GROUNDWORK's QUARTERLY
NEWSLETTER
Volume 7, No 4
Dec 2005
IN THIS ISSUE:
From the Smokestack
Lead Story - When Big Oil came to
town “for the benefit of mankind”!
Corporate Accountability –
Remember Ken Saro-Wiwa and Friends
Air Quality - Linking Communities
Air Quality - Finally, date set for
meeting with Shell CEO
Waste - Different solutions
groundWork USA: Conflict and
Development
Air Quality – Controversy surrounds
use of fuel additive
Community News – Growing
unity in the Vaal
Community News - Eskom’s
Poorly Built and Mistaken Reactors
In Brief
In the pipeline
Publications
From the Smokestack
by groundWork Director, Bobby Peek
Firstly, there are two recent victories to report: The Rossport
Five, who are five farmers from County Mayo, Ireland, who
were jailed for preventing a Shell a gas pipeline from passing
through their farms, have been released after three months
in a Dublin jail. Secondly, Friends of the Earth Nigeria has
been successful in gaining a court order to stop Shell from
flaring in the Niger Delta. The judge found that flaring violates
communities’ fundamental rights to health and environment
and ordered Shell to cease such practice immediately. Well
done to both the Rossport community and FoE Nigeria for taking
on big business and succeeding!
On a sad note, groundWork bids farewell to staff member Llewellyn
Leonard who has been with us since January 2001. Llewellyn
walked into groundWork straight out of University, and during
the first few weeks said very little! Since then we have not
been able to keep him quiet – only kidding! Whilst it
is sad that Llewellyn is leaving, and this will be a loss
to groundWork and the environmental justice movement –
this is not a loss forever. Llewellyn has been awarded a full
scholarship to read for his PhD at Kings College in London,
and he has chosen the field of environmental justice and waste
for his investigation. Through this process we will link up
with him via the African Stockpile Project as well as health
care waste issues in Africa. Go well, Llewellyn, and we hope
that we see you back in groundWork.
One thing that Llewellyn has always been good at is remaining
calm, and the next issue I speak about, required me to muster
all my energy to remain calm.
Recently, I spent six days in Amsterdam by invitation to
speak at sister Dutch NGO Milieudefensie’s spoof awards
for industry, called the Schone Schijn Awards 2005 –
which is similar to the “Corpse Awards” held in
SA in June this year. At these awards Dutch bank, ABN Amro’s
Vice President, Herman Mulder, actually arrived to receive
his award! But arrogant he was. In a meeting between Meena
Raman, Chair of Friends of the Earth International, and myself,
he demanded that we should engage with ABM Amro around an
agenda such as the Equator Principles (which follow an industry
approach for determining, assessing and managing environmental
and social risks - a way to protect profits without having
to make too many changes to practice). Dialoguing around a
table on an agenda that does not challenge the power of corporations
and banks, but rather entrenches that power, we most certainly
do not want to do! Out of respect for Milieudefensie - who
was my host – I had to bite my tongue! Yes we will engage
with industry, but only in circumstances that allow for the
challenging of the power of corporations.
Whilst in Amsterdam I mentioned to some long-time supporters
of Milieudefensie the importance of the support of the Dutch
public for the environmental justice movement in both the
North and South for, like apartheid, although the enemy seems
insurmountable environmental injustices can be defeated by
a united front. After speaking briefly about Shell and the
problems in south Durban, one of the long time supporters
stated that, perhaps, just as South African Outspan oranges
were boycotted in the past, Shell petrol should be boycotted
now. This is indeed a debate to be had considering that the
Dutch Queen is a significant Shell shareholder and the Dutch
think of Shell as a national asset.
Finally, I want to briefly reflect on the proposed merger
between Sasol and Engen. When groundWork was asked to comment
on this close on a year ago, we indicated that this process
needed to be investigated by the Competition Commission. It
did finally go to the Commission and what a soap opera it
tuned out to be! Amongst the many issues to emerge, including
the artificially high price of fuel in the country, the most
comical was the fact that BP assisted the Department of Mineral
and Energy Affairs (DME) in developing its submission against
the merger. Sasol cried foul. The staff member in the DME
responsible for this was suspended. What an uproar for something
that has been common practice in the drawing up of various
pieces of legislation, especially environmental legislation,
in the past. When civil society made a noise about this practice,
nothing was done. But now that it is industry crying foul,
action is taken. Strange? Well maybe not!
Have a good festive season and peaceful New Year, Bobby
back to top
Lead Story
When Big Oil came to town”for the benefit
of mankind”!
By Bobby Peek
The “big oil show” came to town (in this case,
Johannesburg) in the last week of September for the 18th World
Petroleum Congress (WPC). This was a gathering of profiteering,
global warming pundits who wanted us to believe that their
mantra was “for the benefit of all of mankind”.
groundWork’s experience of the oil industry - which
we have attained first hand as well as through working with
several communities – is one of unnecessary pollution,
ill health in fence line communities, fatalities and environmental
obliteration. In preparing for the conference, groundWork
wanted to give the oil industry the benefit of the doubt,
so we commissioned a report to give us a more thorough and
analytical understanding of the workings of the oil industry.
This report, “The
groundWork Report 2005: Whose Energy Future?”1
, was released on the eve of the WPC at a civil society pre-congress
hosted by groundWork. This gathering of African civil society
representatives from Angola, Nigeria, Ghana, Mozambique, Cameroon,
South Africa as well as the USA, was held in Sandton on 24
September to tell the world the truth about the oil industry.
Whose Energy Future? Big Oil Against People in Africa
The groundWork
Report 2005 was the “preparatory document”
(to use United Nations jargon) for civil society people globally
who were interested in the challenges posed by the oil industry
in Africa. The report was well received by civil society and
was launched at the groundWork pre-congress gathering.
The report unpacks the role of big oil in Africa, looking
at how communities suffer human rights abuses and environmental
injustices as a result of the power nexus between oil and
government.
Much has been written on the environmental and social ills
of oil in Africa. A brief literature search will show plenty
of material. What makes this research different is that it
brings together for the first time the upstream and downstream
impacts of the oil industry - where the oil is drilled and
where it is refined. And, importantly, it looks at how people
are resisting the political domination that accompanies oil
and at the alternatives to corporate rule that are germinating
in civil society.
