Climate Change Bill: Negotiating Mandates; Deeds Registries A/B: submissions & adoption

Meeting report

Ms L Beebee (ANC, KwaZulu-Natal) announced the she would be chairing the meeting as the Chairperson, Ms T Modise (ANC, North West), had just received the news of her brother’s passing and was not in a good state to chair the meeting. Throughout the meeting, all who spoke expressed their deepest sympathy and condolences to the Chairperson.

The Committee Secretariat requested a few minutes to establish a quorum.

Mr M Nhanha (DA, Eastern Cape) indicated his presence, but the Committee Secretary clarified that the quorum referred to provincial delegates with voting rights. A few minutes later, a quorum was achieved and the meeting could proceed as there were five provinces represented.

Mr Themba Mnguni, Parliamentary Liaison Officer: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment (DFFE), conveyed apologies from the Ministry and the Director-General.

Ms C Visser (DA, North West) expressed disappointment at the absence of Ministers from such important meetings.

The Committee Secretariat announced that the Limpopo representative had joined the meeting so the total number of provinces represented was six.

Climate Change Bill: Negotiating Mandates

Eastern Cape
The Committee Secretary, Mr Asgar Bawa, noted that the Committee had not yet received a negotiating mandate from the Eastern Cape Legislature.

Free State
Mr Kobus Jooste, Committee Content Advisor, read out the Free State legislature negotiating mandate which was a vote on 22 March 2024 in favour of the Bill, with no requests for additions or deletions.

Gauteng
Ms W Ngwenya (ANC, Gauteng) stated that as a province, they were in prayers with the Chairperson during this difficult time. She asked the Content Advisor to read the mandate as she was busy with door-to-door campaigning.

Mr Jooste read the Gauteng negotiating mandate which was in favour of the Bill with amendments. The first proposed amendment was the importance of aligning carbon tax and carbon budgets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It noted the implications of not aligning these measures and the need to avoid duplicating penalties for the same activity.

The Committee Secretariat stated that the Committee would discuss the proposed amendment with the Department and the legal advisors. Once the discussions had concluded, the Committee would vote whether to accept or not.

The Acting Chairperson asked the Department to speak first.

Mr Maesela Kekana, DFFE Deputy Director General: Climate Change and Air Quality Management, DFFE, introduced Mr Kobese who would respond to points raised.

Mr Sibusiso Kobese, DFFE Director: Law Reform and Policy Direction, explained that the Bill calls for the harmonization and alignment of various laws on climate change, citing clause seven as an example. The Bill goes beyond alignment of laws and policies to include harmonization and mainstreaming of measures and programmes by various organs of state.

Mr Kobese acknowledged the suggestion to harmonize and align the Bill with carbon measures, mentioning that work is underway to achieve alignment. He stated that it should not translate to an amendment to the Bill.

The Parliamentary Legal Advisor clarified that the legal team would respond only to issues with legal implications, not policy matters. She assured that they would intervene if necessary.

The Committee Secretariat offered Members the opportunity to comment before voting on the proposed amendment. As there were no comments, the vote unfolded as follows: Eastern Cape had no representative as Mr Mkiva was absent; Free State abstained; Gauteng supported, KwaZulu-Natal abstained; Limpopo abstained; Mpumalanga and Northern Cape had no representative; North West abstained; Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not supported as there was no clear acceptance.

Mr Jooste presented the second proposed amendment, "Non-compliance with carbon budgets should not result in criminal sanctions." He explained that Clause 32 of the Climate Change Bill on offences and penalties, indicates that offences under section 24 of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, including carbon budgets, are procedural. The proposal argued that criminal sanctions should not be used to enforce carbon budget compliance. Instead, the suggestion was to use other legislation, such as the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, to compel compliance with the submission of data and pollution prevention plans.

Mr Kobese addressed non-compliance with the carbon budget, particularly the existence of the allocated budget. He explained that instances where a person or company exceeds the allocated budget should be regulated under the Carbon Tax Act. DFFE was working with Treasury to ensure alignment between this Bill and the carbon tax. He emphasized that incidents related to the carbon budget should be regulated under the Carbon Tax Act, and therefore, in DFFE's view, the proposed amendment should not result in changes to the Bill.

The Legal Adviser was aligned with the Department’s view.

Voting: Eastern Cape had no representative; Gauteng had no representative due to temporary disconnection; Free State, KZN, Limpopo, North West and Western Cape abstained; Mpumalanga and Northern Cape had no delegate. The amendment was not accepted due to lack of support.

Mr Jooste presented the third proposed amendment, stating that the Climate Change Bill might unintentionally disallow companies from exercising rights already granted through existing environmental authorisations. The province proposed an additional clause stating that carbon budgets imposed under the Bill should not retrospectively impact company rights based on environmental authorisations already granted.

Mr Kobese replied and affirmed that the Bill would not impact existing rights or have retrospective effect. He stated that there was no need for an added clause to address this, as the Bill already ensured that it would not apply retrospectively.

The Legal Adviser confirmed that the Department had sufficiently addressed the proposed amendment, expressing agreement with the DFFE submission on the matter.

Mr Nhanha expressed his concern about the wording used about the Eastern Cape attendance He asked that the Committee Secretary accurately reflect his presence in the meeting.

Voting: Eastern Cape had no voting delegate. Free State abstained. Gauteng had no delegate. KZN abstained. Limpopo abstained. Mpumalanga had no delegate. Northern Cape had no delegate. North West did not support. Western Cape abstained.

