GROUNDWORK's
QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER
Volume 7, No 2
June 2005
IN THIS ISSUE:
From the Smokestack
Lead Story - “And the losers are…”
Air Quality – Solidarity in Africa
one step at a time
Waste Campaign - Deputy Minister says
no to burning hazardous waste in SA cement kilns
Waste Project -Action, inaction and
contamination
News from groundWork - A six-year
overview
Cynics Corner
Community News – The
Marie Louise landfill site
A new thermal waste treatment plant is planned for the landfill
Publications
From the Smokestack
by groundWork Director, Bobby Peek
In the last edition I was pleased to reflect upon the successful
outcomes of some recent environmental justice struggles. These
struggles were won by various organisations, including the
African Centre of Biosafety, BioWatch, Earthlife Africa and
those that challenged the proposed N2 Toll Road through the
Wild Coast, Eastern Cape. These successes seemed to indicate
a turn in a very difficult road - a turn that I believed,
and still believe, means that activists are slowly but steadily
succeeding in their environmental justice struggles.
However, these feelings of success and jubilation were short
lived. The nuclear debate rages on and it is clear that the
government is not going to back down on the proposed Pebble
Bed Modular Reactors, despite opposition from several quarters.
In April 2005, Earthlife Africa went public with information
about radiation levels at the Pelindaba nuclear facility calibration
site. Understandably, with nuclear issues being a hot topic
globally, there was keen media interest around the story.
Government responded aggressively to the media stories on
Earthlife Africa’s discovery, with President Mbeki himself
accusing Earthlife Africa of being “reckless”
and declaring their claims as “impermissible”.
Two days after our President’s rebuke of Earthlife Africa,
Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, Phumla Mlambo-Ngcuka
indicated that she intends to silence non-government organisations
by passing legislation “to make it a punishable offence
to spread allegations which resulted in unnecessary panic
or incitement.”
Coupled with the above is the gagging of the Mail and Guardian’s
27th May edition by Judge Soni on behalf of Imvume Management.
The gagging prevented the newspaper from publishing a story
around the alleged use of public finances to fund the ANC’s
previous election campaign.
In the first instance mentioned above we see civil society’s
voice being restricted, and in the second instance we see
the media’s voice being restricted. We need to carefully
watch and engage in these processes in order to protect and
nurture – not stifle - our democracy!
In parallel with the above, another drama was playing itself
out in the south Durban area. The South Durban Community Environmental
Alliance (SDCEA) and its partner the Danish Nature Foundation
(DN) were planning to publish research undertaken on the practise
of flaring within the oil refinery industry (see page 20 of
this newsletter). Engen was not happy with the publication
of such information, despite the fact that SDCEA had allowed
Engen to comment on a draft of the booklet and had incorporated
some of Engen’s comments. Engen brought in its corporate
lawyers in an attempt to scuttle the launch of this new publication
as well as to intimidate the community. This was unsuccessful
as the launch of the publication went ahead. I approached
Engen’s Environmental Participation Co-ordinator and
indicated that the book is factual and that Engen had never
sued SDCEA because SDCEA always presented factual information.
She responded that Engen possibly did not sue the community
as the company has a reputation/public image to upkeep.
What is at play here is the contest to create, collate and
present information. Both government (which holds very little
information and relies on industry for much of the information
that it has) and industry (which has for many years been the
devious custodian of most of the information) are now being
challenged with information garnered by civil society. It
is information that is critically needed by civil society
to protect ourselves from environmental injustices - information
that both government and industry clearly do not want us to
have, as indicated by the recent legal challenges.
The fact that no civil society organisation has been sued
for publicising nonfactual or incorrect information is testament
to the fact that environmental justice campaigners in South
Africa are serious about getting their facts straight before
presenting information in the public domain. Our information
is not based on “allegations”, as government and
industry often call it, but on fact, frequently backed up
with scientific studies.
Finally, and for groundWork most excitingly, is the fact
that we have just completed our first Corpse Awards (see page
4). I wait in expectation for the first corporate lawsuit
of some kind or the other for tarnishing the “reputation”
of corporate POWER!
Till next time, Bobby
back to top
“And the losers are…”
By Bobby Peek
A spoof awards ceremony was held recently to recognise those
corporations operating in South Africa which have abusively
harmed the environment and brought suffering to humans. Specially
made Coffin Awards were made and presented to “stand-in
CEOs” of the winning – or should that be losing?
– corporations.
Over two hundred people cheered, jeered and booed as the
losers in South Africa’s first “Corpse Awards”
were announced at the award ceremony on Friday evening, June
10. The main award of the evening – the award for Sustainable
Catastrophe – was presented to Mittal Steel (formally
Iscor/ Ispat Iscor) by global anti-corporate activist and
author Naomi Klein.
The “Corpse Awards” ceremony was jointly hosted
by groundWork and the Centre for Civil Society . The opening
address was given by Farid Esack, cleric, academic, gender
activist and groundWork Trustee. Farid gave a stirring speech
taking the audience through a process where he critically
examined the present system that our government espouses in
its development model. Capital with a human face is a façade!
The CEOs of all nominated companies were invited by special
invitation to attend the awards ceremony. None graced the
gathering with their presence – we really did not expect
them to. AngloGold Ashanti responded to its invitation by
stating that such an award would not honour it. While AngloGold
Ashanti gave a characteristically sophisticated public relations
response to its nomination, Eskom was rather unsophisticated
in its response stating that it would “like to distance
itself from the nomination” and the event which seeks
to “besmirch and [to] malign Eskom’s performance
in environmental management.” Sapref’s (Shell)
managing director indicated that groundWork is welcome to
come and talk to the company.
