 |
you are here:: PUBLICATIONS>>Newsletters>>June 2003 | |||
Air Quality ProjectThe Air Quality Bill – Everything promised, nothing deliveredBy Ardiel SoekerCommunities living on the fence line of polluting industries have, over the years, been waging a war against unscrupulous industrial polluters. The battles fought everyday, over an over, by ordinary civilians are essentially about protecting their and their children’s health and well-being. The “armour” we use to protect our lives include raising community awareness on the impacts of pollution, organising and mobilising resistance to big polluters, responding to the many industrial accidents and incidents, negotiating and lobbying government and industry to improve industrial practices, and exposing bad industrial management. A battle within this war has been the call for air pollution legislation. Calls for legally binding ambient and emission standards, proper management of industrial polluters, penalties for polluters and compensation for victims are some of the needs identified by communities with regard to air quality legislation. What a battle it has been to get Government to replace old Apartheid legislation. It has taken our Government nearly a decade to put forward a proposed Bill for comment. A cursory glance through the Bill indicates - no end to the war. The National Environmental Management Act was enacted in 1998. This act came into being after a long and intensive consultation process with civil society organisations. NEMA, as it is called, provides the overarching framework for specific environmental legislation like the Air Quality Bill. Similarly, consultative processes with civil society resulted in community concerns around air pollution being encapsulated in the White Paper on Integrated Pollution Control and Waste Management. The White Paper, it is claimed, guided the development of the Air Quality Bill. We first learnt about the Air Quality Bill in mid-2002 when the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism gave a presentation on “their new approach to Air Quality Management” at our 2002 National Strategy Workshop for fence line communities held in Sasolburg. At this workshop communities were promised that the release of the new air quality legislation was imminent. This workshop left communities hopeful that things were about to change for the better. In March of 2003, after hearing of no progress with regard to the release of new legislation, we again invited DEAT to speak to us - this time to explain the department’s lack of urgency around the Bill. Community representatives at this March workshop produced a memorandum, which was presented to the Portfolio Committee on Environment and Tourism, highlighting the negative impacts of industrial pollution. To illustrate the urgency for effective air quality legislation we showcased two communities in our memorandum. These were the Morning Star community in Cape Town, where people are affected by mercury poisoning from nearby industrial activities, and Steel Valley, a community that suffers from the industrial actions of Iscor. The release of the Air Quality Bill came soon after that in May 2003. Given only a month to comment on the Bill we, together with Contact Trust, arranged a national workshop on the Bill. At this workshop we managed to bring together a range of civil society organisations, including community representatives from SA’ main pollution hotspots, including Sasolburg, Secunda, Table View, Boipatong, Steel Valley, Richards Bay, Khayelitsha and South Durban. We gave the DEAT an opportunity to present this Bill to the workshop participants. In addition, we asked Dr Eugene Cairncross from The Peninsula Technikon and Angela Andrews from The Legal Resources Centre to prepare specialist comment on the Bill to advise communities. This workshop concluded that the Bill proposed by DEAT falls way short of responding to our concerns around air quality management. In fact, community members went so far as to argue that the Bill was a step backward from existing pollution legislation. Communities then mandated groundWork to coordinate the development of a national civil society submission on the Bill. This submission consists of a summary of the key concerns raised at the workshop, prepared by groundWork and a detailed response to specific clauses within the Bill, which was prepared by the Legal Resources Centre. In the submission communities reiterated their stance on air quality management. This is the same stance that has been the rallying call of industrial fence line communities for the past decade, namel
1. Legally-binding emission standards for new and existing polluters, including government pollution sources and vehicles. 2. A pollution release and transfer inventory that compels industries to make information on their air pollutant emissions publicly available and accessible. 3. Effective monitoring of ambient air quality resources and implementation. 4. Compliance and enforcement capability to ensure progress to a clean and healthy environment. 5. Clear guidelines as to how government is going to deal with municipalities and provinces that do not have the ability to govern in accordance with the bill.
