South Africa State of Waste Report - Remade Recycling

South Africa State of Waste Report

Second draft report

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT ii

South Africa

State of Waste Report

Second draft report

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT iii

South Africa State of Waste. A report on the state of the waste. Second draft report

First published in 2018

© Department of Environmental Affairs

ISBN XXX-X-XXX-XXXXX-X

This document may be reproduced in whole or in part for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission from the copyright holder, provided that acknowledgement of the source is made. No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior written permission from the Department of Environmental Affairs.

Citation of the Report

Department of Environmental Affairs. 2018. South Africa State of Waste. A report on the state of the environment. First draft report. Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria. XX pp.

Publication

This publication is available on the website of the Department of Environmental Affairs at https://www.environment.gov.za and http://sawic.environment.gov.za.

This publication is available at the following libraries:

The Constitutional Court of South Africa (Legal Section of Library); Library of Parliament (Legal Deposit Section); Central Reference Library in eThekwini Municipality; National Library of South Africa Pretoria Campus (NLSA-Pta); National Library of South Africa Cape Town Campus (NLSA-CT); South African Library for the Blind in the Eastern Cape; and the South African Provincial Libraries including Eastern Cape (King Williams Town), Free State (Bloemfontein), Gauteng (Johannesburg), KwaZulu-Natal (Pietermaritzburg), Limpopo (Polokwane), Mpumalanga (Nelspruit), North West (Mmabatho), Northern Cape (Kimberley) and Western Cape (Cape Town)

For further information, please contact:

Department of Environmental Affairs

Private Bag X447

Pretoria 0001

Republic of South Africa

Web site: https://www.environment.gov.za and http://sawic.environment.gov.za

Disclaimer:

This report is based on papers produced by expert groups and other additional information gathered by the project team. The views it contains are not necessarily those of Government. The Department of Environmental Affairs and other agencies do not accept responsibility in respect of any information or advice given in relation to or as a consequence of anything contained herein.

Every effort has been made to contact and acknowledge copyright holders. However, should any infringement have inadvertently occurred, the Department of Environmental Affairs wishes to be notified. We take this opportunity to offer our apologies. In the event of a reprint, any errors will be corrected. For a listing of errors or omissions in this report found subsequent to printing, please visit our website at www.environment.gov.za and www.sawic.environment.gov.za

Printed and bound in South Africa by XXXXXXXXXXXX on behalf of the Government Printer.

Team for preparation of the South Africa State of Waste – Second Draft Report

Project Manager: Mr Anbendren Pillay

Contributing writers: Ms Natalie Kohler, Mr Michael Van Niekerk, Ms Dikae Manchidi, Ms Lufuno Nemakhavhani (Golder Associates Africa) and Ms Mampiti Matsabu, Ms Gabriele Stein, and Ms Rozanne Els (Savannah Environmental)

Copy editing: Golder Associates Africa

Quality review and proof reading: Mr Anbendren Pillay, Ms Senisha Soobramany, Mr Donald Sehaswana, and Mr Jeremia Sibande (Department of Environmental Affairs) and the CSIR

Cover and layout design: Mr Brian Chapole (Department of Environmental Affairs) and Mr Tiaan Van Niekerk (Golder Associates Africa)

Photo credits: Creative commons, Golder Associates Africa and Department of Environmental Affairs

Communications: Department of Environmental Affairs

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT iv

Executive Summary

This first South African State of Waste Report (SoWR) provides a snapshot of the state of waste generation and management in South Africa, the key driving forces and pressures, and how South Africa is performing in terms of short and medium terms responses to contemporary changes in the waste sector.

The SoWR differs slightly from its predecessor, the 3rd National Baseline Report (2012), in that it not only presents the quantities of the different waste types generated, but also looks at the drivers and pressures of the state of waste in South Africa, the current management of waste, the resulting impacts, and short and medium‐term actions or responses to identified drivers, pressures and impacts. It is therefore similar in structure to the 2nd South Africa Environment Outlook (SAEO).

The main report consists of the following five chapters:

Chapter 1: Introduction

This chapter provides an introduction to the report. It briefly discusses the purpose of a SoWR in terms communicating credible, timely and accessible information about waste generation and level of compliance of waste infrastructure to decision‐makers and society. It highlights the value of understanding not only the quantities of waste generated, but also its management now and in the immediate future. Further to this, the importance of monitoring the state of waste on an ongoing basis and at defined intervals.

The chapter briefly introduces Drivers‐Pressures‐State‐Impact‐Response (DPSIR) reporting framework developed by the European Environment Agency (EEA), and on which this SoWR is largely structured. In terms of this framework, the current or future ‘state’ (S) is the result of specific ‘drivers’ (D) and ‘pressures’ (P), positive or negative, which ‘impact’ (I) on human health and the environment. The ‘responses’ (R) represent the solutions (e.g. policies, investments) for what should then be done to improve or maintain the desired state (S)

Importantly, the chapter also outlines the assumptions and limitations in compiling this 1st SoWR.

Chapter 2: Drivers and Pressures

This chapter provides a brief overview of the drivers and resulting pressures directly affecting the generation and management of waste in South Africa. This includes population growth, economic growth, income, level of urbanisation and the globalisation of the recyclables market.

According to Stats SA, it was established that while South Africa’s population is growing on a year‐on ‐year basis (from almost 53 million in 2013 to 56.5 million in 2017), that the annual population growth rate has been declining (from 2.3% in 2013 to 0.9% in 2017). This is important given the linkages between waste generation and population size and growth.

It was also established that the South African economy, measured in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), has also been growing year‐on‐year from R 3.54 trillion in 2013 to R 4.65 trillion in 2017. This is important given that economic growth is the driving force for several waste generating economic sectors, such as construction.

Given the strong correlation between income level and the standard of living, the consumption of goods and services, and the amount of waste generated, the income of individuals and South African households was also considered. According to Stats SA, it was established that although the majority of South Africans are of a low socio‐economic level and 40% have no income at all, the majority of individuals are from middle income households (73%), while only 16% are from low‐income and 11% are from high‐income households.

Solid waste is generally considered to be an ‘urban’ issue as waste generation rates tend to be much higher in urban areas. It was found that South Africa, like most developing countries, is experiencing continuing urbanisation with the proportion of the South African population living in

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT v

urban areas having grown considerably in the last few years.

The chapter also provides a brief overview of the globalisation of the recycling market, and in particular the trade in recovered plastic, paper, scrap metal and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE).

Chapter 3: State

This chapter provides a brief overview of the state of waste in South Africa, including the main types and quantities of waste generated, and the level of compliance of waste management infrastructure.

Waste Types

The chapter starts by defining what is meant by ‘waste’, and the definitions of ‘general’ waste and ‘hazardous’ waste – see Table 3 and Table 4 for detailed definitions of the waste types discussed the sections to follow.

Waste Generation

Taking cognisance of the driving forces and pressures, it is estimated that in 2017 South Africa generated 54.2 million tonnes of general waste. It is estimated that 38.6% of general waste was recycled during this period.

These calculated tonnages of general and hazardous waste generated are based on information collected from a range of sources.

The largest contribution to total quantity of general waste was ‘organic waste’ (56.3%), which comprises predominantly biomass from the sugar mills, sawmills, and paper and pulp industry. This is followed by municipal waste (8.9%) construction and demolition waste (8.3%), metals (7.4%) and commercial and industrial waste (6.6%).

Table 1: Summary of general waste generation and management in South Africa (2017)

Waste type Estimated tonnes

Imports Exports Recycling / recovered

Landfilled LoC

GW01 Municipal waste 4 821 430 2 4 0.0% 100.0%

GW10 Commercial and industrial waste

3 550 505 0 0 10.0% 90.0%

GW 20 Organic waste 30 499 455 4 048 298 31.1% 68.8%

GW30 Construction and demolition waste

0 0 90.0% 10.0%

GW50 Paper 4 482 992 58 548 129 375 58.0% 42.0%

GW51 Plastic 2 211 225 6,804 20 947 43.7% 56.3%

GW52 Glass 1 113 362 39 928 11 78.4% 21.6%

GW53 Metals 2 492 636 27 976 68 192 75.0% 25.0%

GW54 Tyres 4 035 929 0 0 100% 0%

GW99 Other ** 729 615 0 0 9.1% 90.8%

TOTAL 54 175 147 137 490 258 557 38.6% 61.4% *Note that level of confidence (LoC) of the values in the last column is indicated by the intensity of shading, i.e. high level of confidence in dark shadingand low level of confidence in light shading.

In 2017, South Africa generated approximately 66.9 million tonnes of hazardous waste, with only about 6% of the hazardous waste being generated re‐used or recycled (see Table 2). The remainder was treated and/or landfilled (94%). The majority of the hazardous waste that was generated was fly ash and bottom ash (74.8%), mainly from coal‐fired power stations

One of the challenges noted in the 3rd National Baseline Report (2012), was the large category of “unclassified” waste particularly related to brine,

slag, WEEE and sewage sludge, which appeared on both general and hazardous waste lists (48 million tonnes of the total 108 million tonnes). This report aimed to remove this “unclassified” waste category by adopting the precautionary principle approach where necessary, in consultation with stakeholders.

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT vi

Table 2: Summary of hazardous waste generation and management in South Africa (2017)



Treated Landfilled LoC

HW 01 Gaseous waste 6 0.0% 96.0%

HW 02 Mercury containing waste

1 392 0.0% 95.6%

HW 03 Batteries 39 867 32 608 46 000 0.0% 26.9%

HW 04 POP Waste 570 0.0% 100.0%

HW 05 Inorganic waste 786 083 0.6% 99.4%

HW 06 Asbestos containing waste

6 721 5 700 0.0% 100.0%

HW 07 Waste Oils 116 250 214 241 80.0% 0.0% 20.0%

HW 08 Organic halogenated and /or sulphur containing solvents

663 19.9% 6.2% 73.9%

HW 09 Organic halogenated and/or sulphur containing waste

8 812 0.0% 4.4% 95.6%

HW 10 Organic solvents without halogens and sulphur

4 562 42.1% 5.5% 52.4%

HW 11 Other organic waste without halogen or sulphur

519 413 25 000 0.0% 40.7% 59.3%

HW 12 Tarry and Bituminous waste

249 080 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

HW 13 Brine 5 793 645 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

HW 14 Fly ash and dust 44 000 000 6.8% 0.0% 93.4%

HW 15 Bottom ash 6 000 000 100 8.3% 0.0% 91.7%

HW 16 Slag 7 887 879 3 500 4.1% 0.0% 95.9%

HW 17 Mineral waste 115 754 0.9% 2.8% 96.4%

HW 18 WEEE 360 000 4 740 9.7% 0.0% 90.3%

HW 19 HCRW 48 749 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

HW 20 Sewage sludge 632 749 15.0% 0.0% 85.0%

HW 99 Miscellaneous 294 064 10 330 3 000 0.9% 1.5% 97.6%

66 866 260 296 219 49 000 6.0% 0.3%% 93.7% *Note that level of confidence (LoC) of the values in the last column is indicated by the intensity of shading, i.e. high level of confidence in dark shading and low level of confidence in light shading.

Waste Imports and Exports

In 2017, an estimated 137,490 tonnes of general waste, mainly glass (5%), paper (3%), plastic and metals (1%), was imported, while an estimated 258,557 tonnes of general waste, mainly paper (6%), plastics (3%) and metals (2%) was exported (SARS, 2017).

Waste Collection Services

The rendering of a regular waste collection service is the responsibility of the local municipality according to Schedule 5, Part B of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996.

In 2016, approximately 59% of households had their waste collected by the local authority, service provider or a community member, while 2% of households had their waste collected from a communal container or central collection point. Approximately 34% of households disposed of their waste at a communal dump or their own dump, and the remaining 5% of waste was dealt with through other means (Stats SA, 2016).

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT vii

Waste Management Facilities

The final point in the waste management chain is the point at which waste is reused, recycled, recovered, treated, disposed at landfill or incinerated.

Based on the SAWIC in 2018, the disposal of waste to land is the most commonly licensed activity (1,057), followed by storage of waste (370), treatment of waste (293), effluent, wastewater or sewage treatment (251), recycling and recovery of waste (224), waste transfer stations (109), incineration of waste (20), and composting facilities (19).

Status of Legal Compliance

The section of this chapter provides a brief overview of the current status of legal compliance and enforcement in terms of the provisions of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) (NEM:WA). In total, 186 contraventions of the provisions of the NEM:WA were recorded in 2016/2017 (DEA, 2017b).

The Environmental Management Inspectors (EMIs) are the officials appointed to carry out environmental compliance and enforcement functions in terms of the NEM:WA. In total, the number of EMIs has increased from 2,294 in 2015 to 2,880 in 2017.

Compliance monitoring inspections are undertaken by the EMIs to determine if waste management facilities are compliant with the conditions of their licence. In 2017, 75 municipal waste management facilities were inspected, of which seven of sites attained 0% compliance, 25 sites attained 0% to 29% compliance, 21 sites attained 30% to 49% compliance, eight facilities between 50 and 69% compliance, and only 15 facilities between 70% and 100% compliance. This indicates that there is an urgent need in some municipalities to improve compliance of municipal waste disposal facilities.

Chapter 4: Impacts

This chapter provides a brief description of the impacts, positive and/or negative, resulting from the waste‐related challenges facing South Africa. In general, it was found that improper management of waste can result in a range of negative impacts

which can adversely affect human health and the environment. This includes littering and illegal dumping of waste, air and water quality impacts, land contamination, and impact on land uses and development surrounding waste management facilities.

Chapter 5: Responses

This chapter provides a brief description of current and future action to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts resulting from the waste‐related challenges facing South Africa.

Legislative Instruments

This section depicts the past 30 years of pertinent legislation, policies and plans from a high‐level perspective that have shaped the waste industry in South Africa.

The NEM:WA, which came into effect on 01 July 2009, was the first comprehensive act to regulate waste management in a proactive way in South Africa. Prior to the NEM:WA, waste management was governed by the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989) (ECA), which was considered largely unsuccessful and inadequate, and later the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA).

Since NEM:WA first took effect, there have been rapid improvements in waste management governance as the legal framework started to develop around non landfill technologies. The subsections below, highlight in chronological order, some pertinent regulations regarding waste management in recent years.

Compliance and Enforcement

This section briefly discusses the importance of compliance and enforcement in realising the desired outcomes of the legal instruments, as well as the short and medium‐term focus areas.

Economic Instruments

This section focuses specifically on the National Pricing Strategy for Waste Management (NPSWM) and the economic instruments that are or could being used to reduce waste generation and increase the diversion of waste away from landfill.

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT viii

Currently the preferred instrument is Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), where the producers of the goods have a responsibility to safely manage those products after the end of useful life.

Avoidance, Recycling and Recovery

This section provides an overview of some activities that the public and private sector are currently engaged in with respect to avoidance, recycling, and recovery of waste. This includes capacity building and awareness campaigns, source separation, and integrating the informal waste sector.

The intention of this section is to highlight or showcase key projects that could potentially be replicated in other parts of the country.

So What?

It is evident that South Africa is making great strides in changing the face of waste management from one of predominantly landfilling (90% in 2011) to one of recycling (40% in 2017) for general waste. This is no doubt a result of recent changes in waste legislation, policies and plans; more waste facilities looking at waste beneficiation and the value of waste as a resource; and media awareness campaigns and conscious consumerism.

The country still has a long way to go to improve compliance at municipal waste management facilities, improved enforcement and the protection of human health and the environment by improving waste collection services and facilities in rural areas and pollution prevention control of our natural resources.

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT ix

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AD BIR C&D COGTA CFL CH4 CO2 CO2eq CRR DEA DEADP DWA DPSIR DWS DTI ECA EEA EEE EIA EMI EPR ERA GDP GHG GNI GVA GW GWIS HCRW HW ICT IDPs IndWMPs IIWTMP IPWIS ISWA ITAC IWMP LAB LFG

M MRF MSDS MSW Ml Mt N2

Anaerobic Digestion Bureau of International Recycling Construction and Demolition

Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs Compact Fluorescent Lamp Methane Carbon Dioxide Carbon Dioxide EquivalentsCumulative Risk Rating Department of Environmental Affairs Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning Department of Water AffairsDrivers‐Pressures‐State‐Impact‐Response Department of Water and Sanitation Department of Trade and Industry

Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989) European Environment AgencyElectrical and Electronic Equipment Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Management InspectorExtended Producer Responsibility E‐Waste Recycling Authority Gross Domestic Product Greenhouse Gas Gross National IncomeGross Value Added General Waste Gauteng Waste Information System Health Care Risk WasteHazardous Waste Information and Communication Technology Integrated Development Plans Industry Waste Management PlansIntegrated Industry Waste Tyre Management Plan Integrated Pollutant and Waste Information System International Solid Waste Association

International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa Integrated Waste Management Plans Lead Acid Batteries Landfill Gas Level of ConfidenceMillion Materials Recovery Facility Material Safety Data Sheets Municipal Solid Waste Megalitres Million tonnes Nitrogen

LoC

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT x

NDP National Development Plan 2030 NEMA National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) NEM:WA National Environmental Management: Waste Act 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) NEM:WAA National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Act 2014 (Act No. 26

of 2014) NPO Non‐Profit Organisation NPSWM National Pricing Strategy for Waste Management, 2016 (GN 904) NWIR National Waste Information Regulations, 2012 (GN R. 635) NWMS National Waste Management Strategy OECD Organisation for Economic Coordination and Development PAH Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonsPAMSA Paper Manufacturers Association of South Africa PCB Polychlorinated biphenyl PE‐HD High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) PE‐LD Low Density Polyethylene (LPDE)PE‐LLD Linear Low Density Polyethylene PET Polyethylene Terephthalate POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants PP Polypropylene PPP Purchasing Power Parity PRASA Paper Recycling Association of South Africa PROs Producer Responsibility Organisations PS Polystyrene PVC Polyvinyl Chloride R&D Research and Development REDISA Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa SAEO South Africa Environment OutlookSARS South African Revenue ServiceSAWIS South African Waste Information System SLABs Spent Lead Acid Batteries SOER State of Environment ReportsSoWR State of the Waste Reportt Tonnes t/d Tonnes per Day UNEP United Nations Environment Programme VOCs Volatile Organic CompoundsWCMR Waste Classification and Management Regulations (2013) WEEE Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment WMB Waste Management Bureau WMLs Waste Management LicencesWWTW Waste Water Treatment Works

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT xi

Contents

Chapter 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 State of Waste Reporting .................................................................................................................... 2

1.2.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 2

1.2.2 Value of State of Waste Reporting .............................................................................................. 2

1.2.3 Method ........................................................................................................................................ 3

1.2.4 Report Structure .......................................................................................................................... 3

1.2.5 DPSIR Reporting Framework ....................................................................................................... 4

1.2.6 Indicators ..................................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.7 Assumptions and Limitations ...................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2 .............................................................................................................................................................. 5

Drivers and Pressures ......................................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Population ........................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Population Size ............................................................................................................................ 6

2.2.2 Population Growth ...................................................................................................................... 6

2.2.3 Population Density ...................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Economy .............................................................................................................................................. 8

2.4 Income ............................................................................................................................................... 10

2.5 Urbanisation ...................................................................................................................................... 11

2.6 Globalisation ...................................................................................................................................... 12

2.6.1 Recovered Plastic ....................................................................................................................... 12

2.6.2 Recovered Paper ........................................................................................................................ 12

2.6.3 Scrap Metal ................................................................................................................................ 12

2.6.4 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment ............................................................................... 13

2.7 Developing Context ........................................................................................................................... 13

2.7.1 Weak Enforcement .................................................................................................................... 13

2.7.2 Weak Governance ..................................................................................................................... 13

2.7.3 Low Public Awareness and Negative Attitudes ......................................................................... 13

2.7.4 Insufficient Budgetary Provision ................................................................................................ 13

2.7.5 Service Backlog .......................................................................................................................... 13

Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 14

State .................................................................................................................................................................. 14

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT xii

3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Waste Types ...................................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.1 General Waste ........................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.2 Hazardous Waste ....................................................................................................................... 17

3.3 Waste Generation.............................................................................................................................. 20

3.3.1 General Waste ........................................................................................................................... 20

3.3.2 Hazardous Waste ....................................................................................................................... 31

3.4 Trends ................................................................................................................................................ 42

3.5 Waste Collection Services .................................................................................................................. 45

3.5.1 Eastern Cape .............................................................................................................................. 46

3.5.2 Free State ................................................................................................................................... 47

3.5.3 Gauteng ..................................................................................................................................... 47

3.5.4 KwaZulu‐Natal ........................................................................................................................... 47

3.5.5 Limpopo ..................................................................................................................................... 48

3.5.6 Mpumalanga .............................................................................................................................. 48

3.5.7 North West ................................................................................................................................ 48

3.5.8 Northern Cape ........................................................................................................................... 48

3.5.9 Western Cape ............................................................................................................................ 48

3.6 Waste Management Facilities ........................................................................................................... 49

3.6.1 Eastern Cape ............................................................................................................................... 52

3.6.2 Free State ................................................................................................................................... 53

3.6.3 Gauteng ..................................................................................................................................... 54

3.6.4 KwaZulu‐Natal ........................................................................................................................... 55

3.6.5 Limpopo ..................................................................................................................................... 55

3.6.6 Mpumalanga .............................................................................................................................. 55

3.6.7 North West ................................................................................................................................ 55

3.6.8 Northern Cape ........................................................................................................................... 56

3.6.9 Western Cape ............................................................................................................................ 56

3.7 State of Compliance ........................................................................................................................... 57

3.7.1 Private Waste Management Facilities ....................................................................................... 57

3.7.2 Public Waste Management Facilities ......................................................................................... 60

3.7.3 SAWIS ......................................................................................................................................... 61

3.8 State of the Formal and Informal Waste Sector ................................................................................ 62

3.8.1 Formal Sector............................................................................................................................. 62

3.9 Informal Sector .................................................................................................................................. 62

Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................................................ 64

Impacts .............................................................................................................................................................. 64

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT xiii

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 65

4.2 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................... 65

4.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................................ 65

4.2.2 Odour Nuisance ......................................................................................................................... 65

4.2.3 Incineration ................................................................................................................................ 66

4.3 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................... 66

4.4 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................ 67

4.5 Littering and Illegal Dumping............................................................................................................. 67

Chapter 5 ............................................................................................................................................................ 69

Responses .......................................................................................................................................................... 69

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 70

5.2 Legislative Instruments ...................................................................................................................... 70

5.2.1 Acts Regulating Environmental and Waste Management ......................................................... 71

5.2.2 Environment and Waste Management Regulations ................................................................. 72

5.2.3 Plans and Strategies in Waste Management ............................................................................. 73

5.2.4 Fiscal Drivers .............................................................................................................................. 74

5.2.5 Industry Waste Management Plans .......................................................................................... 74

5.3 Economic Instruments ....................................................................................................................... 75

5.4 Compliance and Enforcement ........................................................................................................... 77

5.4.1 Environmental Management Inspectors ................................................................................... 77

5.4.2 Inspections ................................................................................................................................. 78

5.5 Avoidance, Recycling & Recovery ...................................................................................................... 79

5.5.1 General Waste ........................................................................................................................... 79

5.5.2 Hazardous Waste ....................................................................................................................... 85

5.6 Capacity Building and Awareness Raising Campaigns ....................................................................... 87

5.7 Informal Waste Sector ....................................................................................................................... 87

5.8 Operation Phakisa ............................................................................................................................. 89

Chapter 6 ............................................................................................................................................................ 91

So What? ........................................................................................................................................................... 91

References ......................................................................................................................................................... 93

SOUTH AFRICA STATE OF WASTE REPORT 1

1 Chapter 1

Introduction A State of Waste Report (SoWR) is designed to communicate credible, timely and accessible information about waste generation and the condition of waste infrastructure to decision‐makers and society.

Source: www.edmonton.ca


1.1 INTRODUCTION As the South African population, together with the level of income and urbanisation increases, so too does the amount of waste that is generated.

Poorly managed waste can potentially have a significant impact on human health and the environment, as well as the economy. The mismanagement of waste can result in negative externalities and downstream costs, which are often much higher than if the waste had been appropriately managed initially.

In light of this, there is a need to better understand the total amount of waste generated in South Africa, and the tonnages of waste recycled, treated, landfilled and exported.

In 2012, the National Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) published the third national baseline report on waste. This report showed that South Africa produced approximately 108 million tonnes of waste in 2011 (DEA, 2012). The majority of this waste (98 million tonnes) was landfilled, which resulted in only a 10 % recycling rate.

Of the estimated 108 million tonnes of waste, approximately 59 million tonnes was general waste, 1 million tonnes was hazardous waste, and 48 million tonnes was ‘unclassified’ waste.

The ‘unclassified’ wastes referred both to general and hazardous wastes which had not been classified at the time of the study. These wastes were therefore reported as ‘unclassified’ in order to prevent skewed results.

This first State of Waste Report (SoWR) follows a similar approach to the third national baseline report with respect to the calculation of the tonnages of waste recycled, treated, landfilled and exported. However, whilst this SoWR uses a similar methodology, the results are neither directly comparable with those of the third national baseline report (2012), nor the two preceding baseline reports in 1991 and 1997. This is due to the methodology for the calculations of general and hazardous waste in this SoWR (as detailed in Appendix A) which are based on information collected from a wider range of sources. Additional studies were conducted and hence provided new

current information available. Furthermore, the waste related legislation has been amended and the 1st and 2nd baseline reports included ‘by‐products’, which has subsequently been excluded from the definition of ‘waste’. The scope of this report, therefore, is limited to the current legal definition of waste, in accordance with South Africa’s current waste legislation, which is the National Environmental Management: Waste Act 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008).

This SoWR also differs from the 3rd baseline report in that it follows a similar structure to that of the 2nd South African Environmental Outlook (SAEO) (2016) in terms of using the Drivers‐Pressures‐State‐Impact‐Response (DPSIR) reporting framework, which is described in more detail in the section to follow.

1.2 STATE OF WASTE REPORTING

1.2.1 Purpose

A SoWR is designed to communicate credible, timely and accessible information about waste generation and the condition of waste infrastructure for decision makers and society.

This first SoWR does not consider all waste related challenges facing South Africa, but rather focuses on the major challenges, drawing attention to these, in order to inform the policy agenda in the short to medium term.

The SoWR is an important step in the process of refining the information and knowledge‐base on which the policy agenda and decisions about waste are made, with the intention of stimulating debate and raising awareness on the key issues and challenges related to waste generation and management in South Africa.

1.2.2 Value of State of Waste Reporting

With the growth in the generation of waste in South Africa, the management of this waste becomes increasingly important. Poor management of waste poses risks not only to human health, but also to the natural environment and the economy.

Waste management is, however, a complex and interrelated system that is neither easy to measure


nor model. This is, in part, due to waste being a process output in some situations, and a process input in other situations.

The proper management of waste requires, not only a good understanding of the types and quantities of waste generated, but also of how this waste is managed now and in the immediate future.

In order to meaningfully assess the effectiveness of responses to the waste related challenges that South Africa faces, monitoring the state of waste should ideally take place on an ongoing basis. Monitoring at defined time periods, such as over a 5 year horizon, allows not only for the comparison of the state of waste between two discrete periods, but also the identification of trends and reflection on the overall progress of responses.

By means of a SoWR, documentation is provided on waste generation and management, thereby providing a snapshot of the waste generation rate and condition of waste infrastructure during a specific period. The SoWR therefore provides decision makers with an understanding of the state of waste which is, critical to guiding and informing strategic interventions.

1.2.3 Method

Given that this is the first South African SoWR, the method is guided to a large extent by the South Africa Environment Outlook (SAEO, 2016), and local and provincial State of Environment Reports (SOERs) and Integrated Waste Management Plans (IWMPs). A detailed description of the methodology is attached as Appendix A.

However, this report varies from the SAEOs and SOERs, in that it is not based on the integration of sector (theme) chapters. However, like the SAEO and SOERs, the SoWR was compiled by sector specialists, academia, research institutions, provincial environmental departments, and the DEA.

The specialist research and reporting for this edition of the SoWR was undertaken in 2018.

Stakeholders were invited to participate in the process either through contributions in the form of waste‐related information and data, or specifically as reviewers of the draft report. The engagement

process focussed on relevant national and provincial government departments, Producer Responsibility Organisations (PROs), research institutions and other organisations that play an important role in the waste sector.

Wider sector consultation was undertaken through the circulation of the draft report for public review, and two national stakeholder workshops.

The benefits of assembling a wide range of stakeholders and reviewers includes the collection of waste‐related information from a range of sources. This improves the accuracy of the report and ensures objectivity.

