Towards a comprehensive social protection system for a Just Transition in South Africa

Abstract

Despite South Africa’s carbon-intensive economy, research suggests that decarbonisation could result in net employment gains, provided the economy continues to grow (IASS, IET and CSIR, 2022; Merven et al., 2021; Rogan et al., forthcoming). While these projections are encouraging, the early distributional effects of emission reductions are likely to be unequal, with Black African workers, women and youth disproportionately at risk of job displacement during the initial years of the transition (Rogan et al., forthcoming). Social protection is one policy instrument that can help to mitigate the adverse impacts of both climate-related shocks, and decarbonisation policies. The Framework for a Just Transition in South Africa proposes sector-specific and regionally targeted social protection measures along the coal and automotive value chains, as well as agriculture and tourism (PCC, 2022). While it is critical to ensure that workers directly displaced by decarbonisation policies are adequately compensated and supported through tailored social protection measures (see Bhorat et al., 2025), this paper argues that a targeted sectoral approach will be insufficient to ensure a just transition to a low-carbon economy. This paper presents a conceptual framework and costed policy proposals for a comprehensive social protection system in support of a just transition. The conceptual framework draws on analysis of policy gaps in South Africa’s social protection system, international approaches to social protection for a just transition, semi-structured interviews with policy makers and practitioners, and case studies of particular sectors. The costing exercise examines three policy measures: a targeted Just Transition Income Support Grant (JTIS) for workers directly displaced by decarbonisation policies; a Universal Unemployment Grant (UUG) for unemployed adults between the ages of 18 and 59; and climate-responsive public employment programmes (PEPs). For each, we estimate the fiscal implications under minimalist, moderate and maximalist scenarios. The objective is not to present definitive policy prescriptions, but rather to explore potential pathways towards a comprehensive social protection system that can guide planning, phasing, and financing strategies. The paper concludes with a reflection on financing options. In addition to new sources of tax financing – e.g. taxes on high-income and high-wealth individuals, increased corporate taxes, taxes on digital financial services, climate-specific taxes – the paper argues for the need to strengthen the redistributed character of social insurance through the establishment of a national social security fund (NSSF).