Climate Change Bill: deliberations & DFFE response to comments

Meeting report

Due to the Chairperson’s absence, Ms N Gantsho (ANC) accepted nomination as Acting Chairperson and wished Chairperson Modise a speedy recovery. Apologies were noted from the Committee Chairperson, Deputy Minister and Deputy-General.

The Acting Chairperson reminded the Committee that last week’s meeting focused on important issues raised by the public and Committee about funding for climate adaptation which the Bill suggested would be dealt with by provinces and municipalities. A clear funding plan was needed for effective implementation because, without inadequate resourcing and climate change, unpreparedness would persist. The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) needed to be clear about their responsibility on the climate change response and ensure proper funding was available for local needs. Municipalities were facing funding challenges and metropolitan municipalities were struggling with climate change strategies due to budget constraints. DFFE needed to indicate clearly how they would be assisting with this.

The Acting Chairperson said this meeting’s focus was the responses from DFFE to questions the Committee had written and sent to the Department as well as forging a way towards the drafting of the Climate Change Bill’s A-list (Committee proposed amendments).

She requested that the Department respond to the questions that the Committee sent and include the funding of the legislation in the response. It was standard practice to account for the financial implication or cost of all aspects of a Bill. When the Committee dealt with the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Bill, DFFE stated that the Bill’s implementation would be funded through services related to waste streams. The Department also stated that there would be no financial implications with the National Forests Amendment Bill, National Veld and Forest Fire Amendment Bill and the Marine Bill because the forestry branch was already funded to carry out the functions proposed in the amendments. For clarity on from where funding was coming, a similar approach was expected with the Climate Change Bill.

The Acting Chairperson noted that Minister had made an undertaking to consider the inclusion of text on funding which was at the core of the Climate Change Bill’s implementation. She hoped the Minister was a part of this meeting to provide guidance. The Department would go through the 50-page response document page by page. This would allow the Committee to ensure that the legal team received clear instructions on the next steps and to indicate if the Committee agreed with the phrasing of the report or not. The report once adopted would serve as a directive to the legal teams on preparing the Bill’s A-list. That A-list would be presented for consideration and its preparation would involve consultation with the State Law Advisor to ensure compliance with drafting standards.

Minister Barbara Creecy greeted the Committee and noted that she would be leaving the meeting at 10h45 for another commitment. She knew there were members of the Committee who were not present in last week's meeting and wanted to allow for responses on issues that were raised.

Mr N Singh (IFP) said it was noted in a previous meeting that a group of young people from Durban Girl’s College and other schools made inputs. He submitted these inputs for factoring into the submissions received.

Mr Singh said he was sure the Minister would respond to the questions on the role of the Presidential Climate Committee (PCC) versus DFFE and the financing of the Bill.

Ms H Winkler (DA) said the Committee had requested that there be a broad question session in this meeting. The Committee had four days to go through the 600-page DFFE response document which did not allow for thorough perusal. If the Committee did not go through all the questions, could they address the questions in the next meeting?

The Acting Chairperson noted Ms Winkler’s request, but the Committee needed to be cognizant of the fact that the question session needed to be concluded. The Committee needed to cover all aspects of the agenda in this meeting. There would be a questions session, but the Department needed to be allowed to respond to the written and oral questions and submissions.

Mr D Bryant (DA) added that the agenda allocated a section for discussion which he assumed was where the Committee was going to have a question and answer session. Hopefully Ms Winkler’s point would be covered during this session.

The Acting Chairperson asked if the Minister wanted to comment before the Department proceeded with its presentation.

The Minister said she was accompanied by Ms Mamogala Musekene (Acting Deputy-General at DFFE), Mr Tlou Ramaru (Political Analyst), Mr Jongikhaya Witi (DFFE Chief Director of Climate Change Monitoring and Evaluation), Ms Linda Garlipp (DFFE Chief Director of Law Reform and Appeals) and other climate team members.

The Minister asked to comment on issues that were raised last time as these were important. DFFE had given due consideration to these over the last four days. Having read the submissions and listened to the conversation last week, it was clear that there was concern with difficulties around financing and overall support for building climate resilience in sub-national government.

The Department had to look at the Bill because they wanted to put in an enabling provision that would state the Minister had to prescribe a financing and or support mechanism. The provision would be put in a section of the Bill that spoke about the role of sub-national government in the building of climate resilience. Mr Ramaru will provide more details on this. The enabling provision would enable the Minister through regulation to establish a fund that could receive funds from international sources and DFFE. The provision would also enshrine in law the work the Department already does in developing plans and programmes to enhance climate resilience with provinces and municipalities. This was to ensure that this work was not just a characteristic of this Administration but something that could be continued.

The Minister said she had indicated that the Department would look at a mechanism that would not require major changes to the Bill. This was to avoid the Bill having to be sent back to Cabinet and NEDLAC which would delay the process for a couple of years. This particular process would allow in due course for the development of regulations. Regulations had to be sent to both the National Assembly (NA) and National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and this would ensure that there was oversight over the mechanism and the purpose of this particular provision.

On the PCC role, the Minister said Mr Singh was not present last week when it was discussed but she was of the view the Commission worked well in its current form. The PCC was independent enough that it was able to give the Government robust advice. This robustness has been demonstrated in the work submitted on the NDC and the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP). The fact that ministers sat on the Commission was helpful because it assisted them in understanding the role and function of the Commission. It also helped ministers interface with the Commission, express their views and be a part of the debate.

The Minister said it was important that the President continue to chair the Committee as it gave it a status that ensured the Commission’s views were taken seriously by government. The Commission was sufficiently close to government that DFFE had evidence that government listened to the Commission’s viewpoint and advice. The Minister suggested that the current PCC format be kept of holding its meetings in public. The PCC live-streamed its meetings, and all of their reports were made public. This meant there was no need for concern about secrecy.

The Minister suggested that the PCC’s current form remain unchanged as it built sufficient accountability and transparency. In terms of accountability and transparency, she supported the way government operated. That it needed to be understood that transparency and accountability were enshrined in law in our system. The relevant laws here were the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPI) and Protection of Access to Information Act (PAIA), the state law advisor would not allow the department to develop another interpretation of these laws. The state law advisor would consider DFFE’s role in dealing with environmental matters. Matters of public transparency of government processes were enshrined in law and the law must synergise with this. DFFE could not start developing provisions in law that they had no jurisdiction over. The Committee needed to understand the state law advisor would not approve this and in due course supposing the NA would make such a decision, it would be difficult for the President to sign the Bill into law if it contradicted other pieces of legislation. These checks and balances were built so that departments and committees did not trespass into domains that might not entirely be in their purview.

The Minister suggested Department officials show the Committee the text on this.

The Acting Chairperson requested that DFFE start its presentation.

