ANNEXURES FOR HSE LEGAL UPDATES AUGUST /SEPTEMBER 2016

ANNEXURE A

GOVERNMENT NOTICES        DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS        NO. 904        11 AUGUST 2016        NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT: WASTE ACT, 2008    (ACT NO. 59 OF 2008)        NATIONAL PRICING STRATEGY FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT            SCHEDULE        National Pricing Strategy for Waste Management        January 2016        environmental affairs    Department:    Environmental Affairs    REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA        National Pricing Strategy for Waste Management        Table of Contents        1 Executive Summary        2 Background        2.1 Introduction        2.2 Legislative context        2.3 Objective and principles of a National Pricing Strategy        2.4 Problem statement        2.5 Approach and methodology        3 Economic instruments for implementing a NPSWM        3.1 Upstream instruments        3.2 Downstream instruments        3.3 Subsidy-based instruments        4 Approach to the setting of waste management charges        4.1 Downstream instruments        4.1.1 Volumetric tariffs        4.1.2 Disposal taxes        4.2 Upstream instruments        4.2.1 Product, material and input taxes        4.2.1.1 Virgin material tax        4.2.1.2 Input taxes        4.2.1.3 Product taxes        4.2.2 Advance recycling fees (ARFs)        4.2.3 Deposit-refund schemes        4.2.4 EPR fees        5 Implementing economic instruments        5.1 Downstream instruments        5.2 Upstream instruments        5.2.1 Government intervention        5.2.2 Selecting the appropriate economic instrument(s)        5.3 Extended producer responsibility        5.3.1 Approach to developing EPR schemes        5.3.2 Identify product, product group or waste stream for EPR        5.3.3 Design EPR scheme        5.3.3.1 The Product Steering Committee        5.3.3.2 Operationalisation of the Waste Management Bureau        5.3.3.3 Develop Product Plan        5.3.3.4 Product Responsibility Organisations (PROs)        5.3.3.5 Develop Industry Waste Management Plan        5.3.4 Give effect to EPR        6 Collection and disbursement of waste management charges        6.1 Downstream charges        6.2 Upstream charges        6.3 Proposed EPR Scheme        7 Monitoring and Evaluation        7.1 DEA / The Bureau        7.2 Product Responsibility Organisations        7.3 Product Steering Committees        8 Transitional arrangements        Annexure A. Action Plan for the Implementation of the NPSWM        Index of Figures        Figure 1.   Examples of economic instruments along the product-                waste value chain        Figure 2.   Process for considering government intervention        Figure 3.   Approach to the collection and disbursement of                downstream charges        Figure 4.   Approach to the collection and disbursement of Upstream                Charges       Figure 5.   Approach to the collection and disbursement of EPR                Charges        Index of Tables       Table 1:    Phases for developing the NPSWM      Table 2:    Potential economic instruments for solid waste                management        Table 3:    Upstream instruments: Incentives created and typical                applications       Table 4:    Downstream instruments: Incentives created and examples      Table 5:    Information relevant for selection of upstream economic                instruments      Table 6:    Monitoring and evaluation responsibilities        List of Abbreviations    ARF           Advance Recycling FeeCoGTA         Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional             AffairsDEA           Department of Environmental AffairsDRS           Deposit-Refund SchemeEDD           Department of Economic DevelopmentEl            Economic InstrumentELV           End-of-life VehicleEPR           Extended Producer ResponsibilityIDP           Integrated Development PlanIndWMP        Industry Waste Management PlanIWMP          Integrated Waste Management PlanLCA           Life Cycle AnalysisMEC           Member of Executive CommitteeMTEF          Medium-term Expenditure FrameworkNEMA          National Environmental Management ActNEMWA         National Environmental Management: Waste ActNGO           Non-Governmental OrganisationNWMS          National Waste Management StrategyNPSWM         National Pricing Strategy for Waste ManagementPACSA         Packaging Council of South AfricaPAYT          Pay-as-you-throwPETCO         PET Recycling CompanyPolyco        Polyolefin Recycling CompanyPRASA         Paper Recycling Association of South AfricaPRO           Product Responsibility OrganisationSARS          South African Revenue ServiceTGRC          The Glass Recycling Companythe dti       Department of Trade and IndustryWEEE          Waste Electrical and Electronic equipmentWTP           Willingness to pay        1 Executive Summary        The National Environmental Management: Waste Act, hereafter referredto as the “Waste Act”, directly allows for targeting of economicinstruments to specific waste streams to serve as incentives ordisincentives to encourage a change in behaviour towards the generationof waste and waste management by all sectors of society.        The National Pricing Strategy for Waste Management (NPSWM) is alegislative requirement of the National Environmental Management: WasteAmendment Act (Act No. 26 of 2014) and gives effect to the National WasteManagement Strategy (NWMS). The Waste Act, as amended in section 13B,calls for an Act of Parliament to give effect to the pricing strategy,including details on 13B(b) determination of waste management charges andthe review of these waste management charges from time to time. Section13B(c) includes procedures for collection of charges through the nationalfiscal system.        In line with the requirements of the Waste Amendment Act, thisstrategy contains guiding methodologies for the setting of wastemanagement charges, aimed at funding the re-use, recycling or recovery ofwaste; implementation of industry waste management plans (IndWMP) forthose activities that generate specific waste streams.        The selection and use of economic instruments (EIs) must also bealigned with the “polluter pays principle” where all generators of waste(including businesses and households) are responsible for the costs ofmanaging the waste generated. A detailed outline of how various actionsemanating from this strategy will be implemented is as contained in theAction Plan (Annexure A) of this strategy document. Also contained in theAction Plan are the associated timeframes for implementation byresponsible parties.        These IndWMP include not only the direct financial costs ofcollection, treatment and disposal of waste, but also associated negativeexternalities including negative health and environmental impacts. Hence,use of EPRs as stipulated within the strategy provides a mechanism forboosting the recycling economy and monitoring the effectiveness of theimplementation of Industry Waste Management Plans.        2 Background        The aim of this National Pricing Strategy for Waste Management(NPSWM) is to provide the basis and guiding methodology or methodologiesfor setting of waste management charges in South Africa. This is throughproviding an enabling environment for waste recycling and contributing tothe recycling economy in South Africa, through recovery, re-use andrecycling of waste.        2.1 Introduction        The purpose of this section is to describe the context within whichthe NPSWM has been developed. This includes the legislative context thatframes the development of the NPSWM, the objectives and principles of theNPSWM, the problem statement which the NPSWM aims to address, and themethodology followed in developing the NPSWM.        The NPSWM consists of seven sections as outlined below –        1. Section 1 describes the methodology followed in developing theNPSWM, the legislative context which gave effect to the NPSWM, and theproblems currently experienced within the South African waste sectorwhich the NPSWM aims to address        2. Section 2 provides a summary of economic instruments which can beapplied as policy instruments in the management of waste, and inparticular, in the implementation of the NPSWM.        3. Section 3 outlines possible approaches in determining wastemanagement charges, including issues for consideration by the Departmentof Environmental Affairs (DEA), Department of Trade and Industry (thedti), National Treasury and the South African Revenue Services (SARS) inthe setting of charges, fees or levies.        4. Section 4 describes mechanisms which can be applied inimplementing waste management charges in South Africa, within the currentlegislative context.        5. Section 5 outlines the approach to the collection and disbursementof waste management charges.        6. Section 6 deals with monitoring and evaluation of theimplementation of waste management charges.        7. Section 7 provides for transitional arrangements during theimplementation of the NPSWM

 

The NPSWM is a legislative requirement of Section 13A (1) of the

National Environmental Management: Waste Amendment Act (Act No. 26 of

2014), hereafter referred to as the “Waste Amendment Act”. In terms of

section 13B, an Act of Parliament to give effect to the pricing strategy,

including details on 13B(b) determination of waste management charges and

the review of these waste management charges from time to time. Section

13B(c) includes procedures for collection through the national fiscal

system. In line with the requirements of the Waste Amendment Act, this

strategy contains guiding methodologies for the setting of waste

management charges, aimed at funding the re-use, recycling or recovery of

waste, including –

 

– the identification, further development and promotion of best

practices

 

– implementation of approved guidelines, norms and standards

 

– management of the disbursements of incentives

 

– monitoring of the impacts of incentives and disincentives

 

– including in previously disadvantaged communities

 

  • the implementation of industry waste management plans for

those activities that generate specific waste streams, including –

 

– the monitoring of the implementation and impact of industry waste

management plans

 

  • the operations of the Waste Management Bureau and the

implementation of Industry Waste Management Plans (IndWMP).

 

The National Environmental Management: Waste Act, hereafter referred

to as the “Waste Act”, directly allows for the implementation of economic

instruments through the following mechanisms:

 

  • Priority Wastes (Section 14(1) of the NEMWA) – provides for

the identification of specific waste streams to which specific management

measures can be applied. This provides a mechanism for managing wastes

and the targeting of economic instruments to specific waste streams.

 

  • Extended Producer Responsibility (Section 18(1) and (2) of the

NEMWA) – allows for the Minister to specify the financial arrangements of

a waste minimisation programme in support of EPR arrangements.

 

  • Regulations by Minister (Section 69(1o)) allows for the

financial arrangements of waste minimisation programmes; (Section 69(1x))

requirements in respect of the funding or ensuring of a waste management

activity; and (Section 69(1bb)) incentives or disincentives to encourage

a change in behaviour towards the generation of waste and waste

management by all sectors of society.

 

The NPSWM gives effect to the National Waste Management Strategy

(NWMS). In particular, it addresses two policy instruments to be applied

in managing waste in South Africa – Economic instruments (El) and the

implementation of EIs through Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

schemes.

 

2.3 Objective and principles of a National Pricing Strategy

 

The objective of the NPSWM is to implement economic instruments as

part of a basket of policy instruments which will –

 

  • Mainstream the Polluter Pays Principle

 

  • Reduce the generation of waste

 

  • Increase the diversion of waste away from landfill towards

avoidance, minimisation, reuse, recycling and recovery

 

  • Support the growth of a southern African (regional) secondary

resources economy from waste

 

  • Reduce the environmental impact of waste

 

The NPSWM is based on the following underlying Principles –

 

  • The implementation of waste management charges is based on

sound evidence.

 

  • The social, environmental and economic benefits of

implementing waste management charges outweigh the costs of

implementation.

 

  • Implementing waste management charges should not result in the

reversal of social, environmental and economic benefits achieved through

existing systems.

 

  • The selection of waste management charges and their methods of

implementation must ensure maximum returns to the waste management

sector.

 

  • The implementation of waste management charges is about

correcting market failures and internalising externalities (to drive

behavioural change), and funding the increased diversion of waste away

from landfill

 

  • Transparency with respect to the collection, and disbursement

of charges and their use.

 

Finally, the NPSWM is based on the principles of environmentally-

related taxation including equity, neutrality, simplicity, certainty,

administrative efficiency, cost effectiveness, flexibility, stability,

distributional effectiveness and a fair balance from the point of view of

taxpayers between the respective burdens of direct and indirect tax.

 

2.4 Problem statement

 

South Africa is estimated to generate 108 million tonnes of waste (as

at 2011), of which 98 million tonnes (or 90%) is disposed of to landfill.

With a value of at least R25.2 billion per year, these secondary

resources are mostly lost to the South African economy. Recycling figures

vary for the different waste streams, from less than 20% for tyres,

plastic and WEEE to in excess of 80% for metals and batteries. By

international standards, certain waste streams generated in South Africa

have achieved encouraging levels of recycling through voluntary

programmes, while other waste streams are lagging behind that of other

developed and developing countries. The South African Government has

implemented numerous pieces of waste legislation over the past five years

with the aim of reducing the impacts of waste on society and the

environment, and on increasing the diversion of waste away from

landfilling towards reuse, recycling and recovery. These command-and-

control instruments are one of a number of possible policy instruments

which can be applied in the management of waste. Economic instruments, as

an alternative, have been successfully applied internationally in driving

waste up the waste hierarchy, by creating a set of incentives and

disincentives through pricing. Pricing of waste can offer a more cost-

effective and dynamic form of regulation than the traditional command-and-

control approach. The NPSWM provides a methodology and approach for the

implementation of such economic instruments in South Africa.

 

South Africa currently has both mandatory and voluntary waste

management charges in place. Mandatory environmental charges are

currently levied on plastic bags, waste tyres and electric filament lamps

(incandescent light bulbs), electricity generation using non-renewable or

environmentally hazardous fuels (e.g. coal, gas, nuclear), motor vehicle

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Voluntary charges are levied on numerous

products, product groups and waste streams including, amongst others,

paper and packaging (plastic, glass, metal), waste oil, waste batteries.

The voluntary charges are collected and managed by product responsibility

organisations (PROs) often established and/or overseen by local producers

and government, in some cases. In certain instances the producers fulfil

this role directly without a dedicated PRO.

 

The NPSWM builds on the extensive work conducted as part of the NWMS,

Including the Research Papers on “Producer responsibility and consumer

awareness” and “Macroeconomic trends, targets and economic instruments”.

The NPSWM also draws heavily on the research undertaken by the CSIR, over

the past seven years, on economic instruments for solid waste management

in South Africa. The research conducted in 2009, in support of the NWMS,

undertook to assess the feasibility of introducing EPR Programmes within

the constraints of South Africa’s socio-economic and policy environment,

and based on the status and evaluation of international programmes, makes

recommendations for its implementation in South Africa. These remain very

relevant issues and these documents should be consulted when specific

charges or EPR schemes are developed.

 

2.5 Approach and methodology

 

The development of the NPSWM has been guided by a consultative

process, as required by the Waste Amendment Act. This has included

consultation and scoping with government, including relevant national and

provincial government departments, consultation with business, and public

participation (Table 1).

 

Table 1: Phases for developing the NPSWM

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

PHASE                    ACTIVITIES AND OUTPUTS

_________________________________________________________________________

 

INCEPTION PHASE          • Waste Amendment Act gazetted on the

2 June 2014

May 2014-July 2015

  • DEA consultation with business

through the Industry Waste Management Forum

and various individual meetings

_________________________________________________________________________

 

BASELINE RESEARCH        • Research conducted on economic

instruments for inclusion under the NPSWM

June-July 2014           and the approach to the setting of waste

management charges

 

Key outputs: Research paper – Economic

instruments and waste management

_________________________________________________________________________

 

STRATEGY FORMULATION     • Preparation of first draft of the

NPSWM

July 2014 – December

2014                     • Consultation with DEA, NPSWM

Steering Committee, SARS, National Treasury

 

  • Consultation with Working Group 9

(Provinces)

 

  • Consultation with Industry Technical

Task Team

 

Key outputs: Draft NPSWM for public

consultation; Stakeholder written comments

_________________________________________________________________________

 

CONSULTATION AND         • Stakeholder consultation workshops

FINALISATION             in the provinces

 

January 2015 – January   • Publication of draft NPSWM for

2016                     comment

 

  • Extensive consultations on the NPSWM

with government, industry and civil society

 

Key outputs: Stakeholder written comments,

final NPSWM

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Consultation with government, industry and business (including the

waste and recycling sectors) was critical to ensure that the NPSWM, and

the mechanisms for implementation, would have the least negative impact

on the sector and on business, while ensuring achievement of the above

objectives.

 

3 Economic instruments for implementing a NPSWM

 

This section provides a brief summary of possible economic

instruments (EIs), or waste management charges, which can be applied, as

alternative policy instruments, in achieving the objectives of the Waste

Act. Sections 4 and 5 provide more detail regarding the design and

implementation of the instruments.

 

The Waste Act provides for economic instruments, and empowers the

Minister, in concurrence with the Minister of Finance, to make

regulations for incentives and disincentives to encourage a change in

behaviour towards waste generation and management. Economic instruments

are to be applied within the overall fiscal and taxation policy of

government. The selection and use of Els must also be aligned with the

principles established by NEMA, including the ‘Polluter Pays’ Principle.

According to the ‘Polluter Pays’ principle, all generators of waste

(including businesses and households) are responsible for the costs of

managing the waste generated. These include not only the direct financial

costs of collection, treatment and disposal of waste, but also

externalities such as health and environmental impacts.

