GROUNDWORK's QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER
Volume 8, No 1
March 2006
IN THIS ISSUE:
From the Smokestack
Lead Story - Good riddance: Government
Finally Closes Ixopo incinerator!
Air Quality – Who will bear
the costs of pollution in Richards Bay?
Air Quality - Win some, lose some
Waste - Pushing towards a global legally
binding solution on mercury
Corporate accountability - Corporate
resistance in Botswana
Waste - Congratulations!
groundWork USA: Hurricane Katrina:
Man-made danger, environmental disaster
Community News: Economic
Terrorists
groundWork
News - Welcome to Ben Mazibuko
In the pipeline
Staff Profile
Bobby Peek - Director
Gillian Addison - Dep. Director: Finance & Admin
Bathoko Sibisi - Office Manager
Siziwe Khanyile - Air Quality Campaign Manager
Ben Mazibuko - Waste Campaign Manager
Ashika Maharaj – Intern
From the Smokestack
by groundWork Director, Bobby Peek
Finally, the Ixopo incinerator has closed. Getting this sub-standard
incinerator closed down has taken six years of hard struggle
by groundWork, with legal assistance from counsel at the Legal
Resources Centre who have been persistent on this issue. Read
more about this in our lead story on page 4.
There is another victory to be claimed by civil society:
in a surprise move in late January, Shell finally agreed to
replace all the pipelines between the Sapref oil refinery
and the Island View storage area in south Durban. Both SDCEA
(the South Durban Community and Environmental Alliance) and
groundWork were caught off guard by this move, which we have
been advocating for years.
For five years we have been asking Shell to take the responsible
approach and replace all its underground pipelines in south
Durban. But Shell has resisted this, opting instead for incremental
repairs and patching of the pipelines. But, after a long hard
struggle, which involved mobilising community people, strong
local media work, advocacy work in parliament, and international
solidarity, the pressure finally got to Shell. It is our hope
that the process forward would lead to Shell doing things
in an accountable manner and making use of the best available
international standards.
On a less positive side, groundWork received a tip-off that
the Mpumalanga Provincial Department of Health is seeking
to incinerate 200 tons of pharmaceutical waste in hospital
incinerators in that province.
groundWork approached managers within the Department to get
a better understanding of how they propose to deal with this
issue, but they have been vague and unhelpful in their response.
By the time you read this it might have reached a process
of open conflict. Despite our offer to go to Mpumalanga and
assist in the process, the Department has been non-committal
at best.
Just on our doorstep, in the Pietermaritzburg area, things
seem to be going from bad to worse with regards to air pollution.
There has been an increase in community complaints regarding
air pollution. Whilst the city authorities have started putting
in place air monitoring systems, these alone will not reduce
pollution. This was made clear to the Pietermaritzburg Air
Pollution Forum, which groundWork addressed in the latter
part of 2005 where we called for immediate action. This Forum
has no teeth - it is voluntary and it is a forum where dissent
is managed rather than addressed. A classic case of management
of this dissent is when groundWork, through this forum, challenged
the local used-oil refinery, FFS, about its pollution. FFS’s
rebuttal was considered but not critically assessed by the
forum.
As I write this piece, Pietermaritzburg residents are faced
with another approaching winter when temperature inversion
will trap pollution in the so-called “sleepy hollow”.
Once again residents will complain of increased pollution
and once again industries will respond by demanding proof
that they are the culprits.
So, as always, there are victories but more challenges that
emerge. To continue the challenge I have the pleasure of informing
our friends and comrades that Ben Mazibuko has joined us to
manage the Waste Campaign. Please read more about this on
page 19, and send in words of welcome to him via ben@groundwork.org.za.
We look forward to a long and fruitful association with him.
Till next time, Bobby
back to top
Lead Story
Good riddance: Government Finally Closes Ixopo
incinerator!
By Bobby Peek
“These observations by air [sic] pollution control
officer convinces [sic] me that the operation of the [Ixopo]
incinerator may seriously damage, endanger or detrimentally
affect the environment and the health of residents in the
area.” (Letter from the Department of Environmental
and Tourism to the Ubuhlebezwe Municipality, Compass Waste
and Shepstone and Wylie Attorneys, 24 November 2005.)
Finally! A statement from government which acknowledges what
groundWork has been stating since 1999, namely that the operations
of the waste incinerator in Ixopo pose a serious health and
safety hazard to workers and residents and needs to be closed
down!
This is the story of a protracted and arduous struggle to
close down KwaZulu-Natal’s only commercially operating
health care waste incinerator. The Ixopo incinerator, owned
by the local municipality, but operated by a private waste
company, Compass Waste Services, has been used to burn both
municipal and health care waste. Several visits to the incinerator
by groundWork and internal auditors have repeatedly highlighted
that this incinerator has consistently failed to comply with
reasonable health and safety standards. This six-year battle
has seen groundWork take on the Ubuhlebezwe Municipality (in
which the town of Ixopo is located) Compass Waste Services,
a waste management company (represented by Shepstone and Wylie
Attorneys), and various government departments.
