radiofree.asia

Category: South Africa

  • Calls for basic income grant in South Africa grow as food price inflation rises to 13.4%

    By: Yogashen Pillay

    See original post here.

    Durban – Civil society groups have called for a permanent basic income grant for the unemployed following figures from Stats SA indicating that food price inflation has risen to 13.4%, the highest since April 2009.

    In his State of the Nation Address last week, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced the extension of the social relief of distress grant and said the government would ensure that existing social grants were increased to cushion the poor against rising inflation.

    He added that “work is under way to develop a mechanism for targeted basic income support for the most vulnerable”.

    Mervyn Abrahams, programme co-ordinator at the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity Group, said it was the poor who felt the impact of food inflation.

    “I do think there is a need for a basic income grant, especially with the increase in food inflation. Remember the social relief distress grant was started in 2020 with an amount of R350, which is still the same. The issue is that with all the increases, there needs to be an increase in this.”

    He said a basic income grant of R2 500 would be a liveable amount.

    “However, we can’t have this basic income grant forever. The issue is that food inflation is going up and we need to find ways to grow the economy. We can’t simply have a basic income grant.

    “There needs to be a way where members of the public can use the grant to generate more income, whether it’s buying and selling or any other way to make additional income. The government needs to create jobs.”

    Professor Bonke Dumisa, an independent economic analyst, said the latest South African Consumer Price Index (CPI) inflation figures showed that the CPI decreased from 7.2% in December 2022 to 6.9% last month.

    However, he noted that national food inflation increased by 13.4% last month, which is the highest food inflation in 14 years since 2009.

    Nonhle Mbuthuma, the spokesperson for Amadiba Crisis Committee, said there needed to be at least a R1  000 social grant for the unemployed.

    “The R350 social distress grant was welcomed, however it is not enough and this amount was set three years ago, things have gone up since then.”

    Mbuthuma added that there needed to be significant increases in pension and child support grants.

    “Giving an increase of R20 is just simply not enough for single parents and the elderly. The child support grant needs to be increased to at least R600 for a child that is under 18 – this would help mothers. We want mothers to be able to survive with the grant that they are receiving. Even the pension grant needs to be increased to help our elderly folks.”

    Dick Forslund, of the Alternative Information and Development Centre, said we might well see a basic income grant introduced.

    “The R350 grant that was introduced in 2020 is much lower in value now and there is definitely a need for something more permanent. In reality, we need to have a basic income grant that is in line with food inflation. The issue is that government increases in grants are not in line with food inflation, and that needs to be looked at, and not just consumer inflation.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Hundreds march in South Africa to demand a Permanent Basic Income Grant

    By: Chris Gilili

    See original post here.

    Ahead of the upcoming State of the Nation Address (SONA), over 400 people, including members of civil society organisations, unemployed citizens and recipients of the Social Relief of Distress Grant (SRD), marched to the head offices of the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) and the Union Buildings in Pretoria on Thursday.

    Government introduced the SRD grant in May 2020 during the Covid pandemic. Since then the grant has been repeatedly extended and is now due to expire next month. The marchers want President Cyril Ramaphosa to clearly lay out the state’s plans for a basic income grant at SONA on 9 February.

    Thabisile Miya, from Amandla.mobi, said, “We have been working with communities especially R350 recipients since it started … Food is going up every day, and people don’t have any source of income.”

    A memorandum of demands for SASSA included that the SRD be increased to R1,447, and that SASSA work with the Department of Social Development to fix numerous issues with grant payments.

    “From unfair regulations to means testing with an unfair qualifying threshold, and poor communication, many have lost hope in this grant, in SASSA and the government as a whole,” the memo reads.

    Acting SASSA CEO Abraham Mahlangu received the memo.

    In a memo to the President, marchers said they want social grants increased, higher taxes on those earning more than R1-million a year, and a net wealth tax introduced.

    “We also appeal to the President to hold the Department of Social Development accountable for their failures in administering the R350 grant,” the memorandum read.

    “We urge for the glitches to be fixed,” said Nosipho Bilankulu, an unemployed single mother. She said her grant money cannot keep pace with the rising cost of maize meal and cooking oil. Her child’s crèche fees are R400 alone, more than the SRD grant. Although she has the grant, there are months when the money doesn’t appear.

    Presidency official Phil Mahlangu promised a response within seven days.

    Community Organizing Working Group, Voices of the Concerned Citizens of Soweto, Sukuma Soweto Sinqobe, and Sisonke Revolutionary Movement all joined the march.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • South Africans are fighting for crumbs: A conversation with trade union leader Irvin Jim

    The answers for South Africa will have to come from struggle, National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA) leader Irvin Jim tells Vijay Prashad and Zoe Alexandra.

  • Introducing the universal basic income grant in South Africa

    See original article here.

    The majority of South Africans are unable to afford daily bread, basic sanitation, decent housing and the resources to seek and find work, and they are disempowered from participating in the economy. With more than half the population living on less than R1 335 per month, many cannot afford to meet their food needs — while 10% of the population owns 90% of the wealth. The inequalities in South Are are a ticking time bomb, and if South Africans keep starving at this rate, it is likely that they will one day eat the rich. 

    A recent study from the Applied Development Research Solutions (ADRS) led by Chief Economic Modeler and Director Dr Ashgar Adelzadeh revealed what many already know: that the tax burden has significantly benefited the country’s wealthy class at the expense of the majority. The taxable income of affluent individuals has declined since 1995 instead of increasing at the rate of inflation to help the government increase its revenue in order to meet the basic needs and services of all its citizens. 

    An individual with a taxable income of R100 000 used to pay tax at an effective rate of 33.8% in 1995; they paid tax at 19.8% in 2011 and 18% in 2022, on what the Alternative Information & Development Centre (AIDC) calls “the corporate income tax race to the bottom”. 

    The redistribution of wealth will not take place for as long as the rich do not pay their due to the state, in order for the state to have enough revenue to maintain conditions that enable all citizens to participate in the nation’s economic, civic and social activities. 

    Instead of cutting budgets on key departments such as health, education and sanitation, the government must  adopt a fair way of increasing tax revenue and investing that income towards improving the lives of its people, not to deteriorate the quality of life by cutting down on key governmental spending.

    Minister of Social Development Lindiwe Zulu was on the panel on the introduction of the universal basic income grant organised by Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung South Africa in collaboration with the Mail & Guardian and the AIDC. She sat alongside Princess Majola from the Assembly of the Unemployed, and Dominic Brown from the AIDC, in a dialogue facilitated by Zikhona Ntshona. The minister said that the rich must be grateful for the peace, security and stability that exists amid stark inequalities, and that they must see their contribution towards a universal basic income as a way of maintaining peace for the injustice of inequality. 

    “I don’t believe this country cannot afford to feed its people. This country has enough. This country’s problem is the difference between the rich and the poor, and we can afford to implement this basic income grant,” said Zulu.

    Zikhona Ntshona noted that as a journalist reporting on the devastation of the pandemic she has seen first-hand how the temporary Social Relief of Distress grant of R350 can help a family and the access it can give them, especially to children and women. 

    “Young people were able to expand their local businesses selling sweets and scones, others were able to start businesses from scratch, like a group of ladies who started selling vetkoeks. Young people have also used that money to print CVs, to go to internet cafés and to do other things to help them get jobs. The grant has also given many women the dignity of being able to buy themselves sanitary towels.”

    Majola lamented that for a mother of two, she would need to buy food for her children first with the R350 before she could buy herself sanitary towels, and even then, the cheapest meal she could afford is mere chicken dust, which isn’t very nutritious. Another complained that the R350 couldn’t even afford them a loaf for each day of the day. “Living in South Africa is becoming a nightmare,” said Majola. 

    The nightmare was revealed in reports by the Door of Hope’s Children Mission, stating that more than 141 children were abandoned during the lockdown because mothers just couldn’t afford to feed them. “Women are fighting for paid labour, which is also GBV,” said Majola, who went on to say, “let us not be a charity case. Let us not be given scraps.”

    In speaking about where the resources can be found for financing a basic income grant, Brown argued for an increase in the tax-to-GDP ratio. Besides restoring effective personal income tax rates to early 2000 levels, which could raise an extra R160 billion each years, Brown highlighted the important need to introduce a progressive net wealth tax of between 3% and 7% on the top 1%.

    The R350 grant is a stepping stone and a test sample of the universal basic income that would not have the means test, said Zulu. “I went back to the committee that started the policy paper on the universal basic income grant, and it was a tough one to go through. We took it to parliament, the public and the president. The president said this is not a question to be asked; it is about the modalities for how we get to implement it.

    “Our government was able to come up with this money out of nowhere. It was extended for the second and third time. We can implement this basic income grant, but let this not just be a fight for the department of social development alone,” said Zulu, who noted that the need for the basic income grant became more urgent and apparent as a result of the pandemic. It was only during the pandemic that the minister discovered that there was a policy paper in the pipeline for the grant. 

    It came up from several members in the audience whether the universal basic income grant would indeed be universal, or if people would have to be subjected to means tests in order to qualify, as was done with the temporary Social Relief of Distress grant, where individuals earning more than R664 or earning other grants would not qualify.

    “We need to move towards the universal basic income grant because it would help people have a safety net,” added Brown. “Let us give us the basic income grant to everyone, from the unemployed to Johann Rupert,” said Brown. “Let us make sure that people are not denied because of insane thresholds,” he added. 

    His sentiment was echoed by the Deputy Director General for Comprehensive Social Security at the Department of Social Development, Brenda Sibeko. 

    “We want to remove the means test. The current legislation does make provisions for a basic income grant. The social assistance act must be amended to add the basic income grant. It will take time before parliament agrees and treasure allocates the budget. The R350 is used to set the systems up. The people who support the acts are often without the means to travel to parliament or to attend public hearings. Make your voice heard and help us push this through to become legislation,” said Sibeko.

    A universal basic income will enhance the economy by enabling more money to circulate among people, and it will empower the people to create or find meaningful work instead of worrying about water, food and hygiene and other basic services that prevent them from contributing towards the economy.

    According to AIDC, a progressive net wealth tax of between 3% and 7% on the top 1% of the richest people in the country could raise more than R143 billion in revenue each year, which would cover most of the cost for a universal basic income grant. “It seems to me that it is not a matter of whether or not the government has the money to implement, it is a question of the integrity of our government and its willingness to allocate funds to make it happen,” said Brown.

    The Financial Intelligence Centre estimates that South Africa loses between $15 billion and $25 billion   annually due to illicit financial flows.

    “Forty percent of our budget is lost to corruption. This means without adding a cent, the government can increase its output by 30-40%,” said former treasury chief procurement officer Kenneth Brown. “We could be building more roads and more schools without even adding more money to the current budget,” he added.

    One of the biggest arguments against the universal basic income grant, which was raised by a young entrepreneur in the audience, is that the grant might be creating a country of beggars. 

    “Don’t tell me about dependency syndrome. The people without jobs didn’t call for it, and they didn’t cause it. This is everyone’s problem,” said Zulu sternly, who went on to add that the private sector was still missing from this conversation because they are one of the first to say that we cannot afford it.

    “We cannot afford to have the poorest of the poor among us, we cannot afford to have women starving because they have to share what little they have,” said Zulu.

    The department is proposing to start the universal basic income grant with a minimum of R663, which is the minimum amount for food security. 

    With the willingness from government that was demonstrated by Zulu and with many citizens like the Assembly of the Unemployed making their voice heard in advocating for this policy, South Africa can introduce a universal basic income grant which will go a long way toward alleviating poverty.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Expert panel advocates ‘gradual phasing-in’ of basic income grant

    By: Naledi Sikhakhane

    ‘We will fight, we will soldier on even to the extent that we will ensure that we bring upon the introduction of the basic income grant, we are close to it, we are making steady progress towards it.’ — Social Development Acting Director-General Linton Mchunu.

    The Department of Social Development (DSD) and partners on Tuesday released a report into the appropriateness and feasibility of a system of basic income support for South Africa.

    The Expert Panel on Basic Income Support Supplementary Modelling report was produced under the supervision of the International Labour Organization (ILO) for the DSD and the South African government. It is a supplementary report looking at possible models and building on the first one released in 2021, in which the BIS Expert Panel examined the social and economic implications of a basic income support (BIS) grant.

    Acting Director-General of the DSD Linton Mchunu said the report answered some crucial questions on basic income support, such as where the money would come from, whether it would help or hinder the economy, and the feasibility of such support.

    Mchunu also seemed to point a finger at the National Treasury for challenges in implementing the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant and ironing out bumps in its provision.

    He said: “The reason why we’re having the difficulties we’re having now with the R350 grant… we’re currently paying about eight million people — yet in the first iteration we were paying about 11.5 million — because we introduced the means testing, and you know why? We were told that if we don’t introduce the means test, we will not receive the money.