Waste ProjectsGlobal Alliance Network- United communities for sustainability
I was glad to see that over 120 participants from 27 countries from Malaysia, Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America took part in this enormously stimulating program that saw the participants educating one another, nurturing associations, building expertise, rejoicing achievements, crying tears of joy, acting sketches, singing, dancing and having heaps of fun. There was also the planning of ways to address gripping issues regarding incinerators and solutions to combat problems faced by our global communities. It was quite exciting to attend this meeting since I would meet many people for the first time that I previously only communicated with by electronic mail. The program for the GAIA Global Meeting included several workshops, campaign planning and training sessions, which were based on the varying needs and requirements of participants. Some of the issues covered during different workshops included how to promote clean production while stopping incineration, Health Care Without Harm (HCWH), Incineration by another name, Zero Waste, Composting, Plastics, Incineration and international instruments, Extender producer responsibility, etc. Participants were encouraged to attend activities of their choice that tied in with their interests and priorities. One of the sessions, which I attended and facilitated, was HCWH: Eliminating the environmental impacts of the health care industry around the world. I was not surprised to see that the workshop room was packed to capacity since it is a fact that health care waste is a mounting problem that affects the health of communities worldwide. Participants were able to express some of their pressing concerns to the panel with excellent responses for solutions to these problems. One of the most enjoyable moments during the global meeting was participation in the cultural night. Participants were encouraged to perform songs, acts, sketches, plays and dances relating to their cultures to commemorate our gathering in Penang. Some performances included countries such as India performing traditional Indian dances and songs, South Africa astounded the crowd with their ‘African drum beats’ and Zulu dances, and the US performed golden oldie songs, while Iran performed a traditional dance. This truly turned out to be a memorable event for all. It was remarkable to witness and be part of such a colourful event. It was during our time in Penang that the United States had fired their first missiles, declaring war on Iraq, failing to work together with other nations of the world in pursuit of world peace. The irony was that represented amongst us at the meeting were men and women, young and old, from all sectors of the world, all colours, all creeds, all religious beliefs and all spiritual convictions, these included people from the US and Iran. GAIA participants had a candle light prayer in support of world peace against the war. An important event during the gathering was the regional meetings that occurred. Countries meet in their respective groups to discuss pressing issues relevant to their regions. For the Africa meeting, participating countries included, South Africa, Mozambique, Swaziland, Egypt and Mauritius. All countries expressed their concerns relating to waste issues. It was found that the common problems being faced amongst all countries was the incineration of medical waste, Africa Stockpiles Program (ASP), hazardous waste, a lack of information and good regulatory / enforcement of laws and regulations. With regard to regional nodes, I was glad that participants agreed that, South Africa should not be seen as the only node and that there could be possibilities of a northern / western node. It was agreed that a strategy for outreach for the node would be developed with a timeframe of two years. Overall, the GAIA Global Meeting proved to be a major success and was a historic demonstration of global. Through GAIA, communities from all over the world are raising essential questions and challenging the poisoning of existence. But most importantly, they are demonstrating practical solutions to our planetary predicament. India: Doing it for themselvesEarlier this year, I spent two exciting weeks in India at the invitation of a few Indian organizations working on health care waste issues. I was quick to respond to the invitations to visit as I though that we as South Africans could learn much from other southern county such as India where local organizations have managed to transform really disastrous hospitals into model institutions. New DelhiMy first stop was in New Delhi where I was hosted by a local non-profit organization called Sristhi. In Delhi, in the urban areas there are between 25 and 30 government hospitals. In 2000, there were about 54 incinerators in Delhi, now there exist around 24. In 1998, eight autoclaves were set up at different government hospitals. I was glad to see that India had decided to install these non-burn technologies that would not create a health hazards to surrounding communities. However, many hospitals still incinerate their waste. India also has a religious orientation towards burning of bodies. However, cremation rituals are expensive and shift from burning to burial of bodies has occurred without an uproar. Ratna Singh of Sristhi accompanied me on my visits to hospitals in Delhi. I was amazed to see that in most of the hospitals such as Holy Family and Barta hospital a clear system of waste segregation. The only disappointment was seeing that like South Africa mercury equipment was still being used and that most staff when questioned were unaware of the potential dangers of this substance. In New Delhi, I also visited Chintan an NGO working with ragpickers in India. I went along to one of the ragpickers’ meetings where they explained how ragpickers operated in India according to territories. The assumption generally is that ragpicking is more a survival strategy than a conscious occupational choice. However, I was glad to see that India views that abolishing ragpicking is not a solution, rather they have