The nineties was a tumultuous decade with regards to waste
in KwaZulu-Natal. There was the importation of hazardous waste
by Thor Chemicals, the dumping of hazardous waste in Durban’s
Umlazi township by Waste-tech1
and Waste Services2 , and the
reconfiguration of the waste industry as the various companies
tried to realign themselves in corporate mergers and takeovers
in order that they could corner the waste market in KwaZulu-Natal.
It was also during this time that civil society started challenging
both government and industry with regards to their inadequate
waste management practices and poor governance.
groundWork was born during this era, and one of the first
challenges groundWork faced was tackling the health care waste3
industry, which was burning waste in Isipingo, Clare Estate
and Ixopo. groundWork had little difficulty pressurising government
to close down the substandard Isipingo incinerator, which
was then owned by Wastetech. With the Ixopo incinerator, groundWork
did not have the same immediate success, and a six-year struggle
ensued to get government to take its governance mandate seriously
and to consider the failings and threats of the Ixopo incinerator
and to order its closure.
During the six years of struggle, groundWork did not only
seek to get government to close the Ixopo waste incinerator,
but engaged in a more broader strategic approach that resulted
in introducing less harmful alternatives and solutions to
the management of health care waste in the province. These
included the shift to non-incineration technologies (specifically
autoclaving), the training of state hospital staff in health
care waste management, providing the provincial departments
of health and environment with strategic advice4
, giving input into policy processes and galvanising people
nationally and internationally to call for the end of incineration
in South Africa.
As a result of groundWork introducing non-burn technologies
into the health care waste debate, all the major waste companies
operating in KwaZulu-Natal (EnviroServ, Wasteman aka Waste
Services and Compass Waste) have introduced alternative technologies
for the management of this waste stream. The provincial Department
of Health also was won over and stated (in November 2002)
that all hospital waste incinerators would be phased out.
Parallel to this, groundWork has, through its “Greening
Hospitals” training programme, managed to improve and
reduce the cost of health care waste management in the state
hospitals of Edendale and Ngwelezane by as much as fifty percent.
Despite these proactive initiatives, government refused to
take action against the Ubuhlebezwe (Ixopo) Municipality and
Compass Waste Services around the continued illegal operations
of the Ixopo incinerator.
By 2002, the only remedy left open to groundWork, was legal
intervention. The Legal Resources Centre (LRC) accepted to
take on the case for groundWork and, in May 2002, an interdict
was served on government to stop the operations of the Ixopo
incinerator. The respondents in the matter were: the Minister
of Environmental Affairs And Tourism; the KwaZulu-Natal MEC
for Agriculture and Environmental Affairs; the Chief Air Pollution
Control Officer of the Department of Environmental Affairs
and Tourism (DEAT); the Ubuhlebezwe Municipality and Compass
Waste Services.
Based upon internal audit reports highlighting non-compliance
and gross failings in meeting the minimum operational conditions
prescribed by government for the incinerator, groundWork highlighted
the following:
- The hearth is blocked completely underneath. This prevents
proper combustion in the main chamber. The entire flooring
must be removed and replaced to rectify the problem;
- The right hand loading jamb in the main chamber must
be broken out and recast;
- Large pieces of concrete lining were missing from the
secondary chamber and this section must be broken out and
recast;
- Large pieces of concrete have fallen out from the upper
stack and are visible from the outside. This has caused
the steel to burn away and must be repaired as soon as possible
since it can cause major problems;
- There was not compliance with the requirement that recyclable
and non-combustible materials must be sorted from the waste
stream prior to incineration. Only cardboard was recycled
at the time of the audit;
- The temperature controls for the incinerator were set
at 1040 degrees centigrade and not 1050 as required;
were 28mg/m3 as opposed to the 25mg/m3 stipulated in the
conditions to the certificate;
- Litter from the incinerator operation was observed in
the surrounding area outside the incinerator despite the
condition that surrounds must be kept clean;
- No log book was kept at the time of the audit, and
- The control panel had only a visible alarm and not an
audible alarm.
These failings would result in workers and residents being
exposed to unacceptable levels of pollution and the release
of dioxins and other very dangerous pollutants into the surrounding
environment.
In 2000, groundWork’s own visit to the site indicated
similar problems and others as discussed above, namely:
- The recycling centre only sorted out cans and cardboard.
No attempt was made to remove glass vials, PVC plastics
or uncombustibles;
- Uncombusted gauze, glass vials, syringes and metal lids
were seen in the ash;
- Explosions occurred inside the incinerator, which were
probably due to the incineration of sealed or pressurised
containers.
- The ash from the incinerator was dumped in a hole not
far from the incinerator and not covered at all in violation
of government orders. The ash should have been disposed
of on a permitted hazardous waste landfill site;
- Thick black smoke was regularly emitted from the incinerator;
- Large pieces of fly ash including paper regularly escaped
the stack. This indicated that the temperature inside the
incinerator was too low;
- Operators were manually operating the incinerator;
- A new formal housing development and an encroaching informal
housing area was very close to the incinerator;
There were no signs prohibiting unauthorised entry to the
site of the incinerator.