The amendment was not accepted due to lack of support.

Mr Jooste summarised the final point from Gauteng, which suggested that companies should be permitted to produce and trade offsets if they discover mitigation solutions below the carbon tax established threshold. It highlighted the necessity for enhanced policy and regulatory clarity to encourage investment.

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) noted that the points presented were more discussion points rather than proposed amendments and sought clarification from the legal team. She highlighted the time-consuming nature of addressing each point from each province individually and suggested the Committee deliberate on how to proceed.

The Committee Secretariat replied that he would seek input from the Department and legal advisors to determine if the points raised were comments or proposed amendments. If confirmed as comments, he would skip voting on them and move to the next item. However, if considered amendments, they would proceed with caution and treat them as such.

The Acting Chairperson was grateful for the clarity provided, emphasizing the potential time-saving aspect of addressing comments. She inquired about the next steps.

Mr Kobese was grateful for the input from Gauteng province on offsets. He clarified that offsets are managed and regulated by National Treasury through the Carbon Tax Act, emphasising that it falls outside the DFFE mandate.

The Legal Adviser said the issue was a policy not a legal issue.

Voting: Eastern Cape abstained. Free State abstained. Gauteng abstained. KZN abstained. Limpopo abstained. Mpumalanga had no delegate. Northern Cape abstained. Western Cape abstained. North West abstained.

KwaZulu-Natal
Mr Jooste read the negotiating mandate of the KZN Portfolio Committee that met on 25 March 2024 and agreed to support the Climate Change Bill with the following proposed amendments:

• In clause 15(2)(c) of the Bill on climate change needs and response assessment, add the italicised text: " identify and spatially map within the sphere of operations of the province, district or Metropolitan Municipality, as the case may be, risks vulnerabilities areas including areas farmed by women, ecosystems and communities, including women and children that will arise or that are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change”.

Mr Kobese expressed gratitude for the KZN submission. He explained that the risk and vulnerability assessment already considers socio-economic and environmental impacts, thus encompassing various societal groups including women and children. Therefore, he argued against itemising specific groupings in the clause, suggesting it should remain broad.

The legal adviser said it was not a legal issue.

Voting: Eastern Cape abstained. Free State abstained. KZN supported. Limpopo abstained. Mpumalanga had no delegate. Northern Cape abstained. North West did not support. Western Cape abstained. The proposed amendment was not agreed to.

• In the preamble, the insertion of the following italicised text: "Whereas climate variability in the Republic, including the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, will affect, amongst other things, human health, access to food and water, biodiversity, habitats, ecosystems, and ecological infrastructure, the coast and coastal infrastructure, and human settlements."

Mr Kobese replied that the proposed insertion of "ecological infrastructure" was not supported as it overlaps with the term "ecosystems" already present in the Bill. "Ecosystems" adequately covers the intended aspect and thus DFFE does not endorse this insertion in the Bill.

The legal adviser stated that the addition of "ecological infrastructure" is unnecessary as the term "ecosystems" is already in the Bill. The phrase "amongst other things" indicates inclusivity, making the addition redundant.

Voting: Eastern Cape abstained. Free State abstained. KZN supported. Limpopo abstained. Mpumalanga had no delegate. Northern Cape abstained. North West did not support. Western Cape abstained. This amendment was not supported.

• Proposed insertion of two definitions under the "Definitions" section:
- Ecological infrastructure "means naturally functioning ecosystems that provide valuable services to people and the economy."
- Ecosystem-based adaptation "means the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change."

Mr Kobese repeated the DFFE opposition to including "ecological infrastructure." On ecosystem-based adaptation, DFFE argued that it is a specific approach and cannot dictate the selection process over other existing approaches. All approaches should be considered when implementing adaptation measures in accordance with the Bill. Therefore, DFFE does not support the proposed addition of these two definitions.

The legal adviser agreed with the Department.

This amendment was not supported due to lack of support.

• Amendment to Clause 2, inserting the italicised text:

"The objects of this act are to provide for the effective management of inevitable climate change impacts by enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience, and reducing vulnerability to climate change, including through ecosystem-based adaptation with a view to building social, economic, and environmental resilience, and an adequate national adaptation response in the context of the global climate change response."

Mr Kobese replied that DFFE disagreed with the inclusion of "ecosystem-based adaptation" as this approach should not be prioritized over others.

The legal adviser stated that this was not a legal issue.

The proposed amendment was not supported.

• Amendment to Clause 3, inserting the italicised text and removal of text in square brackets:

"The interpretation and application of this act must be guided by our recognition that a robust and sustainable economy and a healthy society depend[s] on ecological infrastructure and the services that well-functioning ecosystems provide."

Mr Kobese replied that DFFE disagreed with the insertion.

The legal adviser aligned with this view.

Due to lack of support, the amendment was not accepted.

• Amendment to Clause 32, inserting italicised text and deletion of text in square brackets:

"Offences and penalties:
32. (1) A person commits an offence if that person:.
(a) fails to provide data, information, documents, samples, or materials to the minister in terms of section 21;
(b) provides false and misleading data, information, documents, samples, or materials to the Minister in terms of section 21;
(c) fails to prepare and submit a greenhouse gas mitigation plan to the minister in terms of section 24;
(d) fails to comply with the allocated carbon budget in terms of section 24;
[(e) deleted and replaces (f)]
(e) fails to comply with or contravenes the notice of the Minister in terms of section 25(1);
(f) fails to comply with the measures contemplated in section 25(3)(b)."

