New Energy To Tackle Climate Change in South Africa?
The announcement by the new South African government to decouple the Ministries of Minerals and Energy represents a symbolic shift away from a troubled legacy.
The announcement by the new South African government to decouple the
Ministries of Minerals and Energy represents a symbolic shift away from a
troubled legacy. Civil society has long called for splitting the
incongruous pair into departments with their own clear and distinct
mandates. However, jubilation must be tempered as we consider the
ideological and practical implications of the decision for the Zuma-led
government, which is emphasising the strengthening of institutions and
has, through the ANC’s Polokwane declaration, put climate change as a
key item in its agenda.
At the outset, it is important to recognise the extent to which the
Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) has been central to
encapsulating the nature of power relations in our deeply divisive and
unequal society. The centrality of cheap, dirty energy from large stocks
of coal stem from power needs of mines and heavy industry was
responsible for rapid wealth accumulation in the 1980’s. Post-Apartheid,
the DME was still ‘locked into’ such thinking and was especially
fraught with inconsistencies in its approach to universal provision of
electricity and its servicing the needs of industry, particularly in the
mining sector. The largely anti-social and anti-ecological practices
that governed electricity provision also had repercussions for the
country’s devastating climate record, with the country ranked as one of
the world’s 20 biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. Cheap electricity
also places great stress on the environment because it requires large
amounts of coolant water. These factors as well as the DME’s
relationship with the electricity provider, Eskom, which became the
implementing agent of these bad policies, also meant that climate change
responsibilities were ‘relegated’ to the Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism (another department with an odd coupling of
mandates). Moreover, this inappropriate decision allowed the DME to
abdicate responsibility for its role in causing and exacerbating climate
change.
The new stand-alone Department of Energy now has the potential to
break some of these inherent tensions. But a cursory analysis reveals
that there are major areas of concern and systematic redress that will
need to happen in order for this to be realised. Firstly, a priority for
the department is defining its role and mapping out its strategy on
universal access to clean, affordable energy. This will entail a more
rights-based approach, which is eschewed in place of commodification,
growth and heavy industry bias currently. The Department will also need
to concurrently outline its strategy on transforming energy supply away
from oil, coal and nuclear to a no-carbon future. This must work in
tandem with, and be directly linked to, the strategy of the lead
department on climate change, the Department of Water and Environmental
Affairs whereas the disconnection thus far between the two has
manifested on many occasions. Most transparently the Long Term
Mitigation Scenarios devised by DEAT which was almost completely devoid
of the DME and Eskom’s reality of building new coal-fired power
stations, a decision taken to address severe power shortages early last
year.
Secondly and following on from this, the Department of Energy needs
to resolve its ambiguous relationship with Eskom. With the advent of a
new dispensation in 1994 came enforced changes in the form of the 1998
Eskom Amendment Act. Essentially, this turned the utility into a company
with one shareholder, the state to which it pays both dividends and
taxes. This relationship has inspired a difficulty in distinguishing
government from Eskom, in particular because there is no real clarity in
the public’s eye on how decisions are made, who makes them, and
ultimately who to hold to account. The latest DME regulations in March
this year named Eskom as the National Energy Planner has made this even
fuzzier. Moreover, it is inconceivable why a utility should be entrusted
with the responsibility of planning, effectively a ministry’s core
responsibility.
Another important aspect that follows from this, is that the
Department must explain how it will adopt an approach to address energy
concerns in the country in a progressive, holistic, developmental sense.
For more obvious reasons, this will assist in putting an end to the
intransigent conflation between electricity and energy. At the most
basic level we need energy to produce and support life. In a more
technical, modern sense we need it for our convenience: for transport,
to cook food, to heat and cool buildings, power electronics, and to
mould matter into all sorts of modern materials and items. To address
all of these requirements will mean a deeper engagement with citizens,
listening to their needs, including them on all manners of
decision-making processes and fostering accountability. It may also mean
inspiring a more serious conversation with departments of transport,
agriculture, land, trade and industry and others.
Finally, the Department will need to resolve issues in the two most
closely aligned departments, Public Enterprises and Water and
Environmental Affairs. The Department of Energy will need to push and
monitor reforms in the Department of Public Enterprises around the
better behaviour and governance of Eskom. It will also need to demand
accountability from Eskom through Public Enterprises in terms of
addressing issues of universal access. Related to this is to manage
tensions between the Department of Energy, Eskom and the National Energy
Regulator of South Africa (Nersa) which have led to conflicts of
interest that prevent the national regulator for carrying out its key
tasks. As alluded to above, the Department will also need to seek
greater harmony between itself and the strategy and operations of
Department of Water and Environmental Affairs as the lead in climate
change efforts.
A challenging time lies ahead for the Ministry of Energy in creating a
new department in a rapidly deteriorating physical environment. Tough
choices must be made as the ramifications also go well beyond the
Department to fundamentally reorganising power relations in our country
as well as confronting the premise and trajectory of our current
development model. But the rewards for creating benchmarks for
sustainable, socially just future would be well worth the struggle.
Trusha Reddy, Senior Researcher, Corruption and Governance Programme, ISS Cape Town
