Text of the submission by the EU Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Southern Africa on the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill, as presented to the Portfolio Committee on Trade & Industry, Parliament, September 15 2015

THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF INVESTMENT BILL 2013: SUBMISSION BY THE EU CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY IN SOUTHERN AFRICA

AUGUST 2015

A. BACKGROUND

The European Union Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Southern Africa (hereafter EU Chamber) is a member-driven, non-profit organisation representing European business in South Africa and the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC region). The Chamber brings together and co-ordinates all South African-based bilateral Chambers of Commerce of EU member states and EU companies on jointly identified topics, consolidating opinions and views and interacting with government and regulatory authorities in a structured and collective manner.

The mission of the EU Chamber is to support EU-based companies in advocating towards an attractive investment and business climate in Southern Africa through policies, which duly acknowledge the essential role of responsible and long-term foreign direct investment (FDI) to the sustainable and inclusive growth of Southern Africa.

EU companies and investors continue to be an important long-term and substantive contributor to South Africa’s economic growth, development and transformation. There are, at present, approximately 2,000 EU companies invested in South Africa – representing 77% of total FDI stock in the country. These companies have created over 300,000 direct jobs and approximately 150,000 indirect jobs. The creation of jobs has also been accompanied by the widespread provision of vocational and educational training, up-skilling, and management development. EU investors have played an important part in technology transfer, with many high-tech, high skill companies located in South Africa. They also play a key role in export development, not just directly, but also by operating African regional headquarters in South Africa to service operations throughout the African continent. EU investment thus contributes significantly to the achievement of the objectives of broad-based Black Economic Empowerment.

B. INTRODUCTION

The EU Chamber of Commerce and Industry welcomes the call by the Portfolio Committee on Trade and Industry for submission of written input on the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill, 2015 (the Bill), and the opportunity to make this submission to the Committee. The EU Chamber would like to follow up with an oral presentation to the Committee if offered the opportunity.

We have discussed the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill with a number of stakeholders including, but not limited, to European multinationals invested in South Africa for a considerable period of time by way of significant investments in manufacturing operations and regional headquarter operations as well as new European market entrants who are currently considering capital investments in manufacturing, distribution and research facilities in South Africa.

The criteria we have applied in our analysis are:

1) How will the current draft of the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill contribute to SA's economic objectives, as stated in the State of the Nation Addresses of 2014 and 2015?

2) Will the Bill attract more FDI from long-term strategic investors in the near future or rather lead to further outflows into other African countries?

3) Which consequences will the current Bill have on actual operational day-to-day investment procedures?

We would like to draw your attention to the fact that the recent withdrawal of South Africa’s Bilateral Investment Treaties (with EU member states) sent a negative message to the EU business community regarding the long-term standard of protection of investments in South Africa. As the Committee might be aware, no less than 13 of South Africa’s Bilateral Investment Treaties (hereafter BITs) were entered into with EU member states.

In addition to creating a negative signalling effect, the changes have also increased the cost of doing business in South Africa for investments from member state investors where an increased (risk insurance) premium is associated with investing in countries with which there are no BITs in place.

Not surprisingly, the EU Chamber (as in its previous configuration as the EU-SA Business Links forum) has participated in various stages of the consultation process leading to the present Bill; initially, through the Department’s public consultation process, and later through direct discussions with the Department (as noted in 3.1 and 3.2 of the Memorandum to the Bill). During these phases, we have submitted comments and input into the process, and suggested some amendments to the Department.

The submission below relates to the current version of the Bill. It is divided into: general comments on the Bill in the light of the criteria set out further above; a section-by-section highlighting of a number of salient issues; and a conclusion.

C. GENERAL COMMENTS

I. How will the current draft of the Promotion and Protection of Investment Bill contribute to SA's economic objectives, as stated in the State of the Nation Addresses of 2014 and 2015?

