A Bill that needs change
WANTED: DEDICATED, REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Viability of proposed committees involving different departments and tiers of govt must be questioned.
While there are many things to applaud about the Climate Change Bill, many aspects will require revision if it is going to meet its ambitious objectives. Whether it is capable of effectively implementing SA’s international commitments and enabling the transition to a lower carbon economy is debatable.
It’s likely that most of industry and civil society’s environmental campaigners will agree that a dedicated regulatory framework to address climate change is required and the Bill needs some work.
The National Climate Change Response White Paper contemplates that an effective legislative instrument will provide for “the proposed post 2020 GHG mitigation system; the undertaking of risk and vulnerability assessments at various spheres of government …; the need for alignment of policies …; and the need for cross-sectoral coordination, policy development and decision-making to meet SA’s adaptation goals; sustainably escalate its transition to a lower carbon economy; and enable SA to monitor, track, report and manage this transition for the benefit of the country”.
More often than not, intergovernmental cooperation fails. This is even more likely to be the case in the context of climate change, where intergenerational rivalry is at its core.
The viability of the Bill’s proposed committees involving different departments and tiers of government must be questioned. Though the ambition to “coordinate efforts across all sector departments” is noble, what makes the Bill’s proposed climate change committees likely to be effective?
And why would cooperative governance be more likely to be achieved in this context, when it has failed in many others?
If the ministerial committee were properly incentivised, either by reward or penalty for performing, this committee may achieve what they proposed.
Perhaps the ministerial committee ought to be required to establish subcommittees comprising individuals with the required expertise with proper terms of reference. Already the committee has a discretion to invite representations from stakeholders and to establish an advisory committee.
Although the Bill’s socioeconomic impact assessment study indicated that it will provide “certainty”, there are multiple instances where the substantive content is delayed. For example, the minister is required to establish a national environmentally sustainable framework for achieving the objects of the Act within two years.
Experience has shown that frameworks are not effective. Frequently, their publication and review are delayed and their content may be inconsistent.
Obligations are also imposed on provinces and municipalities, within a year, to undertake a “climate change needs and response” assessment. Within two years, these parties will also be required to develop and implement a climate change response implementation plan, which is informed by these assessments.
These departments are unlikely to possess the required technical expertise, capacity or resources to prepare and implement these plans.
Justine Sweet is LexisNexis contributing author and specialist environmental legal consultant.