“Governments approved Response to Climate Change” is appropriate and timely. The ITTCC recognise that this response calls for a range of initiatives the aims of which are to acquire the requisite facts that will inform a unique and appropriate policy choice for South Africa.
The biggest threat inherent in the National Climate Change Response White Paper is premature policy choices and/or the failure of implementation”. 

24 October 2011

ITTCC Comments on the
National Climate Change Response 
White Paper

Table of Contents
1	The Industry Task Team on Climate Change (ITTCC) Believes
2	Executive Summary
3	Premature policy choices
4	The challenge of implementation
5	An Execution Management Framework
6	Post Paper Implementation Requirements
7	The ITTCC Recommends
8	Appendix A

1	The Industry Task Team on Climate Change (ITTCC) Believes 
The ITTCC acknowledges the mainstream science of climate change is correct; human activities are having a negative impact on our climate and this poses risks to our society and economic wellbeing. While uncertainty remains, there is more than enough evidence to warrant action in a way that does not damage the economy.
Climate change to be effectively addressed demands coordinated global action and the ITTCC believes such a global agreement is likely but not imminent. We believe that a global solution to climate change, which includes a carbon price of some form, is likely, but also some time away. Until then, nations around the world are likely to continue to accelerate their domestic emissions reduction and establish low-carbon economies, balancing their needs to ensure a reliable energy supply and sustain economic growth. 
South Africa should act now on climate change to begin the transition to a low carbon, resilient and resource-efficient economy while the country prepares for a global agreement. The members of the ITTCC are working with government and other stakeholders to find a South African ‘win-win’ solution.  
Part of this journey requires South Africa developing a stable, effective regulatory framework to significantly reduce carbon emissions in line with the nation’s Copenhagen commitments. It is not in South Africa’s best interest to limit its policy options prematurely and our policy alternatives must be in line with South Africa’s development aspirations. 
Ideally, policy targeting this outcome would use multiple mechanisms to ensure it is development focused, uses growth to rebalance the economy, be is part of a global solution, and be is broad based. 
The ITTCC believes that there could be a more economically sustainable path to a greener, resource-efficient South Africa than either a ‘business as usual’ approach or the current policy direction involving primarily a purely carbon tax. As South Africa transitions to a lower-carbon economy and strives to meet its development objectives of poverty alleviation, job creation and economic growth, it needs to consider an integrated set of carbon abatement policies. 
The nation’s success in achieving its ambitions depends on a number of domestic enablers (e.g., a national Climate Change fact base) and international contributions (e.g., investment capital and technical assistance). If successful, the ITTCC believe that by 2030 South Africa could create 400 000 jobs grow an additional tax revenue comparable to that of the proposed carbon tax.
Creating the right suite of policies for South Africa will require cooperation between multiple government departments, labour and industry. ITTCC aspires to work collaboratively within these groups in developing an integrated and sustainable future for the country.
2	Executive Summary
The government approved “Response to Climate Change White Paper” is appropriate and timely. The ITTCC recognise that this response calls for a range of initiatives the aims of which are to acquire the requisite facts that will inform the appropriate policy choices for South Africa.
The complexity of the management of sustainable growth is increasing exponentially, especially for government, which depends on multiple diverse Ministries. An integrated approach is required that must ensure teamwork and alignment of the Ministerial functions, so that they all are focussed on achieving the common goal.
The ITTCC believe that the biggest threat inherent in the National Climate Change Response White Paper is premature policy choices and more importantly the failure to address the complexity of implementation of the myriad of projects defined with the Paper. Climate Change is a global phenomenon that is and will continue to impact all aspects of life and human endeavour. Consequently, any human interventions, demands the collaboration and cooperation of all functions of government, business and civil society. The complexity and demands on resources, energy and time must not be underestimated.
It must be recognised that Policy-making is less than 20% of the effort to achieve the intended outcomes while Implementation is 80% of the effort. The universal ABCD model of “getting work done” illustrated in Figure 1 below that shows the four areas of “getting the work done”.