 

According to the NWMS, before economic instruments can be more widely

applied, the pervasive under-pricing of waste services needs to be

addressed. The under-pricing of waste services creates the wrong set of

incentives, undermines waste minimisation efforts, and ultimately

undermines the polluter pays principle. Additional economic instruments

will create distortions and be ineffective in this context.

 

Disposal of waste to landfill imposes significant costs on the

environment and broader society, in the form of various health, social

and environmental hazards. By contrast, moving up the waste management

hierarchy (waste avoidance, reducing, reusing, recycling and recovery of

waste) has clear benefits over final disposal to landfill. In most

instances it saves natural resources and energy; leads to reduced

production costs associated with using recycled as opposed to virgin

materials; reduces the costs of waste management; reduces environmental

impacts, demand for landfill airspace and other costs associated with

landfilling; and generates income and job creation opportunities for the

poor and unemployed.

 

However, neither the ‘negative externalities’ (external costs)

associated with disposal of waste to landfill; nor the ‘positive

externalities’ (external benefits) associated with moving up the waste

hierarchy, are reflected in market prices along the waste value chain. As

such, there is little incentive for waste generators and other role-

players along the chain to move up the waste management hierarchy.

Disposal to landfill is still perceived as being the ‘cheapest’ and

therefore most attractive option for waste management in South Africa,

while there are few incentives for recycling as a viable alternative.

Correcting market failures through correct pricing in such a way as to

‘internalise’ these externalities would therefore change the relative

prices of landfilling as compared to other options, thereby creating

incentives for moving up the waste management hierarchy.

 

EIs, such as environmental taxes and subsidies (also known as

Pigouvian taxes and subsidies), seek to change behaviour by changing the

relative prices (and hence incentives) that individuals and businesses

face. Specifically, they refer to a set of policy tools designed in such

a way as to internalise externalities in market prices, in line with the

Polluter Pays Principle. Ideally, the level of the Pigouvian tax or

subsidy (per unit of the activity or product in question) should be set

equal to the level of the external cost or benefit (per unit) (or as

close to this level as possible, given the uncertainties in estimation of

externalities), in order to fully internalise the externality, and to

avoid possible negative consequences associated with the tax or subsidy

being set at a sub-optimal level.

 

In the context of solid waste management, EIs provide incentives for

manufacturers, consumers, recyclers and other actors along the chain to

reduce waste generation and to seek alternatives to final disposal to

landfill (such as reuse, recycling or recovery). To understand the range

of potential economic instruments that can be used to address

externalities along the waste value chain, it is useful to think of each

step along the chain as involving market transactions, and of actors

along the chain as having a choice to make at each stage (Figure 1). In

this context, decisions made upstream in the value chain (e.g. by

producers) ultimately have a significant effect on downstream waste

generation and recycling. For example, when producers purchase materials

to use as inputs in manufacturing, they have a choice between virgin and

recycled materials. They also face choices with regard to product design

(e.g. the use of recyclable versus non-recyclable materials, the use of

composite materials, and the degree to which products can be easily

dismantled and the components separated for recycling). Similarly,

consumers can choose whether to purchase products consisting largely of

virgin or recycled materials (and products that are easy to recycle

versus those that are not); and how much of each type of product to

purchase. They must then choose whether to re-use waste items, to

separate (or return) their waste for recycling, or to have all of their

waste collected for disposal to landfill. Similarly, collectors and

recyclers have to make choices with regards to whether, how much, and

which types of materials to collect and recycle.

 

These market transactions (and the choices made by the actors

involved) are affected by the relative market prices of each option (in

addition to other factors, such as the range of choices, infrastructure

and services available to them). In order to internalise externalities in

these market prices, and therefore to ensure that the various role-

players along the chain make decisions which are of greatest benefit to

the economy, environment, and society; a broad range of economic

instruments can potentially be implemented, as and when deemed

appropriate to correct the market failure, at various points (upstream or

downstream) along the waste value chain (Figure 1).

 

Click here to see abovementioned image on page 15

 

Figure 1. Examples of economic instruments along the product-waste

value chain

 

A summary of possible economic instruments applied in the management

of solid waste is provided in Table 2.

 

Table 2: Potential economic instruments for solid waste management

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Category                   Instrument

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Downstream instruments     • Volumetric tariffs (“pay-as-you-

throw”)

 

  • Waste disposal taxes (including

landfill and incineration taxes)

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Upstream instruments       • Material and input taxes (including

virgin material taxes, taxes on hazardous

materials, etc.)

 

  • Product taxes

 

  • Advance recycling fees (ARFs) (also

known as advance disposal fees)

 

  • Deposit-refund schemes

 

  • EPR fees

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Subsidy-based instruments  • Recycling subsidies

 

  • Tax rebates and benefits

 

  • Capital financing

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

When selecting an instrument (or combination of instruments, such as

a tax-subsidy combination), it is important to ensure that “double-

taxation” is avoided, i.e. that externalities that have been addressed

through taxation at one point along the chain are not further addressed

at another point along the chain. Provided that charges are set at an

appropriate level that takes external costs along the lifecycle of a

particular product into account, it will not be appropriate to impose

charges both upstream and downstream. Instead, a choice must usually be

made as to where along the value chain a charge will be levied. This

choice will often depend on whose behaviour is being targeted for

intervention; that is, who has the ability to make decisions that

ultimately affect outcomes with respect to waste generation and

recycling. Often, for example, it is decisions made by producers (e.g.

with respect to input or material use, recycled content or recyclability)

that have the most significant impact on waste generation and recycling;

while in other cases it may be more appropriate to target the behaviour

of waste generators.

 

The following sub-sections briefly describe each of these

instruments, focusing on the purpose of each instrument (i.e. the

incentives provided), and examples of typical applications. Section 3

provides greater detail regarding the design and implementation of the

instruments; focusing specifically on the first two categories of

instruments (upstream and downstream instruments), and in particular on

the issues to be considered in setting the level of the tax or charge in

each case.

 

3.1 Upstream instruments

 

In some cases, it may not be administratively, practically, or

politically feasible to implement volumetric tariffs or disposal taxes

(e.g. due to the complexities associated with monitoring household waste

generation; potential for resultant illegal dumping; possible negative

impacts on poor households; etc.). In that case, an alternative to

targeting downstream waste generation or disposal activities directly is

to assess taxes based on upstream activities, such as the purchase of

products that will ultimately be discarded as waste, thereby providing an

incentive to waste generators to reduce their consumption of such

products. Extending the Polluter Pays Principle even further upstream,

taxes could be levied on environmentally significant materials or inputs

(e.g. virgin materials) used in production (i.e. before products reach

the consumer); so as to provide incentives for producers to reduce the

use of such inputs or materials in manufacturing, and to rather use (for

example) recycled materials as an alternative.

 

In general, product, input and material taxes aim to reduce waste

generation by increasing the relative price of (and thus reducing demand

for) specific products, inputs or materials, the use of which (in

production or consumption) generates waste. The intention is to make

alternative (less damaging) products or inputs relatively cheaper, and

therefore more attractive.

 

Specifically, input taxes or material taxes increase the costs of

specific inputs or raw materials used in the production of end-products;

thus encouraging producers to use fewer or alternative inputs, or to

reuse or recycle waste materials; thereby decreasing waste generation, or

the environmental impact thereof. For example, levies can be applied to –

 

  • virgin materials, to reduce the use of these materials in

production and encourage the use of recycled materials as an alternative,

by increasing the price of virgin materials relative to recycled

materials

 

  • hazardous materials, to reduce their use in production and

encourage the use of non-hazardous inputs instead, thereby changing the

composition of waste so as to reduce the environmental impact of a given

quantity of waste

 

  • packaging materials, to discourage over-packaging (encourage

lighter packaging); or

 

  • materials which cannot be recycled or which are difficult to

recycle, to encourage the use of recyclable as opposed to non-recyclable

materials, thus increasing the likelihood of recycling and decreasing

disposal to landfill.

 

By contrast, product taxes are applied to the end-product itself,

based on its ’embodied’ waste, thus creating incentives for consumers to

reduce their purchases of waste-generating products (e.g. by reducing

consumption or seeking environmentally-benign alternatives), and

indirectly reducing waste generation. Specifically, product taxes can be

applied to –

 

  • products which generate a particularly high level of waste, or

waste with a particularly high environmental impact, thereby reducing the

demand for these products relative to products which generate lower

levels of waste, or less environmentally-damaging waste.

 

  • products which cannot be recycled as opposed to those that

can, thereby increasing demand for recyclable as opposed to non-

recyclable products, thus potentially increasing recycling and decreasing

waste to landfill. In that way products made from 100% recycled materials

could be exempted and products made partly from recycled materials could

carry a reduced charge.

 

Advance Recycling Fees (ARF), are similar to product taxes, are

implemented primarily for the purpose of raising funds to cover the costs

of downstream collection and recycling activities, rather than with the

aim of internalising the externalities associated with disposal.

 

Both product and input taxes can, in principle, reduce waste

generation, reduce the environmental impact of a given quantity of waste,

and encourage recycling, thereby diverting waste from landfill. However,

there is need to complement tax-based instruments with command and

control measures to enhance their effectiveness, with suitable

alternatives (such as kerbside collection of recyclables, or conveniently

located recycling infrastructure), as well as positive incentives

reinforcing the use of such alternatives. For example, the incentive for

illegal dumping that is created by volumetric waste collection tariffs or

landfill taxes implies that such charges, on their own, will not be as

effective. Similarly, product taxes on their own will encourage some

reduction in waste generation, but may not encourage a significant amount

of recycling.

 

For this reason, upstream tax-based instruments are often implemented

within structured systems, such as Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)

schemes, which ensure that the supporting infrastructure and alternative

systems are put in place to support the collection and reprocessing of

recyclables. These EPR schemes are

 

Categories of waste that have been subject to product taxes include

plastic bags, non-returnable containers, lubricant oils, automobile

batteries. The category of non-returnable beverage containers has been

the major object of product fees. Usually, the collected fees are

primarily used to finance the deposit-refund systems for containers

(UNEP, 2005)

 

usually funded by EPR fees paid by the producers and importers, but

may also be funded by revenue generated through the collection of

upstream and downstream taxes (See Section 4).

 

It is also often necessary for a combination of tax- and subsidy-

based instruments to be considered. One such combination is a Deposit

Refund Scheme (DRS); although various other combinations are possible

(see also Section 2.3; and Choe and Fraser 1998). Deposit-refund schemes

essentially combine a product tax (the ‘deposit’) and a recycling subsidy

(‘refund’). The ‘deposit’ is paid upon purchase of the product, while the

‘refund’ is paid upon return of the used product or packaging to an

authorised location, thereby creating an incentive for consumers to

return the product or packaging for recycling or reuse. Deposit-refund

schemes are most commonly used for beverage containers, although their

use has recently been expanded to include tyres, batteries and cars (e.g.

Sweden and Norway).

 

Table 3 summarises the incentives provided by the different types of

upstream instruments available, as well as examples of the products and

materials to which they are typically applied.

 

Table 3: Upstream instruments: Incentives created and typical

applications

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Instrument          Incentives created       Typical applications

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Material and input  Increase relative prices Virgin materials;

taxes               of virgin materials (or  packaging; hazardous

materials that are       materials

difficult to recycle, or

that contain toxic

properties) used as

inputs in production; so

as to provide incentives

to use recycled (or

recyclable, or less

toxic) materials as

alternatives

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Product taxes       Levied at the point of   Tyres and WEEE (some

production or final      OECD countries),

sale, in order to        fuels, motor

internalise external     vehicles, batteries

costs in product prices, (particularly car

with the aim of changing batteries),

producer or consumer     packaging, and non-

behaviour (reducing      biodegradable plastic

supply and/or demand).   bags (e.g. Ireland,

Italy, South Africa).

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Advance recycling   Similar to product       Used oil (South

fees                taxes; although main aim African Rose

is to raise revenue to   Foundation), oil

cover costs of recycling containers and oil

filters (e.g.

California and

Western Canada),

batteries (USA) and

WEEE (California,

China)

Deposit-refund      Deposit is paid upon     Glass and plastic

scheme              purchase (thereby        beverage containers

providing similar        and steel beverage

incentive effects as     cans (various

product tax) and is      countries, including

refunded upon return of  South Africa);

the used product or      batteries; tyres,

packaging for recycling  fluorescent light

or re-use, thereby       bulbs, and cars (e.g.

providing an incentive   Sweden and Norway).

to return recyclable or

reusable items rather

than throw them away

_________________________________________________________________________

 

EPR Fees            EPR fees are fees paid   EPR schemes for e.g.

by producers and         WEEE, tyres, paper

importers (the obligated and packaging,

industry) to fund EPR    lighting, paint,

schemes. Their main aim  cars, batteries, oil,

is to raise revenue that medicines

can drive behavioural

changes of producers

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

3.2 Downstream instruments

 

Charges for waste collection services in South Africa are typically

flat monthly payments, often related to property size, value, or

location; but unrelated to the quantity (volume or weight) or type of

waste generated. All waste generators (e.g. households) typically pay the

same amount for municipal waste collection (via general taxation or

municipal rates/levies) regardless of how much waste they generate. This

implies that the household does not pay per unit of waste generated or

collected; i.e., the household faces zero costs at the margin for

generating additional waste for disposal (usually to landfill); and thus

has no incentive to reduce waste generation, or separate waste for

recycling.

 

The solution to this problem is not simply to increase waste

management charges to a higher flat rate; as in that case the waste

generator still faces 2ero costs at the margin for generating additional

waste. Instead, the solution is to charge variable rates, based on the

quantity of waste collected (i.e. volumetric tariffs or “pay-as-you-

throw” (PAYT)). Quantities should ideally be assessed based on weight;

although where this is not feasible, a proxy (such as the number of

standard-sized containers or bags) can be used (in which case the

container or bag in question should be sufficiently small so as to ensure

that there are still incentives to reduce waste generation at the

margin). This will give the household an incentive to avoid higher

charges by reducing waste generation or separating waste for recycling,

and possibly even to alter purchasing patterns toward products with less

packaging (or recyclable packaging) In other words, volumetric tariffs

not only encourage recycling as an alternative to having waste collected

for disposal to landfill, but they can also encourage households to

reduce the amount of waste generated in the first place.

 

Volumetric tariffs on their own will not necessarily reflect the

external costs associated with waste generation. Ideally, volumetric

tariffs should consist of two components; one aimed at ensuring full

financial cost recovery of services, and a second component reflecting

external costs (the second component would essentially be a Pigouvian tax

aimed at internalising environmental externalities). In addition, higher

charges should apply to the collection of hazardous wastes, so as to

stimulate a change in the composition of waste toward less hazardous

forms of waste.

 

Alternatively, external costs can be addressed at the disposal stage

through disposal taxes, e.g. through a tax on landfilling (over-and-above

landfill tipping fees) or incineration, rather than at the collection

stage. For example, the external costs of disposal to landfill (including

social and environmental impacts, such as air, water and soil pollution)

are not currently built into landfill tipping fees. The result is an

artificially low cost of landfilling, which makes recycling and recovery

unattractive alternatives. Landfill taxes reflecting these external costs

would raise the costs associated with landfilling, thereby creating

incentives to seek alternatives.

 

The incentives provided by volumetric tariffs and disposal taxes are

summarised in Table 3, along with examples of their application.

 

Table 4: Downstream instruments: Incentives created and examples

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Instrument         Incentives created           Examples

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Volumetric         Puts a price on each unit    Volume or weight-based

tariffs            of waste collected from      waste collection

waste generators (such as    charges have been used

households), thereby         by some municipalities

providing an incentive for   in the European Union,

the household to reduce the  South Korea, the United

amount of waste generated    States, Canada and

or put out for collection,   Australia

and to seek alternatives

such as recycling or re-

use. May further seek to

internalise external

(social and environmental)

costs, thereby providing

further incentives to

reduce waste generation.