Mr Singh wanted to indicate before the Minister left the meeting that the question on the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC) was his. He was satisfied with the Minister’s response and added that one wanted to avoid the tail wagging the dog. The Department was responsible for environmental matters and if the Minister was satisfied with the PCC being advisory and not involved in implementing or interfering with DFFE’s work, he was satisfied too.

On the funding concern, Mr Singh said the Director-General had told the Committee that there would be discussions with National Treasury. Perhaps this would emerge during the DFFE presentation.

The Minister said Mr Singh’s caution around a tail wagging the dog scenario was understood. However, it was important to remember that the climate transition was not a government transition but a societal one. When looking at matters that pertain to all aspects of the Paris Agreement whether mitigation, adaption or implementation, the whole of society was involved in the process. The building of an institution like the PCC was important because you wanted to ensure that the whole of society was accounted for.

The Minister said there were many debates, and it was known that there were winners, losers and some people who could be left behind. There were important issues of climate justice, and they did not want the tail wagging the dog but also did not want to believe that the transition would be easy or that other role-players were not integral to making it happen.

The Minister explained that in crafting the clause on the financing mechanism DFFE was in discussion with National Treasury. The clause was crafted so that the major consultation can be at the time of the development of the regulations. This meant the process did not need to be held up.

The Acting Chairperson reminded DFFE that it was supposed to send today’s presentation to the Committee before the meeting. This was so that the Committee could properly engage with the presentation. The Committee was now engaging with the presentation for the first time, but the Committee would try their best to engage. The Acting Chairperson asked Mr Ramaru to proceed.

DFFE responses to follow-up questions from Portfolio Committee on Climate Change Bill Mr Mr Tlou Ramaru, DFFE Chief Director: Climate Change Adaptation, said DFFE received four questions on the Climate Change Bill from the Portfolio Committee to which they provided detailed responses:

1. With reference to POPI and PAIA, will information on the types of emissions being released by private industries and Eskom, as well as the ability to track emissions be publicly disclosed considering how important the information is to the public and for accountability? It was said that the PCC can decide on which information to share taking POPI and PAIA into account, but it is important to have provision which forces data transparency in the public interest where it does not conflict with POPI and PAIA. What does Legal say about which information on emissions and tracking can be publicly shared?

DFFE response:
• The Department will publicly publish the National Greenhouse Gas Emission Report on an annual basis against the trajectory on the National Greenhouse Gas Inventory.
• The word “publication” in the Bill is not limited to the National Greenhouse Gas Emission Report but extends to all the other strategies, plans and assessments.
• The PCC reports are also made available to the public.
• It is proposed that the Bill must not duplicate or create parallel regimes to POPI and PAIA. POPI and PAIA must be complied with and implemented to the letter.

2. What is the weight of the recommendations from the PCC going to be on various government departments? Are they mere recommendations that can be ignored or only considered when convenient or do they have some binding powers? What happens when the recommendations are ignored or rejected?

DFFE response:
• Clause 4(2) of the Bill provides that this Act binds all organs of state too the extent that the PCC makes recommendations to the State at all three spheres.
• Although the role of the PCC is advisory, organs of state must demonstrate that they have duly considered their advice.
• There are existing safeguards and processes to ensure that the PCC recommendations and advice is considered and implemented.
• Additionally, Parliament is available to play its oversight role in ensuring that the PCC recommendations and advice are considered and implemented.

3. On the concern of non-implementation of the Act, once enacted, DFFE highlights that clause 27(1)(c)(iii) gives the Minister the power to make regulations about consequences for national and provincial departments and municipalities if they are non-compliant with prescribed reporting on climate change adaptation and mitigation. What kind of sanctions will the Minister give her colleagues or other departments for not complying?

DFFE response:
• The details of managing the reporting will be dealt with in the regulations.
• Intergovernmental processes will be utilised to ensure provisions of the Act are implemented.
• Parliament is available to play its oversight role in ensuring that the Act is implemented.

4. With regard to the implementation of a finance mechanism in the Bill, what is the feedback from the legal department?

DFFE response:
• The following draft clause is proposed: The Bill is hereby amended by the insertion of
• The following new clause after clause 15 - “The Minister must prescribe a mechanism to support and/or finance climate change response, planning and implementation by national, provincial and local government in consultation with the Minister of Finance”.
• The Department is in discussions with National Treasury on the proposal.
• To ensure transparency and responsiveness, these regulations will be consulted with all stakeholders and be tabled in Parliament for approval within a defined timeframe.
• Wording will be finalised in consultation with the Office of the Chief State Law Advisor (OCSLA) and the Office of the Parliamentary Legal Advisor (OPLA).

Mr Ramaru concluded by noting that DFFE had received the Chairperson’s request that presentations be sent to the Committee in advance. The Department’s failure to send this presentation in advance was because of internal consultation and trying to get inputs from National Treasury.

Discussion on DFFE response to follow-up questions on the Climate Change Bill
Ms Winkler said she submitted a question on what would happen if government departments rejected the PCC’s recommendation. She asked what legal framework was available to the PCC if a department rejected their recommendations.

Ms Winkler said transparency and accountability were key aspects of the Climate Change Bill. The issue of transparency and accountability was raised by numerous stakeholders in submissions. Given the number of capacity constraints within government and the need for transparency to hold major emitters accountable, the public needed access to the greenhouse gas emissions data and all related information. Companies needed to disclose such information.

Ms Winkler said the DFFE response was either this data was already available or there were POPI and PAIA constraints. DFFE's response on page 256 stated that the Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report was accessible to the public. However, the issue was that the data on facility-level greenhouse gas emissions was not accessible. Even the PCC was not able to access the greenhouse gas emissions data for Eskom as part of its monitoring work.

Ms Winkler said the PCC had to submit a PAIA request to access this information. She did not understand the reason for PAIA and POPI constraints on data that should be publicly available. This was unless there was personal information which could be redacted. If they were speaking of emissions about mitigation plans and how companies and other entities were tracking these emissions according to the mitigation plans, she did not understand how there was a violation of POPI and PAIA – a violation to the extent that this information could not be shared publicly.

She asked if the GHG emissions data from South Africa’s top facilities were easily accessible to the public online and if so where. Numerous stakeholders motivated the Bill to provide proactive disclosure of data by persons conducting listed activities, DFFE and other government departments. How could such proactive disclosure contradict PAIA and POPI given that POPI applied to personal information? What personal information did DFFE expect to find in GHG emission mitigation plans and data reports. If there was personal information, could it not be redacted?

Ms Winkler asked if DFFE could commit to listing all documents generated under the Climate Change Act. She asked if these documents would be available to the public like the National Climate Change Information System (NCCIS) as this would mean the public did not have to request these documents. Page 342 stated that the NCCIS already existed and would be used to add more climate-related information referred to in the Bill. Exactly what information would be added to the NCCIS?

