The SA Cabinet has declared 2002 as the Year of Sustainable Development. This is in recognition of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), which is taking place in Johannesburg from 26 August to 4^th September. groundWork’s particular focus this year is on corporate accountability in the arena of sustainable development, particularly on the forces of globalisation seeking to weaken the state, and the resultant impact this is having on the health, safety and security of people to develop and hold onto sustainable livelihoods.

The WSSD offers civil society an opportunity not only to campaign and gather, but also an opportunity to research and understand the various demands placed upon our governments by corporate power, and a platform to springboard our future resistance to corporate power. For more on corporate accountability turn to page 13. For more on groundWork’s plans around WSSD see page 20.

Toxic landfill sites in South Africa have a history of civil society conflict associated with them. This conflict has mainly stemmed from poor enforcement of the regulations and permits governing landfill sites.

In the nineties there was much protest around the Umlazi IV Landfill site owned by Waste-tech (now EnviroServ). After much campaigning – and at times political embarrassment – Minister Asmal (then the Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry) closed the site on. However, Enviroserv has been allowed to landfill ash on the site since then.

At the time, Minister Asmal requested that the community become involved in processing a permit for the site, as he stated that the permit would give the Department power to force EnviroServ to comply. The community stated that they would only become involve if the permit was for closure. Government agreed. Participation in the process was then forthcoming from the community, as they believed that through this process they would give government the power to protect them as citizens of the country, as articulated by the Minister.

In a visit to the Umlazi IV Landfill Site in November 2001, it was shocking to witness the mismanagement, poor enforcement and negative impact this site was having on the adjacent community. There was no gate restricting access, cows were grazing on the landfill site, bread had recently been dumped on the site and the ash that was being dumped was not covered nor sprayed down as is required in the permit conditions.

The question I ask myself, is why has government not used the permit and acted against EnviroServ before the site degenerated to the present state?

The next question I ask is this: If government cannot enforce and manage sites through permits, how is it going to enforce and manage industries through voluntary, self-regulatory tools such as Environmental Management Cooperation Agreements (EMCA’s)?

We were asked to place our trust in government in 1997 with a permit. Now we are asked to trust them with EMCA’s, a self-regulatory, toothless instrument.

back to top

Lead article

Community Air Monitoring

Shifting scientific knowledge from the hands of the rick and powerful to the people
by Ardiel Soeker

February, 7^th 2002. A black cloud of smoke stretched across the Sasolburg sky. Visual evidence of a crime being committed, of people’s health being compromised. On further investigation it was found that the pollution was emanating from a Sasol-owned industry, a stone’s throw away from Zamdela Township.

Over a year earlier, grab samples using the Bucket Brigade air sampling methodology found high levels of cancer-causing benzene in Sasolburg’s air. Sasol’s response was typical of industry: “We are operating within the limits. We have not broken any laws.” In Sasol’s case, this response is laced with arrogance that comes from doing as they please for years due to weak environmental governance.

How polluted is the air we are breathing? Who is responsible for the pollution? Is it the air that is making us so sick?

Industry has a multi faceted response to those who dare to ask these questions. They set up CAER Committees, sign Voluntary Agreements, fund community projects and use clever advertising campaigns to “greenwash” themselves and pacify the public. Their ownership of scientific and technological resources is crucial to their quest for more and more profits.

So communities are left to themselves to come up with answers and solutions to their environmental concerns. Late last year, groundWork, together with six communities - South Durban, Sasolburg, Secunda, Maputo, Mbabane and Table View (Cape Town) - launched a Community Air Pollution Monitoring Campaign. The Campaign is aimed at equipping communities with the tools and strategies to monitor the air they breathe and to challenge industries to clean up their operations.

Earlier this year, Denny Larson, a USA anti-pollution activist with 17 years experience in community work, joined me on a tour of these six communities. From the 19^th January to the 16^th February, Denny and I held workshops in these six communities, training them on how to set up community air pollution monitoring systems in their neighbourhoods. Denny is the director of the Global Community Monitor, a recently formed US based environmental justice NGO. He is once of the inventors of the Bucket Brigade method of air sampling and shared his knowledge and experience of community monitoring systems with our community partners.