    “So, we grappled with finding a balancing act… it’s a difficult thing but, as the Department of Social Development, I want to say we will never deviate from this fight. We go into meetings and say we need a sense of certainty in the long term, can we extend the grant to the next three to five years while we sort out the policy side of this? And we’re told, no, you will only get one [year].”

    Challenges in reaching the intended recipients

    Mchunu said the DSD was restricted by red tape, which delayed processes and left millions in limbo. 

    Panel chair Professor Alex van den Heever said the report looked at the R350 SRD grant as a more permanent model because there was already data around this to analyse, while there wasn’t any for a basic income grant (BIG).

    The idea is for a “gradual phasing for the progressive enhancement of the SRD benefit over time with the objective, together with the overall social assistance framework, of eliminating poverty at the upper-bound poverty line, UBPL [the average non-food-related spending that’s added to the poverty line created by economists and often used by DSD in creating means tests for grants],” said Van den Heever.

    The analysis concluded that a gradual phasing-in of a basic income grant would curb the “economic and fiscal risks” and impacts on the tax system.  An entry-level version of the grant, basic income support, should be considered with the starting benefit value set at the lower-bound poverty line (the average spending on essential non-food items by households whose food expenditure is below, but close to the food poverty line). 

    Van den Heever is the chairperson of Social Security Systems Administration and Management Studies at the Wits School of Governance. The panel of experts was made up of specialists in microsimulation, modelling in the field of social protection, computable general economic modelling and public finance. The deliberations also involved staff from the Social Security division of the DSD and the ILO regional office based in South Africa.

    The modelling results show that “depending upon how it is financed, the SRD grant can be introduced in a manner that is fiscally and economically sustainable while at the same having a material impact on poverty and income inequality if implemented at the level of 13.1 million beneficiaries,” the report states.

    The report posits four different simulations for how the grant will work and which simulations have the most positive outcomes during analysis. 

    The first simulation of the Social Relief of Distress grant spending of R50-billion is financed primarily using an increase in Value-Added Tax (VAT) in the early years of the simulation. 

    The second option is financing it entirely through an increase in the  principal, interest and taxes (PIT) of the top three deciles (a decile is 10%) of high-earning South Africans.

    The third simulation involves a wage subsidy, where R50-billion is financed entirely through PIT increases on the top 10% of earners and allocated to the bottom four occupational groups (domestic workers, elementary workers, operators and skilled agricultural workers).

    The fourth option is to collect R50-billion along with a wage subsidy that will cost 50% of the cost of the grant (R25-billion) and finance both entirely through PIT.

    “A wage subsidy targeted at the four lowest-income occupational categories shows promise for improving economic output but is less effective in addressing poverty and inequality in comparison to the SRD grant. When the interventions are combined, however, there are potential gains for economic output, poverty [reduction] and [decreasing] inequality,” Van den Heever said. 

    “Replicating the modelled wage subsidy with an equivalent programme in practice, however, may prove difficult. While more work is needed to better identify an effective government-subsidised employment intervention, such approaches are not substitutes for income protection. They are instead complementary, as they have distinct, although related, social objects,” the report read.  

    Accepting the report, Brenda Sibeko, the deputy director-general of Comprehensive Social Security, acknowledged the challenges grant recipients have had in accessing grants and said that the DSD and civil society were working tirelessly to secure an income for the impoverished.

    “As so many have said, the BIG is an idea whose time has come,” said Sibeko

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Could the Qatar World Cup be a turning point for ethics in sport? | Letters

    Dr Mike Diboll on our complicity in human rights abuses, Karl Eklund on apartheid South Africa, Antony Barlow on the UK’s own failings, and Stan Labovitch on why he won’t boycott watching the World Cup

    Nesrine Malik is correct: Putin’s Russia does “hunt” its exiled dissidents (It’s not just Qatar hoping we now ‘put politics aside’. It’s the hypocritical west, too, 21 November). Saudi Arabia does so too, for example Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Yet Saudi Arabia still gets to host a Formula One grand prix, so-called Clash on the Dunes boxing matches, and international golfing. The 2012 Bahrain grand prix went ahead amid torture and the shooting dead of unarmed protesters. Malik is also right to stress that our governments arm the Gulf states, provide them with surveillance technology, PR, political and diplomatic cover, and – in a situation where sovereign wealth is often hard to distinguish from private hyper-wealth – safe havens for blood money.

    In return for turning a blind eye to grotesque human rights abuses and institutional homophobia and misogyny, “we” get cheap hydrocarbons, “inward investment” that melds our economy with those of the Gulf states, a regional “security” stance and, in the case of Bahrain, a Royal Navy base. Gulf sportswashing has a wider context, and it is a sad reflection on us that human rights abuses only occasionally come to the fore during sporting events, and media debate is so often mired in anti-Arab racism.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • Peace Talks Seek End to 2-Year War in Tigray That May Have Killed 800,000 People

    Peace talks between Ethiopia’s government and rebel forces in Tigray began Monday in South Africa, where the African Union is mediating the highest-level effort so far at ending the bloodshed. The war began in November 2020 when Ethiopian troops, backed by soldiers from neighboring Eritrea, launched an assault on the northern Tigray region against the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front. All sides in the conflict have been accused of abuses, with the death toll believed to be in the hundreds of thousands and millions more displaced. Journalist Tsedale Lemma, founder of the English-language magazine Addis Standard, explains what is at stake in the negotiations.

    TRANSCRIPT

    This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

    AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, Democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman with Nermeen Shaikh. We turn now to look at the crisis in Ethiopia. Peace talks between Ethiopia’s government and rebel forces in Tigray began earlier this week in South Africa. The African Union is mediating the talks which are aimed at ending a devastating conflict that began two years ago. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in the brutal war. One analyst estimates the death toll could be as high as 800,000 people. Millions have also been displaced, hundreds of thousands facing famine. Last week, the head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, who is from the Tigray region, warned time is running out to address the humanitarian crisis.

    TEDROS ADHANOM GHEBREYESUS: This is a health crisis for six million people and the world is not paying enough attention. I urge the international community and the media to give this crisis the attention it deserves. There is a very narrow window now to prevent genocide.

    AMY GOODMAN: Joining us from Germany is Tsedale Lemma. She is a journalist and founder of Addis Standard an English-language monthly magazine based in Ethiopia. Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Tsedale. Can you talk about the significance of these peace talks that are taking place outside of Ethiopia in South Africa and what is happening in the Tigray region?

    TSEDALE LEMMA: Thank you, Amy. Good morning. The significance of this peace talk is such that this is the first time at high level that the two parties are having an open and public face-to-face meeting to try to solve the problem that has run for the last two years. We have not had that. There have been some secretive talks between the two that were happening, but they all collapsed. So the significance is that this is the first time happening in two years, with all involvement of the international community at diplomatic efforts. That is hows significant it is. It is also significant because on the ground, people are dying in tents every day. Tigray is literally being decimated as we watch. So the significance cannot be undermined at the moment.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Could you explain the importance of the African Union mediating these talks?

    TSEDALE LEMMA: Nermeen, there is a lot of reservation about the African Union being in charge of these peace talks. For one thing, it has done nothing for the last two years despite it being headquartered in Addis Ababa, the epicenter itself for the country, for this war. It has done really nothing for the last two years. But it is important to notice it is now being assisted by other stakeholders, most importantly IGAD, the Intergovernmental Agency in Africa, and also the U.S. government. This combined effort could yield a result. But the African Union in and of itself has proved to be a total failure in stopping this war.

    AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about who the parties are at the table and what is at stake?

    TSEDALE LEMMA: The parties at the table are the federal government of Ethiopia and the Tigray government, which is a regional state in the north of Ethiopia. Authorities from the Tigrayan government, led by Getachew Reda, to my understanding, who is the spokesperson of the president of Tigrayan regional state, and the federal government is represented by a few people, among them the attorney general and the security advisor of the prime minister. So the warring parties are the two that are now on the negotiation table.

    What is at stake is—a lot. We are waiting for what the two parties are going to come out with at the end of the day, but we know what the Tigrayan authorities want from this negotiation as a result, or peace talk as a result. They want an immediate cessation of hostilities to this war, which would be two years next week. They want an unfettered access, humanitarian access, to seven million people that have been under siege for more than a year now. They also want international media and human rights organizations to be granted access to the Tigray region so they can monitor the human rights abuses that continue happening with the involvement of the Ethiopian army and Eritrean army. They also want the withdrawal of Eritrean troops from Tigray. What the federal government wanted so far has not been articulated, so we are waiting for this to come out within the next few days.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Could you also put this in historical context? What is the nature of the relationship of the region of Tigray with the central government in Addis Ababa and what led to the kind of fracture that has produced this absolutely devastating war?

    TSEDALE LEMMA: Historically, Tigray has always been a place where the people hold the right to self-administer so dear to themselves. This is the third time that there is an uprising by the Tigrayan people against an attempt by the central government of an Ethiopian state to govern and rule that province. Historically, they have always been very much protective of their right to self-administer. So this is the relationship.

    But for the last 30 years, Tigrayans also major power holders in the center, so to say the last reconfiguration of the Ethiopian state happened under their watch together with other allies from the country, and they been able to live in a relative peace for the last 30 years. So to say, this fight with the central government on asserting their right to self-administer had a lull of 30 years. We are back to that historic territory where an Ethiopian central government still wanted to control Tigray and Tigrayan people. So that’s why the resistance of the people of Tigray in pushing back against the actions of the federal government, or the central government, that has led to this latest uprising or resistance by the Tigrayan people.

    Politically, the conflict started initially with a rupture in the ruling party itself. The current government that is administering the Ethiopian federal government, led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, was part and parcel of the government that were together in the EPRDF regime that were governing Ethiopia for the last 30 years. With a change in the political dynamics at the center, that fracture began to happen between the TPLF—TPLF is the party that is administering Tigray—and the prime minister’s party. So this fracture, this political fracture that we have seen initially led to that conflict in Tigray.

    But the dynamics of the conflict have since changed. The prime minister initially said that he wanted to do law enforcement. What he wanted to do is apprehend a few leadership of the TPLF Party in Tigray. They needed to intervene there because they have attacked an army command center that is located in Tigray. So initially, the purpose of this war was framed as a law enforcement by the federal government in containing the TPLF leaders in Tigray. But the sheer brutality of this conduct has turned the war into a resistance by the Tigrayan people against the federal government because the federal government had invited a foreign army, Eritrean forces, to join it in Tigray. And it was no law enforcement; it was a war against everything that Tigray has. It was a war against Tigray’s peasantry, its agriculture, its education. It was a war against its women!

    So the people initially who had given it a benefit of the doubt, for the federal government’s attempt to enforce law enforcement in the region, had risen up! They just realized that this is not a war against TPLF; this was a war against everything Tigray is. So the dynamics of the war has evolved with the last two years into becoming one that the Tigrayan people are actually rising up against the Ethiopian state.

    This is why the war has been complicated, for two reasons. One, the dynamics have changed. Two, there was a misunderstanding on how to solve this. Everybody understood this was a power struggle between former allies in the ruling party of the EPRDF. No, it was not. Initially it began like that but it became a war of survival for the Tigrayans and a war of control for the federal government and to governing Tigray. That is why we have seen the world failing in its attempt to solve this problem.

    AMY GOODMAN: And let’s remember, the Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019. There is another conflict that is happening right now in the region of Oromia in Ethiopia.
    Can you talk about whether it is connected to Tigray, how it is connected? The Associated Press reporting drone strikes in Oromia killed several dozen civilians last week, the stronghold of the rebel Oromo Liberation Army came amidst intensified fighting between federal forces and the outlawed group. Can you talk about what is happening there?

    TSEDALE LEMMA: The war in Oromia begun actually before the war in Tigray and there has been little coverage about it. It started in 2019 barely a year after Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to power, and at the same time when he was actually getting the Nobel Peace Prize award, but there was little attention to it. It is, again, a war of visions. The same way that that prime minister is facing resistance in Tigray today about the nature and style of the kind of governance that he wants to shape out of the Ethiopian state, he is facing that resistance in Oromia.

    The Oromo Liberation Army was formerly associated with a political group called Oromo Liberation Front, but after the Oromo Liberation Front came into Ethiopia following the prime minister’s sort of liberalization of the political space, the Oromo Liberation Army broke apart with its mother party, and they said, “No, we are going to continue the resistance, because the way we see the prime minister trying to reconfigure the Ethiopian state is against the half-a-century struggle of the Oromo people. So we will be continuing our fight.”