help ragpickers to become recognised, registered workers with their own rights. At the meeting, ragpickers discussed issues concerning problems, complaints, and violations. BhopalI then traveled to Bhopal where I visited Shambhavana Clinic – a clinic set up to assist the victims of the Dow Chemicals gas disaster of 1984. The director of the clinic, Sathyu Sarangi, took me on a memorable bike tour of Bhopal. I also visited the Dow Chemicals site of the Bhopal tragedy. It was quite touching to see the monument that had been erected for the victims of that incident. Residents in the area were eager to show me around and to expose this horrific human rights abuse. It was quite obvious that people were fully aware of this incident even after almost 18 years. I also visited an editor of a local newspaper in Bhopal. His name was Pushpendra Solanki. The newspaper he works for is 'sandhya prakash'. Pushpendra was an activist in his earlier days. He said that he had written numerous articles on pollution from the three main hospital incinerators in the area. Although publicly exposed, they have taken no action to reduce their waste or close their incinerators. He said that local Indian civil society, are weak in mobilizing themselves and taking action. He requested that groundWork help with campaigning strategies that we have used to mobilize communities to shut down incinerators. BombayMy next stop was Bombay where I was hosted by an NGO called HOPES (Help for people and the Environment) that has been working on health care waste issues and has been doing some great work on hospital training. While there, I visited the Tata Memorial hospital’s hydroclave facility. I also visited a centralized autoclave facility for medical waste situated on a landfill site. I was disappointed to see that the central facility was very small and was located next to an incinerator. I also visited a nature reserve were they are doing great work on composting. This would be great if the hospitals would be able to carry this out since it requires no investment or energy to make this work. My trip to India was a fantastic experience that I will never forget. Community NewsMorning Star By AdvocatePaul HoffmanMorning Star is a semi-rural area in Cape Town situated alongside the N7 highway to Namibia inland from Melkbosstrand. It is an unusually populated area in that it is one of the few neighbourhoods in the greater Cape Town area in which smallholdings, zoned agricultural, are available for people who prefer a bucolic lifestyle. This lifestyle has been shattered by poor land use planning, in particular decisions of the authorities to site waste disposal facilities at Vissershok, which is an area some two kilometres south of Morning Star. For years the residents of Morning Star have been complaining about noxious and toxic pollution emerging from the two solid waste disposal sites, brickfield, waste oil refinery and medical waste incinerator, which are situate at Vissershok. The complaints have until recently been to no avail. During the course of last year concerned residents privately engaged an environmental engineer, Gerry Kuhn, to monitor dust fall-out in Morning Star. For sixteen weeks during the summer of 2002/2003 Mr Kuhn collected samples of the fall-out in the area. These samples were scientifically and independently analysed and it emerged that thirty out of thirty-three elements found in the samples were present in concentrations which are alarmingly or dangerously high. As a consequence of the physical symptoms of ill-health experienced by some of the residents of Morning Star, Mr Kuhn advised that persons living in the area be tested for mercury poisoning. The results of the tests indicate that a high proportion of the people living in the Morning Star area are carrying unhealthily large amounts of mercury in their bodies. It is well documented that mercury is so toxic, especially to children, that it can kill or cause serious health problems. It seems that the mercury pollutes the area in vapour form and it is probable that it emanates from the medical waste incinerator, the brickfield, the waste oil refinery and possibly even from the Caltex refinery in Milnerton. Following the intervention of the media, in the form of press and television coverage of the mass mercury poisoning the City of Cape Town became sufficiently interested in the cause of air pollution to create a task team to investigate, on an holistic basis, the levels of pollution in the area. The task team is multi-disciplinary and operates on the local provincial and national tiers of government. DEAT has indicated that it takes the air pollution problems of Morning Star seriously. The fruits of the task teams’ labours are awaited with interest. Cynics CornerBy GreenflyOn why we don’t trust the bastardsPrevious Greenfly columns may have given the impression that I don’t trust business to look after the environment – nothing could be closer to the truth. Its not just that I’m cynical – read on and draw your own conclusions from what they say themselves. Techno-fix for global warming I’m serious – here are extracts from a ‘report’ (which reads more like an advertorial) entitled “Curbing global warming through cooling” in the country’s The Guardian newspaper (Vol 19, No. 8.930 4th May 2003): “The inevitable health and environmental hazards posed to mankind by the increasingly depleting ozone layer as revealed by recent scientific study reports, will continue to instil fear and put mankind in a state of incapacitation and hopelessness, if positive measures are not put in place to check the effects. “It is more worrisome in sub-Saharan Africa where Nigeria is located. For this reason, efforts have been and are still being geared towards a total control of the excessive heat pervading this part of the globe. “One of the attempts aimed at arresting the situation now and perhaps, give it a lasting solution, is the manufacture of effective cooling systems. … Cooling systems or devices range from refrigerators, deep freezers, ice-block making machines, plastic coolers, air conditioners, fans and allied products like generators. Generators are indeed inseparable ‘brides’ in the face of constant epileptic power-supply occasioned by a dysfunctional National Electric Power Authority[1]. Matter-of-factly, the generators play the lead-role in this twin-plank responsibility of excessive heat control, with the alternative power supply to these cooling devices, which are electrically operated”. Now of course it’s possible this marketing strategy is the homespun creation of an enterprising Nigerian distributor/con-artist. But the tactic of deploying psuedo-scientific lies against the assumed ignorance of African consumers has been used before. It is reminiscent of the early days of infant formula marketing strategies in the developing world which were certainly backed by ‘western’ head-offices of multi-national corporations peddling their quack medicines. Act now to avoid ‘onerous conditions’