South Durban
Our first workshop was convened by the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA). The two-day workshop included a tour of the Engen refinery. Workshop participants said they were disappointed with the lack of urgency on the side of industry to make any meaningful improvements to reduce air pollution. They excitedly committed themselves to establish an air-monitoring program in the South Durban basin.

Sasolburg
Our second workshop was in Zamdela, Sasolburg, and was convened by the Sasolburg Environmental Committee. While the workshop was in progress a huge, black cloud of pollution was released by Sasol industry. This clearly illustrated the need for communities to monitor this unscrupulous industry.

Mayor Ndaba welcomed the introduction of a community monitoring campaign in Sasolburg. He said communities needed to become educated around the health and environmental impacts of industrial pollution. Councilor Mjikane, a participant in the workshop, said: “In the midst of poverty and deprivation and at the cost of peoples lives, Sasol makes millions of rands of profit”, he said. “This situation can only be changed if people are made aware of the link between poverty and industrial abuse. Industrial pollution is like any other kind of abuse.”

Secunda
More than 20 residents of eMbalenhle township near the Sasol 2 and 3 refineries attended the workshop in Secunda. Participants expressed the need to have independent air monitoring controlled by the community to contribute to an effective plan to reduce industrial pollution. A Sasol representative attended the workshop and gave a presentation on the plant’s operations and projects.

Maputo
Due to our air flight being overbooked our arrival in Maputo was delayed and we only had very limited time with community members. Nevertheless we were warmly welcomed at the workshop organized by local NGO, Livaningo.

Anabela Lemos from Livaningo had the following to say: “Finally, after 2 years of communication the Bucket Brigade came to Maputo! This was just the beginning of a new era for the local communities, in which they will have the resources and information to monitor the air and demand a cleaner environment! With the rapid development that we are witnessing in Mozambique and the lack of capacity to monitor and control air pollution its up to us to do something. We were all very excited as we realized how easy it was, the Bucket is really an amazingly easy method to sample the air and get to know exactly what we are breathing!”

Mbabane
The time in Mbabane, Swaziland, was for me, the most exciting part of the tour. The workshop was convened by Yonge Nawe, Swaziland’s largest and oldest environmental organization, and was held at the Foresters Arms Hotel. Participants mapped out industrial activities, sources of pollution, different odours and common health problems in the neigbourhoods. Some of the diseases mentioned include asthma, chest pains and hair loss. An air sample was taken the following day at Luhleko within the Sappi Usuthu Pulp mill. The sample was shipped to the US and results are expected during March.

Cape Town
The Cape Town workshop was attended by about 20 residents from Table View and various surrounding communities. The workshop included a guided tour by Caltex of the Caltex Refinery. For many participants this was their first visit to the industry next to which they have been living for many years.

Conclusion
Workshop participants displayed a deep and painful understanding of pollution and its impacts. The workshops built on these experiences and knowledge of local communities. We as facilitators recognized that participants themselves were vital resources and bearers of important local knowledge and experiences around health concerns, types of industries, products, pollution hot spots and other valuable information.

The participants at all six workshops resolved to establish Community Monitoring Committees to co-ordinate the monitoring systems. We at groundWork look forward to maximizing the enthusiasm and energy of the workshop participants by assisting communities to build on this first step towards community monitoring. In a small way, this process will start shifting scientific knowledge from the hands of the rich and powerful to be used to the benefit of all people.

Community Air Monitoring

Community Air Monitoring empowers citizens to pressure industry, using science and hard facts, to clean up their operations. The US government-approved Bucket Brigade air-sampling method was embraced in all six communities as a simple and effective monitoring tool. On it’s own, however, the Bucket has limited impact. Workshop participants identified the following additional components of a community monitoring system:

The Pollution Map: This involves locating pollution “Hotspots”, identifying wind direction, where industries are located, where people live and where there is a high prevalence of pollution-linked health complaints.

Pollution Log Sheets and registering of complaints: Pollution Monitors were trained to use their senses and knowledge of different odours to monitor the air. How the air smells, the colour of the air and how it makes you feel are logged on a simple pollution log sheet developed by the participants themselves.

