about public welfare.

The Chairperson read Mr Singh’s written comments which stated that although he was not present in this meeting, the previous week he had asked about the financial implications of implementing the Bill and the Department’s response was that discussion with National Treasury had to take place. Mr Singh wrote that perhaps Treasury would have to be called to speak to this matter. It was all well and good to have relevant legislation in place but if enforcement or implementation did not follow it would not be useful. He asked about the role of the PCC as opposed to that of DFFE.

Minister's response
Minister Barbara Creecy stated that an important issue the Committee would want to know was the oversight over the comments on the Bill and whether there had been an interface between the Ministry and the Department in its responses to public comments.

The Minister said that all the information in the Department response document had been shared with her and there had been a couple of interactions with the Department on all the outcomes of the public hearing process. The Ministry and Department also worked together to effect changes to the Bill. It was clear they were trying to effect these changes in a manner that would not fundamentally alter the Bill. Fundamental alterations to the Bill would mean the Bill would have to be sent back to Cabinet and for public participation at both Cabinet and Portfolio Committee levels. The consequences of this would mean the Bill would not be passed during the Sixth Term of Parliament. DFFE believed that this Bill was needed and should have appeared before the National Assembly (NA) years ago. The reason was that we were already living through the consequences of climate change. The Bill aimed to create an enabling environment because at the moment there was nothing of a regulatory nature that required government at all spheres to work cooperatively on questions of climate change.

If there was no enabling environment for what was a slow onset event that will become a rapid onset event, there would not be adequate preparation to deal with the issue. In listening to the Committee’s conversations, the urgency of this was understood. It was within this context that DFFE was trying to accommodate amendments to the Bill. Amendments were being accommodated in a manner that enabled the Bill’s passing within this term. Starting from scratch would mean the extreme weather events mentioned by the Committee would become more extreme while the government struggled to cope with dealing with these events adequately.

The Minister said if the Committee read any piece of legislation, they would not find details of financing because the government finances did not work that way. When one was appointed as a Minister there was a responsibility for implementing certain pieces of legislation. This applied to Members of the Executive Council (MEC), Members of the Mayoral Committee (MMC) and mayors too. This legislation was needed in part to set a requirement throughout government that something needed to be done about climate change. The Paris Agreement required three things about climate change: a strategy to reduce greenhouse gases; adapt to the inevitable realities of climate change; and the finding of finances. Without the Bill, the implementation of the Paris Agreement at a domestic level cannot take place. Through voluntary agreements with different government levels through DFFE’s hard work, consultation and building of good relations, they have managed to get quite far without this legislation. However, the reality was that the implications were starting to affect everybody and therefore this regulatory environment was needed.

It was not necessary to have a special Money Bill for the Climate Change Bill. This was because the Bill would enable different levels and departments of government to start budgeting for the responsibilities contained in this Bill. That budgeting was a competitive process as there were always other levels of government, priorities and problems. It became necessary that everybody be involved in the budgeting process which was the responsibility of ministers. Their job was to ensure that legislation under their control was properly financed.

The Committee’s questions were not about how the government worked. No Bill stated how much money was needed for implementation and therefore National Treasury needed to make it available. The Minister asked that they not do things in this Bill that did not happen in other legislation.

Based on the Department's assessment on how the PCC functions at the moment, the PCC functioned well. The PCC had a public participation process, advised and pushed government, raised the profile of climate issues and brought different actors and players to the table.

The Minister said the question required of both the Bill and the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) was that the process be made statutory, so PCC had the right to exist regardless of who the President or Minister is. This was why it was a good idea to have different ministers sitting on the PCC because it assisted ministers in understanding climate change and it also assisted the PCC in having direct access to ministers. Where there were statutory bodies that were completely independent, the difficulty faced by these bodies was the access and interfacing with ministers.

The Minister said the current form of the PCC was good in the sense that it enforced a cross-pollination of priorities and ideas. It was a good idea that the President remains the chairperson because it gives the body status and the ability to interface on central issues with the President. The international panel that conducts scientific research on climate change was the gold standard. Every country in the world depended on this standard of research. South Africa through Dr Debra Roberts (IPCC Co-Chair) and other participants participated in this international research panel and their research was available to everyone. The research was published regularly.

The Minister said it was not realistic to think that the PCC could develop its research capacity which would have the status of that body. She suggested that the international panel was the appropriate body because the world relied on it to understand climate change. This did not mean that there could not be a facilitative clause in the Bill that stated from time to time the PCC could solicit research on climate change of interest to the Commission and the public. Establishing a statutory research body that could not begin to come close to the international panel would be a waste of resources and unnecessary.

It was important to remember if they did not start to deal with slow-onset events there would be more disasters, and this was the reason for the Bill. The Minister clarified that DFFE was not responsible for disaster management which was under the purview of the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA). The Bill should not contain matters that were not under the purview of DFFE. Therefore there could not be a requirement that COGTA had to deal more effectively with disasters. If there were concerns about COGTA’s ability to deal with disasters effectively that needed to be addressed through the reform of the disaster management process. This Bill intended that there be an investment in adaptation. This was so that all levels of government over the next 20 years improved their climate change resilience to deal with increasing extreme weather events. Some of these events were disasters but many were slow-onset events that require climate resilience investment over a period of time to prevent loss and damage.