Mr Kobese highlighted the importance of Clause 27 which mandates the development of regulations specifically addressing carbon budget issues. The detailed regulations developed should cover these matters. However, non-compliance, especially an exceedance, should be regulated under the Carbon Tax Act. There are ongoing efforts to align the Bill with the Carbon Tax Act. He opposed the proposed amendment of Clause 32(1)d.

The legal adviser shared the same sentiments.

The proposed amendment was not accepted due to lack of support.

• Amendment to Clause 24(6) as it currently only mandates measures from individuals who have filed, are filing, or will file to comply with the allocated carbon budget. It argued that this is insufficient for ensuring compliance and suggested the inclusion of an associated penalty.

Mr Kobese expressed gratitude for the input. He highlighted ongoing work between the Department and National Treasury on the alignment of carbon budgets and taxation. He noted that Clause 27 of the Bill addresses the development of detailed regulations to handle carbon budgeting and mitigation plans. While there was no specific proposal in the submission, he asserted that there should be no changes to the Bill based on this input.

The legal adviser agreed with the Department.

The amendment was not agreed to.

• The KZN Committee expressed strong dissatisfaction with the unreasonable time frames imposed by the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) to conduct sufficient public consultation on the Climate Change Bill. The also criticised the rushed approach to addressing the critical issue of climate change, which impacts everyone. This point was raised as the final aspect of the mandate but was not up for voting.

Limpopo
Mr Jooste presented the Limpopo negotiating mandate which supported the Climate Change Bill. The provincial NCOP permanent delegates were instructed to negotiate in favour of the Bill, taking into account inputs and comments from the public, although the comments themselves were not included in the mandate document.

The Committee Secretariat stated that the Limpopo delegate needed to decide if the attached report should be read out. The report consisted of the public inputs, with no proposed amendments. If the delegate wished for the inputs to be read, the Secretariat was ready to do so. Otherwise, the meeting could proceed to the next mandate.

The meeting proceeded to Mpumalanga.

Mpumalanga
Mpumalanga did not have a delegate present. The negotiating mandate conferred on the permanent delegate representing Mpumalanga Province in the NCOP to negotiate in favour of the Climate Change Bill.

Northern Cape
The negotiating mandate from the Northern Cape Provincial Legislature as deliberated on 19 March 2024 voted in favour of the Bill, and no amendments were proposed.

North West
The negotiating mandate from the North West Provincial Legislature as deliberated on 13 March 2024 voted in favour of the Climate Change Bill without proposing any amendments.

Western Cape
The Committee Secretariat explained the process saying after reading out the mandate, the Committee would review the report for all the proposed amendments. It would rely on the Department and legal advisors to clarify if each point was a proposed amendment or just a comment. The delegates could overrule this guidance as it was their mandate. However, they had agreed to rely on the legal advisors' guidance.

Mr Jooste read the Western Cape Provincial Parliament's negotiating mandate which supported the Climate Change Bill, subject to serious consideration of the proposed amendments.

• The first point raised was about the relationship of the Bill to other legislation, such as the Carbon Tax Act of 2019 and the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act of 2004. It was suggested that this relationship should be made explicit to ensure coherence.

Mr Kobese expressed gratitude for the Western Cape submission. He stated that Clause 7 of the Bill emphasizes the alignment and harmonization of legislation by all organs of state. Clause 6 contains a trumping clause stating that the Bill takes precedence in the event of conflict with other laws. Further, Clause 24(5) addresses the transition of approved pollution prevention plans to the new climate change regime. He concluded that the Bill's standing in relation to other laws is clarified within its provisions, indicating that the Western Cape submission does not call for an amendment but rather offers a general comment on the Bill's construct.

The legal adviser suggested a more efficient approach to handling the comments and proposed amendments. She proposed that the Department should lead by presenting the proposed amendments and comments first, followed by input from the legal adviser and content advisor. This approach would leverage the groundwork already done by DFFE and streamline the process, allowing for quicker progress. Many of the comments are not proposed amendments but rather general comments, and a more efficient process could differentiate between them.

• Development of guidelines
Mr Kobese noted that there was no proposed amendment but rather a suggestion to consider developing guidelines. The DFFE response had been to acknowledge the comment and express that it had already responded. He mentioning the reference to various clauses of the Bill on the sequencing of planning instruments. The submission emphasized the need for further consultation with stakeholders on sequencing, roles, and responsibilities. He clarified that this was not a proposed amendment but rather commentary on the construct of the Bill. The DFFE response was that the Bill was properly framed and sequenced, with specific time frames for different actions. Therefore, it did not see any need for changes.

• Concern about outlining the role of the private sector and other non-state entities in the implementation of the nationally determined contribution as required by the Paris Agreement
Mr Kobese reported that DFFE viewed the role of non-state entities as properly captured in the Bill, highlighting provisions for consultation and public participation. He mentioned platforms such as the Presidential Climate Commission for non-state entities to contribute.

• Capacity support for provinces, departments, and municipalities
Mr Kobese acknowledged the submission but stated that it should not translate into amendments. He referred to Clause 15(a), which calls for the Minister to prescribe support and finance mechanisms. Further, the regulations developed must be approved by Parliament.

On supporting and capacitating municipalities, he repeated that it should not necessarily lead to amendments. He again pointed to Clause 15(a), emphasising both financial and capacity support provisions.