In addition, the report was also peer‐reviewed by a sector specialist, with the aim of improving the quality and ensuring that it meets the required standards.

1.2.4 Report Structure

This SoWR comprises five main parts as follows:

1. Executive summary: provides a summary of the main report, highlighting some of the key findings;

2. Introduction: provides an introduction to the report, including the context, approach, and structure of the report;

3. Drivers and pressures: provides a brief description of the main drivers and resulting pressures that cause waste‐related challenges in South Africa;

4. State: provides a brief overview of the state of waste in South Africa, including the main types and quantities of waste generated, and the condition of waste management infrastructure;

5. Impacts: provides a brief description of the impacts, positive or negative, resulting from the waste‐related challenges facing South Africa;

6. Responses: provides a brief description of current and future action to avoid or mitigate the negative impacts resulting from the waste‐related challenges facing South Africa, and/or to enhance the positive impacts; and

7. So What? provides a conclusion to the report, including the outlook for waste management in South Africa based on the findings of this report.


1.2.5 DPSIR Reporting Framework

As with the SAEO (2016), this SoWR is guided by the Drivers‐Pressures‐State‐Impact‐Response (DPSIR) reporting framework. The European Environment Agency (EEA) developed the DPSIR reporting framework for reporting on the “state” (S) of the environment (EEA, 1999). The current or future

“state” (S) is the result of specific driving forces (D) and pressures (P), positive or negative, which impact (I) the environment. The responses (R) represent the potential solutions (e.g. policies, investments) to improve or maintain the desired state (S), as shown in the figure below.

Figure 1: The DPSIR framework (adapted from EEA, 1999: 6)

1.2.6 Indicators

As mentioned previously, the waste sector is a complex and interrelated system. As such, it is neither practicable, particularly at a national level nor at each and every component level, to describe the sector in its entirety.

For this reason, the SoWR, like the SAEO, uses indicators as proxies to represent the state of waste. These indicators have been carefully selected based on the indices typically reported on in IWMPs, and the availability of credible and accurate data, to provide a representative snapshot of the state of waste in South Africa. The effectiveness of the responses to the waste‐related issues or challenges facing South Africa can then be assessed by tracking these indicators over time.

While it is beneficial for each iteration of the SoWR to report on the same indicators as the previous edition to maintain consistency, changes in the

drivers and pressures, as well as the availability of data, may necessitate the adjustment of existing indicators or the addition of new indicators.

1.2.7 Assumptions and Limitations

This SoWR is aimed at a wide range of audiences, allowing both non‐specialists and decision makers to better understand, contribute meaningfully, and make informed decisions on waste‐related issues and challenges facing South Africa.

The information presented in the main report does not reflect the detail and expert knowledge used in order to compile the report. As a consequence, the main body of the report may not adequately answer all questions or deliver extensive detail for all audiences. As mentioned previously, a more detailed description of the methodology is attached as Appendix A.

Driving Forces•e.g. Population growth

Pressures•e.g. Increasing consumption & waste generation

State•e.g. Air, Water, Soil Quality

Impact•e.g. Ill health, Biodiversity loss, Economic damage

Response•e.g. Clean production, Public transport, Regulations, Taxes, Information etc.


2 Chapter 2

Drivers and Pressures The drivers and pressures directly affecting the generation and management of waste in South Africa

Source: http://populationof2017.com/population‐of‐gauteng‐2017.html

Source: www.n2growth.com


2.1 INTRODUCTION The following chapter briefly describes the main drivers and pressures affecting the generation and management of waste in South Africa.

In this context, ‘drivers’ are defined as the human‐induced agents driving change in the waste sector (EEA, 1999). These are typically the underlying socio‐economic and political forces of change that determine where and how people generate and manage waste.

‘Pressures’ are defined as the human activities and processes that act on the waste sector and directly cause changes in the generation and management of waste. Pressures differ from drivers in that they relate directly to the generation and management of waste, as opposed to the driving forces that determine the scope or extent of the pressures.

Given that these two elements are inextricably linked, and cannot be discussed independently of one another, they will be discussed together in this chapter.

2.2 POPULATION The link between population size and growth, and the generation of waste is well understood (World Bank, 2012). With the population growth, there is an increase in the consumption of natural resources, and consequently the quantity of waste generated.

2.2.1 Population Size

Figure 2 below presents the estimated population of South Africa from 2013 to 2017. (Stats SA, 2017a). During this 5 year period, the estimated population of South Africa increased from 53 million to 56.5 million people.

While the total population has increased year on year, the annual population growth rate is generally declining from 2.3% in 2013 to 0.9% in 2017. This is in line with international trends.

Figure 2: Estimated total population and annual growth from 2013‐2017 (adapted from Stats SA, 2017a)

2.2.2 Population Growth

In addition to national population growth, it is also important to consider the average population

growth rate from 2013 to 2017 in each of the nine provinces as some provinces may experience higher growth rates than others. As a consequence, the generation of waste is expected

52 982 000

53 947 998

54 901 943

56 020 718

56 521 9482.3%

1.8% 1.8% 2.0%

0.9%

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

51000000

52000000

53000000

54000000

55000000

56000000

57000000

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Annual population growth

Population

Years


to be greater now and in the future in provinces with higher growth rates. Figure 3 below shows the average population growth rate in each province between 2013 and 2017 (Stats SA, 2017a). Gauteng has experienced the greatest average population growth over the last 5 years (3.1%) and

interestingly, the Eastern Cape experienced an average decrease in the population growth rate (‐0.2%) during this period.

Figure 3: Average population growth per province from 2013 to 2017 (adapted from Stats SA, 2017a)

2.2.3 Population Density

Population density is also an important consideration for two reasons. Firstly, the population is not evenly distributed across South Africa. Secondly, densely populated areas typically generate greater quantities of waste (mainly general waste) than less populated areas. As a consequence, the pressure on waste collection and waste management facilities is typically greater in densely populated areas than less populated areas.

Figure 4 below shows the population density of each province in 2017 (Stats SA, 2017a). Similar to the population growth rate, Gauteng has the highest population density (786 persons/km2), followed by KwaZulu‐Natal (117 persons/km2), Mpumalanga (58 persons/km2), Western Cape (50 persons/km2), Limpopo (46 persons/km2), the Eastern Cape (39 persons/km2), North West (37 persons/km2), and Free State (22 persons/km2). In contrast, the Northern Cape has the lowest population density with 3.3 persons/km2.

3.1%

2.2%2.0%

1.8%

1.5%

1.3%

1.0%

0.7%

‐0.2%‐0.5%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

Average population growth

Provinces


Figure 4: Population density of each province in 2017 (adapted from Stats SA, 2017a)

2.3 ECONOMY Another key driver of waste generation is economic growth, either directly through manufacturing and industry, or indirectly through higher incomes (EEA, 1999). Typically, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), or the monetary value of all goods and services produced in a given period,

is used as an indicator of the economic performance of a county or region.

Figure 5 below presents the GDP of South Africa from 2013 to 2016 at current prices (Stats SA, 2017b). As shown, the GDP increased from R 3.54 trillion in 2012 to R 4.65 trillion in 2017.

Figure 5: GDP of South Africa from 2013 to 2016 at current prices (adapted from Stats SA, 2017b)

R 3.540R 3.805

R 4.051R 4.350

R 4.652

9%

7%

6%

7%7%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

R 0.0

R 0.5

R 1.0

R 1.5

R 2.0

R 2.5

R 3.0

R 3.5

R 4.0

R 4.5

R 5.0

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Year‐on‐year GDP Growth (%)

GDP (trillion)


Figure 6 below presents a breakdown of the contribution of each province to the national GDP. In 2016, Gauteng was the largest contributor to South Africa’s GDP at 35%, with the Northern Cape as the lowest GDP contributor at only 2%.

As waste generation is linked to production of goods and services, provinces with a higher GDP are likely to place greater pressure on waste collection and management facilities than those provinces with a lower GDP.

Figure 6: Contribution of each province to the national GDP in 2016 (adapted from Stats SA, 2017b)

As some waste types are sector specific, it is important to also understand the contribution of various economic sectors to national GDP. For example, construction and demolition waste is largely generated by the construction sector.

Figure 7 below presents a breakdown of the contribution of key economic sectors to the

national GDP in 2016 (Stats SA, 2017b). Finance, real estate and business services was the largest contributor to the national GDP (20%), followed by general government services (18%), trade, catering and accommodation (15%), manufacturing (13%), and transport, storage and communication (10%).

Figure 7: Contribution of key economic sectors to the national GDP in 2016 (adapted from Stats SA, 2017b)

Western Cape14%

Eastern Cape8%

Northern Cape2%Free State

5%

KwaZulu‐Natal16%

North West6%

Gauteng35%

Mpumalanga7%

Limpopo7%

Agriculture, forestry and fishing

2%Mining and quarrying

8%

Manufacturing13%

Electricity, gas and water4%

Construction4%

Trade, catering and accommodation

15%

Transport, storage and communication

10%

Finance, real estate and business services

20%

General government services18%

Personal services6%


2.4 INCOME There is a strong correlation between income level and standard of living, the consumption of goods and services, and the amount of waste generated (World Bank, 2012). The same is true in South Africa, where the domestic waste generation rate varies between different income groups. According to the last comprehensive study looking at the link between household income and waste generation, low, middle and high income households in South Africa generate an estimated 0.41, 0.74 and 1.29 kilograms per person per day respectively (Fiehn & Ball, 2015).

Figure 8 presents a breakdown of the number of individuals from low, middle and high income households in 2014/2015 based on annual household income (Stats SA, 2015). It shows that the majority of individuals come from middle income households (73%), with only a small number of individuals coming from low (16%) and high (11%) income households1.

Figure 8: Individuals from low, middle and high income households (adapted from Stats SA, 2015)

Figure 9 presents a breakdown of individuals coming from low, middle and high‐income households based on annual household income (Stats SA, 2016). In all provinces, the majority of individuals come from middle income households (69% ‐ 76%), with between 6% and 26% of individuals coming from low income households, and a low number of individuals coming from high income households (5% ‐ 20%).

Figure 9: Percentage of individuals from low, middle and high‐income areas (adapted from Stats SA, 2015)

1 Based on income categories used in Stats SA (2011), and adjusted for inflation, individuals from households with an annual household income of less than R 22,720 per annum, middle income households with an annual

household income of between R 22,721 and R 363,200 per annum, and high income households with an annual household income of more than R 363,201.

Low income16%

Middle income73%

High income11.00%

22%

18%

9% 17% 26%

18%

18%

19%

6%

73%

76%

71%

76% 69%

74% 76%

76%

75%

6% 6% 20% 7% 5% 9% 6% 5% 11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percentage

of individuals

High income

Middle income

Low income


2.5 URBANISATION As with economic development, the level of urbanisation is inextricably linked, and therefore a key driver, of domestic solid waste generation (World Bank, 2012). Municipal solid waste (MSW) is generally considered to be an ‘urban’ issue as waste generation rates tend to be much higher in urban areas. This is largely because on average, residents in urban areas are usually wealthier, purchase more store‐bought goods, and undertake less reuse and recycling than residents in rural areas.

South Africa, like most developing countries, is experiencing continuing urbanisation (COGTA, 2015). In 2014/2015, approximately 64% of the South African population lived in urban areas, with approximately 33% living in traditional areas, and

the remaining 4% living in rural areas (Stats SA, 2015). Figure 10 below presents a breakdown of the percentage of the population living in urban, rural and traditional areas in each of the nine provinces. In Gauteng (97%), Western Cape (95%), Free State (84%), and Northern Cape (77%), the majority of the population lives in urban areas, whereas in Limpopo (83%), Eastern Cape (57%), Mpumalanga (56%), North West (55%), and KwaZulu‐Natal (51%), the majority of the population live in rural areas.

According to the United Nations (2015), the proportion of the South African population living in urban areas will increase to approximately 71.3% by 2030 and 80% by 2050.

Figure 10: Percentage of population living in urban and rural areas in 2014/2015 (adapted from Stats SA, 2015)

While the urban population is growing larger, it is also becoming younger with nearly two‐thirds (64%) of South Africa’s youth living in urban areas (COGTA, 2015). The youth are moving to the urban core areas in search of employment opportunities and higher incomes, while the aged or the population that is no longer economically active tend to migrate towards secondary cities or more rural settlements.

It is estimated that South Africa’s large cities and towns dominate the country’s economy, producing over 80% of the national gross value added (GVA) (COGTA, 2015). Further to this, the large cities and towns are growing twice as fast as other cities and towns, with average incomes approximately 40% higher than the national average (COGTA, 2015).

Employment in South Africa’s large cities and towns grew twice as much as elsewhere,

43%

84%

97% 49%

17%

44% 77% 45%

95%

57%

16% 11%

51%

83%

56%

23%

55%

5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percentage of population

Provinces

Urban Rural


accounting for nearly three quarters of net jobs created in South Africa between 1996 and 2012 (COGTA, 2015)

As a consequence of migration to urban areas, there is an increase in poverty experienced especially in townships, informal settlements, and inner cities, putting pressure on city waste collection and management resources (COGTA, 2015).

2.6 GLOBALISATION The globalisation of the recycling market is another key driving force affecting waste management in South Africa. It places pressure not only on the local availability of recyclable materials, but also the market price of these materials (ISWA, 2012).

While there has been a long history of trade in metals and glass cullet, there has recently been an increase in the trade of other recyclable wastes, particularly paper and plastics. These wastes are generally collected in the developed countries, and transported to developing countries for processing.

The exporting countries benefit from the sale of recyclable wastes for further processing and reuse, allowing them to meet their legislated recycling targets. The importing countries benefit from the import of cheaper raw materials, which are used to grow their local economies.

2.6.1 Recovered Plastic

In 2012, it was estimated that global trade in recovered plastics was 15 Mt, accounting for less than 5% of total plastic production (288 Mt) (ISWA, 2012).

Plastics are largely exported from Hong Kong, United States of America, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom.

The majority of the plastics were, until recently, exported to China, which received approximately 56% of global imports. It is understood that China imported high quality plastic from the developed countries to supplement poor quality local materials.

However, since the 01 January 2018, China has banned the import of 24 categories of solid waste, including certain types of plastics, papers and textiles (Davis and Ding, 2018). The ban was largely prompted by the danger posed by the imported waste on human health and the environment, as well as to replace these imports with domestic sources.

Prior to the ban, Europe was exporting approximately 85% of its collected and sorted plastic waste to China (Davis and Ding, 2018). In contrast, South Africa was only exporting 18% of the total plastic waste diverted from landfill (Plastics SA, 2018). As a result, South Africa was less affected by the ban than many other countries.

2.6.2 Recovered Paper

The trade in cellulose fibre‐based recovered paper dates back approximately 30 years (ISWA, 2012). Initially, the export of recovered paper was mainly from the United States of America, but this trade soon expanded to include the European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. The recovered paper was mainly imported by South‐East Asia, and in particular China.

In 2013, it was estimated that 109 Mt of recovered paper was traded globally (IBR, 2013). The trade was dominated by Asia, which accounted for 70.5% of total paper imports and 17% of exports. This is followed by the European Union (24% of imports and 32% of exports), and North America (2.5% of imports and 44% of exports). Africa accounted for less than 0.1% of imports and 0.5% of exports.

2.6.3 Scrap Metal

In 2016, global ferrous or steel metal production was approximately 1,630 Mt. During this period, total scrap usage in production was 560 Mt (34%) (BIR, 2017). China was the largest user of scrap steel (90.1 Mt), followed by the European Union (88.3 Mt), United States of America (56.7 Mt), Japan (33.6 Mt), Korean Republic (27.4 Mt), Turkey (25.9 MT), and Russia (17.2 Mt) (BIR, 2017).

The global usage of scrap copper was approximately 8.3 Mt in 2015, while the use of scrap aluminium was approximately 15.6 Mt during the same period (BIR, 2015)


In order to meet the local steel production demand, a number of countries are importers of scrap steel. In 2016, Turkey was the largest importer (17.7 Mt), followed by India (6.4 Mt), Korean Republic (5.8 Mt), United States of America (3.9 Mt), and Taiwan (3.6 Mt) (BIR, 2017). The European Union was the largest importer of copper and aluminium scrap in 2015 (5.6 Mt), followed by China (3.9 Mt), and other Asian countries (2.1 Mt) (BIR, 2015). Importantly, the majority of the European Union trade in copper and aluminium scrap was interregional, between member states.

The main exporters of scrap steel are the European Union (17.8 Mt), United States of America (13.2 Mt), Japan (9.7 Mt), Russia (5.6 Mt), and Canada (3.6 Mt) (BIR, 2017). South Africa was the ninth largest exporter of steel scrap with 0.66 Mt, down 49.1% from 1.3 Mt in 2015. In 2015, total exports of aluminium and copper scraps was 13.6 Mt (BIR, 2015). The European Union was largest exporter (6.1 Mt), followed by Asia (excluding China) (2.2 Mt), and North America (3.4 Mt), with Africa only exporting 0.18 Mt.

2.6.4 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

In 2016, it was estimated that 44.7 million tonnes of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) was generated (ISWA, 2016). This is equivalent to approximately 6.1 kg/capita, a 5.2% increase from an estimated 5.8 kg/capita in 2014.

Estimating the global trade in WEEE is a challenge because the global harmonised trade system does not distinguish between new and used electronics, and not all countries report on WEEE imports and exports in terms of the Basel Convention.

The import of WEEE into and export out of South Africa is covered in more detail in Section 3.3.

2.7 DEVELOPING CONTEXT In terms of gross national income (GNI) per capita, South Africa is classified as an ‘upper middle income’ country, together with countries such as Cuba, Mexico, Gabon, Namibia, Russia and Uruguay (World Bank, 2012).

Being an ‘upper middle income’ country, South Africa faces a number of challenges in respect of waste management.

2.7.1 Weak Enforcement

As with many African countries, South Africa has legislation in place to manage waste. However, lack of enforcement, as well as competing interests, undermines the effectiveness of the legislation to regulate waste management (UNEP, 2018).

2.7.2 Weak Governance

In South Africa, the provision of waste collection services is primarily the responsibility of local government (Treasury, 2011). However, in many small and/or largely rural municipalities there is limited capacity to fulfil this function. Weak governance is a challenge for effective and efficient provision of waste collection services in such areas.

2.7.3 Low Public Awareness and Negative Attitudes

As with many other countries around the world, South Africans in general have a low awareness and a negative attitude towards waste management (UNEP, 2018). This is a complex issue with many factors, such as local beliefs, perceptions of where the responsibility lies for waste management, general awareness and level of education. These contribute to pollution and illegal dumping.

2.7.4 Insufficient Budgetary Provision

In some cases, municipalities’ financial provision for waste management exceeds their budgeted revenues (Treasury, 2011). As a result of the under‐recovery of costs, these municipalities have to subsidise the service from other revenue sources. These deficits are generally more prevalent in the smaller municipalities.

2.7.5 Service Backlog

An additional challenge that many municipalities face is the backlog in waste collection services (Treasury, 2011). While significant progress has been made in addressing this backlog, there is still a lack of waste collection services in the peri‐urban and rural areas.


3 Chapter 3

State Snapshot of the current state of waste generation and management in South Africa

Source: www.creathex.com


3.1 INTRODUCTION The following chapter presents a snapshot of the state of waste generation and management in South Africa, resulting from the driving forces and pressures described in Chapter 2.

This chapter provides a baseline against which the effectiveness of the responses presented in Chapter 5 can be measured.

3.2 WASTE TYPES In terms of the Waste Amendment Act (2014), "waste means ‐

a) any substance, material or object, that is unwanted, rejected, abandoned, discarded or disposed of, by the holder of the substance, material or object, whether or not such substance, material or object can be re‐used, recycled or recovered and includes all wastes as defined in Schedule 3 to this Act; or

b) any substance, material or object that is not included in Schedule 3 that may be defined as a waste by the Minister by notice in the Gazette,

but any waste or portion of waste, referred to in paragraph (a) and (b) ceases to be a waste ‐

i. once an application for its re‐use, recycling or recovery has been approved or, after such approval, once it is, or has been re‐used, recycled or recovered;

ii. where approval is not required, once a waste is or has been re‐used, recycled or recovered;

iii. where the Minister has, in terms of section 74, exempted any waste or a portion of waste generated by a particular process from the definition of waste; or

iv. where the Minister has, in the prescribed manner, excluded any waste stream or a portion of a waste stream from the definition of waste.”

In order to align with the South African Waste Information System (SAWIS), waste generation and management will be reported on in terms of the categories contained in Annexures 3 and 4 of the National Waste Information Regulations (RSA, 2012).

These regulations divide waste into two broad categories, namely General Waste (GW) and Hazardous Waste (HW), based on the risk it poses.

3.2.1 General Waste

In terms of the Waste Amendment Act (2014), “general waste means ‐

waste that does not pose an immediate hazard or threat to health or to the environment, and includes:

a) domestic waste; b) building and demolition waste; c) business waste; d) inert waste; or

any waste classified as non‐hazardous waste in

terms of the regulations made under section 69,

and includes non‐hazardous substances, materials

or objects within the business, domestic, inert or

building and demolition wastes.”

Table 3 below presents a brief description of each

of the general waste types.


Table 3: Description of general waste types

Code Waste type Description

GW01 Municipal waste Waste excluding hazardous waste emanating from premises that are used wholly or mainly for residential, educational, health care, sport or recreation purposes (RSA, 2014).

In the context of the SoWR, this municipal waste stream excludes the mainline recyclables (paper, plastic, glass, metals and tyres), organic waste (food and garden wastes), commercial and industrial waste, and construction and demolition waste.


Waste excluding hazardous waste emanating from premises that are used wholly or mainly for commercial, retail, wholesale, entertainment or government administration purposes (RSA, 2014).

In the context of the SoWR, this commercial and industrial waste stream excludes the mainline recyclables (paper, plastic, glass, metals and tyres, but includes the organic waste from retail and offices.

GW13 Brine See Hazardous Waste ‐ Table 4.

GW14 Fly ash and dust See Hazardous Waste ‐ Table 4.

GW15 Bottom ash See Hazardous Waste ‐ Table 4.

GW16 Slag See Hazardous Waste ‐ Table 4.

GW 17 Mineral waste See Hazardous Waste ‐ Table 4.

GW 18 WEEE See Hazardous Waste ‐ Table 4.

GW 20 Organic waste Waste, excluding hazardous waste, emanating from:

Agriculture, horticulture, aquaculture, forestry, hunting and fishing, food preparation and processing;

Wood processing and the production of panels and furniture, pulp, paper and cardboard;

Garden and park wastes; and

Kitchen and restaurant facilities (RSA, 2014).

GW 21 Sewage sludge See Hazardous Waste ‐ Table 4.


Waste, excluding hazardous waste, produced during the construction, alteration, repair or demolition of any structure, and includes rubble, earth, rock and wood displaced during that construction, alteration, repair or demolition (RSA, 2014).

GW50 Paper Comprises several grades of paper, including newspaper and magazines, brown paper, white paper, and mixed paper.

GW51 Plastic Comprises several types of plastic, including Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), Low density polyethylene (LPDE), Polypropylene (PP), Polystyrene (PS), and ‘Other’ plastics.



GW52 Glass Comprises many different types of glass, including bottles, jars, sheet glass, laboratory glass, windshields, mirrors, window glass and heat resistant ovenware. Excludes fluorescent tubes and compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) which are classified as hazardous, mercury containing waste.

GW53 Metals Comprises two main categories of metals; ferrous and non‐ferrous. Ferrous metals are iron or steel based, such as mild steel, cast iron, and stainless steel, while non‐ferrous are metals comprise base metals or alloys thereof, such as aluminium, copper, brass, bronze, zinc, lead, magnesium, tin, cadmium, and etc.(TUTWA, 2017)

GW54 Tyres Tyres that are not suitable to be retreaded, repaired, or sold as a part worn tyre and not fit for its original intended use (REDISA, 2012). Several categories of tyres, including passenger, light commercial, heavy commercial, agricultural, motorcycle, industrial, aircraft, earth moving tyres and any other pneumatic tyres.

GW99 Other Waste that is classified as non‐hazardous, but does not fit into any of the above categories. These are typically wastes that are mixed and cannot be separated into for treatment purposes (DEA, 2012).

3.2.2 Hazardous Waste

In terms of the Waste Amendment Act (2014), ‘hazardous waste’ means

“any waste that contains organic or inorganic elements or compounds that may, owing to the inherent physical, chemical or toxicological characteristics of that waste, have a detrimental impact on health and the environment and includes

hazardous substances, materials or objects within the business waste, residue deposits and residue stockpiles”.

As with general wastes, the hazardous waste types reported on in this SoWR are based on those used in the SAWIS. Table 4 below presents a brief description of each of the hazardous waste types.

Table 4: Description of hazardous waste types


HW 01 Gaseous waste Waste refrigerants and foam/aerosol propellants (RSA, 2014). This includes for example HCl, NH3, acetylene, powder extinguisher, N2, and Cl2 contained cylinders that are damaged and cannot be reused.


Liquid and solid wastes containing mercury (RSA, 2014). This includes for example mercury containing test liquids; mercury treated seed grain, small packages of chemicals, thermometers, and so on.

HW 03 Batteries Includes all types of batteries that enter the waste stream, namely lead batteries, mercury batteries, Ni/Cd batteries, manganese dioxide and alkali batteries, lithium and lithium ion batteries, nickel‐metal hydride batteries, and mixed batteries (RSA, 2012).

HW 04 POP Waste Persistent organic pollutants (POP) are wastes that persist in the environment, bio‐accumulate through the food web, and pose a risk to



human health and the environment (RSA, 2012). This includes Polychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs) containing waste with more than 50 ml/kg (predominantly from capacitors), and other POP containing waste (e.g. pesticides).

HW 05 Inorganic waste Liquid, sludge, and solid inorganic wastes, as well inorganic spent pot lining, such as filter cakes, waste gypsum, hardening salts containing NaCN and Ba(CN)2 (RSA, 2012).


All waste containing asbestos. Main sources include insulation and buildings (DEA, 2012).

HW 07 Waste Oils Oily wastes, including waste hydraulic oils, waste engine, gear and lubricating oils, waste insulating and heat transmission oils, oil/water separator contents, wastes of liquid fuels, and hazardous portion of other oil wastes (RSA, 2014).

HW 08 Organic halogenated and / or sulphur containing solvents

Organic solvents with organic halogens and/or sulphurs. This includes for example chloroform, cutting and drilling oil containing more than 1% of halogen and sulphur, and waste from dry cleaning companies (DEA, 2012).


Waste solid, liquids, and sludges containing organic halogenated and/or sulphur.


Organic solvents without organic halogens and/or sulphurs. This includes for example acetone, alcohols, benzene, petrol, ether, oil emulsions, styrene, synthetic oils, turpentine, toluene, vegetable oil, xylene, and oxidizing solvents (DEA, 2012).


Organic wastes without organic halogens and/or sulphurs. This includes for example organic acids, degreasing baths, and organic salts, as well as spent pot liner containing organic fractions (DEA, 2012).

HW 12 Tarry and bituminous waste

Wastes generated by the manufacture, formulation, supply and use of coal based tar and petroleum based bitumen (RSA, 2014).

HW 13 Brine Waste water containing salts. Brine is largely generated by mining, power generation, paper and pulp, petroleum, and steel and metal processing sectors (DEA, 2012).

HW 14 Fly ash and dust Fly ash, also known as pulverised fuel ash, is a fine powder which is carried within the flue gas stream from the boilers (Eskom, 2017).

HW 15 Bottom ash The larger particles of ash which drop down from the furnace and collect at the bottom in the ash hopper of the boiler (Eskom, 2017).

HW 16 Slag Slag is one of the main wastes produced during the production of ferrous (e.g. iron and steel) and non‐ferrous (e.g. manganese, chrome, and vanadium) metals (DEA, 2012).



HW 17 Mineral waste In the context of this SoWR, mineral wastes are limited to foundry sand and refractory waste.

HW 18 WEEE Equipment that was dependent on electric currents or electromagnetic fields in order to work properly, as well as equipment that was used for the generation, transfer and measurements of such currents and fields (RSA, 2014). This includes small and large household appliances, office, information and communication equipment, entertainment and consumer electronics, lighting equipment, electric and electrical tools, security and health care equipment, and mixed WEEE (RSA, 2012).

HW 19 HCRW Waste which is produced in the diagnosis, treatment or immunization, of human beings or animals, or waste that has been in contact with blood, body fluids or tissues from humans or animals from veterinary practices (RSA, 2014). It includes for example infectious materials, sharps, pharmaceutical wastes, pathological waste, laboratory waste, chemical waste and genotoxic waste.