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Waste disposal     Internalise the external     The UK and some EU

taxes              costs of waste disposal      Member States levy a

into the disposal fees       weight-based landfill

(e.g. landfill tipping       tax on disposal to

fees), thereby increasing    landfill, on top of the

the cost of disposal         normal tipping fee (in

relative to waste            combination with a ban

prevention, recycling and    on certain waste

recovery, and in turn        streams to landfill).

making the latter

relatively more financially

viable

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

While the downstream Instruments are aimed at reducing waste

generation and disposal, and changing consumer behaviour, the revenue

generated through the tariffs and taxes can be used to fund activities

such as landfill closure costs, pollution monitoring and control, clean-

up of contaminated sites, and resource recycling and recovery activities.

Revenue generated through downstream instruments, if successful in their

objectives, will decrease over time as waste generation is reduced or

diverted away from landfilling.

 

3.3 Subsidy-based instruments

 

Various types of subsidy-based instruments or tax incentives can also

be used to encourage and support recycling activities, either in

combination with one of the tax-based instruments discussed in Sections

3.1 and 3.2 (and in more detail in Section 4), or funded via the general

fiscus. One such instrument is a recycling subsidy, in which government

provides a payment either per unit or per kg of material recycled, or as

a lump-sum grant to communities or recycling centres (e.g. as is common

in the United States). Alternatively, Government could provide tax

credits or rebates for recycling (or for recycling investment); whereby

it provides tax relief to anyone who recycles or who invests in recycling

infrastructure. In either case, funding for the instrument could be

raised either via a complementary tax-based instrument, such as a product

tax or advance recycling fee; or from elsewhere.

 

Subsidies can also be in the form of grants to provide financial

incentives for the improvement of various aspects of solid waste

management, including research and development. Other possible

instruments include preferential tax treatment for commendable waste

management practices or initiatives, and tax credits to industries using

recycled materials. Various other types of tax relief, rebates and

concessions can be used. Government can also extend preferential price

treatment in its procurement practices to suppliers using recycled

content. Finally, various forms of support can be provided to stabilise

the market for recyclable materials, such as price supports for the

establishment of materials banks; the guarantee of an income for a

recycling plant or facility; or the institution of investment grants,

accelerated depreciation, and soft loans designed to encourage private

enterprises to implement resource recovery activities.

 

Since the focus of the NPSWM is on possible charges for

implementation in the management of waste in South Africa, subsidy-based

instruments are not elaborated on further in this document. However,

these are all possible economic instruments which the Department of Trade

and Industry (the dti) and National Treasury can explore to support the

development of downstream recycling and recovery markets.

 

There is increasing evidence that a coherent combination of tax and

subsidy-based instruments is far more effective than implementing any

single instrument in isolation. A tax-subsidy combination has the dual

benefit of ensuring a source of funding for the payment of subsidies (and

an environmentally-related avenue for directing revenues received from

the tax); and allowing for a coherent and complementary set of incentives

to be created, whereby incentives are created to both discourage

environmentally damaging behaviour (through the tax) and encourage

environmentally friendly behaviour (by both providing and subsidising a

viable alternative). For example:

 

Examples: In Argentina, waste service charges are reduced upon proof

of efforts to reuse or recycle (Inter-American Development Bank 2003).

The UK recycling credit scheme, introduced in 1992, created a means

whereby savings in collection and disposal (landfill) costs, as a result

of increased recycling, are passed on from disposal authorities to

authorities or other organisations undertaking recycling activities.

 

In China, an “Old-for-New Home Appliance Scheme’ was introduced in

2009, whereby consumers were provided with a subsidy when purchasing new

electronic appliances, worth 10% of the product price; provided that they

sold their old electric goods to certified recycling companies (Liu

2014).

 

  • subsidies could be provided to waste collectors and recyclers

per unit of waste collected or recycled; funded by revenues generated

through a waste disposal tax

 

  • payments could be provided to waste generators per unit of

waste separated for recycling; in combination with a tax per unit of

waste collected for disposal to landfill

 

  • subsidies could be provided to producers for using recycled

materials; in combination with a tax on virgin materials; so as to create

price differentiation in the market for inputs that favours the use of

recycled materials over virgin materials

 

  • subsidies could be provided to producers who design products

for recyclability; in combination with a tax on producers who design

products which are difficult to recycle

 

  • subsidies could be applied on the purchase of products that

are made from recycled materials or that are designed for recyclability;

in combination with a tax on products made from virgin materials or that

are not designed for recyclability; so as to create price differentiation

in the market for products; favouring those products that are made from

recycled materials or are designed for recyclability over those that are

not

 

Specific combinations that have been applied in practice include an

upstream combination tax/subsidy, a combined Advance Recycling Fee (ARF)

and recycling subsidy, and a combined product tax and recycling subsidy

(essentially a deposit refund scheme). Some of these combinations are

discussed in more detail in Section 4.

 

4 Approach to the setting of waste management charges

 

As described in Section 3, economic instruments for waste management

fall into three broad categories, namely downstream instruments (e.g.

volumetric tariffs and disposal taxes), upstream instruments (such as

product, material and input taxes), and subsidy-based instruments (such

as tax credits and rebates). Given the focus of this document on waste

management charges, this Section focuses on the first two of these

categories. In particular, it focuses on considerations in the selection

and design of each of these categories of instruments, with particular

emphasis on considerations for the setting of charges.

 

Given the “complexities and specific nature of many market failures”

(National Treasury, 2006), it is not possible or appropriate at this

stage to be overly prescriptive in terms of a general methodology that

can be applied in the setting of all charges, since this will need to be

done on a case-by-case basis, depending on the –

 

  • product, product group or waste stream

 

  • environmental (waste) problem and (fiscal) objective(s) to be

addressed

 

  • intention of the instrument (e.g. to address market failures

by internalising externalities to change behaviour, or generate funding

for recycling initiatives)

 

  • type of instrument that is appropriate for the case at hand

(which in turn depends on the specific problem to be addressed);

 

  • methodology or modelling approach to be used in estimating

external costs (where necessary); etc.

 

In accordance with the views of National Treasury, “for each

environmental objective, a tailored or stylised solution is likely to be

required” (National Treasury, 2006).

 

4.1 Downstream instruments

 

Before considering the implementation of volumetric waste collection

tariffs or disposal taxes, extensive consultation with stakeholders (e.g.

waste generators, local municipalities) is necessary to establish both

the need for such instruments, as well as to select the appropriate

instrument(s). Factors to consider include:

 

  • Existing pricing of waste services (for example, are the full

financial costs of providing the services being recovered? If not, this

should ideally be addressed before considering the implementation of

economic instruments)

 

  • Monitoring and enforcement capacity (does capacity exist to

measure waste generation at the household level (and, if not, to monitor

waste entering landfill sites); and to monitor illegal dumping? If not,

can such capacity be relatively easily developed?)

 

  • Local socio-economic conditions (e.g. the number of indigent

households – what will be the likely impact of the instrument on the

poor?).

 

  • Price elasticity of demand for the service in question,

relative to the intention of the instrument (e.g. if the intention is

largely to change behaviour, but price elasticity of demand for the

service in question is low, then a tax is not likely to be effective in

achieving this objective).

 

Having established the need and selected an appropriate instrument;

there is a need to design the instrument (including the determination of

charges) in such a way as to maximise positive impacts and minimise

negative impacts on the economy, society and environment; which should

also involve extensive consultation with affected parties. Issues to be

considered in the case of each instrument are discussed briefly below.

 

4.1.1 Volumetric tariffs

 

The aims of volumetric charging for waste collection services (pay-as-

you-throw) are two-fold; firstly, to ensure that waste generators are

charged per unit of waste set out for collection (ideally on a weight

basis, or else per bag, or varying with bin size), thereby creating

incentives for a reduction in waste generation. Secondly, having

established volumetric charging, it is then possible to incorporate the

external (social, environmental and health) costs associated with waste

generation and disposal, in the form of a Pigouvian (environmental) tax

(over-and-above tariffs reflecting full financial cost recovery). This

tax rate should ideally be based on the external costs per tonne of waste

generated. It is also important that downstream charges distinguish

between the costs related to providing the service at each specific stage

of waste management (e.g. collection, transport, transfer, and final

disposal).

 

True volumetric tariffs or pay-as-you-throw schemes have been

implemented mainly in developed countries (e.g. USA, Switzerland, South

Korea, Canada and Australia). In developing countries, waste collection

tariffs tend to be flat periodic payments aimed at cost recovery rather

than at reducing waste generation. There are a few isolated examples from

Latin America (e.g. Santiago (Chile) and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) where

user charges are related to the weight of the waste being collected.

Nevertheless, only the private (financial) costs of the waste service are

incorporated; external costs are not addressed (UNEP 2006).

 

Furthermore, the Waste Amendment Act (Section 13A) provides for waste

management charges that differ in respect of different geographic areas,

including –

 

  1. on the basis of socio-economic aspects within the area in

question;

 

  1. the physical attributes of each area; and

 

iii.    the demographic attributes of each area.

 

In this respect, volumetric tariffs could be applied differentially

on the basis of income levels or some proxy thereof (e.g. property values

or location); in order to ensure that the impact on indigent households

is minimised. In practice, this could be applied through the use of

rising step/block tariffs, free basic service levels, or rates that

differ based on income levels, property value or location. To the extent

that transport distances impact on the costs (and associated

externalities) of providing the service, this could also be taken into

account, and the realistic transport costs should be considered and

measures put in place to minimise the impact on poor households. Not

taking into account such costs may lead to inefficient solutions which

may cost the poor household even more.

 

Furthermore, the Waste Amendment Act (Section 13A) provides for waste

management charges that differ in respect of different types of uses,

including –

 

  1. on the basis of the manner in which the waste is

generated or disposed of;

 

  1. whether it is re-used, recycled or recovered;

 

iii.    whether any previously disadvantaged group is impacted

upon or derives any benefit therefrom.

 

As such, the charges in question (or higher charges) should apply to

waste that is destined for disposal to landfill, whereas no charges (or

lower charges) should apply to waste that is destined for reuse, recovery

or recycling; while the opportunity for recycling to be subsidised should

also be considered.

 

Similar considerations (i.e. varying charges by geographic areas or

different types of use) apply to certain of the other economic

instruments discussed in the document.

 

4.1.2 Disposal taxes

 

Where it is not feasible to monitor the quantity of waste collected

from individual waste generators, an alternative is to apply the

environmental tax at the disposal stage (over-and-above existing disposal

fees, e.g. landfill tipping fees; provided that these fees already

address the full financial costs associated with disposal), in the case

of landfill taxes, the level of the tax should ideally be based on the

external costs (e.g. air, water and soil pollution; health impacts and

‘disamenities’) per tonne of waste disposed of to landfill. These types

of valuations require fairly in-depth studies and are highly site-

specific. Ideally, charges should be based on valuations that have been

conducted (or at least adjusted) specifically for the site in question.

Nevertheless, in those cases where landfill taxes with explicit

environmental objectives have been implemented (e.g. in the UK and New

Zealand); the level of charges tends to be determined at the national

level.

 

A differentiated landfill tax system is applied within the EU,

depending on the waste type or landfill type. While there are usually a

limited number of tax levels (1-3), more than 20 tax rates have been

applied, e.g. Poland. Landfill taxes are significant, ranging from

€30-70 per tonne (_} R400-R1000 per tonne), however lower tax rates

are typically applied to inert wastes

 

Example: In Estonia, revenue generated from landfill taxes is made

available by Government to subsidize private sector recycling activities.

Recyclers can apply for up to 50% of their costs to establish recycling

facilities.

 

Suggested approach to the design and implementation of Disposal Taxes

 

  • Ensure a system is in place for adequate monitoring of

quantities (by weight) of waste disposed (e.g. weighbridges, accurate

reporting, etc.)

 

  • Ensure that current disposal fees take the full operational

and capital costs into account (full-cost accounting) and correct if not

 

  • Ensure adequate enforcement capacity to avoid illegal dumping

 

  • Determine the external costs of waste (this must be done by a

qualified environmental/resource economist):

 

– Identify the external costs of waste not currently incorporated in

existing landfill or incineration tipping fees in the area in question

(environmental impacts, social impacts, health impacts etc.)

 

– Value (quantify in monetary terms) the external costs per tonne of

waste landfilled or incinerated, using an appropriate economic valuation

technique (such as the Contingent Valuation Method, the Hedonic Pricing

Method, the Benefits Transfer Method, Production Function approaches,

etc.)

 

  • Taxes should be levied per tonne of waste landfilled or

incinerated, at a level reflecting external costs per tonne (over-and-

above landfill or incineration tipping fees that reflect full financial

cost recovery)

 

  • Conduct extensive consultation on the level of the tax, as

well as modelling of the impacts of the tax in terms of social, economic

and environmental outcomes (taking into account price elasticity of

demand for the service in question, among other variables). In

particular, attention should be paid to potential negative unintended

consequences, such as illegal dumping

 

  • The tax should be phased in gradually, according to a schedule

that is provided to the target group in advance, to ensure that impacts

of the tax can be managed_

 

4.2 Upstream instruments

 

As with downstream instruments, the implementation of an upstream

instrument is to establish the need for such an instrument. This need

must be established in consultation with stakeholders (particularly

industry (including businesses across the supply chain), consumers,

retailers, etc.), and must take into account-

 

  • the characteristics of the waste stream (existing versus

potential recovery rates, ease of collection, problems associated with

disposal, etc.)

 

  • the industry in question (e.g. the existence and effectiveness

of existing mechanisms e.g. Extended Producer Responsibility schemes

and/or other industry initiatives)

 

  • potential impacts on businesses and consumers (for example,

will the tax have a disproportionate impact on smaller businesses and/or

poorer consumers).

 

  • Price elasticity of demand for the product or input in

question, relative to the intention of the instrument (e.g. if the

intention is largely to change behaviour, but price elasticity of demand

for the product or input is low, then a tax is not likely to be effective

in achieving this objective).

 

Then, having established the need for such an instrument, an

appropriate instrument must be selected in consultation with the relevant

stakeholders; based on the intended purpose of the instrument; and on the

point along the supply chain where the tax will be levied (e.g. on the

purchase of inputs, the production of outputs, or sale of the finished

product). In turn, the latter decision will be determined by the specific

activity or behaviour targeted for intervention. The process of

instrument selection can be aided by examining Table 5, which summarises

the range of instruments available, the point along the supply chain

where they would typically be levied, and the primary purpose which would

generally be served by each instrument.

 

Table 5: Information relevant for selection of upstream economic

instruments

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Instrument         Charge levied on        Primary purpose

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Material and       Purchase/use of         Reduce the use of specific

input taxes        specific materials or   inputs or materials in

inputs in production    production, such as virgin

materials (or materials

that are difficult to

recycle); in favour of

secondary (recycled)

materials, or materials

that are easier to

recycle. Special taxes may

be levied on packaging, or

on materials that contain

toxic properties or that

are deemed to cause

pollution or create a

particular hazard

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Product tax        Production or point of  Reduce production or

sale                    consumption (and therefore

waste generation) of

particular products or

types of products, such as

products that are

difficult to recycle (e.g.

by virtue of their

composition), and

encourage “design for

recyclability” instead

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Advance recycling  Production or point of  Raise revenues to cover

fees               sale                    recycling costs

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Deposit-refund     Point of sale           Encourage return of used

schemes                                    products for recycling

_________________________________________________________________________

 

EPR fees           Number of units of      Fund the EPR schemes,

product put into the    typically paid to manage

market                  and implement the EPR

scheme to achieve landfill

diversion targets

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Most instruments may be able to serve a secondary purpose, such as

revenue generation to fund recycling activities, in addition to the

primary purpose, which (particularly in the case of material and input

taxes, as well as product taxes) would generally focus on behavioural

change (e.g. reducing production or consumption of a waste-generating

product). In addition, however, there are certain instruments

(specifically advance recycling fees) for which the primary purpose is to

raise revenues for recycling, with behavioural change as a secondary

purpose.

 

Having established the need and selected an appropriate instrument,

the next step is instrument design, including the setting of charges.

Drawing on best practice from other countries, and taking into account

the South African context, the following sub-sections provide more

specific information on issues that need to be considered in designing

each type of instrument (including considerations relating to the setting

of charges).