In South Africa, this is also the 50th anniversary of the
Freedom Charter, which states that “the people shall
govern”, not “the corporates shall govern”.
Yet, as the 18th World Petroleum Conference demonstrated,
the corporates want partnerships where they have the power:
the power to plunder resources, reap profits, manipulate governments
and undermine democracy.
The report findings were distributed globally and, by the
time of the WPC conference, more than 250 people and/or organisations
globally had endorsed the report’s findings that the
oil elite's power:
“is neither stable nor inevitable and that it is always
and everywhere contested and renegotiated. The real possibility
that alternative energy sources, technologies and applications
might be taken up by the masses of the poor in a project that
they define and drive, lies in connecting the promise of renewable
energy sources and technologies with social movements struggling
for deep transformation of the way the world works. And even
if these social and environmental justice movements do not
succeed against the enormous power of the current regimes,
and the descent into a post-fossil-fuel (and post-US empire)
era of uncertainty and collapse continues, then the spaces
of self-reliance and local democracy created through such
struggles will emerge as the only viable basis for rebuilding
a new world”.2
The Anti-oil gathering
Some of the local struggles which were brought to life during
the groundWork pre-Congress gathering included the following:
West Africa: Representatives from West Africa - Nnimmo Bassey
of Nigeria, Nobel Wadzah of Ghana and Pastor Barry Wuganaale
of the Ogoni Solidarity Forum - kicked off the gathering sharing
insights into the struggles around the West African Gas Pipeline
(WAGP) project, and the environmental genocide in the Niger
Delta. Ghanaian activists are aware of the environmental injustices
suffered in Nigeria and are opposed to the WAGP project, which
would secure Ghanaian energy supplies at the expense of brothers
and sisters in the Niger Delta. All panellists were convinced
that the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni Peoples has
succeeded in challenging the oil industry and government in
Nigeria in a process to define the Ogoni’s people own
development agenda. It was agreed that this progress should
be maintained and defended at all costs.
Iraq: Salim Vally, of the Palestinian Solidarity Committee,
described how the war in Iraq is linked to big oil and the
imperialist agenda of the USA. The USA has, through its global
hegemony and need for oil, pressurised governments globally
to erode the civil rights of community organisations. Vally,
welcomed the research done by groundWork and requested that
groundWork works at making the outcomes of the research more
applicable for a community setting where this research could
be used to develop a response to the neo-liberal agenda that
is being pushed globally.
Burma: The link between the Burmese military and oil corporations
was portrayed in the manner in which oil company Total has
supported the illegitimate military regime in Burma. This
has led to the imprisonment, torture, rape, slavery and murder
of thousands of Burmese.
Southern Africa: The threats posed by the fossil fuel industry
in Angola and Mozambique were conveyed by activists from these
countries.
South African based environmental lawyer, Richard Spoor,
shared his experience of challenging major corporations on
workmen compensation issues and community related environmental
injustices caused by major corporations.
Patrick Bond, from the Centre of Civil Society at the KwaZulu-Natal
University campus, gave an intensive session on how oil companies
skirt their greenhouse gas responsibilities through trading
in, but not actually reducing, their pollution.
The message was clear from all the speakers that the energy
future that the oil industry has put on the table is neither
viable nor favoured. It is a future of war, militarisation,
the erosion of human rights, global warming and the handing
over of political power and governance to the corporations
of the world.
What the “oil men” had to say
Ms Imogen Mkhize, CEO of the WPC, made two revealing statements
prior to the event. Firstly she stated that:
“Although the South African energy sector has its own
challenges, supplying the world with its future energy needs
is the ultimate goal” (Business Day, September 23, 2005).
By putting the energy needs of the rest of the world before
South Africa’s needs, the oil companies working in South
Africa could potentially be robbing South Africans of our
own resources in the same way that colonising countries in
the past robbed Africa of gold, copper and people (slaves).
Secondly, when she was asked if there was enough civil society
participation at the gathering (there was virtually none),
she responded by saying that decisions would be taken at the
Congress and these decisions would be fed back to civil society
at a later stage.3 Plainly put,
what she was saying was that the WPC, publicly claiming to
be representing the interests of mankind, would, on their
own, without civil society input, take decisions about how
they would exploit our natural resources and would then let
us know what they had decided afterwards. They wanted us to
believe that they had a global mandate to make these kinds
of decisions, but clearly they had no such mandate nor were
they primarily concerned with our needs. As a gathering of
powerful oil companies, their primary objective could only
have been to make decisions that would safeguard the profits
of a powerful few.
These statements, together with evidence that these oil industries
are implicated in human and environmental rights abuses in
the process of extracting Africa’s oil wealth, indicate
that a re-colonisation of Africa is taking place with the
oil industry in the driving seat on this occasion. Most importantly,
this is being allowed by African leaders, without a democratic
and meaningful dialogue with the population of Africans to
understand if this is what they want.
We addressed letters to the leadership of the WPC and to
the South African government, but no answers or responses
to our concerns were forthcoming. The media carried our concerns
daily to the South African public via lead stories in newspapers,
letters, as well as television, and still no response. By
Thursday 30 September the “circus quietly slipped out
of town”.
Our Anti-oil gathering together with The groundWork Report
2005, held out a challenge to governments and corporations
to start recognising and working on an approach that would
secure another energy future for the globe, one that is built
on justice, equity and democracy - a challenge which the 18th
World Petroleum Congress refused to answer.
Footnotes:
1. This Report was reviewed in the September
2005 newsletter. It is available in hard copy or electronic
format from the groundWork office.
2. The groundWork Report 2005: Whose energy
future? Big oil against people in Africa.
3. SABC FM, September 23, 2005
Corporate Accountability
Remember Ken Saro-Wiwa and Friends
By Bobby Peek
Thursday, 10 November, marked the 10th Anniversary of the
murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight colleagues: Baribor
Bera, Saturday Dobee, Nordu Eawo, Daniel Gbokoo, Barinem Kiobel,
John Kpuinen, Paul Levura and Felix Nuate. They were all executed
by the State of Nigeria for campaigning against the devastation
of the Niger Delta by oil companies, especially Shell, in
collaboration with the government. These nine martyred men
represented the “Movement for Survival of the Ogoni
Peoples”.
