National Waste Management Strategy

The comments by the Solid waste Management Dept of the City of Cape Town made are on the content of the document that describes a draft National Waste Management Strategy, and the general intent and planning related to introduce waste minimisation from a municipal point of view.  In summary, there are various issues that still need careful consideration before a strategy or a roll-out plan is finalised.

These are:

·         The consideration of the definition of “waste” and when it ceases to be waste needs a lot of clarity to ensure authorising departments of EIA’s do not waste time on the confusion (as is being observed at the moment) and the steamlining of processes and functions in the private sector, upon which municipalities will always be reliant to make waste minimisation a success.

·         Clarity regarding roles and responsibilities of authorities vs. the private sector or any entity involved in the management of waste or recyclable materials vs. consumer responsibilities. The latter is far clearer and simpler and essentially is a function of education and awareness raising to inculcate new habits in support of recycling.

·         The setting of targets that are inextricably  interlinked between government (i.e. municipalities, where the integration must take place between privates sector processes and municipal waste management processes, and the processes for waste reduction to landfills must be enabled and partly implemented) and the private sector (not just the waste management sector, but all sectors involved in the production cycle, and the processing or treatment of waste to derive economic benefit from waste).

·         The creation and funding of sustainable alternatives, before regulating on waste that must be banned from landfills – the consequences could be unintended, but quite costly, considering that there may not be an affordable alternative for many municipalities that will lead to further pollution and contamination.

·         Using a phased approach to allow those roleplayers that are not even performing basic functions for basic service delivery to implement the basics before they are forced to implement recycling as part of municipal services.  Much of this has to do with funding, revenue management, capacity and capability.

·         Modelling: the dynamics of growth is more complex than just a single factor such as population growth (which is likely to always be positive).  Economic issues affect waste generation drastically as has been experienced in Cape Town over the last two years.  It is suggested that modelling takes this into account.

·         Full cost accounting to take socio-environmental issues and other indirect costs and benefits into account is not something that municipalities have the capacity or expertise for and should be done as a national study, perhaps as part of the input to new regulations.  While there is agreement that current methods are deficient and skew the conclusions of sustainability of certain technologies or approaches to waste minimisation, the inclusion of indirect costs in municipal budgets will require a change to the MFMA and municipal (public sector accounting standards).

·         Costing of proposed strategy, plan and initiatives: there is concern that the 2007 figures are not reflective of reality (current costs) that can be extrapolated into the medium to long term.

·         Targets: targets will be influenced by affordability measures and the reality of the availability of certain infrastructure that will enable waste minimisation.  There key geographic considerations (i.e. Gauteng is the hub of a lot of industrial activity, which means that affordability and viability for both a municipality and an industry will be influenced by logistics costs) that mitigate against setting targets too high, as it is likely to take a number of years before the infrastructure has been developed.

·         Equitable share and cross-subsidies: it is unclear who will be responsible for such cross-subsidies that are already taking place due to the equitable share being insufficient, especially in metros that have experienced extraordinary urbanisation that outstrips modelling done by the National Treasury.  There should also be consideration of “ring fencing” the waste portion of the Equitable Share Grant, which the MFMA does not allow at present.  This will ensure that the funds are applied as intended.

Specific comments on content of the document are:

P11/155: “...any portion of waste, once reused, recycled and recovered, ceases to be waste...” – interpretation and implications for recycling industry?  This provision is confusing, as the implication is that when waste is separated at source as is provided for in NEMWA, and it is recovered, it ceases to be waste.  Following on from this, it means that the intention of the EIA regulations become conflated and further confusing from an interpretation point of view.  Does this not conflict with the minimum requirements for a basic assessment or a full EIA when recovered waste (recyclate for all intents and purposes) is temporarily stored and handled to facilitate further separation? The question is: how will the competent authority decide what is required and what not when the base requirement may deem neither a basic assessment nor EIA unnecessary (when waste ceases to become waste)?

 P14/155: growth in waste – has the national modelling taken economic impacts on growth into account (as recently experienced with the global economic downturn, CT experienced a negative waste to landfill growth)?

P15/155: “...implementation of effective waste management strategies will serve to develop the economic potential of the waste management sector...”: This is indeed not the only sector that will develop or need developing, as there are other dependencies.  Effective waste management strategies are dependent on manufacturing and processing capacity, as well as the development of markets for manufactured products containing recycled materials. The “recycling industry” needs some definition to expand the context to include the processing and manufacturing sector.