 

4.2.1 Product, material and input taxes

 

Taxes on materials and inputs used in production essentially extend

the polluter pays principle by shifting responsibility for waste

generation from consumers to producers (this can be called the “producer

pays principle,” and is line with the principle of EPR). The rationale

for extending the “polluter pays principle” is that waste generators

themselves often have little control over the amount of waste (or the

environmental impact of that waste) associated with the products that

they purchase. Instead, such decisions often rest with producers, who can

reduce waste generation by changing the inputs or materials used in their

products, or by re-thinking product design. Taxes or levies on

environmentally damaging materials and inputs can create incentives for

producers to reconsider the materials and inputs used in production,

making less damaging materials or inputs more attractive. Importantly,

“to meet the criterion of economic efficiency and to conform to the

producer pays principle… the size of the levy needs to be related

directly to the environmental damage” (Pearce and Turner 1993:72) (see

above).

 

Indeed, the Waste Amendment Act (Section 13) provides for waste

management charges that differ on the basis of –

 

  1. a) the characteristics of the waste disposed of

 

  1. b) the volume of the waste disposed of

 

  1. c) the toxicity of the waste disposed of

 

  1. d) the nature and extent of the impact on the environment caused by

the waste disposed of

 

  1. e) the extent of approved deviation from prescribed waste standards

or management practices

 

In the case of material taxes, for example, these considerations

could be incorporated through differential charging based on the

toxicity, degree of hazard or environmental impact associated with

different types of materials; and the ease with which the material can be

recycled. In the case of product taxes, differential rates could be

applied to products on the basis of the toxicity or degree of hazard of

its components, its recycled content, the use of composite materials, or

the ease with which the product can be dismantled and the components

recycled. Further discussion regarding the basis on which charges can be

differentiated is provided in the sub-sections that follow.

 

4.2.1.1 Virgin material tax

 

Ideally, a tax on the use of virgin materials in production, which

aims to reduce the use of virgin materials and encourage the use of

secondary (recycled) materials as an alternative, should be based on the

external (social, environmental and health) costs associated with the use

of the virgin material relative to the use of the secondary (recycled)

substitute; taking into account costs and benefits throughout the

lifecycle of the materials in question. In practical terms, these costs

could be based on the damage costs associated with the extraction and

processing of the virgin material input (to the extent that these are not

already incorporated in prices for the virgin material, perhaps through

an existing environmental levy on extraction of the material).

 

Examples of virgin material taxes include those in Brazil, China,

Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, The Philippines, Tanzania, UK, Venezuela, and

Vietnam (Inter-American Development Bank 2003; Bluffstone 2003). In

Brazil, for example, there is a tax on the use of wood and other forest

products, aimed primarily at reducing the rate of deforestation (Huber et

  1. 1998); while in China, the use of a wide range of energy and raw

material resources are subject to a tax (initially based on volume or

weight, but now based on a fixed percentage of the price), including

crude oil, natural gas, coal, non-ferrous metals and salt (Jing and

Huixia 2010).

 

4.2.1.2 Input taxes

 

In addition to taxes on virgin materials, taxes can be levied on

various other inputs along the value chain, such as those that are

difficult to recycle or reuse (e.g. those containing toxic chemicals or

numerous types of materials), or that cause particular hazards upon

disposal; in order to reduce the use of those materials and instead

encourage the use of materials that are easier to recycle, or that are

less hazardous (OECD 2001). Ideally, tax rates for these inputs should be

based on the external costs per tonne of the material, either throughout

its life cycle, or at specific stages of its life cycle (e.g. post-

consumer), depending on the extent to which external costs throughout the

life cycle are not already incorporated in prices or taxes elsewhere.

 

Indeed, both input and material taxes can in principle be implemented

in combination with a subsidy-based instrument; thereby ensuring that

revenues collected are directed towards recycling activities, and

providing a set of mutually-reinforcing policy signals. An upstream

combination tax/subsidy is a tax (paid by producers) which is levied on

produced intermediate goods, thereby providing incentives for producers

to alter their material inputs and product design; the revenues from

which are then used to fund a financing mechanism to support recycling

activities; i.e., a subsidy provided to collectors, recyclers, waste

management firms or local government in order to incentivise recycling.

The level of the tax would be set in a similar way as that described

above for material and product taxes.

 

Example: Tanzania levies a 5% excise tax on fertilizer. The tax was

largely intended to reverse the inefficiencies and perverse incentives

created as a result of past subsidies, and have resulted in significant

reductions in fertilizer use. However, the tax may also have resulted in

a decrease in yields and a switch from intensive to extensive agriculture

(Bluffstone 2003). This example highlights the need for extensive

consultation and macro-economic modelling of the impacts of any proposed

tax prior to implementation. Ideally, such a tax should be levied only on

environmentally damaging fertilizers, and in combination with a subsidy

on environmentally friendly alternatives, such as organic fertilizers.

 

4.2.1.3 Product taxes

 

Product taxes work in a similar way to input or material taxes, the

main difference being that they are generally levied on a per-unit basis

on the production or sale of finished products; rather than on a weight

basis for materials or inputs used in the production process. They can be

levied either on producers (and importers), per unit of output (thereby

creating incentives to reduce overall production); or on consumers, per

unit purchased (thereby creating incentives to reduce consumer demand).

Typically, however, as with material and input taxes, product taxes

levied on producers tend to be shifted onto consumers in the form of

higher prices; such that the effect on consumer demand is similar in both

cases. In either case, the overall intention is generally to remove the

product from the waste stream.

 

UNEP finds that product taxes levied on consumers are more effective

in reducing consumption than taxes levied on producers; but at the

expense of a higher administrative burden. Specifically, it is found that

administrative costs associated with monitoring and collecting levies

from consumers is much higher as compared to levies on producers. UNEP

therefore recommends that in developing countries, product taxes should

generally be levied on suppliers (producers and importers) rather than

consumers. Nevertheless, examples in some countries show that a tax

levied on consumers, is more effective in terms of removing the product

from the waste stream. It is therefore clear that this decision requires

analysis of the cost-effectiveness for the specific country and industry

in question.

 

In principle, product taxes should be set in such a way as to reflect

the marginal external costs associated with the product, either

throughout its lifecycle, or, more commonly, at specific stages of its

life cycle (e.g. post-consumer). In practice, however, few product taxes

are true Pigouvian taxes (i.e. set at an optimal level in accordance with

external costs). This is largely due to the difficulties associated with

assessing the downstream environmental damages of a specific product.

Specifically, there may be considerable variation in the environmental

impacts of the product depending on the precise nature of downstream use

and disposal. The tax level would therefore typically need to be set in

such a way as to reflect average external costs, taking into account

typical patterns of use and disposal of that product for the country in

question. For example, in the case of both the Irish plastic bag levy and

the Belgian eco-tax, no attempt was made to assess marginal external

costs as a basis for setting the tax at an optimum level. At the same

time, however, as with any tax, it is important that due diligence and

extensive consultation be conducted in the setting of the tax level,

rather than setting taxes at an arbitrary level, which can often do more

harm than good. In the Irish case, for example, the setting of the

plastic bag levy took into account consumers’ maximum willingness to pay

(WTP) for plastic shopping bags. Estimates of WTP must be based on

rigorous survey-based research, using an economic valuation methodology

such as the Contingent Valuation Method, which requires environmental

economic expertise.

 

On the other hand, Akullian et al. propose a methodology for

assessing the externalities arising throughout the life cycle (including

production, distribution and disposal) of plastic bags in the US state of

Rhode Island, and show how an optimal Pigouvian tax rate can be

determined based on the resulting estimate. External costs per bag are

calculated, based on a review of economic valuation studies of the

various damages associated with plastic bags through their life cycle

(taking into account energy use and oil consumption associated with

production, as well as CO2 emissions and other damages throughout the

life cycle). A tax per bag equal to the overall external cost per bag is

proposed.

 

In either case, in addition to economic valuation studies to

determine an optimum tax level (based on external costs) or a ‘second

best’ tax level (based on consumers’ WTP); extensive consultation with

the affected industry and consumers must be conducted. For example, the

effectiveness of the Irish plastic bag levy can largely be attributed to

it being set at a sufficiently high rate (more than six times the average

maximum WTP), the intention of which was to motivate a change in

behaviour. However, it should be borne in mind that this high rate was

politically feasible in the Ireland case, because Ireland imports most of

its plastic bags, such that the impact on job losses was minimal.

However, in cases where the product in question is produced domestically

to a large extent; the setting of tax rates should be based on extensive

consultation with the industry in question cognisant of the potential

loss of employment.

 

Example: A well-known example of a product tax levied on consumers is

the Irish plastic bag levy, which is “explicitly aimed at changing

consumer’s behaviour, and fixed at an amount sufficiently high to give

most consumers pause for thought, and stimulate them to avoid paying by

bringing their own ‘permanent reusable shopping bags with them” (Convery

et al. 2006).

 

Product taxes can also differentiate between products on the basis

of, for example, the toxicity or degree of hazard of its components, its

recycled content, the use of composite materials, or the ease with which

the product can be dismantled and the components recycled. For example,

in the case of WEEE, product taxes typically vary depending on the item,

e.g. for mobile phones, laptops, desktops, different size TV screens,

etc. In Thailand, environmental taxes are levied on motor vehicles (based

on associated carbon emissions); fuel (based on lead content), air

conditioners (based on energy efficiency performance), and

environmentally harmful substances such as oil lubricants, pesticides,

tyres and packaging (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for

Asia and the Pacific, no date). Product taxes are also commonly levied on

products which cause particular problems upon disposal, such as tyres

(e.g. as in South Africa, Canada and Taiwan), certain types of light

bulbs (e.g. Korea), and batteries (e.g. Canada, Portugal and Sweden).

 

Suggested approach to the design and implementation of product,

material and Input taxes:

 

  • Determine the external costs of waste (this must be done by a

qualified environmental/ resource economist or a specialist in life-cycle

costing):

 

  • Taxes should be levied per unit or tonne of the product or

material/input purchased, at a level that reflects the external costs per

unit or per tonne

 

  • Differentiation of taxes based on for example size of the

business (in the case of material/input taxes) or area (in the case of

product taxes) should be considered so as to minimise the impacts on

small business and poorer households

 

  • Conduct extensive consultation on the level of the taxes, as

well as modelling of the impacts of the tax in terms of social, economic

and environmental outcomes (taking into account price elasticity of

demand for the product or input in question, among other variables)

 

  • Taxes should be phased in gradually, according to a schedule

that is provided to the target group in advance, to ensure that impacts

of the tax can be managed

 

Finally, product taxes are often combined with various forms of

recycling subsidies, most commonly in the form of a deposit-refund scheme

(see Section 3.2.5); although other combinations are also possible.

 

4.2.2 Advance recycling fees (ARFs)

 

Advance recycling fees (ARFs) are a special type of product tax that

are based on the estimated costs of collection, processing and recycling;

revenues from which are often used (or intended to be used) to cover the

costs of recycling. Such fees “may be visible to the consumer as a

separate line item on the bill, similar to sales tax or they can be assessed

upstream on producers and later incorporated into the product price” (Walls

2006: 3). Like product taxes, they are generally assessed per unit of the

product sold, but they can also be assessed on a weight basis.

 

The main distinction between ARF’s and product taxes is that ARFs are

intended primarily to raise revenues to cover recycling costs, with

potential secondary benefits in terms of reducing demand; while product

taxes are designed primarily to reduce demand by ensuring that external

costs are internalised in product prices. As such, unlike in the case of

product taxes, ARFs do not require economic valuation of the external

costs associated with the product. Instead, the level of the ARF is

determined (generally by an industry association) based on the estimated

costs of collection, treatment, recycling, re-use and/or recovery of the

product. In turn, the incentives provided by an ARF depend largely on

what is done with the revenues.

 

Example: Under the Western Canada used oil program, an industry-run

program, sales and imports of motor oil, as well as oil containers and

fillers, are subject to an ARF, payable by the seller. Revenues from the

ARF are then used to fund collection and recycling programs, via the

payment of a recycling subsidy to authorized collectors, transporters,

and processors for every litre of oil, every container, and every filter

that is recycled or reused. The level of both the ARF and the recycling

subsidy is set by a non-profit industry association operating in each

province; while payment of the ARF is mandated by legislation passed in

each province. The value of the return incentive varies by location, in

accordance with differences in transport costs. In turn, the level of the

ARF takes into account the revenues required to support the recycling

programs through the payment of the return incentives (Walls 2006).

 

Revenues from ARFs can be used either to cover the costs of managing

waste or to cover infrastructure costs, in a lump-sum fashion; or, they

can be used to fund financial incentives (payments) to consumers,

collectors or processors per unit or on a weight basis of material

returned, collected or recycled, thus increasing the quantity of

materials supplied for recycling. This combined ARF/incentive system (an

ARF combined with a recycling subsidy) is essentially a type of deposit-

refund scheme (see Section 3.2.5), where the ARF acts as a ‘deposit’ at

the point of sale, while the payment acts as a refund that is paid upon

return of the used product for recycling. Such schemes could also be

designed in such a way as to create incentives for producers to design

for recyclability. For example, “lower fees or higher refunds could be

paid for those products by which the waste management costs are reduced

through actions such as redesigning the product for easier disassembly or

with more homogenous material composition” (OECD 2001: 43). A combined

ARF/recycling subsidy is generally regarded as superior to an ARF alone,

since the latter encourages source reduction, while the former encourages

both source reduction and recycling.

 

Example: The electronic waste disposal fund in China raises funds to

subsidise and promote the collection and safe disposal of WEEE

(televisions, refrigerators, washing machines, air conditioners and

personal computers). Producers and importers of electronic and electrical

products pay a fee on each unit produced (for domestic use) or imported.

Fees are declared and paid into the fund on a quarterly basis, via the

tax authority, or when declaring imports via the customs authority.

Defaulters face legal action, while certified recyclers who can provide

proof of the WEEE they have recycled or disposed of are eligible to apply

for a subsidy, which is also unit-based (Liu 2014). Fee and subsidy rates

are set based on a series of consultations with experts, producers,

importers and recyclers. The rates are adjusted as necessary as

collection and disposal costs change, again based on extensive

consultation. Importantly, the fee is set at a much lower rate than the

subsidy; such that the authorities distribute and utilize the funds

without surplus (i.e. no revenue is generated). The value of the subsidy

is based on the basic cost of the recycling and disposal (which in turn

varies for each of the five targeted types of WEEE), excluding collection

costs; while the fee is typically set at between 10 and 20% of the

subsidy (Liu 2014).

 

4.2.3 Deposit-refund schemes

 

Deposit-refund schemes (DRS) essentially combine a product tax (paid

by the consumer upon purchasing the product) and a recycling subsidy

(received by the consumer per unit returned for recycling). The intention

of a deposit-refund system is to encourage the return of used products

for recycling. The deposit element of a DRS is unlikely to have the same

incentive effect as a product tax (i.e. to reduce demand; at least not

the same extent); as consumers know that the higher costs associated with

purchase can be offset upon return of the item. The purpose of the

initial deposit is rather to encourage return and to finance the payment

of refunds. Thereafter, the refund element comes into play, by creating

an incentive to return the product.

 

DRS systems have been applied to a range of products, from beverage

containers to batteries, tyres, fluorescent light bulbs, and end-of-life

vehicles (ELVs). They can be implemented by either the private or public

sector, or through some form of joint public-private partnership.

 

In theory, the deposit element of a DRS should be set so as to

incorporate “the commercial costs of the container (or specific product),

plus the environmental costs associated with the disposal or with

littering. Refunds should equal the avoided environmental costs plus the

scrap value of the container” (OECD 2001: 42). In practice, however, DRS

systems tend to be initiated by industry rather than by government; in

which case the deposit element is generally used to cover recycling

costs, rather than to internalise the environmental costs associated with

disposal of the product. In that case, the level of the deposit will be

set only in such a way as to cover recycling costs, including the costs

associated with the issuing of refunds. For beverage containers, the

value of the deposit and refund is generally based both on volume and on

the material from which the container is made. A stronger incentive for

returning the product can be created by ensuring that the refund is set

at a sufficiently high level (or when the deposit is set at a higher

percentage of the product price); or if the deposit-refund scheme is

implemented in combination with an instrument such as volumetric waste

collection tariffs. Ideally, the refund should equal the deposit to

ensure that consumers end up no worse off than before; although in some

systems only some fraction of the deposit is returned, with the remainder

used to finance the system.