The Minister replied that it was important to understand DFFE was trying to achieve a balance for the PCC being able to advise on the views of all sections of society on climate transition. Scientific evidence and advice were developed by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The UNFCCC signatories were guided by this scientific evidence and advice.

The Minister replied that the PCC primary role was to advise on how the climate transition would be facilitated in the context of all the different actors that would be included in the Commission. If government received advice from the PCC and ignored it, everyone knew in politics that there was a price to pay for ignoring good advice. However, such things could not be legislated and there were no guarantees people would listen to good advice. The point was that in democracy if an executive authority chose not to listen to good advice there needed to be a good reason.

The Minister replied there were enough checks and balances within our system such as judicial review and the National Assembly that meant executive authorities ignoring the Commission’s advice would need to be adequately justified. DFFE wanted to achieve a balance between those with the mandate to lead government and those with the legislative mandate to advise government. Mr Ramaru would provide more details, but it was important for Ms Winkler to understand DFFE was in the process of setting up the architecture for emissions disclosure. Disclosure was still voluntary but would not be voluntary in the future. The Bill would ensure this architecture was mandatory. Ms Winkler was asking for things not available yet. Mr Witi would elaborate on this. She asked to be excused from the meeting.

Mr Ramaru said he would ask Mr Witi to speak on data availability, the list of reports on the NCCIS, what is available on the NCCIS and how reporting on facility level GHG emissions data was being managed.

Mr Jongikhaya Witi, Chief Director, Climate Change Monitoring and Evaluation, said DFFE had developed three instruments to manage emissions from industry. The first instrument was the reporting emissions programme where on an annual basis companies submitted their emissions for the previous year. This instrument has been running since 2017 and was automated since 2019.

The second instrument was the carbon budget which was the allocation of emission limits to companies. This process started in 2016. As indicated by the Minister, these budgets were voluntary. However, DFFE was waiting for the Bill and related regulations to make this process mandatory. This was to ensure the information was credible and based on sound methodologies.

The third instrument was the pollution prevention plans which would be called mitigation plans once the Bill was passed into law. This instrument was where companies reported their actions to reduce GHG emissions. On emission reports, companies were reporting and this information was on DFFE's South African Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting System. As the Minister indicated this reporting system was still being developed and at the moment there was no platform for publishing information, but it would be developed especially once the Bill was passed. It was important to understand that the information should be made available to the public.

On PAIA requests, Mr Witi said Ms Vanessa Bendeman, DFFE Deputy Director General: Regulatory Compliance and Sector Monitoring, had previously highlighted a regulation that required DFFE to have a catalogue of information that could be made available, that could not be made available and what was needed to develop regulations for carbon budgets.

Emissions were straightforward and handled through a PAIA request. With the integrated regulations on carbon budgets, pollution and mitigation plans, once those were in place, it would allow DFFE to catalogue information that could be made public. This in turn would allow DFFE to develop a platform that would provide information that could be made publicly available.

On climate change mitigation information, Mr Witi explained that on a biannual basis DFFE assessed all interventions being implemented in South Africa and their effect on the total number of emissions. This assessment assessed to what extent the interventions were helping South Africa meet domestic and international targets. The assessment was published and DFFE would extract this information, and have it published in some of the reports DFFE produced such as the Biannual Update Report, national communication reports and Medium-Term Strategic Framework (MTSF).

Mr Witi said DFFE had targets it needed to report on an annual basis and the extent to which these targets were being met. All of this information was available. However, for information on carbon budgets and mitigation plans, DFFE was handling through PAIA requests. Once the carbon budgets became mandatory, it would be able to catalogue appropriately the information that must be made publicly available.

Mr Ramaru asked the DFFE legal team to add to this as there was a legal element to this.

Mr Sibusiso Kobese, DFFE Director of Law Reform, said the Minister and Mr Witi had covered the POPI-related aspects. On Ms Winkler’s question on the availability of company-specific information, the responses were adequate. The PCC would be developing POPI and PAIA guidelines to guide the public on how specific company information could be obtained whether in full or introductory format.

On the PCC, Mr D Bryant (DA) said there were concerns raised in public consultations and public hearings by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other interest groups. These concerns pertained to the potential impact on South Africa’s sovereignty because of the various external role-players involved in the climate change space when it came to decision-making, empirical evidence and information. The public was perhaps concerned that the Commission could be used to further interests not in line with South Africa’s internal political interests. He was not sure if these concerns were founded in truth as the Minister said the PCC functioned effectively. He suggested that to allay such concerns it be ensured in the description of functions and reporting lines of the PCC that there was clear mention of the PCC having to report regularly to a Portfolio Committee and or Parliament in general. Currently, the PCC only has to report to DFFE.

Mr Bryant said regular PCC reporting to Parliament would allow Parliament to ensure reporting lines were maintained regularly. At present, the PCC is only required to report to government. Regular transparent communication on the PCC activities would be ensured. This was so these activities could be interrogated, if need be, by the politicians directly elected by South Africans. This would ensure those voices were heard and information was properly shared.

The Acting Chairperson noted the DFFE response on penalties for non-compliance with the carbon budget was that amendments to the Carbon Tax Act were being considered. She asked if this meant higher penalties would not be implemented until the Carbon Tax Act was amended which could take years. Which year was being referred to for the amendment of the Carbon Tax Act?

Ms Winkler asked if the GHG emissions data from South Africa’s top emitting facilities was easily available today. She also asked if this information would likely be published by the NCCIS.

On timeframe, Ms Winkler said a lot of stakeholder submissions spoke about the urgency of implementation and timeframes. The response from DFFE was the timeframe was possibly one year and the wording would be finalised in consultation with OCSLA and OPLA.

Ms Winkler said DFFE had indicated that it was reconsidering various timeframes in the Bill in response to stakeholder comments. This could be found on pages 246 and 267 of the 600-page DFFE response document. She asked what adjustments had been made to timeframes in the Bill in consultation with OCSLA and OPLA.

Mr Ramaru replied that Mr Witi would respond to access to data and the penalties related to the Carbon Tax Act. The issue of the Carbon Tax Act was an ongoing discussion with National Treasury as part of the alignment between the Bill and the Carbon Tax Act.

Mr Ramaru said in the earlier version of the Bill there was a clause that indicated that accidents would be charged at a higher rate. However, DFFE was advised by the State Law Advisor that as this did not exist in the Carbon Tax Act, it should not be referenced in the Climate Change Bill. This was the reason for the ongoing work with National Treasury on amendments. He asked Mr Witi and Mr Kobese to elaborate on this. After this, DFFE would reflect on the timeframes.