The losers on the evening were…
Corpse Awards were presented to the following corporations:
- · Eskom received the “Picking the Public
Pocket Award” for stubbornly sticking to its Pebble
Bed Modular Reactor programme which is estimated to cost
more than R10 billion in public money;
- · Sasol received the “Big Bang and Bad Air
Award” for the excessive pollution caused by and abnormal
accidents occurring at its plants around the country, which
have both resulted in deaths and injuries;
- · Monsanto received the “Fraud of Life Award
– Failing the Future” for its proliferation
of genetically engineered crops which have locked farmers
into dependence on the corporation for seed;
- · Sapref (Shell) received the “Leaking in
a Public Place Award – Because They Can’t Hold
Their Liquid!” for its numerous spills, leaks and
accidents which occur with “appalling regularity”;
- · Sappi received the “Land Scraper and People
Pulping Award” for the impact of its industrial timber
plantations on indigenous knowledge systems and biodiversity;
- · Mittal Steel (formerly Iscor) received the “Sustainable
Catastrophe Award – Putting Steel Valley on a Death
Drip” for leaking poisons into the groundwater –
poisons which have come up in blood tests of surrounding
residents;
- · Foskor received the “Dare and Sue Us Award”
for their alleged “relentless pursuit of gassing the
people of Richards Bay”;
- · Bayer/Lanxess received the “Accountability
and Liability Sucks Award” for denying responsibility
for chrome pollution of groundwater in south Durban; and
- · AngloGold Ashanti received the “Fingers
in Other People’s Pie Award” for paying money
to the Nationalist Integrationist Front militia in the war
torn area of the eastern part of the Democratic Republic
of Congo.
Community people living next to the various industries and
representatives of civil society organisations challenging
corporate abuses came forward to give testimonies of the injustices
inflicted by abusive corporates. Matsheliso Tsotetsi of the
Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (VEJA) delivered a detailed
and moving testimonial on Mittal Steel’s (previously
Iscor) 50-year legacy of environmental pollution and corporate
abuse and its destruction of the community of Steel Valley.
All this, she claimed, was supported by the apartheid government
as well as the present democratic government. At the time
of writing, Mittal Steel is being investigated for alleged
non-payment of more than R400 million rand in taxes.
At a gathering before the award ceremony more than 30 community
and NGO participants discussed challenges civil society is
facing in relationship to corporate abuse. It was unanimously
agreed that spaces for civil society activism on social and
environmental justice issues were being closed down by government.
This was from direct threats of arrests in relation to civil
society protest action to more sophisticated processes of
setting in place legislation that will silence civil society
from publishing allegations of corporate and government abuse.
As a result of this, it was agreed that civil society should
focus on issues of policy development and implementation,
corporate monopoly and information development reflecting
civil society’s experience and real information on corporate
practice to counter the corporate biased information.
The exploitation of African resources and the attempt by
Gordon Brown, the British Chancellor to “make poverty
history”, was an appropriate topic that Naomi Klein
chose in presenting the main award of the evening. The dilemma
faced in Africa is that Africa’s resources and wealth
are being siphoned off by major corporate institutions, such
as those nominated for awards. Using the resources of the
land to benefit those living on the land is the only method
that will reverse the poverty now faced in Africa. However
this reality is far from being achieved.
Both risk management consultant, Andrew Pike as well as Professor
Willem Landman, CEO of the Ethics Institute of South Africa
were positive about the award, with Landman indicating that
groundWork’s work was crucial to a vibrant civil society.
On a lighter note, the hall was packed, the audience appreciative
and responsive and the stand-in CEO’s appropriate for
the process. The Master Undertaker - Raj Patel, a researcher
at the Centre for Civil Society - was well loved by all and
the Coffin Awards were a hit!
Until next year and Corpse Awards 2006 – start sending
in the nominations!
Air Quality Campaign
Solidarity in Africa one-step at a time
Nigeria Solidarity Exchange, May 2005
By Siziwe Khanyile and Toussaint Losier
In May 2005 a team of environmental justice activists from
fence line communities in South Africa travelled to Nigeria
to learn more about industrial pollution and corporate abuse
on the African continent and, more specifically, to understand
first hand the negative impact of the oil industry on the
people and environment of the Niger Delta.
Organised by groundWork, the “Nigeria Solidarity Exchange”
team included Steven Van Wyk of south Durban, Edmund Skosana
of Richard’s Bay, Samson Mokoena of Steel Valley, Veli
Khumalo of Secunda, Caroline Ntaopane of Sasolburg and Matshediso
Tsotetsi of Boipotong, as well as Tony Carnie, an environmental
journalist. Siziwe Khanyile from groundWork SA and Toussaint
Losier from groundWork USA co-facilitated the exchange. As
South Africans, we hoped to share our own experiences fighting
for environmental justice and also to offer support to the
struggles of our Nigerian counterparts by introducing them
to the simple, community based bucket air sampling methodology.
Environmental Rights Action (ERA), an environmental justice
lobby group in Nigeria, was our host and organised our visits
to communities in the Niger Delta. ERA provided us with an
opportunity to meet with local communities, chiefs, advocates,
environmental activists, student leaders, oil company employees
and government officials. We witnessed oil spillage sites,
gas flares, oil wells, the destruction of communities by the
government’s military, polluted waters and communities
plagued by poverty.