Video and/or photographs: “ Pollution is a crime against humanity. And like any other crime you need to collect the evidence needed to charge and convict the pollution criminals”, said Desmond D’Sa, from South Durban.

These elements were developed by workshop participants and will no doubt be further refined and improved upon. The Bucket itself has already undergone some changes to suit South African conditions and to further simplify its operation.

Medical waste and incineration Project

Edendale Hospital improves in leaps and bounds
by Llewellyn Leonard

The number of red bags (containing infectious medical waste) generated at Edendale Hospital daily has dropped from an average of between 250 to 300 to around 70 bags a day. This is a significant cost saving for the hospital, as not only are the red bags more expensive to buy, they are also more expensive to dispose of as they contain infectious waste which requires special treatment and disposal.

This is one example of the dramatic improvement in medical waste management at Edendale hospital since the medical waste skills-share which was conducted at the hospital by United States consultants Glenn McRae and Neil Tangri in August last year. The aim of the skills-share was to help selected hospitals to better manage their waste, thereby reducing the amount of waste generated, saving costs and reducing risks to hospital workers and surrounding communities.

I have returned to Edendale Hospital on numerous occasions since the skills-share to assess improvements and progress. I am always excited at the thought of returning to Edendale Hospital since the enthusiastic staff members are always keen to tackle waste issues.

My last visit to the institution was on 29 January 2002, and as usual, I was warmly received by the Infection Control Matron, Sister Jabu Masinga, as well as Head Nurse, Sister Norma Gugu. According to Sister Masinga, a number of internal meetings had occurred since the skills-share to formulate a way forward to reduce waste. Processes of restructuring the waste management policies were being put into place.

I visited a few wards and found that domestic/general waste was now only going into the clear bags allocated for this purpose. This was a change from during the skills-share when we found that the special red bags (for infectious medical waste) often contained mostly general waste. During the skills-share we explained that if the number of red bags could be reduced the costs at the institution could be reduced significantly considering that red bags are the most expensive to dispose of.

Also since the skills share the hospital have started constructing a new building which will be used as a secure storage area for storing red bags and sharps containers awaiting collection by Compass Waste. Previously, the medical waste had not been stored in an adequately secured area, and there had been problems with people from the adjacent community taking sharps containers from the storage facility. According to the groundsman, Mr Mawisa Nyandu, the new storage area would now be secure with only authorized persons having access to the waste until collection by Compass Waste.

While the new storage facility is being completed, the gate entrance to the storage facility, will now always be kept under lock and key. Also, unlike in the past, a count of all red bags and sharps containers is done together with Compass Waste, as a check and balance. Hospital records reflect that the number of red bags have dropped substantially from an average of around 250 to 300 red bags a day to around 70 bags a day. Costs at the hospital have been reduced significantly as a result of this new practice. I was also glad to see that the hospital had started collecting all cardboard waste, which was to be sent for recycling.

A visit to the pharmacy department revealed that since the skills-share a proper colour coded bagging system was in place. The Chief Pharmacist, Mr Shabalala had also started disposing of used vials in red bags so that they were no longer taken to the general landfill sites, where children sometimes play.

When I reflect on Edendale Hospital, I always remember the past scandal of nurses flushing medical waste down toilets. However, now my overall impression about its commitments to better manage its waste is encouraging. If we can succeed in implementing an effective waste-reduction program at Edendale Hospital, we can do it anywhere else in the country, and I am certain that it will become a model for other institutions to follow. It will not be an instantaneous achievement, but it will require time and patience, and in the end Edendale Hospitals as well as other institutions will reap the fruits of their hard labour.

Incineration Vs Alternative Technology
by Llewellyn Leonard

No manager of a medical facility wants to read headlines in a newspaper linking his or her facility to health scares or community protests. But this is precisely what happened on World Environment Day in 2001. On this day groundWork launched an explosive new Greenpeace International report that linked waste incinerators to deaths from cancers, and a higher incidence of lung disease, sarcoma, congenital malformations and immune system depression. The report consolidated 300 research papers and concluded that people living in the vicinity of incinerators had a greater chance of dying from lung and liver cancer. The fact of the reality is that incinerators pollute and are a threat to society.