Ken Saro-Wiwa was an academic, civil servant, businessman,
author and, most importantly, at his death, a community activist.
In 1990, Saro-Wiwa started to dedicate himself to the amelioration
of the problems of the oil producing regions of the Niger
Delta. Focusing on his homeland, Ogoni, he launched a non-violent
movement for social and ecological justice – the Movement
for Survival of the Ogoni Peoples (MOSOP). In this role he
challenged the oil companies and the Nigerian government accusing
them of waging an ecological war against the Ogoni and precipitating
the genocide of the Ogoni people. He was so effective that,
by 1993, the oil companies had to pull out of Ogoni land.
This cost him his life. Ken and his comrades were sentenced
to death by the Nigerian military regime and were executed
in 1995.
The world marked this 10th anniversary of the killings with
a global day of remembrance. In South Africa this day was
commemorated by the holding of vigils outside various petrol
stations in Johannesburg, the Vaal Triangle, Secunda, Durban
and Pietermaritzburg, as well as outside the Shell Head Quarters
in Cape Town.1 We hoped that through
these vigils people in the street would start to start ask
questions about who Ken Saro-Wiwa was and why he was killed.
The Ogoni Solidarity Forum and Earthlife Africa Cape Town
protested outside the Shell Head Office in Cape Town. Shell
people were clearly embarrassed by the peaceful vigil at the
opening hours of the office and some rushed in hurriedly to
not confront those holding vigil. In Pietermaritzburg, things
turned nasty when the owner of a local Shell fuel station
harassed those holding the vigil and pulled away their posters.
Police were called in to monitor the situation. In Durban,
the protest went off peacefully and people who received pamphlets
with the story of Ken Saro-Wiwa’s death, were welcoming
of the information.
Other events were organised on this day in the UK, Nigeria
and the Netherlands.
London’s South Bank was the centre of activity in the
UK where a memorial service was held and attended by Ken Wiwa,
son of Ken Saro-Wiwa. Various organisations, including Friends
of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland, are working
towards developing a living memorial for Ken Saro-Wiwa. Sculptor
Sokari Douglas Camp and Artist Siraj Izhar were chosen to
develop two living memorials from various submissions made
by a number of artists. Camp will make a stainless steel sculpture
of a Nigerian bus, decorated with texts from Ken Saro-Wiwa’s
writings and Izhar will suspend helium-filled representations
of a c60 carbon molecules above various locations in London,
paralleled by a Living Memorial website.
In Nigeria, Environmental Rights Action (Friends of the Earth,
Nigeria) released a publication documenting the lack of improvement
in the environmental conditions in the Niger Delta and the
role of oil companies - especially Shell - in the destruction
of peoples’ environments.2
The report details Shell’s environmental and social
impacts in the Niger Delta and shows that the Niger Delta
environment “has not fared any better since those dark
days but rather that the forces of oppression have become
entrenched and, in some cases, have become far more brutal
than could have been imagined a decade ago”.
The damage in the Delta continues after the death of Ken
Saro-Wiwa. There has been continual repression of people in
the Delta region, which has resulted in deaths, rape, torture
and inhumane treatment, as well as continual ecological devastation
and the destruction of peoples’ livelihoods. As a result
of state repression, many Ogoni’s have fled to Benin
where they are refugees. Shell managers have recognised that
there is corruption in Nigeria and that their oil operations
in Nigeria are causing widespread environmental damage.
It has not only been the Ogoni people resisting Shell and
big oil - there are other peoples in Nigeria such as the Ijaw
that have also resisted the exploitation of their environments.
Various prominent bodies such as the UN High Commission for
Refugees, the US State Department, United Nations Environment
Programme, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have
raised concern about human rights abuses in Nigeria. The Nigerian
State has refused to release the body of Ken Saro-Wiwa for
appropriate burial.
These abuses all resonate with the struggles in south Durban
where Shell supported the apartheid state during sanctions,
whilst this illegitimate state disposed millions of people
of their birthright to their land, and tortured and killed
its citizens. South Durban residents and organisations have
for many years challenged Shell on its pollution. Shell has
admitted to under-reporting its pollution and of using different
standards in its operations in south Durban as in the UK.
Shell’s leaking fuel pipelines have leaked more than
1 million litres of fuel into the community neighbourhood
under peoples homes. Shell has regular incidents and accidents
that have resulted in heavy pollution falling onto the community.
Together it is hoped that we can work anually on 10th November,
the Global Day of Action for Environmental Justice, in order
that the deaths of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his friends are not forgotten
and that people globally start uniting for environmental justice
and a new global development paradigm based on equity.
1. The vigils were supported by groundWork
worked with the Ogoni Solidarity Forum, Earthlife Africa Cape
Town, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance, the
Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance, Voice of the Voiceless,
Jubilee South Africa, Greater Edendale Environmental Network,
EJNF Energy Task Team and various other organisations and
individuals.
2. The Shell Report: Continuing Abuses-10
Years After Ken Saro-Wiwa”, by Environmental Rights
Action (ERA)/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria, is reviewed on
page 20 of this newsletter.
back to top
Air Quality
Linking Communities – The groundWork National Exchange
to Rustenburg
By Siziwe Khanyile
Environmental community activists from South Africa, Zambia
and Angola gathered in the platinum mining town of Rustenburg
in November to learn and share experiences on how to challenge
injustices by transnational corporations.
Rustenburg is located in the North West Province, near the
Magaliesberg Mountains, within the Bafokeng kingdom and boasts
the world's second-largest platinum deposits. The Royal Bafokeng
people receive royalties from the mining houses, some of which
they utilise to create scholarship programmes and to build
schools, roads, clinics and other infrastructure.