Oil drilling in Nigeria began in June 1956 with the Olibiri
oil well in the Niger Delta. Since then, major multinational
oil producers - like Shell, Chevron and Elf - have made their
presence felt, and the oil wells in this 70,000 km2 region
have generated hundreds of millions of dollars for these corporations
and Nigeria’s political elites. Today, Nigeria is Africa’s
largest oil producer with millions of dollars in revenue from
crude oil exports making up the bulk of Nigeria’s income.
The rush for oil in Nigeria has exacerbated ethnic divisions
around competition over oil money.
Where there is smoke, there is fire
The first leg of our journey took us to the town of Port
Harcourt, Rivers State. While British colonialists first exploited
this region for slaves, and later, palm oil, Port Harcourt
is now the heartland of Nigeria’s oil industry. As we
flew into Port Harcourt, several members of our delegation
noticed the telltale sign of the type of cheap and careless
oil drilling prevalent in the Niger Delta – the great
flames of natural gas flares. The city serves as a major transfer
point for crude oil exportation and we spotted a number of
flare sites on the city’s edge.
We began our exchange by visiting the village of Oshi, where
Nigerian Agip Oil Company first drilled for oil in 1972. This
village is situated a few kilometres outside Port Harcourt
and boasts lush greenery. But, in the midst of the vegetation
and the foliage, an enormous fire spews out of the ground.
It is Agip’s gas flare, which has been burning continuously
for three decades. We were informed by Chimela Oyi, President
of the Akala-Olu Youth Association, that they have approached
the State House Assembly and demanded to be relocated away
from the flare. The soil and groundwater are polluted and
adults and children develop open sores that fail to heal properly
and which the community attribute to the chemicals that are
released into the atmosphere by the gas flares. 
The practise of continuous flaring does not only result in
immediate negative impacts on health and the environment,
but also has long-term affects, such as climate change. The
UN has already acknowledged the role of climate change in
disrupting weather patterns in Africa, causing floods and
droughts, and resultant famine.
Oyi informed us that, for over 30 years, the petro-chemical
giant, which operates just across the road, has employed no
one from the community. Instead Agip uses Nigeria’s
notorious mobile police to intimidate and harass the community.
In the past, Agip has acceded to community demands by providing
some amenities, but these were not developed in consultation
with the community nor delivered in a sustained manner. In
response, the community has delivered a twenty-one day ultimatum
to Agip to act upon the needs of the community or face sustained
resistance. When we visited, they had not yet received a response.
Yet, all that this community seeks is a chance at leading
a normal life, even if it means relocation away from the land
their ancestors worked and lived upon.
Over a century of conflict and distrust
The following morning, ERA hosted a group discussion on
Nigerian history and environmental injustice at their Port
Harcourt office. They explained that the partitioning of the
African continent at the 1885 Berlin Conference allowed the
British to carve out a nation with no regard for the different
ethnic groups that make up this territory. Nigeria’s
independence from Britain in 1960 was only ceremonial, facilitating
the further appropriation of natural resources by the colonial
power, indigenous elites and powerful corporations.
Ethnic conflict and oil money provoked the 1967-70 Biafarian
Civil War, where the largely Igbo Eastern region attempted
to secede from the majority Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani regions.
Latent tensions and distrust have largely been left unresolved,
leading to continuing distrust between the major ethnic groups
and ongoing concerns about the viability of Nigeria as a diverse
nation.
At the same time, ERA’s officials explained, the country’s
mineral wealth has been drastically mismanaged, with 80-90%
of revenue from crude sales going to the government, of which
only 30% finances development. With tens of millions of dollars
coming from crude oil the state has not had to promote growth
because it does not rely on taxation. Most of the oil money
has gone into the pockets of government heads, with corruption
now widespread throughout society. They emphasised that this
is largely a recent problem, fostered and legitimised by the
1985–1993 military dictatorship of Ibrahim Babingida.
Furthermore, the little money that has gone towards development
has disproportionately benefited the North and West, while
little of it has returned to the region from which the oil
came.
Although there was a transition to a civilian government
in 1999, the massive vote rigging and the unchanged nature
of the state indicates, according to ERA Coordinator Asume
Osuoke that: “we can not assume there is anything like
democracy here, government still works hand in hand with the
multinational corporations to allow the environmental pollution
to continue unchecked and repress any resistance to these
abuses”.
The dirty spoils of oil
Following our discussion, ERA officials took us to Rukpokwu
in Rivers State where, on 3 December 2003, a corroded pipeline
ruptured leaking chemicals into the vast community and farmland.
This resulted in a widespread fire that destroyed nearby homes
and rare flora. Initially, Shell attributed the leak to sabotage.
Yet, an internal Shell report soon revealed that the 40-year
old machinery and pipes have been leaking into the soil. Eventually,
the failing pipes burst, shooting thousands of barrels of
crude oil into the surrounding forest environment.
Despite Shell’s stated commitment to clean up, the
site of the spill still has large quantities of un-recovered
oil on the soil surface. Rather than excavating the contaminated
soil, treating it and then returning it, Shell’s contracted
cleaners have simply turned over the soil, claiming that a
natural regeneration process will evaporate the remaining
oil residue. Despite the threat of another pipeline leak,
Shell has not made public any plans to replace pipes that
have been in place for over forty years. This is something
that resonates with the community people in south Durban who
are demanding that Shell’s forty year old pipelines
be replaced – Shell is resisting!