Growing worldwide civil society opposition to incinerators is pressurizing medical waste companies to consider alternative methods for the treatment and disposal of their waste. Despite the potential hazards associated with incinerators, there are still there a myriad of proposals afloat for new incinerators in South Africa. View our website for a database of current incinerator proposals in SA. The list goes on and on. However, we are heartened by the development of two non-burn medical waste treatment facilities in KwaZulu-Natal.

New autoclave facility

Compass Waste Services cc, the company responsible for the collection of medical waste from the majority of government hospitals in KZN, manages an incinerator at Ixopo. This is the biggest incinerator in KZN, and is owned by the Ixopo Council. According to a past audit, the incinerator at Ixopo does not meet 10 out of the 29 conditions of its certificate. The most recent registration certificate expired in November last year and therefore it is presently operating illegally.

So I was glad to hear during the course of last year that Compass Waste Services was proposing to establish an autoclave facility. This facility is now near completion and is located in Mahogany Ridge, Westmead. I must commend Compass Waste on considering a shift to alternative technology considering that non-burn technologies emit far less pollutants. This move by Compass shows how powerful civil society can be in influencing decision-making processes, and that private institutions are taking the concerns of civil society seriously.

Logmed Technology

In Chatsworth, also in KwaZulu-Natal, Waste Services is proposing to set up a “Logmed” medical waste management facility at the Bulbul Road landfill site. Like an autoclave, the Logmed facility is a non-burn technology with very few if any emissions. Local residents, however, are legitimately concerned about the quantity of medical waste that would be transported through their neighbourhood to the landfill site, and are currently opposing this application. groundWork, while not opposed to the facility itself, was also opposed to the location of the facility in a residential area.

However, while groundWork welcomes the move in KwaZulu-Natal from incineration to non-burn alternatives, there are several other important processes which need to be happening in parallel. For example, hospitals need to be assisted in developing waste minimisation plans.

Secondly, segregation of waste needs to be occurring in hospitals. Chemical, radioactive and cytotoxin wastes are forbidden from entering the Logmed unit. However, as waste segregation is not being fully conducted in South African hospitals, it is highly likely that such materials would get into the unit, thereby posing serious hazards.

In general non-burn technologies appear to emit fewer pollutants and generate solid residues that are not hazardous. However, each technology has its advantages and disadvantages. Facilities need therefore to determine which non-burn technology best meets their needs while minimizing the impact on the environment, enhancing occupational health and safety, and demonstrating a commitment to public health.

Mounting pressure for a global law for multi-national corporations
By Chris Albertyn

Growing discontent over the negative and uncontrolled effects of corporate-led globalisation is beginning to reach those in charge of the World Summit for Sustainable Development.

At the WSSD preparatory meeting in New York in January (Prepcom II), NGOs, trade unions and other major groups made strong calls for the United Nations to develop binding global laws to govern the behaviour of multi-national corporations. On the other side of the political balancing act in the United Nations, many governments and the business sector are saying that voluntary agreements – not binding laws – are the best way to promote economic growth and encourage responsible corporate behaviour.

The South African government took a commendable stand. Through DEAT Director-General, Dr Chippy Olver, South Africa told the rest of the world that it would like to see a global regulatory framework that addresses power relations, including a package of economic measures that addresses the regulation of transnational corporations, technology transfer, debt relief, official development assistance, and financial markets.

The Republic of Korea, Turkey, Canada and the United States opposed any references at the coming Summit to corporate responsibility, while the G-77/China proposed adding references on responsibility of transnational corporations and other institutions with global reach.

It is a delicate balancing act for the world’s politicians at the UN. If the World Summit does not start to apply its collective mind to curbing the excess behaviours of multi-national corporations – and the downside of privatising essential services such as water and electricity – we will see bigger and more unpredictable public protests in Johannesburg, and beyond. The problem facing the politicians is that their own power to decide and act has grown smaller while that of corporations has swelled (see www.corpwatch.org).

What is the likely outcome of the World Summit on issues of corporate accountability? Most likely, the politicians will agree upon and dress up voluntary non-binding “partnerships” to improve corporate responsibility.

