This can be funded by the biggest users, who pay below the cost of generation, just 1.5c more per unit.

For more information download the flyer: final electricity flyer_repro

With ocean acidification now occurring faster than at any point in the past 300 million years, COP17 (and every other COP) has failed the ultimate metric of reducing global emissions. And we are all to blame. Governments have been completely unable to agree on global solution to a human-caused problem that, if unchecked, will send us all into a mass extinction event. Business continues to adopt high-carbon growth paths. As for global civil society? It can hardly been said that we have build the kinds of powerful movements for change that can bend the wills and desires of rulers and captains of industry to put the environment before narrow national or commercial interests.

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg commissioned this report not only to reflect on civil society’s impact on COP17 and the lessons learnt, but also to spark an internal reassessment of global civil society’s actions towards the UNFCC; for whatever we are doing, it is not working. As one of the key organisations involved in organising and logistics of broader South African civil input at COP17—in particular, the Global Day of Action, The People’s Space, and the Climate Refugee Camp—we are not a neutral party. For this reason, we used three external researchers, working independently of each other, for this report. The aim being to keep our involvement to a minimum in the research.

If there is a single message about the engagement with the UNFCCC that comes out of this report, it is that civil society should stop looking at the COP process as a “quick fix” for climate change. Instead, civil society needs return to the hard, expensive and time-consuming work of grassroots mobilisation to create real and substantial mass movements that have the sheer weight of numbers to force change. National governments need to go to a COP knowing that their populaces want a global deal on climate change and will not take kindly to them returning from a COP with only empty promises and a hollow text.

This proposition needs to be examined and debated not only in South Africa but across the globe. The objective facts on the ground speak volumes: The world is warming, emissions are rising, and the negative effects are already beginning to show themselves. Our efforts to date have not produced a credible solution to this problem, and, unless there is such a solution, we will transform this beautiful and unique planet into a wasteland of misery and despair.

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg(ELA Jhb) and the Federation for a Sustainable Environment (FSE) commends the South African Human Rights Commission for their organisation and facilitation of the two-day workshop: “Exploring options for treatment of acid mine drainage (AMD).” The initiative resulted in a way forward to address some key concerns relating to the AMD action plan for the Witwatersrand and the way in which it is being implemented.

For the first time since the Inter-ministerial Committee’s “Team of Experts” report was made public in February 2011[i], representatives of non-governmental organisations, people living in areas directly affected by acid mine drainage, mining companies, engineers and scientists had the opportunity to present and discuss their concerns with senior officials from the Department of Water Affairs and senior staff of the Trans Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA)[ii].

 By the end of the workshop, there was consensus on three key issues:

The lack of a desalination process in the short-term action plan: The current plans are to remove most of the metals from the acid mine water[iii] but not the sulphate salts[iv]. Civil society groups such as ELA Jhb and the FSE have raised concerns about this in the past. Our concerns are not unfounded and it was agreed by all in the workshop that discharging huge volumes of water with such a high salt load will severely impact our future water supplies, and affect natural ecosystems. The Department of Water Affairs already predict that by 2014 the Vaal River will have so much salt in it that it will have to be diluted with fresh water discharged from the Vaal Dam.

Why not include desalination in the short-term plans? TCTA and DWA say it is too costly. But FSE have information that suggests otherwise. It was agreed that these parties would meet to explore this option further.

The potential lack of alignment between the immediate and short-term plans currently being implemented and the long-term plan that is still being developed and details of which have yet to be disclosed to the public is of concern. In the absence of a clear vision of a sustainable plan for managing AMD in the long-term, there is a danger that work conducted now may either need to be undone or inhibit the implementation of more effective processes at a later stage. It was agreed that this was something that needs to be discussed and resolved by senior officials of DWA.

 Non-compliances in the current Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process. It was acknowledged that due to the urgency of the AMD crisis on the Witwatersrand, construction work was proceeding in parallel to the EIA. This has legal ramifications. There is also a danger that it will set a precedent for future development projects deemed to be related to “emergency” situations. It was agreed that a legal way to resolve this problem would be to undertake the impact assessment  under a section 24G application for rectification.[v]

The inadequate public participation process so far. ELA Jhb’s concerns about this were raised at the end of February[vi]. TCTA have agreed to review their public participation and stakeholder engagement strategy.