Next, we visited a community in Ramuekpe, in the Emuoha Local
Government Area of Rivers State, which is host to several
oil wells and Shell, Agip and Elf Totalfina flow stations.
Here, oil production started in 1964. Only after vigorous
protest at the facilities were the parties pushed to sign
a Memorandum of Understanding and provide some compensation,
but no employment nor change in drilling policies. What communities
have in return are: problems with air and water pollution;
loss of production in the cassava and orange plantations;
corrosion of the roofing of their houses; and a high rate
of breast cancer, stillbirths and miscarriages. One of the
village Chief’s also noted that “there are no
longer any butterflies”.
The community leaders informed us that projects initiated
by these corporations are not sustainable. Rather there are
once-off, short-term benefits, such as building a hall, with
no follow up or regular upkeep by either the corporations
or the local government. More than minor payoffs, those we
meet want the companies to be good neighbours and an end to
the massive oil flaring and pipeline leaks that lead to pollution.
Crude drilling on the cheap
On our first day in Bayelsa State, we visited the Imiringi
community in the Ogbia Local Government Area. Here oil and
gas exploration began in 1938 from the Kolo Creek gas flow
station, though oil was not struck until 1956. Extraction
began two years later. As is customary for oil producers in
Nigeria, the local Shell facility burns off the natural gas
recovered along with the crude. Instead of putting in place
machinery to recover the gas for local energy production or
export, the oil corporations have chosen to flare most of
it. What is widespread policy in Nigeria would be unacceptable
in Europe or the USA. Africa has the largest percentage of
gas flaring in the world, with Nigeria the primary contributor.
Moreover, whenever communities have demonstrated to demand
a change, the government’s response has been violent.
For example, in 1987, the community of Imiringi pressured
Shell for basic amenities, and the then military government
killed members of this community. Today, the facility is heavily
guarded as a check against even non-violent resistance.
We were invited to the home of Mr. Rex Ogbuku who is an advocate,
Chairperson of the Nigerian Bar Association in Bayelsa State,
and a member of the Community Council of Chiefs. He informed
us that little compensation is given to host communities by
industry because they claim that corrupt chiefs and militant
youth will use this money to purchase ammunition. Therefore,
no development is taking place. Ogbuku also informed us that
environmental legislation is changed haphazardly, as the date
for stoppage of flaring has been repeatedly postponed, and
currently 2008 is the deadline to stop the flaring of gas,
although Shell has indicated that 2009 is more likely. We
were also amazed to hear that TNCs pay only US$150,000 a year
in fines for flaring, while the Nigerian people lose US$ 2.3
billion in potential revenue.
Mr. Ogbuku argued that, ultimately, Nigerians perpetuate
these environmental problems, as the Nigerian government has
a 55% of stake in Nigeria’s Shell Petroleum Development
Company. “Shell is not seen as the enemy of the people
- the enemy is your own party,” given that the majority
ethnic groups that control the central government are responsible
for the environmental policy and distribution of oil revenue.
Yet, he offered, the prospects of the minority ethnic groups
from this region changing policy by gaining power in the federal
government were minuscule. Without substantial representation
at the federal level, the interests of the Imiringi and others
of the Niger Delta are left to the whims of the oil multinationals.
He offered that the only solution was for host communities
to gain control over their own resources. But, Mr. Ogbuku
remarked, the powers that be would never allow this to occur,
painting a very bleak picture of their struggle for environmental
justice and human rights.
That evening, ERA’s former deputy director, now Bayelsa
Commissioner for Information, Culture and Tourism, Oronto
Douglas, treated us to dinner and cultural performances. Afterwards,
Commissioner Douglas hosted an interactive discussion on environmental
and political issues. A former environmental lawyer, he was
vociferous on the need for environmental justice, while preparing
Bayelsa and Nigeria as a whole for a post-oil economy.
“Using a machine gun to swat a mosquito”
On our final day in Bayelsa State, accompanied by deputy
chairman of the Nembe Local Government, Tekena Beregha, we
boarded a motorboat, which took us on a turbulent ride through
the River Delta to our destination of Odioma, in the Brass
local Government Area of Bayelsa State.
En route to Odioma, we sojourned to the Akpan Kanem Shell
facility in Alembe district - Nembe Creek - and arrived unannounced
at their heavily guarded facility. We were shocked to see
the sharp contrast between Shell’s modern flow station
and the nearby homes made of wood palm leaves. Later, we learned
that the flow station has been there over twenty years, but
in that time it has not provided those who live near by with
electricity or running water. At the facility, we encountered
a very defensive Deputy Administrative Officer, Akpan Ekanem,
who has worked with Shell since the 1970’s. In the months
prior to our visit, Shell had experienced a series of oil
spills and claimed that these were as a result of sabotage.
This appears to be Shell’s best line of defence. In
our meeting, our colleague from south Durban highlighted a
clear double standard, pointing out that even in South Africa
these spills would have been cleaned up the next day.
At Odioma, we witnessed a community that had been burned
to the ground by its own government. As we walked through
the streets of what had several months ago been a prosperous
fishing village, we found nothing but gutted houses and the
charred remains of personal effects. After negotiating with
the military officers who still occupied part of the village,
we met with the Chief D. I. L. Orumiegha-Bari, the acting
chairman of the Odioma Chiefs’ Council, and seven of
Odioma’s chiefs.