Due to a prior bureaucratic technicality the court ruled
that the DEAT must first set up an internal Appeals Hearing
before the court could hear argument as to why the Ixopo incinerator
was denied a permit from the DEAT in 2003. As a result of
DEAT’s bureaucratic failing, the incinerator continued
to operate.
By the end of 2004, after repeated communications and requests
for DEAT to act on the magistrate’s findings and convene
an Appeals Hearing, groundWork and the LRC sought a new approach,
and through a negotiated process with the respondents, agreed
to support the Ubuhlebezwe Municipality financially in attempting
to develop an integrated waste management plan, thereby seeking
an informed opinion on the best waste option for the area.
In the interim, the Ixopo incinerator was given a further
provisional registration certificate until June 2005 –
which was once again extended without groundWork’s knowledge
by the DEAT until November 2005 – with the condition
that an integrated waste management plan for the area be adopted.
Although the offer of assistance by groundWork was accepted,
the Ubuhlebezwe Municipality never followed it up. On the
12 November 2005, the provisional certificate lapsed and the
municipality had failed to adopt an integrated waste management
plan.
Finally on the 24 November 2005 the DEAT, using the National
Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, called for the
ceasing of operations at the Ixopo Incinerator. This followed
a 17 November visit to the incinerator by an Air Pollution
Control Officer who raised the following concerns (not exclusive):
- A strong offensive odour emanates from the site, noticeable
from a distance of at least 500 metres from the site;
- Large amounts of incinerator ash have been dumped on
the site, and, according to the logbook, had been there
for at least five weeks. The now expired certificate required
incinerator ash to be landfilled at a registered H:h site
“with immediate effect”;
- The incinerator ash was plainly incompletely combusted
… indicating that the incinerator operates well below
the temperature stipulated;
- Little effort was being made to sort the waste;
- The temperatures in the primary and secondary chambers
were set below the minimum specified in the certificate;
- The chamber to the incinerator itself was left open,
and the operator was agitating the contents with a metal
rod while the incinerator process was underway.
Finally, government sees what groundWork saw in 1999! Will
we ever be able to get to justice if each case takes so long?
While a success has been finally achieved, one has to ask
at what cost to the environment, and at what immense profit
to Compass Waste? Is this the turning point for the DEAT in
dealing with crime perpetuating environmental injustice? We
hope so but only time will tell!
Footnotes:
1. Waste-tech, now EnviroServ, still dumps
boiler ash on its Umlazi landfill site.
2. Waste Services, now Wasteman continues
this practice.
3. Health care waste is also often referred
to as medical waste.
4. From 1999-2002, groundWork provided detailed
information and alternative publications to the KwaZulu-Natal
health department to assist them in re-thinking their policy
on health care waste management.
Air Quality
Who will bear the costs of pollution in Richards Bay?
By Bobby Peek
Cutting air pollution delivers “Big Bang for Your Buck”
claims the United Nations. Well, I am always a sceptic when
it comes to reports out of the UN. But recently I read a statement
from a UN report that I could only agree with. It stated that:
“Governments that invest in air pollution control measures
can save billions of dollars as health care costs are slashed,
worker productivity soars and ecosystems flourish”.
Not that we did not already know this. For example, in the
Vaal Triangle, nine working days per worker are lost each
year to pollution-related illnesses and the direct health
costs of pollution are in the order of R289 million annually.
1
Based upon the above someone should be talking to the Department
of Trade and Industry (DTI), which is overseeing the amplification
of energy-intensive, apartheid-based industrial development
in Richards Bay. This strategy is a one-way dead-end route
that has resulted in huge pollution loads and, coupled with
a globalising democratic South Africa, huge job losses.
However, people in Richards Bay are not going down without
a fight. Through a variety of processes, some of which have
included interventions by groundWork, and the unfortunate
deaths of community people due to pollution, concerns about
pollution in Richards Bay have been reverberating throughout
South Africa. As a result of community participation in the
parliamentary hearings on the Air Quality Bill in 2004, the
national Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs and
Tourism have considered the Richards Bay area a hotspot and
visited the area.
However, the current push for increased development in Richards
Bay is mounting to the extent that one could foresee that,
if the community looses this present battle, it is going to
be downhill from here.
Let me paint the picture.
In 2001,Tata Steel, a subsidiary of India’s Tata Group,
proposed to develop a steel ferrochrome smelter next to the
Mondi paper mill in Richards Bay. Mondi is the highest profit
venture in the Anglo American stable of companies. Mondi has
also been in conflict with the people in south Durban because
of its paper mill there which is located in a residential
area, and the operations of the mill have led to community
and worker deaths. Mondi is the third largest sulphur dioxide
polluter in south Durban, and is in the process of building
a waste incinerator at that plant. Mondi also continues to
dump its hazardous ash waste in a black residential area.
This was allowed by the apartheid government and is condoned
by the present government. But I digress: back to Richards
Bay.