 Other concerns: ELA Jhb and FSE will be engaging with the current EIA process and submitting a list of questions to be investigated during the EIA over the next few months. These include issues related to the disposal of the toxic sludge and the radioactive elements in the acid mine water.

 ELA Jhb and FSE remain deeply concerned that an issue of such potentially enormous consequences for the environment, public health and the economy continues to receive less attention and resources than it requires.

 Further information

TCTA has made documents related to the immediate and short-term implementation plans available on the website: www.amdshort.co.za

 Contacts

 Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, Branch Co-ordinator: Judith Taylor Tel: 082 389 3481

Federation for a Sustainable Environment: Mariette Liefferink: Tel: 011 787 7965 cell: 073 231 4893

 Endnotes

[i] For a copy of the report, and initial comments of it, see: http://www.earthlife.org.za/?p=1543

 [ii] TCTA is the organisation that has been directed to implement the government’s intermediate and short-term AMD action plan for the Witwatersrand.

 [iii] Metal removal will be done through neutralisation – a process of adding lime to the acid mine water so the metals fall out (precipitate) of the water, forming a sludge at the bottom of the settling tank.

 [iv] According to current plans the water discharged into streams would contain about 2000mg/l to 2500mg/l of sulphate salts. Water with over 600mg/l (current SANS 241 regulatory limit in Class II potable (drinkable) water) can cause diarrhoea in sensitive people.

 [v] Refers to Section 24G of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA)

 [vi] See ELA Jhb media release of 24 February: http://www.earthlife.org.za/?p=1772

Media release of 24 February 2011

The Johannesburg metropolitan area faces a very serious threat to its streams, rivers and groundwater sources in the form of “acid mine drainage” – a toxic legacy of the city’s mining past.[1]

Since 2002, heavily contaminated water has been flowing into streams on the West Rand, and unless appropriate action is urgently taken, further problems will emerge in the coming months. Acid mine water from the Central Basin is predicted to flood the tourist level of the Gold Reef City shaft by June 2012, and water in the Eastern Basin (below the East Rand) is expected reach the Environmental Critical Level by June 2013.

 Years of inaction by mining companies and government has led to a situation where urgent, temporary measures must now be taken to deal with the immediate threat, while plans are developed for a longer-term solution to the broader problem.

 As a temporary solution to the immediate challenges, the South African government has produced a short-term action plan to pump and partially clean the contaminated water accumulating underground and then release it into surface water courses. Over the coming weeks, “Public Open Days” will be held to discuss the plan for each of the three affected areas (see dates and venues below). These Open Days are being organised by Digby Wells Environmental, who are undertaking the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project, which is then to be implemented by the Trans-Caledon Tunnel Authority (TCTA).[2]

 Earthlife Africa Johannesburg (ELAJ) understands that these Open Days have been planned essentially as “exhibition” days – i.e., as opportunities for members of the public to “drop in” over the course of the day to see the plans and ask any questions they may have. In other words, concerned members of the public will not have a meaningful opportunity to hold those responsible for addressing the problem accountable within a properly consultative public forum.

Given the importance of this issue, and the inadequacy of past attempts to deal with it, it is vitally important that legitimate public consultation meetings are held that allow members of the public, especially people living in those areas most affected, not only to hear presentations but also to ask questions in an open and transparent manner, before the public at large, and in the presence of the media. Representatives of the Department of Water Affairs and Department of Finance must also be present, as their responsibility for satisfactory resolution of this urgent challenge is in no way lessened simply because they have contracted an outside party at operational level – particularly as there are extremely serious financing and operational questions that remain unanswered. A meaningful public process with government participation is essential to ensure accountability and a robust, appropriate and timeous response.

Furthermore, ELAJ is concerned that the whole EIA process may, in effect, be a sham, as it appears the implementation process is already underway, and decisions about the standard to which the water will be cleaned have already been made, without the required public scrutiny. Such a development deserves and demands answers from our public officials.

 ELAJ acknowledges that the planned EIA public participation process includes opportunities for smaller meetings of stakeholders to meet at various stages during the process. However, these must not replace larger public meetings. ELAJ is also fully aware of the urgency of the crisis, and in no way seeks to delay the process. But urgency is no excuse for substituting a stage-managed process for real public accountability.