The State of the Nation Address given by His Excellency President Jacob G. Zuma, on the occasion of the Joint Sitting of Parliament on 17 June 2014, stated the following economic objectives:

“The economy takes centre stage in this programme. It remains our strong belief that the most effective weapon in the campaign against poverty, is the creation of decent work, and that creating work requires faster economic growth. We have set a growth target of 5 per cent by 2019. To achieve this, we will embark on various measures and interventions to jump-start the economy …

… The low level of investments is a key constraint to economic growth. We are determined to work with the private sector to remove obstacles to investment. We would like to see the private sector showing as much confidence in the economy as the public sector. We will continue to engage business in promoting inclusive growth and to build a more prosperous society.”

His Excellency President Zuma, re-confirmed the government’s objectives in his State of the Nation Address on 12 February 2015:

“Our economy needs a major push forward. We would like to share with you our nine-point plan to ignite growth and create jobs.

These are:

1) Resolving the energy challenge.

2) Revitalising agriculture and the agro-processing value chain.

3) Advancing beneficiation or adding value to our mineral wealth.

4) More effective implementation of a higher impact Industrial Policy Action Plan.

5) Encouraging private sector investment.

6) Moderating workplace conflict.

7) Unlocking the potential of small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs), cooperatives, township and rural enterprises.

8) State reform and boosting the role of state owned companies, information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructure or broadband roll-out, water, sanitation and transport infrastructure as well as

9) Operation Phakisa aimed growing the ocean economy and other sectors.

Honourable Minister Gugile Nkwinti clarified the statement relating to private sector investment in the Economic Sector, Employment and Infrastructure Development Cluster post-State of the Nation Address media briefing on 24 Feb 2015:

“The private-sector has a clear role to play in growing the South African economy. Government has repeatedly articulated this and we believe that the US$8 billion in Foreign Direct Investment which flowed into SA in 2013 bears testimony to this. Where concrete constraints to investment have been identified Government has moved to address these ... What has been more difficult to address has been the perception of a trust deficit between government and the private-sector … We will also convene a regular interaction with the private sector to better communicate our policies to create policy certainty.”

European investors take a long-term perspective when it comes to FDI. Whilst they strive for reliability and predictability in terms of investment frameworks, they invest heavily in transformational change and societal programmes. Typical examples for the approach are Unilever, a leader in the global FMCG sector, and Johnson Matthey, a leading speciality company. See case studies in Annexes 1 and 2.

This balanced economic and socially conscious approach can only work on the basis of risk-aversion. From this perspective, and acknowledging the stated right and duty of government to regulate in the public interest; it is the view of the EU Chamber that the substance and detail of the Bill, viewed against its purpose, does not provide for sufficient certainty or clarity regarding the substance and content of the domestic investment protection regime. As a law of general application, particularly one that influences and informs investment decisions, more precise wording would have been welcomed.

By limiting the rights and expectations of committed and long-term investors and the predictability of changes which may affect their investments, including expropriation, the current Bill could invariably attract short-term investors, who do not pay much attention to investment frameworks, either because of the short turnaround time of their investments, or because they enjoy other preferential arrangements. However, we strongly believe that these kinds of investments are not of the character targeted by South Africa, and will not contribute to the transformation objectives pursued and needed by South Africa.

II. Will the draft Bill attract more FDI from long-term strategic investors in the near future or rather lead to further outflows into other African countries? How will market perceptions be altered in the relation to a) global practices and b) the recently available investment mechanisms provided by the BITs?

At this very moment we are aware of a number of projects that are pending due to the degree of uncertainty related to the investment framework. As we speak, some of our members are actively investigating other African destinations, such as Namibia, Nigeria and Kenya for their regional African operations. The current Bill promotes discomfort leading to discouragement related to new investments by a number of aspects discussed below.

Standard Of Treatment

In general, the Bill does not appear to EU investors to provide sufficient substantive protection – both absolutely and relative to other categories investors (both local and foreign). In fact, the suggested provisions rather blur the existing level of protection, including under domestic law. The EU Chamber further observes that, despite the Bill’s stated purpose of offering equal treatment to all investors in South Africa, it appears, in parts, to even lock-in less favourable treatment for certain groups of investors. Inevitably, investors will compare their degree of risk in the international context and will find that other investment destinations, such as Vietnam[1], set different standards.