Mr Witi replied about the Carbon Tax Act being used as an instrument for penalising non-compliance with the carbon budget that Treasury made amendments to that Act when needed on a year-to-year basis. This was because new challenges or areas needing improvement were encountered in the implementation of the Carbon Tax Act.

As the DFFE legal team correctly stated, it could not trigger amendments until the Climate Change Bill and the related regulations were passed into law. This would give it a legal basis to effect amendments which would give clear guidance on what would be done on penalising non-compliance.

Mr Witi said over the past few years it had been highlighted that one of the penalties would be a higher tax rate on emissions that were above the carbon budget. For example, if a company emitted 110 tonnes and the carbon budget was 100 tonnes the company would have to pay a higher tax rate for the extra 10 tonnes emitted. Drafting this would not be hard but a quick process. The amendments were generally quite quick because there was an established process for fast-tracking taxation legislation.

The emissions reporting programme had been existence since 2016. This process was now automated, and companies went online to find the information. However, as indicated by the Minister, the architecture of this system was still being developed. The system at present does not have a public platform where the emissions of companies are available to the public. This would be addressed once the Bill was passed into law and this included the carbon budget and mitigation plans data.

The emissions, carbon budget and mitigation plans data were at present being managed largely through PAIA request. One of the biggest issues here was compliance with the Competition Act because the divulging of this information could compromise the provisions of the Competition Act.

Eight to ten years ago industry associations published productivity-based information for the sector they were responsible for. With the introduction of the "accommodation act" this was no longer available. During this period DFFE did not have a reporting programme and relied on the information from the industry associations to determine emissions for each sector. This was something that needed to be considered.

The Acting Chairperson noted that after Mr Singh, DFFE should present the updated 50-page document so that there was enough time.

Mr Singh said the Committee needed to request from the Minister a timeline for a report back on DFFE discussions with National Treasury. This issue could not be left open-ended.

Mr Singh said had been requested to speak in Mozambique on the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). CBAM was a mechanism that the European Union (EU) wanted to impose where there were penalties. CBAM would start in October 2023 but would only be implementable from 2026. To what extent would CBAM impact this Bill and what was in it? Was this a separate issue that the Committee would need to be briefed on?

Mr Singh asked with the JET-IP coming up how it would be funded. What is the funding mechanism? He knew there was R8.4 billion allocated but did not think a cent of this money had been spent. According to the Minister, these funds are within the ambit of the Presidency. How did this jell with what was being done with the just energy transition?

Mr Singh suggested that National Treasury meet with the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) to align projected climate disasters and preparedness. There was reference to this in the Climate Change Bill and therefore a meeting perhaps needed to take place and the Committee could receive a report back on this.

Mr Bryant asked if one could include a provision either in clause 11 or 12 in the Bill that stated the PCC had to report back regularly on their activities to the relevant portfolio committee. He asked if this was being considered as one of the proposed amendments going forward.

The Acting Chairperson asked DFFE to respond to these questions. Thereafter it could proceed to the presentation on the updated 50-page document. If the Committee had additional questions, those would be sent to DFFE. This was for the sake of the flow of the meeting.

DFFE response
On the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, Mr Ramaru replied that the Department of Trade and Competition (DTIC) would be central to briefing the Committee. This was to ensure there were trade elements to the climate-related elements. A detailed briefing was important.

Mr Ramaru said the just transition was being handled through the Presidency which could provide a detailed presentation on its ongoing work on the just energy transition.

Mr Ramaru said Mr Bryant raised an important point inserting a provision to ensure the PCC reported regularly to the Committee. If PCC was listed as a public entity, there needed to be regular reporting and this could be coordinated through this Committee. He asked the legal team to guide them on this. However, he did not think this would be difficult.

He asked Mr Kobese to comment on timeframes in the Bill. Timeframes were mentioned in Chapter 3. In this chapter it stated that within one year of the publication of the Bill, a national adaption strategy was needed for publication. The Bill stated that within two years there needed to be a clear climate change needs and response assessment undertaken by municipalities. Their timeframes were synchronised in the sense that there would be a national plan and scenarios where DFFE developed scenarios, projections and assessments.

The national plan and assessment informed national, provincial and local levels of government. These timeframes were synchronised in a manner that enabled alignment, taking into consideration planning would not just be business as usual. DFFE would ensure there was technical support to ensure alignment. This did not stop the implementation of the current instruments on the table. In terms of urgency, several planning instruments were developed in support of the national office to province and to sectors in the local sphere. These instruments were still being implemented and when the Bill was enacted DFFE would ensure there was proper alignment with all instruments.

Mr Ramaru said the review was in five years' time as the impact of implementation might take time to be noted and assessed on the ground. DFFE needed to allow for a good amount of time for the implementation of instruments. Only then was DFFE able to do an assessment and see if there was a need for a review of the planning instruments. In essence, climate change projections take an even longer time. When projections were done it was 10 to 20 years and this would be built into the review process.

Mr Ramaru asked Mr Kobese to respond to timeframes. This was because there was an inconsistency between the big and succinct reports. The succinct report was where DFFE engaged, provided guidance and made adjustments and therefore DFFE needed to ensure consistency with the responses in the big report.

Mr Kobese noted that DFFE had considered the comments on timeframes. There were detailed discussions where it was suggested that the timeframes be removed from the Bill and added to the regulations. However, DFFE resolved that the timeframes be kept in the Bill to ensure certainty.

Mr Kobese said it was important to note that some of the timeframes were qualified by the wording “at least” which meant a measure of flexibility. These timeframes could be more or less and he sked the Committee to consider the use of the word "at least" in some of the timeframes.

Mr Kobese said some of the timeframes were impractical to change based on the stakeholder suggestions. For example, for reviews that take five years changing the time frame to two years would be impractical because it needed to allow for the implementation of the plans and strategies. It was only then from the benefit of insight that it could start with reviews.

The presentation would show where DFFE had reviewed the timeframes to address the comments.

DFFE Response to Public Oral & Written Submissions Sep 2022 - Jul 2023

Part A: DFFE recommended amendments to Bill
Clause 1 (Definitions):
DFFE response:
The proposed amendment is supported.

Clause 7 (Policy Alignment):
DFFE response:
• It is recommended that the word “laws” be added to clause 7(1).
• It is recommended that clause 7(2) of the Bill be revised to include all related stakeholders.