HW 20 Sewage sludge Residual solid or semi‐solid sludge from the treatment of sewage at wastewater treatment works (DEA, 2012).

HW 99 Miscellaneous Waste that is classified as hazardous, but does not fit into any of the above categories. These are typically wastes that are mixed and cannot be separated into for treatment purposes (DEA, 2012).

3.2.2.1 Waste Classification

SANS 10234 is a globally harmonised system that sets standard criteria for the classification of hazardous substances and mixtures, including waste, according to health, environmental and physical hazards. It includes communication elements for labelling and information required for Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS).

Unlike SANS 10234, the Waste Classification and Management Regulations (RSA, 2013a) do not prescribe any specific obligations based on whether a waste is hazardous or not, nor the type

of landfill where these wastes must be disposed of. Rather, the purpose is to ensure adequate and safe storage and handling of hazardous waste, and to inform the consideration of suitable waste management options.

The responsibility for waste classification rests with the waste generator, who must ensure that wastes are classified within 180 days of generation, except for certain wastes listed in the regulations that do not require classification and are considered to be ‘pre‐classified’. These are listed in Table 5.

Table 5: Waste that do not require classification (Pre‐classified waste)

General Waste Hazardous Waste

Domestic waste;

Business waste not containing hazardous waste/chemicals;

Non‐infectious animal carcasses;

Garden waste;

Waste packaging;

Asbestos Waste;

PCB Waste or PCB containing waste (>50 mg/kg or 50 ppm);

Expired, spoilt or unusable hazardous products;

General waste (excl. domestic), containing hazardous waste/chemicals;


General Waste Hazardous Waste

Waste tyres;

Building and demolition waste not containing hazardous waste/chemicals; and

Excavated earth material not containing hazardous waste/chemicals.

Mixed, hazardous chemical wastes from analytical laboratories, and laboratories from academic institutions in containers <100 litres; and

Health Care Risk Waste.

Regarding waste disposal to landfill, the regulations require that generators must ensure their waste is assessed and disposed of in terms of the both the Norms and Standards for Assessment of Waste for Landfill Disposal (RSA, 2013c) and Norms and Standards for Disposal of Waste to Landfill (RSA, 2013c).

3.3 WASTE GENERATION As mentioned previously, waste generation in South Africa is driven primarily by the growing population, economic growth and rising income levels, as well as increasing levels of urbanisation.

The sections to follow present a snapshot of general and hazardous waste generated in South Africa in 2017. These calculated tonnages of general and hazardous waste generated are based on information collected from a range of sources.

For a more detailed description of the data sources, methodology and limitations see Appendix A.

3.3.1 General Waste

3.3.1.1 Generation of Waste

It is estimated that South Africa generated approximately 54.2 million tonnes (Mt) of general waste in 2017. This estimate is based on a representative sample of municipalities from each of the nine provinces, and extrapolated using the population of South Africa in 2017, to account for municipalities where limited or no information is available.

It can be seen in Table 6 that the total quantity of waste generated in 2017 is the sum of municipal waste (4.8 Mt), commercial and industrial waste (3.5 Mt), organic waste (30.5 Mt), construction and demolition waste (4.5 Mt), glass (2.5 Mt), paper (2.2 Mt), plastic (1.1 Mt), metals (4 Mt), tyres (0.24 Mt), and other (0.73 Mt).

Table 6: General waste by management option in 2017



Landfilled LoC

GW01 Municipal waste 4 821 430 2 4 0.0% 100.0%


3 550 505 0 0 10.0% 90.0%

GW 20 Organic waste 30 499 455 4 048 298 31.1% 68.8%


0 0 90.0% 10.0%

GW50 Paper 4 482 992 58 548 129 375 58.0% 42.0%

GW51 Plastic 2 211 225 6,804 20 947 43.7% 56.3%

GW52 Glass 1 113 362 39 928 11 78.4% 21.6%

GW53 Metals 2 492 636 27 976 68 192 75.0% 25.0%

GW54 Tyres 4 035 929 0 0 100% 0%

GW99 Other ** 729 615 0 0 9.1% 90.8%

TOTAL 54 175 147 137 490 258 557 38.6% 61.4% *Note that darker shading indicates the highest level of confidence (LoC) in the information used, whereas the lighter shading indicates a lower confidence level.


3.3.1.2 Waste Composition

Figure 11 presents a breakdown of the total quantity of waste generated in 2017. Organic waste accounts for the majority of the waste generated in 2017 (56.3%), followed by municipal

waste (8.9%), construction and demolition waste (8.3%), metals (7.4%), commercial and industrial waste (6.6%), glass (4.6%), paper (4%), and plastic and (2%).

Figure 11: Breakdown of general waste generated in 2017

3.3.1.3 General Waste Imported and Exported in 2017

As mentioned in Chapter 2, the global trade in recyclables, namely metal, glass cullet, plastic and paper has increased in recent years. It is therefore critical to also understand the state of waste imports to and exports out of South Africa.

In South Africa, the importation and exportation of waste is regulated by the International Trade Administration Act (Act 71 of 2002) and the Customs and Excise Act (Act 91 of 1964). For prohibited and restricted imports, which includes waste and scrap, an “import permit” is required.

The regulation of imports and exports is the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), South African Revenue Service

(SARS) and International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (ITAC).

Table 5 presents the estimated tonnages of general waste generated, imported and exported in 2017 (SARS, 2017).

It was calculated that 137,490 tonnes of general waste was imported, accounting for less than 1% of the total waste generated. This consisted of 39,928 tonnes of glass waste that was imported (accounting for 5% of the total quantity of glass waste generated in 2017). Similarly, 58,548 tonnes of waste paper was imported, accounting for 3% of total waste paper generated in 2017. Waste plastic imported amounted to 6,988 tonnes, and scrap metal imported amounted to 27,976 tonnes, accounting for approximately 1% of the total

Municipal waste9%

Commercial and industrial waste

7%

Organic waste56%

Construction and demolition waste

8%

Paper4%

Plastic2%

Glass5%

Metals8% Tyres

0%

Other1%


tonnage of each of these waste streams generated in 2017.

In 2017, an estimated 258,557 tonnes of general waste was exported, accounting for less than 1% of the total waste generated. It is estimated that 129,375 tonnes of waste paper was exported, accounting for approximately 6% of total waste paper generated in 2017. An estimated 34,794 tonnes of waste plastic was exported, accounting for approximately 3% of total waste plastic generated in 2017. Of the 4 Mt of scrap metals generated in 2017, approximately 68,192 tonnes or 2% was exported.

3.3.1.4 Recycling and Recovery

It is estimated that 20.7 Mt of general waste was recycled in 2017, which results in an overall recycling rate of 38.3%.

The recycling and recovery of organic waste accounted for the majority of the waste recycled and recovered (45.7%), followed by construction and demolition waste (19.4%), metals (14.6%), glass (9.4%), paper (6.2%), and plastic (2.3%).

In terms of the mainline recyclables, namely paper, plastic, glass and metal, approximately 6.8 Mt was

recycled and recovered in 2017 (i.e. excluding all the other waste types). If the combined total of these waste streams is approximately 9.9 Mt, then the average recycling rate is 69%.

3.3.1.5 Treatment and Disposal

It is assumed that the residual waste that has not been recycled or recovered is disposed of to landfill. While there are some losses, due to for example littering, these are assumed to be insignificant.

It is estimated that 32.6 Mt or 62% of the general waste was disposed to landfill in 2017. Of this 62%, organic waste accounted for the majority of waste disposed to landfill (61%), followed by residual or municipal waste (15%), paper (3%), plastic, glass, metals, and other (2% each), and tyres accounting for 1% each.

The following sections provide a brief overview of the state of selected waste types.

3.3.1.6 Construction and Demolition Waste

Construction and demolition (C&D) waste is one of the largest waste streams generated in South Africa (see Figure 11). It has however been largely overlooked in terms of diversion from landfill, particularly with regards to reuse and recycling (DEA, 2018c).

Current Quantities

As with many of waste types, there is generally a lack of data on C&D waste generation rates in South Africa. In general, C&D waste is not well reported in the IWMPs, and the information uploaded to the SAWIS is largely incomplete as many of the local municipalities are not reporting. The estimated 4,482,992 tonnes of C&D waste that is generated on an annual basis is therefore based a range of data sources, including the SAWIS, IWMPs, and literature review (DEA, 2018c).

General Composition

Figure 12 below presents a breakdown of C&D waste in South Africa (DEA, 2018c). Wood accounts for the majority of C&D waste (27%), followed by asphalt/concrete/bricks/dirt (23%), drywall (13%), roofing (12%), metal (9%), paper 3% and plastic (1%).

Wood27%

Asphalt/concrete/brick/

dirt23%

Drywall13%

Roofing12%

Metal9%

Paper3%

Plastic1%

Other12%

In 2017, 54.2 Mt of general waste was generated in South Africa, 38.3% of this waste was recovered or recycled, and 61.7% of this waste was treated or landfilled.

Figure 12: Composition of C&D waste in South Africa

(Van Wyk, 2014).


Reuse

The reuse of C&D waste is generally not well recorded in South Africa as C&D waste for reuse is typically separated at source (e.g. in‐tact bricks, wood, roof tiles, and glass) (DEA, 2018c). C&D waste is also generally used in landfills as cover material, to such an extent that many landfills reduce or in some cases remove tariffs for disposing of C&D waste.

Recycling and Recovery

While data regarding the recycling and recovery of C&D waste is limited, it is estimated that the recycling rate is just less than 4 Mt per annum (DEA, 2018c). Wood, ferrous and non‐ferrous metals, concrete, bricks, asphalt and gypsum drywall can be recycled provided that they are separated at source.

Crushing is the most widely practiced form of recycling, with a number of mobile and permanent crushers currently operating in South Africa. The majority of the crushers are concentrated in the metropolitan areas where the most C&D waste can be found. The crushed aggregate is typically used as fill or in road sub‐bases.

3.3.1.7 Organic Waste

Organic waste in this SoWR is made of several different organic waste streams. This includes:

1. Garden refuse;2. Wood chips, bark and dust;3. Sugar bagasse;4. Black liquor, sludge and bark from the paper

and pulp mills; and5. Pre‐consumer food waste.

Garden Refuse

Garden refuse refers to the organic waste from households and parks, such as branches, grass cuttings and leaves, that are collected either as part of the regular waste collection service or collected at drop off facilities.

Most IWMPs report separately on the quantity of garden refuse that is collected at the drop off

facilities and the quantity of municipal waste that is collected as part of the regular waste collection service. Using the waste characterisation studies, which provide a breakdown of the general composition of the household waste, the percentage of the organic waste that is contained in the municipal waste stream can also be estimated. It is estimated, based on information contained in the IWMPs, as well as the waste characterisation studies, that approximately 30% of the municipal waste generated in South Africa in 2017 was garden refuse.

Presently, there are a number of composting facilities in South Africa which divert garden refuse from landfill. In addition to reducing the amount of waste going to landfill, and thereby prolonging the life of the landfill, composting also reduces the amount of organic waste at the landfill, which contributes to a reduction in the generation of leachate and methane emissions (Ekelund & Nyström, 2007).

Wood Chips, Bark and Sawdust

Commercial forestry typically generates two types of biomass, the residue that is accumulated during the growing and harvesting of the timber which is typically left in the field, and the wood chips, bark and sawdust that is generated at the processing plants (DME, 2004).

Figure 13 presents a breakdown of the main products produced at sawmills. In total, sawdust (20%), wood chips (19%), and bark (9%), account for 48% of the products produced.

Lumber52%

Sawdust20%

Bark9%

Wood chips19%

Figure 13: Products produced from sawmilling (Sawmilling SA, 2014)


In 2016, there were 75 operational sawmills, with an intake of approximately 5.2 Mt (Godsmark, 2017). Assuming that the yield of lumber is on average 52%, sawmills generated an estimated 990,400 t of wood chips, 369,000 t of bark, and 1 Mt of sawdust.

Presently, the wood chips are sold to generate additional revenue for sawmills.

Sugar Bagasse

As with commercial forestry, the processing of sugar produces two types of biomass; the residue left in the field (tops and trash) and bagasse, the residue from the processing of the cane (DME, 2004).

Typically, the quantity of bagasse is equivalent to 30% of the tonnage of cane crushed (DME, 2004). If South Africa crushed approximately 14.9 Mt of cane in 2016, it is estimated that 4.5 Mt of sugar bagasse was generated.

There are currently 14 sugar mills operating in South Africa (SASA, 2017). These mills typically generate their own electricity using the bagasse and/or coal. The mills use the bagasse to reduce the quantity requiring disposal and the need for an additional fuel source (mainly coal) (DME, 2004). The Malelane, Pongolo, Umfolozi, Gledhow, and Noodsberg mills have installed a back end refinery to further process the bagasse, while the Malelane, Felixton, Gledhow, Maidstone, Sezela mills export some of their bagasse.

Black Liquor, Sludge and Bark

Pulp and paper mills generate three main types of organic waste; black liquor, sludge and bark (DME, 2004).

Black liquor is a residue from the chemical pulping process (DME, 2004). In 2016, there were 17 operational pulp and paper mills, which processed approximately 9.4 Mt of pulpwood (Godsmark, 2017). Assuming that for every tonne of pulpwood processed, approximately 52.6% of black liquor is generated, an estimated 4.9 Mt of black liquor was generated (DME, 2004). The black liquor is typically

concentrated through evaporation and subsequently burnt in boilers to recover valuable chemicals.

Similarly with sawmills, pulp and paper mills also generate bark. It is assumed that the quantity of bark generated is approximately 9% of the softwood intake and 0.5% of hardwood intake (DME, 2004). In 2016, the intake of softwood and hardwood at the pulp and paper mills was approximately 6.4 Mt and 2.4 Mt respectively, therefore an estimated total 245,219 tonnes of bark was generated.

The quantity and quality of sludge is dependent on the mill configuration and types of product produced (DME, 2004). The amount of sludge generated is also dependent on the moisture content. Assuming a moisture content of 50% and that for every tonne of pulpwood processed, approximately 3.5% of sludge is generated, an estimated 324,134 tonnes of sludge was generated in 2016 (DME, 2004). As the sludge has a dry solid content of between 20% and 40%, the moisture content of the sludge is typically reduced through mechanical dewatering.

Food Waste

South Africa produces approximately 31 Mt of food annually, of which an estimated 10 Mt or 32.7% is lost on an annual basis (WWF, 2017).

Figure 14 presents a breakdown of food losses or wastage in each stage of the value chain (WWF, 2017). The majority of the food losses or wastage occurs at the agricultural‐harvest stage (50%), followed by processing and packaging (25%), distribution and retail (20%), and consumer level (5%).


Figure 14: Food wastage in each stage of the value chain (WWF, 2017)

Food losses or wastage also varies across each of the commodity groups. Figure 15 presents a breakdown of contribution of each commodity (Nahman and De Lange, 2013) group to total food losses or wastage. Waste fruits and vegetables account for approximately 45% of total food losses or wastage, followed by cereals (26%), roots and tubers (10%), meat and milk (8% each) and oil seeds and pulses (3%).

Figure 15: Percentage contribution of each commodity group to total food losses or wastage (Nahman and De Lange, 2013)

3.3.1.8 Paper

There are several different types of paper, including newsprint, printing/writing, corrugated materials, wrapping papers, tissue, board and other paper.

In 2017, it is estimated that South Africa generated or consumed 2.56 Mt of paper (PRASA, 2018).

Table 7 below presents a breakdown of paper production and consumption or waste generation per paper product. In total, 2.18 Mt of paper was produced locally, while 715,471 t of paper was imported and 640,456 t of the paper locally produced was exported. Corrugated material accounted for the largest proportion of paper consumed or waste generated (45%), followed by printing/writing paper (31%), tissue (10%), and newsprint (7%).

Agricultural‐harvest stage

Processing and packaging

Distribution and retail

Consumer level

0 20 40 60

% of total food wastage

Cereals26%

Roots and

tubers10%

Oil seeds and pulses

3%

Fruits and vegetables

45%

Meat8%

Milk8%


Table 7: Paper production and waste generation

Paper product Local production Paper imports Paper exports Paper consumption / waste generation

Newsprint 180 727 3 746 36 980 147 493

Printing/writing 342 457 487 581 136 243 693 796

Corrugated material 1 208 571 141 038 326 947 1 022 661

Wrapping papers 46 950 46 950

Tissue 228 991 35 879 36 282 228 588

Board 138 186 47 227 104 005 81 408

Other paper 34 178 34 178

TOTAL 2 180 061 715 471 640 456 2 255 075

*Note that the imports and export values presented above vary from those presented in Table 6. Table 5 indicates values for waste paper imports and exports. Table 6 indicates values for new paper imports and exports.

Of the 2.56 Mt of paper consumed, it is estimated that 43,850 t is exported in agricultural products, leaving 2.21 Mt of waste paper.

In 2017, approximately 1.28 Mt of waste paper was recovered (PRASA, 2018). Figure 16 below presents a breakdown of the paper recovered in terms of paper product. Corrugated material accounts for the majority of paper recovered (66%), followed by

office, graphic papers (11%), newspaper (11%), mixed and other papers (9%) and magazines (2%).

It is important to note that there is a proportion of waste paper (approximately 16%) that is considered to be unrecoverable. This includes for example tissue paper, which is not recycled, and waste paper that has been contaminated by for example food waste.

Figure 16: Breakdown of paper recovered by paper product (PRASA, 2018)

146 509

30 955

850 992

139 421 114 242

0

100 000

200 000

300 000

400 000

500 000

600 000

700 000

800 000

900 000

Newspapers Magazines Corrugated material Office, graphic papers Mixed and otherpapers

Paper recovered

Paper product


3.3.1.9 Plastic

Waste Generation and Collection Rates

In 2017, it is estimated that South Africa consumed 1.8 Mt of plastic (Plastics SA, 2018) – see Figure 17. Approximately 84% of the plastic consumed was produced using virgin material, while the remaining 16% was produced using recyclate.

As some of the plastics produced are used in durable applications, such as sewage pipes, car parts, landfill liners and laminate flooring, it is assumed that 38% of the plastics consumed will not be available for recycling in the short to medium term. As such, 1.11 Mt of plastic was available for recycling in 2017.

In total, 486,868 t of plastic was collected for recycling (or 43.7% of the plastics available for

recycling). Of the plastics collected, approximately 8% could not be recycled and was disposed of to landfill, 0.25% was used for energy recovery either formally (in pilot projects) or informally (as a heat source in low income areas), and 4.3% was exported.

The remaining 422,601 t (or 86.8%) of collected plastics was procured by the recyclers. Of this, only 313,780 tonnes (or 75%) of the plastics turned into raw materials as the collected plastics typically contain materials from other waste streams, such as bricks, glass and engine parts, and contaminants, such as labels, sand and contents residue.

It is assumed that the remaining 626,527 t (or 56.3%) of the plastics available for recycling were disposed to landfill.

Figure 17: Schematic representation of plastics recycling value chain (adapted from Plastics SA, 2018:35)

Total plastic manufacture

1 788 495 t

Plastics available for

recycling (~62%)

1 113 395 t

Plastics recovered from waste stream

(3.7%)486 868 t

Obsolete material to

landfill (~8%)

- 38 949 t

Energy recovery (~0.25%)

- 1 200 t

Exported (~4.3%)

- 20 950 t

Procured by recyclers (~86.8%)

422 601 t

Sorting waste to landfill (~10%)

- 42 260 t

Processing losses to landfill

(~15%)

66 828 t

Turned to recyclate (~75%)

313 780 t

Recyclables not reovered (~52.3%)

- 626 527 t

Plastics in durable applications (~38%)

- 679 283 t


Sourcing of Recyclable Plastics

As shown in Figure 18, the majority of recyclable plastics collected were sourced from formal collectors in the form of bales (61%) (Plastics SA, 2018), followed by large plastic components sourced from formal collectors as loose material (12%), from plastic converters (12%), from waste generators, such as conference centres and logistics companies (9%), from waste pickers / walk ins (3%), from imports (2%), and from buy back / drop off centres.

It is important to note that the formal collectors typically source their recyclables from the waste pickers and buy back / drop off centres. As such, these play a greater role in the value chain than what is depicted in Figure 18.

Figure 18: Sources of collected plastics (adapted from Plastics SA, 2018: 37)

Plastic Imports and Exports

In 2017, approximately 6,804 t of plastics were imported and locally recycled (Plastics SA, 2018). These recyclable plastics were mainly sourced from Namibia (24%), Mauritius (14%), and the Netherlands (13%). These imports only represent 2% of the tonnages recycles, indicating that there is a strong focus on recovering recyclable plastics locally.

Approximately 20,947 t of recyclable plastics were exported in 2017. Despite the clamp down on the import of waste, China and Hong Kong are still the main importer of recyclable plastics from South Africa (62%). The main exports to these countries include low density polyethylene (PE‐LD)/linear

low density polyethylene (PE‐LLD), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), and high density polyethylene (PE‐HD).

Plastics Recycled

Figure 19 presents a breakdown of the plastics recycled in South Africa in 2017 (Plastics SA, 2018). The majority of the plastics recycled were PE‐LD/PE‐LLD (33%), followed by PET (22%), PE‐HD (20%), polypropylene (PP) (15%), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (6%) and Polystyrene (PS) (2%).

PE‐LD/PE‐LLD remains the most widely recycled material, mainly due to the very low barriers to entry and markets that are well established. PET recycling continues to increase steadily due to the demand for PET material to relieve the pressure on limited virgin materials. PE‐HD is the third most recycled material with increased demand for mainly milk bottles.

Figure 19: Breakdown of plastic waste recycled in 2017 (adapted from Plastics SA, 2018: 46)

One of the main challengers facing the plastic recyclers is finding sufficient markets for the recyclate. Presently, the majority of recyclate is exported to neighbouring countries. Typically, the plastic recyclers supplied ‘easy’ grade recyclate where large volumes are moved with very little value added. However, with the current lack of demand, the recyclers are able to be more selective and sourcing better quality materials. This can be seen in their lower processing volumes.

Collectors (baled)61%

Collectors (loose)12%

Converters12%

Generators9%

Pickers & walk ins3%

Imports2%

Buy back centres 1%

PE‐LD/LLD33%

PET22%

PE‐HD20%

PP15%

PVC6%

PS/PS‐E2%

Other2%


3.3.1.10 Glass

The glass waste stream in South Africa comprises many different types of glass, and in particular packaging glass, such as bottles and jars, and flat/sheet glass, such as windows, windscreens, and mirrors.

In terms of packaging glass, South Africa manufactured 964,424 t of glass in 2017 (Barnes, 2018). Of this, 739,412 t was exported as either unfilled (77,365 t) or filled (147,647 t) glass containers. Further to this, an estimated 7,000 t of unfilled and 24,000 t of filled containers were imported, increasing the quantity of filled containers sold locally to 770,412 t. In 2017, an estimated 305,590 t of cullet (crushed glass that is ready to be used in the furnace) was recycled.

In terms of the reuse of glass, an estimated 1.72 Mt of returnables were placed on the South Africa market in 2017 (Barnes, 2018). Of this, approximately 1.65 million tonnes of returnables were recovered.

Figure 20: Glass collection at one of the drop off facilities (TGRC, 2017)

Glass bottles and jars can be endlessly recycled, without any decline in the purity or quality (TGRC, 2017). It is estimated that the bottles and jars produced in South Africa contain at least 40% recycled glass, reducing the need for raw materials. In addition, the use of cullet also reduces the energy intensity of producing the glass, as well as the greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that increasing cullet use by 10% can reduce energy usage by between 2% and 3.5% (Worrell et al., 2008).

Figure 21: The use of cullet reduces gas and/or electricity used in the glass furnace (www.cesyco.com)

3.3.1.11 Metals

Waste and/or scrap metal can be divided into two broad categories; production scrap and obsolete scrap (TUTWA, 2017).

Production scrap is generated through the production/manufacturing of metal products, and includes for example turnings, shavings, off cuts, trimmings and stampings. As shown in Figure 22, production scrap is generally sold directly to the consumers, namely the mills, mini‐mills and foundries. Obsolete scrap refers to metal products that have reached the end of their life span or utility. The metal recyclers generally recover the obsolete scrap through a network of collectors. Once the scrap metal has been collected, it is generally transported to a scrap yard where it is sorted and processed. Processing typically involves sorting, cutting, resizing, baling, shearing, granulating, and/or shredding depending on the product types and recyclers preferences. The recycled metals are then transported to the consumers.

In 2015, the domestic ferrous scrap demand from the mills was approximately 400,000 tonnes, and the mills and mini‐mills was approximately 1.25 Mt, totalling 1.65 Mt.

According to TUTWA (2017), South Africa is a net‐exporter of scrap metals. The quantity of scrap metals recovered exceeds the local demand at mills, mini‐mills and foundries. Surplus scrap ferrous metals (1.57 Mt in 2015) were exported, mainly to India, Pakistan, Turkey, Indonesia and Vietnam. In the same year, 132,102 tonnes of scrap non‐ferrous metals were exported, mainly to China, India, South Korea, Brazil and Germany.


Figure 22: South African scrap metal recycling value chain (TUTWA, 2017: 14)

3.3.1.12 Tyres

Currently, an estimated 14 million tyres are sold in South Africa on an annual basis, with just over 50% of the tyres imported and the rest being locally manufactured (Mr H. Judd 2018, pers. comm., 30 July 2018). Assuming that each tyre weighs approximately 17 kg, South Africa potentially generates an estimated 238,000 t of waste tyres annually.

In addition to this, South Africa also has significant stockpiles of waste tyres accumulated over the years. While there is no official estimate of the size of these stockpiles, estimates range between 30 million (500,000 t) and 60 million tyres (1 Mt)

On the 29 September 2017, the DEA published a notice withdrawing the Integrated Industry Waste Tyre Management Plan (IIWTMP) of the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa (REDISA) (RSA, 2017). The reasons for the withdrawal include for example REDISA’s poor

governance structures, the conflict of interest between parties involved in the implementation of the plan, REDISA’s failure to meet its own targets, and the misuse of public funds.

Currently, the DEA’s Waste Management Bureau (WMB) has assumed responsibility for facilitating, supervising and controlling the management of waste tyres in the interim until a new industry waste tyre management plan is approved.

It is estimated that only 60,000 t of waste tyres are currently reused or recycled annually (Mr H. Judd 2018, pers. comm., 30 July 2018). Further to this, no waste tyres are currently exported due to the moratorium on exports. As a result, an estimated 138,000 t of waste tyres are stockpiled annually, either at the depots or at the dealerships themselves.



Based on the calculations, South Africa generated approximately 68 Mt of hazardous waste in 2017.

Approximately, 6% of hazardous waste generated in 2017 was re‐used or recycled, with the

remainder treated and/or landfilled (94%). It is estimated that approximately 73% of batteries (predominately lead acid batteries) and 67% of waste oils were reused or recycled. Further to this, approximately 7‐8% of fly ash and bottom ash was used in the construction industry in the manufacturing of cement and bricks.

Table 8: Hazardous waste by management option in 2017



Treated Landfilled LoC

HW 01 Gaseous waste 6 0.0% 96.0%


1 392 0.0% 95.6%

HW 03 Batteries 39 867 32 608 46 000 0.0% 26.9%

HW 04 POP Waste 570 0.0% 100.0%

HW 05 Inorganic waste 786 083 0.6% 99.4%


6 721 5 700 0.0% 100.0%

HW 07 Waste Oils 116 250 214 241 80.0% 0.0% 20.0%


663 19.9% 6.2% 73.9%


8 812 0.0% 4.4% 95.6%


4 562 42.1% 5.5% 52.4%


519 413 25 000 0.0% 40.7% 59.3%


249 080 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

HW 13 Brine 5 793 645 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

HW 14 Fly ash and dust 44 000 000 6.8% 0.0% 93.4%

HW 15 Bottom ash 6 000 000 100 8.3% 0.0% 91.7%

HW 16 Slag 7 887 879 3 500 4.1% 0.0% 95.9%

HW 17 Mineral waste 115 754 0.9% 2.8% 96.4%

HW 18 WEEE 360 000 4 740 9.7% 0.0% 90.3%

HW 19 HCRW 48 749 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

HW 20 Sewage sludge 632 749 15.0% 0.0% 85.0%

HW 99 Miscellaneous 294 064 10 330 3 000 0.9% 1.5% 97.6%

66 866 260 296 219 49 000 6.0% 0.3%% 93.7%*Note that darker shading indicates the highest level of confidence (LoC) in the information used, whereas the lighter shading indicates a lower confidence level.


