Formatos audiovisuales y electrónicos, televisión y video

Inconsistency in waste legislation also becomes evident in the various policy documents. For exam-ple, although recycling is promoted in NEMA, waste pickers are not mentioned; in the NWMS of 1999 they are, but only with regard to the planned phasing out of landfill salvaging. Samson, referring to Benjamin, notes that salvaging is mentioned for the first time in a policy document with the White Paper on Integrated Pollution and Waste Management for South Africa (IP&WM), published in 2000 by DEAT.⁴³³

The White Paper was compiled to outline the government‘s ―new thinking in relation to pollution and waste management‖.⁴³⁴ The policy declared a shift in the approach to waste from the focus on end-of-pipe treatment in previous legislation, to a cradle to grave approach, ―preventing pollution and waste and avoiding environment degradation.‖⁴³⁵ The overall aim of the IP&WM was to establish ―[…] a holistic and integrated system and process of management, aimed at pollution prevention and minimi-sation at source, managing the impact of pollution and waste on the receiving environment and reme-diating damaged environments.‖⁴³⁶

431 Hallowes and Munnik, Wasting the Nation, p. 73

432 Melanie Samson, Reclaiming Livelihoods: The Role of Reclaimers in Municipal Waste Management Systems (Pieter-maritzburg: groundWork, 2008), p. 2

433 Samson, ‗Reclaiming Reusable and Recyclable Materials in Africa‘, p. 18

434 Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, White Paper on Integrated Pollution and Waste Management for South Africa: a policy on pollution prevention, waste minimisation, impact management and remediation, Government Gazette, Vol. 417, No. 20978 (Pretoria: DEAT, 2000), p. 5

435 DEAT, White Paper on Integrated Pollution and Waste Management for South Africa, p. 5

436 Ibid., p. 10

126

The rationale behind this shift was not only to follow international trends, but to comply with national objectives of efficient and effective management of the country‘s resources. One would expect the policy to be sympathetic to informal reclaiming as a (at least temporal) means to work towards these goals. But on the contrary, it takes a hard stand against salvaging and for instance stipulates that it must be phased out and ―will not be allowed to commence on landfills where it is not currently taking place‖.⁴³⁷ The White Paper does, however, not include a strategy regarding how this is supposed to be implemented and how conditions could be improved in the meantime.

In general, legislation affecting the operation of landfills in South Africa is relatively new. Until the implementation of the Environment Conservation Act (Act 73 of 1989) in 1989 there was no standard procedure for permitting; the conditions varied geographically and over time. Sections 20 and 24, spell out the legal requirements of acceptable operation of landfill sites. The Conservation Act was amended by the Environmental Conservation Amendment Act, 2003 (Act 50 of 2003), which states that ―[…] no person shall establish, provide or operate any disposal site without a Permit issued by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism.‖⁴³⁸ The issuing of a permit is subject to an Envi-ronmental Impact Assessment (EIA) by an independent consultant. Five years after the Conservation Act, the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) first published the Minimum Require-ments for Waste Disposal by Landfill in September 1994. Then in 1998 a second edition followed, which included feedback from workshops held to involve Interested and Affected Parties (IAPs) and other sources. In the third edition, published in 2005, more regulatory and technical aspects were in-cluded and adapted after first experiences of implementation.⁴³⁹ Furthermore, since 2005 the Depart-ment of EnvironDepart-mental Affairs is responsible for the landfill permit process and its supervision.⁴⁴⁰

Whereas the first and second editions of 1994 and 1998 only mentioned waste pickers in passing, and left room for interpretation, the third edition deals with salvaging in considerable detail. In a footnote in the preface the departments make their stand on waste pickers clear. It is positive on the one hand, as it acknowledges the existence of waste pickers and the importance of reclaiming for their liveli-hoods and aims at improving the conditions for them at the landfill sites. On the other hand, it has a negative taste to it, as the true intentions (―control‖ and ―phase out‖) shimmer through. They imply

437 Ibid., p. 38

438 Department of Water Affairs & Forestry, Waste Management Series. Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, Third Edition, (Pretoria: 2005), p. vi

URL: http://www.gk-it.co.za/legislation/RequirementsWasteDisposalLandfillSep05Full.pdf Accessed: 08.05.2013

439 Ibid., p. iii

440 Ibid., p. iv

127

that salvaging is merely tolerated and that the approach of the departments is one of exclusion rather than inclusion (which was manifested in the 2008 Waste Act):

Although the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry and the Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism strongly support waste separation at source for further re-use, recycling and recovery, they recognise that waste salvaging takes place at landfills in South Africa and that it may be the only form of livelihood for local families. The intention in setting require-ments for professionalising waste salvaging practices is to control salvaging and protect the dignity and health of salvagers until salvaging is phased out.⁴⁴¹

In the Appendix on waste salvaging this stance is reaffirmed and explained in more detail. The argu-ments against salvaging are brought forward. It lists economic, aesthetic as well as health and safety reasons that affect the landfill operation in a detrimental way:

Although salvaging is forbidden at waste disposal sites in South Africa, uncontrolled salvag-ing still takes place. For operators, uncontrolled salvagsalvag-ing reduces the efficiency of the dis-posal operation, adversely affects aesthetics and standards, and increases safety risks and costs. For salvagers, uncontrolled salvaging involves men, women and children living under poor conditions and often exposed to the health and safety risks, including injury and death, when they work in close proximity to operating landfill plant at a busy working face. Howev-er, waste salvaging provides a livelihood and in many cases represents the sole source of fami-ly income. It is therefore a fact of life and is very difficult to eliminate once it is established. It must, therefore, be controlled.⁴⁴²

The choice of words (―eliminate‖) and the last sentence are reminiscent of the Apartheid approach to control (and contain) the population, in particular the (non-white) poor population. Reclaiming in this way is portrayed to be uncivilised and a threat not only to the safety of the waste pickers, but a threat to ―progress‖.

In the Minimum Requirements a whole section (Appendix 10.2) is included which deals with matters related to salvagers (the term used for waste pickers). In quite some detail laws, rules of conduct and requirements for both landfill permit holders and reclaimers are recorded. These policies ostensibly stem from health and safety as well as economic concerns and seem to be in the best interest of per-mit holders and reclaimers. For example, it prohibits any form of reclamation on hazardous waste sites. However, they set such high (administrative) barriers that they discourage permit holders from landfill salvaging. For example, waste salvaging has to be formalised in the Landfill Operating Plan, which includes regular communication between the landfill management and the reclaimers as well as their registration and the provision of appropriate safety measures. Furthermore, ―it is a Minimum

441 Ibid., p. iii

442 Ibid., p. 269

128

Requirement that the operator ensures strict control of the salvaging operation […] The operator must also provide protective clothing, drinking water, and ablution and sanitation facilities.‖⁴⁴³

The point here is not to criticise policies that aim at better health and safety or the like per se, but that they tend to be – at least in parts – unsuited for South African realities. For example, why would a recycling company build ablution and sanitation facilities for salvagers (which is required), if it only has a short term tender? Another problem seems to be the difficulties around implementation of these policies. It becomes clear that it is indeed designed as a transition policy until reclaiming on landfills is phased out completely. The Western Cape and Cape Town have therefore decided to terminate all landfill salvaging from 2008 on.⁴⁴⁴ In a developing country like South Africa with high unemploy-ment and many poor people this approach seems to be rather unworldly.

Implementation, however, will still require a lot of efforts and time. Apart from the fact that more or les all households thus far only have one bin for household wastes and only a few drop-off points for recyclables are scattered across the city, there is currently no visible incentive/encouragement to re-cycle (the environmental conscious and waste reclaimers aside). Thus, in the meantime salvaging should be viewed as part of the reclaiming efforts. According to a footnote in the Minimum Require-ments, in 2001 surveys conducted in Johannesburg by the Jarrod Ball & Associates Consortium ("In-formal Salvagers Survey on the Landfills of the City of Johannesburg", Report No. 1b), found that about 2% of the total waste stream entering a landfill is reclaimed by salvagers. It also mentions that the potential for waste reclamation is as high as 45%. ⁴⁴⁵

The Minimum Requirements determine that the ―Permit Holder is primarily and ultimately accounta-ble for the disposal site, the health and safety of workers and salvagers on the site, and any impact the site may have on the receiving environment.‖⁴⁴⁶ It was therefore up to the permit holder‘s discretion whether salvaging was permitted or not (except for hazardous waste sites, where it‘s forbidden), es-pecially when it already existed at a site.⁴⁴⁷ In case of existing reclaiming ―the Permit Holder may either eliminate it, which is difficult, or accommodate the salvagers in terms of the Minimum Re-quirements.‖ ⁴⁴⁸ Overall – in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act (Act 85 of 1993) – the permit holder (or employer) is responsible for the safety of reclaimers.⁴⁴⁹ This obligation

443 Ibid., p. 127

444 Chvatal, A Study of Waste Management Policy Implications for Landfill Waste Salvagers in the Western Cape.

445 DWAF, Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill, p. 126

446 Ibid., p. vii

447 Ibid., p. 61

448 Ibid., p. 127

449 Ibid., p. 127

129

to indemnify the DEA from any responsibility is another disincentive for landfill permit holders and managers to allow salvaging on site and to legitimise the activities of waste pickers.

In addition to the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the other legal requirements, the operation of the landfill site must comply with the Constitution (Bill of Rights) in that it may not deprive people of the right to earn an income.⁴⁵⁰ This in an important point in the light of South Africa as a develop-ing country with widespread poverty. State policies have failed thus far to curb unemployment signif-icantly, and there are more than two million discouraged work seekers⁴⁵¹ of whom many also have little or no social security (payments). If salvaging is prohibited and eventually phased out while at the same time no jobs or income opportunities (in sufficient numbers) are created, then this contra-venes the aforementioned Constitutional right to earn an income.