Frankly, this approach is not at all surprising. Critics have often pointed out that industry’s approach to cleaning up their environmental act is best summarised as ‘CATNAP’ – Cheapest Available Technology Narrowly Avoiding Prosecution. Profits are the primary consideration against which the costs of breaking laws are weighed. But let us not forget that the business lobby (here and globally) argues vociferously against tighter enforcement of environmental regulation by the state. In recent years, they have consistently and forcefully lobbied that ‘self-regulation’ and market-forces are a better answer to the public’s growing alarm at the social, health, and environmental impacts of industrial development. We’re asked to trust them but, as the advisory from CAIA should make plain, we can’t and we shouldn’t – and neither should government if it wants to be seen as protecting the public interest and not just the interests of business. The new air quality legislation that CAIA mention is long overdue. It will replace laws that date back to the 1960s and it should tackle a critical area that requires urgent attention. But concerns have already been raised about the exclusion of civil society organisations from the drafting process (in contrast to the apparent inclusion of industry interests). And fundamental flaws, picked up in The groundWork Report: 2002 which reviewed an earlier draft of the Bill, have not been addressed. This means that the new law will still deliberately create spaces for the heaviest polluters to negotiate the terms of their continued non-compliance with pollution standards. But, before it’s even finalised, industry is looking for ways to subvert its intentions and stay within the law. And we’re asked to trust them!? No thanks. Greenfly won’t be the first to reject the idea of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse – but then who do we trust? – government? [1] A letter to the editor in the same edition of The Guardian appears to confirm that the National Electric Power Authority (NEPA) is in trouble. Chuma Ifedi, from Lagos, complains that “the worsening power outage aggravates the deteriorating industrial capacity utilisation, generates health hazards and afflicts the embattled citizenry with considerable discomfort [except for those with their own generators presumably]. Chuma goes on to petition that “the federal government should expedite action on the privatisation process and disband the present ineffective and inefficient NEPA board without further delay”. Suffice to say, Greenfly thinks that Chuma Ifedi’s confidence that a privatised NEPA will do better may be misplaced. [2] See: http://www.mbendi.co.za/caia/newsletters/ChemNews_200212.doc In BriefSteel maker meets iron will of the people This same scientist is now an expert witness in a court case being brought by people affected by Iscor’s pollution. The people are fighting to stop Iscor’s pollution of their environment, especially their borehole water. Studies have shown that effluent discharged from Iscor contains toxic chemicals and metals. The effluent is pumped into 40-year old, unlined dams from where it seeps into the soil and ground water that feeds boreholes throughout the area. The community fighting Iscor lives on agricultural plots across the road from these dams and people have no choice but to drink, cook and wash with the toxic borehole water. They have asked Iscor and local government to provide water but Iscor refuses and the council is bankrupt. The community used to be lively and productive, but most people have moved away because they cannot use their boreholes. Their community organisation, the Steel Valley Crisis Committee, has conducted medical tests on 100 people which show their blood contains metals and poisons such as cadmium, chromium, mercury, cobalt and arsenic. They are also planning to bring a class action to claim damages from Iscor for the health, property and other losses they have suffered. (For more information see www.iscorpollution.org.za ) Community for sustainable development SDCEA and Hosaf Fibres recently locked horns after the KZN Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs authorised an expansion at Hosaf Fibres after only the initial scoping phase of an environmental impact assessment had been conducted. On behalf of SDCEA, the Legal Resources Centre (LRC) lodged an Appeal against the authorisation, arguing that the EIA had failed to assess the impact of emissions from Hosaf Fibre’s coal-fired boilers. SDCEA’s technical advisor, Mr Suresh Ramsuroop, claimed that the coal-fired boilers would use 50% more coal after the expansion. Hosaf Fibres argued that the increased use of boilers was unrelated to the expansion, and that although it would be operating its coal-fired boilers at full capacity for the first time, it had received permission to do so some time back. Lawyers from both sides - the LRC’s Adrian Pole and Ian Sampson of Shepstone & Wylie – sought to break this impasse by arranging a ‘without prejudice’ meeting between SDCEA and Hosaf Fibres to find a win-win resolution to the dispute. After months of negotiations both parties signed a mutually beneficial agreement. In terms of this agreement, Hosaf Fibres has agreed to make available to SDCEA a copy of stack emission monitoring results and to conduct air dispersion modelling to determine its impact on the environment. If the stack results and modelling exercise indicate that it has had an adverse environmental impact, Hosaf Fibres will have to develop an environmental management plan to achieve compliance. In return, SDCEA has agreed to raise any future complaints through Hosaf Fibres’ reconstituted Good Neighbourly Forum as a point of first contact, and has also withdrawn its Appeal. New UN Protocol on disclosure o f pollution