Tata Steel, a high-energy usage manufacturer, has decided
to develop a smelter in South Africa because our government
allows industry possibly the cheapest electricity in the world
whilst millions of South Africans cannot afford to pay for
household electricity. At the outset, one would think the
proposed development is not a threat: it is next to Mondi
(why not let the polluters consolidate in one area?), is located
outside the town and is not directly adjacent to a residential
area.
A match made in heaven – a polluting steel mill and
a polluting paper mill. Wrong! Think again! Mondi has a European
market to which it sends its products from Richards Bay. A
chrome polluter on its doorstep could contaminate Mondi’s
products and negatively impact upon its exports to the EU,
which takes contamination of products entering the EU very
seriously. Well done on the EU for this.
Thus Mondi objected to the development on its doorstep, and
Tata Steel was forced to look for a new location for its steel
mill. Well, this is a milestone: a big investor being asked
to find an alternative site for its development!
Tata Steel and its environmental consultants, the Council
for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) came up with
a new site in Richards Bay - Alton North - which is audaciously
closer to the residential community, but further away from
Mondi. The logic must be that if Mondi would not take the
chrome and associated pollution, the residents would!
In stepped the Richards Bay Clean Air Association, an organisation
made up of Richards Bay ratepayers and key industrial representatives
(excluding Tata Steel which is not yet on the industrial forum),
which vetoed this development. The association claimed that
the air is already too heavily polluted. This is an interesting
reality, which indicates how a few large polluting corporations
have monopolised the environment’s holding capacity
and are therefore keeping further economic devilment from
occurring. The UN recognises this. But this is not the main
issue to discuss now.
Considering that both industry and community have opposed
this development, and the environmental authorities might
finally be heeding the calls of mere mortals, you might believe
civil society has a victory on its hands. Again we are wrong.
The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) then stepped into
the fray. The DTI is seeking to rezone the Alton North site
earmarked by Tata Steel from light industrial (because of
its proximity to residential areas) to fit into the Industrial
Development Zone of the DTI. By changing the zoning the DTI
has challenged the age-old saying “pollution knows no
boundaries” and replaced it with “pollution knows
zoning”! So, during the Christmas vacation, on the 19
December, the DTI quietly gazetted its intentions to rezone
the area.
Local residents in Richards Bay only found out about this
on the 13th January – almost a month later - when the
DTI issued a press release pertaining to the gazette. groundWork
only found out about it in a Durban newspaper on the 12th
February 2006. We called the DTI to find out if we could get
a copy of the relevant gazette. We were told to go to a government
printer to get a copy as the DTI would not fax a seven page
document out to everyone who requests a copy (although it
is my understanding that groundWork was the only civil society
organisation which asked for a faxed copy). After an inordinate
amount of time on the phone to the government printing offices
in Cape Town and Pretoria, I was informed that I could pick
up a copy from the local library.
So off we trudged to the library to pick up the gazette,
which calls for the rezoning of the land from being a buffer
development adjacent to a residential area – i.e. light
industrial – to a heavy industrial zone. And who is
managing this process? The DTI. A player and referee all rolled
into one. Something our national soccer team needs desperately!
In the gazette two things are interesting. Firstly, it is
stated that Tata Steel was pushed out of the first site “on
account of incompatible attributes of such a cluster with
other operations located adjacent to the already proclaimed
IDZ”. Secondly, the Alton site is declared “suitable”
despite it being next to a residential area. Who decides I
ask?
This is the classic case of market-led capitalist globalisation
and neo-liberalism: Europe will take our products but will
not take the associated pollution. The residents of Richards
Bay and the global south can have the pollution. And what
does our democratic government do? Roll over and facilitate
such global hypocrisy.
Listen to the UN’s warning, South Africa, else it is
downhill from here for Richards Bay and all of us.
1. Scourgie, I., 2004, “Air Quality
Situation Assessment Vaal Triangle.”
back to top
Air Quality
WIN SOME, LOSE SOME
By Siziwe Khanyile
In the pursuit of environmental justice - the right to life
and the right to an environment that is not harmful to our
health and well-being - we are challenged by the sheer size
and power of large corporations, and also by the various ills
of our government’s administrative justice system. Yet
as civil society, we chip away at the seemingly unassailable.
Sapref pipeline replacement victory
The country, and particularly the south Durban community,
remembers Shell’s pipeline leakage in June 2001, when
a Sapref (the Shell and BP refinery) underground fuel pipeline
leaked more than a million litres of petrol into the ground
underneath the south Durban community. The petrol settled
under homes, and some people were evacuated from their homes
to secure their health. This outraged communities living in
south Durban and subsequently the South Durban Community Environmental
Alliance (SDCEA) and groundWork called for the replacement
of all these pipelines. Sapref refused to acknowledge this
approach, despite continual pipeline failures in the area.
groundWork and SDCEA took the matter to Shell’s AGMs
in London and Amsterdam, and Shell’s response in the
past couple of years has been that it would recoat the pipelines
on the advice of an independent pipeline integrity study,
which made a finding that no pipelines needed to be replaced.