Providing for Adequate and Equal Protection to all Classes of Investor

Even though the Bill “seeks to provide “adequate and equal protection to [all classes of investor]”, as the explanatory memorandum to the Bill states (both de facto and de jure), the review process has created quite a differentiated system of protection for different categories of investors. It is the concern of the EU Chamber that the Bill could, in fact, lock-in inferior treatment certain categories of vis-à-vis domestic investors, and foreign investors whose BITs have not been terminated (or have been renegotiated). As discussed further below, this becomes particularly glaring in an analysis of the scope and content of the national treatment section.

Investment Promotion

Lastly, the EU Chamber is of the view that the Bill is lacking in substantive “promotion of investment” aspects.

III. Which consequences will the current Bill have on actual operational day-to-day investment procedures?

After reflecting on the current Bill, the Chamber takes the view that it would tremendously benefit the development of constitutional case law if aspects addressed in the Bill would be deliberated on a higher level of authority, i.e. the Constitution. We shall illustrate our views by the below stated aspects.

Uncertainty over the Value of Treatment Offered by the Bill

In the memorandum to the Bill, it is stated that it has been the intention of the Department to “clarify provisions typically found in [BITs], by codifying them in the Bill and ensuring compliance with the Constitution”. Despite this intent, it is extremely difficult to determine scope and content of many of the sections of the Bill. There are a number of substantive, interpretative, and drafting aspects of the Bill that cause the EU business community to be uncertain of the protections available to their investments. Several sections in the Bill are still drafted in broad language or in an open-ended manner. In case of required clarifications and guidance, the Constitutional Court of South Africa would offer more weight and authority than local High Courts in the perception of international investors, at least at this stage. Most investor rights contained in the Bill are subject to exceptions – and these, in turn, are by and large designated as non-exhaustive.

The EU Chamber further notes that several of the provisions of the Bill rely on other pieces of legislation (many of which are not yet in operation, are in the process of review, or require review), to give shape and content to them. Examples of these are the Expropriation Bill, the Valuation Bill, and the old Arbitration Act.

Transparency and Predictability

It is vital that rules governing the protection of investment rules are clear, transparent, and predictable. These are critical factors influencing individual investors’ long-term decisions to invest or reinvest, and at what levels. It is our opinion that the substance and detail of investment protections in this Bill do not covey the message of security and predictability to investors. Arbitration platforms are either not identified or their establishment is not compulsory. It is our view, that this reduced certainty could not have been an intended consequence of this Bill.

D. SECTION-BY-SECTION COMMENTS / SPECIFIC COMMENTS

Definitions

Measure

It is not clear to the EU Chamber why the definition of ‘‘measure’’ ascribes the term to only administrative action. This definition is unduly limited, and does not cover the full gamut of measures as they are envisaged in this Bill. In the various references to measures contained in the Bill, it is clear that policy, legislation, and regulations are also included in the definition.

In view of this, we propose the following definition be considered.

“measure refers to binding governmental action directly affecting an investor or its investment, and includes laws, regulations, and administrative action …”

This definition is more consistent with the rest of the Bill; and is also in line with its commonly understood variations in investment protection nomenclature.

Investment

The definition of “investment” does not comprehensively clarify whether minority equity investments by investors, i.e. portfolio or venture capital investments for example, who may or may not have established a corporation in South Africa, fall under the definition stipulated in the Bill and the memorandum. However, these financial investors provide relevant capital transfers into growth sectors, such as renewable energy projects and SMME’s in general. Further to that point, does the sole fact of being incorporated in South Africa constitute “a physical presence” as mentioned in the Memorandum?

Section 4: Purpose of Act

Within the stated objective of consistency with the public interest, it is the stated need of the Bill to promote and protect investment. As already noted, it is the view of the EU business community that, read as a whole, the Bill does not adequately reflect the need to promote and protect investment.

Section 7: National treatment

The EU Chamber notes that the bill contains a national treatment section, a typical buffer against (relative) discriminatory treatment of foreign investments. In theory, the national treatment section should give investors the assurance that they will not be discriminated against. As presently drafted, however, the EU business community has reason to have reservations about the overall utility of this section.

Firstly, the inclusion of the phrase “subject to national legislation” in the context of a national treatment section is curious. Quite apart from being all-encompassing, it is inherently contradictory. In general, it is not national legislation that gives content to a national treatment obligation in a BIT (or, in this case BIT-inspired) national treatment clause. In fact, subject to internal limitations, it would typically be the opposite.