In New York in January, a coalition of diverse groupings from around the world was ably led by Friends of the Earth International in calling upon the United Nations for a legally binding global agreement that would provide affected communities with legal rights against abusive companies. They called for a global law that would place duties on corporations to respect social and environmental matters and ensure high standards of operation, no matter where in the world they operate.

In short, voluntary initiatives have developed a global reputation of being about insincere, “greenwash” promises and public relations that can never substitute for a minimum set of legally enforceable rules and standards that apply equally to corporations wherever they operate in the world.

While these calls may sound like good news to affected South African communities, it must be recognised that processes within gigantic institutions like the United Nations take many years to unfold. And even then, the final product seldom has any teeth left. The World Summit taking place in Johannesburg is, however, very important in defining the global problems and their possible solutions. Once an issue is high up on the United Nations agenda, it is more difficult for individual countries (or multi-national corporations) to ignore it.

Poverty alleviation is the number one issue for the World Summit for Sustainable Development. Of course, there are big differences of opinion on how to alleviate poverty. Do not be surprised to hear some familiar companies telling us that voluntary agreements and self-regulation are the answer to job creation and poverty alleviation.

Key corporate accountability concerns tabled at the UN

Employees, communities, consumer and public interest groups are raising concerns about the performance and impacts of multi-national corporations on employment practices, pollution, genetic engineering, product safety, essential public services and many other matters. The most serious concerns tend to be over corporate practices in poorer countries, where governance and financial constraints have made it more difficult for legal, environmental, health and safety standards to match those in developed countries. For example, environmental or social impact assessments are often poorly conducted, if at all, and may not even be publicly available.

In the fossil fuel sector concerns have been raised about pollution, resource expropriation and human rights abuses. Some corporations have made welcome improvements to their ethical performance. This has been supported by governments, some of whom even have ministers with duties to promote corporate social responsibility. However, such voluntary action is not common to all companies. Unless all corporations are made equally accountable for their environmental and social impacts, there remains little incentive for a general improvement in behaviour. What is more, those corporations that want to become more socially responsible are being held back by competitors who can undercut them by continuing to externalise costs and demonstrating no responsibility. There is an emerging ethical investment sector in some regions, but it remains small and many corporations report limited progress in becoming more socially responsible because they are not receiving support from mainstream investors. Substituting regulation with voluntary initiatives, therefore has failed to deliver sufficient progress in practice.

Transnational solutions

Corporations are active across national boundaries, and often their production, sales and ownership are in different legal jurisdictions with inconsistent regulations. Corporations are often listed on stock markets or have a 'home' base in countries remote from where they operate and are 'hosted'. Changes in the legal framework in any one country can have real or perceived impacts on the short-term competitiveness of companies in that country. Some governments, to remain competitive in the international marketplace, have become reluctant to unilaterally introduce rules that corporations might consider unattractive. It is sensible, therefore, to devise a multilateral binding framework that provides a level playing field. A framework convention would allow signatory governments to deliver the agreement in the context of their own legal tradition.

Beyond voluntary initiatives

Recent progress on corporate accountability has been dominated by the development of voluntary initiatives. The UN Global Compact has been established to create a process to support the voluntary socially responsible behaviour of corporations. Many other bodies and industry groups have devised sectoral codes of conduct. So far these have failed to prevent continued abuses of corporate power. (Acknowledgements and thanks to Friends of the Earth).

Greenfly’s not alone finding it tricky to pin down what’s at the heart of the upcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development. Just for starters, what is it to be called? It is also called Rio+10, but should it also be called the Johannesburg Summit? South Africans think so but the Brazilians disagree. Greenfly understands that this is being passionately argued at the highest levels. In the globalised market, perhaps ‘branding’ is the heart of the matter as competition for sustainable imagery hots up. Meanwhile, for Felix Dodds at UNED Forum and some NGOs, it is also known as ‘Earth Summit 2’, a branding which is resisted by some as suggesting a priority for the environment. South Africa’s marketing slogan puts this firmly in perspective: ‘People, Prosperity’ and … Oh, yes, ‘Planet’.