In June 2004, Shell announced that a budget of US$50 million
had been allocated for the said project. The issue was further
pursued by civil society at a meeting with Shell’s head
honcho, Jeroen van der Veer, late in 2005.
Now, in 2006, Shell has announced that it will be replacing
all seven of its underground pipelines that run between Sapref
and the Island View storage area, a distance of about 11 kilometres.
The process of replacing the pipelines has already begun.
Sapref has made an assurance that the pipelines will be the
same sizes as the current ones, that there will be no increase
in capacity and that the lines will transfer the same products
as previously. The replacement project is expected to be completed
in about the first quarter of 2008.
groundWork views this as a victory for persistent, tireless
civil society action against a giant transnational corporation.
Sasol’s Secunda development fiasco
During 2005 Sasol proposed the development of an Octene
plant in Secunda, and appointed consultants to conduct the
necessary regulatory processes. From the very beginning the
process was fraught with difficulties. Information about the
development was provided late, groundwork experienced difficulties
in obtaining a copy of the completed scoping report and our
repeated requests for a meeting with the Mpumalanga Department
of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment proved unfruitful.
groundWork had hoped to meet with the provincial government
department to discuss how we might be able to assist the department
to better comprehend the effects that the proposed industrial
development in Secunda would have on the health of local residents.
Upon enquiring what progress had been made with the project,
we were informed that a ROD (record of decision) had been
issued giving approval for the proposed development to proceed.
Various attempts were made to obtain a copy of the ROD. Twenty-two
days after the issue date, and eight days before closure for
appeals, a copy was sent to us by the Department of Agriculture,
Conservation and Environment in Mpumalanga.
On 23 December 2005, groundWork made a formal appeal against
the ROD. Our main objection to the ROD was that the ROD did
not in any substantive manner deal with the concerns that
were raised in our submissions.
Our bone of contention is not only with the construction
of the plant in isolation. It is with the fact that there
is inadequate information on the health demographics of the
residents of Secunda, and that in spite of poor ambient air
quality in the region an extensive emissions inventory does
not exist. We believe that a new polluting process should
not be allowed to proceed if there is no comprehensive analysis
of the existing status of community health and pollution levels.
We have subsequently heard from Sasol’s legal department
that development has commenced at the plant in Secunda, despite
groundWork having lodged an objection to the process.
The reason? groundWork’s appeal, which was faxed, e-mailed,
and registered posted to the MEC for Agriculture, Conservation,
Environment and Land Administration, apparently did not reach
him, nor his secretary, nor the director in the department
who were carbon copied in the e-mail. In fact, the registered
letter was returned unclaimed at the end of January 2006!
Whatever happened to administrative justice?
back to top
Waste
Pushing towards a global legally binding solution on Mercury
By Rico Euripidou
Civil society representatives from South-East Asia, Latin
America, Europe, the US and South Africa recently gathered
in the Philippines to discuss a common civil society strategy
response to pushing for a global phase out of mercury use.
The gathering was organised by Health Care Without Harm (HCWH).
Background
In January 2005 the European Commission adopted an EU Mercury
Strategy which broadly aims to encourage global action on
mercury issues, reduce EU supply and demand, resolve the issue
of mercury surpluses from the chlor-alkali industry and other
sources, and lower emissions and human exposure.
Summary of Meeting
At the civil society meeting we discussed producing two strategic
reports. One would be a report for the UNEP, in order to provide
input to the UNEP Governing Council meeting due in early 2007.
The other report would address the challenges and successes
of implementing substitutes for mercury-containing medical
devices in the Global South. This report would address the
key issues confronting the health care sector, which have
been dubbed the “Triple A and Big D” challenges:
Accuracy, Accessibility, Affordability and Disposal.
Other important issues on which HCWH needs to engage are:
- Mercury in dental health – this is important, as
this sector is the largest consumer of mercury.
- Mercury in crematoria needs to be explored and recommendations
made.
- The toxicology of alternatives like dental composites
and batteries for mercury-free thermometers also needs to
be understood.
Furthermore we had discussions on medical waste generally
and there was clear consensus that HCWH should continue to
work to oppose the ongoing transfer of incineration technology
to the Global South. We also agreed on the need to inform
the debate in both the Global North and South to counter marketing
attempts to disguise incinerators under other names, such
as energy recovery technologies.
In conclusion most delegates agreed we have a wealth of opportunities
to tackle the issue of mercury in health care waste around
the world. However, we need to develop our global capacity
in order to achieve these goals especially on a more global
policy level. In order to achieve this HCWH and its partners
will work towards a presence in all the regions of the world
and facilitate partnerships with more like-minded organisations,
including groundWork, to systematically work towards a mercury
free environment.
back to top
Corporate accountability
Corporate resistance in Botswana
By Bobby Peek
In different countries people respond differently to the
common global problem of large corporations wielding excessive
power to the destruction of the environment, livelihoods and
cultures. This is due to the “politik” and politics
within the various areas. I was a witness to this phenomenon
at a recent visit to a mining town in the southeast of Botswana
called Selebi Phikwe.