Clause 10 (Establishment of the Presidential Climate Commission, PCC):
DFFE response:
• The proposed amendments are supported.
• It is recommended that the Commission be chaired by the President.
• The Commission must be established in terms of the Act.
• Legal status of the Commission must be clarified.
• In the short term (2-3 years after promulgation of the Act) the Commission will continue to exist in its current form and housed at NEDLAC. In this period DFFE/Commission will finalise the modalities for establishment of the Commission as an independent entity in consultation with National Treasury. These modalities will include finalisation of the feasibility study and business case and related matters. The DG to obtain prior written consent for establishment of the Commission as an entity consistent with section 38(1)(m) of the PFMA. In the medium to long term (after 3 years and beyond) the Commission will be established as a PFMA compliant independent entity.

Clause 11 (Functions of the PCC):
DFFE response:
• It is recommended that clause 11 of the Bill on the functions of the PCC be reviewed to add functions as suggested including advising on socio-economic issues related to the just transition.

Clause 12 (Appointment process):
DFFE response:
• It is recommended that the clauses relating to the Commission be reviewed to provide for transparency, remove discretion and improve on the functions of the Commission.

 New Clause 12A (Appointment of the Executive Director):
DFFE response:
• The proposed amendment is supported.

New Clause 12B (Financial Administration):
DFFE response:
• The proposed amendment is supported.

Clause 13 (Reporting by PCC):
DFFE response:
• It is recommended that the clauses on reporting by the Commission be reviewed to provide for transparency, remove discretion and ensure accountability to the Minister and Parliament.

Clause 14 (Administrative and secretariat support):
DFFE response:
• The proposed amendment is supported. The Commission to have its own secretariat under the leadership of the Executive Director.

Clause 15 (e) and (f)
DFFE response
• Only the insertion of publish is supported. This can be on the website of the organisations. On reduced timeframes, the words “at least” are used to indicate timeframes can be more or less.
• The proposed amendment on reduced timeframes is not supported.

Discussion
Mr Bryant said it was great to see the inputs being taken into consideration and relevant amendments being drafted. This sent a good message to the public that the time taken to submit their concerns was not in vain.

He noted that in Clause 13 DFFE would not be opposed to drafting an amendment that the PCC needed to report regularly to the relevant portfolio committee which was this committee. The amendment would be under the reporting lines.

Ms A Weber (DA) said Mr Bryant had covered her on PCC reporting. She was concerned there was too much freedom on the technical teams PCC would appoint. She asked if there would be criteria that guided them. There was full freedom in structuring their processes, but criteria were needed to ensure transparency about the skillset and managing of finances in the technical teams. She was not sure if there should be just a criterion on the technical team appointed or that the processes followed were correct.

Ms Winkler noted that in Clause 15 DFFE had not accepted the amendment of the review from five to two years. Given the gravity of the climate change crisis and the urgency needed for the review and the implementation of mechanisms to address challenges, why did DFFE not consider the two-year timeline? Why would DFFE still maintain the five-year timeline? Stakeholders were concerned about the long timeline for implementation.

Ms Mchunu referred to the PCC composition. In many instances when engaging rural communities, there was a concern about the lack of inclusion of traditional leaders in the PCC. The clause spoke about the appointment of 30 commissioners comprising representatives, including but not limited to government, organised labour, civil society and business, to advise on the Republic’s climate change response. Rural communities were concerned that the role of traditional leaders was being excluded. She asked about traditional leaders because it was important for them to be included in the PCC.

DFFE response
Mr Ramaru said that the inclusion of traditional leaders was the reason for the amendments to clause 7. The process was a nomination process and in clause 7 DFFE included "relevant stakeholders". This was to avoid the enumeration of individual groups. The inclusion of "relevant stakeholders" in the nomination process meant traditional leaders could be nominated to be represented. DFFE went further by stating “but not limited to" which meant when the notice was sent out it needed to outline the different capacities required. With these two amendments the process was open without clearly enumerating each individual group.

On time frames, DFFE responded to this at length. When the projection was done on the timeline DFFE projected the impact of climate change for five, ten to thirty years. A response plan then needed to be put in place which also had to undergo an implementation process. This process needed to be given time for implementation so it could be reviewed in line with the projections.

Mr Ramaru said climate change was a reality but putting a two-year timeframe would require government to review instruments within this short period and they might not see the impact of the implementation of these instruments on the ground. The five years seemed to be a timeframe used across all cycles to enable actual implementation on the ground. This was why DFFE thought review over five years provided adequate time for implementation and picking up impact and inadequacies to come up with effective interventions.

On technical teams, DFFE would develop regulations that would offer guidance to the PCC. In these regulations DFFE could elaborate that the technical teams needed to be representative of different capacities to ensure balance and skillsets that could provide scientific based advice. These teams would not be managing any resources. These teams would provide technical support and expertise to PCC. The regulations could underscore the need to have a good skill set that cut across all scientific disciplines critical to climate change. In this way, guidance could be provided.

Mr Ramaru said it was his understanding that the PCC, as a government entity, could be summoned by the Committee to provide a report at any time. This could be done irrespective of it being enshrined in law. This was his understanding but guidance from the law advisors could be requested on this. He did not see this as an issue as he believed the Committee had the power to summon the PCC.

Mr Kobese said the DFFE was inserting a clause on reporting to state that the PCC had to submit financial, performance and audit reports to the Minister. The Minister was in turn expected to submit the same to Parliament.

Mr Kobese said Mr Ramaru was correct that the Committee and Parliament had the right to summon the PCC at any time to account for its activities. DFFE supported the proposal for the PCC to report regularly to Parliament. On technical teams, wording could inserted on the criterion to the effect that technical teams needed to be composed of suitable qualified persons in their specific fields.

Mr Kobese explained that DFFE decided on five years because two years was impractical. The provision spoke about reviewing. A plan or strategy that had just been developed could not be reviewed until time had been allowed for implementation. It was only after some time you could be in a position to do the necessary assessments and review. This was the reason for five years.

On the review timelines, Mr Ramaru said that every instrument would be subject to extensive public participation and consultation. To ensure that the review of all instruments was compliant with the public participation process in two years would be difficult.

Mr Shaun Van Breda, State Law Advisor, said he was not responding to the questions but sought clarity on the A-list. DFFE spoke about the development of regulations on financing for the implementation of the Climate Change Bill. He asked if the intention was to insert this proposed clause under the financial administration clause? He asked if this amendment would be acceptable.

The Acting Chairperson replied that the funding clause should be included as per the agreement and the Minster’s undertaking.

Ms Thiloshini Gangen, Parliamentary Legal Advisor, pointed out that DFFE had included that the PCC reports must be submitted to the NA. Parliament in terms of oversight was able to call any organ to account and report. This was covered by clause 10 on reporting.

Mr Bryant said the commitment from officials to ensure that adequate reporting was done was welcomed. The challenge was that there were entities that fell under DFFE such as South African National Parks (SANParks) and South African Weather Service that reported quarterly to the Committee. The Committee conducted effective oversight over their functioning. His concern was that if there was no mechanism put in place for the PCC in a few years none of the current committee members would be serving on this Committee. He wanted a mechanism that ensured mandatory regular reporting without having to rely on spontaneous summoning of the Commission.