    The war in Oromia started barely a year after Prime Minister Abiy came, but not enough attention was given to it, and now it is really going deep into many parts of Oromia. Actually by the government’s own admission, many parts in Oromia regional state, which is the largest regional state in Ethiopia is out of the control of the federal government and also the regional government, and they are under the control of the Oromo Liberation Army, particularly the western and southern parts of Oromia.

    The government, realizing that its armed combatants are being stretched because of the war in Tigray, it has resorted into that intensification of drone attacks, particularly the last two weeks. According to opposition figures, there were more than six drone attacks that were conducted of the federal government, and more than 120 deaths, casualties of civilians. So this war that’s happening in Oromia is happening in the shadow of the war in Tigray. The purpose is a fight against centralized rule that the prime minister favors in his administration. It borrows the same kind of narrative with the war that is happening in Tigray. It’s a pushback against the centralized rule in the country. But it is something that nobody’s paying attention to, and it’s not a part of this peace talk negotiation in South Africa as well.

    NERMEEN SHAIKH: Tsedale, just before we end, what is the ultimate aim of the TPLF? Are the demands now likely to be calls for a referendums on independence? Is Tigray even interested at this point, given the brutality of this war, of remaining part of Ethiopia? And also the territorial issues between Ethiopia and Tigray now?

    TSEDALE LEMMA: The TPLF as a party is, among other Tigrayan political parties I would say, one of the most pro-Ethiopian political parties. I don’t think they will be pushing for a referendum on their own but the idea of referendum is enshrined in the Ethiopian constitution, Article 39, so if the Tigrayan people want, TPLF can do nothing about it. It’s the wish and determination of the Tigrayan people.

    At the moment, what the TPLF as the governing party in Tigray want, from their repeated statements and all these things, they want a sovereign regional state of Tigray. They want the encroachment by the federal government to end. They want their self-administration restored. They want Eritrean forces, which are there as an ally of the prime minister, to be withdrawn from the sovereign territory of Tigray, so they can have the self-administration, self-rule of the Tigrayan people guaranteed according to the Constitution.

    The federal government interprets this one as a power grab by the TPLF. The power grab contest has ended in 2018 when the TPLF gave way to the prime minister himself and voted 100% for him. They gave way for that. But the federal government has always been suspicious that they want to return back to the center, to grab power again. I don’t think that is what they want. What they want is an independent self-rule system in Tigray whereby the people of Tigray can have a say on their destiny. But if the people in Tigray want to invoke Article 39 and want to go for a referendum of secession, it is enshrined in the Constitution. It is their constitutional right and TPLF cannot stop that. But so far I don’t think TPLF will be taking the lead in having Article 39 invoked. Of all the parties that are functioning in Tigray, it’s the most pro-Ethiopian party in my assessment.

    That’s what’s at stake. The territorial integrity issue there has been compromised by none other than the ruling party itself, the federal government, which has invited a foreign army to come and pillage and wreck and kill and occupy the territorial independence of the Ethiopian state. Tigray, remember, is still a part of the Ethiopian state, so an occupation by Eritrea should be considered as an occupation of the Ethiopian sovereign state! But Eritrea is there with an explicit support of the federal government, which makes it a treason, by the way, according to the Constitution. So this is the dynamics in play at the moment.

    AMY GOODMAN: We have ten seconds.

    TSEDALE LEMMA: To conclude this one, at the moment it is better that we focus on the hopes that we are pinning on this peace talk negotiation. The hopes is that they will be agreeing on a cessation of hostilities which would pave ways for access to humanitarians and lifting the siege, a medieval-era siege that has been imposed on Tigray. No communication, no banking, no road, nothing. It’s seven million people completely sealed off. We need that to be lifted. For that to happen, a cessation of hostilities is a must to have. So we hope that the talks in South Africa would guarantee so that people in Tigray can be having access to their own bank, having access to telecommunications, and access to food.

    AMY GOODMAN: Tsedale Lemma, we want to thank you very much for being with us, journalist and founder of the Addis Standard English-language monthly magazine in Ethiopia, speaking to us from Germany. Thank you so much. Next up, we talk about why hospitals are filling up around the country with children and infants with RSV. Stay with us.

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Opinion: The high stakes of a universal basic income

    By: Hein Marais

    For a very large proportion of South Africans, paid work is neither a viable nor sufficient basis for dignified life. Official unemployment, according to the more realistic expanded definition, is more than 44%, and close to one-third of people with paid work are not earning enough to afford basic living expenses. Current economic and social policy models are failing to protect many millions against hunger, destitution and desperation.

    This is in a country battling three deadly pandemics — Aids, tuberculosis and Covid-19 — and steadily battered by climate change-triggered floods and droughts.

    Hence, the growing demand for a universal basic income. A growing alliance of grassroots and nongovernment organisations, trade unions and researchers are demanding that the state transform the emergency relief grants introduced earlier in the Covid-19 pandemic into a full-fledged universal basic income (UBI). They have produced costings and outlined financing options to back that push. The ANC, too, might be considering a limited basic income guarantee.

    More income for poor households will reduce poverty and widen people’s life choices. It will also increase demand for basic goods and services, which would boost growth and, especially, local production and jobs.

    If linked to other forward-looking strategies, a universal basic income can be part of a safety net for communities hard-hit by climate change disasters. And it can become part of the support that workers and communities will need as we transition to a low-carbon economic model.

    Urgent need for new forms of income support

    There’s growing recognition across the board that new forms of income support are needed. At the same time, the idea of a truly universal basic income attracts strong resistance from the business sector and sections of the state, notably National Treasury.

    Achieving and defending it will require social and political forces that are strong enough to prevail against that opposition. And that will require reshaping the “common sense” we use when we define and weigh the claims we have on one another, the state and the common wealth of our society.

    In a society such as South Africa, the universal basic income demand evidently speaks to near-desperate need. But how do we frame the demand? Is it an appeal for “charity”, for the state to “grant” assistance in extreme circumstances? Is it a demand rooted in the state’s duty to “guarantee all members of society the means of existence”, in French revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre’s words? Is it a claim arising from rights inscribed in a constitution? Or is it a claim for what we are due, for a share of common wealth?

    Responsibilities

    A universal basic income is laden with challenging propositions about the responsibilities and entitlements that connect us in society. The demand upsets deeply held beliefs about the role and status of waged work in society, and about the hierarchies of worth and value we attach to different kinds of work (paid or not).

    The demand therefore pushes against prevailing economic and social orders. It challenges the idea that our dignity and fates are irrevocably tied to the sale of our labour on whatever terms and prices are offered. It implies fresh ways of thinking about the roles and duties of the state, and about the claims that citizens can rightfully make on the state and on the commons.

    It is therefore tempting to frame a universal basic income as a dividend of the collectively produced wealth in society. A universal basic income would then implicitly reflect the fact that wealth is socially produced (by people’s labour, paid or not, and social institutions) and it is reliant on the commons (most obviously, non-human nature) and publicly funded infrastructure.

    For the economist Yanis Varoufakis, such a framing steers the debate beyond arguments about who “deserves” assistance. Instead, society stakes a claim on the wealth drawn from it and “that claim becomes a dividend, an income stream that goes to everyone”.

    Framing a demand

    Framing a universal basic income as a dividend highlights the dimension of justice and links to the socioeconomic rights enshrined in the Constitution, which assigns to the state a constitutional obligation to progressively realise the right to social security and social assistance for all.

    It is also in tune with powerful political traditions in South Africa.

    It is in harmony, for example, with the 1955 Freedom Charter and its neglected precursor, the African National Congress’s 1943 African Claims document.

    Framing a universal basic income as a “social dividend”, or a “rightful share”, seems especially appealing in a country where the economy has been built on systemic expropriation and exploitation spanning the colonial and apartheid eras, and continuing subsequently.

    These understandings emphasise the collective character of a universal basic income, rather than seeing it merely as a multitude of separate payments to individuals. They acknowledge that factors beyond individual control decide the distribution of resources and capabilities — and that those means have to be distributed fairly.

    High stakes

    This profoundly changes the implications of the universal basic income demand. It becomes a sustained act of claim-staking, rather than concession-seeking.

    It also implies a different relationship between the citizenry and the state. A universal basic income, then, involves a demand to democratise the wealth a society produces, which poses a political challenge to the small minority that routinely commandeers that wealth.

    The framing of the universal basic income demand will be at least as important as the achievement itself. It’s crucial that progressives approach a universal basic income not as a stand-alone policy fix, but as part of a broader, long-term project of change and emancipation — because there are risks attached.

    Once in place, a universal basic income might become politically too costly to abandon, yet fiscally too expensive to sustain. In the absence of powerful progressive support, this could provide a pretext for cutting other social entitlements.

    Separated from a strong political and social movement of change, a universal basic income could then run the risk of backfiring, of being captured and repurposed in ways that sustain exploitation and inequality.

    Even once achieved, a universal basic income will remain a contested and politically unstable intervention. Ultimately, its impact and fate will depend on how it links with other processes of economic, social and political change, which forces drive them, and whether those forces are capable of defending the desired changes. DM/MC

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Protesters in South Africa continue to demand President and Finance Minister implement Basic Income

    By:  The Daily Vox Team

    Over 200 people protested outside Treasury’s office to demand that Finance Minister Godongwana tax the rich to keep the R350 grant, increase it and turn it into a Basic Income Grant. Protesters also demanded the Finance Minister abandon Treasury’s proposals to scrap the R350 grant and replace it with unworkable grants such as a household grant.

    “We are here to confront Treasury on the issues we experience with the R350. They don’t respond to our complaints, and these R350s are so important in communities, especially low income communities. We need these R350s to be turned into a Basic Income Grant of R1500 as there are no jobs. I’m a breadwinner at home, and everyone is looking at me for a meal.” – Lindiwe Nkosi from Soweto.

    Treasury’s Chief Risk Officer Faith Leeuw told protesters that: “Comrades, your demands will get to the office of the Minister by the end of business today. We have also noted the turnaround times for which we are supposed to respond and you will receive feedback accordingly.”

    When asked by a protester when feedback will be received, Ms Leeuw stated “Don’t worry” to which the crowd erupted with responses such as “We do worry!” Treasury has made controversial proposals, including a plan to replace the R350 SRD grant with a household grant.

    Economists from the Institute For Economic Justice have warned that Treasury’s proposals will exclude millions of poor people.

    “As Finance Minister Godongwana writes his speech to deliver in parliament next week, he must think long and hard about the grievances and demands of people whose dignity hangs in the balance. Finance Minister Godongwana must abandon this nonsense household grant,” said Tlou Seopa from amandla.mobi who organised the protest.

    Earlier this year, in his capacity as ANC leader, President Ramaphosa admitted that there is a need for a Basic Income Grant. Next week’s Mid-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) will signal whether Finance Minister Godongwana will give political life to what even the governing party has identified as a necessary step.

    Tshepiso Sehume, who was part of protest, said, “The R350 should be increased as it is not enough. They need to be increased and turned into a Basic Income Grant. When we buy food, we cannot buy sanitary pads and toiletries.”

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Fijiana hopes up with one game away from World Cup quarterfinals

    By Finau Fonua, RNZ Pacific journalist

    The Fijiana are one step away from reaching the quarterfinals of the Women’s Rugby World Cup — but they have to beat favourite France first.

    To qualify, they need to overcome the in-form French team at the Northland Events Centre in Whangārei on Saturday.

    It is an opportunity that has arisen as a result of a thrilling 21-17 last-gasp upset over favourites South Africa last weekend, with Fijiana stealing the game with a try scored in the final minute.

    Most commentators did not expect Fijiana to win, having entered the game off the back of an 84-19 thrashing at the hands of England in their opening game.

    “I have no words for it. I am just so grateful for the girls. We talked about leaving everything on the field and playing with our hearts,” Fijiana captain Asinate Serevi said.

    Vika Matarugu of Fiji scores a try during the Pool C Rugby World Cup 2021 match between Fiji and South Africa at Waitakere Stadium on October 16, 2022, in Auckland, New Zealand
    Vika Matarugu of Fiji scores a try during the Pool C Rugby World Cup 2021 match between Fiji and South Africa at Waitakere Stadium last Sunday. Image: Fiona Goodall/World Rugby/RNZ Pacific

    “One thing that Fijians are known for is that even with three or one minute left on the clock, we can still win a game — and that’s what we did,” Asinate added.

    “As a captain they made me look good, so I’m forever grateful for the game they put on.”

    First Pacific qualifier
    Being the first Pacific Island nation to qualify for the Women’s Rugby World Cup is an accomplishment, but for Fijiana, qualifying for the quarterfinals is the driving goal.

    Despite a disheartening loss to England, Senirusi Serivakula said Fijiana’s winning ambitions have never faltered.

    “The message was clear from the beginning, which was that we must beat South Africa. That was the message, that we are not going to walk away without a win over South Africa,” coach Senirusi Seruvakula said.