Figure 23 presents the percentage contribution of each waste type to the total tonnage of hazardous waste generated in 2017. The majority of the

hazardous waste that was generated was fly ash and dust and bottom ash (73.4%), mainly from coal‐fired power stations (66%).

Figure 23: Breakdown of hazardous waste generated in 2017

The section below presents a broad overview of selected hazardous waste types.

3.3.2.1 Batteries

Batteries are ordinarily included as part of WEEE. However, in terms the National Waste Information Regulations (2012), batteries are required to be reported on as a separate waste stream.

One of the most commonly used types of batteries are lead acid batteries, which comprise up to 80% recycled lead (DEA, 2016c). These batteries are typically used in motor vehicles and as a backup power source. While spent lead acid batteries are generally safe, these batteries do pose a risk to human health and the environment when they are

damaged, due to the lead and sulphuric acid that they contain.

In addition to lead acid batteries, there are also several types of dry cell batteries that are used. This includes for example Lithium‐ion, Nickel‐Cadmium, Nickel‐Zinc, Hydrogen Electrode, and Nickel‐Metal‐Hydride batteries (DEA, 2016d).

Generation

There is limited information available on the quantities of spent lead acid and dry cell batteries generated and recycled in South Africa (DEA, 2016c).

The annual quantities of spent lead acid batteries generated in South Africa (39,747 t) was therefore

Gaseous waste 0.0%

Mercury waste 0.0%

Batteries0.1%

POP Waste 0.0%

Inorganic waste 1.2%

Asbestos waste 0.0% Waste Oils

0.2%

Solvents with organic halogens/sulphur

0.0%

Waste with organic halogens/sulphur

0.0%Solvents without organic

halogens/sulphur0.0%

Wastes without organic halogens/sulphur

0.8%

Tarry and Bituminous waste 0.4%

Brine8.7%

Fly ash and dust65.8%

Bottom ash 9.0%

Slag 11.8%

Mineral waste 0.2%

WEEE0.5%

HCRW0.1%

Sewage sludge 0.9%

Miscellaneous 0.4%


estimated based on the quantities of lead acid batteries manufactured locally (37,500 t), plus the quantities of lead acid batteries imported (18,684 t), minus the quantities of lead acid batteries exported (14,437 t).

The annual quantities of spent dry cell batteries generated in South Africa (160 t) was estimated using the quantities of dry cell batteries disposed to landfill in 2017 (24 t) (SAWIC, 2017) and quantities of dry cell batteries exported to other countries for recycling in 2016 (120 t) (Basel Convention, 2016).

Recovery

In South Africa, spent lead acid batteries are typically recovered through the ‘one‐for‐one system’ where the buyer returns the old LAB when purchasing a new one (DEA, 2016c). This system is largely driven by the battery manufacturers who charge the retailers a levy for each of the spent lead acid batteries that is distributed to them. The

retailers then pass this levy onto the consumers. If the consumer returns their old battery, the price of the new battery is reduced by the value of the levy. Consumers that return LABs without purchasing a new one can generally also receive payment for their battery.

The spent lead acid batteries are then collected by the distributors or manufacturers from the retailers and transported back to the lead smelters where they are recycled. LABs are also recovered by the scrap metal merchants who either sell the collected spent lead acid batteries to the smelters or export the batteries to other countries.

In general, spent dry cell batteries are recovered from drop off points at local participating stores, such as PnP, and selected Makro, Builders Warehouse, Woolworths and Stax stores DEA, 2016d). It is understood that parts of this collection system have since collapsed due to lack of funding.

Figure 24: Easily identifiable bins are used to encourage battery users to dispose of their spent dry cell batteries at participating stores.


Recycling

In South Africa, there are currently four main lead smelters/recyclers (DEA, 2016c). These facilities reportedly have sufficient capacity to recycle all the lead acid batteries manufactured domestically.

According to the smelters/recyclers, large exports of spent lead acid batteries is a significant challenge as it can leave the smelters/recyclers with insufficient supply to sustain their operations.

The quantities of spent lead acid batteries recycled (29,016 t) was calculated based on the waste generation rate (39.747 t), plus the imports of spent lead acid batteries (25,625 t), minus the exports of spent lead acid batteries (36,356 t).

Currently there are no facilities for the recycling of dry cell batteries in South Africa (DEA, 2016d). The batteries that are collected at participating stores are taken to a facility in Gauteng where the batteries are sorted according to the chemical composition. The recyclable batteries are then exported to a recycling facility in France, while the non‐recyclable batteries are encapsulated and disposed to licensed hazardous landfills.

3.3.2.2 POP Waste

In response to the Regulations to Phase‐Out the Use of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Materials and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Contaminated Materials (2014), many enterprises, and in particularly Eskom, are in the process phasing out the use of PCBs in their production processes, as well as existing stocks of PCBs and PCB contaminated wastes.

3.3.2.3 Waste Oils

Waste oils are the oils that have been drained from machinery, engines, gearboxes, hydraulic systems, turbines and air compressors once it is degraded or becomes contaminated (Rose Foundation, 2018).

Waste oils are classified as hazardous as they contain harmful chemicals, such as benz(a)pyrene and chrysene, and metals, such as iron, tin and copper. As such, waste oils pose a significant risk to human health and the environment. It is estimated

that one litre of waste oil can contaminate up to 1 million litres of water.

Generation

It is estimated that South Africa produces 300 million litres of oil per annum, which is equivalent to approximately 279,000 t of oil (Bubele Nyiba 2018, pers. comm., 20 June 2018).

Assuming that 50% of annual production becomes used oil, South Africa generates approximately 150 million litres or 139,500 t of used oil annually.

Recovery and Recycling

Waste oils are typically recovered in two ways, either through a licensed collector or at a designated drop off point (Rose Foundation, 2018). The licensed collectors then take the waste oils to the processors where the waste oils are processed into usable products, such as base oils and/or heavy furnace oil.

Currently, it is estimated that the processors recycle approximately 100 million litres or 93,000 t of used oil annually, resulting in recycling rate of approximately 67% (Bubele Nyiba 2018, pers. comm., 20 June 2018).

In South Africa, three treatment processes are typically used to recycle the used oil. This includes the mechanical separation of contaminants using filters or centrifuges, the chemical separation of the contaminants, and thermal refining to improve quality of the products.

3.3.2.4 Brine

In order to align with the 2012 Waste Information Baseline Report, brine is defined in this SoWR as the salt load of industrial effluent that discharged to either inland or coastal waters (CSIR, 2012).

In 2009, it was estimated that on average, 9.6 million kilolitres of effluent is discharged on a daily basis, with a salt load of approximately 10,413 tonnes (Van Der Merwe, 2009).

With the exception of the mining sector, Van Der Merwe, 2009, argues that for most industries, there will be no significant change in the quantity


of industrial effluent and the ancillary salt load since 2009 despite economic growth. This is largely due to improvements in cleaner production and technological advancements. It is however predicted that within 10 years (i.e. 2019), the mining sector will contribute an additional 5,460 t/d, increasing the total salt of industrial effluent to 15,873 t/d or 5.8 Mt per annum.

The major industries that currently contribute to the production of industrial effluent and ancillary salt load are mining, power generation, petroleum, paper and pulp and steel and metals processing – see figure below.

Figure 25: Breakdown of industries generating industrial effluent and ancillary salt load (Van der Merwe, 2009)

In South Africa, the most frequently used brine disposal options are lined evaporation ponds, the installation of mechanical evaporators, and co‐disposal with ash.

In terms of the National Waste Information Regulations (2012), brines can be classified as either general waste (GW13) or hazardous waste (HW13). As there has to date been no conclusive classification of this waste stream, this SoWR has

adopted the precautionary principle and assumed that brines are hazardous. Note that this is only for reporting purposes and does not influence or make suggestions as to how this waste stream should be managed or regulated, now or in the future.

3.3.2.5 Fly Ash and Bottom Ash

According to the South African Coal Ash Society, South Africa generates on average 50 Mt of ash on an annual basis, comprising 44 Mt of fly ash (88%) and 6 Mt of bottom ash (12%) (M. Hunter (2018), email, 30 May 2018).

In 2017, Eskom’s 14 coal fired power stations consumed 113.7 Mt of coal, producing 237,215 GWh and 32.6 Mt of ash (Eskom, 2017). Thus, Eskom generates on average 1 t of ash for every 3.5 t of coal used, or 151 t of ash for GWh produced.

Note that Medupi and Kusile, two of the largest coal fired power stations, are still under construction and will likely contribute significantly to the quantity of ash produced.

Only six of the 14 Eskom coal‐fired power stations sell the ash that is produced. Figure 26 presents the estimated quantities of ash produced by each power station, the estimated quantities of ash that are available for sale, and the quantities of ash that are sold (Zitholele, 2016). The power station that produces the largest estimated quantity of ash is Lethabo (6.48 Mt), followed by Kendal (4.91 Mt), Majuba (3.43 Mt), and Matla (3.40 Mt). The power station that generates the largest estimated quantity of ash that is available for sale is Kendal (3 Mt), followed by Matimba (2 Mt), Lethabo (1.3 Mt), and Tutuka (1 Mt). Note that the quantity of ash that is available for sale at each power station is dependent on the technology being used, such as dry versus wet cooling, and the quantities of ash required for the co disposal of brine. With the exception of Lethabo, which sells all the available ash (1.3 Mt), the other power stations sell little or none of the ash available for sale.

Mining15%

Power generation

14%

Paper & pulp28%Petroleum

9%

Steel & metals processing

3%

Other31%


Figure 26: Estimated quantities of ash produced, ash that is available and ash sold (Zitholele, 2016)

Thus, approximately 31% of the ash that is available for sale is sold, while only 13% of the total ash that is produced is sold (Zitholele, 2016).

Currently, almost all the ash that is sold is used by the construction industry, for use in cement and concrete applications. One of the greatest challenges for the reuse and recycling of the ash is the distance from the power station to the buyer, due to the transport costs. As a result, Eskom generally focuses on industries within 50 km of the power stations.

Eskom has undertaken a number of waste classification studies of the ash that it produces. In all of these studies, the ash was classified has a Type 3 or low hazard waste. Given that the majority of the ash in South Africa is produced by Eskom (65%), and that not all the ash produced has been classified, this SoWR has adopted the precautionary principle and has assumed that all the ash generated is hazardous. While it is

acknowledged that not all the ash that is produced in South Africa is classified as hazardous, this only represents a small proportion of the total waste stream. Note that the assumption that ash is hazardous is only for reporting purposes and does not influence or make suggestions as to how this waste stream should be managed or regulated, now or in the future.

3.3.2.6 Slag

Slag can be broken into three broad categories, namely ferrous slag, non‐ferrous slag, and other.

Ferrous slags comprise mainly iron and steel slags, stainless steel or ferrochrome slags, and ferroalloy slags, while non‐ferrous slags comprise mainly copper slag, and lead and zinc containing slag. Other slag typically includes salt slag, granulated phosphorus slag and waste incineration slag (Reuter et al., 2004).

1.5500.968

2.306

1.624 1.539

0.324

1.440

3.874

2.363 2.2812.592

1.926

0.100

0.100

0.200

0.200

3.000

0.000

0.650

1.300

0.5000.400

2.000

1.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.367

0.000

0.212

1.306

0.565

0.359

0.160

0.000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Quan

tities of ash (Mt)

Coal fired power stations

Est. Volume Unavailable

Est. Volume Available

Ash Sold


Iron is typically produced using Blast Furnace technology. It is estimated that 300 kg of blast furnace slag is generated for every tonne of iron produced (Jones, 2004). If South Africa produces on average 4.2 Mt of iron annually, an estimated 1.24 Mt of blast furnace slag is generated (Dondofema et al., 2017).

Steel is typically produced using basic oxygen furnace or electric arc furnace technology (Reuter et al., 2004). It is estimated that on average 150 kg of steel slag is generated for every tonne of steel produced (Jones, 2004). As the steel content of this slag can be as high as 55%, the steel slag is typically reprocessed to recover the entrained steel. The recovered steel is then either sold or fed back into the furnace. If South Africa produced 6.2 Mt of steel in 2017, approximately 912,000 of steel slag was generated (Dondofema et al., 2017).

South Africa produces on average 3.69 Mt of ferrochrome per annum (USGS, 2014). Given that on average 135 kg of ferrochrome slag is generated for every tonne of ferrochrome (DEA, 2012), then in total an estimated 4.98 Mt of ferrochrome slag was generated.

Figure 27 presents an illustration of the typical ferrochrome production process. It can be seen that the three outputs of the furnace are the metals to market, furnace off gas/dust, and ferrochrome slag containing entrained metals (JMA, 2013: 7). As with steel slag, the ferrochrome slag is typically taken to the metal extraction plant where the embedded metals are recovered to be sold or recycled in the furnace, and the final slag is generally stored and/or disposed on slag dumps.

In South Africa, ferrochrome slags have largely been used in the construction industry, mainly as an aggregate. The beneficial reuse of ferrochrome slag has however been limited due to concerns over the potential impact on the environment. In order to better understand these impacts, the Ferro Alloy Producers Association tested a number of slag samples in terms of the South African National Standard SANS 10234:2008 Ed 1.1. Based on the results, the ferrochrome slag tested was classified as inert and/or non‐hazardous in terms of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS).

Figure 27: Illustration of the typical ferroalloy production process (JMA, 2013: 7)


In South Africa, there are four producers of ferromanganese, all of which use submerged arc furnace technology. It is estimated that on average 100 kg of ferromanganese slag is generated for every tonne of ferromanganese produced (DEA, 2012). If South Africa produces on average 755,000 t of ferromanganese annually (Steenkamp and Basson, 2013), an estimated 755,000 t of ferromanganese slag is generated.

Given that not all the types of slag have been classified, this SoWR has adopted the precautionary principle and has assumed that all slag is hazardous. Note that the assumption that slag is hazardous is only for reporting purposes and does not influence or make suggestions as to how this waste stream should be managed or regulated, now or in the future.

3.3.2.7 Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment

The growth in the generation of Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) can be attributed to higher levels of disposable income, urbanisation and industrialisation in many developing countries (ISWA, 2016), Other factors contributing to the generation of WEEE, include falling prices, people having multiple devices, growth of cloud services or data centres, and short replacement cycles.

Estimating the quantity of WEEE generated on an annual basis can be a challenge due to differences in the lifespan of electrical and electronic equipment, ranging from two years for mobile equipment, such as cell phones, to 10‐15 years for durable equipment, such as fridges (ERA, 2018).

Current estimates of WEEE generation range considerably from 74,923 t to 2.1 Mt, with most baseline studies suggesting that South Africa generates around 300,000 t on an annual basis (ERA, 2018). Thus, based on the opinion of key role players in the industry, it is estimated that South Africa generates on average 360,000 t of WEEE annually, with a recycling rate of approximately 10%.

In South Africa, the WEEE recovery and recycling value chain comprises a number of parts (ERA, 2018). This includes the following:

1. Collectors:

Business to business – There are currently some electrical and electronic equipment manufacturers who offer their customers a WEEE collection and asset replacement service. These collectors either refurbish the WEEE, or sell it to recyclers.

Drop off points – There are approximately 600 drop off points countrywide where consumers can drop off their WEEE.

Waste pickers – It is estimated that there are 10,000 pickers that engage in WEEE collection, with about 2,000 that are regular WEEE collectors. These pickers typically recover the WEEE from household waste or at landfill sites. It is noted that some of the pickers dismantle and sort the WEEE, which poses significant risk to their human health and the environment.

Municipal waste collection service – No municipalities currently offer separate kerbside collection for WEEE. The WEEE that is contained in the household waste is typically disposed of to landfill together with the rest of the household waste.

2. Refurbishes:

Companies who refurbishes or repair WEEE. These companies recover either the entire unit or the functional part of the unit;

3. Pre‐processors:

Companies who dismantle, sort, separate and bale recyclable fractions of WEEE.

There are also some companies who shred, pulverise, and granulate WEEE to reduce transports costs.

4. Processors,

Companies who purchase the pre‐processed WEEE and recycle particular fractions, such as copper, plastics, gold etc.


Figure 28: Example of a drop off point for household WEEE (www.desco.co.za)

In the last decade, the South African WEEE industry has become more integrated, formalised and diversified (Mintek, 2017). There are currently over a 100 companies formerly registered across the WEEE recycling chain from the point of collection to processing. The majority of companies are involved in the early stages of the value chain, particularly in collection, consolidation, dismantling and refurbishment activities.

Gauteng is currently the hub of WEEE collection, consolidation, pre‐processing and processing in South Africa, handling approximately 55% of total volumes. The SADC region is however emerging as an important supplementary input to the South African recycling market.

For particular waste streams, such as lamps, the barriers to entry are high at the pre‐processing and processing stages. Further to this, WEEE recycling is not seen as being profitable as a standalone business, which is why most small companies regard it as a secondary activity. This is the reason that most small companies also engage in refurbishment which is generally more profitable.

Mintek (2017) recently undertook a survey of 27 companies that handle WEEE in South Africa. The companies surveyed were responsible for handling approximately 17,773 t of WEEE in 2015. Information and communication technology (ICT) and consumer electronics made up the bulk of the waste stream (79%), which was sourced predominately from government departments (45%). These firms recovered mainly ferrous

metals (47%), non‐ferrous metals (16%), and printed circuit boards.

However, while local firms are committed to process locally as far as possible, the complex fractions are exported, mainly to Europe and Asia. This includes 90% of printed circuit boards, 60% of phosphor powders, and some ferrous and non‐ferrous metals.

The local remanufacturing of WEEE plastics and glass in South Africa is also currently limited. For example, 80% of the 7,500 t of WEEE plastics produced in South Africa in 2015 was exported. With respect to glass, approximately 90% of the 800 t produced in 2015 (mainly lamps) was beneficiated locally, while the remaining 10% (mainly cathode ray tube glass) was landfilled.

While WEEE can be a valuable source of secondary materials, it is also toxic if handled and discarded improperly (Mintek, 2017). It is for this reason that the SoWR has adopted the precautionary principle and assumed that post‐consumer, WEEE is hazardous. Note that this assumption is only for reporting purposes and does not influence or make suggestions as to how this waste stream should be managed or regulated, now or in the future.

3.3.2.8 Health Care Risk Waste

Health care risk waste (HCRW) is defined as “waste which is produced in the diagnosis, treatment or immunization, of human beings or animals, or waste that has been in contact with blood, body fluids or tissues from humans or animals from veterinary practices.” (DEA, 2014a). It includes infectious materials, sharps, pharmaceutical wastes, pathological waste, laboratory waste, chemical waste and genotoxic waste.

HCRW is typically generated by households, and public and private health care facilities.

HCRW must be appropriately managed as it poses a risk to human health and environment due to its infectious and hazardous properties. This is one on of the main reasons that HCRW is required to be treated prior to final disposal at a landfill.

In 2017, there were 15 operational HCRW facilities (DEA, 2017a). There are additional 17 licensed facilities that are not yet operational. These


facilities are either under construction, installed but not operational, or construction has not yet started.

A total of 48,749 tonnes of HCRW was treated in 2017, 0.6% more than in 2015. The majority of the HWRW was treated using non‐burn technology (e.g. autoclave) (73%), and 27% using incineration.

Based on the design capacities provided by the treatment facilities, and the assumption that these facilities operate on average 24 days a month, the total design capacity is 85,169 t per annum. Given that 48,749 t of HCRW was generated in 2017, there was approximately 36,420 t or 43% spare capacity.

3.3.2.9 Sewage Sludge

Sewage sludge is the main type of waste generated by wastewater treatment works (WWTW). It

should be noted that while the treatment of sewage effluent is not defined as a waste management activity in terms of the current regulations, the sewage sludge that is removed from the WWTWs is include in the current definition of a waste, and therefore needs to be reported on.

In South Africa, there are a total of 824 large scale municipal and private WWTWs, with a combined hydraulic design capacity of 6,510 megalitres (Ml) (DWA, 2013). In 2013, the total inflow into these WWTWs was 5,129 Ml. Figure 29 presents the total number of WWTWs per province, while to Figure 30 presents the total hydraulic design capacity (Ml/day), and total inflows (Ml/day).

Figure 29: Number of WWTWs per province

Figure 30: Total hydraulic capacity and daily inflow of WWTWs per province

124

93

58

141

5876 79

37

158

020406080100120140160180

Total N

o. W

WTW

Province

489 401

2573

1085

187 321 139 190

1025

363 260

2452

715

126 140 87 182

804

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Ml/Day

Province


Figure 31 presents a breakdown of current management options at municipal WWTWs for disposal of sewage sludge (DEA, 2016e). The most common practice is land application where the sewage sludge is sprayed or spread on land owned by the WWTW or, with the consent of the farmer, on farmland surrounding the WWTW. At the majority of the WWTWs, the sewage sludge has not been stabilised (i.e. reduce pathogen load) prior to land application and therefore needs to be mixed in with the soil (31%). The second most

common option is the stockpiling of sewage in heaps onsite (19%), followed by disposal to landfill offsite (13%), and composting (9%). Approximately 4% of the WWTWs reported that their sewage sludge was used in mine and/or landfill rehabilitation, while 2% reported that their sewage sludge was used in the manufacture of bespoke fertiliser.

Figure 31: Breakdown of sewage sludge disposal options at municipal WWTWs (adapted from DEA, 2016e)

The classification of sewage sludge, either as general or hazardous waste, is dependent on if the microbiological content (pathogens), stability of the sludge, total metal content and/or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) content exceed guideline limits. To a large extent, these factors are affected by the content of the effluent, sewage or wastewater being treated, design of the WWTW, and the effectiveness of the treatment process.

As a result, this SoWR has adopted the precautionary principle and reporting on sewage sludge as hazardous waste. Note that this assumption is only for reporting purposes and does not influence or make suggestions as to how this waste stream should be managed or regulated, now or in the future.

Land application (Unstable)

30%

Land application (Stabilised)

18%

Composting9%

Rehabilitation4%

Bespoke fertiliser2%

Onsite landfill site2%

Offsite landfill site13%

Onsite stockpiling19%

Unspecified3%


3.4 TRENDS In order to identify recent changes or trends in waste generation in South Africa, it is useful to compare the 2011 baseline with this 2017 baseline.

While the 2011 baseline is not directly comparable to this 2017 baseline, due to the fact that the definition (and characterisation) of waste has changed significantly since the previous baseline study. The methodology of the SoWR was based on that of the 2011 National Waste Information Baseline Report.

(DEA, 2012). This was to allow for benchmarking of the results, and to draw high‐level conclusions based on trends over the last six years (2011 – 2017). Note that the results are not directly comparable as the data sources and calculations used in the SoWR may differ from those used in the preceding National Waste Information Baseline Report.

Table 9 presents a comparison of the 2011 baseline and this 2017 baseline for general waste.

Table 9: Comparison of 2011 baseline and 2017 baseline for general waste

Waste type 2011 tonnages 2017 tonnages Difference between 2011 and 2017

Percentage difference between 2011 and 2017

GW01 Municipal waste 3 829 894 4 821 430 991 536 26%


4 233 040* 3 550 505 ‐682 535 ‐16%

GW 20 Organic waste 3 023 600 30 499 455 27 475 855 909%


4 725 542 4 482 992 ‐242 550 ‐5%

GW50 Paper 1 734 411 2 211 225 476 814 27%

GW51 Plastic 1 308 637 1 113 362 ‐195 275 ‐15%

GW52 Glass 959 816 2 492 636 1 532 820 160%

GW53 Metals 3 121 203 4 035 929 914 726 29%

GW54 Tyres 246 631 238 000 ‐8 631 ‐3%

GW99 Other 36 171 127 729 615 ‐35 441 512 ‐98%

Sub‐Total 59 353 901 54 175 147 ‐5 178 754 ‐9%*Note that in the 2011 baseline, C&I waste was included in GW01 municipal waste. It is however reported as a separate waste stream in the above table to allow for comparison.

The following reasons may be provided for the difference in data for certain waste streams from the 2011 baseline to the current study:

The SoWR was informed by a greater number and wider range of information sources than the 2011 Baseline Study.

A greater number of waste characterisation studies have been undertaken since 2011.

In the SoWR, biomass and food waste was included in organic waste (GW20), whereas in

the 2011 Baseline Study, these waste streams were included in other (GW99);

The 2017 baseline included returnables as part glass waste stream (GW52), whereas the 2011 baseline did not.

As the same data sources were used for paper (GW50) and plastic (GW51), the differences can be attributed to changes in market demand.


Table 10 presents a comparison of the 2011 baseline and this 2017 baseline for hazardous waste. The following reasons may be provided the difference in the amount of certain waste streams from the 2011 baseline to the current study:

With fly ash and dust (HW14), the 2011 Baseline Study only accounted for the fly ash generated by Eskom, whereas the SoWR used information provided by the South African Coal Ash Society, which accounted for all major fly ash generators.

In calculating the amount of brine (HW13) generated, the SowR used the same data source as the 2011 Baseline Study. However, this study predicted that there would be a significant increase in the amount of brine generated by the mining sector in the next 10 years, which has been accounted for in the SoWR.

In calculating the amount of WEEE generated, the SoWR used recent work that had been done by SAEWA, whereas the 2011 Baseline Study used a study undertaken by UNEP in 2009.

Table 10: Comparison of 2011 baseline and 2017 baseline for hazardous waste

Waste type 2011 tonnages

2017 tonnages

Difference between 2011 and 2017

Percentage difference between 2011 and 2017

HW 01 Gaseous waste 55 6 ‐49 ‐90%

HW 02 Mercury containing waste 868 1 392 524 60%

HW 03 Batteries 32 912 39 867 6 955 21%

HW 04 POP Waste 486 570 84 17%

HW 05 Inorganic waste 290 154 786 083 495 929 171%

HW 06 Asbestos containing waste 33 269 6 721 ‐26 548 ‐80%

HW 07 Waste Oils 120 000 116 250 ‐3 750 ‐3%


111 663 552 498%


8 389 8 812 423 5%


771 4 562 3 791 492%


202 708 519 413 316 705 156%

HW 12 Tarry and Bituminous waste 255 832 249 080 ‐6 752 ‐3%

HW 13 Brine 4 166 129 5 793 645 1 627 516 39%

HW 14 Fly ash and dust 31 420 488 44 000 000 12 579 512 40%

HW 15 Bottom ash 5 717 324 6 000 000 282 676 5%

HW 16 Slag 5 370 968 7 887 879 2 516 911 47%

HW 17 Mineral waste 369 000 115 754 ‐253 246 ‐69%

HW 18 WEEE 64 045 360 000 295 955 462%

HW 19 HCRW 46 291 48 749 2 458 5%

HW 20 Sewage sludge 673 360 632 749 ‐40 611 ‐6%

HW 99 Miscellaneous 327 250 294 064 ‐33 186 ‐10%

Sub‐Total 49 100 410 66 866 260 17 765 850 36%


Table 11 presents the difference between the 2017 baseline and data reported on the SAWIS. In terms of general and hazardous waste, there is significant under reporting for a number of waste streams.

For general waste this includes commercial and industrial waste (60%), organic waste (1,750%), construction and demolition waste (92%), plastic (43%), glass (1,309%) and tyres (‐53%). In contrast there is significant over reporting of the ‘general waste’ category (59%). Most likely, wastes that are under reported are included as municipal waste.

For hazardous waste, this includes batteries (482%), waste oils (11%), tarry and bituminous waste (3,791%), brine (328,450%), and sewage sludge (1,238%). While there is under reporting of fly ash and dust (5,115%), there is over reporting of bottom ash (‐81%), which may indicate that incorrect waste categories were used when the

waste management facilities uploaded their data. There is also significant over reporting for HCRW (99%), which is largely due to the incorrect unit values being used.

The reasons for the difference between the 2017 baseline and data reported on the SAWIS may, in part, be due to reporting in kilograms vs tonnes for some waste types. It should be noted that that the data on SAWIS is changing on a daily basis as data is submitted and corrected where possible. However, table 11 provides a guide on which wastes streams the Department needs to focus on going forward. The Department is putting great efforts into rectifying the inaccurate reporting by doing verifications of SAWIS, amending regulations, and upgrading the system.