Barulaganye Mogotsi, Programme Manager of the Botswana Council
of NGO’s (BOCONGO), invited me to visit Botswana and
address their National Consultative Forum on Corporate Social
Responsibility held on the 26 January 2006. This process was
supported by the Netherlands institute for Southern Africa
(NiZA), which supports 19 organisations in the Southern African
countries of South Africa, Botswana, Angola, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and Zambia to challenge corporate power
and environmental injustices. groundWork and BOCONGO are two
of the 19 organisations involved in the NiZA-supported network.
I drove into Selebi Phikwe at around 07:00 hrs on the morning
of the 26 January. I was struck by what appeared to be a distinctive
separation in the weather pattern hanging over the town. Half
the town was under heavy cloud and the other half exposed
to the bright summer sun. We were in a semi-arid area on the
edges of the Kalahari Desert so the cloud I was seeing was
not related to natural tropical weather patterns. The cloud
was in fact pollution from the BCL smelter in the area. I
immediately knew that the day’s proceedings were going
to be tough. This was a mining town in the middle of nowhere.
I was wondering what I had let myself in for!
At the gathering there were local politicians, local mining
house representatives, NGO’s and community people. On
seeing the distinguished looking mining bosses and politicians,
I tried to pressurise my colleague to take me into town to
purchase a tie and blazer! He sat me down and calmed me.
By the time I was ready to speak, my nerves were up, and
I started off in my usual animated, somewhat nervous manner
but soon got into my address which was titled: “Corporate
Social Responsibility: Accountability is needed.” The
presentation discussed issues that are key to the failure
of governance in South Africa such as information challenges,
political interference, corporate power, where and how corporate
social responsibility emerged over the last two decades and
the myth of corporate social responsibility. The final thrust
was that whatever is decided upon with regards to CSR or corporate
oversight, it must not be voluntary and it must seek to challenge
the power dynamics controlled by the corporations.
Whilst the presentation went down well with the community,
labour unions, and NGO’s, the industry representatives
were not happy, with one of them stating that “if [I]
have grievances with industry [I] must take them elsewhere”.
This approach was not welcomed by the community, and they
made it known!
It was clear from the manner in which the proceedings developed
that industry has a strong hold on the situation around Selebi
Phikwe. This is to be expected in a mining town.
The challenge for BOCONGO post this gathering is to mobilise
community people and political support for the call to weaken
the power of corporations within Botswana, and to show that
it can be done.
There is no doubt from witnessing the dense pollution from
the BCL smelter and the sense of “control” that
the industry has over the situation in the area, that BCL
is a strong contender for the Southern African Corpse Awards
to be held in November 2006.
back to top
Waste
Congratulations flood in from around the world
The recent announcement that the government had closed down
the last remaining medical waste incinerator in KwaZulu-Natal
was greeted with celebration around the world. groundWork,
which had fought for six years for the closure of this incinerator
(see Lead Story on page 4), received letters of congratulation
from many of our sister organisations in other parts of the
country and the rest of the world. Here following are a selection
of them:
Dear Bobby, Ellen and Friends in SA. Congratulations
to groundWork and LRC for this huge success in shutting down
the Ixopo medwaste incinerator after years of painstaking
action. Keep on putting out the flames for environmental health
and justice. Warmest regards from all of us in Manila,
Manny C. Calonzo, Philippines
Beautiful victory. Go, go groundWork and other friends who
were involved in this fight.
ciao,
Nityanand Jayaraman from the Chennai-based voluntary collective
Corporate Accountability Desk, India
Let me add my "burning" congratulations to our groundwork
friends for this very significant step towards a toxics free
future!
More power!
Romy Quijano
Hi everybody
Congratulations indeed!! It has been such a long drawn out
legal issue. I am so glad that in the end, sanity prevailed
and the communities will be spared from insidious environmental
hazards. This is such wonderful testimony to the resolve and
tenacity of Bobby and his team of committed staff both past
and present. Well-done guys and keep going. Welcome to the
journey Ben. All strength to you all.
Regards,
PK (Patrick Kulati), Cape Town
Congratulations from India. There is no doubt that other
provinces will follow the positive example of KwaZulu-Natal.
28 February should be celebrated in all the other provinces
as a reminder of this success.
Regards,
Gopal Krishna, India
Well done groundWork and thanks to all those that went
the extra mile in spite of drawbacks. You do us all proud.
Regards,
Joy Kistnasamy, Durban
Dear All
This is pleasing news indeed. Perseverance has paid off and
hopefully results from the dioxin samples will further vindicate
us. It is gratifying to see positive outcomes from all the
hard work and sacrifice by groundWorkers.
Best regards
Thuli Makama, Swaziland
ROCK ON!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
COOOOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yahoo!
Congratulations!