 Dates and Venues for “Public Open Days”

ELAJ cannot endorse these meetings, as they fall far short of – and seem intended to replace – meaningful public participation in deciding these vitally important issues. However, should members of the public choose to attend, following are dates and venues:

 1) Western Basin: This covers areas near Randfontein and Krugersdorp on the West Rand

- Date: Saturday, 25 February

- Time: 09H00 – 16H00

- Venue: Randfontein Golf and Country Club, Homestead Avenue, Robinson, Randfontein

2) Central Basin: This includes the area below central Joburg and the old mining areas around Davidsonville, Roodepoort, Riverlea, Diepkloof, Meadowlands, and Germiston up to West Boksburg.

- Date: Saturday, 03 March

- Time: 09H00 – 16H00

- Venue: Germiston Golf Club, Airport Road (Off Power Street), Germiston

3) Eastern Basin: This covers Boksburg, Brakpan, Springs and Nigel in the East Rand

- Date: Saturday, 10 March

- Time: 09H00 – 16:00

- Venue: Springs Country Club, Cnr Parkes and Nigel Rd, Selection Park, Springs

 Whether members of the public choose to attend or not, following are some critically important questions that still require answers:

 1) Where will the remaining funding come from for implementation? To date, only about half of the required R920 million for capital costs has been made available.[3] In addition, operation and maintenance costs (estimates vary between R210 – R385 million a year for four years) will be needed.

2) Will the pits used to store the toxic sludge be lined? Without appropriate lining, contents will seep into underground water sources.

3) What are the consequences of the water only being partially treated? What is preventing desalination of the water as well as neutralisation? There is concern that the salt load of the water discharged into the streams and rivers will still be extremely high (estimated at over 3 times the Department of Water Affairs regulatory limit of 600mg/l) even after partial treatment.

 Long-Term Plans

To deal with the longer-term challenges associated with acid mine drainage on the Witwatersrand, the government has begun an investigation for a second phase to fully treat the contaminated water, but no details of this plan have yet been made available.[4] Earthlife Africa will continue to monitor developments and will endeavour to ensure the public is kept informed.

 Additional Information

 For additional information, please contact:

 Judith Taylor, Earthlife Africa Johannesburg, Branch Co-ordinator, Tel: 082 389 3481

 Notes:

[1] The problem of “acid mine drainage” (AMD) relates to highly acidic water from abandoned mining areas contaminated with toxic heavy metals from the surrounding rocks. If not dealt with appropriately, such water poses serious risks to surrounding areas by poisoning food crops, endangering human health and destroying eco-systems.

[2] The project arises from the action recommended in the “team of experts” report commissioned by the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Acid Mine Drainage released in February 2011. For reviews of this and a copy of the report, please visit: http://www.earthlife.org.za/?p=1543

[3] http://www.miningweekly.com/article/tcta-again-warns-of-funding-shortfall-for-acid-water-projects-2012-01-19

[4] http://www.miningweekly.com/article/water-affairs-confirms-movement-on-long-term-amd-study-2012-01-27

Monday 27 Feb      – Springs/Kwa Thema- 14:30-17:00

Tuesday 28 Feb     – University of Johannesburg lunch time lecture – 1:00 – 2:00
- Constitution Hill Panel discussion – 18:30- 21:00

Wednesday 29 Feb   – University of Pretoria – 10:00-11:00
- Soweto Community 14:30-17:00

Thursday 01 March  – University of Cape Town – 1:00-2:00pm

Friday 02 March       – Civil society stakeholder meeting, AIDC – 11:00-13:00

For more information, please contact:
Nerisha Baldevu
Nuclear Officer
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Tel: +27 11 339 3662
Email: nerisha@earthlife.org.za

The Department of Energy has promulgated two draft bills that it intends to send to Parliament. These Bills are the National Energy Regulator Amendment Bill and the Electricity Regulation Second Amendment Bill. Due to these Bills highly undemocratic nature, the Department of Energy should withdraw these Bills without delay.

In essence, both Bills can be seen, in their overall effect, of placing huge decision-making power in hands of the Minister of Energy. The energy system in South Africa is in serious danger of being ruled by fiat. These two bills will eviscerate the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) and transfer that regulatory power to the Minister: This is contrary to the construction and implementation of democratic institutions and the check and balances that were part and parcel of our 1994 liberation.

