Building on the Past: National Climate Change Response White Paper Implementation Lessons for the Climate Change Act

Full text

Building on the Past: National Climate Change
Response White Paper Implementation Lessons for the
Climate Change Act
Marina Visintini
October 2024
Introduction
South Africa has long been striving to pass comprehensive framework legislation addressing climate change.
The existing legislative framework is anchored in the National Environmental Management Act of 1998
(NEMA) and the more recently established National Climate Change Response White Paper of 2011
(NCCRWP) [1]. The development of the NCCRWP (a policy published as a white paper [2]) was a lengthy,
evidence-based process driven by international pressure from commitments to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto
Protocol, along with growing domestic recognition of South Africa’s vulnerability to climate change [2].
Despite its strong foundation, the NCCRWP’s implementation faced significant challenges [3]. These
difficulties underscored the need for a more integrated and effective approach to climate governance. To
address these gaps, in July 2024 South African President Cyril Ramaphosa signed into law a Climate Change
Act (CCA), which establishes a legally binding framework aimed at achieving zero carbon emissions by 2050
and attempts to harmonize existing legislation [4]. Despite its enactment, no commencement date has been
announced [5].
The CCA represents incremental policy change, building upon the framework established by the NCCRWP. In
the context of policy change theory, incremental change refers to gradual adjustments to existing policies
rather than radically new approaches [6]. While the CCA offers a more comprehensive framework than the
NCCRWP, it does not constitute a departure from previous climate policies. For this reason, this essay will
critically examine the implementation challenges identified in the NCCRWP and how they can inform the
more effective execution of the CCA, through the lens of hybrid theory of policy implementation, of the
Multiple Streams Approach and an examination of policy outputs.
1

South African Climate Policy Implementation Context
South Africa presents a compelling context for studying policy implementation due to its emphasis on local
government autonomy, since the Constitution grants local governments the authority to develop and
implement their own by-laws [7]. While decentralization allows policies to be tailored to community needs, it
creates challenges in ensuring national policy implementation consistency. In other words, local governments
are tasked with implementing national climate policies, but their capacity to do so is often constrained by
limited resources and expertise, as well as a lack of coordination with provincial and national governments.
At higher levels of governance of climate legislation, various bodies are responsible for different dimensions of
policy implementation. The Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change (IGCCC), focuses on
strengthening cooperation between national, provincial, and local governments; the Inter-Ministerial
Committee on Climate Change (IMCCC), ensures coordination between government departments; the
Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), oversees implementation of the NCCRWP and ensuring that
South Africa meets its international climate commitments [8].
Additionally, South Africa’s climate policies are influenced by international obligations, particularly its
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) provides the global framework within which these contributions
are formulated, creating a top-down dynamic where international bodies set broad objectives, while national
and local governments are responsible for their implementation [9].
The success of the national climate policies is dependent on how well local governments are able to coordinate
with national and provincial agencies and international goals, as well as how effectively they can address the
challenges posed by resource constraints and limited administrative capacity [8].
2