3	Premature policy choices
 National policy often describes the goal of achieving a ‘green economy’ for RSA, but at no stage is this defined, or is a plan in place to define ‘green economy’ described. IPAP and the New Growth Plan place a big focus on minerals beneficiation, which needs to be acknowledged. We believe that this green economy should make the most efficient use of our rich minerals endowment and allow us to manage the transition towards a low carbon future in a way that optimises economic, environmental and social outcomes for the country. The Paper lays out strong support for sections of the economy defined as “green” but fails to expand on the mechanisms for this and the costs associated with this.
The biggest area for ITTCC concern is the lack of clarity over the definition, application and calculation of Carbon Budgets. Carbon Budgets represent an opportunity to refine the National Mitigation Options or in the development of National Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), however what these budgets actually mean could be sensible or disastrous for business:
•	Sensible if; Company caps (Allocations / Budgets) are based on abatement plans set by that company and approved by DEA and that such “allocation” includes savings, at least achieved in the recent past, say since 1990 and that Sector Caps are then simply an aggregation of all company level allocations in that sector and finally that Penalties or taxes are only applied at company level if that company deviates from these budgets.
•	Disastrous If, Sector caps are arbitrarily set and that the sector is penalised if its cap is exceeded.    
It must be noted that the White Paper frequently mentions sectors, sub-sectors and company level categories and associates classes of “actions” to these categories, but does not make clear what class of action will be applied to which category. Furthermore Sectors are arbitrary economic categories, which do not describe the diversity of operations and therefore mitigation potentials or challenges. The Paper provides no indication of how, these mitigation actions relate to the mitigation plans that companies will be required to develop in terms of the Air Quality Act.  The alignment contemplated in the Paper will require significant co-ordination on which to date we do not have a good track record.
The link between Carbon budgets, Mitigation plans and the mooted National Treasury Carbon Tax are very weakly defined. The ITTCC has repeatedly indicated that a carbon tax is in itself not a mitigation measure.  In the context of climate change a mitigation measure is simply a mechanism to reduce emissions without stopping production.  A carbon tax can promote the implementation of mitigation action.  The carbon budget approach requires rigorous technical work, which in turn requires a rigorous approach to the methodology.  The necessary rigorous approach is not reflected here. The ITTCC welcomes the more nuanced approach to carbon pricing and the recognition by Government of the need for the development of a carbon tax to be informed by a number of considerations as set out in the White Paper.  While the recognition that a carbon tax does not itself set a fixed quantitative limit on GHG emissions, is welcomed, it remains disappointing that the imposition of a carbon tax is still not seen within the context of the quantitative emission limitations that will be placed on emitters by environmental legislation. 
The intention of the National Treasury to investigate the feasibility of an emissions trading scheme is welcomed since this does provide some link to the Carbon Budget Scheme.  However, the intention only to consider this measure as a medium- to long-term response to climate change in contrast to the short-term view on carbon tax will create risk of job losses in the energy intense industries.
The ITTCC are undertaking a national study on alternative carbon pricing mechanisms to achieve the requisite emissions reductions. This will be presented to National Treasury in November.
4	The challenge of implementation
Most if not all policy starts, incorrectly, by setting objectives and then selecting the best strategies to be employed to achieve the objectives.
The current approach of trying to resolve problems by continually creating new ad hoc structures such as, task teams and a plethora of committees cannot solve the complexity of problems that confront government. Structures must be simplified with clear lines of accountability and must be augmented by efficient work processes and systems. 
The internationally accepted Guide 73 of ISO31000 defines RISK as, “The effect of uncertainty on objectives”. Effect is a deviation from the expected positive and/or negative. Objectives could have different “ends in mind” such as economic, environmental or social and can be applied at different levels of society and lastly risk is categorised by reference to potential events and consequences or a combination of these.
The National Climate Change Response White Paper has initiated the first and very important step to identify what the South African current situation is, The ‘A’ in Figure 1, Acquiring the requisite fact base. 
Government has already set several ambitious national Objectives/Goals (e.g., adding 5 million jobs by 2020; sustaining real GDP growth of 4-7%; and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 34% and 42% by 2020 and 2025 respectively), the “B” in Figure 1 or National Aspirational Goals. 
While government has a demonstrated track record of ambitious policy development and implementation, there are still several unresolved obstacles to reaching these goals more especially, “A Failure to Manage Change”, for example education challenges and long-life carbon-intensive assets. 
Furthermore, several important policy documents appear to present conflicting messages regarding national priorities. It is imperative to identify and define what could prevent or help achieve the objectives. For objectives to be effective they must be understood and accepted by the stakeholders and to achieve this they need to conform to the SMART principle; Simple, Measureable, Acceptable, Realistic and Timeous.
