NEIL OVERY AND ULRICH STEENKAMP: Whose just transition is it anyway?

Will the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP), unveiled by President Cyril Ramaphosa in November 2022, be enough to accelerate an equitable and just transition in SA? Will it move the country closer to achieving its climate commitments while also taking the present energy crisis into account? And will our country, in its present state of chaos, be able to secure the funding required to bring the plan to life? SA ranks low (44th out of 59 countries) on the latest Climate Change Performance Index (CCPI), released in November 2022. And in 2021 the World Economic Forum ranked SA 110 out of 115 countries in terms of their preparedness for a just energy transition. 

The JET-IP emerged after talks between SA and the so-called International Partners Group (IPG) — comprising France, Germany, the UK, the US and the EU — and it estimates the first phase of SA’s just energy transition plan, between now and 2027, will cost R1.5-trillion. While R150bn (10%) has been secured in funding from the IPG, 96% of that is in the form of loans and guarantees. That places the financial risk of investing in the just energy transition on ordinary South Africans. And where will the remaining 90% come from? More debt, presumably.

In launching the JET-IP the president stated that it had two primary objectives: to ensure SA meets its international climate change commitments, and to protect workers and communities that are negatively affected by the ongoing transition away from fossil fuels. While these are undoubtedly the right issues to focus on, serious questions must be asked about whether the JET-IP is the right plan and delivers equitable and just transition.

Inconsistent energy policies

The JET-IP states that “it takes its direction from SA’s energy and climate policies”. That is the first significant problem. Energy policies in SA, as determined by the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) of 2019, aren’t consistent with the country’s commitments to the UN Framework on Climate Change. As Climate Action Tracker observes, “current policies and actions are insufficient ... if all countries were to follow SA’s approach warming would reach over 2°C and up to 3°C”.

The reason for this disjuncture is found in the IRP’s failure to properly accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, and because it commits government to add 1,500MW of additional coal capacity to SA’s energy mix between now and 2030. Those two factors mean the hopelessly out-of-date IRP (the IRP is supposed to be a “living plan” that is regularly updated) directly contradicts the stated objectives of the JET-IP. Therefore, unless the IRP is updated to greatly accelerate the provision of renewable energy and plans for new coal are abandoned, the climate objectives of the JET-IP won’t be met.

Whether the JET-IP will deliver a just energy transition is also debatable for several other reasons. The first relates to its actual creation, which draws its “principles and priorities” from the national Just Transition Framework (JTF) published by the Presidential Climate Commission (PCC) last year. The JTF states that the principles of distributive justice (the transition burden must be fair), restorative justice (damages against individuals, communities and the environment must be addressed), and procedural justice (affected workers and communities must be empowered to define their own development and livelihoods) must inform all planning and decision-making throughout the just transition process in SA. People aren’t fully consulted on most issues regarding climate change and energy, so tackling issues such as restorative justice will never be truly just if people don’t have any opportunity to engage with the JET-IP to address those matters.

Lack of consultation

To realise these three forms of justice it is obvious that those most affected by the transition must be at the centre of all decisions. However, there is little evidence that workers or community members were consulted in the creation of the JET-IP. In fact, an annex to the report notes that just two days were dedicated to consultations with “labour”, “youth” and “civil society”, and those took place in the absence of any representation from the IPG. This lack of proper consultation with those most affected by the transition makes a mockery of the claim that the JET-IP was created following the “principles and priorities” articulated in the JTF.

The evidence is quite clear that the plan was drawn up in high-level negotiations between the Presidential Climate Finance Task Team (PCFTT), established to advise the president on how best to fund the transition, and the IPG. In fact, the IPG and the PCFTT created five working groups (finance, implementation, the electricity sector, green hydrogen and transport) to facilitate the development of the JET-IP. There has been no civil society, let alone community, representation in these groups. The formulation of the JET-IP even sidestepped the views of the PCC — its director, Crispian Olver, lamented the government’s “secrecy about the deal”.

That the JET-IP was driven by technocratic, exclusionary and high-level discussions is revealed throughout the plan. For example, there is no substantive or actionable engagement with renewable energy ownership models outside either Eskom-owned, or privately owned models. There is therefore no examination of how community-owned renewable energy systems, be they examples of small-scale embedded generation or utility-scale, can help realise a just energy transition. Rather, it is assumed with no supporting evidence, that the present model of privatisation, which has delivered little substantive benefit to communities, will somehow deliver a just energy transition. Also, there is no engagement with the issue of energy poverty, which is worsening in SA.

Lastly, there is no form of social security support to be offered to workers and communities displaced by the transition, despite evidence demonstrating how the Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress grant provided critical assistance to the unemployed or underemployed.

Unless the JET-IP, or its successor after 2027, is revised to reflect the genuine and pressing needs of labour, communities and the climate crisis more generally, it won’t deliver a transition away from fossil fuels that is just. A just energy transition is a deeply ideological and political project, and is therefore not merely a technocratic exercise that can be imposed and implemented by elites within government, the private sector or civil society. Its realisation will be contested and complex, and will only succeed if it is truly driven by the needs of those being directly affected by the ongoing move away from fossil fuels.

• Dr Overy is a freelance environmental researcher. Steenkamp is programmes officer at Earthlife Africa.