 

4.2.4 EPR fees

 

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) fees are implemented in the

context of an Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme. EPR fees are

levied on obligated industries (typically producers and importers) per

product unit, weight, or market share. The main purpose of EPR fees (and

hence the basis for their calculation) is to provide funding to cover the

costs of establishing and implementing systems for collection, sorting

and other treatment required prior to the sale of materials to recyclers;

or the provision of incentives, subsidies, infrastructure and/or

information to consumers, collectors and/or processors; so as to increase

the supply of recyclables.

 

EPR fees are differentiated not only according to the weight or unit

of the material, but also according to the type of material. EPR fees in

practice do not differentiate completely between the actual costs for

collection of the specific materials, and cross subsidisation between the

different materials types is observed. The level of the fees is

ultimately determined by the market,.

 

Some EPR schemes include mechanisms that lower the fees for eco-

designed products or penalize (through higher EPR fees) difficult to

recycle products. This ensures that EPR fees also reflect recyclability

in order to drive eco-design or design for recycling.

 

As with material and input taxes, EPR fees are often passed on by

producers to consumers in the form of higher product prices, essentially

incorporating externalities associated with production into the product

price. This would in turn create incentives for consumers to reduce their

demand for products containing large volumes of packaging. The impact of

passing these costs on to consumers, particularly in the case of

packaging and packaging waste, which is likely to directly influence food

prices, must be assessed.

 

Taxes on materials and EPR fees are not mutually exclusive, although

such combinations should be designed in an integrated way so as to avoid

‘double taxation’ (See example box).

 

Example: Bulgaria has both a tax on packaging material, as well as a

system of EPR fees. Bulgaria gives producers and importers two options –

pay a product tax to the authorities or pay an EPR fee to the PRO. The

state levies a tax per tonne of packaging material due by producers and

importers. Companies that achieve specified recycling and recovery

targets individually, or producers and importers of packaged goods who

sign a contract with a PRO; are exempt from the tax. The tax can be seen

as a penalty imposed on companies for non-achievement of recycling and

recovery targets for packaging waste. The taxes are set at a relatively

high level, in some cases comparable to or representing a significant

percentage of the value of the material itself. The rationale for the

relatively high level of the tax is to encourage the use of less

packaging. By contrast the EPR fees are significantly lower than the

packaging taxes (Institute for European Environmental Policy 2009;

Doychinov and Whiteman 2012; Kjaer et al. 2012).

 

5 Implementing economic instruments

 

This section briefly outlines the implementation of economic

instruments within these management systems, with an emphasis on EPR. As

noted in Section 3, upstream economic instruments are often implemented

within a ‘management system’, such as an Extended Producer Responsibility

(EPR) scheme. This is to ensure that the supporting infrastructure and

alternative systems are put in place to support the separation,

transportation, recycling and recovery of recyclables, so as to maximise

the impact of the charge (i.e. more than simply revenue collection).

 

5.1 Downstream instruments

 

Downstream instruments (volumetric tariffs and disposal taxes) are

typically implemented as a tax in line with the overall fiscal and

taxation policy of government. They are either implemented by

municipalities (in the case of volumetric tariffs) or national government

(in the case of disposal taxes). While they may be implemented in

conjunction with upstream instruments, as a direct tax they are typically

implemented directly by National Treasury without the need for a broader

municipal implementation framework.

 

However, current research suggests that South African municipalities

do not yet have the systems and infrastructure in place to implement

downstream instruments such as volumetric tariffs (“pay-asyou-throw”) and

waste disposal taxes (including landfill and incineration taxes). In the

case of waste disposal, differential tipping fees (varying by quantity

and by waste type) are currently applied at most (if not all) private

waste disposal facilities and some municipal waste disposal facilities.

However, volumetric tariffs levied on the waste generators themselves,

e.g. households, is still some way off from implementation. In order to

have an effective system, municipalities ensure that they have financial

and administrative systems In place before implementing volumetric

tariffs on waste generators, such as correct billing and cost recovery

systems.

 

Similarly, the implementation of waste disposal taxes, require that

the basics in waste management be achieved, before levying charges on

waste disposal, e.g. correct waste information collection, weighing of

waste at disposal facilities. National Treasury notes that disposal taxes

may lead to perverse incentives and tax avoidance. As has been adopted

elsewhere, government may opt to implement waste disposal taxes on

permitted landfills, or on metropolitan municipalities and private waste

disposal facilities, however this may have the unintended consequence of

driving increased waste disposal to outlying small municipal landfills,

which if not designed and operated correctly could have greater

environmental and social impacts.

 

5.2 Upstream instruments

 

Upstream instruments, including product, material and input taxes;

advance recycling fees (ARFs); and deposit-refund schemes may be

implemented by national government in the absence of a management system,

as in the case of South Africa’s Plastic Bag levy.

 

5.2.1 Government intervention

 

Guidance on the intervention and the level of involvement by

government, in the design and implementation of EIs, is outlined in

National Treasury’s Environmental Fiscal Reform Policy (Figure 2). Figure

2 highlights that the implementation of EIs should be based on a clear

environmental objective (i.e. the nature of the market failure) and the

El must be well targeted to that objective. This ensures that the most

appropriate El is applied to addressing the environmental problem.

 

Click here to see abovementioned image on page 33

 

Figure 2. Process for considering government intervention

 

5.2.2 Selecting the appropriate economic instrument(s)

 

The NWMS points out that “Before implementing the EIs a process of

evaluation of the appropriateness of the instruments needs to take place

The process for the development of the Industry Waste Management Plan

must take into consideration the potential socio-economic impacts of the

charges on consumers, producers and retailers

 

There is also a need for Government to fully understand the

implications of implementing waste management charges in a system where

under-pricing of waste disposal still exists due to the lack of full-cost

accounting in the setting of waste collection and disposal tariffs. This

includes external social and environmental costs.

 

According to the National Treasury’s Environmental Fiscal Reform

Policy, the following criteria for assessing environmentally-related

taxes should be applied –

 

  • Environmental effectiveness

 

  • Tax revenue

 

  • Support for the tax

 

  • Legislative aspects

 

  • Technical and administrative issues

 

  • Competitiveness effects

 

  • Distributional impacts

 

  • Adjoining policy areas

 

The following factors should also be applied in selecting EIs (NWMS

Research Paper) –

 

  • Balancing environmental and economic gains

 

  • Differentiation of economic instruments by location

 

The NWMS Research Paper suggests that the following be in place

within the South African waste sector, before implementing EIs –

 

  • Financial sustainability of the waste management system

 

  • Full cost accounting and pricing of solid waste services

 

  • Evaluation of the full social and environmental costs

 

  • Establishment of administrative mechanisms • Specific

consideration of selected instruments

 

5.3 Extended producer responsibility

 

Economic instruments are often implemented within an Extended

Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme. Since it is the intention of DEA to

implement such EPR schemes in South Africa, the implementation of

upstream instruments is discussed in the context of EPR.

 

EPR is defined by the OECD as an “environmental policy approach in

which a producer’s responsibility for a product is extended to the post-

consumer stage of a product’s life cycle” (OECD, 2001). The ultimate goal

of EPR is sustainable development through environmentally responsible

product development and product recovery. In other words, producers of

goods have a responsibility to safely manage those products after the end

of useful life, in accordance with the country’s waste management

policies, which for South Africa, includes waste prevention,

minimisation, reuse, recycling, recovery and treatment with disposal to

landfill as a last resort.

 

The intentions of EPR schemes are to relieve municipalities of some

of the financial burden of waste management, and to provide incentives to

producers to reduce resources, use more secondary materials, and

implement product design changes to reduce waste. In this way, EPR shifts

the responsibility for waste management away from government to industry,

obliging producers and importers to internalise waste management costs in

their product prices and ensuring the safe handling of their products

post end-of-life.

 

EPR schemes are typically funded through the implementation of

various economic instruments, levied either directly by the obligated

industry, or by government.

 

5.3.1 Approach to developing EPR schemes

 

The requirements for the development and implementation of EPR

schemes in South Africa are provided in terms of Section 18 of the Waste

Act.

 

The review of international literature and discussions with

international experts in EPR shows that there is no single model of EPR

which has been universally adopted. EPR schemes differ in their design

and implementation across different countries and different products. EPR

schemes are customised to the socio-economic environment of the country

and the intentions of the EPR scheme. Implementing EPR schemes in South

Africa must therefore draw on what has been implemented internationally

and customised to suite South African conditions and needs.

 

Since EPR schemes differ in their design due to the unique

characteristics and properties of a product, product category or waste

stream, the various sectors must develop the plan whilst considering the

uniqueness of the sector. The approach is guided by the Waste Act, NWMS

(Figure 3) and the Waste Amendment Act, as well as international best

practice. All Industry Waste Management Plans must comply with the

provisions contained in the Notice published in terms of section 28 of

the NEMWA.

 

5.3.2 Identify product, product group or waste stream for EPR

 

It is the Minister’s prerogative to declare the application of EPR to

a product, group of products or waste stream. The declaration must be

done in consultation with the Minister of Trade and Industry by notice in

the government gazette. The Minister must also consult the Minister of

Finance regarding any financial arrangements for an EPR programme. This

is especially pertinent where the EPR programme is likely to require

changes to product design, or impact significantly on the economy or

economic sectors.

 

The following evaluation criteria are proposed, which includes

products identified in the NWMS as possible candidates for EPR schemes –

 

  1. Risk of harm – Products with toxic constituents that may become a

problem at the end of life (i.e. potential for environmental and social

impact). Examples include: batteries, electronics, used oil,

pharmaceuticals, paint and paint products (latex oil-based paints and

thinners), pesticides, radioactive materials, products containing mercury

and cadmium including thermometers, thermostats, electrical switches

(including automotive), and fluorescent lamps.

 

  1. Large products – that are not easily and conveniently thrown out

as waste. Examples include: appliances (e.g. fridges, TVs, computers),

furniture, carpets, building materials, tyres, end-of-life vehicles,

propane tanks and gas canisters.

 

  1. Complex products – Products with multiple material types that make

them difficult to recover in traditional recycling systems. Examples

include: packaging, electronics, and vehicles.

 

Additional criteria to be used in the prioritisation of waste streams

includes –

 

  1. Voluntary measures insufficient – where participation rates or

waste diversion from landfill remain low for voluntary EPR schemes

 

  1. Current waste stream recycling/recovery low – where the diversion

of specific waste streams from landfill is low, as benchmarked against

developing and developed countries (e.g. % recycling). The reasons for

low recycling/recovery rates of specific waste streams need to be

understood, and the opportunities that EPR schemes may provide,

evaluated.

 

The identification of products to be included within an EPR scheme

may be very specific. For example, the E-Cycle Washington program which

is an EPR scheme for WEEE, targets four specific products (computers,

monitors, laptops and televisions) and does not include all product

categories.

 

A risk-based evaluation will establish if a product, group of

products or waste stream is suitable for EPR and its consequences. This

may include an assessment of legal and administrative difficulties, such

as the potential impact on waste avoidance, economic implications

(including job creation), potential for contravention of competition

requirements, enforcement and the potential for illegal activities. The

risk-based evaluation will draw on scientific information and take into

account the country’s obligations with respect to any applicable

international agreements.

 

5.3.3 Design EPR scheme

 

5.3.3.1 The Product Steering Committee, To be convened by DEA, should

consist of representatives of National Government (DEA, the dti, National

Treasury), industry (producers, retailers, recyclers), the PRO (if

applicable) and consumer and environmental non-governmental organisations

(NGOs). The rationale for the establishment of a Steering Committee is to

ensure transparency and consultation in design, to increase understanding

of the targets and their purpose, and to ensure ongoing communication in

implementation.

 

5.3.3.2 Operationalisation of the Waste Management Bureau

 

The NEM: Waste Amendment Act, 2014 established the Waste Management

Bureau. The Bureau however still needs to be operationalised. The Waste

Management Bureau to ensure transparency and consultation in design, to

increase understanding of the targets and their purpose, and to ensure

ongoing communication in implementation of the Strategy.

 

5.3.3.3 Develop Product Plan

 

The Industry may develop a Product Plan and implementation programmes

for each waste stream. The Product Plan is the framework which outlines

the high-level design of the EPR scheme. It should be developed by the

respective industry in consultation with government.

 

Factors to be considered in the drafting of the Product Plan include,

amongst others –

 

  • Clear description of the problem (nature and extent) to be

addressed through EPR, to ensure that the correct product(s), economic

instruments, targets and scheme structure are selected.

 

  • Product, product groups or wastes to be included in the scheme

– a phased approach may be implemented as more product, product groups or

waste streams are added over time

 

  • Financial arrangements, including-

 

– The most appropriate economic instruments to be applied within the

EPR scheme to best achieve the objectives

 

– What the EPR scheme will fund, e.g. partial or full contribution to

product collection/take-back and recycling

 

– Whether the waste management charges are likely to affect adjoining

policy areas, including competition law

 

  • Institutional arrangements, including –

 

– The necessity for a Product Responsibility Organisation (PRO) and

if so, their roles and responsibilities

 

– On whom the charge is to be levied and where in the product/waste

value chain the economic instrument will be most appropriately applied

 

– Level of government involvement (in the collection of charges,

operation of the EPR scheme, and in the monitoring of the EPR

performance)

 

  • Targets – clearly defined phased targets for waste diversion

from landfill (including specific recycling and recovery targets) (there

should be a clear economic justification for the proposed targets)

 

  • The legal nature of the EPR scheme, whether voluntary or

mandatory

 

The chosen framework for implementing the EPR scheme (to achieve the

objectives of the Product Plan), must ensure least cost to society,

industry and government, including operational costs for collection,

administrative costs and compliance costs.

 

5.3.3.4 Product Responsibility Organisations (PROs)

 

PROs typically fulfil the following functions on behalf of the

obligated industry –

 

  • financing the collection and recycling of the product at the

end of its life and redistributing the corresponding financial amounts

 

  • managing the corresponding data (quantities of product put

into the market waste generated and collection and recycling/recovery)

 

  • organising and/or supervising these activities

 

The PRO, together with the obligated industry(s) should assist in the

 

  • Co-development of the Product Plan, • Calculation of the

fee structure and price list (usually by product, that reflects the costs

for each of the products to be collected and recycled)

 

  • Development of the IndWMP. The PRO is typically also the

custodian of the sector IndWMP, which will detail how the PRO will fulfil

its objectives.

 

In accordance with Section 28(6) of the Waste Act, the sector IndWMP

may be developed by the PRO on behalf of the obligated producers and

importers.

 

5.3.3.5 Develop Industry Waste Management Plan

 

Sections 28-34 of the Waste Act provide for the development of

IndWMPs, including the contents of the IndWMP. The IndWMP should serve as

a business plan, detailing how the objectives of the EPR scheme.

 

In addition to the content required under Section 30 of the Waste

Act, the IndWMP must outline –

 

  • how the objectives of the Product Plan will be achieved

 

  • the rotes and responsibilities of various role players,

including –

 

– the role of municipalities in the EPR scheme (e.g. full role, joint

role, no role) – the role of the formal and informal sectors

 

  • the costs to achieve the objectives of the Product Plan

 

  • the corresponding charges to be levied on products to generate

the funds required to cover EPR costs. This will include the detailed

breakdown of costs per (i) product category, (ii) geographic area, etc.

 

  • the research and development required to support improved

collection, sorting, recycling and recovery efficiencies and reduce costs

 

In the case of mandatory EPR schemes, the IndWMP must also address

any requirements as Gazetted in terms of Section 18 of the Waste Act.

 

In accordance with Section 34 of the Waste Act, the IndWMP should be

reviewed at intervals specified in the approval. However, the IndWMP

should be continuously assessed by the PRO to ensure that it remains

relevant to achieving the objectives of the plan.