Ms Mchunu’s concern was with clause 10 which spoke about "relevant stakeholders". She was uncomfortable mentioning stakeholders such as organised labour, civil society and business but no other stakeholders especially those that were raised in public hearings. She would perhaps be more comfortable if they spoke about relevant stakeholders and when going to the regulations, they were able to specify in the addendum stakeholders specifically those close to communities. What they wanted was for this Bill to speak to communities more closely. She would be advised by the technocrats on this. Her concern was that specifying some stakeholders but excluding others would create challenges.

On Mr Bryant’s concern, the Committee was entitled to summon anyone from government including an entity that fell under the DFFE purview to come and account. The Constitution did allow for this. The Committee would not be doing anything wrong.

Mr Ramaru replied about the explicit mention of organisations or groups that it was to emphasise key groupings that could be included. The Department was not against including traditional leaders if the Committee strongly advised them to. They would still qualify by saying “but not limited to” This was to allow the process to not be overly prescriptive but allow for different capacities to be a part of the Commission. He would be guided by the legal advisers on how to resolve this. DFFE was not against being specific but was just trying to manage the mention of all representation by name or grouping in the Bill.

Mr Bryant noted that the PCC would be a formal entity but asked if it would be under the purview of DFFE in terms of oversight. If the PCC was not under DFFE purview, where did it sit? This was important and had nothing to do with the ability to summon it to account before the Committee. The Committee could summon anyone to report to it. The key issue was if there was a compulsion to regularly report back to a committee that consisted of political office bearers who were able to interrogate the information and activities of the Commission.

Mr Ramaru said as he understood it the PCC secretariat which managed its administrative affairs would become the one that accounted for the administrative work. The secretariat would then be enlisted as an entity per the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA). This meant it was of course under the purview of DFFE. He wanted the legal advisors to ensure his interpretation was correct.

Mr Van Breda replied that the PCC would be a national entity with obligations in terms of the PFMA. The obligation to report and the oversight role of Parliament was in respect of the PFMA. DFFE had indicated that it was not opposed to the financial management provision Mr Bryant had proposed. A provision could be included on regular reports to the Committee. In legislation what was usually done was to provide for reporting "to the relevant committee". This was because the titles and roles of committees changed. A provision could be made to ensure regular reporting to the relevant portfolio committee. This was the proposal and DFFE was not opposing it.

Ms Weber said the point on accounting to the relevant committee was important. The point was made clear by Mr Van Breda. The Department needed to discuss this and she liked the changes made. Accountability to the relevant body was important and for the time being, it could be DFFE. Clarity was needed on this and she asked if clarity could be provided next week. This was because accountability and climate change were important and reporting was a crucial accountability point. Ms Weber said the Committee could not just move on. Clarity on how to make the PCC accountable was needed. She understood that finances were the mandate of Treasury. All entities under the Committee's purview were there because the Committee mandated it.

The Acting Chairperson noted Ms Weber’s point.

Part A: DFFE recommended amendments to Bill (continued)
Mr Ramaru continued to present the DFFE recommendations in response to public submissions:

Clause 16 (Adaptation objectives):
DFFE response:
• The proposed amendment is supported.

Clause 17 (Adaptation scenarios):
DFFE response:
• The proposed amendment is supported.

Clause 18 (Adaptations Strategy & Plan):
DFFE response:
• The proposal for the change of the word “may” to “must” is supported.
• The proposed change relating to reduced timeframes is not supported.

Clause 20 (Adaptation information and Synthesis Report Adaptation Report):
DFFE response:
• The proposed amendment is supported. It is recommended that NCCRWP must be replaced with "fulfilment of the objectives of the Bill."

Clause 21 (Trajectory):
DFFE response:
• It is recommended that following amendment to section 21 (3) be effected “(3) Until such time as the Minister publishes the national GHG emissions trajectory in terms of subsection (1), the latest updated Nationally Determined Contribution serves as the trajectory.
• Schedule 3 to be deleted.

Clause 23:
DFFE response:
• Agree, second half of the sentence must be removed.

Clause 24:
DFFE response:
• The submission is supported. Clause 24(7)(b) to be reviewed.

Clause 27 (Regulations):
DFFE response:
• The proposed amendment is supported.

Clause 32 (Offences and Penalties):
DFFE response:
• The proposal to improve clause 32 is supported. Offences related to failure to provide information and data or providing false and misleading information to be added.
• However, the enforcement measures of the carbon budgets will be covered by the National Carbon Budget and Mitigation Plans Regulations that will be developed when the Bill is enacted into an Act. Also note that in adjudging compliance against carbon budget allocations, the regulatory framework needs to avoid double penalisation. Therefore, National Treasury will outline in the Carbon Tax legislation the carbon tax accounting mechanism that shall be used to penalise non-compliance against carbon budgets. Research work done by DFFE and NT clearly shows that the carbon Budgeting and the carbon tax systems have to work in an integrated way in order to enforce the compliance with respect to Carbon Budgets.
• The Department is developing an Administrative Penalties Bill which will apply to NEMA and all the Specific Environmental Management Acts (SEMAs).

Schedule 2
DFFE response:
• The Department of Basic Education will be listed in schedule 2.

Schedule 3
DFFE response:
• It is recommended that following amendment to section 21 (3) be effected “(3) Until such time as the Minister publishes the national GHG emissions trajectory in terms of subsection (1), the latest updated Nationally Determined Contribution serves as the trajectory.

Discussion
Ms Weber said GHG monitoring depended on the monitoring results. It was often said that monitoring was not done well or there were issues during the process. She was concerned about GHG monitoring and wanted it strengthened. Strengthening our monitoring was crucial to the effectiveness of the Bill.

Ms Weber said Clause 32 dealt with enforcement which she supported. One could make penalties that were up to R10 million / ten years. Although enforcement was always commented on, it was often skipped. The first point was stated as failure to comply, and the next point would state when a person was convicted – but to get convicted was the enforcement stage.

Ms Weber said she understood there were other laws and the South African Police Service (SAPS). How were they going to enforce everything? One could be told there was punishment for non-compliance, but enforcement was still not addressed. She did not know if the legal advisors had a solution for this as she did not have one. Could something be put in stating the requirements of enforcement or if it was the job of SAPS? She often went to SAPS to report air pollution, but they would not know how to enforce this. This was not their mandate but there was a problem with enforcement. She did not have a solution to this problem of how to address enforcement in this Bill. Many people spoke about enforcement and perhaps the legal advisors could assist by putting together a paragraph or two on how enforcement should take place.