information Earthlife Africa meets government in court
over nuclear energy plans Government is currently sitting with a final Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report on which it intends to announce its decision very soon. The final EIA states that the proposed nuclear reactor would not pose any serious safety or health risks. However, Earthlife Africa and other concerned groupings believe that the final EIA presented to government is lacking in some very important details. They have further claimed that certain vital safety information has not been made public along with the final EIA report. The high court decided the urgent application was not justified but left the door open for the case to continue at a later date. In making his ruling, however, judge Webster said that Earthlife Africa’s work was “highly appreciated and important” as South Africa’s democracy was still in its infancy. He also noted that the state is intended to serve citizen’s and not to frustrate their attempts to pursue justice. New website monitors Sasol PublicationsSeries of five booklets on hidden hazards in cosmetics, personal care products, plastics, cellphones and genetically modified foods, published by the Consumers Association of Penang The Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) has produced this excellent and practical series of booklets. The four titles in this series are: § Cancer-causing chemicals in cosmetics & daily use products § Cosmetics & Personal Care Products - More dangers and side-effects § Toxics in Plastics – what dangers & which plastics to avoid § What you should know about Genetically Modified Foods Do not be put off by the fact that these booklets are printed in another country – it is full of brand names and product names which are familiar to the South African market. Products by Oil of Olay, Johnsons’ Baby Shampoo, Ponds, L’Oreal, Gillette, Mentadent P, Wella, Clairol and others are scrutinised in these booklets. While at times frightening reading, these booklets also offer alternative home remedies and recipes. These booklets can be purchased from groundWork at a cost of R10.00 per booklet or R40.00 for the full set of four booklets. Leaking pipelines – Shell in South Africa, published by Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), Amsterdam, April 2003, (32 pages) This report written by Friends of the Earth (FoE) Netherlands is the third in a series of five booklets entitled “The Filthy Five”, which focuses on environmental abuses by Dutch multinationals in other countries. This detailed and hard-hitting report examines the various leaks, spills and explosions which have taken place at the at the Sapref refinery, (jointly owned by Shell and BP) in south Durban. This report is the product of research undertaken by FoE Netherlands at the request of the South African organisations the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) and groundWork (Friends of the Earth South Africa). It gives particular attention to the numerous leaks from Sapref’s 85-kilometre long pipeline network under residential areas. Sapref is responsible for the largest oil spill in South African history when over one million litres of petrol leaked into the ground (July 2001). In Western Europe there is an average of one leak per every 5,130 kilometres of pipeline. This, the report reveals, is in sharp contrast to the SAPREF story, which involves countless leaks and spills along a pipeline network totalling only 85 kilometres. For years local residents and environmental organisations have demanded the pipelines be completely replaced, but Shell has failed to comply. The report argues that Sapref has a history of corporate irresponsibility and Sapref’s behaviour in the various cases of spills and leaks would be unacceptable in the Netherlands. Both the refinery and the Shell headquarters in The Hague and London refuse to seriously address the requests for detailed information and the pipeline replacement demand. Hardcopy, printed versions of this report will be available free of charge from the groundWork office by mid July 2003. Alternatively, this report can be downloaded from www.foenl.org. Failing the Challenge - The Other Shell Report 2002, published by Friends of the Earth, London, April 2003 (27 pages) Oil giant Shell is still putting short-term profit before people and the environment, despite its public commitment to a “green future”, according to this new report from Friends of the Earth and a coalition of community groups. Failing the challenge: The Other Shell Report mimics the layout and design of Shell’s own social and environmental reports. It contains first hand testimonies from communities living next door to Shell in the US, the Philippines, South Africa, Nigeria, Argentina and China and catalogues the environmental damage, the health problems and the impacts of accident these communities face. Eight years ago, Shell committed itself to sustainable development and the company promotes its “green image” to the world through expensive advertising and marketing campaigns. But as people living next door to Shell tell in this report, the reality is a far cry from the green promises in glossy brochures and advertising campaigns – Shell is failing the sustainability challenge. This report also shows how inadequate current UK company law is in protecting local people and the environment from UK companies who profit at the expense of people’s health and the natural world. It thus argues the need for international laws and regulations on corporate accountability. This report can be downloaded from: www.foe.co.uk. | ||||