 

International Practises on the PRO:

 

  • The PRO must be registered and operate as a Non-profit

Company.

 

  • While multiple PROs per Industry Waste Management Plan may be

considered, the preference is for a single PRO which unites the sector

under a single plan, ensuring a unified approach, reduced administrative

costs, and economies of scale.

 

  • In accordance with international best practice, PRO

administrative costs (of managing the EPR scheme) should be <5-10% of

total revenue. Administrative costs of 3-5% are being achieved by PROs.

 

  • PROs and their employees must have no vested Interest in any

waste reuse, recycling, recovery or disposal businesses (so as to avoid

conflict of interest).

 

5.3.4 Give effect to EPR

 

The NWMS notes that indWMPs may include either voluntary or mandatory

extended producer responsibility schemes for particular waste streams

whereby producers, importers or retailers take responsibility for the

waste generated by their products beyond point-of-sale and choose the

most effective way of meeting their responsibilities.

 

The Waste Act provides for the declaration of mandatory extended

producer responsibility schemes whereby the Minister prescribes how a

waste stream should be managed and the required funding mechanism to do

so.

 

Extended producer responsibility, and compliance with an IndWMP, may

also be enforced where a waste has been prioritised by the Minister.

 

It is important to note that the state is not obliged to fund EPR

initiatives, and that the primary obligation for funding rests with

producers, importers, retailers and consumers along the value chain.

Financial arrangements will need to be tailored to individual EPR

schemes, and the key challenge will be to establish who along the value

chain bears what portion of the costs.

 

6 Collection and disbursement of waste management charges

 

Section 13B of the Waste Amendment Act requires an Act of Parliament,

to give effect to necessary elements of the NPSWM, as contemplated in

section 13A. The Act is to include detail on the setting and imposition

of waste management charges; procedures for collection of charges; and

procedures for the allocation and use of generated funds. This is of

particular relevance to the implementation of disposal taxes, and input,

material or product taxes, levied by national government.

 

Section 13B of the Waste Amendment Act makes specific reference to

the allocation of funds for the work of the Bureau (monitoring and

evaluation), and the implementation of approved industry waste management

plans for specific waste streams (e.g. through EPR schemes).

 

6.1 Downstream charges

 

Figure 3 provides a summary of the collection and disbursement of

downstream charges, collected either by the municipality or by National

Treasury via SARS.

 

Click here to see abovementioned image on page 38

 

Figure 3. Approach to the collection and disbursement of downstream

charges

 

The disbursement of funds collected through downstream charges should

be informed by –

 

  • Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) and Integrated

Development Plan (IDP) – in the case of Municipality collected charges

(e.g. volumetric tariffs)

 

  • DEA and the Bureau’s Strategic Plans – in the case of National

Government charges (e.g. disposal taxes)

 

In the case of government collected charges, there are different

(although not necessarily mutually exclusive) uses to which revenues

could be put. These include the following;

 

  1. Revenues accrue to the fiscus and are allocated to

priority spending needs through the normal budgetary

process as approved by Cabinet; and/or

 

  1. Revenues accrue to the fiscus but there is some form of

agreement that spending on environmental programmes may be

increased through on-budget channels. However National

Treasury is not in a position to earmark funding.

 

Ring-fencing (hard earmarking) is not advocated by National Treasury,

however, soft earmarking provides for revenue generated through waste

management charges to be redirected back into achieving the objectives of

the NPSWM.

 

6.2 Upstream charges

 

Figure 4 provides a summary of the collection and disbursement of

upstream charges in the form of product, material and input taxes,

resulting in their collection through the fiscus (SARS and National

Treasury) (left-hand panel) or of deposit-refund systems (right hand

panel).

 

Click here to see abovementioned image on page 39

 

Figure 4. Approach to the collection and disbursement of Upstream

charges

 

In the case of national government collected waste management

charges, the Bureau must annually, prepare business plans. The business

plans must be submitted to National Treasury for approval and inclusion

in the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). The business plans will

be submitted as motivation to National Treasury for funding of waste

management activities, via the Bureau.

 

Currently the Customs and Excise Act provides the legislative

framework to collect revenue for the Plastic Bag levy, incandescent light

bulbs, motor vehicle CO2 emissions tax and also electricity generation

using non-renewable or environmentally hazardous fuels (coal, gas,

nuclear). It is envisaged that the same Act can be utilised to collect

revenue for the disposal taxes and the material, input, product taxes,

ARF and EPR taxes as provided for in the Amendment Act. SARS will collect

the revenue through charges or levies and transfer the revenue to the

National Treasury who are responsible for all financial disbursements to

Government Departments. The National Treasury will then transfer the

requested and approved finances for the funding of waste management

activities, to the Bureau.

 

6.3 Proposed EPR Scheme

 

In the case of EPR schemes, the collection and disbursement of funds

will depend on whether charges are collected as an EPR fee (by industry)

(left panel) or a ‘tax’ (by government) (right panel) (Figure 5).

According to section 13B of the Waste Act, a money Bill must be tabled in

Parliament within 3 months of the publication of the Pricing Strategy.

However, it is also possible to collect levies through the Customs and

Excise Act, 1964. This is the same mechanism that is being used for

certain environmental products.

 

Click here to see abovementioned image on page 40

 

Figure 5. Approach to the collection and disbursement of EPR charges

 

Existing voluntary initiatives that are effecting EPR schemes will

continue to follow the Industry Managed Model as depicted in figure 5.

The Government managed Model as depicted in figure 5 will be followed for

all plans that the Minister or MEC calls for in terms of section 28 of

the NEMWA.

 

The disbursement of funds collected through EPR fees should be

informed by-

 

  • Industry Waste Management Plan(s) – in the case of industry

collected EPR fees

 

  • DEA and the Bureau’s Strategic Plans and IndWMP(s) – in the

case of National Government collected EPR taxes.

 

For certain products, product groups or waste streams, the Department

may wish to consider EPR schemes in combination with a product tax, to

allow producers and importers to use the voluntary (and paving the

associated EPR fee) or mandatorily pay the product tax (See Section

4.2.4). In terms of section 17 (6) of the Waste Act, all existing

Industry Waste Management Plans must align with this strategy and the

within 6 months of the publication of this strategy and the relevant

revenue collection system.

 

7 Monitoring and Evaluation

 

The monitoring and evaluation of economic instruments implemented

within the waste sector will be conducted by various stakeholders,

depending on the waste management charge(s) being implemented.

 

Table 6: Monitoring and evaluation responsibilities

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Category        Instrument                 Monitoring and evaluation

Functions

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Downstream      • Volumetric tariffs  • Municipalities

instruments     (“pay-as-you-throw”)

  • DEA/Bureau
  • Waste disposal

taxes (including landfill  • National Treasury

and incineration taxes)

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Upstream        • Material and input  • Obligated

instruments     taxes (including virgin    industries

material taxes, taxes on

hazardous materials, etc.) • Product

responsibility

  • Product taxes organisation (PRO)

 

  • Advance recycling • DEA/Bureau

fees (ARFs)

  • Product Steering
  • Deposit-refund Committee

schemes

  • SARS / National
  • EPR Fees Treasury

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Subsidy-based   • Recycling subsidies • file dti

instruments

  • Tax rebates and • National Treasury

benefits

  • DEA/Bureau
  • Capital financing

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

The role of government and the private sector will differ depending

on the economic instrument to be implemented, the approach to

implementation, and the legal status, e.g. voluntary or mandatory. In all

instances, the Bureau, as given effect through the Waste Amendment Act,

will be instrumental in monitoring and evaluating the implementation of

waste management charges and the broader implementation and management

frameworks, e.g. EPR schemes.

 

7.1 DEA / The Bureau

 

The roles and responsibilities of the Bureau are outlined in Sections

34D and 34E of the Waste Amendment Act.

 

One of the primary functions of the Bureau is to review and approve,

and to conduct monitoring and evaluation of IndWMPs. The IndWMPs will be

drafted by each waste sector and submitted to the Bureau for approval.

Any existing IndWMP must be aligned to the Waste Act, including any

amendments, and the NPSWM.

 

In terms of the NEM: Waste Amendment Act, 2014, the Bureau is

responsible for the direct monitoring and evaluation of –

 

  • systems for the implementation of volumetric tariffs by

municipalities

 

  • the national implementation of disposal taxes

 

  • all EPR schemes (and the implementation of IndWMPs)

 

  • the impact of incentives and disincentives

 

7.2 Product Responsibility Organisations

 

In the case of EPR schemes, the first line of monitoring and

evaluation is the PRO and the associated obligated industries (e.g.

producers and importers). Accurate financial records must be kept by the

PRO which are subject to independent, annual auditing. Amongst others,

the PRO must report on the requirements of the Product Plan and IndWMP,

including tonnages of waste diverted from landfill and the revenue

collected and dispersed.

 

All Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes should be

established as not for profit organisations and have industry and, where

appropriate, government representation on their board of Directors.

 

7.3 Product Steering Committees

 

Engagement with stakeholders in the design and implementation of EPR

schemes has been shown to be effective in maintaining transparency,

achieving objectives and in reducing costs.

 

The Department through the Waste Bureau or Industry stakeholders may

facilitate the establishment of a Product Steering Committee in order to

ensure transparency in the implementation of each EPR scheme, through

regular monitoring and evaluation. The Steering Committee should consist

of representatives of National Government, industry (producers,

retailers, recyclers), the PRO consumer and environmental non-

governmental organisations (NGOs).

 

8 Transitional arrangements

 

In the case of EPR schemes, Section 17 of the Waste Amendment Act

provides the detail with respect to the transitional arrangements for any

existing IndWMPs which may be affected should a waste stream be

prioritised by Government; be prioritised for the implementation of waste

management charges; or be identified for the implementation on EPR

schemes.

 

If a waste stream has not been prioritised by the Minister for the

implementation of a waste charge, and should voluntary EPR schemes (with

associated PRO fees) be operating for that waste stream, then these

voluntary systems should continue operating to ensure minimal disruption

to current waste management activities. These voluntary EPR schemes may

however be ‘influenced’ by DEA, through prioritisation of the waste

stream for development of the IndWMPs, the approval and implementation of

the relevant IndWMPs (e.g. requiring greater support of EPR schemes to

municipalities, setting of recycling targets, monitoring and evaluation

by government, etc.).

 

This strategy will be reviewed after a period of 5 years. The

government managed EPR scheme is being proposed and there is provision

made for the existing EPR schemes to be aligned to the Pricing Strategy.

This transition does not change the operations of the PRO, but more align

the funding model with what is contained in the Act and the monitoring to

be done by the Waste Management Bureau.

 

In line with the NEMWA, the strategy also indicated various and

relevant role-players for performing certain actions in order to achieve

our recycling economy, through the use of the EPR. These role-players and

their actions are indicated in the Action Plan (Annexure A) of this

strategy document. Also contained in the Action Plan are the associated

timeframes for implementation by responsible parties. The further details

of the implementation of this strategy are as contained in the Action

Plan (Annexure A) of this strategy document.

 

Annexure A. Action Plan for the Implementation of the NPSWM

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Action                          Responsibility          Time-frame

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Action 1: Under-pricing of waste services is corrected (Full cost

accounting and pricing of solid waste service)

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Tariff setting                  CoGTA, DEA,             2015/17

Municipalities

– Municipalities to be                                 2016/17 2017/18

supported in Implementing

correct tariff setting and

pricing for waste management

services which takes into

account the full costs of waste

management). This must go

beyond support through

guidelines, to actual

assistance to the

municipalities – All

municipalities are charging for

waste management services

(collection and disposal) by

2017 – All municipal charges

for waste management services

(collection, transportation,

recycling/recovery, disposal)

are based on full-cost

accounting by 2018

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Financial systems set-up        CoGTA, DEA,             2016/17

Municipalities,

_________________________________________________________________________

 

– All municipalities to reach a National Treasury

stage where they have financial

and administrative systems in

place successfully recovering

the costs for waste management

services (collection and

disposal)

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Action 1: Administrative mechanisms

_________________________________________________________________________

 

1.1 Operationalisation of the   DEA                     2016/17

Bureau

1.2 Establishment of monitoring DEA                     2016/17

and evaluation systems within

the Bureau

1.3 Development of the Policy   DEA                     2015/16

for the Waste Management Bureau

1.4 Facilitation of the         DEA, WB and Industry    Ongoing

development of industry waste

management plans

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Action 2: Implementation of Upstream Instruments

_________________________________________________________________________

 

2.1 Development of the Policy   DEA, National Treasury  2016/17

for the Waste Management Bureau

and the PRO

2.2 Development of system for   DEA, National Treasury  2016/17

the transfer of funds from

National Treasury to DEA/Waste

Management Bureau

2.3 Establishment of a system   DEA, National           2015/16

for SARS collection of          Treasury, SARS and

levies/charges from producers   Industry

and importers

2.4 Evaluate the effectiveness  DEA, National Treasury  2016/17

of the South African plastic

bag levy and its future

relevance in light of a

possible Paper and Packaging

EPR scheme

2.5 Further research into       DEA, National Treasury  Ongoing

implementing or extending the

upstream instruments to correct

under-pricing (commitment under

the NWMS)

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Action                          Responsibility          Time-frame

_________________________________________________________________________

 

2.6 Establishment of the IndWMP DEA, WB                 2014/15

Forum

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Action 3: Implementation of EPR schemes

3.1 Prioritisation of the Waste DEA, WB                 On annual basis

Streams from the list of waste

streams and EPR schemes

(without any order of

preference)

3.2 Identification of products, DEA, the dti, National  Ongoing

product groups or waste streams Treasury

for the implementation of EPR

schemes

3.3 Development of system for   DEA, National Treasury  2016/17

the transfer of funds from SARS

to National Treasury

3.4 Develop Product             DEA, WB and Industry    Ongoing

Plans/Programmes for identified

products, product groups or

waste stream(s), which should

be informed by an analysis of

the full social, environmental

and economic costs and benefits

of implementing

3.5 Develop Industry Waste      Industry, PRO           Ongoing

Management Plan(s) in response

to Minister’s call for the

IndWMP

3.6 Development of the tariff   DEA, WB, SARS           Ongoing

codes for the waste streams

during the period when the

IndWMPs are invited

3.7 Approval of Industry Waste  DEA                     Ongoing

Management Plan(s)

3.8 Implementation of the       PRO, industry           Ongoing

approved Industry Waste

Management Plan

3.9 Reporting on the            PRO                     As specified

implementation of the approved

Industry Waste Management Plan

3.10 Review of Product Plan(s)  WB                      5-yearly

every 5 years

3.11 Review of Industry Waste   DEA, WB                 As specified

Management Plan(s) at intervals

as specified in the approval

3.12 Monitoring and evaluation  EA,WB                   Ongoing

of EPR scheme(s)

3.13 Develop a set of           DEA, Industry           2016/17

guidelines to assist with the

development of EPR programmes

(commitment under the NWMS)

3.14 Assess the effectiveness   DEA, WB                 Ongoing

of current voluntary EPR

schemes and the potential

social, environmental and

economic costs and benefits

(and associated impacts) of

converting voluntary to

mandatory schemes

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Action 4: Implementation of Downstream Instruments

_________________________________________________________________________

 

4.1 Assess the readiness of     DEA, CoGTA, SALGA       2016/18

municipalities to implement

volumetric tariffs

4.2 Assess the readiness of     DEA, CoGTA, SALGA       2016/18

municipalities to implement

waste disposal taxes

4.3 Further research into       DEA, National Treasury  Ongoing

implementing or extending the

downstream instruments once

under-pricing has been

corrected (commitment under the

NWMS)

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Action                          Responsibility          Time-frame

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Action 5: Under-pricing of waste services is corrected (Full cost

accounting and pricing of solid waste service)

_________________________________________________________________________

 

5.1 Tariff setting              CoGTA, DEA, WB, SALGA   Ongoing 2016/18

2017/19

– Municipalities to be          Municipalities

supported in implementing       Municipalities

correct tariff setting and

pricing for waste

management services which takes

into account the full costs of

waste management). This must go

beyond support through

guidelines, to actual

assistance to the

municipalities – All

municipalities are charging for

waste management services

(collection and disposal) by

2016 – All municipal charges

for waste management services

(collection, transportation,

recycling/recovery, disposal)

are based on full-cost

accounting by 2018

Financial systems set-up –      Municipalities, CoGTA,  2016/18 2017/19

Assessment of other systems and DEA Municipalities

benchmarking with other system

local and internationally – All

municipalities have financial

and administrative systems in

place successfully recovering

the costs for waste management

services (collection and

disposal)

 

 

 

 

ANNEXURE B

 

DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION

 

NOTICE 509 OF 2016

 

GENERAL AUTHORISATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 39 OF THE NATIONAL WATER

ACT, 1998 (ACT NO. 36 OF 1998) FOR WATER USES AS DEFINED IN SECTION 21(C)

OR SECTION 21(1)

 

DATE: 27/7/16

 

SCHEDULE

 

IMPEDING OR DIVERTING THE FLOW OF WATER IN A WATERCOURSE (SECTION

21(C)), OR ALTERING THE BED, BANKS, COURSE OR CHARACTERISTICS OF A

WATERCOURSE (SECTION 21(1)) OF THE NATIONAL WATER ACT (ACT NO. 36 OF

1998).