Chief Orumiegha-Bari described how on the morning of 19 February
2005, the military’s Special Task Force arrived, shooting
into the streets and burning down homes. The military’s
attack on unarmed civilians came several weeks after unknown
assailants killed twelve innocents, including four local officials.
Speculation that the assailants were Odioma youth provoked
the attack, though the chiefs challenged this rumour, believing
this attack was oil related.
Following a description of the Delta’s pre-colonial
history, Chief Orumiegha-Bari explained that this conflict
has its roots in longstanding boundary disputes with a neighbouring
village, now intensified because Shell began drilling in swampland
between them. Each village, he offered, wants to claim ownership
of the land to gain the compensation that would result, though
neither of these villages would profit from the drilling.
This sort of compensation has become a significant form of
income for fishing villages that have seen their livelihood
decimated by water pollution. These unsolved murders were
only a pretext for naked repression to pacify the area and
ensure continued oil revenue while leaving Odioma and other
communities struggle over the scraps offered by wealthy corporations.
Towards a way forward
According to Asume Osuoke, the paradox of the Niger Delta
region is that while it is rich in oil, its people are among
the poorest in the country. Traditionally, the major occupation
of the people in the Niger Delta is farming and fishing. However,
decades of incessant oil spills and gas flaring have damaged
the means of subsistence for this people. The agricultural
and fishing activities have been gravely affected because
the rivers are polluted with oil and the agricultural land
is no longer fertile. As we witnessed in Rukpokwu, rare species
of flora and fauna were destroyed as a result of a burst pipeline.
In Nigeria, rural communities rarely enjoy basic amenities
like clean drinking water. Even the air they breathe is heavily
polluted. Electricity and running water either do not exist,
or are continuously cut off. Car fuel is in short supply,
and cars queue at fuelling stations in order to refuel, sometimes
at a price above the nationally set rate.
The level of unemployment is high. It would not be incorrect
to say that oil discovery in the Niger Delta has brought no
relief to the communities of this region. All that these communities
can boast of is the sky-high flames of the gas flares. They
have limited hospital care, poor schools, and essentially
no livelihood.
Because the Nigerian government has entered into joint venture
agreements with the transnational corporations, peaceful community
action and demonstration is met with the might of the government’s
military and countless people are killed. The relationship
between the oil companies and their host communities is one
of hostility, suspicion and conflict. It is also plagued with
corruption and bribery, where oil companies play communities
against each other – the divide and rule system succeeds
because of the poverty of the people. The immense wealth that
exists in Nigeria could see the country attaining great heights.
Instead, it sits in the hands of a few corrupt elite, at the
expense of the majority of the 130 million population.
The solidarity exchange to Nigeria left our team appalled
at the total disregard for the welfare and dignity of people
and the blatant abuse of human rights, all in the name of
oil. On our final day, we made plans to write to the Nigerian
government about the abuses we witnessed and to educate our
local communities, providing them with a global context to
understand their specific pollution problems. We also planned
to connect youth and student organisations with their counterparts
in Nigeria to build Pan-African solidarity. We also agreed
to internationalise the Nigerian environmental struggle by
marking the ten-year anniversary of Ogoni leader Ken Saro-Wiwa’s
execution with demonstrations to call attention to what we
witnessed in Nigeria.
Waste
Deputy Minister says “No” to burning hazardous
waste in SA cement kilns
By Llewellyn Leonard
groundWork has been working for more than three years now
to convince government that incinerating hazardous waste in
cement kilns is not an option for sustainable waste management.
In April 2005, groundWork held a cement kiln meeting with
the Wildlife and Environment Society of South Africa (WESSA
– Port Elizabeth) and Earthlife Africa (Johannesburg
branch) to formulate a collective strategy to resist the practice
of burning hazardous waste in cement kilns.
This debate came to a head at the first Conference of the
Parties (COP1) of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
Pollutants (POPs), held in Punta del Este, Uruguay, 2 - 6
May 2005. The Stockholm Convention is the first global, legally
binding instrument aimed at protecting human health and the
environment by controlling the production, use and disposal
of certain identified toxic chemicals.
Two of the chemicals identified in the Convention, namely
dioxins and furans, are created when hazardous waste is burnt
in cement kilns. African NGOs intensively lobbied their government
delegates at COP1. Of particular concern to the African groups
were approaches made to the SA government by cement industries
wanting to incinerate hazardous waste in cement kilns. These
approaches have been made by Holcim Cement in the Northern
Cape and North West provinces, as well as Natal Portland Cement
(NPC) in KwaZulu-Natal. In KwaZulu-Natal, provincial government
officials went so far as requesting that NPC burn agricultural
waste in its cement kiln. African NGO delegates at COP1 were
concerned that if the cement industry is successful in SA,
other African countries will be next on the cement industry’s
agenda.
The African NGO delegates distributed an African position
paper on this issue to African governments using South Africa
as a case in point, noting that major cement firms in South
Africa were seeking permission to burn hazardous waste as
an alternative fuel source.
The SA NGO delegation (groundWork and Earthlife Africa) and
the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternative (GAIA ) met
with our Deputy Minister of Environmental Affairs, Rejoice
Mabudafhasi. The Deputy Minister expressed concern that other
African governments were questioning the SA government’s
stance on the burning of hazardous waste in cement kilns as
a result of the African NGO position paper. The minister reassured
us that our government would never allow the burning of hazardous
waste in cement kilns and would meet our obligations as a
party to the Stockholm Convention.