Interplay of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Implementation in Climate Policy
The challenges of climate policy implementation in South Africa can be analyzed through the framework of
top-down, bottom-up, and hybrid approaches to policy implementation. The top-down approach
emphasizes the role of central authorities in setting clear policy goals and ensuring compliance from lower
levels of governance. This model assumes that successful outcomes are dependent on the directives from
higher levels of government, with lower-level actors following these instructions closely. In contrast, the
bottom-up approach emphasizes the importance of local actors, such as municipalities and front-line
bureaucrats, in shaping how policies are implemented. This approach is founded on the idea that local
governments and agencies have more direct knowledge of local needs and conditions, and therefore can adapt
national policies to the realities on the ground [10]. A hybrid implementation approach, on the other
hand, seeks to combine the strengths of both top-down and bottom-up perspectives, recognizing that while
central governments and international organizations provide overarching goals and frameworks, successful
implementation requires local adaptation [11].
In the case of NCCRWP, the hybrid approach is particularly relevant, as it reconciles the need for meeting
international commitments with the capacity-building and adaptive strategies needed at the local level. An
example of this is the Durban Climate Change Strategy, developed within the framework of the NCCRWP. By
applying a strategy that integrates top-down directives with bottom-up flexibility, the coastal city has
successfully adapted national and international goals to address its specific vulnerabilities, allowing for
localized climate action through, for instance, flood management programs and infrastructure development
[12].
A Multiple Streams Perspective of Implementation
As identified, the context of climate policy in South Africa is a complex one, marked by multiple layers of
governance and commitments. For this reason, it is essential to take a holistic approach to policy analysis that
integrates all stages of the policy cycle. Michael Howlett’s five-stream formulation of the Multiple Streams
Approach [13], which builds on Kingdon’s original three-stream formulation [14], is particularly useful due to
its attempt to reconcile formation and implementation perspectives. Each of the five streams (Problem,
Politics, Policy, Process and Program) plays a distinct role in shaping how a policy progresses from concept to
action. Applying this framework to the NCCRWP provides valuable insights into the challenges encountered
during its implementation.
Problem Stream: The problem stream involves identifying and defining the societal issues that require
government attention [13]. In the case of the NCCRWP, the problem of climate change was clearly recognized
and had been addressed both on national and international level [2], as South Africa not only faced increasing
threats from extreme climate events, but was also in the top 20 polluting countries in the world [15]. The
NCCRWP framed climate change as a national development issue, affecting not only the environment but also
economic growth, poverty reduction, and social equity [8].
Politics Stream: The politics stream focuses on the political dynamics that influence policy decisions [13].
The NCCRWP benefited from strong political momentum during its early stages, especially around COP17,
when South Africa sought to assert its leadership in international climate negotiations. The pressure of hosting
COP17 helped create favorable political conditions for the publication of the NCCRWP. However, over time,
political commitment weakened, particularly at the local levels, due to capacity and resource constraints [8].
Policy Stream: In the policy stream, potential solutions are developed to address the problems identified
[13]. The government of South Africa engaged with experts and researchers to formulate evidence-based policy
3

[2]. While these strategies were well-articulated, their implementation was hindered by the lack of clear
guidelines for local governments on how to integrate national policy objectives into local development plans [8].
Process Stream: Howlett’s process stream encompasses the procedural mechanisms that shape all phases of
policy-making [13]. In the case of the NCCRWP, one of the key early-stage procedural elements that also
affected implementation outcomes was the extensive public consultation process mandated by the South
African Constitution [16]. Ideally, public consultation allows for input from diverse stakeholders, which should
increase the legitimacy of the policy process [17] and enhancing social acceptance, a critical factor for
implementation success [11]. However, public consultation is also prone to disruption by lobbying efforts [18],
which dilute the legitimacy of policy [19]. This indeed resulted in weakened strength and legitimacy of specific
programs and provisions within NCCRWP [18].
Program Stream: The program stream focuses on the actors and instruments involved in the practical
implementation of a policy. A major challenge in the implementation of the NCCRWP was the absence of
effective coordination mechanisms between national, provincial, and local governments, despite the
establishment of governance agencies and bodies. Although the NCCRWP advocated for a
“whole-of-government” approach and established bodies for climate governance, the lack of clearly defined
roles and responsibilities across these levels resulted in fragmented and inconsistent implementation. Several
programs were inadequately funded or supported at the local level, undermining their effectiveness [8] [20].
Applying Howlett’s five-stream model to the implementation of the NCCRWP reveals an initial convergence
across several streams. However, over time, divergence emerged, as summarized in Table 1, contributing to the
challenges in successfully implementing specific programs and provisions within NCCRWP.
The NCCRWP: Success or Failure?
In line with the Five Stream approach theoretical posit, the NCCRWP, while a significant milestone in South
Africa’s climate policy, has seen mixed success in terms of its implementation. A further layer of analysis can
be introduced by examining it through the lens of policy outputs. Knill and Tosun (2020) outlined several
factors influencing the success of policy implementation: choice of policy instruments, precision and clarity of
policy design, control structures, institutional design, administrative capacities and social acceptance [11].
According to Howlett (2009), policy instruments can be broadly classified in four categories: directive,
4