The Minister said it was internationally recognised that investment in resilience was integrally linked to the question of avoiding loss and damage. South Africa was a privileged country as there was access to grant financing. This financing had been available for years to do all of the research work that was needed to develop climate resilience plans for different municipalities and provinces. There was an international debate at the moment under the UNFCCC on how developing countries access support for adaptation. There was awareness on how countries were accessing support for mitigation but what had not been resolved was how countries were going to access development support for adaptation. This issue had not been resolved by UNFCCC.

The UNFCCC was the correct place for discussion on how developing countries such as South Africa would access financing for adaptation. There was agreement on the emissions trajectory and the Bill stating that the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) would represent the country’s emissions trajectory until the Bill passed and there was an enabling legislative framework to develop a new emissions trajectory. There was no legislative framework yet; the Bill was needed for it.

The Minister said the current NDC would be the emissions trajectory. Matters covered in other pieces of legislation could not be included in this Bill. The issue of transparency was covered in POPI and PAIA. Amendments about transparency could only be included in the Bill to the extent that they were compatible with POPI and PAIA. They should steer clear of areas outside of their competence. The NDCs were not secret and were lodged with the United Nations. There was currently a global stock take taking place of the achievement of these NDCs. The outcome of this global stoke take was a public document. The concern that this information would be secret was misplaced because as a UNFCCC signatory, South Africa was required to participate in international processes that were matters of public record.

The Minister said her colleagues were better positioned to respond clause by clause. She suggested that the Committee go through 10 to 15 pages of the document and then take questions. Doing comments and questions for every page would be a tedious process. She was happy to take follow-up questions before going back to the clause-by-clause responses.

DFFE response
Mr Ramaru noted that the Minister had addressed a number of the Committee’s questions. On economic growth, the principle in clause 3(d) spoke of the Act being guided by a contribution to a just transition towards low carbon climate resilience and ecologically sustainable economies and societies which contributed to the creation of decent work. This was where the issue of economically sustainable economies was included. The Preamble mentioned the realisation of significant socio-economic and environmental benefits in a manner that was driven by national circumstances. He wanted to highlight this because of the question on the socio-economic elements of the Paris Agreement.

On the NDC, the Preamble of the Bill underscored that the implementation of effective climate change responses was a national sustainable development priority as set out in the National Climate Change Response Policy. South Africa’s NDC was under the Paris Agreement, but this could change due to regime changes in the global space. He reminded the Committee that there used to be the Kyoto Protocol and now there was the Paris Agreement. The clause acknowledged both the Paris Agreement and the NDC and the fact that this could vary from time to time. The Paris Agreement and the NDC were included.

On the emissions trajectory, DFFE had indicated that until such time the Minister had developed a trajectory the current one would be used. The current trajectory target was contained in the current NDC. The NDC would be the guiding target until the trajectory that went up to 2050 was developed.

On availability of documents, the PCC did publish its output on its website. It was accessible to the public. In Chapter 5 of the Bill, greenhouse gas emissions and removal were mentioned. Clause 26 of this chapter spoke to the national greenhouse gas inventory where the Minister would be able to develop an inventory that would be able to compare the emissions against the trajectory and this information was available to the public and submitted to the UNFCCC.

When they spoke of science it was inclusive of social, economic and physical science. The principle was that the advice should be underpinned by science, which was inclusive of both socio-economic and physical science.

DFFE was using the IPCC as the key scientific body. Information from the IPCC was central and critical in the development of our instruments. However, the DFFE response was the Bill itself had no clauses with direct references to IPCC.

Mr Ramaru said he did not think this was a big issue and if there was a need to insert a reference this would be guided by the legal team. It was not a big issue because the IPCC was a credible body and its reports were critical to informing the development of response instruments in South Africa.

DFFE continued to provide provinces and municipalities with technical support in the development of instruments and response plans as per the requirement of the Bill. It was committed to continuing with the provision of support which was enabled by a grant DFFE received through bilateral partnerships.

With the PCC there was an empowering clause that allowed them to have task teams which would bring in different scientific knowledge to ensure that it became central to their advisory and the Commission documents and outputs were underpinned by science. DFFE presented last week that included a clause to enable the PCC to establish a task team to support it and ensure it was scientifically based. There was a question on whether it make this discretionary and the Department suggested that the PCC may establish committees that would assist. He would leave this to the Committee for guidance.

The 50-page document included the strengthening of the PCC where it became a listed entity that could carry out its function. This was presented last week where there were various amendments to give effect to the PCC being listed as an entity.

Mr Ramaru said the Commission’s work was to focus on the provision of advice. Socio economic matters on a just transition was becoming the key area of the PCC’s work. The Minister had spoken about the participation of ministers and the continuation of the President's work as the PCC chairperson.