Referring to Figure 1 the A & B are about “Managing Risk” whilst C & D are about achieving the policy objectives. ABCD together is “The Requisite Work” to ensure the achievement of the National Objectives/Goals.  
It is important to note that the A, B, C & D positions is not a once off exercise. It is an iterative and on-going process of refinement over time until the objectives are achieved.
The ITTCC has, since the release of the Green Paper on a Climate Change Response in December 2010, been committed to working with Government and other bodies to develop and enhance the national fact base on which climate change policy and national growth aspirations can be mutually achieved. The White Paper acknowledges the need to further refine the cost of mitigation options and the requisite implementation activities require close collaboration with Business. Government should recognise the need for a national Mitigation Action Cost Curve (MAC Curve) to inform the post paper implementation Strategies. This MAC Curve is a bottom-up approach to inform a detailed report to quantify the potential national mitigation options and the likely costs of each option
The white paper states that large reductions will have to come from reduced emissions in energy use, particularly in the industrial sector, and much emphasis is put on the mechanisms to drive this. However, there is little sensitivity in the document to the difficulties involved in this transition. The realities and consequences of the possibility of energy- and emissions-intense industries being driven out of business is not given enough attention and requires close cooperation with Industry to address the post paper implementation issues.
The white paper does not sufficiently deal with arguably the most important issue of South Africa’s capability to reduce emissions nor does it explain the “transition to a green economy”. The white paper is focused almost entirely on “what the country ought to do” with little if any consideration of “what the country has the capacity to do” or “can afford to do”. There is equally little discussion of  what South Africa would do in the absence of either a global agreement or international funding.
South Africa is a major emitter of CO2 in carbon-intensity terms, but it contributes less than 1.2% of total global emissions. This suggests that South Africa has one of the most difficult challenges in the transition to a low-carbon economy, not that it must be a leader in carbon abatement! A recent United Kingdom Centre for Low Carbon Futures (CLCF) report, which is based on a survey of over 400 companies, concludes that the transition to a green economy is going to be a very difficult and lengthy process. The transition will be even more difficult for South Africa as a consequence of its reliance on coal-based electricity and fuel generation and the major role played by heavy industry in the economy.  
A critical missing “policy response element” is affordability/capability of addressing the transition to a low carbon economy. This element is acknowledged in South Africa’s Copenhagen pledge, “In accordance with Article 4.7 of the Convention, the extent to which this pledge will be implemented depends on the provision of financial resources, the transfer of technology and capacity building support by developed countries.” 
The first key element listed in the overall approach to mitigation talks of a “National GHG Emissions Trajectory” which will form the basis of the measurement of success in mitigation. In this context the trajectory appears to be referring to the earlier “Business as Usual Trajectory” which should naturally increase and must be a defined as a “cone of uncertainty”.
It must be noted that the chances of achieving the Copenhagen Pledge for 2020 (34% below Business as Usual (BAU)) today seem no better than when this was first put forward two years ago (although current data from the DEA now shows that SA’s emissions are between 40 – 50 Mt/a lower than formerly thought: this will have the effect of reducing the BAU baseline and the absolute value of the Copenhagen pledge emissions; it is not yet clear how the mathematics of all of this will translate into absolute reduction targets – this uncertainty will complicate industrial growth planning).
While the white paper proposes carbon budgets for each sector and sub-sector, including emissions mitigation options in the short, medium and long term for each sector, these carbon budgets will need to be defined before they can cascade down to sub-sectors and ultimately companies whose emissions are above a certain threshold. These budgets are also subject to the GHG Emissions Trajectory. The ITTCC is concerned that the approach on the White Paper on the trajectory does not reflect the approach in the draft of the White Paper, where the trajectory was presented as a departure point for further work through the carbon budgeting process. In contrast in this version the actual figures are presented as the final word on this issue.  The ITTCC has in several submissions raised concerns about the errors contained in these trajectories, it is therefore concerning that these concerns were not addressed since this is the foundation of the White Paper’s objective.
The ITTCC recommends that the original approach contemplated in the draft that the determination of the final benchmark trajectory would form part of the carbon budgeting process should be followed. Additionally the Trajectory itself should be subjected to rigorous independent review.
5	An Execution Management Framework
The National Climate Change Response outlines a long list of projects with no identified central programme coordination or an integrated programme management plan to ensure that the detailed over lap and interdependencies of the various projects do not delay the implementation. These projects are owned by different entities that are not under the authority of the Department of Environmental Affairs and therefore accountability and monitoring is a very grey area with a number of activities being duplicated creating inefficiencies and potentially wasted application of resources. Appendix A provides a high level overview of the projects that have been mentioned in the National Climate Change Response Policy.