authoritative, subsidy and informative, with their appropriateness depending on government capacity and
policy environment complexity. Specifically, subsidy- and informative-type policy instruments are more suited
for governments with low capacity, with subsidy instruments being most appropriate for policy environments
characterized by high complexity [21]. The NCCRWP employed a mix of directive and informative
instruments, including regulatory frameworks, market-based incentives, and awareness-raising initiatives [22].
In South Africa, subsidies are hindered by financial constraints and, in line with Howlett’s theory, directive
instruments, while formally in place, are weakened by low enforcement capacity. This is also due to low
precision and clarity of policy design, which left significant ambiguity regarding how local governments
should integrate these objectives into local development plans. The broad goals set out in the policy were not
adequately translated into specific, actionable guidelines at the provincial and municipal levels. Furthermore,
corruption, government capture, lack of transparency and bureaucratic drift are common, eroding the strength
of control structures [8].
The limited capacity of the government of South Africa was also reflected in its inability to adapt its
institutional design to the new legislation. The NCCRWP introduced new climate-focused priorities and
objectives that were not previously integrated into the existing institutional frameworks, and was subject to
high institutional adaptation pressure, which is associated with ineffective implementation [23]. In terms of
administrative capacities, the most significant challenge was the gap in real-time data, hindering efforts to
establish baselines, monitor progress, and adapt strategies as needed [20]. Lastly, social acceptance of
regulatory obligations and targets imposed by the NCCRWP was mixed, particularly within industries like
mining and energy, which are key economic sectors but also heavy polluters [8].
Given these challenges, it is unsurprising that South Africa has reported incomplete information and
inconsistent progress both nationally [20] and to the UNFCCC, reflecting the broader struggles not only with
effective policy outputs, but also with policy outcomes [24].
Conclusions
The lessons from the implementation of the NCCRWP provide critical insights for the upcoming
implementation of the CCA. Howlett’s five-stream model helps illuminate the need for better convergence
across the streams to ensure effective policy outcomes. The CCA implementation plan must provide resolution
to intra-governmental coordination issues, and clearer guidelines to local governments who are tasked with
implementing national climate objectives. This means fostering stronger administrative capacities at local
levels, improving clarity in roles, and ensuring that financial and technical resources are available to support
local actors. By applying a hybrid approach that incorporates both central directives and local adaptation, the
CCA can avoid the pitfalls of the NCCRWP.
Moreover, the NCCRWP’s experience shows that precision in policy design, clarity in implementation roles,
and robust control structures are necessary for sustained impact. A well-functioning monitoring and
evaluation system, paired with clear benchmarks, is essential for the CCA’s success. Social acceptance,
particularly from key economic sectors, will also be pivotal. If the CCA can successfully address these gaps in
capacity, coordination, and commitment, it stands a better chance of realizing its goal of achieving zero carbon
emissions by 2050 and aligning South Africa’s climate action with both national development and
international commitments.
5