Corporate social responsibility
Our group visited the Impala Platinum Mine where we were
taken on a surface tour of the mining grounds and given a
lecture on their mineral processes as well as their corporate
social responsibility (CSR) programme, which includes educational
projects (particularly to develop mathematical and science
skills) and the building of healthcare facilities. The company
claims to be committed to projects that uplift communities
in those areas where the mining operations are located.
This is all well and good. However, from the various experiences
of the group, many of whom live on the fence line of industrial
operations, as well as from the opinions and experiences of
Rustenburg residents, the negative environmental impacts imposed
by industrial operations outweigh the seeming good that corporations
are doing. People’s health is negatively affected and,
in the group’s experience, companies do not compensate
for these pollution-related illnesses. In Rustenburg, where
mining takes place under people’s homes, structural
damage to housing is perceived to be directly linked to mining.
Companies have a duty to make profits, but this is very often
at the expense of people who live near these operations.
Most of those in the group felt that South African industries’
CSR programmes do not even begin to address the negative impacts
of their polluting operations on communities, but instead
they compensate or “ease their consciences” with
donations or sponsorships which do not deal with the root
causes of the problems and concerns experienced by affected
communities.
Engaging industry
On one of the days, we had a presentation from the North
West Chief Air Pollution Control Officer (CAPCO), Witold Bryszewski,
who, in accordance with the Atmospheric Pollution Prevention
Act, 1965, issues registration certificates in respect of
listed activities. The North West CAPCO is widely recognised
for effectively managing scheduled trade industries in the
province. He takes ownership of setting pollution limits,
and says that in his position as CAPCO, scheduled processes
have reduced pollution by 10-20%. He believes that scheduled
processes need to be managed, rather than policed.
We also held discussions with Chris de Bruin, a metallurgical
engineer and director of the North West Eco Forum. His strategy
for engaging industry on pollution reduction is to offer technical
advice and work towards developing a “trust” relationship
with plant and mine managers to bring about solutions.
Both Witold and Chris have successfully engaged with industry
in the North West Province and pollution levels in Rustenburg
have been significantly reduced. For example, the mining houses
in the area emitted 450 tonnes of sulphur dioxide a day in
2003, but they have now reduced this to 50-60 tonnes per day.
The role of the municipality
One of the most important requirements of the new Air Quality
Act is the development of Air Quality Management Plans at
national, provincial and local government levels, which plans,
inter alia, must seek to: improve air quality within the domain
of the relevant sphere of government; identify and reduce
the negative impacts of poor air quality on human health and
the environment; address the effects of emissions from the
use of fossil fuels in residential applications; and address
the effects of emissions from industrial sources.
The Rustenburg municipality has developed an Air Quality
Management Plan (AQMP) which forms part of the municipality’s
Integrated Development Programme (IDP). The AQMP includes
the collection of information, the classification of emission
sources, a dispersion-modelling case study and recommended
emission reduction strategies. They have also identified a
need to develop skills for effective implementation and consequently
the training of designated staff has already begun.
In order to reduce air pollution the municipality has put
forward strategies for each source of pollution. These include
scheduled processes, domestic fuel burning, mine tailings,
transportation, smaller industrial sources, landfills, agriculture
etc. An ambient air quality monitoring network will also be
developed and implemented within the municipality, and during
each process, involve all stakeholders.
Impressions from the communities
In discussions with some members of the communities represented
at the workshop, it was apparent that their capacity to lobby
both government and industries is greatly compromised for
a variety of reasons including their limited access to information
and/or expertise. They also expressed concern that much of
what the mines are doing in relation to corporate social responsibility
does not really extend to all areas, and mainly benefits employees
of the mines. They feel that they have been ignored when decisions
are taken which directly impact upon them and their health,
including decision-making by the CAPCO of the North West whom
they feel needs to have a process of community engagement.
Ultimately, it is a fact that, regardless of where you live
on the African continent, or what form of industrial activity
is taking place next to you (or underneath you), the behaviour
of corporations is the same. Civil society groups therefore
needs to strengthen their ties, learn from one another and
together work towards improving the situation in the neighbourhoods
of industrial and mining activity.
back to top
Air Quality
Finally, Shell CEO meets with fence line communities
By Siziwe Khanyile
The Chief Executive of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Jeroen
van der Veer, as well as other high-level senior managers,
recently met with a delegation of representatives from communities
neighbouring some of Shell’s global operations. The
meeting took place on 8 December 2005 in Amsterdam after communities
pressed Van der Veer for such a meeting. Representing the
south Durban community, as well as groundWork, at this meeting
will be Desmond D’Sa, Chairperson of the South Durban
Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA). The community delegation
also included representatives from Nigeria, Curacao, Texas
and Brazil.
Up until now the attitude of the senior Shell management
has been that “the only way to understand and resolve
local issues is through constructive dialogue between local
communities and local Shell management”. However, it
has been the experience of local communities that dialogue
with local Shell managers has been unproductive and insufficient
to solve the problems. It was also found that many of Shell’s
neighbours around the world were experiencing similar problems.
Thus, several of the communities neighbouring some of Shell’s
worst operations around the world joined together to form
the Shell International Corporate Accountability Campaign.
This international campaign is dedicated to the protection
of the environment and of communities who live near Shell’s
production facilities. At Shell’s AGM in June this year,
the international campaign pressed Van der Veer to personally
meet with the fence-line communities and hear first hand what
are their grievances and demands.
At the meeting with Van der Veer the community demanded the
following of Shell:
- Top management designees (not reputation managers and
community relations staff) must open a direct line of communication
and sustained ongoing engagement with the fence line delegation
in order to make progress on these issues (Shell agreed);
- Shell should install real time, fence line air monitors
at all its operations because they are reliable, community-friendly
and inexpensive (Shell agreed to consider this);
- Shell must agree to objective criteria for engaging the
right stakeholders in fence line issues (Shell refused);
- Shell must commit to a time-bound schedule with fence
line groups in each location to bring ageing facilities
up to the standards of their best facilities such as Frederischa,
Denmark (Shell refused);
- Shell must establish a joint process to determine responsibility
for contamination from operations (Shell refused); and
- Shell must erase double standards in their operations
in developed nations versus developing nations (disagreement
upon the facts).