The EU Chamber is cognisant that there will be, in some cases, instances of legitimate differentiation by government between different categories of investor. However, in the case of the current Bill internal limitations covering these instances are contained in the “like circumstances” qualification (read with 11), which is discussed below.

For its part, the wording of the “like circumstances” qualification still leaves the scope and content of the national treatment protection unclear. While interpretive guidelines have been included in the Memorandum to the Bill, it is still not immediately clear how likeness will be transposed into the context of domestic legislation or interpreted in a court of law. Even the guidelines provided in s7(2) are non-exhaustive and have been couched in broadly worded language. As we have cautioned in previous submissions, if a narrow definition of likeness is locked-in, this could result in foreign investors being seldom in “like circumstances” with local investors, and in them being de facto excluded from the extension of national treatment protection.

Given that this Bill applies to all investors, and does not contain any complementary absolute standards of treatment (such as a form of “fair and equitable treatment” section), recourse for EU investors who perceive that they have been treated unfairly may well be limited.

Overall, this skews protection in favour of domestic investors and foreign investors who have other avenues of recourse under BITs that are still in operation (or have been renegotiated). [2]

Lastly, we also note the addition of subsection 4 to this section (which was not in the original national treatment section of the bill). The insertion of this subsection merely reinforces the concerns discussed.

Section 8: Security of Investment

In general, the section is overly broadly worded, and does not make clear what the obligations of government are, nor make clear the nature of protections investors will be entitled to. As with other broadly worded sections, the EU Chamber is unclear what the content of this section is. Earlier versions of the Bill contained more detail. The wording “subject to available resources and capacity” indicates a caveat that may have far-ranging administrative and financial ramifications. We suggest omitting this constraint, as it could constitute a poison pill for the intended purpose of the Bill, that is, to provide assurance and clarity.

We note, further, a specific change in the wording in this version. The original section in the first draft Bill read; “The Republic must accord foreign investors and their investments and returns, equal level of security as may be generally provided to other investors and subject to available resources and capacity.”

In the present version, the terms “and returns” and “equal” have been deleted. While it is not clear why this change has been effected, it would appear that this dilutes the content of this protection for foreign investors.

We propose that the two deleted words be reinserted into the Bill.

Section 9: Protection of Property

The EU Chamber notes that section 9 of the Bill refers to the constitutional right to property - without elaboration. This is of concern to the EU business community, as it is trite that issues regarding principles relating to expropriation are inherent to this section. The silence of this section on any the details relating to expropriation is worrisome for the Chamber. The manner in which expropriation is handled is a key issue for EU investors, and a key consideration in their investment decision-making. So, the current section is not helpful for determining the scope and content of this protection.

The constitution is necessarily couched in broad terms and is intended to be concretised in legislation. Section 25 clearly requires the principles relating to expropriation to be given effect to through a law of general application. However, there is still no current (up-to-date) legal framework for expropriation. The law of general application in question is presently in the form of two bills not yet assented into law - the Valuation Bill and the Expropriation Bill – which are still the subject of public consultations in the national assembly.

Without reference to the actual final acts that will govern expropriation it is not possible to know how the detail of the procedural and substantive elements of expropriation will be handled. This makes it difficult to appreciate the scope and content of this section, and precludes an informed assessment.

Given the centrality of expropriation principles to an investment protection scenario and to a piece of legislation such as this one, it would have been (under normal circumstances), ideal to have more detail. For present purposes, the EU Chamber records concerns around the following issues:

- as we have noted in previous submissions, the standard value of compensation in many of the BITs to which EU member states were party with South Africa was “full market value”;

- the EU investor community is fully aware that the formulation in the Constitution is “fair and equitable” market value, and further that this is one in a list of considerations to be taken into account. However, there are divergent views (even among academics and property rights practitioners) on the content of constitutional jurisprudence on the matter of compensation; and

- the Expropriation Bill is still the subject of intense debate, and the EU investor community notes that there remain a number of issues of contention surrounding that Bill.

Section 11: Right to regulate

While general and subject exceptions are a natural upshot of the stated public interest balance, as well as the stated right to regulate, it is our general assessment that the manner in which they have been crafted does not provide for sufficient clarity.