P17/155: “opportunities for recycling” in a geographic area are a function of available infrastructure, transport, systems, mechanisms and capability to recover recyclate.

p.18/155: “...In general, waste services and landfill management charges are underpriced, and a large proportion of municipal waste divisions are operating at a loss. By making alternative waste management options relatively expensive, under-pricing waste service removes important incentives for waste minimisation and encourages higher levels of disposal to landfill....”.  This statement is not supported by fact, as the “loss” should be made up by charging additional rates, if the norms are applied during the municipal budgeting process.  There is in fact no incentive to be paid from the municipal account, as the budget is a “zero sum” budget” that requires cost recovery for any expenses incurred.  If waste is recovered for recycling, this is an additional activity that will cost in terms of additional infrastructure and services to be rendered (unless there is a viable alternative that can be introduced at little extra cost to a municipality).  Consumers/ waste generators cannot expect to be paid for waste even if it is recyclate with value if the “polluter pays” principle contained in NEMA is applied.

p.21/155 (also p.24): “Furthermore, the lack of full cost accounting of landfill management has made treatment seem comparatively expensive and resulted in disposal to landfill becoming the preferred waste management option.”  There are key factors to be considered in this argument:

1) “full cost accounting” necessarily has to consider externalities (direct costs or benefits) to the management of waste or the function in question. This exercise is of national importance and has to receive attention from the national regulator, and should perhaps be considered as part of a set of standards that have to be developed and can be applied universally (in the SA context anyway).

2) in terms of current accounting practices for municipal budgeting, only direct costs can be considered, so even if the full cost accounting exercise is completed, this would have little value unless the accounting standards allow for the inclusion of indirect costs.

3) If this exercise is to be considered, it should include ALL waste management functions and not only landfill, otherwise this cannot be “full cost accounting”.  To explain, the logistical cost of collection and perhaps additional transfer station costs (all inclusive of opex and capex) are part of the value chain to be considered i.r.o. direct cost, after which the indirect components should be added.

4) Two aspects are key considerations: landfill gate fees (which are relatively low by a factor 10 compared to Europe), and the local price of electricity (which will be the real incentive to pursue alternatives that include energy generation from waste.

P23/155: ”Discourage waste generation through cost reflective and volume based tariffs” – this is a panacea, considering the reality of economic circumstances (such as are being experienced now), and political will.  An additional consideration is the reality of increasing tariffs overnight that have been too low for many years.  Volume-based tariffs require a further investment in sophisticated weighing and data capturing equipment which should be robust enough to withstand local conditions.  While this may be standard practice in some overseas countries, it will take further innovation to develop robust enough technology.  A further consideration is the alternatives to post-consumption tariffs.  If the problem is consumption-based then the addition of a levy prior to consumption may be a fairer way of recovering the necessary cost to keep recycling sustainable.  This would be in line with extended producer responsibilities as intended by both NEMWA and the Consumer Protection Act (S.59), which confers rights on consumers that will have cost implications for the role players in a product’s value chain.

p 25/155: “establish a hotline to report non-compliance” – this is a noble thought, but the question is who and how will this be followed up and enforced?

p.30/155: “Industry Waste Management Plans will include targets and measures for waste minimisation and recycling...” - how will these targets relate to the targets that are intended for municipalities?  There is a direct relationship that will have a bearing on practical, realistic targets for municipalities – if the industry creates the markets, then these targets will be achievable.

p.31/155: “The current pricing of waste disposal will be reviewed in order to build in incentives for waste minimisation by consumers. Historically municipalities have undercharged for waste services, and in terms of costing options, only one option, or fixed cost, has been made available to households. Since waste disposal charges are set at a fixed rate, there is no financial incentive for disposers to recycle and reduce waste generated.”  This relates to the comment from the similar section on p.23.  Councils have the right to set tariffs and rates per the Constitution and the Municipal Systems Act, so it is unclear how these tariffs could be “nationalized”?

p.32/155: “Waste generation and recycling activities are broadly linked to income levels - the more affluent the household, the higher the proportion of recyclable material in the waste stream, making recycling initiatives more viable commercially. As a result, the right balance needs to be found between a mix of initiatives, based on income levels per area” – this should be linked to packaging waste (the context is set on the page and in the table).  There is an irony in this, even if the principle is correct.  Packaging waste makes up a minor fraction in most urban waste streams, yet the attention given to recover small percentages (relatively speaking) is out of proportion and leads to large investments in capital infrastructure and operating systems by a municipality (for the industry’s benefit).  There are other waste streams that are more attractive from a cost benefit point of view that should receive a priority in terms of strategy (e.g. greens, organic waste and builder’s rubble).

P33/155: “waste picking on landfills” should not receive attention as a viable economic activity due to all the health and safety and human dignity problems associated with it.  Instead, plans and initiatives should be made to accommodate landfill pickers where possible.

p.34/155: “Separation at source will also result in a better quality of recyclate in terms of lower contamination levels.” and “This process will have minimal impact on municipal waste collection capacity requirements, whilst meeting recycling objectives.” – this cannot be true, as the “separation at source” activities will require additional capacity and infrastructure.

p.35/155: “Targets for waste services delivery will be set in municipal and provincial integrated waste management plans, with the objective of ensuring universal coverage of waste services according to the above standards within a realistic timeframe.” – surely this can only be done once there is an informed understanding of how much can be achieved by what sector, and once responsibilities have been defined for the industry, and the capabilities in different areas and municipalities, linked to available infrastructure, both in the private and the public sectors?

p.38/155: “Landfill capacity, licensing compliance and shortfalls in treatment and disposal facilities have been identified as strategic challenges in Section 1.6 of this strategy.” – the additional important dependencies for reducing waste to landfills are processing and manufacturing infrastructure and capacity, which could further be linked to export markets.