From Annie Leonard, USA
back to top
Groundwork
USA
Hurricane Katrina: Man-made danger, environmental disaster
By Toussaint Losier
Though it has been six months since Hurricane Katrina made
landfall in Southeast Louisiana as a Category 3 storm, the
world is still struggling to come to grips with the extent
of the damage to the Gulf region, particularly the historic
city of New Orleans. Katrina, which first crossed Southern
Florida as a Category 1 storm, grew in strength over the Gulf
of Mexico to become what was then the strongest hurricane
in the Gulf. The storm weakened significantly before making
landfall on August 29, 2005 with sustained winds of 200 km/h
(125 mph).
Though it was not the most intense hurricane on record, it
was the costliest, producing 34 foot-high storm surges on
the coasts of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Katrina’s
winds and waves breached the levees around New Orleans, flooding
roughly 80% of the city, while across the region, the hurricane
caused 1,418 deaths, an estimated $75 billion in damages and
the displacement of at least 1.5 million people.
In some ways, this tragic natural disaster was a man-made
phenomenon. Many public commentators have pointed to the fact
that the army corps of engineers, the governmental body responsible
for the upkeep of the levees around New Orleans, had consistently
warned of the threat posed by strong hurricanes, whilst politicians
cut the corps’ budget to cover tax cuts for the wealthy
and the wars abroad. Some scientists have also suggested that
global climate change, which has raised ocean temperature,
has resulted not in more hurricanes, but stronger and more
powerful storms.
Others have pointed to the destruction of the wetlands in
the Gulf region that served as a natural “sponge”
to absorb the floodwaters and slow the storm surge. Over the
last 75 years, efforts to control the Mississippi river starved
the marshes to the south of New Orleans of the fresh water
and sediment needed to sustain them by diverting these waters
to the Gulf. Oil and gas production also contributed to the
slow sinking of Southern Louisiana by removing fossil fuels
and water out of underground reservoirs. Similarly, casinos
and other new buildings in coastal Mississippi eliminated
the dunes that had once provided protection.
While these man-made developments heightened Katrina’s
impact, rampant environmental racism in Louisiana has made
the recovery and rebuilding efforts even more difficult. Since
the 1980s, the pollution-ridden industrial corridor north
of New Orleans and home to over 300 major industries has been
known as Cancer Alley. Pollution from these facilities has
primarily afflicted the poor, predominantly African-American
communities living along the river, causing rare forms of
cancer as well as asthma, neurological diseases, and stillbirths.
The storm ruptured an untold number of holding tanks, leaving
toxic chemicals to mix with untreated sewage, livestock, and
decomposing bodies in the floodwater. For instance, 336 spills
in the immediate aftermath of Katrina poured an estimated
8 million gallons of oil into Louisiana’s marshes, more
than two thirds of what was spilled by the Exxon Valdez tanker.
Though immediate health concerns from this ‘toxic soup’
have passed, long-term threats remain from the biochemical
sludge contaminating streams, groundwater, soil and buildings
of New Orleans. Recent reports on 800 sediment samples taken
by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality suggest that, whilst there are “generally
no long-term health risks in the impacted area related to
environmental causes,” there are still many concerns
about toxic contamination. Some of these concerns are also
linked to the three Superfund toxic waste sites in the Gulf
Coast region, particularly the Agriculture Street landfill
right in downtown New Orleans.
For instance, public health leaders and immigrant’s
rights advocates have raised serious alarm about the health
risks faced by the thousands of hurricane recovery/clean up
workers, many of them underpaid Spanish speaking immigrants,
who face long term health problems because of the absence
of hazardous waste training, little protective gear and lax
federal regulations. Others have highlighted the exploitation
of cleanup workers, many of whom are hired by subcontractors
for companies like Halliburton, left without medical attention,
and poorly fed and housed. There have been many reports of
these workers being fired or deported prior to being paid.
In the wake of these various problems, there have been novel
solutions proposed for these problems. While workers’
rights groups have filed class action suits on behalf of exploited
labourers, progressive economists have suggested that the
federal government could raise much of the money to pay for
the recovery efforts by taxing the windfall profits earned
now by many oil companies in the wake of Katrina’s damage
and recent worldwide surge in oil prices. The idea of a windfall
profits tax is based on the idea that oil companies had calculated
on making a normal return on their investment and production
plans when oil cost less than $25 a barrel before the US invasion
of Iraq. A sharp rise in prices caused by the war, growing
demand in India and China, as well as Katrina’s disruption
of crude oil production brought oil to nearly $70 a barrel.
With oil industry profits running at an annual rate of $62.8
billion in the first quarter of 2005, long before the most
recent surge in prices, a windfall profit tax of 30 percent
on profits exceeding the average of last five years by more
than 10 percent would generate more than $10 billion in annual
revenue. Moreover, these taxes would also reduce incentives
for oil companies to drill for new oil, providing an opportunity
for further explorations into safer alternative fuels.
back to top
Community News
Economic Terrorists
By Tristen Taylor, Apartheid Debt and Reparations Coordinator
for Jubilee South Africa
In January 2006, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New
York, USA, heard oral arguments on the matter of Khulumani
et. al v. Barclays et. al.. As is standard for the US Court
of Appeals, a panel of three judges heard arguments from the
plaintiffs’ and defendants' legal teams. The Court's
decision on the matter is expected in six months to a year.