Peoples’ action - Columbia says “no!”
The resistance to this practice is widespread. Holcim Cement
in Columbia proposed to burn hazardous waste in its local
plant in Nobsa, Boyaca. As a result of intense community protest,
the Columbian Ministry of Environment rejected Holcim’s
proposal. It is noteworthy that the Columbian Ministry took
the concerns of communities into account. It is hoped that
our government will follow suit since our National Environmental
Management Act (1998) emphasises that human needs must be
put at the forefront in matters of environmental management.
Keep the promise!
On the weekend prior to COP1, the International POPs Elimination
Network (IPEN), a network of civil society groups from around
the world, held its General Assembly in Montevideo. The aim
of the assembly was to strategise and prioritise areas and
issues of intervention at the COP in order to secure successful
outcomes to eliminate POPs. “Keep the promise”
was the rallying cry from the NGOs to their governments. Priority
issues included the continued use of DDT for malaria control,
Best Available Techniques and Best Environmental Practices
(BAT/BEP), guidelines to reduce releases of dioxins, the Basel
Convention POPs Waste Guidelines and the identification of
new POPs.
African countries were represented by Tanzania, Egypt, Senegal,
Kenya, Mauritius, Gambia and South Africa. It was encouraging
to observe a room full of international social groups mobilising
together to voice their concerns legitimately.
During the general assembly, groundWork and Earthlife Africa
delivered a paper detailing the experiences of civil society
with regard to the National Implementation Plans (NIPs) and
the African Stockpiles Program (ASP) in South Africa, and
the fact that civil society was unsupported as an equitable
stakeholder in this process. We were not surprised to hear
from other groups about similar experiences where communities
were being used as part of rubber-stamping processes.
The IPEN assembly agreed on strengthened global collaboration
and local NGO action to improve efforts to eliminate POPs.
IPEN also signed a communiqué with the Global Environmental
Facility Small Grants Programme (GEF SGP) that will make it
easier for IPEN participating organisations to apply for small
grants on POPs issues. This could help to realise the goal
of global POPs elimination much sooner.
One of the major successes of the meeting was the inclusion
of four new chemicals in the treaty, namely pentabromodiphenyl
ether (penta-BDE), lindane, chlordecone and hexabromobiphenyl.
The COP established a POPs Review Committee from world regions
to evaluate additional chemicals that could be added to the
list POPs listed by the Convention. African State members
in this Committee include Chad, Côte d’Ivoire,
Ethiopia, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, Morocco, Sierra Leone
and South Africa. The Committee will meet at least once a
year and is open to observer experts invited by the Committee.
Finally, it was encouraging for NGOs to hear the United Nations
Environmental Programme (UNEP) acknowledge the role played
by NGOs in focusing governments and the public on the need
to tackle POPs. It is important that authorities see civil
society as equitable stakeholders in decision-making processes,
able to inform and shape policies so that they meet the needs
of citizens disproportionately burdened with hazardous chemicals.
It is hoped that our government will keep its promise to establish
an effective, transparent, and participatory process for civil
society to ensure effective implementation of NIPs in future.
back to top
Waste
Action, inaction and contamination
By Bobby Peek
The Green Scorpions win legal battle!
The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism’s
(DEAT) Green Scorpions have their first scalp. In the September
2004 groundWork newsletter, DEAT wrote an article about the
first arrest and prosecution relating to charges of illegal
dumping of hazardous waste adjacent to an informal settlement
in Gonubie, East London.
On the 20th May 2005, Daryl Tucker, pleaded guilty to two
counts of contravening the Environment Conservation Act. The
two offences were: operating a waste disposal site without
authorisation; and discarding of waste at an unauthorised
site. In terms of a plea and sentence agreement, he was sentenced
to a fine of R100 000 (the maximum fine under the Act) and
5 years' imprisonment suspended for 5 years subject to various
conditions, including cleaning up the site to the satisfaction
of the Director-General of the DEAT within 12 months, at his
own cost. R500 000 of the proceeds of the sale of each of
his properties (R1m if both are sold) is also to be held in
trust by his attorneys, only to be released if DEAT is satisfied
that the funds will be used for clean up.
This is a positive development for environmental justice
within South Africa. The challenge now for DEAT is to respond
to the many other calls for justice by communities in the
pollution “hotspots” around the country. One activist
from a well-known hotspot recently said: “When the Green
Scorpions visit our area, they change their colours like a
chameleon.”
Well done DEAT on the first victory and please prove this
activist and us sceptics out there wrong!
Ixopo Waste
After three years of legal wrangling with Compass Waste
and the Ixopo (Ubuhlebezwe) Municipality on the legalities
of the waste incinerator at Ixopo, which is being operated
by Compass Waste without a licence, groundWork agreed to put
on hold the legal proceedings in favour of seeking an innovative
solution to managing the municipality’s general waste.
To this end, groundWork decided to support the Ixopo (Ubuhlebezwe)
municipality with technical assistance and finances in February
2005. This was to be directed towards developing a Waste Management
Plan for Ixopo. The Municipality accepted this proposal, and
the incinerator was granted a permit for four months, which
comes to an end on the 14 June 2005.
Four months later, and the Ixopo municipality has failed
to act on this offer. The big question now remains: Will the
DEAT take action to close the Ixopo incinerator when the permit
expires?