• Bill lacked provisions on monitoring and evaluation

Mr Kobese countered by highlighting clauses empowering the Minister to request information for monitoring and evaluation purposes. He stressed that monitoring and evaluation were regulatory functions to be handled administratively by the department.

He discussed how the Bill relates to other laws, particularly the National Environmental Management Air Quality Act, stating that existing pollution prevention plans would be migrated under the Climate Change Act.

• General comments on the Bill's content and criticisms around carbon budgeting and emission reduction targets

Mr Kobese acknowledged the criticisms but stated they would not necessarily lead to amendments. He emphasized the role of National Treasury in carbon budgeting and the certainty provided by the Bill in determining nationally determined contributions.

He addressed proposed amendments related to language and drafting errors, including the use of capital letters. He proposed accepting and implementing these editing proposals. He asked if the Committee wished to vote on the proposed amendments or if he should proceed.

The Legal Adviser expressed agreement with the proposed changes, pending the decision of the Committee.

Voting: Eastern Cape abstained, as did the Free State, Gauteng, KZN, Limpopo, and Northern Cape. Mpumalanga had no delegate present. North West did not support the amendment, while the Western Cape supported it.

The amendment was not accepted due to lack of support.

• Long title of Bill

Mr Kobese clarified that the DFFE view was that these were general comments on the Bill without any specific proposed amendments. The comments highlighted that while the Bill contained commendable provisions for enabling a transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy, it did not sufficiently cover how the government would enable non-public sector players to participate in this transition. He reiterated the DFFE response, emphasizing the role of non-state actors as outlined in the Bill and their participation in various aspects of implementation.

• Use of the word "periodically" which was criticized as being vague and open-ended.

Mr Kobese explained that the term "periodically" was necessary in the instances where it was used, as it was a commonly understood term within the industry and aligned with similar language used in related legislation. He concluded that there was no need for amendment.

• Definition of "carbon dioxide equivalent" suggesting that "CO2 E" should be "CO2e".

The Department agreed to this proposal.

Voting: Eastern Cape abstained. Free State abstained. Gauteng abstained. KZN abstained. Limpopo abstained. Mpumalanga had no delegate. Northern Cape abstained. North West did not support. Western Cape supported the amendment.

• Definition of "mayor" had incorrect section references to Local Government Municipal Structures Act and the proposed amendments addressed these inconsistencies.

Mr Kobese affirmed that they had considered the proposals and found them to be correct. The inconsistencies arose due to amendments made to the Municipal Structures Act in 2022. The Committee should consider effecting the proposed amendment. The change would involve omitting the current definition of "mayor" and substituting it with a new definition that clarifies the different types of mayors elected under the Municipal Structures Act.

Voting: Eastern Cape abstained. Free State abstained. Gauteng abstained. KZN abstained. Limpopo abstained. Mpumalanga no delegate. Northern Cape abstained. North West did not support. Western Cape supported.

The Legal Adviser expressed her concerns on proposed amendments that aim to correct legal and stylistic issues in the Bill rather than content-related matters. These amendments were important for ensuring the Bill's legality and adherence to correct drafting conventions. She expressed concern that if the Committee did not agree to these proposals, issues would persist in subsequent versions of the Bill. She requested guidance from the Acting Chairperson on how the Committee planned to address these concerns, particularly due to the number of abstentions on these proposed amendments.

The Acting Chairperson remarked that when voting, members should follow the mandates given by their respective provinces. She acknowledged the concerns raised by the Legal Advisor but ultimately it was the responsibility of each province to decide its stance on the proposed amendments. She asked if Members had further comments on the matter.

Ms Ngwenya agreed with the Acting Chairperson and said each provincial delegate had a mandate to follow.

Ms T Mamorobela (ANC, Limpopo) agreed with Ms Ngwenya.

Mr Jooste commented that in the past the Committee had been guided by legal advice in distinguishing between a technical correction and an amendment. A technical correction addressed drafting errors without fundamentally altering the Bill, while an amendment would require the Bill to undergo further voting procedures in both Houses. He admitted his lack of legal expertise but suggested that the Committee seek guidance from the legal team to determine when a technical correction was necessary versus when it constituted an amendment. He emphasized the importance of understanding this distinction based on past experience.

The Acting Chairperson said that they would take note of it. She reiterated the importance of following the provincial mandate when voting, as decisions could not be made arbitrarily.

• Definition of "President" in relation to Presidential Climate Commission had not been updated to align with the new clause 10 on the continued existence of the commission rather than establishing it anew.

Mr Kobese confirmed the correctness of this proposal and that the Committee consider effecting the amendment by substituting the wording "established in terms of" with "referred to in". This amendment would constitute a technical correction.

Voting: Eastern Cape abstained. Free State abstained. Gauteng abstained. KZN abstained. Limpopo abstained. Northern Cape abstained. North West did not support. Western Cape supported.

The proposed amendment was not agreed to.

• Definition of "subsector" Western Cape's proposal highlighted the specificity of the subsector definition linked to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), contrasting it with the generic definition of "sector" not linked to the IPCC. It suggested a review of the sector definition for better alignment with IPCC definitions.

Mr Kobese stated that while DFFE acknowledged the observation, the proposal aimed to ensure alignment with IPCC definitions. He suggested amending the definition of "subsector" to align with the spirit and purpose of the sector definition, as subsectors derive from sector. He proposed a revised definition of "subsector" reflecting further subdivision of activities with similar characteristics related to greenhouse gas emissions or vulnerability to climate change.

There was no consensus from the Committee.