    “I’m proud that the girls stuck to it, and they played as a team to the last minute.”

    That message was delivered in a stunning fashion, with a last-minute try scored right between the posts by forward Karalaini Naisewa. The number eight had to crash through three tacklers to get the ball over the line.

    That try has since gone viral and Fijiana players have now become overnight celebrities in Fiji.

    The star of the team, prop forward Siteri Rasolea, was awarded player of the match. She relentlessly ploughed through South Africa’s forwards from beginning to end.

    Public admiration
    Rasolea had already won public admiration in Fiji after she turned down an offer to play for her home nation Australia, opting to represent her heritage nation Fiji.

    Rasolea said the team were still coming to terms with their accomplishment.

    “Our girls had to dig deep and really fight for each other,” said Rasolea.

    “I’m still in awe of it now. I want to dedicate this to everyone who supported me at home. It wasn’t easy leaving Australia to go to Fiji, so I fulfil my dreams.”

    Like Rasolea, many of Fijiana’s players flocked from overseas with the purpose of representing their heritage.

    Fijiana captain Asinate Serevi, who is the daughter of 7s legend Waisele Serevi, represented the United States for three years before switching to Fiji.

    “It means the whole world to me. I can’t thank God enough for all the support. My plan was just to play for Fiji and represent my country. And being named captain is honestly beyond dreams,” Serevi said.

    ‘Huge step to win’
    “It’s a huge step for us to win one game in the World Cup means to us like we’ve won the world cup already. We know France is going to be tougher and we have things to work on.”

    Regardless of Fijiana’s big win, France remains the overwhelming favourite, having easily defeated South Africa 40-5 and narrowly losing to England 13-7.

    However, they have been weakened by the loss of their staff halfback Laure Sansus, who is out if the World Cup due to a knee injury in the first quarter of the game against England.

    Sansus, the 2022 Women’s Six Nations Player of the Championship tore her anterior cruciate ligament and will be replaced by centre Marie Dupouy. However, she will stay on in New Zealand as France’s “chief fan”.

    Coach Seruvakula is optimistic that Fijiana can win if they play a perfect game.

    “I believe in the girls, that they’ll play to the last minute,” said Seruvakula.

    “If we want to play in the quarterfinals, we have to do right during training and through the process everything will take care of itself come game day against France.”

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Fijiana survive scare from South Africa to win 21-17 in dying seconds

    By Alipate Narawa

    The Fijiana 15s defeated 13th ranked South Africa 21-17 today to get their first win at the Women’s Rugby World Cup.

    Fiji struck first through winger Ilisapeci Delaiwau in the 12th minute after some broken play and her try was successfully converted by Lavena Cavuru.

    A couple of missed opportunities where the 16th ranked Fijiana could have extended their lead, but luckily the South Africans were not able to capitalise on this.

    Zintle Mpupha sliced through the Fijiana defence and dotted down between the sticks making the conversion easy for Janse van Rensburg to level the score.

    Akanisi Sokoiwasa cruised over for a try on the stroke of half-time with Cavuru getting the conversion to take a 14-7 lead at the break.

    In the 59th minute, South Africa won a penalty and they powered over on their second attempt after recycling the ball quickly with Aseza Hele diving over to level the score 14-all.

    Janse van Rensburg struck with a penalty goal to give the South Africans the lead with 40 seconds left, but the Fijianas had the last say with No 8 Karalaini Naisewa brushing aside the defence to score under the sticks.

    Fijiana will face France at Northland Events Centre, Whangarei, next Saturday at 6.15pm in their final pool game.

    Alipate Narawa is a Fiji Village reporter.

  • Black Ferns: a new dawn for global women’s rugby

    ANALYSIS: By Jamie Wall, RNZ sports writer

    The Blacks Ferns 41-17 win over the Wallaroos on the field at Auckland’s Eden Park last night was good, but the one off it was better.

    There had been a lot of conjecture going into the Rugby World Cup about just how people would respond, given the team’s recent history and the fact that women’s rugby has never really been a priority for those running the game in Aotearoa New Zealand.

    But it took a World Cup to finally get one thing right.

    The people in charge knew that the most important ones at a sporting event aren’t the players. They’re not the volunteers, or the entertainers, or even the guy cooking Fritz’s Wieners.

    It’s the ones who are there for the first time ever, most usually children but occasionally adults who are giving something new a go.

    They’re the most important because their entire experience could well mean they come back next time, and again and again until they call themselves true fans. They will bring their friends, their family and eventually their own children.

    If the sporting event can get it right, they lock in that person for life.

    Lacklustre experiences
    It’s something rugby hasn’t been very good at lately. Lacklustre game day experiences have played a huge role in crowds for everything below (and sometimes including) the All Blacks gradually declining, to the point where NPC attendances are pretty much non-existent. There is nothing unique, very little that’s special.

    Last night at Eden Park flipped that notion on its head. While there is a conversation to be had around just exactly how many fans were in attendance (43,000) and whether a clearly not full stadium can be described as “sold out”, in the end it didn’t really matter.

    Looking around showed a different sight than an All Black test match, far more children and families. Groups of people who were clearly drawn to women’s rugby and its World Cup for reasons they’d arrived at themselves.

    It was up to the day itself to carry them further.

    If it was their first time at a rugby game, what they got most definitely ensured that they’d be coming back. The wave ridden by new fans of a fixture that, for a while there, the Black Ferns had no right to win, is a wonderful and unique experience of its own.

    It was an evening of making sure the fan experience was paramount: from Rita Ora’s performance to affordable tickets to the Black Ferns making sure every single kid got a photo after the game – even if it meant they didn’t get into the sheds until well after 10pm.

    Black Ferns' Portia Woodman celebrates with fans after the match. Australia v New Zealand Black Ferns, Women’s Rugby World Cup New Zealand 2021 (played in 2022) pool match at Eden Park, Auckland, New Zealand on Saturday 8 October 2022.
    The Black Ferns’ Portia Woodman celebrates with fans after the match. Image: Photosport/RNZ

    The energy of the crowd was clearly different too to one usually found at Eden Park. For a start, there were no massive howls of protest at refereeing decisions. No one was getting rotten drunk either, despite it being Saturday night.

    Happy and safe
    The general feel was that this was an environment that you could feel happy and safe in, something that is less directly quantifiable than numbers but infinitely more valuable in the broader context.

    Does it mean that every Black Ferns test can be assured of a big crowd if they are held in a big stadium? Probably not, as the World Cup factor plays a huge role in getting people along.

    But it’s a new dawn for women’s rugby, this time with an actual professional NZ Rugby competition to follow it up and a commitment by World Rugby to continue the momentum in test matches. It is proof that if you do things right and invest properly, people will show up in numbers.

    From an elite level perspective, this all makes sense as it should have all happened years ago. But there was a sign during the week that the penny had finally dropped in regard to what it will mean in the long term.

    When asked about how the Black Ferns would inspire player numbers, coach Wayne Smith said that “the future generations will be inspired to play rugby, be fans and follow the game”.

    That’s the nail on the head, because it’s not going to matter whether those future fans are girls or boys. They will grow up and fill the seats at Eden Park and other stadiums.

    While the World Cup opener should rightfully be held up as a celebration of women’s rugby right now, years from now it will be remembered as an important day for the national game of New Zealand in general.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

  • The electricity crisis in South Africa continues to brew

    Along with widespread food insecurity, South Africans also experience “energy poverty”, making it difficult for them to cover other costs such as food, rent, and clothing, reports Vashna Jagarnath.

    This post was originally published on Green Left.

  • 5 ways South Africa could fund a basic income grant – and why Treasury doesn’t want to hear any of it

    See original article here.

    South Africa’s National Treasury has voiced its opposition to a campaign by the Department of Social Development and civil rights groups for stipends to be paid to millions of the country’s poorest citizens on a permanent basis.

    Extending a temporary R350 monthly grant that was introduced in 2020 to shield the vulnerable against the fallout from the coronavirus pandemic would cost at least R50 billion a year, the Treasury said in a document, which was penned ahead of next month’s medium-term budget policy statement and seen by Bloomberg.

    The only way to secure the money would be to raise taxes, incur new debt or reallocate funds, and none of those options were desirable, it said.

    The Treasury refused to comment on the document because discussions on the 26 October budget update are still ongoing. These are its potential options for raising additional revenue and why it doesn’t favour any of them:

    Raise personal taxes

    The document outlines several scenarios for increasing the personal income tax take, by raising the marginal rates and not adjusting tax brackets to account for inflation.

    But individuals in South Africa already pay more personal income tax than their counterparts in peer countries, Australia and the UK, and increasing their burden would further erode the country’s competitiveness.

    Furthermore, previous tax increases didn’t yield as much revenue as anticipated, failed to narrow the budget deficit and may have hampered economic growth, the Treasury said.

    Levy a wealth tax

    South Africa already taxes wealth indirectly by imposing estate duty, donations tax and other levies.

    While a new wealth tax may help reduce inequality, in practice, such measures raise limited revenue, are expensive and difficult to administer, and often lead to capital flight and discourage savings and investment, the Treasury said.

    Increase value-added tax

    VAT is the most reliable source of revenue and from a purely macroeconomic standpoint, increasing the rate would have a less detrimental effect on economic growth and employment than raising personal income tax, according to the Treasury.

    It estimates that raising the rate by two percentage points to 17% could generate R49.4 billion, although the measure may be somewhat inflationary in the short term. Labour unions have fiercely opposed VAT increases in the past, arguing that the poor are most negatively impacted.

    Take on new debt

    The Treasury is adamant that increasing the state’s debt burden, which currently stands at R4.2 trillion and costs about R306 billion annually to service, is a terrible idea. “Debt-service costs have become a binding constraint on the fiscus,” are the single-largest item of spending and are growing at a faster rate than gross domestic product, it said.

    Re-prioritize funds

    A number of projects across a range of government departments could be terminated or scaled back, but the potential saving would only amount to R21.2 billion, according to the Treasury.

    Delaying capital projects provides the biggest scope for reallocation — about R12.8 billion may potentially be realized. Another R2.4 billion could be saved by ending a peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

    While consideration could be given to merging some departments with similar mandates and doing away with others, the state may incur additional legal costs and administrative charges and have to give severance pay to those who lose their jobs, the Treasury said.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The BIG fix: Basic income will grow South Africa’s ailing economy

    By: Duma Gqubule

    See original article here.

    South Africa is in an economic policy cul-de-sac. The government is committed to austerity policies and will not spend more money because it believes public debt is too high. But the idea that South Africa’s 70% debt to gross domestic product ratio is too high is propaganda and fiction. 

    Even if it was too high, a national budget does not operate like a household budget. Austerity is a self-defeating policy because it reduces GDP growth, the bottom part of the debt ratio. It is the cause of a rising debt ratio.     

    Economists have forecast GDP growth of 1.5% a year between this year and 2026. On this trajectory, South Africa would have a second “lost decade” between 2020 and 2030. The number of unemployed people would increase to 17-million. The unemployment rate would increase to more than 50%. 

    Between 2009 and 2019, South Africa had a “lost decade” during which GDP per capita did not grow. By 2030, the beloved country would be an economic wasteland with unbearable levels of political and social instability.

    According to Keynesian economics 101, the private sector cannot invest if there is no demand for the goods and services produced. 

    In May, large industrial companies were using only 77.2% of their capacity. The major reason was “insufficient demand”, according to a Statistics South Africa survey. If one extends this to the R6.1-trillion economy, the spare capacity of 22.8% was equivalent to R1.4-trillion. 

    The only way to get out of this cul-de-sac is for the government to spend more money on the economy — the difference between the forecast growth rate of 1.5% and an ideal target of at least 6% GDP growth. Since infrastructure projects and industrial policies take time to implement, the quickest way to spend new money and reach 6% GDP growth is to implement a basic income grant (BIG). The BIG is primarily a macroeconomic policy issue, although it could eliminate income poverty in three years. 

    First, the point of the grant is that it must be large enough to take us to the 6% GDP growth rate. For this reason, there should be a BIG for adults (aged 18 to 59) and children. After escalating the 2021 poverty line by 5% a year, the BIG would be at the food poverty line of R655 a month during the first year, the lower poverty line of R982 a month during the second year and the upper poverty line of R1 546 a month during the third year.

    Therefore, a budget-neutral or fully funded BIG, with new taxes to finance it, is a dumb idea and does not make sense in the context of an economy that needs a large stimulus to propel it onto a new growth path. New taxes, depending on which ones are selected, can withdraw money from the economy and reduce the size of the stimulus as well as the efficacy of fiscal policy.