There needs to be a central National Climate Change Response programme management unit that will centrally coordinate all of the project management units managing the individual projects necessary to achieve the policy objectives. To begin with however, this programme management unit must make sure that the policy objectives are understood and correctly chosen by assessing the uncertainties, positive and negative, that will help or prevent achieving the objective and doing this for all the projects in the programme, understanding how they integrate with one another. This means instituting strategic risk management for the programme across all the projects.
The complexity of management today is increasing exponentially, especially for large dispersed organisations such as government. An integrated approach is required that must ensure teamwork and alignment of the organisations functions, so that they all are focussed on a common goal. The engine required to achieve this is an integrated and effective system of government supported by the requisite technology, capacity and skills.
Transversal Management presents an effective way of management in government that can re-establish the country’s reputation as a leader in radical transformation. This will create the requisite strong and effective engine of legislative and legal change that can successfully implement and deliver on policy objectives.
Transversal Management is basically, “The way an organisation / enterprise ensures effective teamwork across functions and departments, remotely or locally”. 
An aggravating factor in the progressive weakening of our ability to implement and deliver on policy objectives (Managing Change) is the increasingly complex environment, Politically, Economically, Socially, Technologically, Environmentally and Legally, both globally and in South Africa itself. It was Einstein who said of managing change, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
Transversal Management must be seen as a cascading process by which Vision (Policy Direction) creates effective execution:
Policies > Strategy (which is about choice - what will we do, what will we NOT do, what is important, what is critical and what is a nice to have - this priority is crucial since if everything is equally important nothing is) > Structure > Management Functions > Service Delivery.
The key Transversal Management functions are:
•	Forecasting - how much needs to be done?
•	Planning and Target Setting - what needs to be done and by whom?
•	Scheduling - when will it be done by?
•	Monitoring - how well are we doing? Do we need to re-forecast, re-plan or re-schedule?
•	Controlling - are things running according to the plans, methods and expected outcomes and how do we rectify any deviations?
•	Reporting - how well have we done, and who needs to know?
The Service Delivery Functions are:
•	Design – How the plan will be executed?
•	Source – what resources are required to deliver the plan
•	Execute – complete the steps to complete the plan using the method defined in the design and the resources allocated and sourced
•	Deliver – hand the outcome to the beneficiary
•	Learn – develop the institutional knowledge, which will allow the next process to be more effective.
For the officials in the departments to be effective they need to know 5 things:
1.	What needs to be done – the task they need to perform to achieve a step toward to goal (planning by management)
2.	Why this needs to be done; Context is crucial – it is a fundamental human need – to understand why? 
3.	How it needs to be done (the method – which is merely a function of the institutional knowledge combined with the plan, the resources secured and the schedule in which the task is be completed)
4.	Quality - The Standard the task needs to achieve – this is crucial because without defining the level of quality required – delivery and value will usually be compromised.
5.	Feedback – how well the person did – this is crucial because this is the fundamental component of mentoring, on the job training and long-term development. It here that personal development plans is crafted.
It is proposed that the DEA establish a Programme Management Unit to oversee the implementation and monitoring of the Response Plans. It will be necessary to systemise these into a centrally coordinated management platform that includes a policy implementation dashboard for South Africa; this will close the loop between national strategies and the effectiveness of implementation. This unit will focus on technical governance and execution management and should not be confused with politics or social advocacy.
6	Post Paper Implementation Requirements
Refer to Appendix A
The White Paper now recognises the fact that most of the implementation of climate change responses actually fall on other Ministries and particularly business, but does not sufficiently appreciate the scale and complexity of this work. The Paper falls short of recognising the important role of business especially when it comes to understanding the facts and in implementation of these policies. Furthermore the scale of the implementation challenges is seriously underestimated..
Throughout the White Paper, mention is made of various things that will/must be done not later than a stipulated time after the publication of the document The ITTCC have extracted a timeline of the post-paper implementation programmes identified in the paper (Appendix 1). It is apparent from the implementation timeline below that the capacity to manage these programmes has to be questioned. The ITTCC recommends that the DEA develop an implementation plan for all the programmes identified in the White Paper, furthermore in cases where the White Paper places an implementation obligation on other Departments, which those Departments formally recognise and accept the roles and programmes assigned to them.
7	The ITTCC Recommends
There is a lack of clarity of key terms such as Carbon Budgets. All key terms must be fully defined and their intended use described.
National policy often describes the goal of achieving a ‘green economy’ for RSA, but at no stage is this defined. It is important that the envisaged “green economy” and the transition to it are defined.
Premature policy choices must be avoided.
Climate Change Response demands a new and integrated approach that will ensure teamwork and alignment of all government functions.