 

Purpose of Authorisation

 

  1. This General Authorisation replaces the need for a water user to

apply for a licence in terms of the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998)

(“the Act”) provided that the water use is within the limits and

conditions of this General Authorisation.

 

Definitions

 

  1. In this Notice any word or expression to which a meaning has been

assigned in the Act shall have the meaning so assigned, with specific

emphasis on the definitions for ‘aquifer’, ‘borehole’, ‘estuary’,

‘instream habitat’, ‘person’, ‘pollution’, ‘resource quality’,

‘responsible authority’, ‘riparian habitat’, ‘waste’, ‘watercourse’,

‘water resource’, and ‘wetland’, unless the context indicates otherwise.

 

“characteristics of a watercourse” means the resource quality of a

watercourse within the extent of a watercourse;

 

“construction” means any works undertaken to initiate or establish

impeding or diverting or modifying resource quality, for the first time,

including vegetation removal, site preparation and ground leveling;

 

“department” means the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS);

 

“delineation of a wetland and riparian habitat” means delineation of

wetlands and riparian habitat according to the methodology as contained

in the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, 2005 publication: A

Practical Field Procedure for Delineation of Wetlands and Riparian Areas;

 

“diverting” means to, in any manner, cause the instream flow of water

to be rerouted temporarily or permanently;

 

“emergency incident” means an unexpected sudden occurrence leading to

a potential or serious danger to the public;

 

“emergency situation” means any emergency that developed that require

immediate intervention for continuation of existing essential service

delivery;

 

“extent of a watercourse” means.

 

(a) The outer edge of the 1 in 100 year flood line and/or delineated

riparian habitat, whichever is the greatest distance, measured

from the middle of the watercourse of a river, spring, natural

channel, lake or dam; and

 

(b) Wetlands and pans: the delineated boundary (outer temporary zone)

of any wetland or pan.

 

“flow-altering” means to, in any manner, alter the instream flow

route, speed or quantity of water temporarily or permanently;

 

“impeding” means to, in any manner, hinder or obstruct the instream

flow of water temporarily or permanently, but excludes the damming of

flow so as to cause storage of water;

 

“maintenance” means any works undertaken to repair or partially

replace or clean an existing structure so as to keep it in working order

and so as to prevent it from having detrimental impacts on a watercourse,

which works may result in the short-term (less than 30 days) disturbance

or impeding or diverting or alteration of the flow of water in a

watercourse; but will not result in changes to the design or size of the

structure that will alter the function of the structure, and/or the

hydrological functionality or integrity of the watercourse;

 

“pans” means any depression collecting water or that is inward

draining or a flow through system with flow contributions from surface

water, groundwater or interflow or combinations thereof;

 

“regulated area of a watercourse” for section 21(c) or (i) of the Act

water uses in terms of this Notice means:

 

(a) The outer edge of the 1 in 100 year flood line and/or delineated

riparian habitat, whichever is the greatest distance, measured

from the middle of the watercourse of a river, spring, natural

channel, lake or dam;

 

(b) In the absence of a determined 1 in 100 year flood line or

riparian area the area within 100m from the edge of a watercourse

where the edge of the watercourse is the first identifiable

annual bank fill flood bench (subject to compliance to section

144 of the Act); or

 

(c) A 500 m radius from the delineated boundary (extent) of any

wetland or pan.

 

“rehabilitation” means the process of reinstating natural ecological

driving forces within part or the whole of a degraded watercourse to

recover former or desired ecosystem structure, function, biotic

composition and associated ecosystem services;

 

“reportable incident” means any incident, including leakages or

spillages, at or near any existing structure, or that occurs during works

performed at any structure, that has the potential to have a detrimental

effect on surface- and/or groundwater resources, including potentially

harmful effects to humans, any aquatic biota, or the resource quality, or

that can cause potential damage to property, as well as any incident that

can lead to or cause any contravention of any of the provisions of this

Notice.

 

“resource quality” means the resource quality as contemplated in

section 1 of the Act;

 

“responsible authority” means the responsible authority as

contemplated in section 1 of the Act;

 

“river management plan” means any river management plan developed for

the purposes of river or storm water management in any

municipal/metropolitan area or described river section, river reach,

entire river or sub quaternary catchment that considers the river in a

catchment context and as approved by the Department;

 

“the Act” means the National Water Act, 1998 (Act No. 36 of 1998);

 

“water user” means any person who intends to use water in terms of

section 21 (c) or (i) of the Act and has the responsibility to comply

with the provisions of this General Authorisation.

 

Exclusion from this General Authorisation

 

  1. This General Authorisation does not apply-

 

(a) to the use of water in terms of section 21 (c) or (i) of the Act

for the rehabilitation of a wetland as contemplated in General

Authorisation 1198 published in Government Gazette 32805 dated 18

December 2009,

 

(b) to the use of water in terms of section 21(c) or (i) of the Act

within the regulated area of a watercourse where the Risk Class

is Medium or High as determined by the Risk Matrix (Appendix A).

This Risk Matrix must be completed by a suitably qualified

SACNASP professional member;

 

(c) in instances where an application must be made for a water use

license for the authorisation of any other water use as defined

in section 21 of the Act that may be associated with a new

activity;

 

(d) where storage of water results from the impeding or diverting of

flow or altering the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a

watercourse; and

 

(e) to any water use in terms of section 21(c) or (i) of the Act

associated with construction, installation or maintenance of any

sewerage pipelines, pipelines carrying hazardous materials and to

raw water and wastewater treatment works.

 

Duration of General Authorisation

 

  1. This General Authorisation is valid from the date of publication

and remains effective for a period of 20 (twenty) years unless-

 

(a) it is replaced or amended by another general authorisation; or

 

(b) the period is extended for a further period by General

Authorisation in the Gazette.

 

Area of applicability of General Authorisation

 

  1. This General Authorisation applies throughout the Republic of

South Africa to the use of water in terms of section 21(c) or (i) of the

Act within the regulated area of a watercourse as defined in this General

Authorisation.

 

Exercising water use activities in terms of section 21(c) or (i) of

the Act

 

  1. (1) A person who-

 

(a) owns or lawfully occupies property registered in the Deeds office

as at the date of this General Authorisation;

 

(b) lawfully occupies or uses land that is not registered or

surveyed; or

 

(c) lawfully has access to land on which the use of water takes

place;

 

may, on that property or land –

 

(i)     exercise the water use activities in terms of section

21(c) or (i) of the Act as set out in Appendix D1 subject

to the conditions of this authorisation;

 

(ii)    use water in terms of section 21 (c) or (i) of the Act if

it has a low risk class as determined through low risk

class as determined through the Risk Matrix (Appendix A);

 

(iii)   do maintenance work associated with their existing lawful

water use in terms section 21 (c) or (i) of the Act that

has a LOW risk class as determined through the Risk Matrix

(Appendix A);

 

(iv)    conduct river and storm water management activities as

contained in a river management plan (Appendix B);

 

(v)     conduct rehabilitation of wetlands (read together with

Notice 1198 published in Government Gazette 32805 dated 18

December 2009) or rivers where such rehabilitation

activities has a LOW risk class as determined through the

Risk Matrix (Appendix A); or

 

(vi)    conduct emergency work arising from an emergency

situation or incident associated with the persons’

existing lawful water use, provided that all work is

executed and reported in the manner prescribed in the

Emergency Protocol (Appendix C)

 

(2) All State Owned Companies (SOC’s), and other institutions

specified in Appendix D2 having lawful access to that property or land

may on that property use water in terms of section 21(c) or (i) of the

Act as specified under each of the relevant SOC’s and other institution

(Appendix D2).

 

(3) Any water user who used water in terms of Government Notice 1199

published in Government Gazette 32805 dated 18 December 2009 may, subject

to the provisions of this General Authorisation, continue with such water

use subject to the conditions of this General Authorisation.

 

Assessment of risk and mitigation factors

 

  1. It is required that the following documents and associated spread

sheets be used during the assessment of risk and mitigation of risks:

 

(a) A Practical Field Procedure for Delineation of Wetlands and

Riparian Area (2005) which is available on the Department’s

website http://www.dws.gov.za, under water use authorization in

terms of section 21 (c) or (i) of the Act;

 

(b) Appendix A (Excel Spreadsheet) and information regarding the

method used in Appendix A is contained in the Department of Water

and Sanitation 2015 publication: Section 21(c) and (i) water use

Risk Assessment Protocol, which is available on the Department’s

website http://www-dws.gov.za, under section 21(c) and (i) water

use authorization.

 

(c) Guideline: Assessment of activities/developments affecting

wetlands, which is available on the Department’s website

http://www.dws.gov.za, under section 21 (c) and (i) water use

authorization.

 

(d) Guideline for the determination of buffer zones for rivers,

wetlands and estuaries, which is available on the Department’s

website http://www.dws.gov.za, under water use authorization in

terms of section 21 (c) and (i) of the Act.

 

Assistance to people with special needs

 

  1. The necessary assistance wilt be given to people with:

 

(a) Illiteracy;

 

(b) a disability; or

 

(c) any other disadvantage including historically disadvantaged

individuals; who cannot, but desire, to comply with this General

Authorisation.

 

Conditions for impeding or diverting the flow of water or altering

the bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse

 

  1. (1) The water user must ensure that;

 

(a) impeding or diverting the flow or altering the bed, banks, course

or characteristics of a watercourse do not detrimentally affect

other water users, property, health and safety of the general

public, or the resource quality;

 

(b) the existing hydraulic, hydrologic, geomorphic and ecological

functions of the watercourse in the vicinity of the structure is

maintained or improved upon;

 

(c) a full financial provision for the implementation of the

management measures prescribed in this General Authorisation,

including an annual financial provision for any future

maintenance, monitoring, rehabilitation, or restoration works, as

may be applicable; and

 

(d) upon written request of the responsible authority, they implement

any additional management measures or monitoring programmes that

may be reasonably necessary to determine potential impacts on the

water resource or management measures to address such impacts.

 

(2) Prior to the carrying out of any works, the water user must

ensure that all persons entering on-site, including contractors and

casual labourers, are made fully aware of the conditions and related

management measures specified in this General Authorisation.

 

(3) The water user must ensure that –

 

(a) any construction camp, storage, washing and maintenance of

equipment, storage of construction materials, or chemicals, as

well as any sanitation and waste management facilities –

 

(i)     is located outside the 1 in 100 year flood line or

riparian habitat of a river, spring, lake, dam or outside

any drainage feeding any wetland or pan, and

 

(ii)    is removed within 30 days after the completion of any

works.

 

(b) The water user must ensure that the selection of a site for

establishing any impeding or diverting the flow or altering the

bed, banks, course or characteristics of a watercourse works:

 

(i)     is not located on a bend in the watercourse;

 

(ii)    avoid high gradient areas, unstable slopes, actively

eroding banks, interflow zones, springs, and seeps;

 

(iii)   avoid or minimise realignment of the course of the

watercourse;

 

(iv)    minimise the footprint of the alteration, as well as the

construction footprint so as to minimise the effect on the

watercourse

 

(c) The water user must ensure that a maximum impact footprint around

the works is established, clearly demarcated, that no vegetation

is cleared or damaged beyond this demarcation, and that equipment

and machinery is only operated within the delineated impact

footprint.

 

(d) The water user must ensure that measures are implemented to

minimise the duration of disturbance and the footprint of the

disturbance of the beds and banks of the watercourse.

 

(e) The water user must ensure that measures are implemented to

prevent the transfer of biota to a site, which biota is not

indigenous to the environment at that site.

 

(f) The water user must ensure that all works, including emergency

alterations or the rectification of incidents, start upstream and

proceed in a downstream direction, to ensure minimal impact on

the water resource.

 

(g) The water user must ensure that all material excavated from the

bed or banks of the watercourse are stored at a clearly

demarcated location until the works have been completed, upon

which the excavated material must be backfilled to the locations

from where it was taken (i.e. material taken from the bed must be

returned to the bed, and material taken from the banks must be

returned to the banks).

 

(h) The water user must ensure that adequate erosion control measures

are implemented at and near all alterations, including at

existing structures or activities with particular attention to

erosion control at steep slopes and drainage lines.

 

(i) The water user must ensure that alterations or hardened surfaces

associated with such structures or works –

 

(i)     are structurally stable;

 

(ii)    do not induce sedimentation, erosion or flooding;

 

(iii)   do not cause a detrimental change in the quantity,

velocity, pattern, timing, water level and assurance of

flow in a watercourse;

 

(iv)    do not cause a detrimental change in the quality of water

in the watercourse;

 

(v)     do not cause a detrimental change in the stability or

geomorphological structure of the watercourse; and

 

(vi)    does not create nuisance condition, or health or safety

hazards,

 

(j) The water user must ensure that measures are implemented at

alterations, including at existing structures or activities, to –

 

(i)     prevent detrimental changes to the breeding, nesting or

feeding patterns of aquatic biota, including migratory

species;

 

(ii)    allow for the free up and downstream movement of aquatic

biota, including migratory species; and

 

(iii)   prevent a decline in the composition and diversity of the

indigenous and endemic aquatic biota.

 

(k) The water user must ensure that no substance or material that can

potentially cause pollution of the water resource is being used

in works, including for emergency alterations or the

rectification of reportable incidents.

 

(l) The water user must ensure that measures are taken to prevent

increased turbidity, sedimentation and detrimental chemical

changes to the composition of the water resource as a result of

carrying out the works, including for emergency alterations or

the rectification of reportable incidents.

 

(m) The water user must ensure that in-stream water quality is

measured on a weekly basis during construction, including for

emergency alterations or the rectification of reportable

incidents, which measurement must be by taking samples, and by

analysing the samples for pH, EC/TDS, TSS/Turbidity, and/or

Dissolved Oxygen (“DO”) both upstream and downstream from the

works.

 

(n) The water user must ensure that in-stream flow, both upstream and

downstream from the works, is measured on an ongoing basis by

means of instruments and devices certified by the South African

Bureau of Standards (“SABS”), and that such measurement commences

at least one week prior to the initiation of the works, including

for emergency alterations or the rectification of reportable

incidents.

 

(o) During the carrying out of any works, the water user must take

the photographs and video-recordings referred to in paragraph (p)

below, on a daily basis, starting one (1) week before the

commencement of any works, including for emergency structures and

the rectification of reportable incidents, and continuing for one

(1) month after the completion of such works;

 

(p) The following videos recordings and photographs must be taken as

contemplated in paragraph (o) above:

 

(i)     one or more photographs or video-recordings of the

watercourse and its banks at least 20 meters upstream from

the structure;

 

(ii)    one or more photographs or video-recordings of the

watercourse and its banks at least 20 meters downstream

from the structure; and

 

(iii)   two or more photographs or video-recordings of the bed

and banks at the structure, one of each taken from each

opposite bank.