    We can tax the top 1% because they don’t spend most of their money. But such taxes would be to reduce inequality, not to finance a BIG. To maximise the economic stimulus, there must be no new taxes on 99% of South Africans.

    Second, the BIG must be as inclusive as possible and have few administrative hurdles to prevent people from receiving it. It makes no sense to try to make the BIG smaller by excluding people because it defeats the purpose of achieving a 6% GDP growth rate. In a new policy brief, the Institute for Economic Justice reviewed proposals by the presidency and the treasury to replace the R350 a month social relief of distress grant with a new system of grants for the working-age population. The bizarre proposals, which could be announced during the medium term budget policy statement on 26 October, would significantly reduce the number of beneficiaries of the social relief of distress grant and introduce stringent means tests. They include targeting so only certain people the unemployed and households or families can receive them.

    The onerous conditions of receiving the new grants include requiring beneficiaries to prove that they are actively seeking work by registering for public employment programmes and job matching databases and showing that a spouse does not receive an income. But public employment programmes reach few of the 12.3-million unemployed people because of limited budget allocations. There are 6.6 million profiles on job-matching data-bases but the economy only created 793,000 jobs between the fourth quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of this year. The proposals are unimplementable. For example, it would take years to develop a register of households.

    Third, there is a self-financing element to the BIG. The presidency and the treasury must understand the difference between the gross and net costs of implementing a BIG. More than 50% of the gross cost would flow back to the government after considering VAT, a clawback from taxpayers and additional tax revenue from the economic stimulus.

    Finally, nothing is affordable within the context of the current macroeconomic policy framework of austerity where new spending requires increases in taxes or cuts to other programmes. This results in a downward spiral of endless cycles of budget cuts, lower GDP growth, lower tax revenues and more budget cuts.

    The BIG can only be sustainable within the context of a new macroeconomic policy framework that has a 6% GDP growth target that is binding on the treasury and the Reserve Bank. After providing the first stimulus to the economy during the three year implementation phase of the BIG, there must be additional macroeconomic policy levers to lock in the higher GDP growth rate.

    A second stimulus must increase the budget which is allocated to public employment programmes, which must be amalgamated under a new institution that has the capacity to provide up to five-million jobs in five years.

    In practice, the new institution would create the residual number of jobs that cannot be created through higher GDP growth and increased spending on infrastructure and industrial policies.

    The basic income grant is primarily a macroeconomic policy issue, although it could eliminate income poverty in three years.

    _____________________

    About the author: Duma Gqubule is a financial journalist, analyst, researcher and adviser on issues of economic development and transformation

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • The National Education Health and Allied Workers’ Union adds its voice to the calls for basic income in South Africa

    See original article here.

    The National Education Health and Allied Workers’ Union, NEHAWU, says it supports calls for the introduction of a universal basic income grant.

    The labour union says the grant will go a long way in addressing social and economic crises affecting the youth and women of South Africa in particular. NEHAWU made its position known on the matter, in a statement referred to as a special note, ahead of the 36th anniversary of labour federation Cosatu, which was formed in December 1995 and of which NEHAWU is an affiliate.

    National spokesperson of NEHAWU, Lwazi Nkolonzi, says the union is calling on government to make sure that the current SDR [social relief of distress] grant that is in place is made permanent, and that it is converted into the universal basic income grant.

    “How the government ought to do this, for example, is to increase the current SDR to above poverty line of R650, or make it R450.”

    “In this way, you’re going to be able to address challenges of poverty, unemployment, and inequality,” adds Nkolonzi.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Cool Subjects: The Other Side of Elizabeth II’s Reign

    Global, personal, individual.  The reactions to the death of Queen Elizabeth II seemed to catch even unsuspecting republicans off guard.  In Australia, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who had led the Australian Republic Movement, was a mess of reflection on the passing.  The old enemy France glowed with a distant familial warmth.  In the United States, monarchical fetishism reasserted itself.

    Not all the reflections were rosy. In South Africa, the Economic Freedom Fighters party admitted no mourning for the passing of the monarch of seven decades, “because to us her death is a reminder of a very tragic period in this country and Africa’s history.  Britain, under the leadership of the royal family, took over control of this territory that would become South Africa in 1795 from Batavian control, and took permanent control of the territory in 1806.”  From then, the native populace knew no peace, nor “enjoyed the fruits of the riches of this land, riches were and still are utilized for the enrichment of the British royal family and those who look like them.”

    Negative commentary, notably of the brisk too-soon mould, caused sparks and retributive anger.  When news of Elizabeth II’s deteriorating condition reached critical race theorist and Carnegie Mellon academic Uju Anya on September 8, she jumped on Twitter with menacing enthusiasm.  “I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying.  May her pain be excruciating.”  In the room next door, grant applications for future funding were probably being written.

    The comment, even if academically toothless, was enough to stir empire building types such as the amoral Amazon founder, Jeff Bezos.  In confounded fashion, he asked whether this was “someone supposedly working to make the world better […] I don’t think so.”  Anya, unrepented, suggested that the Queen had “supervised a government that sponsored the genocide that massacred and displaced half my family”.  As for Bezos, the bilious academic hoped that those who had suffered harm from his “merciless greed” would “remember you as fondly as I remember my colonizers.”  On that score, many would agree.

    In India, the historical site of controversial debates about the British monarchy, responses varied between lukewarm recognition to tangy irritation.  The government of Narendra Modi declared a day of mourning on Sunday, with flags to fly at half-staff.  But on closer inspection of social media chatter, Sucheta Mahajan of Jawaharlal Nehru University could detect little by way of effusive tear-filled adoration.  There was “a lot of discussion but not much concern”.  The passing was not treated as one of “an important world leader.  After all, she did not call the shots.”

    In 1997, when the late Queen made her third and last visit to India, much debate was provoked by the visit to Jallianwala Bagh.  In April 1919, this site in the northern city of Amritsar was bloodied by the actions of the British Brigadier General Reginald Dyer, who ordered troops to fire upon a gathering of thousands of Indians that resulted in the deaths of, according to an official report, 379 men, women and children.

    Did such a visit amount to an apology for the past sins of empire?  Hardly, if we are going by the remarks she made at a New Delhi state banquet held just prior to the visit.  “It is no secret that there have been some difficult episodes in our pasts – Jallianwala Bagh, which I shall visit tomorrow, is a distressing example.  But history cannot be rewritten, however much we might sometimes wish otherwise.  It has its moments of sadness, as well as gladness.  We must learn from the sadness and build on the gladness.”

    The statement is strikingly bereft of sorrow and filled with understatement.  Build on gladness; forget the sadness.  British rule over India offered more than just “distressing” examples.  And “sadness” is certainly one numbing way of looking at an atrocity, not to mention various decisions made with telling consequences.

    Indian historian and politician Shashi Tharoor is one who has elaborated an extensive laundry list of British sins, noting how the empire imposed a system of rule and economy on a pre-existing, rich society of agrarian sophistication largely for self-enriching goals. Far from civilising native subjects, British rule was marked by impoverishment, its trains decidedly governed by military self-interest, its governing policy one of constipated, selective inclusion.

    Distinctions, however, are drawn between the occupant of a constitutional monarchy, and the government that used her name to prosecute a policy.  Specific to Elizabeth II, Tharoor noted a “largely ceremonial” reign executed with “uncommon grace, her conduct on the throne marked by a selfless serenity, a total self-abnegation and devotion to the public trappings of her position.”  In her rule, she seemed to be a consummate expression of Walter Bagehot’s formulation of a constitutional monarch’s three rights: the right to be consulted, the right to encourage, the right to warn.

    Indians had tried to learn and forgive, for the most part, the “cruelties of colonialism”, with some even valuing the British connection.  But the Queen could be faulted for never once acknowledging, let alone apologising, for “those centuries of colonial plunder and cruelty that made her position and wealth possible.”

    Where, then, did she figure in the Bagehot scheme of consulting, encouragement and warning regarding British actions in Kenya in the use of concentration camps to break the Mau Mau rebellion, or the suppression of Communists in the Malaysian Emergency?  The Westminster shroud, in this regard, is thick indeed, a layer of forced exculpation.

    In that curious sense, the constitutional monarch could derive the profits of plunder yet disclaim responsibility.  Monarchs, Tharoor noted, “did not actually order any of these things”.  It followed that the Queen did not have to apologise for them, though a sovereign’s good sense might have demanded it.

    As to what’s left of any republican sentiment, the Irish politician Clare Daly, Member of the European Parliament, put it well in expressing her “deepest sympathies and solidarity with republicans living under British rule.”  The forthcoming weeks would prove hard, “but it will pass.”  Maybe a bit wistfully, she suggested that the “day will come.”  Those days always do, but Queen Liz has made it that much more difficult.

    The post Cool Subjects: The Other Side of Elizabeth II’s Reign first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • South Africa’s Treasury Proposes to Increase Poverty Instead of Introduce Basic Income

    See original article here.

    South Africa is facing a dire socio-economic crisis with widespread poverty, persistent and high unemployment and growing hunger. While its value is grossly inadequate and there have been myriad problems with its administration, the R350 Covid-19 SRD grant has played a critical role in providing support to some of the most vulnerable people who bear the brunt of this crisis and have not previously been eligible for income support. 

    Instead of steps to make this permanent and progressively scale it up, National Treasury has prepared regressive and unworkable proposals that seek to exclude many, if not the majority, of its current recipients. This threatens the livelihoods of millions of people. This is apparent in a set of proposals from Treasury and Presidency that have come to light. While there are connections between the two proposals, they also differ substantially. As assessed in a detailed memo released by the IEJ today  the proposals, particularly by Treasury, are deeply problematic,  both in terms of the underlying logic and subsequent proposed design. 

    The Treasury proposals are opaque and convoluted, but clearly propose replacing the SRD with an overly complicated and highly exclusionary system.

    The proposals are underpinned by a logic of narrowing the grant beneficiaries as much as possible – that is excluding as many people as possible – and preferring non-income support interventions.

    The proposals separate poor people into three somewhat arbitrary and hard to distinguish categories (“extreme poor/multiple constraints”, “poor/some constraints”, “less poor/fewer constraints”) and then proposes a complex web of interventions dependent on the category. This includes the removal of income support entirely in the third category and, in the remaining two, the possible replacement of the SRD grant with a household grant or a jobseekers grant, adding yet another layer of conditionalities, many of which are nonsensical given South Africa’s context.

    There is a clear preference in the document for attaching income support to job-seeking conditionalities. This seems to draw largely from a 2021 World Bank proposal for replacing the SRD grant with a jobseekers’ grant aimed only at active jobseekers. This is highly problematic: 

    • It assumes that jobs exist in the economy for people to “seek”, ignoring the structural nature of South Africa’s persistent unemployment and the failure of existing job-seeking databases and skills development programmes to produce any real change. 
    • It rests on the fundamentally patronising and moralistic assumption that without such conditionalities, grants are likely to increase dependency and laziness; something which is not supported by any of the evidence from South Africa or globally. 
    • The attachment of such conditionalities adds an extensive layer of bureaucracy to the process of applying for the grant. This is both counterproductive and inefficient, as evidenced in the administration of the SRD since conditionalities were introduced in April 2022 that resulted in the exclusion of as many as 5 million previous SRD grant beneficiaries.   
    • The policy risks having perverse outcomes, for example, should the policy end up having a (shared) household grant for the “extreme poor” and a (individual) jobseeker grant for the “poor”, then those more in need receive less than those regarded as ‘less in need’. This categorisation also risks further stigmatisation of poor people. 

    The household grant is similarly problematic if it is to replace individual income support: 

    • In targeting household heads, not household members, it will radically reduce the number of beneficiaries, lessen the poverty-reducing impact of households pooling a number of individual grants, and limit the positive impact that social grants can have on women’s autonomy. In this it is fundamentally anti-poor. 
    • It is administratively burdensome to test for such complex conditionalities and poorly suited to the South African context where there is no single, fixed definition of a household, such a situation runs the risk of heightened corruption. 
    • This is no doubt why a previous Treasury proposal for this grant failed to gain support in government and garnered strong opposition by civil society. 

    In addition to a jobseekers’ grant, Treasury floats a highly-limited version of a possible ‘caregivers grant’. Treasury appears to support a version in which only those caring for children under the age of 2 qualify. Such a limitation radically alters the scope of the grant. There are approximately 7 million caregivers overall and 4 million who receive the SRD grant but only 1.5 million with children under 2 and in late pregnancy. A combined jobseekers’ grant (going to only Treasury’s ‘middle group’ category of 4.1 million jobseekers targeted for this grant) and caregivers’ grant could well be restricted to around 5.5 million beneficiaries, around half of the SRD grant beneficiaries in March 2022. 