Table 11: Difference between 2017 baseline and SAWIS data (SAWIS, 2017)

Waste type 2017 SAWIS 2017 Baseline Difference (t)

Difference(%)

GW01 General waste 11 882 437 4 821 430 ‐7 061 007 ‐59%GW10 Commercial and industrial 2 218 306 3 550 505 1 332 198 60%GW 20 Organic waste 1 647 478 30 499 455 28 851 977 1751%GW30 Construction and demolition 2 332 462 4 482 992 2 150 530 92%GW50 Paper 3 423 201 2 211 225 ‐1 211 976 ‐35%GW51 Plastic 777 641 1 113 362 335 721 43%GW52 Glass 176 860 2 492 636 2 315 776 1309%GW53 Metals 4 160 589 4 035 929 ‐124 661 ‐3%GW54 Tyres 155 594 238 000 82 406 53%GW99 Other 728 786 729 615 829 0%

Total general waste (t) 27 503 353 54 175 147 26 671 794 97%HW 01 Gaseous waste 5.72 6 ‐ 0%HW 02 Mercury containing waste 1 392 1 392 ‐ 0%HW 03 Batteries 6 856 39 867 33 011 482%HW 04 POP Waste 570 570 ‐ 0%HW 05 Inorganic waste 786 083 786 083 ‐ 0%HW 06 Asbestos containing waste 6 721 6 721 0 0%HW 07 Waste Oils 104 764 116 250 11 486 11%HW 08 Organic halogenated and/or

sulphur containing solvents663 663 ‐ 0%


8 812 8 812 ‐ 0%


4 562 4 562 ‐ 0%


519 413 519 413 ‐ 0%

HW 12 Tarry and Bituminous waste 6 401 249 080 242 679 3791%


Waste type 2017 SAWIS 2017 Baseline Difference (t)

Difference(%)

GW/HW 13 Brine 1 763 5 793 645 5 791 882 328450%GW/HW 14 Fly ash and dust 843 695 44 000 000 43 156 305 5115%GW/HW 15 Bottom ash 32 228 625 6 000 000 ‐26 228 625 ‐81%GW/HW 16 Slag 5 897 469 7 887 879 1 990 411 34%GW/HW 17 Mineral waste 115 754 115 754 ‐ 0%GW/HW 18 WEEE 435 128 360 000 ‐75 128 ‐17%HW 19 HCRW 6 778 163 48 749 ‐6 729 414 ‐99%GW/HW 21 Sewage sludge 47 279 632 749 585 469 1238%HW 99 Miscellaneous 294 064 294 064 ‐ 0%

Total hazardous waste (t) 48 088 182 66 866 260 18 778 077 39%

3.5 WASTE COLLECTION SERVICES

The minimum requirements for domestic waste collection are outlined in the National Domestic Waste Collection Standards (RSA, 2011).

While the main objective of the standards are to ensure that all households within the jurisdiction of the municipality are provided with equitable waste collection services, there is a recognition that it may be impractical to provide regular waste collection services to all areas due to various factors, such as distance, and the resulting costs. In

these cases, the municipality should allow for more feasible alternative ways of waste handling.

In 2016, approximately 59% of households had their waste collected by the local authority, service provider or a community member, while 2% of households had their waste collected from a communal container or central collection point (Stats SA, 2016). Approximately 34% of households disposed of their waste at a communal dump or their own dump, and the remaining 5% of waste was dealt with through other means.

Figure 32 presents a breakdown of waste collection services per province (Stats SA, 2016).


Figure 32: Breakdown of waste collection services in each province (Stats SA, 2017)

In addition to rendering regular waste collection services, the municipality is also required to encourage and support separation at source, particularly in the metropolitan and secondary cities (RSA, 2011). Further to this, the municipality must also provide clear guidelines to households regarding the types of and sorting of the waste, and to encourage community involvement in recycling.

In terms of the collection of recyclable waste, the role of a municipality is to provide an enabling environment for households to recycle either through providing kerbside collection, or where that is not possible, to co‐operate with the recycling sector to ensure that there are facilities where recyclables can be dropped off and collected by service providers.

The following section provides a brief overview of waste collection services in each of the nine provinces.

3.5.1 Eastern Cape

As shown in Figure 32, only 40% of households in the Eastern Cape have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company (Stats SA, 2017). The majority of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump (53%).

In the rural areas of the Eastern Cape, only 2% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while 91% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump. Approximately 8% of households reported leaving or dumping their rubbish anywhere or using some other disposal option.

In contrast, in the urban areas of the Eastern Cape, approximately 83% households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while only 12% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump.

40%

80%

92%

45%

20%

38%

70%

59%

92%

53%

13%

5%

48%

73%

52%

19%

33%

3%

0%

0% 1%

1%

0%

1%

1% 1%

4%6%

7%

3%

6%

6%

10%

10% 7%

1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%Percentage

of households

Provinces

Removed by local authority/private companyCommunal/Own refuse dumpCommunal container/central collection point


According to the Eastern Cape IWMP (DEDEAT, 2018), eight of 31 local municipalities have implemented source separation programmes. This includes Umzimvubu, Great Kei, Amahlath, Ngqushwa, Raymond Mhlaba, Blue Crane Route, Makana, and Ndlambe.

3.5.2 Free State

Approximately 80% of households in the Free State have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while only 13% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump (Stats SA, 2017).

In the rural areas of the Free State, only 11% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while 62% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump. Approximately 26% of households reported leaving or dumping their rubbish anywhere or using some alternative.

In contrast, in the urban areas of the Free State, approximately 92% households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while only 5% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump.

According to the Free State IWMP (DETEA, 2013) no mainstream source separation programmes have been implemented in the province. There has however been a separation at source pilot project implemented in Mantsopa Local Municipality (Sello, 2018).

3.5.3 Gauteng

The majority of households in Gauteng have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company (92%) (Stats SA, 2017), with only 5% of households making use of their own or a communal dump to dispose of their waste.

Similarly, in the urban areas of Gauteng, approximately 94% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while only 3% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump.

In the rural areas of Gauteng, the majority of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump (50%), while only 29% of

households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company.

According to the Gauteng IWMP (GDARD, 2016), the City of Tshwane is the only municipality that has implemented a mainstream source separation programme, currently servicing 40,000 households. However, Johannesburg has recently implemented mandatory source separation in selected suburbs.

3.5.4 KwaZulu-Natal

The majority of households in KwaZulu‐Natal use their own or a communal dump to dispose of their waste, while only 45% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company (Stats SA, 2017).

In the urban areas, 85% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while only 12% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump.

In contrast, only 8% of households in the rural areas have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while the majority of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump (81%). Approximately 10% of households reported leaving or dumping their rubbish anywhere or using some other disposal option.

The eThekwini Municipality has implemented the ‘Orange Bag Recycling Project’, which collects source separated mainline recyclables from approximately 800,000 households on a weekly basis.

Figure 33: In Durban, mainline recyclables are collected from households in an orange as part of the regular municipal collection service (www.highwaymail.co.za)


3.5.5 Limpopo

In Limpopo, the majority of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump (73%), while only 20% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company (Stats SA, 2017). Approximately 6% of households reported leaving or dumping their rubbish anywhere or using some other disposal option.

In the urban areas of Limpopo, 86% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while only 11% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump. In contrast, the majority of households in the rural areas dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump (89%), while only 4% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company.

There are currently no mainstream source separation programmes that have been implemented in Limpopo (Tshepho, 2018).

3.5.6 Mpumalanga

Approximately 52% of households in Mpumalanga dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump, while only 38% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company (Stats SA, 2017).

Similarly, in the rural areas of Mpumalanga most the households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump (76%), while only 10% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company. Approximately 13% of households reported leaving or dumping their rubbish anywhere or using some alternative.

In contrast, in the urban areas of Mpumalanga, the majority of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company (82%), while only 13% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump.

3.5.7 North West

The majority of households in North West have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company (59%) (Stats SA, 2017), with approximately 33% of households making use of

their own or a communal dump to dispose of their waste.

In the rural areas of North West, the opposite is true where the majority of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump (58%), while only 33% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company.

In the urban areas of North West, approximately 87% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while only 6% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump.

The Rustenburg Municipality has implemented a separation at source programme in Royal Bafokeng (READ, 2018).

3.5.8 Northern Cape

Approximately 70% of households in the Northern Cape have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while only 19% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump (Stats SA, 2017). Approximately 10% of households reported leaving or dumping their rubbish anywhere or using some alternative.

In the rural areas of the Northern Cape, only 27% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while 50% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump. Approximately 22% of households reported leaving or dumping their rubbish anywhere or using some alternative.

In contrast, in the urban areas of the Northern Cape, approximately 86% households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while only 7% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump.

Based on a review of available local and district municipality IWMPs, no mainstream separation at source programmes have been implemented in the province.

3.5.9 Western Cape

The majority of households in the Western Cape have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company (93%) (Stats SA, 2017), with only


2% of households making use of their own or a communal dump to dispose of their waste. Approximately 4% of households dispose of their waste at a communal container or central collection point.

Similarly, in the urban areas of the Western Cape, approximately 93% of households have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company, while only 2% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump.

In contrast to all other provinces, the majority of households in the rural areas of the Western Cape have their waste collected by the local authority or a private company (62%), while 27% of households dispose of their waste at their own or a communal dump.

According to the Western Cape IWMP (DEADP, 2017), separation at source programmes have been implemented to varying degrees at 12 local municipalities. This includes Bitou, George, Hessequa, Kannaland, Knysna, Mossel Bay, Outshoorn, Breede Valley, Overstrand, Langeberg, Stellenbosch, and Saldanha Bay Municipalities.

3.6 WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES

The final point in the waste management chain is the point at which waste is reused, recycled, recovered, treated, incinerated or disposed to landfill. The following section provides a brief overview of both public and privately owned waste management facilities in South Africa.

In addition to the capturing of data on the tonnages of waste generated, recycled and disposed of in South Africa, the SAWIC is also used as repository for the uploading of WMLs.

As of 01 July 2018, there were 2,478 WMLs uploaded to the SAWIC. Figure 34 presents a breakdown of the number of WMLs per province (SAWIC, 2018). Gauteng has the highest number of licensed waste management activities (614), followed by the Western Cape (544), KwaZulu‐Natal (335), Mpumalanga (211), Eastern Cape (207), North West (178), Northern Cape (138), and Limpopo (117).

Figure 34: Number of licensed waste management activities per province (SAWIC, 2018)

207

131

614

335

117

211

138178

544

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Number of licensed activities

Provinces


Mpumalanga, there are a greater number of hazardous activities licensed than general activities, whereas in Eastern Cape, Free State, North West, Northern Cape and the Western Cape,

there are a greater number of general activities licensed than hazardous activities.

Figure 35: Breakdown of the number of licensed activities per province (SAWIC, 2018)

Figure 36 presents a breakdown of the licensed activities (SAWIC, 2018). The disposal of waste to land is the most commonly licensed activity (1,057), followed by storage of waste (370), treatment of waste (293), effluent, wastewater or

sewage treatment (251), recycling and recovery of waste (224), waste transfer stations (109), incineration of waste (20), and composting facilities (19).

11791

259

117

4675 86

112

349

90

40

355

218

71

136

5266

195

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400


Provinces

General

Hazardous

Figure 35 presents a breakdown of the number of licensed general and hazardous activities in each of

the nine provinces (SAWIC, 2018). It can be seen that in Gauteng, KwaZulu‐Natal, Limpopo and


Figure 36: Breakdown of licensed activities

Figure 37 presents a breakdown of the number activities licenced on an annual basis over the last 10 years (SAWIC, 2018). It can be seen that 676 (28%) activities were licensed prior to 2009. Since

then, between 100 and 200 activities are licensed on an annual. The exceptions are 2013 and 2014, when the number of activities licensed increased to over 300 per annum.

Figure 37: Breakdown of number of activities licensed per annum (SAWIC, 2018)

1057

293 251

370

20

224

10919

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200


Licensed activities

676

137204

128166

321 315

177

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

<2009 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Number of licensed

activities

Years


recovered from the municipal waste streams. Table 12 below presents a summary of the key characteristics of these MRFs (DEDEAT, 2018).

Treatment Facilities

According to the Eastern Cape IWMP (DEDEAT, 2018), there are three treatment facilities in the Eastern Cape, all of which are licensed to treat hazardous waste. This includes HCRW, liquid and sludge organic waste, and waste oils.

Table 12: Summary of MRFs in the Eastern Cape (DEDEAT, 2018)

Municipality Location Description of the facility Ownership

Elundini Ugie Landfill Mechanised MRF with a raised conveyor belt sorting line, and a bailer.

Public

Kouga Humansdorp Landfill

Mechanised MRF with a sorting line. Private

Intsika Yethu Two recycling facilities at transfer stations Public

Nelson Mandela Bay

Port Elizabeth Mechanised MRF with a raised conveyor belt sorting line, and a bailer.

Private

Buffalo City East London Buy back centre with facilities for sorting and bailing of recyclables.

Public/private

Disposal Facilities

According to the Eastern Cape IWMP (DEDEAT, 2018), there are approximately 120 landfill sites in the Eastern Cape. This includes both closed (30) and operational (79) landfill sites, as well as one site which is still under construction2. Presently, only 14 of the landfill sites are unpermitted.

The location of these landfill sites, as well as their permit status (green indicates licensed and red indicated not licensed), is presented in Figure 38 (DEDEAT, 2018).

2 The status of 10 landfill sites was unknown.

3.6.1 Eastern Cape

Recycling and Recovery Facilities

There are a number of operational MRFs in the Eastern Cape, where recyclable materials are

The following section provides a brief overview of both public and privately owned waste management facilities in each of the nine province.


Figure 38: Location and status of Eastern Cape landfill sites (DEDEAT, 2018)

3.6.2 Free State


There are a number of operational recycling and recovery facilities in the Free State, where

recyclable materials are recovered from the municipal waste stream. Table 13 below presents a summary of the key characteristics of these facilities and/or operations (DETEA, 2013).

Table 13: Summary of recycling and recovery facilities/operations in the Free State (DETEA, 2013)

Municipality Location Description of the facility Ownership

Fezile Daba Sasolburg Landfill Recycling facility Private

Moqhaka Kroonstad Waste Disposal Site

Recycling facility Public (private contractor)

Tswelopele Bultfontein Landfill Recycling facility Public (private contractor)

Maluti‐a‐Phofung Both landfill sites Recycling facility Public (private contractor)

Dihlabeng Bethlehem Landfill Recycling facility Public (private contractor)

Nketoana Reitz Landfill Recycling facility. Closed Public (private contractor)

Setsoto Senekal landfill Recycling facility. Closed



There are currently two licensed treatment facilities in the Free State, both of which are licensed to treat hazardous waste (SAWIC, 2018). The one is for the treatment of HCRW using incineration technology and the other for the treatment of abattoir waste using pyrolysis technology.

Disposal Facilities

In total there are 78 municipal disposal facilities in the Free State (DETEA, 2013), see Table 14. Of these, approximately 48 (or 62%) were not permitted in 2013.

There are also five licensed private onsite disposal facilities, of which three are for general waste and two are for hazardous waste (SAWIC, 2018).

Table 14: Summary of the status of disposal facilities in the Free State (DETEA, 2013)

District Municipality Site Classifications No. of Disposal Facilities No. Not Licensed

Fezile Dabi General 17 11

Lejweleputswa General 18 10

Mangaung General 3 0

Thabo Mofutsanyane General 21 10

Xhariep General 19 17

TOTAL 78 48

3.6.3 Gauteng

Given that the Gauteng IWMP (GDARD, 2016) does not provide detailed information on waste management facilities, the following section is based primarily on information obtained from the SAWIC (2018).


There are number of facilities in Gauteng that are licensed to recycle and recover waste. Of the 128 licensed facilities, 83 are for the management of general waste, while the remaining 45 are for the management of hazardous waste (SAWIC, 2018).

The most commonly licensed facilities include buy‐back centres, paper recycling facilities, plastic recycling facilities, metal scrapyards and recycling facilities, tyre recycling facilities, waste oil recycling facilities, and facilities for the sorting, shredding, grinding, crushing, screening and bailing of waste.


There are a number of facilities in Gauteng that are licensed to treat waste. Of the 144 licensed facilities, 96 are for the treatment of waste, 30 are for effluent, wastewater and sewage treatment, 13 are for incineration, and 5 are for composting facilities (SAWIC, 2018).

Furthermore, the majority of the licensed facilities treat hazardous waste (131), while only 13 treat general waste.

Disposal Facilities

There are a number of facilities in Gauteng that are licensed to dispose of waste to land. Of the 169 licensed facilities, 100 are for the disposal of general waste, while the other 69 are for the disposal of hazardous waste (SAWIC, 2018).


3.6.4 KwaZulu-Natal


There are number of facilities for the recycling and recovery of waste. Of the 27 licensed facilities, most are for the management of hazardous waste (20), while the other 7 are for the management of general waste (SAWIC, 2018).

The most commonly licensed facilities include the recycling and recovery of waste oil, solvents, and paper, as well as buy‐back centres and facilities for the sorting, shredding, grinding, crushing, screening and bailing of waste.


There are 94 licensed waste treatment facilities in KwaZulu‐Natal (SAWIC, 2018). Of these, 91 are licensed to treat hazardous waste, and 13 are licensed to treat general waste.

The majority of the facilities are licensed to treat waste (51), while the other facilities are licensed for effluent, wastewater and sewage treatment (40) and incineration (3). There are currently no licensed composting facilities in KwaZulu‐Natal.

Disposal Facilities

There are approximately 134 facilities licensed to dispose waste to landfill in KwaZulu‐Natal (SAWIC, 2018). Of these facilities, 76 are licensed to dispose of general waste, and 58 are licensed to dispose of hazardous waste.

3.6.5 Limpopo


In Limpopo, there is currently only one facility that is licensed to recycle and recover hazardous waste (SAWIC, 2018).


There are approximately 41 facilities in Limpopo that are licensed to treat waste. Of these facilities, 34 facilities are licensed to treat hazardous waste, while the other 7 facilities are licensed to treat general waste (SAWIC, 2018). Approximately 18 of the facilities are licensed to treat waste, while the other facilities are licensed for effluent, wastewater and sewage treatment (22) and

incineration (1). There are currently no licensed composting facilities in Limpopo.

Disposal Facilities

Approximately 48 facilities are licensed to landfill waste in Limpopo (SAWIC, 2018). This includes 34 general waste landfill and 14 hazardous waste landfills. All of the municipal waste disposal sites are licensed (Tshepho, 2018).

3.6.6 Mpumalanga


In Mpumalanga, there are 14 facilities licensed to recycle and recover waste (SAWIC, 2018). Of these facilities, half are licensed to recycle and recover hazardous waste. The most commonly licensed facilities include buy‐back centres and metal recycling facilities.


In total, there are 41 facilities licensed to treat waste in Mpumalanga (SAWIC, 2018). This includes 19 facilities licensed to treat waste, 19 facilities for effluent, wastewater and sewage treatment, and 1 composting facility. Of these facilities, 32 are licensed to treat hazardous waste, while the other 8 facilities are licensed to treat general waste.

Disposal Facilities

There are 98 licensed landfills, 48 are licensed to dispose general waste (SAWIC, 2018) and 50 are licensed to dispose hazardous waste. These facilities are typically associated with the mines and coal fired power stations in the province.

3.6.7 North West


In the North West, there are currently eight buy‐back centres (READ, 2016).


There are currently ten treatment facilities in the North West (READ, 2016). Seven of these facilities use thermal treatment for the treatment of HCRW. The other three are composting facilities for the treatment of organic waste.


Disposal Facilities

In total, there are 71 disposal facilities in the North West (READ, 2016). This includes both public (61) and private (14) facilities. Table 15 below presents the current status of disposal facilities in the North West. While only four of the facilities are unpermitted, six facilities were reported on as being unauthorised.

The high number of disposal sites that have been earmarked for closure (42 or 56%) poses a significant challenge to the province in the future. These sites have been earmarked as they either close to the end of their life or because they unsuitably located and having adverse impacts on the environment.

Table 15: Status of disposal facilities in the North West (READ, 2016)

District Municipality No. of Disposal Facilities

No. of Private Facilities

No. Earmarked to Close

No. Not Licensed

Bojanala Platinum 26 11 14 1

Ngaka Modiri Molema 16 (1 new) 2 7 0

Dr Ruth Segomotsi 21 1 14 3

Dr Kenneth Kaunda 12 0 7 0

TOTAL 75 14 42 4

3.6.8 Northern Cape


There are no licensed recycling or recovery facilities in the Northern Cape (SAWIC, 2018).


There are 30 licensed treatment facilities in the Northern Cape (SAWIC, 2018), 25 treat hazardous waste and 5 treat general waste.

The majority of these facilities are licensed for effluent, wastewater and sewage treatment (19). There are no licensed incineration or composting facilities in the Northern Cape.

Disposal Facilities

There are 94 facilities in the Northern Cape licensed to landfill waste (SAWIC, 2018). Of these facilities, 78 are licensed to dispose general waste, while the other 16 facilities are licensed to dispose hazardous waste.

3.6.9 Western Cape


There are currently seven MRFs in the Western Cape, which recover recyclable material from the

municipal waste stream (DEADP, 2017). These are located in the Cape Winelands District Municipality (3), Overberg District Municipality (1), West Coast Municipality (2), and City of Cape Town (1).


There are currently three treatment facilities licensed to treat HCRW (DEADP, 2017). Two of the facilities use incinerator technology, while the other uses electro‐thermal deactivation technology. There are also four composting facilities where organic waste is treated.

Disposal Facilities

There are currently 149 disposal sites for general waste, and three disposal sites for hazardous waste (DEADP, 2017). Note that this excludes transfer stations.

Table 16 presents the status of disposal facilities in the Western Cape (DEADP, 2017). As mentioned previously, there are approximately 152 disposal sites, of which 73 (or 48%) have been closed or have been earmarked for closure.


Table 16: Status of disposal facilities in the North West (DEADP, 2017)

District Municipality No. of Disposal Facilities No. Closed/ Earmarked to Close No. Not Licensed

Cape Winelands 26 16 0

Central Karoo 8 2 0

Eden 39 20 0

Overberg 32 15 0

West Coast 44 20 0

City of Cape Town 23 17 0

TOTAL 152 73 0

3.7 STATE OF COMPLIANCE While there is an urgent need to address the licensing status of waste management facilities in South Africa, there is also a need to ensure that the conditions of the WMLs are enforced.

The following section presents a high level overview of the state of compliance of waste both public and privately owned management facilities in South Africa based on a number of different sources of information, such as DEA compliance documents and external third party audit reports.

3.7.1 Private Waste Management Facilities

3.7.1.1 External Audit Reports

In order to provide a broad overview of the level of compliance at private waste management

facilities, a review of selected external audit reports was undertaken.

In total, >25 external audit reports were reviewed. These audit reports assess the level of compliance of the facility in terms WML conditions, highlighting areas of non‐compliance, partial and full compliance. As these audits are undertaken externally or by a third party, they also provide an independent or impartial assessment of the facility.

The figure below presents a breakdown of the external audit reports reviewed in terms of the type of waste management facility. The majority of the external audit reports reviewed were for storage and disposal facilities (44%), followed by storage and treatment facilities (32%), recycling, recovery and storage facilities (16%), and transfer stations and closure and rehabilitation (4% each).


Figure 39: Breakdown of external audits reports reviewed by type of waste management facility

Table 17 below presents a high level overview of the external audit reports reviewed. The intention is not to provide a detailed assessment of each of the external audit report reviewed, but a summary of the key findings coming out of the review. The review has been structured according to the reporting requirements of external audit reports.

It is interesting to note that the level of compliance in the audit reports reviewed was relatively high, with some sites even achieving full compliance. Further to this, none of these audit reports noted non compliances issues that pose significant risk to human health or the environment.

Table 17: High level overview of external audit reports reviewed

Sections Description

Location Non compliances were noted in 4% of the audit reports reviewed.

It was found that the coordinates of the site were incorrect.

Site security and access control

Non compliances were noted in 12% of the audit reports reviewed.

It was noted that either there was no notice at the entrance to the site, or that the signs were only in English, and not the three official languages applicable in the area.

General management


It was found that the non‐compliances noted in the annual external audit reports were not being addressed through the environmental management system.

Emergency preparedness and business continuity plan


It was found that either the emergency preparedness plans did not cover all the likely scenarios, such as power failures, that the plans were not being reviewed annually, or if the plan had been reviewed, that it had not been properly implemented.

Storage and treatment


It was found that either the storage areas were either not compliant with the required SABS standards, that there were signs of erosion on the storage

Transfer Station4%

Recycling, Recovery & Storage16%

Storage & Treatment32%

Storage & Disposal44%

Closure & Rehabilitation4%


tanks, that the floors were not chemical resistant, that parts of the storage areas were not bunded or under roof, or that the permitted storage capacity was exceeded.

It is interesting to note that in some of these cases, the facilities were in the process of applying for amendments to the conditions of the WML, as the storage requirements were not practical.

Permissible waste Non compliances were noted in 4% of the audit reports reviewed.

It was found that the facilities were accepting wastes not permitted in terms of their permit.

Construction Non compliances were noted in 12% of the audit reports reviewed.

It was found that either the site plan did not reflect the recent changes, that the site plan had not been approved by the Director, or that the notice of construction had been submitted late.

Management and operation


It was found that either the landfill was not being compacted daily, that there was insufficient board at the leachate dam, that not all the staff had received the required training, that inappropriate personal protective equipment was being used, that the material safety data sheets were outdated, that excessive baled material was being stored on site, or that there was no evidence that leak detection inspections were being undertaken.

Monitoring Non compliances were noted in 40% of the audit reports reviewed.

It was found that either the groundwater/surface water sampled was not meeting the required standards, that groundwater sampling points were dry, that the samples were being compared to the incorrect standard, that not all the parameters required by the WML was being tested, that storm water runoff which could potentially be contaminated was not being monitored, or that exceedances of the required standards were not being investigated.

It is interesting to note that at some sites exceedances of groundwater quality were noted in upstream samples, and that very few of the sites discharge treated effluent/contaminated storm water to the municipal sewer system or natural environment.

Investigations No investigations were requested by the Director in the audit reports reviewed.

Audits It is interesting to note that not all the external audit reports reviewed showed the results graphically or conducted a trend analysis.

Reporting No non compliances were noted in the audit reports reviewed.

Monitoring committee


It was found that either the monitoring committee had not been formed, that the committee members had not been specifically selected, that the monitoring committee was not being maintained, or that the monitoring committee did not meet within the required timeframes.

Rehabilitation and closure of the site.

No non compliances were noted in the audit reports reviewed.

Leasing and alienation of the site.

No non compliances were noted in the audit reports reviewed.

Recording No non compliances were noted in the audit reports reviewed.

General No non compliances were noted in the audit reports reviewed.


3.7.2 Public Waste Management Facilities

In order to assess the level of compliance of public waste management facilities, the DEA launched the NCF Project in 2017 (DEA, 2018d). In total, 75 public facilities were assessed. These inspections were undertaken by the relevant provincial departments, while the DEA was responsible for consolidating the reports.

Figure 40 presents a breakdown of the number of sites inspected per province. The majority of inspections were undertaken in Limpopo (33%), followed by the Western Cape (24%), Eastern Cape (9%), and KwaZulu‐Natal (8%). No inspections were undertaken in the Free State but may be included in the DEA funded inspections.

Figure 40: Breakdown of the number of sites inspected per province (DEA, 2018d)

An overview of the level of compliance of the facilities inspected in presented in Figure 41. It can be seen that 25 of the sites attained between 0 and

29% compliance, with seven of these sites attaining 0% compliance. Twenty one of the facilities attained between 30 and 49% compliance, eight facilities between 50 and 69% compliance, and only 15 facilities between 70% and 100% compliance. No data was provided for 6 of the facilities, mainly in Mpumalanga.

Figure 41: Overview of the level of compliance of the facilities inspected (DEA, 2018d)

A breakdown of the main parameters that were assessed, and the number of facilities that were not compliant with these parameters is presented in Figure 42 (DEA, 2018d). It can be seen that the greatest number of facilities (32) were not compliant in terms of access control, followed by covering (21 facilities), internal audits (16 facilities), external audits (14 facilities) and monitoring (7 facilities)3. Six facilities were non‐compliant in terms of providing data.

3 Monitoring data excludes the facilities in the Western Cape

Eastern Cape9%

Gauteng4%

KwaZulu Natal8%

Limpopo33%Mpumalanga

7%

North West3%

Northern Cape7%

Western Cape24%

DEA funded5%

No data, 6

0‐29%, 25

30‐49%, 21

50‐69%, 8

70‐100%, 15


Figure 42: Overview of the level of compliance of the facilities inspected (DEA, 2018d)

3.7.3 SAWIS

The SAWIS was established between 2004 and 2006 with the aim of creating a single, national repository of accurate and reliable tonnages of general and hazardous waste recycled, recovered, treated and landfilled, as well as tonnages of waste exported.