Bayer: Chrome Pollution in south Durban
In November 2004, Lanxess/Bayer, the German multi-national,
which has a plant in south Durban, announced the discovery
of hexavalent chrome pollution in groundwater under 34 houses
in the south Durban area.
groundWork, together with the South Durban Community Environmental
Alliance (SDCEA), engaged with Lanxess and the eThekwini Municipality
on this issue in good faith in order to assess the full extent
of the problem. During the last six months Lanxess and the
eThekwini Municipality have stated that there is no risk to
the community. However two issues have emerged in this long
debate, which call into question the credibility of both the
municipality and Lanxess.
Firstly, since 2004 groundWork has requested information
on the history of chrome waste disposal in the area. Lanxess
indicated that groundWork needed to ask the The Task Team.
A senior municipality official however responded that Bayer
needed to answer the questions put forward and should not
hide behind the Task Team. Eight months have passed and we
still do not have a response.
Secondly, the Municipality has started replacing water pipelines
in the area, which according to SDCEA, show contamination
of hexavalent chrome because of the discolouration of the
pipes.
Who is hiding what here?
back to top
groundWork News
groundWork Family Tree
Since its inception groundWork has been blessed with the
most extraordinary people both directly involved as staff
and trustees and indirectly as people who have worked with
us from communities and also as advisors and consultants.
Each person has wholeheartedly contributed to what groundWork
is today.
Unfortunately space allows us only pictures of the groundWork
Trustees and staff, past and present. The ‘next generation’
babies born to groundWork staff have been included because
they have in their own way contributed to the Team!
Cynics Corner
Greenfly setting up straw dogs in a cul-de-sac
Richard Worthington, Coordinator of the SA Climate Action
Network (SACAN) responds to criticisms from Greenfly in the
previous Cynics’ Corner, in his personal capacity
Some pretty wild accusations there, Greenfly! Why such simplistic
spin without the patience to clarify a position? To characterise
the Kyoto Protocol (KP) as “promoting carbon trading”
is like saying groundWork promotes the community bucket brigade
as the optimal approach to air quality monitoring. Accepting
a compromise (a component that could be changed post 2012)
is quite different to promotion as the solution. To further
imply that SACAN champions all forms of carbon trade is wilful
misrepresentation – see the document ‘Can we Justify
Selling Africa’s Atmosphere?’ published in 2002.
Greenfly doesn’t identify any so-called “agenda
of more progressive elements and movements globally!”(sic)
which Greenfly claims SACAN “deliberately and consciously
undermines”. There is also no description of the purported
“differences between this more critical view and that
taken by SACAN”. Indeed Greenfly’s criticisms
of international response to climate change are consistent
with positions (e.g. opposition to ‘sinks’ projects)
that were adopted by CAN some six years ago.
The difference seems to centre on the charge that the KP
involves “privatisation of air” – perhaps
more relevant to the Air Quality Act, which makes allowance
for pollution of air (rather than atmosphere) up to regulated
limits. The crux of populist generalisations about carbon
trade is denial of any distinction between a “property
right” and a discrete permit under a regulation –
which under the KP is limited to 2008-2012 as an initial step
to limit escalating abuse of the global commons.
Greenfly has valid points to make but, much like the text
of the “Durban Declaration”, ignoring the benefits
of a multi-lateral system puts Greenfly in the same general
camp as George W Bush: the Protocol isn’t good enough,
national/regional sovereignty is at stake, we have principle
on our side. Whether that principle is rejection of a conceptual
“right” or allowance to pollute or use the atmosphere,
or rejection of the USA being bound by any global regulatory
system - the lack of an agenda focused on averting catastrophic
climate change is common to both.
Anyone reading beyond the sound-bite headlines of SACAN’s
media releases will find that the problems of carbon trade
are addressed – especially the worst initiatives, not
operating within the KP, which benefit from simplistic generalisations
about all carbon trade. There is no “stark contrast”
with social movements, but rather a different mode of discourse
and willingness to engage with on-going intergovernmental
negotiations. The suggestion that the KP is “stealing
a public good away from most of the planet’s inhabitants”,
when this majority have never enjoyed the opportunity to noticeably
utilise “earth’s natural carbon-cycling capacity”
is ludicrous. The market mechanism approach may do little
to increase the capacity of the majority to utilise this “public
good” (particularly with the very low price of carbon),
but it does more to support projects that can benefit the
majority (e.g. access to energy services) than misrepresenting
emerging international regulation.
Did purveyors of the “Durban Declaration” choose
to ignore the Bali Climate Justice Principles, to which various
social movements contributed in 2001 (groundWork signed on
in 2002), simply to attract donors with the promise of a new
text? They have certainly added no substance, nor served to
build Southern solidarity or develop a popular agenda, proposing
no way forward for building equity into future actions.
We can’t afford to wait for the overthrow of global
capitalism before we move to reign in greenhouse gas emissions.
That the reductions of the first commitment period are inadequate
is common cause, even amongst governments naïve about
using carbon trade to attract foreign investment. There are
real opportunities for getting equity and justice into global
climate change response through negotiations of the post-2012
regime, already in progress, while you are bemoaning the compromises
of 1997. Fighting on-going environmental racism requires focusing
on problem projects, not the generalisations of ivory tower
theorists seeking popular sign-on.
Get your eye on the ball, Greenfly, lest you play into the
hands of Bush – we have common cause, if you care to
do more than chew on a bone.