Mr Ramaru said there was an issue around the funding of the PCC. The Commission would be funded through a normal allocation from government. However, they were drafting clauses that would allow the PCC to access any grant financing within the global sphere with the primary focus of discharging its responsibilities. He had covered the issues that were raised extensively. If there was one he missed, the Chairperson could notify them. DFFE remained ready for guidance from the Committee on how to proceed.

Discussion
The Chairperson said in the previous meeting the Committee had accepted the 50-page document as a representation of the longer version and had gone through it. The Department could go through the 50-page document as Parliament had set aside three days for the Committee to deal with this. The 650-page document was too long to deal with in its entirety. She asked for the Committee to weigh in. She also asked Mr Ramaru how many pages he had gone through so far.

Mr Ramaru replied that he had covered seven of the 650 pages in the document being presented.

The Chairperson said she would ask the Committee about continuing with the 50-page document.

Minister Creecy said the 50-page document dealt with the detail of the proposed amendments. The 650-page dealt with DFFE responses to all public comments made to the Committee. In this longer document the Department explained whether each public comment could be included in the purview of the Bill or not. She suggested that the best approach would be for Committee members to read the 650-page document in their own time. The Committee could then raise issues that they encountered and wanted responses on for every 100 pages of the document. This was to avoid the process from being too long.

The Minister said the Department provided the document as it understood that different Committee members would have sat through different public hearings which had different issues. DFFE tried to give the Committee an overview of all the issues accompanied by relevant responses.

Ms Winkler said she understood that there was an urgency to adopt this Bill due to the pressures of climate change. However, the Committee could not adopt a Bill for the sake of adopting it if there were glaring and substantive challenges needing addressing. This was the purpose of public participation – to pick up on weaknesses in the Bill that make it less effective.

Ms Winkler suggested there be discernment between amendments that substantively altered the Bill and those that did not require a re-tabling of the Bill. This was not to say the Bill should not be re-tabled if there were changes needed that resulted in this. In terms of financial instruments there was precedent of financial instruments or mechanisms being included in climate change laws. In Mexico, part of their general climate change Bill was a climate change fund. The fund was the financial instrument dedicated to addressing the climate change response in the country and fell under the purview of the minister of finance. Perhaps Treasury would be used in South Africa. Some mechanisms could be legislated in the Bill to ensure adequate financing for implementation.

There was the National Climate Change Adaptation Fund but this was distinct from establishing a climate change or financing instrument that allowed for the collection of private, state and international funding and other financial resources outside budget allocations. It was understood that the local government sphere was struggling to meet its basic responsibilities. This was seen with tourism where municipalities say that they just do not have the funds for it as there were more pressing issues that need prioritising.

Ms Winkler said they needed to be realistic about the fact that some local municipalities and provinces do not have the technical capacity or resources to implement the Bill. A financial mechanism was needed to supplement what was budgeted from the finite pool of resources.

The Chairperson said Ms Winkler was commenting on something else. She was supposed to comment on the Minister’s suggestion on how to deal with the 650-page document.

The Minister asked that the Committee agree to the team exploring the implications of putting an enabling clause for the establishment of a climate fund into the Bill and whether this was in their purview. She did not think the Department would in principle have an objection to this.

Mr Bryant said the Minister’s point and commitment to investigating the possibility of an enabling clause was welcomed. It was brought up consistently throughout the public hearings, particularly by people representing local groups and municipalities. His concern was that they had not got very far with the document in this meeting. Going page by page would set the Committee back. The intention of the document circulated by the Parliament research department was to give the Committee a summary of some of the inputs made. Documentation was also received weeks ago that contained more details Committee members needed to appraise themselves. He suggested if the Committee felt as though it could not engage with the presented document then the meeting be cut short and the Committee return at another time for the full question and response session.

The Chairperson said the Minister’s suggestion was partly supported which was that the Committee read the document in their own time and in the next meeting deal with the issues they needed clarified. This approach would save time because the time remaining in this meeting would not allow DFFE to present the document. Committee members needed to send their questions to the Department before the meeting as this allowed DFFE time to prepare the answers properly.

The Chairperson asked if the Committee agreed with this approach.

Ms Winkler agreed with the Chairperson's suggested approach.

Mr Bryant agreed with the approach as long as there was an oral question / answer component that allowed the Committee to directly engage with the Department’s officials. Committee members needed to be made aware of the agreed-upon procedure moving forward.

The Chairperson said those that would not be present needed to send their questions in too so they could be answered like Mr Singh’s questions were. She asked for a timeline of when the Committee’s responses needed to be sent to the Department. She asked the Committee Secretary when the next meeting was.

The Committee Secretary said that Friday 18 and Tuesday 22 August were the days available to schedule the next meeting. She asked the Committee to decide.

The Chairperson asked that the meeting be next week Tuesday and the Committee agreed. The Committee had until Friday at 13h00 to send in their questions about the 650-page document. The Committee agreed to those terms.

Mr N Paulsen (EFF) suggested that the meeting not be on Friday but next week Tuesday.

The Chairperson reiterated that the meeting would be next week Tuesday 22 August 2023. The Department would be responding to the Committee’s questions on the 650-page document. These questions had to be sent to the Committee Secretary by Friday at 13h00. She wished the Committee well.

Meeting adjourned.