These two Bills are most likely unconstitutional and one could reasonably expect a serious legal challenge, unnecessarily adding additional stress on an over-burdened justice system. Further, these two Bills are contrary to good governance in the energy sector; an independent and impartial National Energy Regulator is a critical part of the checks and balances that define modern representative democracies such as South Africa. As energy is at the base of the economy, decisions about energy pricing, generation, distribution, and licensing are vital; get these wrong and the impacts are felt throughout the entire country. Further, the public has a right to able to participate in these democratic decisions, and this requires free access to all information before the Regulator. These Bills will further prevent access to information and the public’s input into the decision-making process; especially regarding the withholding of “commercially sensitive information”, which is code in the energy sector for tariffs and especially tariff agreements between large multinationals and state-owned enterprises such as Eskom.

The degree to which the public will be removed from the decision-making process is staggering. Not only does this Bill remove the pre-existing condition that the Regulator places the rules concerning the holding of its meetings and the results of those meetings in the public domain, the Bill removes the right of the public to attend those meeting and make inputs. This is a shocking and disgraceful retraction of a right that many South Africans, from all walks of life, have exercised in the past, most notably but not limited to MYPD 1 & MYPD 2 (electricity price increases) and REFIT hearings.

An empty Regulator will be replaced with a Minister of Energy who will be able to set tariffs and grant licenses at will, and whose decisions will not be subject to democratic oversight. This is contrary to our Constitution, and also to common sense. Without checks and balances, these Bills pave the way for less transparency and accountability in energy procurement. In the coming decades, we will spend well over a trillion rand of public money in new generation capacity. The potential for corruption, fruitless & wasteful expenditure, maladministration and unnecessary and costly litigation against the State will be increased dramatically if the Bills are passed into law.

A country is not just a democracy because it holds elections, the institutions of that country must also be democratic. This is a vital part of what Thomas Jefferson meant when he called for eternal vigilance. One of our most important regulatory bodies is about to be destroyed and replaced with diktat; our young democracy is in trouble.

For more information, please contact:

Makoma Lekalakala
Programme Officer
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Tel: +27 339 3662
Cell: +27 82 682 9177
Email: makoma@earthlife.org.za

Tristen Taylor
Project Coordinator
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Tel: +27 339 3662
Cell: +84 250 2434
Email: tristen@earthlife.org.za

www.earthlife.org.za

Send an DoE a email denouncing this legislation: Mr. Matthew Bantsijang, epar@energy.gov.za

Our Comments on the First of the Two Bills:

The National Energy Regulator Amendment Bill cannot be divorced from the Electricity Regulation Second Amendment Bill [comments on this bill open until 17/02/2012], and these comments should be seen in that context. To sum up the position of Earthlife Africa Jhb on these bills: The National Energy Regulator Amendment Bill and the Electricity Regulation Second Amendment Bill should be entirely withdrawn by the Department of Energy.

These two Bills are most likely unconstitutional and one could reasonably expect a serious legal challenge, which would not be in the best interests of the country. The primary reason is that these amendments will seriously undermine the democratic structure of this country: A country is not just a democracy if it holds elections, the institutions of the country must be democratic. This is a vital part of what Thomas Jefferson meant when he called for eternal vigilance.

In essence, both Bills can be seen, in their overall effect, of placing huge decision-making power in hands of the Minister of Energy. The energy system in South Africa is in serious danger of being ruled by fiat. These two bills will eviscerate the National Energy Regulator of South Africa and transfer that regulatory power to the Minister: This is contrary to the construction and implementation of democratic institutions and the check and balances that were part and parcel of our 1994 liberation.

These two Bills go entirely in the wrong direction in regards to energy regulation; one of the consistent problems with NERSA, in the view of Earthlife Africa Jhb and supporting organisations, has been its prime mandate of assessing tariffs on the basis of positive rates of return for generators and distributors (i.e. holders of licence), and that it has been forced to ignore social, economic, and environmental issues as articulated in national legislation and the Constitution. Its mandate needs to be expanded to these areas, and its independence needs to be deepened, rather than operating as an outstretched arm of the Department of Energy. Further, the culture of secrecy for secrecy’s sake has grown within NERSA like a cancer and this Bill will only make that cancer grow.