    The preference for widespread exclusion is also present in Treasury’s extensive argumentation for why a continuation of the SRD grant, or variations thereof, are ‘unaffordable’, a position which privileges narrow fiscal considerations over human wellbeing. It rejects with superficial consideration a myriad of proposals that have shown ways in which the grant can be fiscally appropriate, through progressive financing. It also ignores the manner in which the grant would stimulate the economy boosting economic growth and creating a multiplier effect, in the process reducing the cost to government through increased revenue (including from VAT). Further, it is a profoundly political choice to channel large tax overruns (over R200 bn) to reducing debt rather than to extend income support to millions living in poverty and experiencing daily hunger.

    The Presidency document has, on the whole, a more realistic appraisal of various options, and takes a more detailed and thoughtful approach to wider issues. However it fails to fully follow through on the developmental aspects of its analysis. These aspects include: acknowledgement of the international evidence on the developmental value of grants; that the country needs immediate high-impact interventions which address the poverty crisis; and that employment strategies will only have an impact over the medium term. The logic of these elements, however, needs to be consolidated, extended, and better integrated into the proposed policies. For example, the policies do not follow through on the complementarity between grants and promotion of local economic activity, including self-employment and job-seeking. 

    Devastating implications

    The upshot of these proposals, if adopted, would be that millions of poor people – those who should be the primary target of cash transfer programmes like this – will be excluded from receiving support for the grant, either because they do not qualify or because the complexities of the system being imposed make it entirely inaccessible to them. 

    It is likely that these proposals are intended for incorporation into the MTBPS in October 2022 with timelines in the Presidency document signalling the intention to finalise the proposals by 9 September 2022. Worryingly, indications point to the unilateral role of Treasury, who have little expertise in this policy area, in deciding these policies despite them being opposed by the Department of Social Development, the entity responsible for, and with expertise in, social protection. 

    These developments should also be read in the context of the fact that the Presidency has reneged on commitments made in April 2022 to meet with the civil society coalition in preparation for a planned follow-up meeting with the President by the end June 2022.

    Indications are that these proposals have been developed over the last several months, and that the decision not to engage civil society was deliberate.

    This signals a lack of respect for democratic participation and makes a mockery of the President’s continual reference to social compacting. At this critical juncture in South Africa’s history and with the precarity of the current global economic situation, we cannot afford to embark on a regressive path which will exclude millions of the poor through unworkable and unconstitutional measures. This historical conjuncture gives us a unique opportunity to make transformative inroads in addressing poverty, something which has evaded the government post-apartheid.

    Representatives of the coalition have written to the Presidency today to express our strongest objections both to the contents of the proposals, and to the failure of government to engage with the coalition despite repeated undertakings to do so. The detailed memo analysing these documents was sent to Presidency, DSD, and Treasury with a proposal to urgently meet with the civil society coalition to provide feedback on these proposals; hear alternatives from the Coalition on pathways to basic income; and to make arrangements for a follow-up meeting with the President, following our successful meeting in January. 

    We will continue to pressurise for an urgent response to our demands, and will engage with a range of stakeholders and civil society actors, including unions, business, and community organisations, to explain our concerns with these dangerous proposals, and to mobilise for a clear pathway to the introduction of a fair and workable system of income support for all those who need it in South Africa.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A Basic Income Grant in South Africa: What It’s All About

    By: Carilee Osborne

    See original article here.

    South Africa is one of the most unequal countries in the world, with extremely high rates of poverty and unemployment. Large numbers of people are excluded from the economy without the means to ensure that their basic needs are met. Recently there has been a lot of debate about the introduction of a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) in South Africa and its potential to address poverty and ensure that all people have an adequate standard of living.

    But what the introduction of a basic income grant means and what it looks like is not always clear. In this three-part series from the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ), we cover the basics of a basic income grant. This, our first article, covers the overview of what a (U)BIG is, what different types exist and what transformative potential it may have. Our second piece covers the debate in South Africa and our final piece focuses on how we could finance it.

    What is a (U)BIG ?

    A basic income guarantee is a commitment by government to ensure that everyone has a minimal level of income to meet their basic needs. This is done through a regular cash transfer or grant.

    Not all basic income guarantees are the same. A major point of difference is whether a guarantee is universal or targeted.

    A Universal Basic Income Guarantee is something that all people (usually within a certain age range, for instance: all adults or all working-age adults) qualify for, regardless of their income or employment status.

    A targeted basic income on the other hand is only paid out to those who meet some kind of qualifying criteria, usually that they are unemployed and/or have income below a certain level, typically referred to as a means-test threshold.

    In a targeted grant the level of this threshold is an important decision and determines the impact of the grant. If a threshold is set too low, for example, people who need the grant will not receive it. Advocates of a targeted grant argue that since only those who most need the grant receive it, this is the best use of scarce resources.

    With a universal grant, everyone qualifies for the grant regardless of their income. Advocates of a UBIG argue that this reduces the administrative burden on the state because government officials do not have to go through difficult and time-consuming assessments of whether an applicant qualifies or not. A universal grant would mean there is less chance that people who need the grant won’t receive it (due to something called “exclusion errors”). Research shows that targeted grants are difficult to administer, and always involve some level of accidental exclusion of rightful beneficiaries. Many previous recipients of, and current applicants for, the current R350 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant can attest to this.

    In addition to whether a grant is targeted or not and how any targeting is designed, the value of the grant is also an important design decision as it is important to ensure that the grant is set at a high enough level that it improves people’s life choices, rather than trapping them in poverty and dependency.

    What can a UBIG do?

    Many countries have introduced basic income support in some form, often to test its impact, and there is a lot of research that shows what the effects can be.

    • Basic income support can end hunger: Government estimates suggest that 18.3 million people in South Africa do not have enough income to meet their basic food needs, and more than half the population lives in poverty. A UBIG set at the value of the highest poverty line would, by definition, eliminate poverty and end hunger in South Africa.
    • Basic income support can improve health and education outcomes: Poverty produces unjust and costly social consequences, including poor health and barriers to education. This makes it harder for people to escape poverty, and can trap generations in a cycle of poverty. Extensive evidence shows that basic income support (if it is accompanied by public healthcare and education) can improve people’s nutrition, health, and education, and help them escape intergenerational poverty. Studies also show that income support reduces stress and improves people’s psychological well-being. Evidence from Alaska, Kenya and South Africa shows the impact of cash transfers on child nutrition and health outcomes. Other research points to the fact that cash transfers help keep young people in school for longer.
    • Basic income can help grow the economy: Critics of basic income support often think about grants as a financial drain on the state or the economy, but research shows they can play an important role in growth. This is partly because people spend the money they receive in local communities. Research also shows that basic income support helps people to join the formal labour market because it takes away the stress of trying to ensure basic needs are met and/or gives people the money to cover the costs of looking for a job. Finally, research shows that basic income can also help support people to build sustainable livelihoods through self-employment or starting businesses.
    • Basic income can help address gender inequality: Women perform the bulk of unpaid domestic and care work in the home, and are also disadvantaged in the labour market. This means they are more likely to be poor, and are also more likely to be dependent on men. Basic income support gives women more autonomy and independence, and can also reduce their vulnerability to gender-based violence.
    • Basic income can improve social cohesion: A UBIG is a fairer way of sharing the wealth in our society, and this can help to improve social solidarity, stability, and democratic participation. A basic income trial in Namibia led to a reduction in crime.

    What about South Africa?

    South Africa does not have any permanent income support for able-bodied people between the ages of 18 and 59.

    The Covid-19 SRD grant is a temporary measure which targets some people in this group but it has many limitations. There have been debates about the introduction of basic income support since the 1990s.

    In our next article we go into details about the history of the debate in South Africa and discuss what a UBIG in the country could look like. We argue that a UBIG can have transformative effects in South Africa helping to shift structural poverty, alleviate some of the impacts of deeply entrenched unemployment and end hunger in the country. Rather than being a drain on the economy, a UBIG can contribute to growth as more people spend money in their local communities and have the means to better their economic position.

  • National Freedom Party calls for introduction of Basic Income Grant amid national shutdown in South Africa

    By: Yogashen Pillay

    See original article here.

    Durban – The National Freedom Party (NFP) said that they support the call by workers and labour unions across South Africa for the introduction of a Basic Income Grant and a decrease in the price of fuel and electricity.

    On Wednesday morning, dozens of members of the Congress of SA Trade Unions (Cosatu) and the SA Federation of Trade Unions (Saftu) are holding marches across the country, including in Durban, to demonstrate their unhappiness with the rising costs of living.

    NFP MP Ahmed Munzoor Shaik Emam said that the cost of living in South Africa was becoming unaffordable for the majority of South Africans.

    “The poor and working class are facing the brunt of the high cost of living. Therefore, we support the call for a basic income grant.”

    Emam added a staggered approach to the introduction of the Basic Income Grant, will allow for its implementation.

    “We understand that at this very moment, the government does not have the funds to implement a comprehensive Basic Income Grant for all qualifying citizens. However, we believe a staggered approach is both feasible and practical.”

    Emam said that the party calls upon the government to:

    – Utilise the infrastructure of the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grants and convert it for the purposes of the Basic Income Grant

    – Develop a qualifying criterion for the Basic Income Grant

    – Select a portion of qualifying citizens to start the roll-out with – such as those between 18 and 25 who are in the process of looking for jobs and need the support for transport and internet access for the applications process

    – Set roll-out targets and increase the number of qualifying citizens over a defined period so that all qualifying citizens can benefit.

    Emam added that the NFP also supported the call for today’s national shutdown by labour unions as a mechanism to push the government to take action.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • South Africa’s ruling African National Congress has revived plans to introduce a new tax on the wealthy to fund its basic income grant

    By: Adelaide Changole

    See original post here.

    South Africa’s ruling African National Congress has revived plans to introduce a new tax on the wealthy to fund its basic income grant, Johannesburg-based Sunday Times said, citing an interview with Mmamoloko Kubayi, the party’s head of economic transformation.

    The proposal, which was first mooted at the ANC’s national conference in 2017, calls for an appropriately structured wealth tax, possibly linked to a land tax, to promote equity and raise revenue, the newspaper said. The target should ideally be the top 5% of high net worth individuals, and estates with significant assets, Kubayi is quoted as saying. 

    According to the Sunday Times, some economists see a properly structured wealth tax raising as much as 160 billion rand a year. The income would be used to fund the 350 rand social relief of distress grant, which introduced at the beginning of the Covid-19 lockdown, and has been extended for another year.

    The National Treasury has argued that the plan is unaffordable, while private sector lobbies including Business Unity South Africa and Business Leadership South Africa have proposed a 200 basis point increase in value-added tax to 17% as an alternative. 

    Kubayi insisted that a wealth tax is the only acceptable option as an increase in income tax or VAT would weigh on already overburdened taxpayers. She however wants the grants to be conditional and linked to some form of work or skills development program.

    The comments come as the governing party’s national policy conference sits for a third day at the Nasrec center in Soweto near Johannesburg Sunday. The ANC gathered on Friday to set its policy objectives for the next five years. Among the policies it will discuss is the progress made on a 2017 resolution calling for the nationalization of the central bank.

    The post South Africa’s ruling African National Congress has revived plans to introduce a new tax on the wealthy to fund its basic income grant appeared first on Basic Income Today.

  • South Africa waiting on Minister of Finance to provide final verdict on basic income

    See original post here.

    JOHANNESBURG – The ANC’s (African National Committee) social transformation subcommittee has confirmed that a basic income grant is on the cards.

    This as South Africans endure a surge in consumer inflation, driven by rising transport and food prices.

    Subcommittee chairperson Lindiwe Sisulu says they’re waiting for the Finance Minister to give the grant the green light.

    “We were the committee that made it possible to provide our people during lockdown with R350 as an interim measure for their sustainability,” Sisulu said. “We realised that it was possible to deal beyond that, and deal with the basic income grants. We had several meetings with Treasury to introduce this grants now.”

    This is something on the table, the Minister of Finance will give the final verdict,” she said.

    “He’s trying to work out how we make sure we have this as an ongoing method to ensure our people who won’t have means will be supported by the state.”

    The post South Africa waiting on Minister of Finance to provide final verdict on basic income appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • A basic income is not some radical left wing idea; it is common humanity

    By: Alexandra Willis.

    See original post here.

    This past week Business Unity South Africa (Busa) and Business Leadership South Africa (BLSA) launched an attack on the proposed basic income grant (BIG), taking the position that a BIG is unaffordable.  

    Busa and the BLSA, in a research paper they commissioned, state that raising taxes is the only “theoretically viable option” for South Africa to fund a BIG. Understandably, raising taxes gets conservatives up in arms.

    But contrary to the research commissioned by Busa and the BLSA, and undertaken by market research and intelligence firm Intellidex, there are in fact eight financing options for a BIG, according to research undertaken by the Social Policy Initiative (SPI). 