References
[1] Tunicia Phillips. A Journalist’s Guide to Covering Net Zero Policies in South Africa. 2023. url:
https://earthjournalism.net/resources/tipsheet/a-journalists-guide-to-covering-net-zero-policies-in-
south-africa. (Accessed 12-10-2024).
[2] P Lukey. “The South African national climate change response policy: an evidence-based policy-making
case study”. In: Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, Pretoria 1 (2020), p. 2.
[3] Nqobile Xaba. Climate change law hinges on effective local government — polity.org.za. 2024. url:
https://www.polity.org.za/article/climate-change-law-hinges-on-effective-local-government-2024-09-25.
(Accessed 12-10-2024).
[4] Shreya Dasgupta. South Africa adopts a new climate change law. 2024. url:
https://news.mongabay.com/short-article/south-africa-adopts-a-new-climate-change-law/. (Accessed
12-10-2024).
[5] Marga Jordaan Claire Tucker. South Africa: President assents to the Climate Change Bill, but no date
set for commencement. 2024. url: https://bowmanslaw.com/insights/south-africa-president-assents-to-
the-climate-change-bill-but-no-date-set-for-commencement/. (Accessed 12-10-2024).
[6] Charles E Lindblom. “The science of muddling through”. In: Readings in managerial psychology 4
(1989), pp. 117–131.
[7] An´el Du Plessis and Louis J Kotz´e. “The heat is on: Local government and climate governance in South
Africa”. In: Journal of african law 58.1 (2014), pp. 145–174.
[8] Alina Averchenkova, Kate Elizabeth Gannon, and Patrick Curran. “Governance of climate change
policy: A case study of South Africa”. In: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the
Environment Policy Report (2019), pp. 1–39.
[9] UNFCCC. Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).url:
https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/nationally-determined-contributions-ndcs.
(Accessed 17-10-2024).
[10] Peter Knoepfel et al. Public policy analysis. Policy Press, 2011.
[11] Christoph Knill and Jale Tosun. Public policy: A new introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2020.
[12] Sean O’Donoghue et al. “The Durban Climate Change Strategy: Lessons learnt from the 2021 strategy
review and implementation plan”. In: Town and Regional Planning 81 (2022), pp. 84–96.
[13] Michael Howlett. “Moving policy implementation theory forward: A multiple streams/critical juncture
approach”. In: Public policy and administration (2019).
[14] J.W. Kingdon. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. HarperCollins College Publishers, 1995.
[15] Reuters. South Africa’s top carbon polluters. 2021. url:
https://www.reuters.com/article/markets/south-africa-s-top-carbon-polluters-idUSL6E7IK1ZU/.
(Accessed 11-10-2024).
[16] Mpho Titong. Constitutionally imperative: Ensuring public participation in the law-making process.url:
https://www.derebus.org.za/constitutionally-imperative-ensuring-public-participation-in-the-law-
making-process/. (Accessed 20-10-2024).
[17] Helena Catt and Michael Murphy. “What voice for the people? Categorising methods of public
consultation”. In: Australian journal of political science 38.3 (2003), pp. 407–421.
[18] Justshare. New Just Share report: Introduction to corporate climate lobbying in South Africa.url:
https://justshare.org.za/media/news/climate-change/new-just-share-report-introduction-to-corporate-
climate-lobbying-in-south-africa/#:∼:
text=In%20South%20Africa%2C%20lobbying%20is,sets%20any%20parameters%20for%20it.. (Accessed
18-10-2024).
6

[19] Jan Beyers, Rainer Eising, and William Maloney. “Researching interest group politics in Europe and
elsewhere: Much we study, little we know?” In: Interest group politics in Europe. Routledge, 2013.
[20] Hilton Trollip and Michael Boulle. “Challenges associated with implementing climate change mitigation
policy in South Africa”. In: Energy Research Centre, University of Cape Town (2017).
[21] Michael Howlett. “Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model
of policy instrument choice and policy design”. In: Policy Sciences 42 (2009), pp. 73–89.
[22] The Government of South Africa. National Climate Change Response White Paper. 2014. url: https://
www.gov.za/sites/default/files/gcis document/201409/nationalclimatechangeresponsewhitepaper0.pdf.
(Accessed 12-13-2024).
[23] Christoph Knill and Andrea Lenschow. “Change as’ appropriate adaptation’: administrative adjustment
to European environmental policy in Britain and Germany”. In: European Integration online Papers
(EIoP) 2.1 (1998).
[24] Climate Action Tracker. South Africa.url: https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/south-africa/.
(Accessed 8-10-2024).
7