Mr Ramaru asked Mr Witi to outline how monitoring GHG worked and how robust the process was. He would allow the legal advisors to respond on enforcement. His understanding was that as part of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) some of the enforcing mechanisms within the Act such as the Green Scorpions would be central to ensuring enforcement. However, he would allow the legal advisors to speak to this.

Mr Witi said Ms Weber’s point about air quality was correct. There were issues with monitoring air quality but not so much with GHG. This was because all targets tracked were expressed as a function of the emissions realised. It had a system that was sound in tracking how much GHG was realised. It was web-based system and compelled industry to report industry emissions. Industry including transport accounted for 70% to 80% of GHG.

Mr Witi said DFFE also had its own methods for estimating emissions from waste, land use and agriculture. This system was why South Africa similar to developed countries could generate emissions reports. These emissions indicated where South Africa’s emissions levels were against our target at least every two years. This was a timeframe compatible with developed countries.

Mr Witi there was not much of a challenge with monitoring GHG compared to air quality.

Mr Kobese said this Bill would become a Specific Environmental Management Act (SEMA) which would fall under NEMA alongside the Biodiversity Act, Waste Act and other NEMA acts.

On enforcement, DFFE had capacity in the form of Environmental Management Inspectors (EMIs) which were created by NEMA. These inspectors were on the ground to do necessary inspections and investigations where incidents of non-compliance were reported. The EMIs made recommendations and final compliance notices. The inspectors also work with SAPS in terms of reporting and requests for pursuing criminal-related matters.

Mr Kobese said there was dedicated capacity currently to implement NEMA and the SEMAs within DFFE. At a professional level there were instructors to implement the law.

Ms Winkler asked if the Bill had benefited from input from the DFFE chief directorate on sector enforcement. Had the Bill been reviewed and approved by Mintek which consisted of national and provincial officials responsible for environmental regulation, compliance, monitoring and enforcement?

The DFFE response document referred to the voluntary carbon budget system that was being implemented at present. The promulgation of the Bill would formalise the current budgets and would ensure no delays in allocating more budgets since there was a system already functioning. This was found on page 14. She asked if these voluntary carbon budgets were in the public domain and if were they determined.

Ms Winkler said DFFE knew that in judging compliance against carbon budget allocations the regulatory framework needed to avoid double penalisation. Therefore, in the carbon tax legislation Treasury would outline the carbon tax accounting mechanism that would be used to penalise non-compliance with the carbon budget. This was on page 194. Given that the carbon tax was not a penalty but an incentive for emitters to reduce use of carbon, how would criminal or administrative sanctions be introduced in legislation including all environmental laws. Sasol had commented on avoiding double taxation not double penalisation on page 208.

DFFE knew that the enforcement measures of the carbon budgets would be covered by the national carbon budget and mitigation plans regulations. These regulations will be developed when the Bill is enacted.

Ms Winkler referred to page 200 where DFFE dealt with Sasol’s comment on the need for clarity on the tax system and its alignment with the carbon budgeting system, by the addition of clause 27(2)(a)(ii) which reads “The regulations contemplated in sub-regulation shall also outline the enforcement mechanism to deal carbon-budget non-compliance using the carbon tax accounting framework.” Further, it stated that this was beyond the scope of the Climate Change Bill, however, the National Carbon Budget and Mitigation Plans Regulations that will be developed will provide this clarity on the alignment between these two mitigation instruments.

Ms Winkler asked what enforcement measures were proposed for these actual regulations. Page 197 noted that the carbon tax accounting framework also considered a system of penalties and incentives to punish non-compliance or reward good behaviour. The statement presumably referred to the Carbon Tax Act.

Ms Winkler asked how the system currently operates for punishing non-compliance and rewarding good behaviour. On page 252 DFFE noted that penalties for non-compliance with the carbon budget were being considered in the amendments to the Carbon Tax Act. The principle of charging higher rates above the common budget allocation was agreed upon. She asked between which parties was this agreed on and did DFFE have a firm commitment from Treasury to this effect.

Ms Winkler asked if DFFE intended to ensure that the national carbon budget and mitigation plan regulations to be presented to the Minister were drafted in a manner that the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), specifically section 34, would be applicable.

The Acting Chairperson noted the time and asked for the Committee’s guidance if the meeting should be extended by 30 minutes to deal with Part B of the DFFE presentation.

Ms Winkler said time was why she had raised the question of how the document would be dealt with. The Minister had suggested that the Committee deal with 100 pages of the document in each meeting as it was impossible to do justice to it if not given the time to interrogate it properly.

Ms Winkler said she would defer to the Committee’s consensus on a way forward.

The Acting Chairperson asked for input on this issue from other Committee members.

Ms Mchunu said there was a suggestion to extend the meeting by 30 minutes to finalise Part B and then checking whether to reschedule the meeting to deal with the remaining issues. There was also the option of continuing after the extended 30 minutes but a break would be needed. The Committee could decide on a date if they decided to postpone. The meeting could perhaps be on Friday or next week on Tuesday.

Mr Bryant said the Committee should try to finish what was set out for today in the next half an hour. If they did not manage to finish, they could reevaluate when they got there. It was not about finishing at a certain time as there were important things that needed to be gone through. He suggested that the Committee see how far it could go.

The Acting Chairperson noted Mr Bryant’s point, but Committee members had other commitments. The Committee planned according to its schedule. She had a meeting at 12 o’clock and she still had to drive thirty minutes. This was the reason for her suggesting that the meeting be extended by 30 minutes. She asked DFFE to proceed with Part B.

Part B (No recommended amendments to Bill)
Clause 1:
DFFE response:
• The IPCC is only mentioned once in the definition of the term “sub-sector”. It is not mentioned in the content of the Bill and therefore it is not necessary to define it in the Bill.
• The definition was aligned to the Air Quality Act, and it shall be revised once the Climate Change Bill is enacted.
• The Bill will be a SEMA and thus read and interpreted with NEMA. The word “sustainable development” is already defined in NEMA. It is not necessary to repeat it in the Bill.
• Although it is not defined, the national circumstance takes into account the socio, economic and environmental aspects of the country. This includes the policies and relevant governance instruments.
• Amendments will be effected in the relevant provisions that reference civil society to broaden same to all relevant stakeholders.
• The Bill will be a SEMA and thus read and interpreted with NEMA. The word “person” is already defined in NEMA. It is not necessary to repeat it in the Bill.
• The proposed text is rather restrictive and will not allow for flexibility in the future should scope 2 emissions be considered for carbon budget considerations.
• Listed activities for SETs are highlighted in Schedule 1. Listed activities for Carbon Budgets shall be listed in the Carbon Budget regulations and listed activities for in terms of section 26(3) are those found in the National GHG Reporting Regulations.