An independent and impartial National Energy Regulator is a critical part of the checks and balances that define modern representative democracies such as South Africa. As energy is at the base of the economy, decisions about energy pricing, generation, distribution, and licensing are vital; get these wrong and the impacts are felt throughout the entire country. Further, the public has a right to able to participate in these democratic decisions, and this requires free access to all information before the Regulator. This Bill with further prevent access to information and the public’s input into the decision-making process; especially regarding the withholding of “commercially sensitive information”, which is code in the energy sector for tariffs and especially tariff agreements between large multinationals and state owned enterprises such as Eskom.

The degree in which the public will be removed from the decision-making process is staggering. Not only does this Bill remove the pre-existing condition that the Regulator places the rules concerning the holding of its meetings and the results of those meetings in the public domain, the Bill removes the right of the public to attend those meeting and make inputs. This is a disgraceful retraction of a right that many South Africans, from all walks of life, have exercised in the past, most notably but not limited to MYPD 1 & MYPD 2 (electricity price increases) and REFIT hearings.

Our democracy is only as good as the people and the institutions that it creates. This Bill was put out for public comment on the 8th of December 2011, days before South Africa’s annual holiday season, and in the midst of COP17. No wonder why, threats to democracy are usually not heralded in the full glare of the public, but in the dead of the proverbial night.

Download entire comments and a list of supporting organisations: Earthlife NERSA Amendment Bill comments

Our Comments on the Second Bill (the really evil one) can be downloaded here: Earthlife Final Comments Electricity Regulation Second Ammendment Bill

Summary:

The Bill proposes sweeping powers and discretion in matters relating to the procurement and licensing of new energy plants, and the transmission and sale of energy.  Whereas in the past the sole provider of electricity in South Africa to the public was Eskom and it was regulated by the National Energy Regulator, (“the Regulator”) in consultation with the Minister, the Bill creates the framework for the provision of electricity by providers outside of Eskom with almost exclusive power to regulate in the hands of the Minister, proposing to remove most of the important oversight powers of the Regulator to ensure fair, equitable, transparent, competitive and cost effective procurement of energy in accordance with sections 195 and 217 of the Constitution.

The Bill has no system of checks and balances which would ensure compliance with  these requirements of the Constitution, and in fact non compliance with them is promoted by the Bill. The powers conferred on the Minister are highly discretionary, and there are wide provisions for secrecy/non disclosure of information that will reduce the accountability required for large scale procurement.

Provisions relating to licensing and the setting of tariffs unreasonably fetter the discretion of the State in the administration of energy, compromising its ability to ensure that the most cost effective option is chosen, contrary to the requirements for procurement set out in section 195 and 217 of the Constitution.

Without checks and balances, the Bill paves the way for less transparency and accountability in energy procurement, which in the coming decades will involve massive expenditure of public funds. The potential for corruption, fruitless and wasteful expenditure, maladministration and unnecessary and costly litigation against the State will be enhanced if the Bill if it is passed into law in its current form.

President Zuma watches as Supporters Assault Peaceful Demonstrators

Twenty minutes ago and in a meeting designed for engagement between President Zuma and communities & civil society, violence broke out when peaceful civil society demonstrators silently held up signs asking “Zuma to stand with Africa”. Pro-Zuma supporters, many wearing the uniforms of COP17 volunteers then attacked the demonstrators in an act of mob violence.

Demonstrators were roughed up and some had to flee the hall.

While all of this went on, President Zuma sat up on the podium and remained quiet. Furthermore, it took nearly ten minutes before police entered the hall to restore order.

Siziwe Khanyile of groundWork states, “This was our event, organised to communicate with President Zuma. We were then abused, kicked out, robbed, and manhandled by Zuma supporters disguised as COP17 volunteers.”

Tristen Taylor of Earthlife Africa Jhb states, “This was a terrible display of mob violence that aim to suppress the democratic rights of citizens of this country. It happened in front of the President of this country, and disgraces this country in front of the eyes of the world at time when we should be solving the problem of climate change.”

