SA’s Contradictory Stance on Climate Change: The UPRDA is Turning a Blind Eye on the Climate Crisis
Picture Cedidt: https://www.worldbank.org/
The crisis of climate change has captured global attention, uniting countries in the pursuit of solutions to its causes and effects. Primarily driven by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas, climate change poses significant threats to ecosystems and communities worldwide.
As a member of the international community, South Africa has committed to addressing these challenges by ratifying the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement, which mandate efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance climate adaptation initiatives.
Domestically, South Africa has demonstrated an understanding of the necessity for environmental protection and sustainable development. Section 24 of the Constitution enshrines environmental rights as fundamental human rights, reflecting a commitment to an environment that is not harmful to human health and well-being. In the case of Director: Mineral Development, Gauteng Region and Another v Save the Vaal Environment and Others, Olivier JA emphasised the need for a paradigm shift in legal and administrative approaches to environmental concerns, underscoring the importance of safeguarding the environment for current and future generations.
In line with this constitutional mandate, South Africa has enacted national laws like the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) and the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act (MPRDA), which regulate the governance and protection of natural resources. NEMA focuses on coordinating and supervising environmental management, while the MPRDA aims to ensure equitable access to South Africa’s mineral resources.
Despite these legal frameworks, the devastating impacts of climate change—disproportionately affecting already marginalised communities—underscore the inadequacy of current legislation. The nation’s ongoing reliance on fossil fuel projects validates the need for robust environmental considerations that acknowledge the severe impacts of climate change. To that end, President Ramaphosa signed the Climate Change Act (CCA) into law, a significant step toward defining and implementing South Africa’s climate response.
Although the CCA is not fully operational (some of its provisions are not in force yet, particularly those related to climate adaptation and mitigation), it aims to integrate the country’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction trajectory—its Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) under the Paris Agreement—into South African law. Notably, the CCA asserts precedence over other climate-related legislation (section 6) and binds all state organs to comply with its provisions (section 4(2)).
In an alarming turn, however, President Ramaphosa recently also signed the Upstream Petroleum Resources Development Act (UPRDA) into law. This Act creates a separate regulatory framework for the upstream petroleum sector, previously governed under the MPRDA, and prioritises the acceleration of oil and gas exploration (section 2(j)). The UPRDA stands in stark contrast to the CCA, potentially rendering it ineffective upon its eventual enforcement. This contradiction raises serious concerns about the coherence of South Africa’s climate policies and compliance with international climate agreements.
“The nation’s ongoing reliance on fossil fuel projects validates the need for robust environmental considerations that acknowledge the severe impacts of climate change.”
Importantly, the UPRDA fails to adequately address the pressing issues of pollution, ecological degradation, and the urgent need for conservation, despite its stated objective to uphold Section 24 of the Constitution (section 2(i)). While it claims to promote the social and economic welfare of all South Africans (section 2(g)), this objective is deeply ironic, given that the most vulnerable populations—already grappling with the consequences of climate change—are likely to be further marginalised by fossil fuel exploitation. As a result, the UPRDA threatens to exacerbate existing inequalities and undermine South Africa’s commitment to sustainable development.
The enactment of the UPRDA creates confusion and contradicts the foundational regulatory frameworks meant to safeguard the environment and human rights. It sends a troubling signal that the government is prioritising resource extraction and economy driven development over climate adaptation and sustainability. Such an approach not only risks entrenching inequality but is fundamentally at odds with Section 24 of the Constitution.
In conclusion, the South African government must, in line with its commitments, adopt a coherent and unified approach that aligns its legal frameworks to support ecologically sustainable development. The UPRDA does not reinforce these commitments. It contradicts them and is legally disruptive.