In the Khulumani v. Barclays matter, eighty-seven South Africans
(victims of gross human rights abuses during Apartheid) are
charging twenty-three foreign corporations with aiding and
abetting the Apartheid regime. This is a very serious charge,
as aiding and abetting is equivalent to actual perpetration
under international law. These corporations are: Barclays
National Bank, British Petroleum P.L.C., ChevronTexaco Corporation,
Chevron Texaco Global Energy Inc., Citigroup Inc., Commerzbank,
Credit Suisee Group, DaimlerChrysler AG, AEG Daimler-Benz
Industrie, Deutsche Bank AG, Dresdner Bank AG, ExxonMobil
Corporation, Flour Corporation, Ford Motor Company, Fujitsu
Ltd., General Motors Corporation, International Business Machines
Corporation, J.P. Morgan Chase, Rheinmetall Group AG, Shell
Oil Company, Totalfina-Elf, and UBS AG.
The plaintiffs have argued that the actions of these corporations,
which range from supplying computers to providing military
vehicles to direct funding of the SA Defence Force, amount
to economic terrorism. Through providing financial, material
and intellectual support to the Apartheid regime, these corporations,
it is argued, not only extended the lifespan of Apartheid
but also participated in the repression of the majority of
the population. Their money and goods helped to spread terror
and instability throughout South Africa.
For example, in 1985 the South African government implemented
a US $14 billion debt repayment standstill. In response, a
“Technical Committee” of 260 banks (including
Barclays, Citibank, J.P. Morgan Chase, Credit Suisse, Dresdner
Bank, Deutsche Bank and Union Bank of Switzerland) was formed.
Through a system of financial chicanery, they helped the South
African government to roll over its debts — thus avoiding
a possible financial collapse and the end of Apartheid—and
allowed the government to finance military expenditures to
a remarkable degree (a 30% increase in spending starting three
months after the debt rollover).
Corporate support for Apartheid is well documented and anti-Apartheid
activists throughout the world used these facts in attempts
to change corporate behaviour. Former esteemed anti-Apartheid
cleric, Dr. Beyers Naudé complained to a Daimler-Benz
shareholder meeting (June 1989, Berlin), that:
"Daimler-Benz does just not help us to prevent this
violence. The police shoot demonstrators, they even shoot
mourners at funerals, as happened, for example, in Langa.
They shoot from cars driven by Daimler-Benz engines. How am
I supposed to understand your statement that you are ready
to help prevent the situation to turn into violence? You will
only succeed in doing so, if you cease supporting the military.”
Yet despite this common knowledge, these corporations have
never been brought to book for their alleged economic terrorism.
They refused to appear before the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission and are fighting the Khulumani v. Barclays lawsuit
with almost every high-paid lawyer in New York and Washington
DC, and continue to remain silent despite citizen protests
such as Jubilee South Africa's campaign against Barclays Bank
and its acquisition of ABSA.
back to top
groundWork
News
Welcome to Ben Mazibuko
This month groundWork welcomes new “groundWorker”
Ben Mazibuko who joins our small groundWork team as the new
Waste Campaign Manager. Ben takes over from Llewellyn Leonard
who left groundWork after he accepted a full scholarship to
read for his PhD at Kings College in London.
Ben comes to groundWork from BESG (the Built Environment
Support Group) where he was Project Manager of the Community
Based Maintenance project, which deals with waste collection,
road-maintenance, parks, low cost housing and related environmental
issues.
Ben grew up in the foothills of the Drakensburg, in Ntabamhlophe,
a rural community outside the town of Estcourt in KwaZulu-Natal.
After completing his schooling he worked for four years for
the provincial government before being awarded a scholarship
from the UN to study at Andrews University in Berrien Springs,
Michigan. He graduated from Andrews University with a Bachelor
of Arts with a Higher Diploma in Education in 1994. On his
return to South Africa he took up various teaching posts at
several underprivileged schools, during which time he also
completed a Masters Degree in African Literature and Languages
at the University of Durban Westville. He subsequently went
overseas, spending a year teaching emotionally troubled learners
in California and then another year teaching English in South
Korea.
Ben is married to Penny, who is a bookkeeper. They have two
children, Joy (7 years) and Njabulo (2 years). Ben describes
himself as humble, God-fearing and hard working. His optimism,
energy and enthusiasm are contagious and he is sure to fit
in well at groundWork.
At groundWork Ben will be responsible for coordinating the
Waste Campaign, which aims to increase awareness and improve
governance of waste related issues- specifically landfill
sites, hazardous waste, health care waste, chemicals management
and the promotion of non-burn treatment and disposal options
for the various waste streams.
Ben can be contacted at the groundWork office in Pietermaritzburg
or by email: ben@groundwork.org.za.
|