• Clause 3(h) use of the word "should" was ambiguous. The submission suggested substituting "should" with "must" to remove ambiguity.

Mr Kobese reported that DFFE had assessed the submission and found it to be correct. Therefore, it proposed changing "should" to "must" in clause 3(h).

There was no consensus from the Committee.

Clause 4: Western Cape's concern was that the clause might be interpreted to apply only to the state and suggested a need for clarification.

On examination, DFFE found that the clause was consistent with similar provisions found in other legislation such as the Biodiversity Act and the Equality Act. He explained that this clause was a standard provision in legislation, applying throughout the Republic and binding all organs of the state. Therefore, he concluded that there was no need for an amendment to clause 4.

On the application of the Act, Mr Kobese acknowledged the Western Cape's concern that subclauses 3 and 4 were misplaced, as they dealt with reporting requirements by the Presidential Climate Commission. He agreed with this assessment and proposed moving these subclauses to clause 13, which addressed reporting to the government. Relocating these subclauses would ensure they were properly located under the reporting clause.

There was no consensus from the Committee.

Clause 8: Western Cape raised concerns about the reference to the President's Coordinating Council, suggesting alignment with the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act. They also called for clarification on the interaction between the President's Coordinating Council and the President's Climate Change Commission.

Mr Kobese explained that according to the state law advisers, there was no need to insert a dash in the name of the President's Coordinating Council, as it followed drafting conventions. He emphasized that the two entities, the President's Coordinating Council and the President's Climate Change Commission, had distinct roles established under different legal frameworks. While they had different mandates, collaboration between them was essential for pursuing the objectives of the Climate Change Bill. He concluded that these concerns should not lead to amendments to the Bill.

Clause 9: Mr Kobese acknowledged the Western Cape's submission about incorrect wording and agreed that it required correction. He proposed the amendment of replacing "its" with "the" as a technical correction.

There was no consensus from the Committee.

Clause 10(4)(b) on the obligation to list the Commission in terms of schedule 3 of the Public Finance Management Act, Western Cape highlighted a lack of clarity on who is obligated to list the Commission, as well as a reference to section 42(1) of the Constitution.

Mr Kobese noted the proposal to replace the word "including" with "as well as" in clause 10(4). Additionally, he clarified that listing the Commission in terms of schedule 3 of the PFMA is a joint responsibility of the Department and Treasury. There is ongoing collaboration between the Department, Treasury and the Commission to address this matter. Therefore, he proposed amendments to clause 10, suggesting the replacement of "including" with "as well as" on page nine, line 54 of the Bill.

The proposed amendment was not agreed to.

Clause 11(1)(b): Western Cape suggested including Disaster Risk Reduction in the Commission's mandate.

Mr Kobese explained that Disaster Risk Reduction is adequately regulated under the Disaster Management Act, and including it in the Bill would be duplicative.

Clauses 10 to 14: Western Cape proposed involving departmental officials responsible for climate change in the Commission's functions, suggesting the appointment of technical forums.

Mr Kobese noted that the Bill already empowers the Commission to establish technical committees. He emphasized the need for separation of functions and mandates and opposed the proposal that departmental officials should be appointed as executive directors.

Clause 15: Western Cape suggested clearer goals on the integration of climate change response plans with environmental management frameworks, integrated development plans (IDPs), and special development frameworks (SDFs).

Mr Kobese explained that the Bill already calls for integration and mainstreaming of climate change response plans with existing instruments at all levels of government. He noted that the proposal did not require an amendment to the Bill.

Western Cape proposed rearranging paragraph (b) and (c) in clause 15(1).

Mr Kobese noted this as a construction issue and suggested it could be considered by the state law advisors as a technical adjustment.

There was no consensus by the Committee.

Clause 15(1)(a): Western Cape suggested acknowledging municipal constraints and providing municipalities with assistance and resources.

 Mr Kobese noted that Clause 15A already addresses this issue by empowering the Minister to prescribe support and finance mechanisms to assist municipalities. This suggestion did not necessitate proposed amendments to the Bill.

Clause 15(2)(c): Western Cape proposed including economic sectors and businesses in the clause and specifically mentioning disaster risks or hazards.

Mr Kobese clarified that the term "community" in this context is inclusive of all sectors, including businesses. However, he agreed with the suggestion to insert "hazards and" before "risks" in Clause 15(2)(c). Thus, the proposal was to amend the clause accordingly.

There was no consensus by the Committee.

Clause 15(2)(e): The Western Cape suggested amending the draft paragraph to reflect measures and mechanisms already implemented or underway, with references added to the identification of human and financial needs.

Mr Kobese stated that the focus of the Bill is on clear measures required to respond to climate change, with guidelines for conducting needs and response assessments outlined in the regulations. Therefore, this suggestion should not result in an amendment to the Bill.

Clause 15(3)(a): The Western Cape proposed considering the nature and characteristics of metropolitan or district municipalities, including their unique climate change needs, special risks, vulnerabilities, and ecosystems, in response implementation plans.

Mr Kobese explained that each province or municipality will conduct a province-specific needs assessment plan integrated into their IDPs. He stated that this consideration is adequately covered in the Bill's structure, thus no amendments are needed.

Clause 16(2): On the use of the word "periodically," Mr Kobese maintained the initial response, stating that its use in the Bill aligns with relevant contexts and should be understood by stakeholders, requiring no proposed amendments.

Clause 17(2)(a): Western Cape proposed referencing financing or making resources available to downscale existing science to local contexts.