It was agreed that, prior to Shell’s April 2006 AGM,
the communities will report both to Shell and the public on
what progress has been made with these issues. It is unfortunate
that history has taught us to be very sceptical about such
meetings. However, we hope that whatever motivated Mr. Van
der Veer to agree to meet with the communities will also motivate
him to take their demands seriously and to act accordingly.
back to top
Waste
Different solutions:
The Bisasar landfill, transfer stations and the “Left”
in the slums
By Llewellyn Leonard
“We are recycling not only to protect the environment,
but for economic reasons as well. Disposal is simply too costly
and too dangerous. The challenge is to redirect the flow of
raw materials going to landfill into strengthening our declining
local economies. The solution to pollution is self-reliant
cities and counties.” Neil Seldman, Institute for Local
Self-Reliance
The practise of recovering waste has grown out of decades
of community-driven recycling efforts. These have been motivated
by a desire to bring about environmentally and economically
sound and sustainable options for disposing of waste, rather
than relying on polluting incinerators and landfills. Zero
Waste is a guiding principle that says that waste is not natural
and that the creation of waste can be prevented by proper
design, policy and advocacy efforts. Landfill sites have limited
lives and therefore there are many municipalities planning
new dumpsites, incinerators, transfer stations or carbon trading
schemes, all at great cost. But none of these will achieve
the 2001 Polokwane declaration waste reduction goal of “Zero
Waste” by 2022.
Valuable products and/or materials that are disposed at landfills
are lost when they could instead be recovered and put back
into the human economy. The Bisasar Road landfill in Durban,
like many landfills, is situated in a black neighbourhood
and has a history of poor operation, which includes toxic
leachate leaks, bad smells, emissions containing toxic particulates,
gas explosions and fires. It is operated in a haphazard manner
with self-employed “recyclers”, waste and machinery
co-mingled in confusion with no clear guidelines. The operation
of dangerous equipment such as compactors is risky for recyclers
and at least one recycler from the neighbouring informal settlement
has been crushed by a compactor in the past. These are unacceptable
practices and the community and self-employed “recyclers”
have been at risk for far too long at the expense of profits
by industry.
eThekwini Municipality: Waste Transfer Station
TheThekwini Municipality is proposing to set up a Waste
Transfer Station (WTS) at Electron Road, 1km from the Bisasar
landfill site. The waste transfer station would be a collection
point for waste and would simply entail compaction and containerisation
of waste prior to bulk transport to the proposed new Buffelsdraai
landfill site, North of Durban. The proposed WTS facility
does not include recyclers or the recovery of re-useable materials
in its design.
Whilst on the one hand there are some neighbouring residents
who want the site closed as soon as possible because of problems
with toxic emissions and odours, the neighbouring Kennedy
shack dwellers are opposed to the landfill closing down since
they eek out an existence from it. The city has taken this
opportunity to strategically divide the community and have
argued that the landfill does create a livelihood for the
shack dwellers and therefore should possibly not be closed.
While it is true that the landfill does create some employment,
the few jobs created are neither long term nor safe.
The question remains: what will happen to the Kennedy residents
and other informal dwellers if the landfill had to close?
One solution is for the city to employ some of the Kennedy
shack dwellers at a formal waste recovery facility, thus providing
them with stable incomes and other employment benefits. However,
it would appear that the city would like to keep the Kennedy
residents off the city's pay roll and outsource this process
or privatise it.
The solution: Resource Recovery Facility
One sustainable alternative, which has not been explored
by the city, would be the creation of a Resource Recovery
Facility (RRF). groundWork has been working with the neighbouring
informal shack dwellers (Kennedy residents) to motivate for
a formal RRF. Resource recovery seeks to redesign the way
resources and materials flow through society, taking a “whole
system” approach. It is both an “end of pipe”
solution that maximises recycling and waste minimisation and
a design principle that ensures that products are made to
be reused, repaired or recycled back into the marketplace
or nature. An RRF owned by the community would create opportunities
for increased civic participation and sustainable employment.
Benefits of an RRF for the community:
- Communities would become part of regional solution to
waste management, which includes well established programs
for reduction, recycling, reuse and even composting and
building material recycling.
- Resource conservation – There is a growing understanding
of the need to conserve natural resources and to protect
land, water and air from the impacts of waste.
- Destruction of natural resources – Landfills destroy
vast quantities of valuable reusable resources and as such
are not sustainable. With an RRF communities would be able
to recover and utilise the full value of natural resources
and full utility of products and materials that would otherwise
be lost in a landfill.
- Community safety – Landfills are not safe for recyclers,
as mentioned above. The community, therefore, has the greatest
vested interest in safety and the incentive to push the
city to create a safer resource management system operated
in a structured manner.
- Job creation – An RRF offers job creation for community
members through waste recovery and collection. Waste recovery
in turn helps to reduce waste disposal costs, environmental
impacts and possibly the costs of importing new materials.
- Recycling market – An RRF would possibly create
markets for buyers and sellers and increase revenue for
the community.
· Cleaner production – The principles of cleaner
production could be extended into society as a whole.
Conclusion
Many communities around the world, such as in the US, New
Zealand, the Philippines and the UK, have pushed for RRFs
in place of traditional waste transfer stations to the benefit
of the community. A RRF was set up for the residents in Berkeley
California a few years ago and currently employs about 40
people who variously collect, sort, bale and prepare the recovered
material for various mills or export. The RRF also purchases
material from the community, which is an additional economic
benefit.
Finally, it must be the responsibility of the city to design
and construct an RRF together with full community participation
and input into the process. If communities are included in
decision-making processes and their contributions are not
undermined, government can ensure that some of its promises
– such as those around job creation - will be realised
and this will instil confidence in community perceptions around
government delivery. It is hoped that profits are not put
before people and that the city finds solutions to waste management
that are of community benefit - or else we will be seeing
many more marches against an incompetent government.
back to top
Groundwork
USA
Conflict and Development
by Toussaint Losier
Below is an excerpt from an interview with Dimeari Von Kemedi,
a grassroots activist in the Ijaw communities of the Niger
Delta. Kemedi was a member of the recent nine-city Price of
Oil tour launched by the US advocacy group, Oil Change, Amnesty
International, and other to raise awareness and commemorate
the tenth anniversary of the execution of Nigerian activist,
Ken Saro-Wiwa. During an hour-long interview, Kemedi spoke
about a range of issues, particularly focusing on the militarisation
of conflict in the Niger Delta since the Saro-Wiwa execution
and the U.S.’s increasing interest in West African oil.