Clause 2
DFFE response:
• Clause 2 of the Bill already includes objectives that address the just transition, stabilising GHG emissions and protecting and preserving the planet for future generations.
• The primary objective pf the Bill is to address climate change and foster coherence of approach across the spheres of society. This Bill will be a SEMA, and like all other SEMA’s the provisions of Chapter 4 of NEMA (sections 17 to 22) will apply. There is no need to have a dedicated provision of conflict resolution in the Bill.

Clause 3
DFFE response:
• The principle of ecological 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.
• The statement is acknowledged. The Bill will be a SEMA and NEMA principles apply. Section 24 of the Constitution also applies.
• Clause 4(2) clearly states that the Bill binds all organs of State.

Clause 7
DFFE response:
• Chapter 2 of the Bill deals with institutional mechanism, inclusive of Presidential Climate Commission (the PCC), Provincial Structures as well as Local Government Structures. These multi stakeholders are represented in the PCC.

Clauses 8 and 9
DFFE response:
• The Bill once enacted into law will become a specific environmental management Act (NEMA). All the enforcement powers in terms of NEMA will apply. The dedicated Environmental Enforcement Inspectorate within DFFE will be deployed to enforce compliance. The inspectorate already collaborates with provincial inspectors to implement NEMA and SEMA’s.
• In clauses 8 and 9, we are aligning with the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act (IGRFA). This Act uses the word “may”. We cannot change the IGRFA through the Bill.
• The Bill already makes provisions for the mainstreaming and prioritisation of climate response across government as per Chapter 2 of the Bill.

Clause 27
DFFE response:
• Rebates are inherently included in the definition of incentives which is already addressed in the quoted provision.
• This aspect is already addressed in clause 27(3)

Clause 28
DFFE response:
• Clause 28 already provides for compulsory consultation by the Minister, responsible MEC and Mayor when making administrative decisions in terms of the Bill (including making regulations). This is consistent with the provisions of PAJA, NEMA and all other SEMA’s.

Clause 29
DFFE response:
• Submission is noted, the current clause is consistent with PAJA, NEMA and all other SEMAs. In terms of the Interpretation Act, government decisions must be communicated by notice in the Gazette. DFFE uses these alternative platforms including Department website. This practice will continue to complement the formalised process without a need for legislative amendments.
• Submission is noted, the current clause is consistent with PAJA, NEMA and all other SEMAs. In terms of the Interpretation Act, government decisions must be communicated by notice in the Gazette. The Department uses these alternative platforms including DFFE website. This practice will continue to complement the formalised process without a need for legislative amendments.
• The Minister is obliged to consider public comments and objections. A comments and response report is developed for all published notices and is a public document. The public has a right to take the decision on review if comments and or objections are not considered.
• Appropriate circumstances are dependent on the nature of the issues to be decided and availability of resources.

Clause 31
DFFE response:
• The submission is noted. This clause is consistent with the requirements of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (PAJA). It is also consistent with the requirements on NEMA, and all the SEMAs (NEM:BA), (NEM: WA).
• Regulations under PAIA and POPIA should be followed to access private information.

Clause 33
DFFE response:
• Carbon tax and its payment is an emissions “accounting” issue, and the Carbon Tax Act already deals with transgressions and non-compliance for carbon tax administrative and performance procedures.
• Sectoral emissions targets (SETs) once developed shall be published for public comment and that process will also for all societal actors to engage on the SETs.
• Appeals will be processed in terms of section 43(4) of NEMA.
• Transitional arrangements are not required in this case as this is already recognised.

Clause 34
DFFE response:
• Transitional arrangements are not required in this case as this is already recognised.
• This view is acknowledged. It is worth noting here that a voluntary carbon budget system and pollution prevention plan system has been ongoing for some time now. Hence, immediate action will be taken through the implementation of the carbon budget regime. For instance, in Clause 24(4) this regime requires the development and implementation of a GHG mitigation plan.

Clause 35
DFFE response:
• Submission not supported. It is recommended that the current name of the Bill be retained.

Discussion on Part B
Ms Mchunu referred to the clause dealing with "relevant stakeholders" that DFFE and the legal advisers needed to look at including the specifics in the regulations and asked if this could be done in the Bill rather. This was to ensure that no stakeholder was left behind.

On the clause that pertained to the Minister, Member of the Executive Council (MEC) and the Mayor and their responsibilities, Ms Mchunu said that in the DFFE response, only the Minister was mentioned. She asked if this reference to the Minister included the MEC and mayor.

Ms Mchunu referred to when DFFE spoke about committees at local government level where it did not want to be specific in terms of composition. It was where they referred to the Premier’s Coordinating Committee or the MEC of Environment dealing with a particular matter. She asked if the Intergovernmental Framework Act would be used and the specifics would dealt with in the regulations. She asked how the two would be integrated so they were able to say to municipalities "prioritise climate change" and were able to enforce it.

The Acting Chairperson agreed to Ms Winkler’s request to send her questions for DFFE's response. Before the DFFE response, she asked for Committee guidance on allowing the legal team to start working on the A-list for the Bill based on today’s deliberations. Next week DFFE needed to bring the revised clauses that clarified the PCC reporting guidelines; the financial clause agreed on and the clause on inclusion of traditional leader representatives proposed in this forum.

Ms Mchunu said the legal team should be allowed to work on the A-list so that the Committee could look at it next week.

Ms Winkler agreed with the proposal and asked that her submitted questions be taken into consideration for this.

The Acting Chairperson said Ms Winkler’s questions would be taken into consideration.

DFFE response
Mr Ramaru said Ms Mchunu suggested that public participation clause was not enough. DFFE indicated that the Minister, MEC and Mayor when carrying out their decisions had to communicate amongst other instruments through the Government Gazette. Most of the instruments undertaken by the Minister, MEC and Mayor would be subject to the public participation process. It was not just the Minister; it was all of them being subject to the public participation process. The inclusion of traditional leaders could be seen as a positive thing and the legal team could look into it to assist in addressing this.

Mr Ramaru said the utilisation of the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act was key. The Act governed how different spheres and sectors of government operated and collaborated. In most cases, DFFE would be referring to that Act as the one guiding the interfaces required by the different government spheres without providing a parallel process that would contradict that Act.

The Acting Chairperson thanked everyone. The Committee had covered a lot in this meeting. She knew DFFE had noted the questions and the needed clarities. Next week, the Committee would receive a lot of clarity. She noted Ms Winkler’s proposal to send her questions to DFFE. She reminded DFFE to send their responses before the next meeting so that the Committee could go through them and prepare.

In response to Mr Ramaru asking when the Committee would send the written questions so DFFE could prepare, Ms Winkler said she would send them after the meeting.

Meeting adjourned.