Mr Kobese noted that this aspect will be covered in the support and finance mechanism in Section 15A, to be prescribed in the regulations. Therefore, amendments are not needed.

Clause 17(2): Western Cape suggested revising the clause to include reference to social and economic vulnerabilities, not just environmental vulnerabilities.

Mr Kobese agreed with this proposal and suggested amending the clause to consider potential impacts of climate change on the environment and associated economic and social vulnerabilities.

There was no consensus by the Committee.

Clause 20: The Western Cape suggested covering the data and information needs of climate change researchers, making such data available at no or minimal cost.

Mr Kobese stated that the Bill is not intended to regulate data policies of organizations and that accessibility procedures will be in place. Therefore, he concluded that this suggestion should not result in an amendment to the Bill.

Chapter 5: Western Cape suggested that emission inventory and reporting clauses be more comprehensive, requiring publication or disclosure of carbon budgets, mitigation plans, and compliance reports.

Mr Kobese explained that specific clauses in the Bill adequately address emission inventory and reporting, hence no further amendments are necessary.

Clause 22: The Western Cape pointed out inconsistencies in the clause on sector emission targets and the involvement of provinces and local governments.

Mr Kobese clarified that determination of sector emission targets will be inclusive and consultations with relevant ministers are ongoing, therefore no amendments are needed.

Clause 24(c): The Western Cape suggested clarifying the wording of the clause to indicate if it refers to five-year increments.

Mr Kobese agreed with the proposal and suggested amending the clause to clearly indicate the time periods. Therefore, he proposed an amendment to section 24C to provide clarity on the time frames.

There was no consensus by the Committee.

Clause 25: Western Cape suggested that the Minister must consider socio-economic impacts when determining sectoral emission targets and develop a job resilience or transition plan.

Mr Kobese stated that the process of determining offsets will consider all sectors, including socio-economic impacts, and will be inclusive, transparent, and consultative. Therefore, he concluded that there is no need for an appeals mechanism.

Clause 25(a): Western Cape questioned if the Bill had been subjected to a socio-economic impact assessment.

Mr Kobese confirmed that the Bill's process included a socio-economic impact assessment report, which is available for review by the Committee if needed.

Clause 27: Western Cape suggested inserting the words "at least" before "every five years" to allow for review in less than five years if necessary.

Mr Kobese explained that while the phrase "at least" is inserted in many other clauses of the Bill, it is not appropriate in this context. He argued that a five-year interval is appropriate for review, as it allows for sufficient time to evaluate implementation. Therefore, he concluded that no amendments are needed on the review interval.

Clause 27(f): Western Cape suggested deleting the word "means" in Clause 27F.
Mr Kobese agreed with the submission and proposed deleting the word from the clause.

There was no consensus by the Committee. .

Clause 28: Western Cape suggested that it is unclear if Clause 28 refers to five-year increments and requested clarification.

Mr Kobese explained that the five-year period is the review period, and there is no need for proposed amendments. He emphasized that this is different from specifying specific five-year periods up to 2050, as seen in previous considerations. Therefore, he suggested no amendments be made to Clause 28.

Clauses 22, 11, and 12:
The recommendation was made for the reports referred to in these clauses to be made available publicly. Additionally, there are no penalties provided for non-compliance with the sectoral emission targets.

Capitalization Issue: There's a typographical issue where the word "the" should have the "T" in small caps. Mr Kobese agreed with this suggestion.

The proposal is to omit the word "the" and substitute it with the word "there" on page 11, line 4.

The Committee Secretary said that some Members were experiencing network issues. Eastern Cape had not responded and a delegate from Free State was also absent. Another Member seemed to be having network problems. Due to the lack of a clear consensus on the amendment, it was not agreed to. He requested a brief pause to confirm the number of members currently active on the virtual platform.

Clause 23: Western Cape highlighted the absence of prescribed time frames within which the Minister must publish lists of greenhouse gases and emitting activities. The concern was about accountability and facilitating a just transition.

Mr Kobese agreed with the submission and suggested addressing it by inserting the term "prescribed time frames" into Clause 23. These time frames would be outlined in the regulations, as specified in Clause 27. Thus, he proposed amending Clause 23 accordingly.

There was no consensus by the Committee.

Clause 24(4)(c): Western Cape pointed out a missing word, suggesting that "the" should be inserted before "implementation."
Mr Kobese agreed to amending Clause 23(4)(c) accordingly.

There was no consensus by the Committee.

Clause 23(5)(e). Western Cape said that the caps in this clause imply that constraints for threshold implementation may be evaluated by ministers or ministries who do not wish to be hindered by certain thresholds. However, the key suggestion is to add the word "justifiable" to characterize the types of constraints considered.

Mr Kobese indicated that the DFFE view is that the assessment will determine if the constraints are justifiable or not, suggesting that inserting the word "justifiable" may introduce subjectivity. Therefore, he concluded that there is no need for proposed amendments on that point.

Clause 24 (2): Western Cape proposed deleting "amongst others" as it was superfluous. Mr Kobese clarified that DFFE believed the phrase was not unnecessary. To accommodate the concerns raised by the Western Cape, he proposed using the phrase "but not limited to" instead. He suggested amending the text accordingly.

There was no consensus by the Committee.

Clause 27(1) (b): Western Cape suggested a revision to the clause, proposing it to read, "To encourage a change in behaviour that leads to a phase down or phase out of greenhouse gases amongst all sectors of society."