    The materialisation of a BIG – or absence thereof – largely rests on political will.

    In a press statement, Busa’s CEO, Cas Coovadia, cautions that “the BIG is not an allocation of funds for a few years, but rather a permanent decision that must be carefully considered as, realistically, it cannot be undone once implemented”.

    Coovadia attacks the BIG proposal, saying that “any choice here on any funding front will simply not be available in future for other social wage policy choices, such as National Health Insurance and comprehensive social security reform”.

    On the contrary, research by the SPI supports the position that a BIG could in fact supplement other means of social provisioning through universal public services – free education and healthcare, and subsidised public electricity, transport and mass housing.

    Some people like to think that the debate around whether South Africans should receive a BIG or not is an ideological one. 

    Ideology, whether you’re aware of it happening or not, is (first) formed in the home and is either entrenched or overturned as you mature. That includes ideas that you believe about the role of the state – whether it is to play a minimalist role (the neoliberal view) or a full-on interventionist “nanny” role (far-leftist view), or somewhere in between. These are formed in your mind from the time you’re of school-going age.

    If you’re middle class and went to university, you will remember ideologies being debated inside and outside the lecture halls. If you are part of the majority of this country, life happens, and arguments are seldom about words.

    The far left in this country will have you believe that the call for a BIG is a radical one, but, on closer inspection, this really isn’t the case.

    Not everyone can work in the formal economy and not every business owner has a formal education or parents to provide them with start-up backing, or can access credit. And this describes the majority of black people born in South Africa. who are hamstrung by the legacy of apartheid.

    A BIG is no silver bullet to South Africa’s economic problems of poverty and inequality, but it would be a major step towards transforming the economy and empowering human beings. 

    A BIG would empower people by destigmatising grant recipients through scrapping the means tests for the old age pension, the disability grant and the child support grant. 

    A basic universal income grant could also empower people by, for example, providing start-up capital for an ambitious woman baking and selling vetkoek. And for someone else who is less driven, a BIG would enable them to buy the vetkoek from her (as well as other more nutritious food), thereby enabling the baker to profit and earn tomorrow’s ingredients, and the less ambitious person to survive.

    A BIG is not disincentivising people from working, as some conservatives would have you believe. A BIG does not turn the state into a “nanny” answering to your every need and whim.

    The reason is this: the grant money will never be enough for everyone to lead a decent lifestyle. People who depend only on grant money will always be poor, but they will have enough to survive.

    Thus, the BIG would provide a dignity floor for all people in South Africa.

    People who have ambitions could save their grant money and put it into skills development, or use it as venture capital.

    Whatever people spend their money on is none of our business. But it is our business as South Africans to care about the people who are starving and living below the poverty line. It is our business to care about the underdevelopment of children’s brains due to stunted growth as a result of malnutrition, children who will never be able to complete school because they didn’t have access to food.

    As South Africans, we can disagree on “politics” and on our views about what the duty of the state is and is not, but we should never be debating human dignity and the constitutional right of human beings to access food to be able to get by.

    It is not a radical idea that human beings are human beings.

    The post A basic income is not some radical left wing idea; it is common humanity appeared first on Basic Income Today.

    This post was originally published on Basic Income Today.

  • Key Takeaways From BRICS Summit

    Last week the 14th BRICS Summit took place virtually, chaired by Chinese President Xi Jinping. The BRICS bloc (Brasil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) represents a key political, economic, and scientific force in the international arena. These nations represent half of the world’s population and their collective GDP is greater that $20 trillion.

    In today’s context, the significance of the BRICS summit is increased to the extent that the bloc represents an alternative to the unipolar world of the decaying West.

    What follows are some of the key points from the Summit’s in Beijing:

    Multilateral compromise in the defense of international law, which includes being more inclusive with less developed countries.
    Promote peace and international security without compromising the environment.
    Support for a an open, multilateral, transparent, inclusive, rules-based, non-discriminatory commercial system.

    The post Key Takeaways From BRICS Summit appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • South Africa Declares War On ‘Meaty’ Plant-Based Food Labelling

    4 Mins Read

    The South African Department of Agriculture, Land reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) has imposed stringent labelling rules on plant-based foods. With immediate effect, all references to ‘meaty’ terms must be removed from product packaging, or manufacturers face being banned from sale. The move stems from what is being considered an extreme interpretation of existing regulations surrounding the labelling of processed meat, with the Food Safety Agency instructed to seize all products not adhering to the rules and represents a victory for the country’s pro animal meat lobbies.

    On June 22 the DALRRD sent out a letter to “all processors, importers and retailers of meat analogues”. It stated in clear terms that no products are allowed to use “product names prescribed and reserved for processed meat products”. The move has been met with disappointment and confusion, as it appears to defy South Africa’s imminent plans to launch climate change legislation.

    Photo by Heura.

    The paradox of South African sustainability

    The South African government has admitted that industrialisation and agriculture are creating an irreversible legacy of climate damage. In the National Climate Change Response White Paper, the government writes that “land-based human activities, such as forest clearing and unsustainable agricultural practices, are not only increasing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from these sources, but are also reducing the earth’s natural ability to absorb GHGs. [t]he evidence that current global warming is due to human activities associated with industrialisation and modern agriculture is overwhelming”.

    Despite this acknowledgement, the same government is now looking to shackle a growing market sector that offers opportunities for individuals to lessen their carbon footprint. ProVeg South Africa commented that the white paper failed to address that farming and meat consumption are leading causes of emissions and that evidence suggests switching to plant-based alternatives could reduce them by up to 50 percent.

    “This is a huge step backwards in the Government’s fight against climate change,” Donovan Will, country director at ProVeg South Africa said in a statement. “Regulation such as this is exactly what we don’t need when the world’s scientists are telling us we urgently need to reduce our meat consumption to help brake dangerous global warming.”

    The latest IPCC report confirms that a global majority shifting to a more plant-based diet is essential if we want to stand any chance of staying within the Paris Agreement global warming limit. 

    Burger King South Africa Vegan Meat
    Photo by Burger King SA.

    The terms no longer allowed in South Africa

    Under the new legislation, multiple terms have been banned. These include vegan/veggie biltong, vegan nuggets, vegan BBQ ribs, plant-based meatballs and plant-based chicken-style trips, amongst others. All are named in the letter from the DALRRD. It is unknown if outlets such as Burger King will be forced to rename their Plant-Based Whopper.

    In an extension of the act, a non-meat product has been forced to bear the brunt of the DALRRD’s ire. Following a claimed meeting between the department and the Food Safety Agency, a further letter was distributed to Woolworths. One of the largest grocery chains in South Africa, Woolworths was informed that it was no longer allowed to sell Just Egg as an egg product owing to the fact that it doe snot come from “domestic fowl”. The letter highlighted Just Egg’s intention “to substitute or imitate eggs as defined in regulation R.345 dated 20 March 2020, and the vegan product thus competes directly with eggs as defined in the said regulations.” It also stated that the packaging was “misleading” in that it refers to “plant eggs”.

    ProVeg has commented that such acts are claiming a monopoly on “meat” and “egg” as terms for food labelling, which is unjust given plant-based items’ ability to faithfully replicate the eating experience. 

    As Bird Flu Ravages South Korea's Egg Industry, Just's Vegan Egg Arrives
    Photo by Eat JUST.

    “The regulation disrespects consumers. There is no evidence to show that people are confused by meaty names for plant-based foods. In fact, evidence from Australia, Europe and the US prove they are not confused,” Will said in a statement. “We really urge the government to overturn this regulation. At a time when countries are seeking ways to tackle climate change, we must do all we can to encourage a vibrant and innovative plant-based sector.”

    Similar labelling concerns have not yet been levelled at the plant-based dairy sector in South Africa, though are anticipated to follow. If they present themselves, this will have serious ramifications for those who can’t drink cow’s milk and rely on easy access to alternatives. Up to 95 percent of BIPOC individuals suffer some form of lactose intolerance, which poses a serious problem for South African consumers.

    Lead photo by Jacques Nel at Unsplash.

    The post South Africa Declares War On ‘Meaty’ Plant-Based Food Labelling appeared first on Green Queen.

    This post was originally published on Green Queen.

  • Gisborne district councillor hits out over lack of Māori leadership

    By Matthew Rosenberg in Gisborne

    A Gisborne councillor has called into question the mayor’s ability to lead the region forward, saying her background makes it hard to understand issues affecting Māori.

    Third-term councillor Meredith Akuhata-Brown made the comments about Mayor Rehette Stoltz following questions about her intention to stand for the top position at the next election.

    Akuhata-Brown, who unsuccessfully contested the mayoralty in 2019, said she was not sure if she would run against Stoltz in October.

    Local Democracy Reporting
    LOCAL DEMOCRACY REPORTING

    Part of the reason was she felt her chances were impacted on by not fitting the stereotype of what power looked like.

    “When Rehette first ran for council, she was elected duly based on ‘that’s what councils look like across the nation’,” Akuhata-Brown said.

    “She’s the deputy mayor within a couple of terms … she’s formidable … she’s young. There’s no fight for the position, it’s handed to her.”

    First elected to council in 2010, Stoltz was appointed deputy mayor by Meng Foon in 2013.

    Made interim mayor
    When Foon left his position to become the Race Relations Commissioner in 2019, she was made mayor in the interim.

    Stoltz then cruised to mayoral victory later that year with 10,589 votes, ahead of second-placed Akuhata-Brown who secured 3845 votes.

    Gisborne councillor Meredith Akuhata-Brown
    Gisborne councillor Meredith Akuhata-Brown … taking shots at Mayor Rehette Stoltz, saying she was handed the mayoralty. Image: Liam Clayton/Gisborne Herald

    Akuhata-Brown believes the mayor had an easy run because she fit the bill of what people were used to in the make-up of councils around the country.

    “We go through an election campaign when the position has already been filled.”

    On her website, South African-born Stoltz shares her journey to the top elected position at Gisborne District Council.

    Arriving in New Zealand in 2001 for her OE, she took a “holiday job” as the laboratory manager for a wine business before deciding to commit to Tairāwhiti long term with partner Deon.

    It wasn’t until a conversation with former councillor Kathy Sheldrake in 2009 that she decided to run for council the following year.

    Little debate over mayoralty
    Her background is in cardiovascular physiology and she also ran a recruitment business.

    Akuhata-Brown argues Stoltz was handed the mayoral chains without much debate among councillors when Foon left prematurely.

    “It’s really easy for people from overseas. They come to our place highly qualified, and they are looked upon favourably, and they get the position without fighting for it.

    “If you are a certain look, that is particularly not Māori, you are highly probable to get that position.”

    Akuhata-Brown said she was being a “vocal local” because she was invested in the region and wanted to highlight the issues that came with integrating governance styles from overseas.

    Tairāwhiti was still fraught with racial inequalities and relationships were key for connecting with those who were still trying to eek out a living in the middle and lower classes, she said.

    “Those who have money and wealth and governance roles, they can just get on with their lives and not be bothered by any of that because they can just put up higher fences.

    No voice for Māori and Pasifika
    “For Māori and Pasifika, the voice hasn’t been there for centuries.”

    Akuhata-Brown’s final criticism of Stoltz’s leadership was she had been left alone with no extra jobs and it felt like there were low expectations.

    Hoping to be made a committee chair in her third term, Akuhata-Brown said positions had instead gone to people who supported the mayor 100 percent.

    “There’s a real sense that to get position and acknowledgement you have to be very much on side.

    “We don’t even talk, it’s just a non-relationship.”

    South African-born Gisborne Mayor Rehette Stoltz
    South African-born Mayor Rehette Stoltz … confirms she will run for a second term as Gisborne mayor in October. Image: Rebecca Grunwel

    Mayor Rehette Stoltz responded to the criticisms, saying Gisborne had been her home for 21 years and she had made a concerted effort to get a deeper understanding of the multicultural community.

    Tikanga Māori course
    That included completing a year-long Tikanga Māori course and becoming a member of the council’s waiata group.

    She said that under her leadership, Māori wards had been unanimously voted in and memorandums of understanding signed with hapū.

    “I have good working relationships with our iwi leaders and regularly meet to discuss and make decisions in regard to issues that are important to us as a region.”

    Appointment to committees and chair positions were made on interest expressed by councillors, experience and merit, she said.

    “I won the mayoralty with more than a 7000-vote majority. Mayoralties are not handed down, they are voted on by the community.”

    The upcoming local body election is set for October 8.

    This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

    This post was originally published on Asia Pacific Report.