With the promulgation of the National Waste Information Regulations in 2012, any person undertaking an activity listed in Annexure 1 must register on the SAWIS, and once registered, submit information on a quarterly basis. Note that generators of hazardous waste are currently only required to be registered on the SAWIS, but not to submit information.

In addition to the SAWIS, Gauteng and the Western Cape provinces have established provincial Waste Information Systems in terms of Section 62 of the NEM:WA. Gauteng has established the Gauteng Waste Information System (GWIS) and the Western Cape has established the Integrated Pollution and Waste Information System (IPWIS).

Based on the most recent information downloaded from the SAWIS, there are 1,396 registered waste

management sites. Note that this excludes the 10,419 registered generators of hazardous waste. Despite the requirement to submit information on a quarterly basis, by the 18 April 2018, only 535 sites had submitted the required information (38.3%) compliance rate.

Table 11 presents the variance between the 2017 baseline and data reported on the SAWIS.

In terms of general waste, it can be seen that there is significant under reporting for a number of waste streams. This includes commercial and industrial waste (‐60%), organic waste (‐1,750%), construction and demolition waste (‐92%), plastic (‐43%), glass (‐377%) and tyres (‐53%). In contrast there is significant over reporting of general waste (59%). It is likely that the waste streams that are being under reported are being reported as municipal waste. In terms of hazardous waste it can be seen that there is significant under reporting of a number of waste streams. This includes brine (‐328,450%), HCRW (‐5,242%), fly ash (‐4,636%), tarry and bituminous waste (‐3,791%), batteries (‐482%). And waste oils (‐64%).

7

1614

32

21

6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Monitoring Internal audits External audits Access control Covering No data

Number of site inspected

Parameters


3.8 STATE OF THE FORMAL AND INFORMAL WASTE SECTOR

The followings section provides a high level overview of the formal and informal waste sector, in terms of the number of people employed and the estimated economic value of these sectors.

3.8.1 Formal Sector

In 2012, it was estimated that the formal waste sector employed 29,833 people. This included people employed at public and private places (DST, 2013).

The majority of the people in the formal waste sector are employed by large enterprises (DST, 2013). In the private waste sector, the majority of people (77.5%) are employed by large enterprises, with an annual revenue of > R 51 million, while in the public sector, the majority of people (64.9%) are employed by metropolitan municipalities (Category A).

Employment in the public sector has levelled off at around 20,000 people. Potentially, another 5,000 people could be employed if vacant positions at municipalities are filled.

It was estimated that in 2012, the minimum value of the formal sector was R 15.3 billion (DST, 2013). This was equivalent to about 0.51% of GDP at the time. The estimated contribution of the private sector was approximately R 7 billion, while that of the public sector was approximately R 8.3 billion.

The majority of the revenue is generated by large enterprises, accounting for 88% of private sector revenue. Similarly, metropolitan municipalities account for the majority of public sector revenue (80.4%). Enterprises that have been in the industry for > 25 years, account for 62% of private sector revenue, while enterprises that are < 5 years old only accounted for R 188 million or 2.7% of private sector revenue (DST, 2013).

In 2012, spend on research and development (R&D) was relatively low (DST, 2013). It is estimated that the minimum spend on R&D was R 50.2 million, accounting for approximately 0.33% of the total value of the waste sector. Similarly,

spend on human capacity development was also relatively low, with R 429 million, accounting for approximately 2.8% of the total value of the sector. While the public sector invested four times the amount on human capacity development than the private sector, it still showed a greater percentage of unskilled employees.

In terms of transformation, the waste sector has made progress over the last two decades (DST, 2013), approximately 77.2% of the private sector respondents are B‐BBEE certified, with an average B‐BBEE Level 4. Approximately 83.8% of people employed in the private sector, and 98.3% in the public sector, are of colour. Furthermore, approximately 37.8% employed in the private sector, and 32.1% in the public sector are female.

3.9 INFORMAL SECTOR The emergence of waste pickers can be traced back to the late 1980s, when many people lost their jobs in the formal sector, and took up waste picking as an alternative livelihood strategy (Mbata, 2018). The informal sector emerged largely as a result of the absence of a formal collection and sorting system for recyclable materials, where waste pickers provide a valuable link between waste generators and recyclers (Godfrey et al., 2016).

Waste pickers are broadly defined as people who collect, sort and sell reusable and recyclable materials (DEA, 2014b). There are generally two types, those who collect recyclable material from landfills and those that collect recyclable materials from kerbside bins (household) and businesses. Waste pickers then sell the collected recyclables to brokers (e.g. buy‐back centres) or private recycling companies for a daily income.

Figure 43: Street waste picker transporting recyclables to a buy back centre (www. roodepoortrecord.co.za)


While there is no official estimate of the number of waste pickers in South Africa, it ranges between 60,000 and 90,000 pickers who earn a livelihood from picking municipal waste (Godfrey et al., 2016). Many developing countries, such as India, Brazil, and Colombia are also grappling with the challenge of integrating the informal sector into the formal waste sector, like South Africa.

In terms of demographics, 91.1% of waste pickers are male, while only 8.9% are female (Viljoen et al., 2018). In general, there were more women on the landfills than the streets. This is largely attributed to the physical challenge of transporting the collected recyclables over long distances to the buy‐back centres. In general, waste pickers have low levels of literacy and education, with approximately 92% of waste pickers not having completed formal schooling (Viljoen et al., 2018). It was found that only 25.4% of street waste pickers and 42.6% of landfill waste pickers had previously held full time jobs (Viljoen et al., 2018).

In general, the income of waste pickers is low, and subject to fluctuations. Street waste pickers earn R25 to R50 per day with an average of R 50 per day (Viljoen et al., 2018). The living conditions of waste pickers is generally poor, with a lack of proper housing and access to essential services, such as water and sanitation (Viljoen et al., 2018). Approximately 30% of street waste pickers live on the streets, 30% live in informal settlements, and only 22.6% live in formal housing; 48.5% of pickers at landfills live in informal settlements, and 38.1% in formal housing.

Figure 44: Waste pickers often live on or adjacent to landfills (www. mg.co.za)

A main challenge in recognising the importance of the waste pickers, is the limited information about the economic contribution of the informal sector. This is in terms of the value of the recyclables recovered, and avoided landfill airspace.


4 Chapter 4

Impacts Impacts resulting from the state of waste generation and management in South Africa

Source: www.groundup.org.za


4.1 INTRODUCTION This section presents a brief summary of the key impacts resulting from the changes in the state of waste generation and management in South Africa (Chapter 3), and as a result of the driving forces and pressures (Chapter 2). This includes:

Air quality;

Water quality;

Land contamination;

Land use; and

Informal sector.

It should be noted that the focus herein is associated with impacts from landfills as this has been the most commonly applied waste management option in South Africa.

4.2 AIR QUALITY In terms of air quality, there are many sources of air pollution that can potentially impact negatively human health, but also the environment.

4.2.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Landfill gas is primarily produced in a landfill site by the decomposition of organic waste under anaerobic conditions (DME, 2004). These anaerobic conditions are created by the spreading, compaction and covering of waste.

The production of landfill gas is therefore a function of waste tonnage of waste and organic content. Landfill gas is a complex mixture of gases, comprising approximately 40‐60% methane, 40‐50% carbon dioxide, 2‐5% nitrogen, and <1% volatile organic compounds (Pitchel, 2005).

The continuous generation of landfill gas results in a build‐up of landfill gas pressure, and the permeation of these gases towards the surface. Typically, the build of gases in a landfill is controlled by active gas extraction using a centrifugal blower and flaring (burning of the gas).

Wastewater treatment works (WWTW) also generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, namely methane and nitrous oxide, due to the anaerobic digestion (AD) of organic matter in the wastewater from domestic, commercial and industrial sources.

In South Africa, it is estimated that GHG emissions from the waste sector totalled 18.72 million tonnes CO2eq, accounting for between 3.4% and 3.6% of South Africa’s total carbon footprint (DEA, 2000). The GHG emissions from landfills accounted for the majority of the emissions (15.5 million tonnes CO2eq), while WWTW contributed approximately 3.2 million tonnes CO2eq.

4.2.2 Odour Nuisance

Landfill sites also produce highly odorous compounds, which can result in a nuisance impact. The compounds that have been found to be highly odorous include hydrogen sulphide, carboxylic acids (including butyric acid and propionic acid), limonene, xylene, ethyl benzene, propyl benzenes and butyl benzenes (DEA, 2016).

While there is currently no conclusive evidence that human health is seriously affected by odour, odour impacts have been known to trigger secondary effects such as nausea, vomiting, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, and triggering of hypersensitivity reactions (DEA, 2016a). Further to this, odour impacts can potentially be source of community discontent, and negatively affect property values and development.

As mentioned previously, a review of external audit reports was undertaken to determine the overall level of compliance of waste management facilities in South Africa.

Of the 25 external audits reports reviewed, only two reports noted non compliances in terms of air quality. At the one facility, dust fallout at one of the sample points exceeded the permissible limits, while at the other facility, a number of complaints about odour were captured in complaints register.

Interestingly, the majority of treatment facilities also monitor indoor air quality for occupational health and safety reasons. No exceedances of the allowable limits were noted in any of the audit reports reviewed.


4.2.3 Incineration

The emission rate of an incinerator is a function of the fuel usage, waste composition, incinerator design, and operating conditions (DEA, 2016a).

Incinerators emissions are generally grouped into the following four categories:

1. Criteria gases (e.g. sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead and particulates);

2. Acid gases (e.g. hydrogen chloride, hydrogen bromide, hydrogen fluoride);

3. Metal gases (e.g. chromium, arsenic, cadmium, mercury, manganese and so on.); and

4. Dioxins and furans (e.g. polychlorinated dibenzo‐p‐dioxins and dibenzo furans).

There are currently eight incinerators in South Africa that are licensed to treat HCRW. In 2017, these facilities treated 13,162 t of HCRW, accounting for 27% of total HCRW treated. These facilities are required in terms of their WMLs to submit monthly reports.

4.3 WATER QUALITY Leachate arises from the water content of the waste disposed at the landfill site and the rain that percolates through the cover layers, accumulating in the waste (Blight, 2011). As a consequence, landfills in wetter climates or with large quantities of waste with a high‐water content generate more leachate than those in dry climates. In very dry climates, landfills may generate no leachate.

The characteristics of the leachate are dependent on a number of factors, including the waste composition, age of the waste, degree of composition, and local climate (DWA, undated).

As the leachate carries dissolved and suspended contaminants from the waste, it can if not properly managed, contaminate surface and groundwater, posing significant risk to human health and the environment.

Figure 45: Example of modern landfill with the various barrier layers (www. deconst.net)

In order or prevent or prevent the impact of leachate on surface and groundwater water, new landfills now have to be designed in accordance to National Norms and Standards for Disposal of Waste to Landfill (2013).

Surface and groundwater monitoring was undertaken at 17 of the 25 facilities where the external audit reports were reviewed.

Non‐compliance with permissible surface water and groundwater limits was noted at seven of these facilities. Despite these exceedances, no significant pollution events were reported. Further to this, none of these facilities were requested by the DEA to undertake an investigation into the exceedances.

It is interesting to note that at two of these facilities, exceedances of permissible groundwater limits was noted for upstream samples, indicating that the groundwater entering the facilities is already polluted.


4.4 LAND USE Due to the negative impacts associated with waste storage, treatment and in particular disposal sites, the surrounding land uses can be limited. This includes potential impacts such as traffic, noise, visual, dust and odour.

Air quality impact assessments for large hazardous and general landfill sites in South Africa have indicated that (DEA, 2016a):

Significant health risks associated with the constituents of concern are generally restricted to within 500 m of the boundary if the site is well managed; and

Odour impact distances can vary between 200 m and 5 km depending on the management of the landfill site.

This means that the use of land surrounding landfill sites is limited as it should ideally not be used for residential, commercial or institutional land uses.

Further to this, due to large amounts and longevity of the waste, the impacts associated landfills extend long after the site has been closed and rehabilitated (DEADP, 2017).

4.5 LITTERING AND ILLEGAL DUMPING

In South Africa, littering and illegal dumping is relatively common, particularly in the urban areas.

The illegal dumping of waste, in particular hazardous waste, poses significant risk to human health and the environment. Litter is often carried by storm water systems and streams into the rivers, and in the coastal areas, into the ocean, where it can impact negatively on freshwater and marine life.

Figure 46: Litter washed up onto South Africa’s beaches (www.environment.gov.za)

Litter and illegal dumping is also unsightly, and can detract from the aesthetic value of the area. Littering and illegal dumping are symptomatic of inadequate awareness or education, and waste collection service. It is also a major indicator of an area that is in decline or disorder (DEADP, 2017).

One of the reasons that litter and illegal dumping has become a key focus area is the impact of waste, and in particular plastic, on the marine environment. A recent study estimated that in 2010, the quantity of mismanaged plastic waste in South Africa was 630,000 t. The concern is that a percentage of this waste will enter the ocean, becoming marine debris. As shown in Figure 47, at the time South Africa was ranked 11th in the world in terms of mismanaged plastic waste (Jambeck et al., 2015).

www.eoi.es


Figure 47: Top 20 countries in terms of mismanaged plastic waste in 2010 (Jambeck et al., 2015)

Cleaning up litter and illegal dumping also comes at a significant cost to local municipalities, using budget that could have been allocated other municipal priorities, such as the provision of housing, electricity, water and sanitation.

Estimating the amount that municipalities spend on cleaning up litter and illegal dumping can be a challenge as not all municipalities report on these costs as a separate line item. It is often included as part cleansing and/or waste collection services.

Based on a review of available IWMPs, it was found that cleaning up litter and illegal dumping accounts for between 1% and 26%, with an average of 8%, of their operating expenditure on waste management.

Figure 48: Cleaning up illegal dumping can be a significant cost to local municipalities (www.infrastructurene.ws)

8.82

3.22

1.88 1.83 1.591.03 0.97 0.94 0.85 0.79 0.63 0.6 0.52 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.46 0.31 0.3 0.28

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Misman

aged plastic (Mt)

Country


5 Chapter 5

Responses Actions taken to mitigate or prevent the impacts resulting from the state of waste generation and management in South Africa

Image source: www.recyclescene.com


5.1 INTRODUCTION This final chapter presents some of the main actions or responses currently being undertaken to mitigate or prevent the impacts identified in Chapter 4. In some cases, these responses also address the driving forces and pressures which affect the state of waste generation in South Africa.

The purpose of this section is to provide a broad overview of some of the key responses that is or likely to have a significant on the state of waste in South Africa. It is therefore not a comprehensive catalogue of all the current or future actions.

The actions or responses are grouped under the following headings:

Legislative instruments;

Compliance and enforcement;

Economic instruments; and

Priority wastes.

5.2 LEGISLATIVE INSTRUMENTS

This section of the report provides context to the changing face of South Africa’s legislative landscape that has led to the current state of waste.

In South Africa, the approach to waste management is structured around the waste hierarchy (DEA, 2011). The hierarchy comprises a number levels, each representing an approach to waste management, arranged in descending order in terms of priority, as shown in Figure 49.

The first step of the hierarchy, the most desirable option, is the avoidance and reduction of waste generation. The next step of the hierarchy is reuse

where the waste is reused for a similar or different purpose without changing its form or properties. The next steps of the hierarchy are recycling where particular waste materials are converted into a new material to be used for a different purpose, and recovery where particular components or materials are recovered. The final level of the hierarchy is treatment and disposal. This is the least desirable option.

The upper four levels of the waste management hierarchy support the cradle‐to‐cradle approach to waste management in which the product is reused or recycled when it reaches the end of its life span, and in doing so, become an input for new product or material.

Figure 49: Waste hierarchy

The SAWIS is structured in the same way, where waste management companies are required to report in terms of management method, namely recycling and recovery, treatment, and disposal.

Figure 50 depicts the past two decades of pertinent legislation, policies and plans from a high‐level perspective that has shaped the waste industry in South Africa over the past 30 years.

Avoid

Reduce

Reuse

Recycling

Recovery

Treatment & Disposal

Source: https://za.pinterest.com/pin/71002131597063506/


Figure 50: Legislative timeline leading to the SoWR

5.2.1 Acts Regulating Environmental and Waste Management

South Africa’s first legal framework document governing the disposal of waste in South Africa was the Environment Conservation Act, 1989 (Act No. 73 of 1989) (ECA). The ECA required any type of waste facility, including transfer stations, storage facilities and recycling plants etc., to be regarded as a disposal site for which a Section 20(1) ECA permit was required.

For the next decade, no other legislation in South Africa controlled the permitting of waste facilities, despite waste managers becoming more resourceful in their search for cleaner technology solutions by establishing waste recycling and treatment plants, composting sites, storage areas, transfer stations, and incinerators etc. Even the Minimum Requirements (i.e. Minimum Requirements for the Waste Disposal by Land Second Edition, and the Minimum Requirements

for Handling, Classification and Disposal of Hazardous Waste Second Edition), which were developed in 1998 and known to be the only guiding document regarding waste disposal for many years, only applied to landfill development in Southern Africa, and had limited applications to other waste technology solutions.

In the same year, the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No. 107 of 1998) (NEMA) was developed to provide a progressive way to enforce, administer and govern environmental management legislation, as the ECA (NEMA’s predecessor) was considered largely unsuccessful and inadequate as the environmental management legislation in South Africa. The fundamental guiding principles of NEMA include, amongst others, the concepts of “polluter pays”, “cradle to grave”, “precautionary principle” and “waste avoidance and minimisation.” When the


NEMA came into effect, a legal framework started to develop around non‐landfill waste technologies.

The principles and provisions of the NEMA lead to the National Environmental Management: Waste Act 2008 (Act No. 59 of 2008) (NEM:WA), which is a waste specific environmental management act. When NEM:WA commenced on 1 July 2009, it was the first comprehensive act to regulate waste management in a proactive way in South Africa. The previous procedures for the permitting of waste sites in terms of Section 20 of the ECA were replaced by various provisions in the NEM:WA.

In terms of the NEM:WA, all listed waste management activities must be licensed through an integrated environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. All provisions made in NEM:WA took effect in 2009, with the exception of: voluntary Industry Waste Management Plans (IndWMPs); the application process for waste management licences (WMLs); and the remediation of contaminated land. The NEM:WA promotes the principles of the waste hierarchy, which is an international and best practice waste management approach that has been adopted in South Africa.

Since waste management was first regulated in terms of NEM:WA, certain aspects required attention, and additional needs arose as some concepts of the NEM:WA were seen to be ambiguous and inadequate.

The National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Act (No. 26 of 2014) (NEM:WA) came into effect on 2 June 2014 in order to rectify the shortcomings of the NEM:WA. Amongst other things, the NEM:WA included a comprehensive definition of ‘waste’. It also included a definite ‘end of waste status’ by opening up more opportunities for the recycling market, and amends the terms ‘reuse’ and ‘recovery’.

5.2.2 Environment and Waste Management Regulations

Since NEM:WA first took effect, there have been rapid amendments and improvements in waste management governance as the legal framework started to develop around non landfill technologies. The subsections below, highlight in

chronological order, some pertinent regulations regarding waste management in recent years.

National Waste Information Regulations

The National Waste Information Regulations (2012) was implemented on 1 January 2013 in terms of Section 60 of the NEM:WA. The purpose of these regulations was to regulate the collection of data and information on waste management in South Africa in order to fulfil the objectives of the national waste information system as set out in NEM:WA.

As a result of National Waste Information Regulations (2012), the South African Waste Information System (SAWIS) was developed to provide a reporting framework for generators, recyclers, exporters and disposers of waste. It has proved to be a useful tool to inform waste management decisions by requiring the registration of new waste activities and submission of quarterly information on the website. However, as mentioned previously, the SAWIS is yet to be used comprehensively and diligently by waste managers as challenges remain in the implementation and enforcement of the National Waste Information Regulations (2012).

Waste Classification and Management Regulations

Historically, waste streams were classified according to the Minimum Requirements (see Section 5.2.1). The Minimum Requirements provided a national framework for waste management in South Africa.

The Waste Classification and Management Regulations (2013) (WCMR) were promulgated on 23 August 2013 and replaced the Minimum Requirements. The WCMR was promulgated in terms of the NEM:WA with the following associated norms and standards, which again were largely focused around disposal of waste to landfill:

National Norms and Standards for the Assessment of Waste for Landfill Disposal (2013); and

National Norms and Standards for Disposal of Waste to Landfill (2013) including detail on the


barrier design based on the classification of the material.

List of Waste Management Activities, Norms and Standards

Around the same time in 2013, as the norms and standard were developed to better regulate waste disposal to landfill, regulations developed around non‐landfill waste management solutions.

On 29 November 2013, GN R. 921 was published, replacing GN R. 718 of 2009. GN R. 718 provided the original list of waste management activities requirement a WML to operate when it was promulgated on 3 July 2009. It included the storage of waste in the list of waste activities requiring a WML in terms of Category A (activities requiring a Basic Assessment), and Category B (activities requiring a full scoping and EIA process).

However, in terms of the GN R.921, waste activities requiring a WML are divided into Category A, Category B, and Category C; where Category C activities need to be registered with the Department and comply with specific requirements, such as the Norms and Standards for Storage of Waste (2013).

The National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste (2013) applies to general waste storage facilities and hazardous waste storage facilities that have the capacity to store, continuously, more than 100 m³ of general waste or 80 m³ of hazardous waste, respectively. It is only applicable to new facilities that have not yet been constructed.

Since 2013, when the norms and standards were promulgated for the storage of waste (and removed from the list of activities requiring a WML), further norms and standards have been drafted and introduced demonstrating the rapid change in South African legal framework promoting alternative uses and technologies in waste management.

On 11 October 2017, the National Norms and Standards for the Sorting, Shredding, Grinding,

Crushing, Screening and Bailing of General Waste (2017) was promulgated with the concurrent removal of this activity from the list of waste management activities requiring a WML i.e. Category A3(2) of GN R 921.

Last year, GN 528 was issued on 2 June 2017 for comment in terms of the NEM:WA. The purpose of GN R 528 is to make regulations to exclude waste streams from the definition of waste namely, waste slag from ferrochrome metallurgy; waste ash from combustion plants; and waste gypsum from pulp, paper and cardboard production and processing. The regulations state that where a waste stream has been excluded from the definition of waste, that waste may be recovered or treated prior to use without a WML; and the negative impacts must be mitigated according to certain duty of care principles, and norms and standards.

5.2.3 Plans and Strategies in Waste Management

Long‐term plans and strategies have developed in recent years, in order to address key issues, needs and problems experienced with waste management in South Africa.

Integrated Waste Management Plan

The development of an Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) is a requirement for all spheres of government responsible for the waste management in terms of the NEM:WA. The IWMP is a tool for government to properly plan and manage waste within its jurisdiction. The minimum requirements for an IWMP are set out in Section 11(4) of the NEM:WA.

Local and district municipalities are required to submit their IWMPs to the relevant provincial department for endorsement, and to ensure that the IWMPs are included in their Integrated Development Plans (IDPs). IWMPs are five‐year plans, which are generally reviewed annually.


National Waste Management Strategy

The NWMS was first published in 1999, and was approved by cabinet in November 2011. Currently the DEA is preparing the third NWMS, which is due to be published at the end of 2018. The purpose of the NWMS is to achieve the objects of the NEM:WA. The NWMS has eight goals, which organs of state and affected persons are obliged to give effect to and achieve.

This SoWR aims to align with the third NWMS and thereby provide accurate and credible information regarding the existing waste management practices for realistic and achievable goals to be set in the NWMS.

5.2.4 Fiscal Drivers

Creating financial incentives and disincentives in respect of waste management behaviour by applying waste management charges, is understood worldwide, to be the most effective way of reducing waste and improving levels of re‐use, recycling and recovery.

The drive towards recycling comes at a cost, and is ultimately borne by the consumers of the product, as taxes are proposed for the disposal of waste going to landfill, and levies are imposed by government or industry to the cost of production.

Pricing Strategy

The National Pricing Strategy for Waste Management is a legal requirement of the NEM:WAA and gives effect to the National Waste Management Strategy through economic instruments and an extended producer responsibility. It was published on 11 August 2016 and due to be promulgated imminently.

It is aimed at reducing waste generation and increasing the diversion of waste away from landfill towards reuse, recycling and recovery to support the growth of the South African secondary resources economy from waste.

The National Waste Management Strategy looks at both upstream and downstream economic instruments. The downstream economic instruments look at volumetric tariffs ‘pay‐as‐you‐throw’ approach and includes landfill taxes for

waste disposal to landfill. The upstream economic instruments focus on the extended producer responsibility and international best practice in waste management.

Implementation of the pricing strategy is dealt with in more detail in Section 5.3.

Plastic Bag

South Africa introduced a plastic bag levy in 2003 in an attempt to reduce plastic bag consumption. Following the initial short‐term drop in plastic bag consumption in 2003, South African got accustomed to paying for plastic bags and the demand began to increase again. The plastic bag levy did not appear to change consumer behaviour or plastic waste production. As a result, in 1 April 2018, the Plastic bag levy increased by 50% to 12 cents per bag in a further effort to change conscious consumerism of plastic bags.

Tyre Levy

The tyre levy was effective since 1 February 2017 and remains the same at a rate of R 2.30/kg per tyre. It is payable by manufacturers and the rate is set irrespective of the tyre’s previous use and irrespective of whether the tyre was imported or manufactured locally. The levy is earmarked for recycling and is payable in addition to any existing customs and excise duty payable on the import/export of such tyres.

Proposed Landfill Tax

The DEA is currently undertaking a study into the role of regulatory policy instruments on recycling targets and banning of the disposal of certain types of waste to landfill. The study includes a review of the existing general waste management fees and landfill tariffs by assessing the full costs of waste management and charges to discourage landfilling of waste; as well as, the feasibility of a disincentive landfill disposal tax to complement the existing landfill fees and discourage the disposal of waste to landfill.

5.2.5 Industry Waste Management Plans

Industry Waste Management Plans (IndWMPs) are a mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) initiative legislated in Part 7 of the NEM:WA


One of the objectives of Goal 1 of the 2011 NWMS required the achievement of waste reduction and recycling targets set in IndWMPs for the paper and packaging, pesticides, lighting (CFLs) and tyres industries.

In general, development and implementation of these four IndWMPs has been unsatisfactory. The paper and packaging IndWMP was also developed in 2011 and updated in 2014 as a voluntary plan. The draft became obsolete and in 2016 a Section 28 notice was issued for the industry to prepare and submit an IndWMP.

The pesticide IndWMPs was developed in 2011 as a voluntary plan. This plan was neither approved nor was a Section 28 notice issued for the pesticide industry.

The lighting (CFLs) IndWMP was developed in 2012, and in 2016 a Section 28 notice was issued for the industry to prepare and submit an IndWMP.

Of the four IndWMPs, only the tyre industry provided an approved IndWMP. However, the implementation of the tyre IndWMP was problematic; the DEA withdrew the tyre IndWMP developed by REDISA as it did not create a positive precedent for IndWMPs.

On 6th December 2017, the DEA issued the Section 28 call for Industry Plans. Previous IndWMPs were deemed obsolete and the new notice required the submission of IndWMPs for the following producers by 6 September 2018:

1. Paper and packaging material,

2. Lighting equipment,

3. Electrical and electronic equipment, or

4. Goods wrapped in primary or secondary packaging material, which are intended for the distribution in South Africa.

The definition of ‘packaging’ includes primary and secondary packaging and excludes plastic pellets and industrial bulk containers with a capacity > 1000 litres.

According to the notice, all producers were required to register with the Minister within two months after the date of publication (i.e. by 6

February 2018). The notice stated that a producer must either prepare and submit an IndWMP for approval within nine months of publication of the notice, or formally subscribe to an IndWMP approved by the Minister.

Paper and packaging has been declared a priority waste by government. The government requires that each packaging waste stream submit an IndWMP to the Minister by September 2018. In response, Packaging SA intends to submit a Federation of Plans for the packaging industry as a whole. Paper Manufacturers Association of South Africa (PAMSA) and Paper Recycling Association of South Africa (PRASA) are Producer Responsibility Organizations (PROs) that are included in the preparation of these plans. Packaging South Africa intends to submit to the DEA by 5 September 2018. Concurrently, each PRO is completing their own individual for inclusion into the Federation of Plans PETCO is drafting the IndWMP for the PET Sector.