While DFFE agreed with the essence of the suggestion, Mr Kobese offered a slight modification to the wording. He proposed the revised version to read, "To encourage a change in behaviour towards the reduction of greenhouse gases amongst all sectors of society."

There was no consensus by the Committee.

Clause 28(1): Western Cape raised concerns about incorrect cross-references in the Bill, such as Clause 24(2) instead of 24(1).

Mr Kobese acknowledged this observation and confirmed that they had worked with state advisors to ensure the correctness of all references in the Bill. As a result, he proposed the following amendments to address the Western Cape's concerns:

On page 17, in line 31, to omit "24" and substitute it with "27".
On page 17, in line 32, to omit "23.2" and substitute it with "24.26.2".
On page 17, in line 56, to omit "27" and substitute it with "30".
On page 18, in line 19, to omit "27" and substitute it with "30".

There was no consensus by the Committee.

Clause 28(4): Western Cape said this clause only covered the carbon budget element and did not extend to the relevant industry, potentially posing a challenge on the scope covered by the carbon budgets. There were concerns about clarity if those allocated the carbon budget would be able to appeal beyond the Minister. The suggestion put forward was to extend the clause to cover all relevant clauses and include consultation with the industry, as well as incorporating Clause 22, which deals with sectoral emission targets.

Mr Kobese argued that the current phrasing of Clause 28(4) is correct and applies the principle of consultation. He emphasized that detailed regulations and frameworks would be developed to clarify the allocation of carbon budgets, making further amendments unnecessary.

Clause 29: Western Cape submitted improvements to public participation requirements.

While Mr Kobese acknowledged the proposal to use social media and online platforms for enhanced public participation, the current wording of Clause 29 aligns with existing legislation and is adequate. The Department already utilizes social media platforms for public notices.

He expressed agreement with the Western Cape's suggestion on cross-referencing and the importance of ensuring rural community participation. He proposed a substitution for subsection 1 on page 29, line 45, to encompass various functional powers.

This agreement was not agreed to.

Mr Kobese addressed Clause 29(4), noting the Western Cape's concern on the absence of a reference to the period. He clarified that the time frames specified in Clause 29(4) pertain to the submission of representations by stakeholders, not the timeframe for the Minister to consider those representations. Thus, he explained that imposing a time frame on the Minister for considering representations might be impractical and restrictive. Therefore, he concluded that there is no need for amendments to Clause 29(4).

Moving to Clause 30, Mr Kobese acknowledged the Western Cape's submission on inconsistencies between Clauses 31 and 32. He agreed that there should be consistency and alignment between these clauses. While Clause 30 states that delegations must be processed in terms of certain provisions, he proposed an improvement to ensure clarity. Specifically, he suggested adding the phrase "in terms of this act" after the words "invested in him or her" in Clause 30(1). This amendment aims to enhance clarity and consistency in the delegation of powers and duties.

There was no Committee consensus and the Department was asked to continue.

Mr Kobese moved on to address Clause 32, discussing the Western Cape's submission on penalties and offences. The Western Cape highlighted concerns about unclear penalties for government departments and entities, as well as the perceived low penalties prescribed. However, he explained that the term "person" intentionally includes juristic persons, which covers organizations liable under the legislation. Regarding government departments, he emphasized the existing intergovernmental relations process and the adaptability of penalties based on the offence. He asserted that the penalties are aligned with existing legal frameworks and may vary case by case. Therefore, no amendments are necessary for Clause 32.

Mr Kobese addressed the Western Cape's suggestions on the organization of functions in Schedules 1 and 2. While the Western Cape proposed listing functions in alphabetical order, it is not a drafting convention and is not required. He defended the current organization, stating it is not necessary to list functions alphabetically. On Schedule 3's proposed amendment to the definition of the Specific Environmental Management Act in National Environmental Management Act (NEMA), although initially not agreeing with the Western Cape's suggestion to delete the word "or," after consulting with state law advisors, DFFE decided to accept the proposed change by the Western Cape in Schedule 3.

There was no Committee consensus and therefore the proposals were not agreed to.

Mr Kobese thanked the Western Cape for their detailed input on the Memorandum of Objects but clarified that the memorandum would be updated by the Office of the Chief State Advisor once the Committee finished with its C-list of proposed amendments. He emphasized the importance of aligning the Memorandum of Objects with the C-list or the Bill to ensure consistency. Therefore, no further amendments were deemed necessary at that time.

Mr Kobese acknowledged the proposed changes to the Memorandum of Objects but suggested that these changes could be implemented by the state law advisers at the appropriate time.

There was no Committee consensus on the proposed changes and they were not agreed to.

The voting on all proposed amendments was concluded and the DFFE was released.

Deeds Registries Amendment Bill: public submissions
The Committee Secretary noted that the Deeds Registries Amendment Bill was a Section 75 Bill, which had been referred to the Committee on the 20 February 2024. The Committee had been briefed on the Bill on 12 March and had called for public comments on 14 March 2024. Until the previous day, no submissions had been received. However, two submissions were received at the last minute on the previous day. The NCOP Committee would now have to deliberate on these submissions, and the department and legal advisors would provide their inputs. Members would give their views, and the Committee would vote whether to approve the public submission proposals on the Bill or not. The voting procedure according to the new rules, stating that a quorum of at least one third of the members must be present for a vote to be taken. He clarified how votes would be decided and mentioned that the Bill had not been amended by the National Assembly.