We note that it is a stated purpose of the Bill to promote and protect investment and ensure a balance of rights and obligations. The nature of this balance, and thus the inherent value of protections contained in the entire Bill can only be assessed against how precisely the public policy exceptions contained in the Bill are defined.

There is a need for the inclusion of more precise language. We note that, depending on how expansive the exceptions are drafted and how expansively they may eventually be interpreted, the value of any protections in this Bill could be obviated.

Indeed, in adding the following terms in s11(1) (which were not in its original version), the Bill has made the exceptions even more expansive and open-ended, which has only served to magnify the Chamber’s initial concerns:

- “notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act”;

- “and applicable legislation”;

- “which may include”.

Sections 12: Dispute Resolution

In our original submission to the Department, we expressed particular concern regarding the exclusion of international investor-state dispute settlement from the Bill. In itself, this has generated a negative signal to some from within the EU investor community. The EU Chamber’s submission argued that as the Bill already seemed to favour a local remedies requirement, it would be the case that recourse would be had to domestic legal processes. The Chamber, therefore, expressed the view that international arbitration should be completely written-out, if the conditions for such recourse were appropriately ring-fenced. We note that the Department has introduced a concession in the form of state-state dispute settlement. It is discussed in further detail below.

Litigation s12(3)

It is not clear why the qualification “subject to applicable legislation” has been added here. In our view, what this section was intended to relay is that investors “are not precluded” by anything in the Bill from pursing litigation in the courts or from referring a matter for review (or similar). And the applicable legislation, in this case, for claims under the Bill is the Bill itself.

We, accordingly propose the replacement of the current wording with wording from the original version of the Bill:

“Subsection (1) does not preclude an investor from approaching any court, competent, independent tribunal or statutory body for the resolution of a dispute relating to an investment”

Mediation; sections 12(2) and 12(2))

In the current version of the Bill, dispute settlement options such as mediation and arbitration, are supported in so far as they are suited to commercial exigencies.

The EU Chamber reiterates that, if it is to have any value relative to a court, or any other statutory body, mediation should be sensitive to issues around commercial exigencies; in particular, the need for speedy resolution of disputes, and issues around confidentiality. For the purposes of independence, and given the fact that the disputed action might be one taken by the government itself, it is also important that the mediator should be an independent structure and/or independent and neutral individual. Furthermore, a recognised structure for directing the dispute would be preferable to an ad hoc one. Some suggestions in this regard are made further down in paragraphs dealing with s13 of the Bill.

The EU Chamber, however, infers from the wording of s12(1) that the Bill is non-committal on the issue of mediation. Under the current wording of ss12(1) and 12(2); the Department can decline to accede to the request for mediation by an investor; and the Minister can also elect to not define criteria for the appointment of mediators.

Arbitration (State-State Arbitration s12(5))

The EU business community notes that the Bill has introduced recourse to international arbitration, in the form of state-state arbitration, into the Bill. We would like to preface our comments on this section by indicating that state-state arbitration has certain diplomatic aspects, in respect to which we would not be in a position to fully comment.

The section represents a codification of the customary international law right of home states to make claims, for damages suffered, on behalf of an investors. But it is not entirely clear how this will be given effect to, given that there is no specific legislative arrangement governing international arbitration of this nature in South Africa. Also, South Africa does not have pre-existing agreements with all investor home states consenting to submit claims to arbitration. It is presumed that an updated arbitral law would clarify some of these concrete aspects of application of this section and answer some of these questions. Only then can the practical utility of this section become clear.

With the presently available information, the EU Chamber makes the observation that:

Because it is state-state arbitration, the investor would have to lobby its own (home state) government to institute a claim. It is not guaranteed that the home state government will agree to embark on the arbitration; and

As the use of the word “may” in s12(5) suggests the process, from the side of the South African government, is voluntary to begin with;

Presumably, issues around: how consent to arbitration occurs; which arbitration centre will be designated; the procedures and rules that will be followed; and which arbitration rules will apply, will all be given effect to in new legislation.