.
8	Appendix A
	
Critical Initiatives	Responsible	Timeline	
				2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	
A		IGCCC	 											
	1	Climate Risk Analyses on all Sector Plans	IGCCC	
A Project

	2	Adaptation Strategies integrated into Sector plans	IGCCC	
A Project

B		Adaptation	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	1	Water for Growth and Development Framework	DWA	
A Programme

	2	High Temperature Public Awareness Campaigns Implemented	Dep. of Health	
A Project

	3	Heat-Health Action Plans Implemented	Dep. of Health	
A Project

A Project

A Project

A Project

A Project

A Project

	4	Health Data-Capturing System Developed	Dep. of Health	
A Project

A Project

A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	5	Malaria Control Strategy Reviewed	Dep. of Health	 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	6	Expanded Protected Area Network	DEA	 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	7	Gene Banks Expanded	DEA	
A Project

	8	Protect and Rehabilitate Natural Systems	 	
A Project

	9	Disaster Risk Management plans Established	 	
A Project

C		Drafting Carbon Budgets	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	1	Contributions to National Emissions Reviewed	 	
A Project

A Project

A Project

A Project

	2	Portfolio of Enabling Mitigation Programmes Identified	 	
A Project

	3	Sector and Sub-Sector Emissions Trends Analysed	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	4	Mitigation Actions for each Economic Sector Analysed	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	5	Economic-wide implications of mitigation actions analysed	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	6	Desired Emission Reduction Outcomes Developed for each sector	 	
A Project

	7	Consultation	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	8	Analytical Resources Provision Process Established	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
D		Near-term Priority Flagship Programmes	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	1	Desired emission reduction outcomes completed	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	2	Carbon Budgets completed	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	3	Initial adaptation intervention prioritisation process completed	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	4	Climate Change Response Public Works Flagship Programmes	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.The Expanded Public Works Programme	Public Works	
A Project