Well that seems to cover just about everything which may explain why its so difficult to get to the guts of the agenda. The range of issues is a bit overwhelming. And the guts, if guts there be, have also been concealed in the confetti of ‘non-papers’, ‘building blocks papers’ and the inordinately long and wordy ‘statements’, ‘declarations’ and ‘contributions’ from all the parallel, ‘open-ended’, ‘multi-stakeholder’ and regional, ‘bottom-up’ processes as the process managers have systematically diverted participants from negotiating real Summit text. As a result, there’s a growing suspicion that the real stuff is being negotiated in smaller rooms away from the main circus.

Even if that’s true, some concede that the South African government delegations have done pretty well by insisting that WSSD must respond concretely to a Southern development policy platform. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) have certainly invested what capacity they can in the effort with at least 6 of its top management ‘re-deployed’ full-time to the Summit while their real posts are filled with acting people who are also doing a lot of Summit-related work anyway.

For all the ambiguities of Southern governmental policy in the context of globalisation, Minister Moosa appears to have gained substantial ground for the argument that WSSD outcomes must “redress structural imbalances in economic power relations between the North and the South”. Indeed, it is whispered that the DEAT Director General, Dr Olver, may have said something about corporate accountability, a key demand of progressive civil society but sternly resisted by Uncle Sam. Moosa suggests that the litmus test for a successful WSSD would include:

· a “Programme of Action” to deliver on the Programme of Action (aka Agenda 21) agreed at Rio as well as the Development Goals set by the Millennium Summit;

· sectoral agreements, partnerships and actions (now known as Type 2 Summit outcomes - anyone can join in - to distinguish them from Type 1 official outcomes) to give expression to the global deal.

Back in the multi-stakeholder dialogues (MSDs) of PrepCom2 it was agreed that these agreements would be about water, energy, food security, health and something called ‘Corporate and Stakeholder Citizenship’. Well, we are all stakeholders now and that’s how we get to be global citizens. But corporations, it seems, have double citizenship and no doubt double the chance of doing a global deal.

Concluding with his litmus paper, Moosa said, “The outcome of Johannesburg therefore is much more than just a series of voluntary partnerships, but a real commitment and guarantee for implementation that overcomes the obstacles of non-delivery since Rio”.

A ‘successful WSSD’ will mean different things to different people and as host country, the spotlight is on South Africa and there is pressure to deliver on everybody’s expectations – are we up to it? It is widely (if quietly) conceded that the many embarrassments around hosting the World Racism Conference in Durban last year were a major wake-up call. Let’s hope so because the criticisms are applied both to the official and non-governmental processes and they didn’t do much good for South Africa’s reputation.

To handle the awesome logistics for the Summit, South Africa has established the Johannesburg World Summit Company (Jowsco). Like the difficulties in the civil society process, we hope it’s true that ‘progress is being made’ – but well-placed sources are not entirely re-assured. If Jowsco’s web-site is any indicator of the state of readiness then we have good reason to be worried – half the links on the site guide global visitors to the following message: “This section of our website will soon be completed.”

Greenfly can also report that members of the Environmental Affairs And Tourism and the Foreign Affairs Portfolio Committees were ‘disappointed and dismayed’ when they held a special joint meeting recently to hear from the companies involved in organising the Summit and none of the companies pitched up! The summary of the minutes is all of two sentences long: “None of the representatives from the companies responsible for organising the World Summit in Johannesburg later this year made an appearance at the meeting.

The joint Committee expressed their disapproval and disappointment”. Mr D J Sithole (ANC), speaking on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said that the non-appearance of the speakers was ‘distasteful and disrespectful’, especially as the speakers were obligated to inform parliament.

back to top

A “strikingly high” prevalence of asthma was one of the interim findings of a health study conducted at the Settlers Primary School in South Durban. The interim findings reveal that only 44% of students and teachers at the school did not have any asthma related symptoms. This health study was a joint collaboration of the University of Natal Medical School, the University of Michigan and the Technikon Natal, and was partly funded by groundWork. The interim findings were released on the 28^th February. The final report will be completed in the next six months.