Proposals Regarding Arbitration Law in South Africa

It is widely accepted that the current law governing arbitration in South Africa (the Arbitration Act of 1965) is antiquated and not suited to modern commercial disputes. It is also ill equipped to deal with international arbitration (as it was designed to deal with domestic arbitration). In view of the introduction of this present Bill and, in particular, some of the unanswered questions concerning articles 12 and 13, we would urge the government to oversee re-engagement on the modernisation of that act. This is, in any case, in line with the Law Reform Commission’s various proposals of the concerning the matter. It is also line with developments in South Africa’s neighbouring countries, many of which have modernised their arbitration legislation in the mould of UNCITRAL Model Law.

It is our understanding that the Law Reform Commission has reconvened on this matter, and that a process has been reinstituted. While we are aware that there might be some movement, we have no clear idea on the status of that process. And while it would have been preferable for the updated arbitration regime to precede the enactment of this Bill, we look forward to an urgent finalisation of that process.

It has been suggested by some commentators that, through the new Arbitration Bill(s), government should consider consenting to investor-state international arbitration - with appropriate caveats “such as requiring the seat of arbitration to be in South Africa and the law governing the international arbitration to be South African law”.[3] This is in line with our own proposal for an appropriate ring-fencing.

Section 13 (read with ss12(1) to 12(3)):  Regulations

Generally

It appears that it is peremptory for the Minister to issue regulations under sections 12(3) and s13(2) while, under sections 12(2) and 13(1) it is not. We are not sure why this distinction has been made. We further note that this represents a change from the original Bill (from “must” to “may”), which had directed the Minister to issue regulations, under each of all these subsections.  

It is presumably because the Department believes that mediation is not mandatory, or that there will be situations wherein it would not be in a position to submit itself to arbitration. Another plausible explanation is that the Department is deferring to the finalisation of the arbitration legislative review.

The EU Chamber would, nevertheless, like to make some comments in that regard:

We are, in any case, of the view that the default should be that mediation should be available, particularly because it is an effort at dispute avoidance.

It is our view that, where a party is, for good cause, unwilling or unable to submit to mediation, the regulations should be able to make provision for this.

Even if is mediation is not considered mandatory, we do not support the defining the criteria for the appointment of a mediator of the rules and procedures governing mediation should be optional.

- the rules and procedures must exist so that they govern it when it does take place. Furthermore, the general investor community would need to know the full gamut rules and procedures are in case they should need to take the route in the future.

- The rules and procedures, and criteria for the appointment of the mediators would, in any case, be standard ones that would apply to every case.

Section 14: Transitional Arrangements

The EU Chamber notes the inclusion of this section. The matters contained therein are already taken by the Chamber as implied. However, as at the present time, the contents of this section relates most perceptibly to EU investors, it would be apt to make a few specific remarks.[4]

It is acknowledged that existing investment retains the protection of the terminated BITs for a further 10 - 20 years. But we would like to reiterate that the issues raised in this submission concern old investment, as much as they do new investment. These developments have been viewed, by both categories of investor, as profoundly altering the investment environment.

EU investment is, in general, long-term in nature. And investment planning extends beyond the lifespan of the BIT survival clauses. So without adequate certainty from any replacement regime - in this case, this Bill - investors might consider recalibrating their investments.

The investment regime overhaul comes at a time when South Africa needs to record significantly larger numbers of inward FDI (than it is presently) whilst protecting existing investments - and to position itself as “open to business”.

In our 2014 EU Business Climate Survey[5], the 150 EU companies (who are already present in South Africa) surveyed, by and large, expressed confidence in South Africa’s potential to support higher levels of investment and employment. However, the overarching investor sentiment was that there are a number of challenges within the present business environment. It was also apparent that these have variously affected business operations and efficiency.

While the majority of respondents indicated that they would still recommend South Africa as an investment destination, the survey reflected a deteriorating sentiment assessed against a previous version of the survey. We have also observed, anecdotally, that prospective investors (with the exception of a few sectors[6]) are comparatively more guarded at the moment about South Africa as an investment destination.