On 11 May 2018, the Minister published a notice to consider four tyre IndWMPs. The E‐Waste Recycling Authority (ERA) has drafted the South Africa E‐Waste IndWMP 2018‐2023, which has been made available for review and consultation in June 2018.

5.3 ECONOMIC INSTRUMENTS

In South Africa, the selection and use of economic instruments is largely based on the ‘polluter pays principle’ of the National Environment Management Act (No. 107 of 1998), where the generators of waste (i.e. businesses and households) are responsible for the costs of managing the waste generated (RSA, 2016)

The use of economic instruments also aligns with Goal 6 of the National Waste Management Strategy, which is for municipalities to have implemented cost reflective tariffs (DEA, 2011).

The National Pricing Strategy for Waste Management is a legislative requirement of Section 13(A) of the Waste Amendment Act (2014). The purpose of the National Pricing Strategy for Waste Management is to provide the basis for and guiding methodology or methodologies for setting


of waste management charges in South Africa (RSA, 2016).

One of the main objectives of the National Pricing Strategy for Waste Management is to address the pervasive under‐pricing of waste services in South Africa. Under‐pricing creates the wrong set of incentives, undermines waste minimisation efforts, and ultimately undermines the polluter pays principle. This is one the reasons that disposal to landfill is still perceived to be the least costly and therefore more attractive option for waste management in South Africa.

Economic instruments are tools that are used to change behaviour by setting the level of the tax (or subsidy) at or near to the level of the external cost

(or benefit), and in doing so internalise the externalities. These instruments provide incentives for manufacturers, consumers, recyclers and other actors along the product‐waste value chain to reduce waste generation and to seek alternatives to final disposal to landfill, such as reuse, recycling or recovery. Further to this, these tools also reduce volatility in the market.

Figure 51 presents a broad range of economic instruments that can potentially be implemented at various points along the product‐waste value chain (upstream and downstream), as and when deemed appropriate, to correct for market failures, such as under‐pricing (RSA, 2016).

Figure 51: Examples of economic instruments along the product‐waste value chain (RSA, 2016: 7)

South Africa has to date focussed on EPR. With EPR, the producers of the good have a

responsibility to safely manage those products after the end of useful life.


As mentioned previously, there are currently mandatory EPR fees in place for plastic bags, waste tyres, electric filament lamps (incandescent lightbulbs), and electricity generated using non‐renewable resources (e.g. coal, gas and nuclear). These charges are intended to shift some of the responsibility from government to industry, obliging producers and importers to internalise waste management costs in their product prices, ensuring the safe handling of their products post end‐of‐life.

Voluntary EPR fees have also been levied on numerous waste streams, including paper and packaging (plastic, metal, and glass), waste oil, and waste batteries. These voluntary charges are generally collected and managed by PROs. These PROs are typically overseen by the local producers and government.

Going forward, the intention is for government to institute an EPR fee, in the form of a tax, for all IndWMPs that the Minister calls for in terms of Section 28 of NEM:WA.

5.4 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

In order to realise the desired outcomes of the legal instruments, the enforcement of the provisions contained therein is required.

This aligns with Goal 8 of the 2011 NWMS, which seeks to establish effective compliance with and enforcement of the NEM:WA through an increase in the number of appointed EMIs, and successful enforcement actions against non‐compliant activities.

Compliance and enforcement in South Africa is guided by the National Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Strategy, which provides the short to medium term roadmap to improved compliance and enforcement.

In terms of the National Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Strategy, the priorities for going forward include the development of the national integrated compliance and enforcement information management system, a feasibility study for an Environmental Management Inspectors (EMI) Training Academy, and continuation of work on the administrative penalties project.

5.4.1 Environmental Management Inspectors

The EMIS are the officials appointed to carry out environmental compliance and enforcement functions in terms of the NEM:WA, and other relevant national and provincial legislation and local authority by‐laws (DEA, 2017b).

These EMIs represent environmental compliance and enforcement capacity in South Africa. Figure 52 presents the number of national, provincial and local EMIs, as well designated EMIs, from 2015 to 2017 (DEA, 2017b). In total, the number of EMIs has increased from 2,294 in 2015 to 2,880 in 2017.

Given that the primary function of the EMIs is monitoring and enforcement of the relevant environmental legislation, the greater the number of EMIs, the greater level of monitoring and enforcement.


Figure 52: Total number of EMIs from 2015 to 2017 (DEA, 2017b)

5.4.2 Inspections

Compliance monitoring inspections are undertaken by the EMIs to determine whether or not, facilities are compliant with the conditions of their licence. Figure 53 presents the total number of inspections undertaken in 2016/2017 by each authority/institution (DEA, 2017b).

Given that a single facility may require a number of environmental authorisations, licences or permits, inspections of these facilities would need to ascertain the level of compliance of the facility with each environmental authorisation, licences and/or permit. As a result, Figure 54 also includes inspections for the pollution and EIA sub‐sectors.

Figure 53: Number of compliance inspections in 2016/2017 (DEA, 2017b)

746586

777

185

2294

893

607

911

236

2647

1021

607

949

303

2880

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

National Provincial Designated Local Total

2015 2016 2017

769

354306

261

115 87 79 68 6425 19 7 1 3

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900


Figure 54 presents the number of contraventions of the NEM:WA in 2016/2017 (DEA, 2017b). In total, there were 186 contraventions. The majority of contraventions were reported by the Gauteng DARD, followed by the DEA (89), and Limpopo

DEDET (20), North West READ (14) and KwaZulu‐Natal EDTEA (11).

Figure 54: Number of contraventions of the NEM:WA in 2016/2017 (DEA, 2017b)

5.5 AVOIDANCE, RECYCLING & RECOVERY

The following section provides a broad overview of some of the main initiatives being implemented to recycle and recover waste in South Africa. The intention of this section is not to comprehensively catalogue all the current initiatives, but to highlight those initiatives which are likely to have significant influence is diverting waste away from landfill.

5.5.1 General Waste

5.5.1.1 Municipal Waste

There are a number of current initiatives to divert municipal waste from landfill.

One of the main initiatives is the roll out of source separation programmes at all metropolitan municipalities and secondary cities and large towns in accordance with Goal 1 of the National Waste Management Strategy (2011). Section 3.6 provides an overview of the existing, mainstream source separation programmes in each of the provinces. In addition to the mainstream programmes, there

are a number of municipalities that are piloting source separation programmes in selected areas. There are however a number of challenges limiting the rollout of the separation at source, in particular the funding of the programmes given budget constraints and the integration of the waste pickers.

One of the other main initiatives is the development of material recovery facilities (MRFs) that recover recyclable materials from the municipal waste stream. The recyclable materials are recovered either mechanically or manually, or using a combination of the two methods. There are generally two types of MRFs, clean and dirty MRFs. Clean MRFs generally receive source separated recyclables in mixed receptacles, which are then further separated into single waste streams, such as paper, plastic, glass, and metals, with the residual waste being taken to landfill for final disposal. The recyclables are then taken to the end user for recycling. In contrast, dirty MRFs receive mixed municipal waste from which the recyclables are recovered. Clean MRFs achieve 80‐90%

301

89

20 14 11 9 30

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Gauteng DARD DEA Limpopo DEDET North WestDREAD

KwaZulu‐ NatalDEDTEA

Eastern CapeDEDET

Western CapeDEADP


recycling rates; whereas dirty MRFs only 30% at best.

The box below presents an example of an existing, operational MRF in South Africa.

Material Recovery Facility in the Western Cape

In response to the City of Cape Town’s philosophy of regional landfill and associated transfer stations, a R 230 million multi‐purpose facility was constructed to replace an existing satellite transfer station (civildesigner, undated). The facility was established to reduce the cost of transporting waste to a planned regional/central landfill, and to divert waste from landfill for the purposes of recycling and reuse. The facility comprises: a 1,000 tonnes/day transfer station; a 100 tonnes/day manual clean MRF; a drop off point for the public; an organic waste management facility; and a plastic waste‐to‐oil processing facility (Abels, 2016). The facility receives approximately 350‐500 t of municipal waste/day, 80 t of construction and demolition waste, 100 t of organic waste, and 70 t of recyclables.

Figure 55: Manual sorting of recyclable waste (left) and waste‐to‐oil facility (right) (Abels, 2016).

5.5.1.2 Organic Waste

There are currently a number of initiatives to divert organic waste from landfill.

One of the main initiatives is the Norms and Standards for the Disposal of Waste to Landfill (2013), which places restrictions on disposal of garden waste to landfill. In terms of these regulations, a 25% diversion of garden waste from

landfill is required within 5 years of these regulations coming into effect. In response, many municipalities are investigating options for the recycling and recovery of garden waste.

Another main initiative, is the development of composting facilities at existing transfer stations and/or MRFs.


Composting Facility in the Western Cape

The City of Cape Town contracted a local composting company to shred and chip garden refuse at nine of the City’s drop off facilities and landfill sites.

The chipped garden refuse is then transported to the enterprise’s composting facility where it is used to produce compost. It is estimated that approximately 12,500 t (50,000 m3) of chipped garden refuse is composted monthly, diverting approximately 150,000 t (600,000 m3) of waste annually from the City’s landfills.

Figure 56: Composting of City of Cape Town’s garden refuse (Image source: www.greencape.co.za)

Integrated Waste Facility in the Western Cape

A R 400 million waste to energy plant was recently constructed in the Western Cape.

The plant accepts approximately 600 t of general waste per day, which is separated into organics, recyclables, and non‐recyclables (GreenCape, 2017). The organics are then fed into an AD, which produces biomethane (760 Nm3/hr) and liquefied food grade carbon dioxide (18 t CO2). In addition, the plant also produces organic fertilizer (100 t/d), refuse derived fuels (200 t/d), and recyclables (20 t/d).

Figure 57: Mechanised MRF for sorting waste into the various fractions (Image source: www.energy.gov.za)


5.5.1.3 Construction and Demolition Waste

There is a growing interest in the reuse and recycling of construction and demolition due to the rising price of virgin materials, demand for aggregate, rising cost of landfilling (GreenCape, 2016).

One of the main initiatives in the recycling and recovery of construction and demolition waste is the development of permanent crushers at existing transfer stations and MRFs. At the crushing facilities, materials that can be reused, such as intact bricks, roof tiles, doors, window frames and so on, are manually removed before crushing (DEA, 2018c). Other recyclables, such as metals, are also normally recovered. The crushed material is then typically used in road construction, foundations, and road embankments.

It is important to note that one of the main current uses of construction and demolition waste is for cover material at landfill sites (DEA, 2018c). In order to meet the demand for daily cover material, many landfills in South Africa have implemented zero tariffs on construction and demolition waste that can be used for this purpose. While this practice does not minimise the amount of waste going to landfill, it is essential for landfills to the requirements of their WMLs. This is an important consideration with current initiatives, such as Operation Phakisa (discussed further in Section 5.8), to divert construction and demolition waste from landfill.

5.5.1.4 Paper

South Africa already has a relatively high paper recycling rate; however, there are many more initiatives to increase the recovery of paper. One of the main initiatives is to improve recycling through education. In 2012, PRASA initiated the Foundation and Inter‐senior Schools Curriculum Project in collaboration with the Department of Education

(PAMSA, undated). This project involved including recycling in the maths curriculum of Grades R to 7, and recycling focused material for the life skills curriculum of Grade 3. The project was launched at 7,778 schools, reaching 134,000 teachers and over 4 million learners. PRASA also partnered with www.e‐classroom.co.za to provide printable resources for children, their parents and teachers on sustainability and recycling.

Brick Manufacturing in KwaZulu‐Natal

A NPO in KwaZulu‐Natal has developed a system for manufacturing bricks that can use up to 95% recycled materials, comprising approximately 25% mixed inert builders rubble waste, 70% waste soils, and 5% cement stabilising agent.

What makes this project unique is that the bricks have been fully certified by the SABS, CIDB and NHBRC, as well as EcoStandard 5‐star certification, and can therefore be used in construction in place of conventional bricks.

Figure 58: Loading the blended material into the brick maker (left) and stacking the bricks for curing (right) (Image source: www.rambrick.co.za)


5.5.1.5 Plastic

Internationally, the use of plastics and plastic waste has come under the spotlight. The same is true in South Africa.

In response, a number of initiatives have been implemented to reduce the potential impacts associated with waste plastics. This includes the following:

Media campaigns using adverts, posters, social media, roadshows, expos, and so on, to raise awareness;

Production of ‘how to recycle’ guidelines;

Production of ‘Design for Recycling for Packaging and Paper in SA’ for enterprises wishing to make their packaging more recyclable;

Recycling days to increase awareness of the benefits of plastics recycling;

Providing information on drop off points for recyclables and plastics recyclers;

Annual survey of plastics recyclers to provide an overview of the sector;

River and beach clean ups;

Installing floating litter booms across rivers to reduce the amount of litter entering the ocean; and

Fishing line bins at marinas and fishing clubs.

An example of initiative to encourage recycling is presented in the box below.

Mobile Buyback Centres in Gauteng and the Western Cape

In order to encourage recycling in informal settlements and lower‐income areas, the use of mobile buy back centres have been piloted in Langa, Cape Town and Kya Sands, Johannesburg. The intention is to roil out these centres countrywide.

In contrast to conventional buy back centres, the mobile buyback centres reward waste collectors with money that is loaded onto a KilorandsCardTM, a debit card, which can be used at any shop that accepts MasterCard.

Figure 59: Mobile Buyback Centre in Langa (left) and Kilorands Card (right) (Image source: www.findallnews.co.za)


5.5.1.6 Glass

A number of initiatives have been implemented in South Africa to increase the recovery of glass (TGRC, 2017). This includes for example the following:

Raising awareness of the importance, and environmental benefits of glass reuse and recycling using several channels of communications. This includes for example television and radio advertisements, billboards, school competitions, and events such as ‘glass recycling month’;

Training and capacity building of entrepreneurs to develop businesses in the glass recycling sector. In 2016, training and support was provided to 622 entrepreneurs;

Supporting approximately new and existing entrepreneurs in establishing glass buy‐back businesses. In 2016, 60 new buy‐back businesses were supported in addition to the existing 150 buy‐back businesses already being supported. It is estimated that these buy‐back businesses purchase recovered glass from approximately 50,000 glass collectors across the country; and

Focus on the recovery of glass from the hospitality sector. In 2016, an additional 120 glass receptacles were placed at hotels, pubs and restaurants across the country.

5.5.1.7 Tyres

Prior to the withdrawal of the IIWMP, REDISA established approximately 2,887 waste tyre collection points, 5 micro depots, 19 depots, 2 pre‐processors, and 27 processors for the reuse and recycling of waste tyres in South Africa (REDISA, 2017). As mentioned previously, these facilities are currently under the administration of the WMB.

In 2016, approximately 12% of the 70,326 waste tyres collected were being reused, 14% was being crumbed, 18% was being used as feed stock in pyrolysis treatment plants, 22% was being used as feed stock in kilns, and the remaining 34% was being exported (REDISA, 2017). With the exception of waste tyre exports, it is our understanding that presently many of these recovery and recycling operations are still continuing under the WMB.

An example of the one of the tyre recycling facilities is presented in the box below.

Tyre Recycling Facility in KwaZulu‐Natal

A tyre recycling facility was commissioned in 2016 to produce rubber crumb (Venter, 2018). The 2,500 m2 facility, has a 1,000 m2 warehouse with a capacity to recycle 2 tonnes/hour of truck tyres. It recycles 30 to 40 tonnes daily. Waste tyres are sourced from waste collection depots administered by the WMB.

The facility utilises a three phase crushing process. (1) Tyres are milled using a combination of crushers and sieves to reduce their size to a crumb. (2) A system of magnet separators and fibre extraction equipment is used to remove fibre, steel and stone. (3) Sieves are used to separate the product into different sized particles for different applications. The facility currently produces approximately 600 tonnes of rubber crumb/month or 7,000 tonnes/year. This crumb is used to manufacture rubber flooring, paving and acoustic underlays for soft and hard flooring (15%), foundations for sports fields (50%), and road surfacing (35%).

Figure 60: Overhead view of the tyre recycling facility (left) (www.specifile.co.za) and rubber crumbs (right) (www.durban news.co.za)



5.5.2.1 Waste Oils

In order to improve the recovery of waste oils, a number of initiatives are being undertaken (Rose Foundation, 2018). This includes the following:

Firstly, expanding the existing network of 137 drop of points, and the building of used oil bulking points or storage depots;

Secondly, raising environmental awareness about the impact of used oil on human health and the environment, and what to with the used oil; and

Thirdly, encouraging used oil collectors and processors to meet the relevant health, safety and environmental standards. This includes providing training on oil spill clean‐up, firefighting, first aid, and Hazchem; undertaking environmental audits of processing facilities; assisting with the issuing of safe disposal certificates; obtaining insurance cover for public liability and spills; and providing safety clothing.

Figure 61: Used oil collection (Rose Foundation, 2018)

5.5.2.2 Slag

Internationally, ferrochrome slag has been used in a number of applications, such as cement production, road construction, hydraulic engineering applications, and as a fertiliser. It is estimated that in Europe only 10% of the slag produced is disposed of to landfill with the rest is either reused and recycled (JMA, 2013). In South Africa, the reuse and recycling of ferrochrome slag has been relatively limited, due to concerns about the suitability as an aggregate and the potential environmental impacts. There are however case studies, such as the one presented in the box below, where slag has been successfully reused or recycled.

Use of Ferrochrome Slag in Road Construction of the N4 Toll Road

Ferrochrome slag was used in a number applications in the initial construction phase of the N4 Toll Road (JMA, 2013). This included the following:

1. Drainage: It is estimated that 7,000 t of slag was used as drainage aggregate. To date no problems have been experienced in the areas where the crushed slag was used.

2. Layer work material: Approximately 30,000 t of slag has been used as G1 or G2 base material in layer works. It was found that the slag needed to be blended with natural soils and gravel work materials in order to achieve the correct grading.

3. Asphalt: It is estimated that 175,000 t of slag was used in asphalt manufacture. The slag, which is mixed with pit sand, has successfully been used for patchwork and the resurfacing of sections of the N4. Design tests have confirmed the suitability of the Ferrochrome asphalt for this purpose.

4. Seal work: It is estimated that 15,030 t of slag was used in seal work. While no specific problems have been encountered with the use of slag in seal work, the washing of the slag and the fairly rough outer surface of the completed seal does pose a challenge.

Figure 62: Ferrochrome slag used as layer work material (left) and/or in asphalt (right) (www.docsconcc.co.za)


5.5.2.3 WEEE

In addition to increasing the number of drop off points and/or collection of WEEE, the sector is also focused on three particular aspects; the effectiveness and efficiency of the existing pre‐processors and processors, the state of compliance of these enterprises, and facilitating the entry of new enterprises into the market (eWASA, 2018 and SAEWA, 2018).

This includes the following initiatives:

Collect, share and compare information on local enterprises,

To increase integration between local enterprises,

Liaise with international institutions and to share this information with local enterprises;

Improving the planning, creation and management of WEEE related projects;

Develop, publish and disseminate codes of practice;

Improving the state of compliance of local enterprises with the applicable local regulations and international best practice; and

Organising events for sharing of information and experiences.

5.5.2.4 Sewage Sludge

In terms of sewage sludge, there are a number of initiatives being undertaken to reduce the amount that is currently applied to land.

One of these initiatives is the use of AD at existing WWTW to further reduce the amount sewage sludge requiring disposal, as well as to generate biogas and/or electricity. See the box below for an example of such an initiative in Gauteng.

Another initiative is the use of sewage sludge as an input in the production of agricultural fertiliser. A number such operations have been established at existing WWTW. These operations are typically appointed to dewater the sewage sludge, and to beneficiate the dried sludge.

Biogas to Energy Project in Gauteng

The WWTW has a design capacity of 450 Mℓ, with an average inflow of 430 Mℓ. The plant was producing on average 85 t of dry sewage sludge per day (Swartz et al., 2013).

The existing ADs at the WWTW were upgraded to include cell lysis (increase biogas production), biogas scrubbing (remove contaminants) and three combined heat and power gas engines (produce heat and electricity). It is estimated that the engines will produce approximately 60% of the WWTW electricity requirements. The heat from the combined heat and power gas engines is then used to pretreat the sewage sludge, further increasing biogas production. The pretreatment also reduces amount, and improves the quality of the sewage sludge, which meets the required standards for use as agricultural fertiliser.

Figure 63: AD in the background and CHP in the foreground (Image source: Swartz et al., 2013)


5.6 CAPACITY BUILDING AND AWARENESS RAISING CAMPAIGNS

A number of municipalities have or are planning to implement capacity building and awareness raising campaigns. These campaigns are typically aimed at educating the general public about the different types of waste, waste minimisation, recycling and recovery, and the impact of waste on human health and the environment.

These initiatives align with Goal 4 of the NWMS, which is to ensure that people are aware of the

impact of waste on their health, well‐being and environment.

At a national level, the DEA developed the Waste Awareness Strategic Framework in 2016 to assist provincial and local authorities to implement awareness raising campaigns. The DEA also recently embarked on a national environmental outreach and awareness campaign, which included various communities and schools across the country (DEA, 2018).

Table 18 presents examples of awareness raising initiatives in each of the provinces. These initiatives were largely taken from either the provincial IWMP or SOER.

Table 18: Examples of provincial awareness raising initiatives

Province Initiatives

Eastern Cape Proposal to develop and implement an annual recycling awareness programme.

Free State Workshops for municipalities on basic environmental management;

Establishment of four environmental education centres;

Establishment of environmental clubs at the schools (currently 50 clubs); and

Supports the implementation of the international Eco Schools programme (currently 121 schools).

Gauteng Waste awareness and clean‐up campaigns aimed promote waste separation and, reduce littering and illegal dumping by raising awareness amongst communities, schools and construction industries.

North West Waste minimisation awareness programmes undertaken in schools, higher leaning institutions and communities.

Western Cape Competitions at schools

Roadshows with schools and communities

Media reports and reports on municipal websites

Branding

Radio shows

Environmental calendar day celebrations

E‐waste collection days with the awareness raising to ensure success

Municipal and private organization collaborations

Pamphlets

Employee awareness initiatives

Social media campaigns

Mascots

5.7 INFORMAL WASTE SECTOR

The informal waste sector is a key component of the overall waste sector. Even though the informal

sector is often disregarded in waste management planning, it is deeply embedded in existing systems, and contributes significantly to landfill diversion and increased recycling (DEA, 2016b).


Many well‐meaning waste management projects have failed at the planning stage to consider the informal waste sector, which is very active, dynamic, and driven by basic survival needs.

Although there are obvious advantages by involving the informal waste sector, there is a challenge in build on the existing recycling systems in a way that incentivises a desired change. For most waste pickers, this is the only income generating opportunity, while for others it is a first‐choice due to the low entry barriers, low skill requirements, and relative freedom of the sector.

Due to the challenges associated with integrating the informal waste sector into the formal sector, integration initiatives need to be carefully tailored to suit the local context. Initiatives should seek win‐win solutions that benefit not only the municipalities, formal recycling sector, and the local community, but also the waste pickers.

There are a number of examples from South Africa, where informal sector has been integrated into the formal sector. These are presented below.

Food for Waste and Separation at Source Projects

The Food for Waste and Separation at Source Projects were implemented by Pikitup in the City of Johannesburg (DEA, 2016b). The aim of the Food for Waste Project is to clear illegal dump sites in informal settlements, whilst creating work opportunities to reduce poverty. Beneficiaries of the project collect recyclables and exchange them for a daily food parcel. The Separation at Source Projects diverts recyclables away from landfills to save airspace, reduce transportation cost of waste, reduce littering and illegal dumping, and decrease poverty.

Pikitup provides assistance to informal waste reclaimers through the establishment of cooperatives/non‐profit organisations, which collect recyclables from the Separation at Source areas. Pikitup also assists in the construction of satellite sorting/buy‐back facilities, which are managed by these cooperatives/non‐profit organisations, as well as provision of caged waste collection vehicles and PPE.

Vukuzenzele and Nkoza Drop‐Off and Sorting Cooperative Pilot Project

The Vukuzenzele and Nkoza Drop‐Off and Sorting Cooperative Pilot Project was implemented by the Ekurhuleni Municipality, in collaboration with Netsafrica (DEA, 2016b). The project aimed to develop community‐based recycling in Wadeville and Actonville to foster jobs for disadvantaged groups.

Key components of the project included: Developing an operative plan to integrate recycling as a service assigned cooperatives at no cost to the Ekurhuleni Municipality; Selecting and training of community‐based cooperatives; Building a drop‐off centre for waste recycling, which is managed by a cooperative; and Raising awareness in target communities. Nearby households are provided with reusable recycling bags, which are collected once a week by members of the cooperatives and transported to the drop off centre using specially adapted bicycles.

Figure 64: Vukuzenzele and Nkoza Drop‐off Site (Image source: DEA, 2016b: 36)


5.8 OPERATION PHAKISA Operation Phakisa is an initiative of the South African government, designed to fast track the implementation of solutions on critical issues. It aims to highlight the government’s urgent behaviour to address critical issues such as poverty, unemployment and inequality as emphasised in the National Development Plan 2030 DEA, 2017c). “Phakisa” means “hurry up” in Sesotho. Operation Phakisa is a results‐driven

approach, involving setting clear plans and targets, on‐going monitoring of progress and making these results public. Operation Phakisa projects include a number of laboratories: oceans economy, health, education, agriculture land reform and rural development, mining, biodiversity, chemicals and waste.

Several Phakisa’s have been held to date in South Africa and more are planned within various economic sectors. In 2017, Operation Phakisa identified that the current South African waste

Waterval Landfill Site

This project was implemented by the Rustenburg Municipality. It involved the replacement of the existing Townhill Landfill site and several communal/dumpsite with the new Waterval Sanitary Landfill Site, which included a MRF (DEA, 2016b).

The problem was that the closure of the Townhill Landfill would negatively impact on the approximately 1,200 reclaimers who currently work at the landfill, 15% of which also live site. The figure below presents some of the opportunities being investigated for integrating the affected reclaimers into the formal waste sector centred around the new landfill site (DEA, 2016b)

Figure 65: Opportunities for integrating the reclaimers into the formal recycling sector (DEA, 2016b: 48)

(Image source: DEA, 2016b)


management sector was not sufficiently developed, leading to both missed economic opportunities and unnecessary negative environmental impacts. Four work streams were

defined across the Chemicals and Waste economy with a total of 20 initiatives that related to the four work streams and two cross cutting initiatives ‐ see Figure 64 (DEA, 2017c).

Figure 66: Operation Phakisa’s 20 initiatives across 4 work streams, including 2 cross‐cutting initiatives (DEA, 2017c)

High impact initiatives for ash, gypsum, slag and biomass plan to divert 15.5 million tonnes of waste from landfills and create ± 28,000 direct jobs. E.g. from the initiatives 1 – 3 above for ash, slag and gypsum initiatives, ± 24,500 jobs will be created and 10.3 million tonnes of waste will be diverted (over the next five years), 1,000 direct jobs will be created through use of ash as a soil conditioner and ± 1 000 direct jobs will be created through acid mine drainage (DEA, 2017c). In terms of municipal waste (initiatives 6,7,8,9 and 10) 3.7 million tonnes of waste/year will be diverted from landfills, ± 15,000 directs jobs and ± 21,200 indirect jobs will be created with a GDP contribution of ± R 2.1 billion from these initiatives.

Regarding waste minimisation and its overall impact (initiatives 11 and 12) ± 287 direct jobs will be created, 245,000 tonnes of food losses would be prevented and R 1.2 billion of food losses would be avoided. For initiatives 13 and 14, 2,464 direct jobs would be created, 146,000 tonnes of waste would be diverted, R 36 million will contribute to GDP,

and 305 direct jobs will be created. For initiative 15, 120,000 tonnes of waste would be diverted and R 80 million contributed to GDP.

The DEA has highlighted the impact of the three proposed chemical work stream (initiatives 16 and 17), 2,000 direct jobs and 1,000 indirect jobs were envisioned to be created, diversion of 225,000 tonnes of waste cylinders, 114,000 global warming potential tonnes of ozone depleting gas emissions stopped and R 540 million contribution to GDP. For initiative 19, the coordination of SMME development across Phakisa initiatives will support development of 4,300 SMMEs, creating approximately 41,000 jobs. To this end, the National Treasury in partnership with the Department of Small Business Development ring‐fencing of a portion of the R 1.5 billion fund for the Phakisa, with an emphasis on women, youth and black entrepreneurs. Under initiative 20, DEA was looking at consumer behaviour, awareness and how to increase awareness, which were paramount in implementation of the initiative.