The health study was conducted for an 18-day period from 19 April – 6 May 2001, among 273 participants (248 students and 25 teachers) at the school. The school is located in the South Durban industrial basin, home to over 150 scheduled industries, including two petroleum refineries, a paper mill and a wastewater treatment plant. The study sought to establish a relationship between fluctuations in air pollutions and fluctuations in respiratory symptoms and lung function.

The limitations inherent to the study design and to the interim report were recognized and included:

For more information on this study contact Joy Kistnasamy at the Technikon Natal on JoyK@ntech.co.za.

Young, ambitious and an achiever, Nicholas Kasa, is currently the chairperson of the Sasolburg Environmental Committee, the first local, independent civil society organization to take on big industry in the area.

Nicholas, one of 10 siblings, was born in Hohobeng in the Transkei in 1975. In December 1989 he, his mother and his siblings moved up to Sasolburg to join his father who was then working in Sasolburg. Since then Nicholas has lived with his family in Zamdela township on the fringes of Sasolburg.

An avid community campaigner, Nicholas is the Chairperson of the Harry Gwala (Zamdela) branch of the ANC and is also actively involved in the ANC Youth league, local government and an educational forum.

The area is “not good environmentally”, he says. When the wind blows in Zamdela from the direction of the Sasolburg industrial cluster there are bad smells.

Some years back Sasol, the largest employer in the area, set up an environmental committee, which still exists. However, Nicholas feels that this committee has had limited impact if any. This he ascribes to the fact that the committee did not deal with the main source of pollution – industrial pollution – but instead encouraged them to get involved in litter and school clean up campaigns.

Nicholas says he is against pollution, not against Sasol. He says that all people in Sasolburg/Zamdela, including Sasol and the local government structures, need to get involved in fighting the common enemy of pollution. Together, he believes, they can minimize pollution and improve their environment.

– that the local industries will stop confusing them with technical information, admit that they are polluting, and do everything that they can to minimize the pollution

– that the local government officials would become more aware of and involved in environmental and pollution-related issues, and lastly

– that local residents will volunteer to work on environmental issues to make Zamdela a better place to live.

New SO₂ emission guidelines were quietly gazetted in December 2001. These non-enforceable, toothless guidelines are not the legally binding standards which DEAT promised to have in place by March 2002.

People living within 5km of a landfill site have a 40% higher chance of having a child with chromosomal birth defect than do people living further away. This is according to a study conducted by Dr Martine Vrijheid of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Dr Vrijheid and her colleagues studied over 2 500 births of children living near 23 landfill sites in five European countries. This study follows a 1998 study, which showed that mothers who lived near a hazardous waste landfill site had a 33% increased risk of giving birth to a child with birth defects, such as spina bifida and birth defects. (Reuters)

The EIA for a wind farm to generate electricity from wind near Darling in the Western Cape has been completed. The project is being jointly funded by the Danish government (DANCED), the SA government and the private sector.

Despite widespread opposition, the government appears to be determined to push through with the implementation of Environmental Management Co-operation Agreements (EMCAs). During February the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism circulated for comment a draft outline of Guidelines for the implementation of EMCAs.

In February a US-company Kwikpower and Cape-based Solid Waste Technologies announced plans to construct several “waste-to-energy” plants around the country at a cost of $ 100 million. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has still to be conducted. This project involves burning garbage, sewerage and/or old tyres to generate electricity or fuel. The resultant ash would be used to make bricks. This announcement comes at a time when South African civil society is more organised, informed and vocal than ever before on the undesirability and hazards of incineration. The proponents of this project are hereby warned that they can expect unprecedented opposition from local, national and international quarters and we will see them in court if it comes to that.

The Kodak plant in New York is the city’s biggest manufacturing polluter and is also one of the largest polluters of cancer-causing chemicals in the USA. This is according to the US government’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A study by a local citizen’s group found 33 children living within a 5-mile radius of Kodak Park had childhood brain and spinal cord cancer. They are now calling on the US government to conduct a review of all childhood brain cancer cases in the neighbourhood and to try and establish a causal link with the pollution from Kodak Park. For more information see www.kodakstoxiccolours.org. (Citizen’s Environmental Coalition)

The proponents of a new hazardous waste incinerator proposed for the already over-polluted Sasolburg community are attempting to forge ahead with the construction of the incinerator, despite fierce opposition from local, national and international groups (see groundWork’s June 2001 newsletter or our website). Accordingly, Sasolburg residents are planning to stage a protest march on Human Rights Day – 21^st March 2002 – to draw attention to their opposition to this incinerator proposal.