“I was from Rivers state, now Bayelsa, because the
states split. I got involved in activism mainly inspired by
the situation my people, the Ijaw people, and at that time,
more specifically, the Ogbia clan of the Ijaw people, were
confronted with. I come from Ogbia, where the first oil well
was found in a place called Oligbre. At the time, I was in
University, I was part of a group, called the Movement for
the Reparation for Ogbia, that basically sought relief from
Shell and reparation, which we argued, should be paid to our
people because throughout the time the Olibre oil well was
producing, the people did not benefit from it and the environment
also needed some cleaning up. We started this campaign against
Shell and the federal government, the NNPC, which is the federal
government oil company.
Because of this campaign, myself [and] others from Oligbre,
met Ken [Saro-Wiwa] who was also carrying out a similar but
obviously more visible campaign in Ogoni. After the hanging
of Ken, I was also part of the people who started the commission
of the Environmental Rights Action. I also helped to bring
journalists from all parts of the world into Ogoni at a time
when it was very difficult for Ogoni activists to operate.
But as an Ijaw, it was easier for me to organise these journalists.
Obviously the contact that I had with journalists and human
rights and environmental rights organisations from all over
the world exposed me to a global perspective on oil and environment.
I therefore became very much interested in these issues.
In 1998, some of my colleagues and friends and I formed an
NGO we called Our Niger Delta. One of our major concerns was
to address some of the developmental and conflict issues associated
not just with oil production but life in the Niger Delta.
I also worked briefly for another NGO called Niger Delta Wetlands
Center, which basically concentrated on conservation. With
time, Our Niger Delta became more focused on conflict issues.
I also spent the latter part of 2003 at the University of
Berkeley, doing research with academics and civil society
groups exploring various ways of addressing the issues of
conflict and development in the Niger Delta. Right now, we
have several interesting research and intervention projects
around issues of conflict and development in the Delta.
In a paper titled “Communal conflict in the Niger Delta:
Policy failure or Petrol Weapon?” I [showed] the centrality
of the role of the oil industry in conflict in the Delta.
In that respect, it’s also very clear that development
and conflict are intricately linked, either in terms of the
lack of development fueling conflict or undemocratic access
to resources fueling conflict. Of course, that work was largely
influenced by the way we thought in Our Niger Delta. On the
other hand, Our Niger Delta was also influenced by that work.
I think first it became clear after the hanging of Ken Saro-Wiwa,
that, at least in the minds of a lot of young people in the
Delta, the only language which the federal government and
the oil companies understand is the language of violence,
and that if you pursue a non-violent struggle, you end up
dead like Ken Saro-Wiwa. This created a situation where young
people began to favour violent approaches to resolve their
conflict - in other words, using arms as an instrument for
resolving conflicts in their favor.
You also have many youths engaging in violent companies because
that is what the companies respond to. They face a more visible
threat. But in the end, hardly anything gets resolved. What’s
even worse is that very little attention gets paid t to the
everyday nonviolent resistance. Nobody is listening to nonviolent
resistance. Violence is rewarded while non-violence is not
rewarded. In the end, the people who are most affected by
the actions of the oil companies are not sure whether to support
[Ijaw militia leader] Adaki Asari’s guns example or
Ken Saro Wiwa’s nonviolence. Many of the local leaders
have contributed to this problem by remaining disconnected
while their youth exercise a monopoly on the use of violence.
And as a whole, the divisiveness of Nigerian politics, from
the struggle for Yoruba autonomy in the southwest, to the
Biafran conflict in the southeast, to the question of Shiara
law in the North, these conflicts remain, while the deeper,
more complex issues get swept under the rug.
Right now, the U.S. is focusing a lot on the Gulf of Guinea
and I imagine that even the oil companies are starting to
organise themselves around that [oil pipeline]. Not just as
Nigeria, or Sao Tome, Guinea, all that. But the people themselves
are not organising themselves that way. So I think it will
be interesting for somebody, I don’t know who that person
will be, or some group to organise along these lines. Obviously,
it will probably be an expensive thing. Activists, journalists,
whatever you may call them, whatever sort of people. So that
the people will begin to see themselves [as one], to look
at what’s happening in Sao Tome and Principe, what’s
happening in Nigeria, what’s happening in Angola. If
the U.S. and the oil companies, both of which are very powerful
forces, are beginning to organise themselves in that regard,
then the communities, NGOs, civil society, keep seeing themselves
as working in the Niger Delta, or working in Angola, or working
in Sao Tome, I think they will not be as stringing as they
could be if they understand what is happening in all these
places.
Those who want to look at Angola should look at Angola within
the context of the Gulf of Guinea. Those who want to look
at Nigeria should do the same and all that.
back to top
Air Quality
Controversy surrounds use of fuel additive
By Andy Birkinshaw, Table View Residents’ Association
How does respond when one hears about a toxic chemical which
is about to be released into our environment – a chemical
that is in fact so toxic that there are literally hundreds
of web pages dedicated to information on its toxicity, health
effects and the history of its use?
The first we heard about this chemical - METHYLCYCLOPENTADIENYL
MANGANESE TRICARBONYL (MMT), a fuel additive used as an anti-knocking
additive - was in the local press. A small advert, almost
concealed amongst the articles, advised that the Chevron refinery
was engaged in an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for
the installation of a new tank to store MMT.
The harmful and/or deleterious effects of MMT on vehicle
emission control systems renders the entire campaign around
cleaner fuels ludicrous as the implied goal of the cleaner
fuels programme is to reduce the negative health impacts of
tail pipe emissions, whereas MMT will guarantee its non-attainment.
MMT poses a significant threat to both environment and health.