 	 	o	 	
A Project

A Project

A Project

		2.Non-State Sector’s Community Works Programme	DEA	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		3.Working for Water Programme	DEA	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		4.Working on Fire Programme	DEA	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		5.Working for Energy Programme	DoE	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	5	The Water Conservation and Demand Management Flagship Programme	DEA	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	6	The Renewable Energy Flagship Programme	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.IRP 2010 Programme	DoE	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		2.The South African Renewables Initiative	DTi	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		3.Solar Water Heating Programme	DoE	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	7	The Energy Efficiency and Demand Management Flagship Programme	DoE	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.The Residential Energy Efficiency Programme	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.Initiatives, Incentives and Regulations	DoE and DTi	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		2.Regulate Building Standards	NRCS and NHBRC	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		2.The Government Building Energy Efficiency Programme	Public Works	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.Lead Programme for Parliament	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		2.Lead Programme for Main Government Buildings in Pretoria	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	8	The Transport Flagship Programme	Transport	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.The Enhanced Public Transport Programme	Transport	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		2.The Efficient Vehicles Programme	Transport	
A Project

 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	o	
		3.The Rail Re-Capitalisation Programme	Transport	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		4.The Government Vehicle Efficiency Programme	Transport	
A Project

 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	o	
	9	The Waste Management Flagship Programme	DEA	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	10	The Waste-Related GHG Emission Mitigation Action Plan	DEA	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	11	The Carbon Capture and Sequestration Flagship Programme	DoE and SAERI	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.The Carbon Capture and Sequestration Demonstration Plant	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	12	The Adaptation Research Flagship Programme	SA National Biodiversity Institute	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.Sectoral Adaptation Scope	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		2.Sectoral Adaptation Costs	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		3.Adaptation Strategies	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		4.Climate Change Vulnerabilities Assessment	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		5.Scenarios and Potential Sub-regional Response Strategies	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
E		Policy Instrument Implementation	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	1	The National Employment Vulnerability Assessment (NEVA)	Economic Development	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.Publish National Employment Vulnerability Baseline (NEVB)	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.Establish Links to provide data and methodologies	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		2.Cooperative governance framework	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		3.Conduct NEVA	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	2	Sector Jobs Resilience Plans (SJRP)	DEA	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.SJRP framework	 	
A Project

 	 	 	 	 	o	 	 	 	 	
		2.SJRPs with stakeholders from NEDLAC 	 	
A Project

 	 	 	 	 	o	 	 	 	 	
	3	Link Ministries to integrate Outcomes of NEVB and SJRP 	 	
A Project

 	 	 	 	 	o	 	 	 	 	
	4	Jobs Resilience Monitoring System Established 	 	
A Project

 	 	 	 	 	o	 	 	 	 	
F		Mainstream Climate-Resilient Development	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	1	Comprehensive review of all government legislation, policy, strategies, plans and regulatory frameworks	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		1.Implementation Protocol for Output 2	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		2.All existing policy and legislation audited and aligned with the National Climate Change Response Policy	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		3.Fully integrated Adaptation and Mitigation Plans	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
		4.National Climate Change Response Policy Reviewed {every 5 years over 40 years}	 	
A Project

A Project

o	 	 	 	o	
		5.Sector and Sub-Sector Emission Reduction Outcomes and CBs Reviewed {every 2 years}	 	
A Project

A Project

o	 	
A Project

o	 	
A Project

o	 	 	 	
G		Science and Technology Development	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	1	Human Capital Development Plan	DST	
A Project

 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	o	
	2	Complimentary Science and Technology Plan for Climate Change	DST	
A Project

 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	o	
	3	Climate Change Technology Roadmap	DST	
A Project

 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	o	
	4	Feasibility Study on the Climate Change Science Council	DST	
A Project

 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	o	
	5	R&D Funding Instruments	DTi 	
A Project

 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	o	
H		Monitoring Climate Change 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
	1	An Adaptation Monitoring System Established for South Africa	 	
A Project

	2	10-Year Global Change Research Plan for South Africa Published and Implementation Started	 	
A Project

	3	Strategy to update and maintain the SARVIA Compiled and Published 	 	
A Project

	4	Methodology to Downscale Climate Information Piloted	 	
A Project

 	 	o	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
 	5	Downscaling Work Implementation Started	 	
A Project

 	 	o