Environmental Affairs deputy director general Joanne Yawitch called on industry to comment on the national climate change green paper, and in particular, to highlight vulnerabilities of infrastructure that could be compromised by climate change impacts.

She conceded that the focus from industry had largely been on mitigation of greenhouse gases (GHGs), and said that there needed to be a more balanced focus including adaptation imperatives.

Yawitch noted that government has done work on what adaptation might be required, particularly in coastal areas, but said that more specific information by different sectors would be needed.

Yawitch was speaking at the final leg of the nationwide public consultation workshops on the Green Paper, in Gauteng.

Her statements followed a comment from Eskom climate change and sustainability manager Mandy Rambharos, who noted that the Green Paper should do more to acknowledge the vulnerability of the energy sector.

“If we don’t have water we cannot generate electricity. Extreme weather events could knock down pilons,” she said, noting some of the concerns of the company.

Rhambaros stated that the possibility of these eventualities needed to be prepared for, but added that it was “not about asking for money”, but rather highlighting the vulnerability of energy security in the face of climate change impacts.

The Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) was coordinating the national climate change response green paper public process on behalf of government. Yawitch emphasised that climate change was a cross-cutting issue, and that the development of the Green paper had been an interdepartmental effort, and would also need to be implemented across departments and at all levels.

Going forward, Yawitch stated that there would be a content analysis and review period between February and April, based on all the public comments and written submissions received.

It was also hoped that there would be a final national conference in March, where government would give feedback on its reading of what should be included in the White Paper, and consider responses. This would be the final step before submitting the draft White Paper to Cabinet in May or June.

The DEA briefly discussed sections of the green paper, and then took questions and comments from the public. Many varying concerns were raised, and the DEA responded to these.

Some of the issues raised were that the green paper did not include any developed plans, and was scant on inclusion of targets and timelines, and guidelines on how to reach those.

It was felt that there should be a greater focus on food security, and social economic resilience.

Another concern raised was the lack of awareness and education on climate change among South Africans. It was noted that a very small group of people participated in the policy process, while the majority of citizens, who were more vulnerable to experiencing the impacts of climate change, were not included in the debate.

Questions were also raised about South Africa’s climate change commitments at the global level, which were conditional providing funds and technology assistance were received from developed nations.

It was feared that if South Africa waited on the international community to provide assistance, the green paper would never be implemented, and would merely become a strategy that gathers dust.

The World Wide Fund for Nature South Africa also called for the establishment of a national adaptation fund, as it was felt that the country could not rely on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change for adaptation funds.

A central location or fund was required where entities could apply for funding to enable implementation their adaptation plans.

Policy approaches and actions, sector by sector, were also discussed at the public participation process.