For more information, please contact:

Siziwe Khanyile
Climate Justice and Energy Campaigner
groundWork, Friends of the Earth, South Africa
Tel:+27 33 342 5662
Fax: +27 33 342 5665
Cell: +27 73 830 8173
Email: siziwe@groundwork.org.za
www.groundwork.org.za

Tristen Taylor
Project Coordinator
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Cell: +27 84 250 2434
Email: tristen@earthlife.org.za
www.earthlife.org.za

Institutions legitimacy in climate finance questioned

Wednesday, 7th December 2012

Durban, South Africa: A leaked Inspection Panel (IP) report reveals signifcant environmental, social and climate impacts associated with theLocal community members have been challenging the illegal sand mining used for the construction of Medupi as it has affected the water flow from the local river. World Bank’s $3.75 billion loan in 2010 to build the 4800 MW coal power plant Medupi. The report found that these impacts, including an estimated release of CO2 emissions of 26 million metric tones every year, were not adequately addressed by the World Bank. It suggests that the Management may have been overly optimistic that their support for one of the largest coal power plant would, “enable the country to achieve a low carbon economy”. It notes that the emissions did not violate Bank policy only because the Bank did not have a policy on greenhouse gas emissions. The findings could not have come at a worse time for the World Bank, where on the same South African soil, it is angling for a prized role in the $100 billion green climate fund (GCF).

The report also highlights the failure to consider impacts on water, sand mining, air quality, and the wider environmental impacts of the associated complex of coal-based economic activities (such as coal mining) on the environment and human welfare in the region. Perhaps most worrisome are impacts on water in a region that struggles with existing water scarcity. Local community members have been challenging the illegal sand mining used for the construction of Medupi as it has affected the water flow from the local river.

“The report validates what we already know” says Niranjali Amerasinghe from CIEL. “The Bank failed to comply with its own policies by not adequately considering the very real costs associated with the project’s impacts on water, human health and the environment.”

Earthlife Africa Jhb and groundWork met with community representatives on Monday and Tuesday to report back to them on the outcomes of the IP report. The communities are demanding that immediate action be taken to ensure that the negatives impacts of Medupi are stopped. “We are of the opinion that the long overdue report of the Inspection Panel had a big impact on local people’s lives and human rights. Damage done to our water supply, infrastucture and land could have been controlled and prevented were it not for the slow action taken by the World Bank,” says Susan Goosen of Mogol River Tax Payers Forum.

“We were always concerned that this project was flawed and undemocratic, and the IP investigation has proven our case. The World Bank must take urgent action and withdraw the loan as it contradicts the stated intention of the funding,” says Makoma Lekalakala, Programme Officer at Earthlife Africa Jhb.

World Bank and Climate Finance

As local groups demand redress, global civil society is arguing that the report is just the latest in a long line of destructive projects financed by the Bank. Given the World Bank’s role as interim trustee of the Green Climate Fund, they are shining a spotlight on its destructive activities such as the funding of Medupi.

“Projects like Medupi suggest they can’t be trusted to support the urgent need to move society towards a low carbon future,” says Justin Guay of Sierra Club. “Their rhetoric, and reality are world’s apart.”

The next Medupi?

Whatever happens here in Durban, the World Bank’s core energy lending will continue. The next project in the pipeline is a new coal plant and strip mine in the tiny republic of Kosovo. Nezir Sinani, of the Kosovar Institute for Policy Research and Development, is using the lessons learned from Medupi to fight World Bank approval of the plant; “It is now evident that the World Bank has not learnt lessons from the debacle of Eskom, and thus we call on the Kosovo government and the World Bank in particular to stop pushing the coal power facility.”

Groups here in South Africa are expressing their solidarity in what increasingly looks like the next controversial project in the World Bank pipeline.

“The World Bank has financed an incredibly destructive project here in South Africa,” says Siziwe Khanyile of groundWork. “It wasn’t the first, but we need to make it the last.”

To download a copy of the Inspection Report, please go to: http://www.mediafire.com/?bb2is249gm4idbw

Makoma Lekalakala
Programme Officer
Earthlife Africa Jhb
Tel: +27 11 339 3662
Fax: +27 11 339 3270
Cell: +27 82 682 9177
Email: makomaphil@gmail.com, makoma@earthlife.org.za
www.earthlife.org.za

Siziwe Khanyile
Climate Justice and Energy Campaigner
groundWork, Friends of the Earth, South Africa
Tel:+27 33 342 5662
Fax: +27 33 342 5665
Cell: +27 73 830 8173
Email: siziwe@groundwork.org.za
www.groundwork.org.za

Justin Guay
Washington Representative
Sierra Club
Tel: +27 76 388 5602
Email: Justin.Guay@SierraClub.org
www.sierraclub.org
`