Its use poses a threat to motorists, and to the public at
large including the surrounding refinery communities. MMT
is a known irritant to the respiratory system. The City of
Cape Town reported recently that the total direct health costs
related to pollution from fuel usage and inhalation exposures
were estimated to be in the order of R929 million per annum.
This estimate includes medical expenses only and excludes
related costs such as loss of earnings and loss in production.
Do we need to add to this by releasing more toxic chemicals
with known respiratory effects?
To make sensible decisions regarding toxic chemicals, it
is clearly preferable to have a complete picture of the kinds
of health and environmental health risks a chemical poses.
If we want to avoid "environmental surprises" regarding
the use or release of toxic chemicals a thorough investigation
based on our constitution must be carried out.
The manufacturer of MMT went to the US courts 4 times before
an appeal was heard that overturned the government’s
original decision not to allow its use. And this was because
of a loophole that only emission effects were to be taken
into account and not the negative health issues. Canada was
forced to allow its use because of a treaty with North America
called "The North American Free Trade Agreement"
(NAFTA). A secret tribunal heard the case and allowed its
use. Secret tribunals and loopholes in law! Do we really want
what everyone else didn't!
Today California does not allow MMT and Canada has reduced
the use of MMT dramatically. The question is: why do we have
to use MMT when there are other fuel additives that can be
used?
Cape Town based Chevron refinery says that MMT is the easiest
to use. Apparently it has been used in the Highveld since
2000 and in coastal refineries since 2002 – 2003. Current
consumption in South Africa is 270 mega tons per annum from
6 dosing facilities.
The increased use of this highly toxic chemical may produce
results that will bring our fears to reality. South Africa
has many informal vehicle repair shops where parts are washed
in petrol and then this petrol is poured down the drain. The
pumps at filling stations allow the vapours of petrol to escape
while the vehicle is refuelling, exposing pump attendants
and motorists.
Maybe, quicker than we think, the mistake will be realised.
Until then we hope that government has the necessary infrastructure
and legal resources to cope with all the action suits that
are bound to come in the future. After all, as the South African
based refineries state: "The government stipulates the
fuel specifications, the refineries just manufacture.”
back to top
Community
News
Growing unity in the Vaal
By Bobby Peek
On the 19th October 2005, communities in the Vaal Triangle,
South Africa’s number one pollution hotspot and petrochemical
industrial base, launched the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance,
a.k.a VEJA.
In recent years there has been an emergence of various community
groups and residents challenging various environmental injustices
in the Vaal Triangle. Some of the main issues tackled have
been: water pollution from steel giant Iscor (now owned by
Mittal Steel); a new hazardous waste incinerator being proposed
by Peacock Bay Environmental Services; alleged poisonous and
inhuman working conditions, lethal respiratory illnesses,
forced retrenchments, miserable compensation and forgotten
medical aid at Samancor, a steel manufacturer in the area
; and pollution, worker deaths and injuries at various Sasol
plants.
Bringing all of these struggles together, VEJA was launched
in a packed community hall in Sebokeng on 19th October –
the date on which, in 1977, black political organisations
struggling for political freedom were banned. This date was
chosen for the VEJA launch to signal that the struggle for
freedom from pollution is equally important in a free South
Africa.
VEJA aims to secure environmental and social justice for
the people living in Vaal Triangle and to fight for the delivery
of our collective rights guaranteed in the South African Bill
of Rights, such as access to information and public participation.
VEJA affiliates include the Vaal Working Class Coordinating
Committee, the Boipatong Environmental Working Group, the
Sasolburg Air Quality Monitoring Group, Steel Valley Crisis
Committee, Justice and Peace, Bophelong, African Genesis Environmental
Heritage Club, Friends of Steel Valley, Louisrus Belangings
Groep and NUMSA, and is supported by the Group for Environmental
Monitoring, groundWork, Khanya College, Earthlife Africa and
the Environmental Justice Networking Forum (EJNF).
The key to VEJA’s success is that is encompasses black
and white, labour and residential, local and national, red
and green, civil society organisations! Aluta Continua!
Community News
Eskom’s Poorly Built Mistaken Reactors (PBMR)
By Olivia Andrews, Campaigner at Earthlife Africa
There has been a move to increase nuclear power within South
Africa with Eskom's proposals to build a Pebble Bed Modular
Reactor (PBMR) demonstration plant at Koeberg, near Cape Town.
Eskom plans to then build at least 10 of these reactors around
South Africa and to export over 200 others worldwide. But
it is difficult to see how Eskom’s projections are likely
to be met by a supply technology that is yet to get off the
drawing board, does not have necessary government legal approvals
and is still desperately seeking investors. The demonstration
model is expected to be ready by 2013 and this project is
now officially ten years behind schedule.
Earthlife Africa (ELA), represented by the Legal Resources
Center, took the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
(DEAT) to court in January this year over DEAT’s decision
to approve the PBMR Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
We won the case with the court finding that the EIA process
was fatally flawed and DEAT’s decision was overturned.
Insufficient information had been put forward by Eskom to
enable any meaningful participation in this EIA, including
issues of safety as well as the economic case for the PBMR.
ELA requested this information and Eskom refused on the grounds
of commercial confidentiality. However the public has a right
to know all the risks and impacts in full as it is the taxpayers
who will be funding the project.
Earthlife Africa subsequently took Eskom to court in August
this year in an attempt to gain access to information regarding
the PBMR under the Public Access to Information Act. The judgement
is still to be made. During this case ELA received some information
from Eskom, which Eskom then claimed contained trade secrets
and was given to us by mistake. Eskom obtained an interdict
preventing ELA from publishing, disseminating or otherwise
dealing with the information we had received in a desperate
attempt to undo their mistake.
Having seen these documents, ELA believes that they contain
vital information that should be made available to government
and the public, but we now cannot reveal what was in those
documents as we have been silenced “apartheid-style”.
More recently Eskom has decided to increase the output of
the Demonstration Plant from 302 to 400MW (thermal). This
will result in changes to the proposed layout, fuel requirements,
etc, which requires a completely new EIA process, including
public scoping, to be conducted. Interested and affected parties
will have another opportunity to participate and comment on
the PBMR and then the Department will make a new decision.