Community News
The Marie Louise landfill site
A new thermal waste treatment plant is planned for the landfill
By Zini Mokhine [1]
With the airspace at many Johannesburg landfill sites running
out municipalities are looking to thermal waste treatment
as an alternative. This is the case at the Marie Louise landfill
site, which is situated in the Westrand, not far from Meadowlands
in Soweto. The site was commissioned in 1990 and has remaining
airspace for 20 more years. This is not much given the increasing
rates of consumption and waste generation in the City. At
the moment the City is generating more or less 1.4 million
tons of waste p.a. As a result of waning airspace, the City
of Johannesburg is planning to import an UK steam treatment
technology - ReCycled Refuse International/Mohlaleti (RCR/M):
Steam Treatment and Generation (STAG) - to extend the life
span of the landfill by reducing the volume of waste requiring
disposal.
A public participation meeting was held recently to invite
comment on the proposed technology. There were fewer than
thirty interested and affected parties at the meeting. Whilst
one participant praised the initiative, other participants
voiced concerns ranging from reduced livelihoods to environmental
impacts due to upstream resource depletion.
Simply put, the proposed technology would first sanitise
the municipal waste with pressurised steam, making it hygienic
for manual sorting. Once the recyclable fraction has been
manually sorted, an even lesser volume of treated material
would be left. This material would be compacted and buried
in the remaining airspace or incinerated to generate electricity.
There was no visual presentation of the technology at the
Marie Louise public participation meeting, purportedly because
it was not yet available from the supplier of the technology.
Public concerns around the technology included: how much
energy would be used to generate steam; would this energy
be obtained from the grid or from harnessing methane from
the landfill; what would be the energy difference between
electricity generation and the latent energy of the organic
waste fraction; what would be the water consumption? Unfortunately,
these concerns were not adequately answered because of the
lack of technical information. Whilst the technology would
reduce the volume of disposed waste, it would not reduce the
amounts of resources that are depleted as a result of waste
generation. The facilitators were, therefore, misleading the
public when they claimed the facility would contribute to
the government’s target of reducing waste generation
by 50% by 2012.
Although the waste would be autoclaved, a percentage of the
waste would be incinerated to create energy and this would
release toxic emissions to the atmosphere. The facility would
also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions if electricity
from the grid were used.
Although the waste reclaimers were assured that the technology
posed no threat to their livelihoods, the facilitators’
response was inadequate in so far as there are many individuals
who eke a living from informal reclamation including at the
landfill site.
What was disappointing to civil society was the lack of information
made available to the public during the public participation
process. A letter requesting more information was sent to
the consultants on the 14 March 2005. To date no response
has been received. According to the consultants, the city
is unwilling to share information on the alternative technologies
that they purportedly investigated to get to this process.
The City is possibly going to revisit alternative technologies
that they investigated in the process before the next “public
process”. This raises questions like: Did the city even
explore any alternative technologies? Is civil society being
used as puppets for approval of processes?
It would be in the interest of the greater public if the
City of Johannesburg rather invested more in integrated waste
management than in co-financing a public participation process
that would see the much needed money go to a few individuals
and a transnational company.
[1] Zini Mokhine is a member of Earthlife Africa in Johannesburg
back to top
Pulications
Three new community resources
Three new campaigning resources for communities were recently
produced by local organisation, SDCEA (South Durban Community
Environmental Alliance) in alliance with Danish organisation
DN (Danish Nature Foundation). The first document is a booklet
that seeks to unpack the process of environmental permitting.
They have also produced an informative booklet and an accompanying
pamphlet on the practise of flaring. These three publications
are reviewed here.
Flaring – what communities should know (pamphlet)
Flaring is the practise of burning off excess gases in an
open flame using a specially designed burner tip at the top
of a smokestack. This practise is undertaken at some industries,
especially oil refineries and oil and gas production facilities.
This pamphlet seeks to briefly address the most common questions
that communities tend to ask about flaring, such as: What
are the main problems with flaring? Why do refineries flare?
Does flaring affect my health? What is put into the air when
refineries flare? And so on. The pamphlet is useful for any
industrial community, particularly those located near to fossil
fuel industries. Useful contact numbers are also included.
Flaring at oil refineries in south Durban and Denmark (44
pages, A4)
This booklet was motivated by the seemingly high number
of flaring complaints in south Durban. The booklet compares
the flaring practises between a developed country (Denmark)
and a developing country (South Africa, with particular reference
to south Durban). The booklet starts with the global context
of flaring, and then gives an overview of flaring technology
before comparing flaring practises at two oil refineries in
Denmark (Statoil and Shell) with two oil refineries in south
Durban (Engen and SAPREF). It concludes with recommendations
on how to reduce flaring and venting. These recommendations
include recovering the excess gas for economic benefit, such
as producing electricity, as well as recommendations for industries
and government on how to better monitor and prevent flaring.
Permitting – A comparison between south Durban and
Denmark (25 pages, A4)
This booklet compares the permitting process (for environmental
permits required by polluting industries) in south Durban
and Denmark. It examines the process followed by both governments
(in both cases it is local government handling permits) and
industries when a new environmental permit is required by
an industry. The aim of the booklet is to assist a member
of the public to better understand the process in order to
be able to influence the process for the benefit of the local
community. Although the booklet mostly unpacks the process
followed by the Durban (eThekwini) municipality, it does provide
an overview of relevant national legislation as well as recommendations
for community involvement in permitting processes and thus
has a much wider application than just south Durban.
All three publications can be ordered from SDCEA on 031-4611991.
|