  • Land in South Africa Shall Be Shared Among Those Who Work It

    Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research (South Africa) has been paying very close attention to the plight of farmworkers in the region as part of our overall project to monitor the ‘hurricane of hunger’. Our most recent dossier, This Land Is the Land of Our Ancestors, is a fine-grained study of farmworkers from their own perspective. Researcher Yvonne Phyllis travelled from KwaZulu-Natal to the Western and Northern Cape provinces interviewing farmworkers and their organizations to learn about the failures of land reform in South Africa and its impact on their lives. This is one of the few dossiers that begins in the first person, reflecting the intimate nature of politics surrounding the land issue in South Africa. ‘What does the land mean to you?’, I asked Yvonne while we were together in Johannesburg recently. She answered:

    The post Land in South Africa Shall Be Shared Among Those Who Work It appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Land in South Africa Shall Be Shared Among Those Who Work It

    Sbongile Tabhethe works in the food garden at eKhenana land occupation in Cato Manor, Durban, 9 June 2020. Credit: New Frame / Mlungisi Mbele

    In March 2022, United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres warned of a ‘hurricane of hunger’ due to the war in Ukraine. Forty-five developing countries, most of them on the African continent, he said, ‘import at least a third of their wheat from Ukraine or Russia, with 18 of those import[ing] at least 50 percent’. Russia and Ukraine export 33% of global barley stocks, 29% of wheat, 17% of corn, and nearly 80% of the world’s supply of sunflower oil. Farmers outside of Russia and Ukraine, trying to make up for the lack of exports, are now struggling with higher fuel prices also caused by the war. Fuel prices impact both the cost of chemical fertilisers and farmers’ ability to grow their own crops. Maximo Torero Cullen, chief economist at the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation, said that ‘one of every five calories people eat have crossed at least one international border, up more than 50 percent from 40 years ago’. This turbulence in the global food trade will certainly create a problem for nutrition and food intake, particularly amongst the poorest people on the planet.

    Poorer countries do not have many tools to stem the tide of hunger, largely due to World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules that privilege subsidy regimes for richer countries but punish poorer ones if they use state action on behalf of their own farmers and the hungry. A recent report by no less than the WTO, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development provided evidence of these subsidy advantages from which wealthier countries benefit. At the 12th WTO ministerial conference in mid-June, the G-33 countries will seek to expand the use of the ‘peace clause’ (established in 2013) to allow poorer countries to protect their farmers’ livelihoods through the state procurement of food and enhanced public food distribution systems.

    Two young girls return to their homes after drawing water from a stream that the farm dwelling community shares with wild animals, 29 July 2020.
    Credit: New Frame / Magnificent Mndebele

    Those who grow our food are hungry, yet, stunningly, there is little conversation about the poverty and hunger of farmers, peasants, and agricultural workers themselves. More than 3.4 billion people – nearly half the world’s population – live in rural areas; amongst them are 80% of the world’s poor. For most of the rural poor, agriculture is the principal source of income, providing billions of jobs. Rural poverty is reproduced not because people do not work hard, but because of the dispossession of rural workers from land ownership and the withdrawal of state support from small farmers and peasants.

    Tricontinental: Institute for Social Research (South Africa) has been paying very close attention to the plight of farmworkers in the region as part of our overall project to monitor the ‘hurricane of hunger’. Our most recent dossier, This Land Is the Land of Our Ancestors, is a fine-grained study of farmworkers from their own perspective. Researcher Yvonne Phyllis travelled from KwaZulu-Natal to the Western and Northern Cape provinces interviewing farmworkers and their organisations to learn about the failures of land reform in South Africa and its impact on their lives. This is one of the few dossiers that begins in the first person, reflecting the intimate nature of politics surrounding the land issue in South Africa. ‘What does the land mean to you?’, I asked Yvonne while we were together in Johannesburg recently. She answered:

    I grew up on a farm in Bedford, in the Eastern Cape province. My upbringing gifted me some of the best lessons of my life. One lesson was from the community of farmworkers and farm dwellers; they taught me the value of being in community with other people. They also taught me what it means to nurture and cultivate land and how to make my own meaning of what land is to me. Those lessons have informed my personal beliefs about the nature of land. All people deserve to live from the land. Land is not only important because we can produce from it; it forms part of people’s histories, humanity, and cultural heritage.

    Six generations of the Phyllis family have lived in this house and worked on this farm. Credit: New Frame / Andy Mkosi

    The process of colonialism by Dutch (Boer) and British settlers dispossessed African farmers and converted them into either landless workers, unpaid labour tenants, or the rural unemployed. This process was hardened by the Native Land Act (no. 27 of 1913), whose legacy continues to be felt today. Seventeen-year-old composer Reuben Caluza (1895–1969) responded to the law with his ‘Umteto we Land Act’ (‘The Land Act’), which became one of the first anthems of the liberation movement in the country:

    The right which our compatriots fought for
    Our cry for the nation
    is to have our country
    We cry for the homeless
    sons of our fathers
    Who do not have a place
    in this place of our ancestors

    The Freedom Charter (1955) of the African National Congress (ANC) and its allies promised those who struggled against apartheid, which formally ended in 1994, that ‘The land shall be shared among those who work it’. This promise was alluded to again in the 1996 South African Constitution, chapter 2, section 25.5, but it excludes explicit mention of farmworkers.

    This is the site of the ancestral graveyard of the Phyllis family on which Yvonne’s father Jacob and their family worked, 6 June 2021. Credit: New Frame / Andy Mkosi

    In fact, right from the 1993 Interim Constitution, the new post-apartheid system defended the rights of farm owners through a ‘property clause’ in chapter 2, section 28. Differences within the ANC led to the abandonment of the more progressive Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) in favour of the neoliberal Growth, Employment, and Redistribution (GEAR) strategy – a self-imposed structural adjustment programme. What this meant was that there were simply insufficient political will and state funds allocated for the land restitution, land tenure reform, and land redistribution programmes. As our dossier notes, to this day the promises of the Freedom Charter ‘have yet to be fulfilled’.

    Rather than expropriate land from the primarily white land-owning class to compensate for historical injustices, the state provides for compensation to landowners and operates on the principle of ‘willing buyer, willing seller’. Bureaucratic red tape and a lack of funds have sabotaged any genuine land reform project. In his 2014 Ruth First Lecture, Irvin Jim, general secretary of the largest trade union in the country, the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa (NUMSA), noted that the centenary of the 1913 Land Act was not commemorated by the government but only by the militant strike by farmworkers in 2012 and 2013. ‘The strike is still fresh in our memories’, Jim said. ‘It continues to highlight the colonial historical fact that the land, and the produce that comes from it, are not being equitably shared among those who work the land’. Due to the neoliberal orientation of the land question, some of the programmes set up for restitution and redistribution have ended up benefitting large landholders over subsistence farmers and lifelong farmworkers.

    Former labourers Freeda Mkhabela, Lucia Foster, and Gugu Ngubane (from left to right) are among the activists struggling against landlessness as well as poor pay and working conditions and for better treatment of farmworkers, 26 May 2021. Credit: New Frame / Mlungisi Mbele

    A genuine agrarian reform project in South Africa would not only meet the cries for justice from the land but would also provide a pathway to deal with the hunger crisis in the countryside. Our dossier ends with a six-point list of demands developed from our conversations with farmworkers and their organisations:

    1. The government of South Africa must consult farmworkers and farm dwellers to incorporate their contributions into the development of a land reform programme which addresses their land needs.
    2. Labour tenants’ claims to land ownership should be given priority in order to avoid land reform that solely enriches Black elites.
    3. The Department of Agriculture, Land Reform, and Rural Development should facilitate the process of white farm owners apportioning some of their farmland to lifetime employees and descendants of families who have worked on farms for several generations.
    4. The government must purchase farms for farmworkers and assist them with capital for start-up costs, farming equipment, and agricultural skills.
    5. Land reform in South Africa must take into account the social factors that contribute to food insecurity and acknowledge the opportunities to rectify it through land redistribution.
    6. The process of land reform must address the marginalisation of women workers in the agricultural industry and the lack of land ownership by women farmers to ensure gender parity in both spheres.

    Loo ngumhlaba wookhokho bethu! This is the land of our ancestors! That’s the slogan that gives our dossier its title. It is about time that those who work the land get to own the land.

    The post Land in South Africa Shall Be Shared Among Those Who Work It first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • #Tohellwithshell: Indigenous Peoples In South Africa Resist Oil And Gas Exploration

    On Monday, May 30, communities from South Africa’s Wild Coast gathered in front of a court in the city of Gqeberha. The day marked the beginning of a landmark 3-day legal challenge brought by these communities against gas and oil multinational Shell, Impact Africa, and the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (DMRE). The case is the culmination of a long struggle to protect the Wild Coast against oil and gas exploration. In 2014, the DMRE granted Impact Africa an exploration right off the East Coast. Impact Africa then sought to develop an Environment Management Programme (EMPr) required under the Mineral and Petroleum Services Development Act (MPRDA).

    This was done just months before South Africa implemented the One Environment System, which streamlined mining regulations and environmental authorizations under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA). According to legal non-profit Natural Justice, Impact Africa did not conduct an environmental impact assessment, and did not obtain an environmental authorization under NEMA. This authorization works to identify the potential impacts of a project on the environment, social and economic conditions, and cultural heritage as well as allowing for an assessment of mitigation measures.

    The post #Tohellwithshell: Indigenous Peoples In South Africa Resist Oil And Gas Exploration appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Energy giant Shell just had a bad week. The next one could be even worse.

    Energy giant Shell took a reputational hit on 23 May. A longstanding consultant quit, accusing the company of enduring and wilful environmental harm, in a dramatic and very public fashion.

    The coming week could be even worse for the dirty energy behemoth. That’s because a court hearing begins on 30 May in South Africa – one which could ruin its plans to blast the ocean in search of more fossil fuels.

    Save the Wild Coast

    As The Canary previously reported, a number of groups and communities mounted legal action against Shell towards the end of 2021. The cases opposed the company’s imminent plans to conduct seismic testing along the Wild Coast. Such tests indicate whether there are fossil fuels present under the sea floor. It involves blasting the ocean with sound pulses on a regular basis over a period of months.

    As the Daily Maverick reported, current scientific evidence shows that seismic surveys widely and negatively impact ocean ecosystems, from tiny organisms like zooplankton to large mammals such as whales.

    Natural Justice and other environmental and human rights-focused groups filed an urgent interdict application at the end of November. The judge in that case ruled against them, so Shell started its testing. Wild Coast community members and groups filed a further urgent interdict in early December. The judge ruled in their favour. The judgment put a stop to Shell’s seismic activities, pending further legal proceedings.

    Back in court

    Those legal proceedings are due to take place between 30 May and 1 June. In the interim, two groups involved in the earlier case – Wild Justice and Greenpeace Africa – have applied to join the case brought by Wild Coast community members and groups. So the upcoming proceedings will also consider that joinder application.

    Both the South African government and Shell will be under the spotlight in the hearing. The applicants will argue that Shell doesn’t have the necessary environmental authorisation for the testing under the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) – nor has it adequately consulted with affected communities. Moreover, they assert that Shell’s Environmental Management Program (EMPr) for the testing is insufficient in regards to environmental harm and considering the rights of communities.

    The Department of Mineral Resources and Energy, meanwhile, stands accused of failing to consider both climate change and the interests of the “whole community”, including non-human ocean dwellers, when granting the exploration rights.

    In the previous proceedings, Shell argued that its EMPr serves as a NEMA authorisation. In a post about the Wild Coast situation, the company’s website asserts:

    We aim to minimise the impact of our projects on the environment and to be a good neighbour wherever we work, by contributing to the well-being of neighbouring communities.

    A good neighbour?

    The climate group Follow This recently provided Shell an opportunity to back up its claim to be a ‘good neighbour’, environmentally-speaking. The group, which attempts to secure change “from the inside” through proposing resolutions at shareholder meetings, called for the company to strengthen its climate goals at its AGM on 24 May.

    As the Guardian reported, Shell’s board urged investors to reject the Follow This resolution. Ultimately, the resolution only received 20% of the votes, meaning it failed to pass.

    Shell’s opposition to the proposal gives further weight to Caroline Dennett’s characterisation of the company. The safety consultant, who worked with Shell for 11 years, dramatically quit on 23 May. In a LinkedIn post explaining the decision, she said:

    Shell is fully aware that their continued oil & gas extraction and expansion projects are causing extreme harms, to our climate, environment, nature and to people.

    The consultant accused the company of “double-talk” on climate and a “disregard” for the risks involved.

    The evidence clearly shows that fossil fuel companies like Shell continue to put their inflated bottom lines first in the face of the climate and biodiversity crises.

    Legal action, such as the imminent hearing in South Africa, provides an opportunity to force at least some of their expansion plans into reverse.

    Featured image via SABC News / YouTube

    By Tracy Keeling

    This post was originally published on The Canary.