Mr Jooste summarised the submissions to the Committee and said he would leave the legal analysis to the legal advisors and Department. He clarified that two submissions were received late the previous day, one from a private individual and another from the Law Society of South Africa (LSSA).

The submission from Mr H du Toit highlighted gender references throughout the Bill, suggesting that detailed gender references were unnecessary due to existing legal provisions. The submission proposed amendments on the publication of notices and the consideration of comments on regulations. It also focused on procedural recommendations on the consideration and rejection of regulations by the National Assembly and the National Council of Provinces.

Mr Jooste noted the LSSA submission proposed alternative definitions for terms in the Bill and raised concerns about references to the Public Service Act, proposed amendments to clause 3 on power of attorney, membership of the Deeds Registries Regulation Board, and voting rights on financial matters.

Discussion
The Acting Chairperson sought input from the Members on the proposed changes in the submissions. She emphasized the importance of hearing from Members.

Ms Modise sought clarity on how to proceed if an individual Member does not support a proposed amendment to a Section 75 Bill suggested by the public. She expressed confusion about if she should indicate support for the Bill without the proposed amendment or if she should express her lack of support for the proposed amendment itself.

The Committee Secretary clarified that the submissions received are not direct amendments proposed by the public. Instead, they raise concerns that the Committee needs to consider during deliberations with the legal advisors. He suggested that the Committee should now review the two submissions and allow the Department, state law advisors, and parliamentary law advisors to provide input on these submissions. The legal advisors should guide the Committee if the submissions have merit or if the proposed changes are already addressed in the Bill. Individual members retain the autonomy to decide how they will vote on a Section 75 Bill, not bound by provincial mandates. He urged the Committee to review the submissions, raise any concerns, and allow the department and legal advisors to provide input. Ultimately, members should make informed decisions based on this guidance. He noted that the Bill received from the National Assembly did not include any amendments.

The Chairperson thanked the Committee Secretary for the clarification and asked for the Department's input, followed by the state law advisor and parliamentary legal services.

Department response
Ms Antoinette Reynolds, Deputy Registrar: Deeds and Legal Support Services, Department of Rural Development and Land Reform (DRDLA), addressing the Law Society of South Africa submission, indicating that while they agreed with the omission of certain references in Clause 1, they did not support the other proposed amendments. For instance, they disagreed with the proposal to include the Chief Registrar of Deeds as a member of the board, as it deviates from the Land Survey Act. Additionally, they disagreed about including a conveyancer from the Office of the State Attorney as a board member, as they lack extensive practical knowledge.

On the definitions proposed by the LSSA, Ms Reynolds explained that they preferred their own definitions based on registration procedures rather than those based on the Legal Practice Act. They also disagreed with limiting the scope of transactions on state land to social economic housing, as it would be more practical and cost-effective to have conveyancers handle all transactions involving state land.

On the comments from Mr H du Toit, Ms Reynolds noted that his remarks on gender references throughout the Bill were valid but suggested that these issues would be addressed in future legislation. She also expressed concerns about the lengthy process proposed for making regulations, emphasizing the efficiency of the current process involving stakeholders and annual reviews.

Finally, Ms Reynolds disagreed with the proposal to prescribe the number of posts in the Office of the Chief Registrar of Deeds in regulations, as she believed it was unnecessary given the existing structure of the department.

State Law Adviser response
Mr Theo Hercules, Principal State Law Adviser, Office of the Chief State Law Adviser, agreed with the department's stance on the submissions and added two points. Firstly, on LSSA's request to include "as amended" in reference to the Public Service Act, he explained that it is unnecessary to specify "as amended" because the Public Service Act automatically includes any amendments made to it since its introduction in 1994.

Secondly, on the definitions proposed by the Law Society, specifically on "attorney" and "conveyancer", Mr Hercules stated that the purpose of definitions is to define terms within the scope of the Act, and he believes that the definitions appropriately serve this purpose.

Deeds Registries Amendment Bill: committee response
The Committee Secretariat sought further comments from Members, legal advisors and the department, indicating that no proposed amendments had been raised thus far. He clarified that in a Section 75 Bill vote, Members themselves propose amendments, and in this instance, none had been proposed. Therefore, the assumption was that Members would either vote to support or not support the Bill without amendments. He asked if anyone required further information before proceeding with the voting process. He concluded by stating readiness to proceed as per the Chairperson's direction.

Mr Mkiva expressed his gratitude for the clarity provided by the Department and supporting legal argument. He stated his intention to support the Bill without any proposed amendments, as he found it to be clear and satisfactory, especially after being cleared by the state law advisor.

Deeds Registries Amendment Bill: voting
Mr Mkiva moved for the formal approval of the Bill.

Mr Ntsube agreed to the Bill with no amendments.

Ms Ngwenya, Ms Beebee, Ms Mamorobela, Ms Modise supported the Bill with no amendments.

Mr J Nyambi (ANC, Mpumalanga) and Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) supported the Bill without amendment, considering the detailed explanations provided during the meeting.

The Committee Secretariat noted that the Bill has been approved by the Committee without amendment. The Committee Report will need to include the discussions of this meeting, and it will be adopted at the next meeting. The Bill was approved and adopted in accordance with the Section 75 voting procedure.

The Acting Chairperson expressed gratitude to the Committee Secretary, the department, and the legal personnel for providing clarity and guidance. She acknowledged that it had been a long day for everyone, expressing gratitude for their patience and participation despite challenges with the network.

Minutes of 26 and 28 March as well as 9 April 2024 were adopted and the meeting was adjourned.