p.39/155: “The use of the Municipal Infrastructure Grant to promote regionalisation will be considered by COGTA and DEA following the completion of the above cost-benefit analysis.” – even more important is how the National Treasury defines and allows the use of MIG funding, as it only applies to traditional infrastructure and not processing or treatment infrastructure that will be necessary to reduce landfill impacts and add further value to a local economy.

 p.49/155: “Once a waste has been classified as hazardous or general waste, the generator then needs to consider the management options that apply to that waste. These will determine whether the waste is suitable for reuse, recycling, recovery, treatment or whether it must be disposed of. Before disposing of waste the generator will need to consider landfill acceptance criteria. If the waste does not meet these criteria, the generator will need to consider other waste management options.” – there is general concern that the intention to ban certain wastes from landfills without allowing for the development and implementation of suitable alternatives will have unintended consequences and force municipalities to operate unlawfully.

p.53/155: “...the Minister may exempt entities reporting to a provincial system from requirements to report to the national system once mechanisms have been established for replicating the information to the national system...” – how will municipalities gain access to information that is relevant to long term planning in their areas of jurisdiction?

p.54/155: “Voluntary IndWMPs” – is there really a place for voluntary plans, seeing as the general approach is to “wait and see”?  Surely, a compulsory plan is the only standard that has a chance of succeeding?

p.65/155: “priority wastes” – whilst not discussed in detail, the mention of sludge and saline waste, and the discussion under the “Draft Waste Classification Regulations” to ban these waste types from landfills should be considered very carefully against available options and alternatives.

P.77/155: “Financial sustainability also includes the use of cross subsidies as appropriate for under-provided public goods and for addressing negative externalities of inadequate service provision.” – what will this consist of, and who will subsidise (source of funding)?

p.80/155: “The equitable share is an unconditional transfer, and the distribution of the equitable share between individual municipalities is formula based, taking into account population, levels of poverty and service delivery, historical backlogs and capacity.” – there is concern that the population count figures being used by the National Treasury are out of date (due to no Census in 2005, and a probable under-estimation in the extrapolation if compared to actual urbanisation for the metros).  This alone would cause an under-funding of municipalities that create pressures on rates, which are already funding deficits (such as those caused by low payment ratios).

p.82/155: “As a first step, municipalities will undertake full cost accounting for waste services, in order to understand the long term capital and operating costs of the service...” this is contrary to what has been stipulated previously in the draft document.  Unless this is a study that is undertaken by the national dept, it is unlikely that municipalities will be able to give effect to this.

p.89/155: “Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality has established an online Waste Exchange System.” – Cape Town has had one in operation for the last five years.  While this may be used as an example, it is important to ensure that all such initiatives are recorded and made available when the NWMS is finalised.   This should form part of a communications strategy driven at a national level to inform all role players (the electronic media can be used quite successfully).

p.91/155: “health care risk waste” – are pharmaceuticals included.  Perhaps this category of hazardous wastes should be mentioned specifically due to the size of the problem and possible impacts.

p.119/155: “Money spent on effective awareness and education programmes is likely to lead to savings in terms of more effective collection and recycling of waste in the long run, and it is therefore important that such programmes are suitably funded and resourced.” – how will success be measured, given that population growth alone could increase collection numbers (mass/volume)?

p.132/155 “Indicators and targets for the achievement of the goals and objectives of the NWMS are set out in Table 14 and 15 below. The targets have been set for the year 2015, i.e. five years from the date of publication of the NWMS, which is the period in which the next review of the NWMS must take place.” – the targets stated under Goals 1 – 5 in Tables 14 and 15 can only be described as a “wish list”.  The question is whether these targets have been evaluated in terms of additional costs (over and above the 2007 estimates of Clements) of implementing additional mechanisms and systems that are not only for the recovery of recyclate from municipal waste, but also in the processing and manufacturing industries.  On a practical level, the five-year time frame is problematic in the following manner: when the NWMS is promulgated (year 1), all municipal budgets can only respond in year three and beyond, which means that effectively the response time is three and not five years, which makes the targets very difficult if not impossible to achieve.   Thereafter, procurement processes can only be realised if the budgets have been approved, which will take further rime off the timeline.

p.138/155: “Waste services indicators and targets” – input has already been given at the Port Elizabeth workshop on 23 July 2010 regarding the efficacy of the listed indicators.  These should be outcomes focused rather than input.

p.143/155: “National Waste Management Strategy: Action Plan” – input and comment was also provided at the PE workshop regarding the realities of various backlogs faced by especially many slam municipalities, and the intention of the new waste legislation.  Unless the basics are addressed first, the focus may be lost and municipalities will be chasing targets for waste minimisation instead of giving effect to their primary obligations.  The plan should perhaps take this into account and use a phased approach that can be applied to distinguish between municipalities that have already achieved an acceptable level of basic services and have compliant infrastructure for the management of waste vs. Those that do not.  Further, based on the previous comment regarding targets, the timelines should be reviewed otherwise very little will be achieved against the plan.