5^th – 8^th April 2002 - Medical waste and incineration workshop, incorporating the first Southern Africa regional meeting of the Global Alliance for Incineration Alternatives, Durban. For more information contact Llewellyn Leonard at llewellyn@groundwork.org.za

June 2002 - National Air Quality workshop. Contact Ardiel Soeker for more information: ardiel @groundwork.org.za

19^th – 25^th August – Pre-WSSD events in Johannesburg. Watch this space for specific dates of workshops and seminars to be hosted by groundWork during this week.

26^th August – 4^th September 2002 - Please note the new date for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), Johannesburg

Environmental Justice in South Africa, edited by David A. McDonald, 2002, published by UCT press, paperback, 341 pages, R120.00

The thirteen contributors to this book, include, amongst others: Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane, David Fig, Jacklyn Cock, Jan Glazewski, Bobby Peek, Thabo Madihlaba, Peter Lukey and Patrick Bond. The contributors are a cross-section of activists, academics, journalists and community organizers.

This book was released at a book launch in South Durban in March is being sold for R120.00. Copies of this book can be obtained from most leading book stores.

Royalties from the sale of this book will go to the Environment and Development Agency (EDA) and the Environmental Justice Networking Forum (EJNF).

The following printed groundWork publications are available on the groundWork website (www.groundwork.org.za) or from the groundWork office free of charge:

Corporate accountability finally made it onto the negotiating table towards the end of the Second preparatory meeting (Prepcom II) for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) that was held in New York at the end of January. It is surprising to note that a few government delegations present at the PrepCom II actually support the focus on corporate accountability. This success was achieved through the campaigning of a variety of international organisations such as Friends of the Earth, CorpWatch, Corporate Europe Observatory, Third World Network and many other NGO’s. This is most welcoming, noting the continual environmental impacts that are forced upon communities living next to industry in South Africa on a daily level.

The focus on Corporate Accountability is something that local South African communities have been calling for, for some time now. For many years communities in South Africa have been challenging companies that are polluting neighbourhoods. The WSSD offers us a perfect opportunity to question these polluting industries, in the framework of the WSSD and in the public arena.

groundWork’s theme for the WSSD is Corporate Accountability. We will be seeking to involve our community partners in the WSSD process in several ways. We hope that through this process, we can ensure that the world can see the face of our suffering as a result of corporate abuse. We seek to do this via the following means:

Thus it can be seen that for groundWork, WSSD is part of a larger process that seeks to develop the space for civil society to challenge and contest weak environmental governance, not only at WSSD but beyond.

GROUNDWORK's QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER
Volume 4, No 1
MARCH 2002

Lead article

Community Air Monitoring

Medical waste and incineration Project

Edendale Hospital improves in leaps and bounds
by Llewellyn Leonard

Incineration Vs Alternative Technology
by Llewellyn Leonard

New autoclave facility

Logmed Technology

Mounting pressure for a global law for multi-national corporations
By Chris Albertyn

Key corporate accountability concerns tabled at the UN

GROUNDWORK's QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER Volume 4, No 1 MARCH 2002

Lead article

Community Air Monitoring

Medical waste and incineration Project

Edendale Hospital improves in leaps and bounds by Llewellyn Leonard

Incineration Vs Alternative Technology by Llewellyn Leonard

New autoclave facility

Logmed Technology

Mounting pressure for a global law for multi-national corporations By Chris Albertyn

Key corporate accountability concerns tabled at the UN

GROUNDWORK's QUARTERLY NEWSLETTER
Volume 4, No 1
MARCH 2002

Edendale Hospital improves in leaps and bounds
by Llewellyn Leonard

Incineration Vs Alternative Technology
by Llewellyn Leonard

Mounting pressure for a global law for multi-national corporations
By Chris Albertyn