However, the consultants used in the first, flawed EIA process
are being used again the second time around - just under a
different name!
The PBMR project is many years behind schedule and costs
are escalating alarmingly. R2 billion has already been spent
and it is expected to cost another R12 billion. No orders
have been placed and no foreign investors have been found.
Parliament recently approved the expenditure of an additional
R580 million on the PBMR, yet the EIA has not even been completed!
The DEAT commissioned a feasibility study by an International
Panel of Experts on the PBMR in 2002, which has yet to be
published.
The Legal Resource Centre commissioned an economic study
on the PBMR by Steve Thomas, a member of the International
Panel of Experts and a senior research fellow at the University
of Greenwich. His paper has been peer reviewed by the ex-USA
Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner, who has supported his conclusion.
His conclusion is that the project is financially risky and
entails a significant risk of wasting a substantial amount
of public money. Further expenditure needs to be carefully
and independently appraised to prevent wasting money on a
white elephant that is already likely to cost 12 times more
than originally stated to Parliament.
back to top
In Brief
Environmental decay creating refugees
A deteriorating environment could create about 50 million
refugees, according to a report by the UN's Institute for
Environment and Human Security. Desertification, rising sea
levels, famine, flooding and storms linked to climate change
will likely displace tens of millions of people, according
to the report.
It is estimated that already about 20 million people have
been displaced by problems linked to a damaged environment,
particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, India and Asia. An example
is the Gobi desert in China, which is expanding by more than
10,000 km2 a year.
The Institute urged acceptance of the idea that "environmental
refugees" - people displaced by environmental degradation
- would be eligible for food, tools, shelter, medical care
and grants in line with political refugees fleeing war or
oppression at home. (Source: Reuters )
Engen fined for pollution
The Engen refinery in south Durban has paid a R10,000 admission
of guilt fine for exceeding WHO (World Health Organisation)
air pollution guidelines in neighbouring residential areas.
Engen was prosecuted under the eThekwini City's Scheduled
Trades and Occupation by-laws. If Engen had been prosecuted
under the new Air Quality Act there could have been much higher
fines or even prison terms of up to 10 years. (Source: Independent
Newspapers)
Old PC's littering Africa
Much of the old computer equipment sent from the US to developing
countries, supposedly for use in homes, schools and businesses,
is unusable and is being sent by US recycling businesses wanting
to dodge the expense of having to recycle it properly. This
is according to a report produced by the Basel Action Network
(BAN) entitled "The Digital Dump: Exporting Reuse and
Abuse to Africa".
The report says that the dumping of old computers on countries
such as Nigeria is creating enormous environmental problems.
It is estimated that more than 63 million computers in the
United States will become obsolete in 2005. An average computer
contains lead, flame-retardants and cadmium, all of which
can be toxic to the environment and humans.
In 2002, the Basel Action Network was co-author of a report
that said 50 - 80 percent of electronics waste collected for
recycling in the United States was being disassembled and
recycled under largely unregulated, unhealthy conditions in
China, India, Pakistan and other developing countries.
The new report estimates that a total of about 400,000 used
computers arrive in Nigeria every month. About 75% of this
equipment is unusable and neither economically repairable
or resalable. Nigeria lacks an infrastructure for electronics
recycling, thus the equipment often ends up in landfills,
where toxins in the equipment can pollute the groundwater
and create unhealthy conditions. (Source: Basel Action Network)
back to top
Publications
“The Shell Report: Continuing Abuses-10 Years After
Ken Saro-Wiwa”, by Environmental Rights Action (ERA)/Friends
of the Earth, Nigeria, November 2005
November 9, 2005 marked the 10th anniversary of the hanging
of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other leaders of the Movement for
the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP), in Nigeria in 1995.
The nine were hanged for their non-violent but successful
campaign to oppose the destructive activities of oil companies
– particularly Shell – in the Niger Delta.
To mark the anniversary, Environmental Rights Action (ERA)/Friends
of the Earth Nigeria (FoEN) released a report detailing the
environmentally and socially destructive practices of the
Shell oil company in the Niger Delta. The report uses case
studies from communities in the Niger Delta area to expose
continuing abuses by Shell in the past 10 years. It examines
the role of oil companies - especially Shell - in the destruction
of peoples’ environments and livelihoods, and the consequential
breakdown in social norms and values.
The report, which is very much written from a community perspective,
details how Shell continues to use obsolete facilities, burns
down forests and community farmlands, persists with the wasteful
and polluting process of flaring gases and how oil spills
and blowouts have become commonplace. It concludes with recommendations,
such as the need for legally binding and internationally enforceable
laws to protect peoples of the world from the abuses of Shell
and other transnational corporations, rather than allowing
these corporations – many of which are wealthier than
whole countries – to adopt voluntary codes and be left
to regulate themselves.
Significantly, five days after the release of this report,
the Federal High Court of Nigeria ruled that the damaging
and wasteful practice of flaring by all the major oil companies
in Nigeria, including Shell, cannot lawfully continue and
must stop immediately.
An electronic version of this report is available on: www.eraction.org.
“Trouble in the air: Global warming and the privatised
atmosphere”, edited and published by the University
of KZN’s Centre for Civil Society and the Trans National
Institute
What I hate about the climate change debate is the fact that
people often make it so technical. Finally, a refreshing publication
has been presented to the South African public that breaks
this mould, and attempts to make link fence-line battles with
global debate - a strategy that is critical to the manner
in which groundWork operates.
This book is a compilation of writings from community environmental
justice activists, policy analysts and non-government organisations
who are all working on climate change issues in particular
and on environmental justice issues in general.
It questions Kyoto and its various mechanisms to manage climate
change gasses, such as emission trading and cleaner development
mechanisms (CDM’s), it reviews South Africa’s
role within this process, focuses on the oil industry and
proposes through the Durban Declaration, to condemn carbon
(pollution) trading, which offers civil society another way
of organising around climate change.
For all those of us in South Africa – and globally
– that do not have time to spend on reading tomes of
technical jargon, get this publication and dedicate time to
it before you next debate climate change.
back to top
|