This occurs at a time when the South African economy is performing sub-optimally, and has faced a series of downward revisions to the national growth rate. The present growth rate is far below the targeted 2019 growth rate of at least 5% growth rate which is required to meet the requirements of the NDP. Within the context of deteriorating external conditions, it will be crucial to retain certainty regarding the domestic investment climate, allowing business and government to collaborate on interventions to reduce domestic constraints. We are of the strong view that this is required to grow the economy, increase employment and incomes, and avert the risk of South Africa landing in a “middle-income trap” of growth rates between 0-1%.

E. CONCLUSION

The EU business community plays a key role in the creation of sustainable jobs, and economic growth and development in South Africa. We remain committed to a mutually advantageous long-term relationship with the South African government and the South African people. As already noted, the withdrawal of South Africa’s BITs with EU member states has sent an alarming message to the EU business community regarding the standard of protection of investments in South Africa.

The new Bill does not sufficiently allay those concerns. In playing a constructive role in the economy, we underscore the importance of a secure and predictable investment regime, which offers adequate protections to investors. It is our firm belief that a number of aspects would be better dealt with directly on constitutional level than by way of this Bill.

The contributions made in this submission are provided in the light of our partnership, and we look forward to further engagement on the issues raised in this submission during oral hearings.

***

Case Study One: Unilever in South Africa

Unilever’s 1.4 billion Home Care factory was officially opened by Paul Polman, CEO of Unilever and the Minister of Trade and Industry, Dr Rob Davies in Boksburg on 2 June 2015. The Khanyisa factory forms a massive part of Unilever’s R3 billion ‘Capacity Transformation Project’ investment, in line with Unilever’s Sustainable Living Plan (USLP). This is a plan that reduces the carbon footprint while aiming to double the size of the business. The Khanyisa site will deliver a 50% reduction in the carbon emission footprint and a 70% reduction in water usage per ton. With Unilever’s investment in the Khanyisa factory, there will be significant new skills development due to the state of the art technology.

Khanyisa is one of several major projects in South Africa and Africa on a whole, as part of an overall strategy to upgrade the supply chain to world class levels. This investment will ensure a 67% increase in production capacity from 90 000 to 150 000 tons annually. The new factory will produce popular brands like Omo, Handy Andy, Domestos, Comfort and Sunlight amongst others. Speaking at the launch, the Minister of Trade and Industry, Dr Rob Davies said the Green technology, innovation and energy efficiency are the kind of investments that South Africa welcomes as part of climate change and industrialisation aspirations.

He said the success and growth of Unilever’s investment projects in the country will continue to communicate the message of South Africa as an ideal location for investment in Africa. “With the roll out of the Black Industrialist programme, Unilever’s investment could play a key role in knowledge sharing, technology and skills transfer to black industrialists in the FMCG, and Chemicals sector thus creating an opportunity for emerging companies to be able to participate in main stream economy,” said Davies.

He added that Unilever could work with the dti in deepening the supply chain especially with black industrialists through backward linkages in agriculture and the FMCG sector as well as building regional value chains on the African Continent.

Unilever’s global and local commitment is well explained on its website (see here)

***

Case Study Two: Johnson Matthey in South Africa

Johnson Matthey has established a technology research centre in Pretoria in 2014. The South African operation began in 1953 and since 1992 Johnson Matthey South Africa (JMSA) has been manufacturing catalysts at its Germiston (Gauteng) plant, supplying several local "canners" who fit the catalyst into the catalytic converter system for export to the motor vehicle assemblers.

JMSA Germiston signed up with the IEE Project in 2012 as a candidate plant for the implementation of an ISO 50001-based energy management system. The plant holds management system certification for ISO 9001/TS16949, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 and adopted the ISO 50001 approach as an integration and extension.

The Johnson Matthey Technology Centres carry out research work for the Johnson Matthey group. The growth of their worldwide businesses depends on the constant flow of new ideas. They work on e.g. these fields of science: Emission control

1) Catalysts and materials

2) Low carbon technologies

3) Fuel cells and electrochemistry

4) Platinum group metals refining

5) Advanced characterisation

6) New applications

Pretoria will be the latest addition to Johnson Matthey’s family of research centres that are based at Sonning Common, Berkshire, Billingham (both UK), Savannah (USA), and Singapore. Johnson Matthey’s sustainability programme can be found on its website (http://www.matthey.com/sustainability).

***