6 Chapter 6

So What?

Source: https://jooinn.com/a‐beach‐and‐ocean‐sunset.html

Source: Michael Van Niekerk (2018)


In conclusion, the state of waste in South Africa is being driven by a number of driving forces and pressures such as population growth, economic growth, level of income, increased urbanisation, and the globalisation of recycling market. These forces contribute to the increase in the quantity and complexity of waste generated, and the pressure on existing infrastructure to manage these wastes.

In 2017, South Africa generated 52.5 million tonnes of general waste (40% was recycled) and 66.8 million tonnes of hazardous waste (7% was re‐used or recycled), with the remainder treated and/or landfilled. While there are a number of recycling and recovery facilities in South Africa, there is still a dependence on landfilling as a waste management option; however this is clearly decreasing.

In addition to the waste generated, South Africa imported an estimated 137,490 tonnes of general waste (mainly paper, plastic, glass and metals) in 2017, while an estimated 258,557 tonnes of general waste (mainly paper, plastics and metals) was exported. During the same period, approximately 296 219 tonnes of hazardous waste was imported, and 49 000 tonnes was exported.

In response, the government, as well as the private sector, have implemented many initiatives to address the impacts associated with the mismanagement of waste. This includes for example the introduction of legislative and fiscal instruments, greater compliance and enforcement, identification of priority wastes, and specific activities to avoid, recycle and recover waste. Despite the challenges in preparing this SoWR, there is a fair degree of confidence that the waste generation estimates are in the correct order of magnitude to inform high level policy decisions. A number of conclusions can be drawn from the information presented. These conclusions are included for discussion purposes only.

The main challenge in developing the SoWR is the lack of data. While there are established mechanisms for collecting the required data, such as IWMPs and SAWIS, these mechanisms are not being used to their full potential.

One of the other major information gaps is in terms weighbridge data. Based on review of IWMPs, it is evident that few municipalities have functional weighbridges.

There are concerns over the import of hazardous waste for treatment and/or disposal in South Africa, but these imports only represent a small fraction (<1%) of the total amount of hazardous waste generated;

Similarly, the export of recyclables to other countries is a concern. With the exception of metals, the export of the paper, plastic and glass only represents a small fraction of the materials recycled in South Africa.

The exports of scrap metals is presently a contentious issue. From the literature, it appears as if South Africa is a net generator of scrap metals with sufficient materials to meet local demand, and for export.

Organic waste represents the bulk of general waste and offers significant opportunities for reducing the amount of waste going to landfill. Greater emphasis therefore needs to be placed on this waste stream, as even a minor reduction, can result in a significant amount of waste being diverted from landfill.

Furthermore, given that the main recyclables represent a relatively small fraction of general waste, even with significant improvements in the recycling rate of these waste streams, the effect on overall recycling rate may be limited.

In comparison to many developing countries, South Africa has a robust legal framework, but there is a lack of enforcement.

With that being said, concerns have been raised that the focus of enforcement is on the private sector, while many public waste management are not compliant.

A drawback of this robust legal framework is that it does hinder SMMEs from entering the formal waste sector, maintaining the current status quo where the market is dominated by a few major players.

South Africa has made great improvements in waste recycling, job creation and innovation. This is a result of changes in waste legislation; facilities focused on the value of waste as a resource; and education and public awareness.


References 1. Abels A. (2016), We visit the Kraaifontein Integrated Waste Management Facility, www.aquarium.co.za

[accessed on 27 July 2018].

2. Barnes A. (2018), The Glass Recycling Company, received via email on 28 June 2018.

3. Basel Convention (2016), Electronic Reporting System of the Basel Convention (Year: 2016),

www.basel.int [accessed on 03 August 2018].

4. Blight G. (2011), Landfills – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, in Waste: A Handbook for Management,

Academic Press, pgs. 469‐485

5. Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) (2013), Recovered Paper Market in 2013, Bureau of International

Recycling, Belgium

6. Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) (2015), Global Non‐Ferrous Scrap Flows 2000‐2015, Bureau of

International Recycling, Belgium

7. Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) (2017), World Steel Recycling in Figures 2012‐2016, Bureau of

International Recycling, Belgium.

8. Civildesigner (undated), Kraaifontein Waste Management Facility, www.civildesigner.com [accessed on

27 July 2018].

9. Davis B. and Ding L. (2018), China's Waste Import Ban Upends Global Recycling Industry, Mail &

Guardian, www.mg.co.za [accessed on 10 July 2018]

10. Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) (2015). Integrated Urban

Development Framework: Draft for Discussion, Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional

Affairs, Pretoria

11. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2000), GHG Inventory for South Africa 2000‐2010, Report

No. 12/9/6, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

12. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2005), Waste Stream Analysis and Prioritisation for

Recycling, Report No. 12/9/6, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria

13. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2011), National Waste Management Strategy, Department

of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

14. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2012), National Waste Information Baseline Report,

Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

15. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2013a), National Organic Waste Composting Strategy:

Status‐Quo Report, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

16. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2014a). Health Care Risk Waste Treatment Figures for 2014,


17. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2014b). Report on the Determination of the Extent and Role

of Waste Picking in South Africa, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

18. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2016a). 2nd South Africa Environment Outlook: A Report on

the State of the Environment, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

19. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2016b). Advanced Integrated Solid Waste Management:

Recognising the Informal Waste Sector in Advanced Waste Treatment, Department of Environmental

Affairs, Pretoria.

20. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2016c). Status Quo Report on the Management of Spent

Lead‐Acid Batteries in South Africa, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

21. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2016d). Status Quo Report on the Management of Spent Dry

Cell Batteries in South Africa, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.


22. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2016e). Status Quo Report on the Management of Sewage

Sludge in South Africa, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

23. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2017a). 2017 Health Care Risk Waste Treatment Figures,


24. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2017b), National Environmental Compliance and

Enforcement Report: 2016/2017, Pretoria.

25. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2017c), Phakisa final presentation to MinMec, Presentation,

Pretoria.

26. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2018a), Department of Environmental Affairs Embarks on a

National Environmental Outreach and Awareness Campaign, www.environment.gov.za, [accessed on 20

April 2018].

27. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2018b), Operation Phakisa, www.environment.gov.za,

[accessed on 20 April 2018].

28. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2018c), Management Options for Construction and

Demolition Waste and Factors that Influence Recycling Behaviour: Status Quo Report (DRAFT), Report no.

J37206, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

29. Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) (2018d), General Landfill Sites: 2017/2018 NCF Project,

Presentation, Department of Environmental Affairs, Pretoria.

30. Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP) (2017). Western Cape

Integrated Environmental Waste Management Plan 2017 ‐ 2022, Western Cape Department of

Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town.

31. Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP) (2017). State of the

Environment Outlook Report for the Western Cape Province: Waste Management, Western Cape

Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Cape Town

32. Department of Minerals and Energy (DME) (2004), Economic and Financial Calculations and Modelling

for Renewable Energy Strategy Formulation, Department of Minerals and Energy, Pretoria.

33. Department of Science and Technology (DST) (2013). South African Waste Sector – 2012, An Analysis of

the Formal Private and Public Waste Sector in South Africa, A National Waste RDI Roadmap for South

Africa: Phase 1 Status Quo Assessment, Department of Science and Technology, Pretoria.

34. Department of Water Affairs (DWA) (undated). Guidelines for Leachate Control, www.dwa.gov.za,

[accessed on 18 April 2018].

35. Department of Water Affairs (DWA) (2013). 2013 Green Drop Report Volume 1: Municipal and Private

Wastewater Systems, Department of Water Affairs, Pretoria.

36. Dondofema (R.A., Matope S. and Akdogan G. (2017), South African Iron and Steel Evolution: An

Industrial Engineering Perspective, South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol 28(4), pp 1‐13.

37. Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT) (2018). Eastern

Cape Provincial Integrated Waste Management Plan 2018‐2023: Situational Analysis Report, Report No.

J37232 (Draft), Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development Environmental Affairs and Tourism,

King Williams Town.

38. Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (DETEA) (2013). Provincial

Integrated Waste Management Plan, Free State Department of Economic Development, Tourism and

Environmental Affairs, Bloemfontein.

39. Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (DEADP) (2017). State of Environment

Outlook Report for the Western Cape Province: Waste Management, Western Cape Environmental

Affairs and Development Planning, City of Cape Town.


40. EThekwini Municipality (2016). Integrated Waste Management Plan 2016, eThekwini Municipality,

Durban.

41. Eskom (2017), Fact Sheet: Ash Management in Eskom, CO 0004 Revision 13 (June 2017),

www.eskom.co.za [accessed on 19 July 2018].

42. European Environment Agency (EEA) (1999). Environmental indicators: Typology and overview. European

Environment Agency, Copenhagen.

43. eWaste Recycling Authority (ERA) (2018), South African E‐Waste Industry Waste Management Plan (V.1)

2018‐2023 (Draft), eWaste Recycling Authority, Cape Town.

44. Fiehn H. & Ball J. (2005). Integrated Waste Management, Background Research Paper produced for the

South Africa Environment Outlook report on behalf of the Department of Environmental Affairs and

Tourism, Pretoria.

45. Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) (2016). Gauteng Integrated Waste

Management Plan (Draft), Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, Johannesburg.

46. Gauteng Infrastructure Financing Agency (GIFA) (2016), City of Tshwane Alternative Waste Treatment

Technologies Feasibility Study: Task 3 Waste Characterisation Study, Gauteng Infrastructure Financing

Agency (GIFA), Pretoria.

47. Godfrey L., Strydom L., and Phukubye R. (2016). Integrating the Informal Sector into the South African

Waste and Recycling Economy in the Context of Extended Producer Responsibility, Briefing Note, Council

for Scientific and Industrial Research, Pretoria.

48. Godsmark R. (2017), The South African Forestry and Forest Products Industry 2016,www.forestry.co.za


49. GreenCape (2016), Builder’s Rubble: Opportunities in Processing and Application, GreenCape, Cape Town.

50. GreenCape (2017), The Business case for Biogas from Solid Waste in the Western Cape, GreenCape, Cape

Town.

51. International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) (2012). Globalisation and Waste Management,

International Solid Waste Association, Vienna

52. International Solid Waste Association (ISWA) (2016). The Global E‐Waste Monitor 2017: Quantities,

Flows and Resources, International Solid Waste Association, Vienna.

53. Jambeck J.R., Geyer R., Wilcox., Sieglar T.R., Perryman M., Andrady A., Narayan R., and K.L. Law (2015).

Plastic Waste Inputs from Land into the Sea, Science, Vol. 768

54. Jones R.T. (2004). Economic and Environmentally Beneficial Treatment of Slags in DC Arc Furnaces, VII

International Conference on Molten Slags, Fluxes and Salts, The South African Institute of Mining and

Metallurgy, 2004.

55. Mbata S. (2018), Thinking about Waste Picker Integration, Waste Pickers Research Conference, 1‐2

February.

56. Mintek (2017). Mapping South Africa’s Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) dismantling,

Pre‐Processing and Processing Technology Landscape, Report #7574, Mintek, Pretoria.

57. Nahman A and De Lange W. (2013), Costs of Food Waste along the Value Chain: Evidence from South

Africa. Waste Management, Waste Management, (Vol. 33:11), pgs. 2493‐2500.

58. Paper Manufacturers Association of South Africa (PAMSA) (undated). Improving Recycling through

Education, www.thepaperstory.co.za [accessed on 08 August 2018].

59. Pitchel, J. (2005). Waste Management Practices: Municipal, Hazardous and Industrial, CSR Press Taylor &

Francis Group, USA

60. Plastics SA (2018), National Plastics Recycling Survey 2017 (Draft version).


61. Rural, Environment and Agricultural Development (READ) (2018). NWMS Workshop: Overview of

Provincial Status, presentation at the NWMS Workshop on 10 April 2018 at the Manhattan Hotel,

Pretoria.

62. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (1998), National Environment Management Act No. 107 of 1998

63. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2008), National Environment Management: Waste Act No. 59 of 2008

64. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2011), National Domestic Waste Collection Standards, Government

Gazette No. 33935, GNR 21, 21 January 2011, Pretoria

65. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2012), National Environment Management: Waste Act: National Waste

Information Regulations, Government Gazette No. 35583, GNR 625, 13 August 2012, Pretoria

66. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2013a), Waste Classification and Management Regulations, Government

Gazette No. 36784, GNR 634, 23 August 2013, Pretoria

67. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2013b), List of Waste Management Activities that have, or are likely to

have a Detrimental Effect on the Environment, Government Gazette No. 35718, GNR 921, 28 September

2012, Pretoria

68. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2013c), Norms and Standards for Assessment of Waste for Landfill

Disposal, Government Gazette No. 36784, GNR 635, 23 August 2013, Pretoria.

69. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2013d), Norms and Standards for Disposal of Waste to Landfill,

Government Gazette No. 36784, GNR 636, 23 August 2013, Pretoria.

70. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2013e), National Norms and Standards for the Storage of Waste,

Government Gazette No. 37088, GNR 926, 29 November 2013, Pretoria.

71. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2014), National Environment: Waste Amendment Act, Government

Gazette No. 37083, GNR 581, 29 November 2013, Pretoria.

72. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2016), National pricing Strategy for Waste Management, Government

Gazette No. 40200, GNR 904, 11 August 2016, Pretoria.

73. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2017), Withdrawal of the Integrated Industry Waste Tyre Management

Plan of the Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa, Government Gazette No.

41156, GNR 904, 29 September 2017, Pretoria.

74. Republic of South Africa (RSA) (2017), National Norms and Standards for the Sorting, Shredding,

Grinding, Crushing, Screening and Bailing of General Waste, Government Gazette No. 41175, GNR 1093,

11 October 2017, Pretoria.

75. Reuter M., Xiao Y., and Boin U. (2004), Recycling and Environmental Issues of Metallurgical Slags and Salt

Fluxes, VII International Conference on Molten Slags Fluxes and Salts, The South African Institute of

Mining and Metallurgy, 2004.

76. Rose Foundation (2018), Used Oil, www.rosefoundation.org.za [accessed on 02 August 2018] 77. Sawmilling SA (2014), Sawmilling in South Africa, www.thedti.gov.za [accessed on 22 July 2018].

78. Sello M. (2018). NWMS Workshop: Free State Status, presentation at the NWMS Workshop on 17 April

2018 at the Horseshoe Inn, Kimberly.

79. South African Sugar Association (SASA) (2017), The South African Sugar Industry Directory 2016/2017, www.sasa.org.za [accessed on 22 July 2018].

80. South African Cities Network (SACN) (2014). State of Waste Management in Cities: Phase 2: Modelling

the Effects of Landfilling as Disposal Method, South African Cities Network, Johannesburg.

81. South African Revenue Service (2017), Trade Statistics Data, www.sars.gov.za [accessed on 11 April 2018]

82. South African Waste Information Centre (SAWIC) (2018a), List of Waste Management Activities, South

African Waste Information Centre, www.sawic.environment.gov.za [accessed on 12 April 2018]


83. Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) (2011). Income Dynamics and Poverty Status of Households in South

Africa, Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.

84. Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) (2015). Living Conditions Survey 2014/2015, Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.

85. Statistics South Africa (Stats SA) (2017a). Mid‐year Population Estimates, Statistical Release P0302,

Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.

86. Stats SA (Statistics South Africa), (2017b). Living Conditions of Households in South Africa, 2014/2015, Statistical Release P0310, Statistics South Africa, Pretoria.

87. Steenkamp J.D. and Basson J. (2013), The Manganese Ferroalloys Industry in Southern Africa, The Journal

of The Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Vol 113, pgs. 667‐676.

88. The Glass Recycling Company (2017), 2016/2017 Annual Review, www.theglassrecyclingcompany.co.za


89. Treasury (2011). Local Government Budgets & Expenditure Review: 2006/07 – 2012/13, National

Treasury, Pretoria.

90. Tshepho M. (2018). NWMS Workshop: Overview of Limpopo Provincial Waste Status, presentation at the

NWMS Workshop on 10 April 2018 at the Manhattan Hotel, Pretoria.

91. TUTWA Consulting Group (2017), The South African Metal Recycling Industry in Focus, www.mra.co.za

[accessed on 03 April 2018).

92. United Nations (2015). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision, Report No. ST/ESA/SER.A/366,

United Nations,

93. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2018). Africa Waste Management Outlook, United

Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi

94. USGS (2014). 2014 Minerals Yearbook: South Africa, www.usgs.gov [accessed on 05 July 2018].

95. Van Wyk L. (2014), Towards Net‐Zero Construction and Demolition Waste, Council for Scientific and

Industrial Research (CSIR), www.csir.co.za [accessed on 22July 2018].

96. Venter I. (2018), Mathe Group Expands Tyre Recycling Facility, Despite Redisa Demise,

www.engineeringnews.co.za [accessed on 27 July 2018].

97. Viljoen K., Schenck R., and Blaauw D. (2018), Socio‐Economic Profile of South African Waste Pickers,

Waste Pickers Research Conference, 1‐2 February.

98. World Bank (2012). What a Waste: A Global Review of Solid Waste Management, Urban Development

Series Knowledge Papers, World Bank, Washington DC

99. World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (2017), Food Loss and Waste: Facts and Futures, www.wwf.org.za [accessed

on 22 July 2018].

100. Worrell E., Galitsky C., Masanet E., and Graus W. (2008), Energy Efficiency Improvement and Cost

Saving Opportunities for the Glass Industry: An ENERGY STAR Guide for Energy and Plant Managers,

Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, California.

101. Zitholele Consulting (2016), Motivation for the Application for the Exemption of Waste Management

Activity Licences for Specific Uses of Pulverised Coal Fired Boiler Ash in Terms of GN R. 634, Report No.

16005‐41‐Rep‐001‐Eskom Ash GN R 634 Application‐Rev2, Eskom Holdings SOC Limited, Johannesburg


Appendix A Data Sources, Methodology and Limitations

The methodology of the SoWR was based on that of the National Waste Information Baseline Report (DEA, 2012). This was to allow for benchmarking of the results, and to draw high‐level conclusions based on trends over the last six years (2011 – 2017). Note that the results are not directly comparable as the data sources and calculations used in the SoWR may differ from those used in the preceding National Waste Information Baseline Report.

Approach As with the National Waste Information Baseline Report, a multiple‐pronged approach was adopted in estimating general and hazardous waste generation. This included the following:

Empirical Data

Collect, collate and interpret existing empirical data. This information was collected from available reports and through interviews and/or surveys of provincial and local government, PROs, selected waste management companies, and other key stakeholders. The list of key stakeholders is attached as Appendix B.

Calculations

Using the collected empirical data, to scale up from a municipal or provincial scale to national scale or from the year data was captured to the baseline year. The official population statistics (mid‐year estimates) and GDP published by Statistics SA were used in these calculations, as per the calculation below:

Waste amount x Population (or GDP) in 2017

Population (or GDP) in waste generation year

This approach is deemed to be acceptable as long as the data used is credible and representative of the waste stream.

Estimates

Collect, collate and interpret exiting estimates of general and hazardous waste generation from available reports. This was typically estimates reported on global scale, such as World Bank.

SAWIS

Extract tonnages of selected general and hazardous waste streams and/or for selected waste activities within a particular municipality or province.

Data Verification In selecting the data to be used in the estimations of waste generation, the accuracy of the data was an important consideration. Preference was therefore given to data considered to be of higher accuracy.

In this regard, data obtained from the metropolitan municipalities, PROs and waste management companies was considered to be of high accuracy, while the calculations based on the information provided was


considered to be of medium accuracy. Estimated data and data extracted from the SAWIS was considered to be of low accuracy.

Limitations In calculating the tonnages of general and hazardous waste generated in the baseline year, a number of limitations were noted. This includes the following:

In some cases, the tonnages of general and hazardous waste reported as ‘waste generated’, is based on quantities of waste recycled, recovered, treated, and/or disposed. This is unavoidable as there is a lack of comprehensive data for all the waste types.

No primary data collection was done. As a result, secondary data collected from a wide range of sources, for which the accuracy could not always be verified, had to be used.

Calculations are based on waste in the official waste streams. In some instances, there are waste types, such as mineral wastes, that are typically managed onsite, which may have not been accounted for. As a consequence, there is likely to be an underestimate of the total general and hazardous waste generated in South Africa in the baseline year.

While waste generators were required to classify the waste that generate in accordance with SANS 10234 within 180 days of generation (excluding those wastes listed in Annexure 1 of the Waste Classification and Management Regulations (2013)), these classifications were not always made available by the waste generators. As a consequence, there is still some uncertainty regarding the waste types listed as both general waste and hazardous waste.

There is no clear definition provided for the waste types listed in Annexures 3 and 4 of the National Waste Information Regulations (2012), and an apparent disconnect between these waste types, and those defined in the Waste Amendment Act (2014). This introduced a level of uncertainty, particularly with respect to brine and mineral wastes.

Given the variation in the data accuracy of the different waste types, it is not possible to assign an overall level of accuracy to the calculated tonnages of general and hazardous waste generated. However, by cross‐referencing the calculations with estimates from other sources, there is a high degree of confidence that the results are in the correct order of magnitude.

While a number of waste characterisation studies have been undertaken, these studies have used different methods and categories. As a consequence, the results of these studies are not directly comparable.

As the municipalities only collect the data going to landfill, the waste diverted before landfill (e.g. recycling depots) are not accounted for. As a consequence, there is likely to be an underestimate of the total general and waste generated in South Africa in the baseline year.

Historically, surveys of hazardous waste generators and management facilities yielded poor response rates. As a result, the waste generation estimates provided in provincial Hazardous Waste Management Plans were not suitable for use in waste generation extrapolations.

There is a general reluctance by many large industries to release information on the hazardous wastes generated, particularly if these wastes are disposed onsite; As a consequence, there is likely to be an underestimate of certain hazardous waste types generated in South Africa in the baseline year.

The number of waste management facilities in South Africa is based on the national list of waste management activities (SAWIC, 2018a). It is assumed that this was the most comprehensive and up‐to‐date list of waste management activities in South Africa at the time. As the SoWR was reporting on the number of waste management facilities and not activities, the said list was amended to exclude multiple entries for a single facility (i.e. where a facility held more than one licence).


Table A‐1 and A‐2 below, present the calculation methods applied to the general and hazardous waste types respectively.

Table A‐1: Calculation methods applied to the general waste types

Waste Type Approach / Methodology Source

GW01 Municipal waste Estimate total quantity of municipal solid waste generated in South Africa in 2017 based on a sample of district and local municipalities. Using recent waste characterisation studies, estimate the percentage of municipal solid waste excluding C&I, organic, C&D, and recyclables.

Waste quantities and characterisation studies from selected IWMPs.

Population data from Stats SA, Community Survey, 2016 and Mid‐Year Estimates. 2017a


Estimate total quantity of municipal solid waste generated in South Africa in 2017 based on a sample of district and local municipalities. Using recent waste characterisation studies, estimate the percentage of municipal solid waste that comprises commercial & industrial waste.


Population data from Stats SA, Community Survey, 2016 and Mid‐Year Estimates. 2017a

GW13 Brine Covered under Hazardous Waste (see Table A‐2)

GW14 Fly ash and dust

GW15 Bottom ash

GW16 Slag

GW 17 Mineral waste

GW 18 WEEE

GW 20 Organic waste Sum of organic fraction of municipal solid waste, pre‐consumer food waste and biomass.

Estimate total quantity of municipal solid waste


Population data from Stats SA, Community Survey, 2016 and Mid‐Year Estimates. 2017a;


generated in South Africa in 2017 based on a sample of district and local municipalities. Using recent waste characterisation studies, estimate the percentage of municipal solid waste that comprises organic waste.

Estimate total quantity of biomass resources from sugar mills, sawmills, and paper and pulp mills using the methodology outline in DME (2004), and updated using 2017 sugar, timber, and paper and pulp production figures.

Nahman A and De Lange W. (2013), Costs of Food Waste along the Value Chain: Evidence from South Africa;

DME (2004). Economic and Financial Calculations and Modelling for Renewable Energy Strategy Formulation;

SASA (2017) The South African Sugar Industry Directory 2016/2017;

Godsmark (2017) South African Forestry & Forest Products Industry;

Sawmilling SA (2014) Sawmilling in South Africa.

GW 21 Sewage sludge Covered under Hazardous Waste (see Table A‐2)


Based on study undertaken by the DEA on management options for C&D waste.

DEA (2018). Management Options for Construction and Demolition Waste and Factors that Influence Recycling Behaviour: Status Quo Report.

GW50 Paper Based on estimates provided by paper manufacturing and recycling sector.

PRASA (2017) Recycling Rates

GW51 Plastic Based on estimates provided by plastics manufacturing and recycling sector.

Plastics SA (2017) Plastics Recycling Survey

GW52 Glass Based on estimates provided by glass manufacturing and recycling sector.

The Glass Recycling Company (2017)

GW53 Metals Based on a research study on the metal recycling industry in South Africa.

TUTWA (2017) SA Metal Industry in Focus.

GW54 Tyres Based on estimates provided by the tyre manufacturing and recycling sector, as well as

Pers. comm. Mr. Hedley Judd of the Tyre Dealers’ and Fitment Centre Association (2018);


a progress report by REDISA.

REDISA (2017) Presentation at Gauteng Provincial Waste Forum Meeting

GW99 Other Quantities provided .by some of South Africa’s main waste management companies.

SAWIS (2017).

Table A‐2: Calculation methods applied to the hazardous waste types

Waste Type Approach / Methodology Source

HW 01 Gaseous waste Quantities provided by some of South Africa’s main waste management companies.

SAWIS (2017)


Quantities provided by some of South Africa’s main waste management companies.

SAWIS (2017)

HW 03 Batteries Based on studies undertaken by the DEA on management options for spent lead acid batteries and dry cell batteries.

DEA (2016). Status Quo Report on the Management of Spent Lead‐Acid Batteries in South Africa; and

DEA (2016). Status Quo Report on the Management of Spent Dry Cell Batteries in South Africa.

HW 04 POP Waste Quantities provided by some of South Africa’s main waste management companies.

SAWIS (2017)

HW 05 Inorganic waste Quantities provided by some of South Africa’s main waste management companies.

SAWIS (2017)



SAWIS (2017)

HW 07 Waste Oils Based on estimates provided by the oil manufacturing and recycling sector.

Pers. comm. Bubele Nyiba (CEO of Rose Foundation).




SAWIS (2017)



SAWIS (2017)



SAWIS (2017)



SAWIS (2017)


Sum of quantities provided by some of South Africa’s main waste management companies, and steel producers.

SAWIS (2017); and

ArcelorMittal (2010) Annual Report.

HW 13 Brine Based on an investigation of innovative approaches to brine handling by the Water Research Commission.

Van Der Merwe (2009) An Investigation of Innovative Approaches to Brine Handling.

HW 14 Fly ash and dust from miscellaneous filter sources

Based on quantities provided by Mark Hunter (General Manager) of the South African Coal Ash Society.

Mark Hunter (General Manager) of the South African Coal Ash Society.

HW 15 Bottom ash Based on quantities provided by Mark Hunter (General Manager) of the South African Coal Ash Society.

Mark Hunter (General Manager) of the South African Coal Ash Society.

HW 16 Slag Based on production of the main metal products in South Africa. This includes iron & steel slags, ferrochrome, and Ferromanganese, and an average slag production

Dondofema (R.A., Matope S. and Akdogan G. (2017), South African Iron and Steel Evolution: An Industrial Engineering Perspective,

USGS (2014). 2014 Minerals Yearbook: South Africa; and


value (between lower and upper limit).

Steenkamp J.D. and Basson J. (2013), The Manganese Ferroalloys Industry in Southern Africa

HW 17 Mineral waste Quantities provided by some of South Africa’s main waste management companies.

SAWIS (2017)

HW 18 Waste of Electric and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)

Based on estimates provided by eWaste Recycling Authority.

ERA (2018). South African E‐Waste Industry Waste Management Plan.

HW 19 Health Care Risk Waste (HCRW)

Based on estimates provided by the DEA.

DEA (2017). 2017 Health Care Risk Waste Treatment Figures.

HW 20 Sewage sludge Calculation based on the total inflow of WWTW and

average. dry sludge / Mℓ

DWA (2013) Green Drop Report; and

CoT (2016) Screening calculations for all WWTW.

HW 99 Miscellaneous Quantities provided .by some of South Africa’s main waste management companies.

SAWIS (2017)


Appendix B List of Key Stakeholders

South Africa State of Waste Report - Remade Recycling

Documents

Transcript of South Africa State of Waste Report - Remade Recycling