 

Rehabilitation

 

  1. (1) Rehabilitation as contemplated in paragraph 6(1)(v) above

must be conducted in terms of a rehabilitation plan and the

implementation of the plan must be overseen by a suitably qualified

SACNASP professional member.

 

(2) Upon completion of the construction activities related to the

water use-

 

(a) a systematic rehabilitation programme must be undertaken to

restore the watercourse to its condition prior to the

commencement of the water use;

 

(b) all disturbed areas must be re-vegetated with indigenous

vegetation suitable to the area; and

 

(c) active alien invasive plant control measures must be implemented

to prevent invasion by exotic and alien vegetation within the

disturbed area.

 

(3) Following the completion of any works, and during any annual

inspection to determine the need for maintenance at any impeding or

diverting structure, the water user must ensure that all disturbed areas

are

 

(i)     cleared of construction debris and other blockages;

 

(ii)    cleared of alien invasive vegetation;

 

(iii)   reshaped to free-draining and non-erosive contours, and

 

(iv)    re-vegetated with indigenous and endemic vegetation

suitable to the area.

 

(4) Upon completion of any works, the water user must ensure that the

hydrological functionality and integrity of the watercourse, including

its bed, banks, riparian habitat and aquatic biota is equivalent to or

exceeds that what existed before commencing with the works.

 

Monitoring and reporting

 

  1. (1) The water user must ensure the establishment and

implementation of monitoring programmes to measure the impacts on the

resource quality to ensure water use remains within the parameters of

paragraph 8(3)(m) to (o) and results are stored;

 

(2) Upon the written request of the responsible authority the water

user must-

 

(a) ensure the establishment of any additional monitoring programmes;

and

 

(b) appoint a competent person to assess the water use measurements

made in terms of this General Authorisation and submit the

findings to the responsible authority for evaluation.

 

(3) The water user shall monitor and determine present day values for

water resource quality before commencement of water uses in terms of

section 21 (c) or (i) of the Act.

 

(4) Upon completion of construction activities related to the water

use, the water user must undertake an Environmental Audit annually for

three years to ensure that the rehabilitation is stable, failing which,

remedial action must be taken to rectify any impacts.

 

(5) Rehabilitation structures must be inspected regularly for the

accumulation of debris, blockages, instabilities and erosion with

concomitant remedial and maintenance actions.

 

(6) Copies of all designs, method statements, risk assessments as

done according to the Risk Matrix, rehabilitation plans and any other

reports required must be made available to the responsible authority when

requested to do so

 

Budgetary provisions

 

  1. (1) The water user must ensure that there is a sufficient budget

to complete, rehabilitate and maintain the water use as set out in this

General Authorisation, (2) The Department may at any stage of the process

request proof of budgetary provisions.

 

Registration

 

  1. (1) Subject to the provisions of this General Authorisation, a

person who uses water as contemplated in this General Authorisation must

submit the relevant registration forms to the responsible authority.

 

(2) Upon completion of registration, the responsible authority will

provide a certificate of registration to the water user within 30 working

days of the submission.

 

(3) On written receipt of a registration certificate from the

Department, the person will be regarded as a registered water user and

can only then commence with the water use as contemplated in this General

Authorisation.

 

(4) The registration forms can be obtained from DWS Regional Offices

or Catchment Management Agency office of the Department or from the

Departmental website: http\\www.dws.gov.za

 

Record-keeping and disclosure of information

 

  1. (1) The water user must keep a record of all the documents

referred to in paragraph 11 above for a minimum period of five years.

 

(2) The records referred to in this paragraph must be made available

to the responsible authority upon written request.

 

Inspection

 

  1. Any property in respect of which a water use has been registered

in terms of this General Authorisation is subject to inspection in

accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.

 

Compliance by the water user

 

  1. (1) The responsibility for complying with the provisions of this

authorisation is lies with the water user.

 

(2) This General Authorisation is subject to the Act, any other

applicable law, and regulation.

 

Repeal of Notices

 

  1. This Notice replaces Government Notice 1199 published in

Government Gazette 32805 dated 18 December 2009.

 

APPENDIX A: RISK MATRIX (Based on DWS 2015 publication: Section 21 c

and I water use Risk Assessment Protocol)

 

Risk is determined after considering all listed control/mitigation

measures. Borderline LOW/MODERATE risk scores can be manually adapted

downwards up to a maximum of 25 points [from a score of 80) subject to

listing of additional mitigation measures considered and listed in RED

font.

Click here to see abovementioned image on page 121

ONLY LOW RISK ACTIVITIES located within the regulated area of the

watercourse will qualify for a GA according to this Notice. Medium and

High risk activities will require a Section 21(c) and (i) water use

licence.

 

RISK ASSESSMENT KEY (Based on DWS 2015 publication: Section 21 c and

I water use Risk Assessment Protocol)

 

Negative Rating

 

TABLE 1- SEVERITY

 

How severe does the aspects impact on resource quality (flow regime,

water quality, geomorphology, biota, habitat)?

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Insignificant / non-harmful                                  1

Small / potentially harmful                                  2

Significant / slightly harmful                               3

Great / harmful                                              4

Disastrous / extremely harmful and/or wetland(s) involved    5

Where “or wetland[s] are involved” it means that the

activity is located within the delineated boundary of any

wetland. The score of 5 is only compulsory for the

significance rating.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

TABLE 2 – SPATIAL SCALE

 

How big is the area that the aspect is impacting on?

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Area specific (at impact site)

Whole site (entire surface right)                            2

Regional/ neighboring areas (downstream within quaternary

catchment)                                                   3

National (impacting beyond secondary catchment or provinces) 4

Global (impacting beyond SA boundary)                        5

_________________________________________________________________________

 

TABLE 5-DURATION

 

How long does the aspect impact on the environment and resource

quality?

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

One day to one month, PES, EIS and/or REC not impacted       1

One month to one year, PES, EIS and/or REC impacted but no   2

change in status

One year to 10 years, PES, EIS and/or REC impacted to a      3

lower status but can be improved over this period through

mitigation

Life of the activity, PES, EIS and/or REC permanently        4

lowered

More than life of the organisation/facility, PES and EIS     5

scores, a E or F

PES and EPS (sensitivity) must be

considered.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

TABLE 4 – FREQUENCY OF THE ACTIVITY

 

How often do you do the specific activity?

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Annually or less                                             1

6 monthly                                                    2

Monthly                                                      3

Weekly                                                       4

Daily                                                        5

_________________________________________________________________________

 

TABLE 5 – FREQUENCY OF THE INCIDENT/IMPACT

 

How often does the activity impact on the environment?

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Almost never / almost impossible / >20%                   1

Very seldom / highly unlikely / >40%                      2

Infrequent / unlikely / seldom / >60%                     3

Often / regularly / likely / possible / >80%              4

Daily / highly likely / definitely / >100%                5

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

TABLE 6-LEGAL ISSUES

 

How is the activity governed by legislation?

_________________________________________________________________________

 

No legislation                                               1

Fully covered by legislation (wetlands are legally governed) 5

Located within the regulated areas

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

TABLE 7-DETECTION

 

How quickly/easily can the impacts/risks of the activity be observed

on the resource quality, people and property?

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Immediately                                                  1

Without much effort                                          2

Need some effort                                             3

Remote and difficult to observe                              4

Covered                                                      5

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

TABLE 8: RATING CLASSES

Click here to see abovementioned image on page 124

A low risk class must be obtained for all activities to be considered

for a GA.

 

TABLE 9: CALCULATIONS

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Consequence = Severity + Spatial Scale + Duration

Likelihood = Frequency of Activity + Frequency of Incident +

Legal Issues + Detection

Significance\Risk = Consequence X Likelihood

_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

RISK ASSESSMENT MUST BE CONDUCTED BY A SUITABLY QUALIFIED SACNASP

PROFESSIONAL MEMBER AND HE/SHE MUST:

 

1) CONSIDER BOTH CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL PHASES OF PROPOSED

ACTIVITIES;

 

2) CONSIDER RISKS TO RESOURCE QUALITY POST MITIGATION CONSIDERING

MITIGATION MEASURES LISTED IN TABLES PROVIDED;

 

3) CONSIDER THE SENSITIVITY (ECOLOGICAL IMPORTANCE AND SENSITIVITY –

EIS) AND STATUS (PRESENT ECOLOGICAL STATUS – PES) OF THE WATERCOURSE AS

RECEPTOR OF RISKS POSED;

 

4) CONSIDER POSITIVE IMPACTS/RISKS REDUCTION AS A VERY LOW RISK IN

THIS ASSESSMENT;

 

5) INDICATE CONFIDENCE LEVEL OF SCORES PROVIDED IN THE LAST COLUMN AS

A PERCENTAGE FROM 0 -100%;

 

6) NAME AND REGISTRATION NUMBER OF SACNASP PROFESSIONAL MEMBER MUST

BE PROVIDED ON EXCELL SPREADSHEET AND MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH REGISTRATION

DOCUMENTATION.

 

ON THE EXCELL SPREADSHEET POP-UP COMMENTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR ALL

COLUMNS IN THE HEADINGS WHICH EXPLAINS THE PURPOSE OF EACH COLUMN!

 

APPENDIX B: Aspects that must be addressed in any RIVER MANAGEMENT

PLAN as specified under paragraph 6 (1) (iv) of this Notice.

 

River Management Plans for storm water and river management

activities MUST;

 

Contain information on ail the river and storm water management

activities in terms of section 21(c) and (i) water uses of the Act with a

section addressing all relevant supporting technical information used to

ensure a LOW risk will be posed to the resource quality of the

watercourses and that this management plan have been submitted to the

relevant regional operations or Catchment Management Agency (CMA) office

for APPROVAL. The report must include, but may not be limited to:

 

When developing a River Management Plan:

 

  1. Identify River Management Plan domain, preferably from a whole-

catchment perspective;

 

  1. Identify an accountable, representative body that should take

unbiased custodianship of the RMP and drive its implementation;

 

  1. Identify key stakeholders;

 

  1. Divide the river into useful management units;

 

  1. Identify major drivers of river disturbance and instability-human

and natural, and their primary and secondary effects;

 

  1. Complete Risk assessment as per Risk Matrix (Appendix A) for

identified mitigation activities;

 

  1. Solicit input from stakeholders on their priorities and

objectives;

 

  1. Define best practice measures for rehabilitation and maintenance

implementation;

 

  1. Design a plan for ecological monitoring which is specifically

linked to the stated objectives; and

 

  1. Develop an implementation programme and review mechanism.

 

Report should contain supporting technical information used to ensure

the tow risk to resource quality like:

 

  1. a) Impact assessment and mitigation report completed by an

independent consultant as required by NEMA and NWA;

 

  1. b) All the relevant specialist reports supporting the proposed

mitigation measures;

 

– Specialists Reports must address the level of modification/risk

posed to resource quality ie: flow regime, water quality,

geomorphological processes, habitat and biota of the watercourses and

contain Present Ecological state (PES) and Ecological Importance and

Sensitivity (EIS) data for relevant watercourses;

 

  1. c) Environmental management plan giving effect to all actions

required to mitigate impacts (What, When, Who, Where and How); d)

Best practices applicable to these activities, where applicable;

 

  1. e) Generic designs and method statements, where applicable;

 

  1. f) Norms and standards, where available;

 

  1. g) Monitoring programme that must include “present day” conditions to

be used as base line values;

 

  1. h) Monitoring, auditing and reporting programme (reports must be send

on request to the region or CMA); and;

 

  1. i) Internalized controls and auditing, where applicable.

 

PLEASE NOTE: Any activities outside the scope of the approved plan

that is required for river – or storm water management (example: building

of new gabion structures to stop bank erosion) must comply to all the

provisions in paragraph 6 of this notice.

 

APPENDIX C: EMERGENCY PROTOCOL as specified under paragraph 6 (1)

(vi) of this Notice.

 

Purpose of the “Emergency Protocol”

 

The purpose of this protocol is to set out the process to be followed

and actions to be taken by any person to provide assurance to the DWS in

ensuring emergency incidents and situations can be responded to, while at

the same time ensuring compliance to the requirements of the National

Water Act. Failure to comply to these requirements will be dealt with in

terms of section 19 or 20 of the National Water Act (NWA)(AcJ 36 of

1998).

 

The agreement relates to situations where any person or entity is

required to immediately respond by taking necessary action to an

emergency situation or incident. It is noted that this does not include

routine or planned maintenance or to deal with poor project planning.

 

Emergency Protocol:

 

This “Emergency Protocol” spells out what protocol needs to be

followed to remedy “emergency situations and incidents”. In terms of

Section 67 of the National Water Act” Dispensing with certain

requirements of Act” the NWA states the following;

 

(1) In an emergency situation, or in cases of extreme urgency

involving the safety of humans or property or the protection of a water

resource or the environment, the Minister may

 

(a) dispense with the requirements of this Act relating to prior

publication or to obtaining and considering public comment before

any instrument contemplated in section 158(1) is made or issued;

 

(b) dispense with notice periods or time limits required by or under

this Act;

 

(c) authorise a water management institution to dispense with

 

(i)     the requirements of this Act relating to prior

publication or to obtaining and considering public comment

before any instrument is made or issued; and

 

(ii)    notice periods or time limits required by or under this

Act. (2) Anything done under subsection (1)

 

(a) must be withdrawn or repealed within a maximum period of two

years after the emergency situation or the urgency ceases to

exist; and

 

(b) must be mentioned in the Minister’s annual report to Parliament”

 

(3) An Incident is an event that requires immediate attention that

might lead to potential disruption of service delivery.

 

Examples include the following:

 

Replacement of stolen or vandalised or damaged underground cables or,

overhead power lines, burst pipelines, flooded or damaged bridges and /or

related infrastructure, the replacement of/or repairs to damaged

infrastructure.

 

Described below is the process to be followed and definitions.

 

Process to respond to an Emergency that has a water use implication

in terms of section 21 water uses of the NWA.

 

Definitions:

 

Emergency incident and situations as defined in this notice read

together with section 20 and 67 of the NWA. Protocol to be followed;

 

Any person that must attend to an emergency must notify the regional

office or CMA about the emergency immediately and provide all required

documents to the relevant region(s) within 1 month thereafter according

to the specified protocol in this document. Should the incident take

place over a weekend or pubic holiday (outside DWS working hours), the

documents can be forwarded to DWS and receipt be followed-up on the day

after the weekend or holiday.

 

1) Relevant DWS regional office to be notified about the emergency

incident or situation (hereafter referred to as an Emergency) by means of

an email and or 24 hour hotline of DWS. The document emailed must as a

minimum contain the following information:

 

  1. Date of occurrence of the emergency;

 

  1. Date at which any person became aware of the emergency;

 

  1. Nature of emergency;

 

  1. A motivation and definition of the emergency;

 

  1. Description, location and receiving environment sensitivity of the

emergency;

 

  1. Description of short, medium and long term actions, environmental

management and rehabilitation, and emergency plan required to be

taken to respond to the emergency

 

  1. Date(s) when the actions will be taken (or have taken place):

 

  1. Contract details of responsible persons.

 

2) The following is a list of the required information that must be

submitted to the relevant CMA or regional office of DWS within 1 month

following the Emergency response to enable the regional office or CMA to

determine whether the activities qualifies for a GA in terms of this

Notice or whether a post facto licence will be required.

 

Tabulated list of information required to be submitted within a

maximum of 1 month after the occurrence of the “Emergency”:

 

Table of Contents

 

List of Appendices

 

List of Maps

 

List of Tables

 

  1. DESCRIPTION OF Emergency situation, location, date, etc.

 

1.1. Motivation that situation was an emergency

 

  1. EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAMME

 

  1. METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED

 

  1. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

 

4.1 Description of risks to resource quality and mitigation measures

implemented to reduce risks (This report must be based on the Risk Matrix

to be completed by SACNASP registered Professional).

 

4.2. Environmental Impact Management + rehabilitation plan (what,

where, when, who, how)

 

4.3. Monitoring and Review Strategy

 

  1. RESPONSIBILITIES AND PRESCRIBED OCCUPATIONS

 

  1. DECLARATIONS

 

6.1. Design Engineer

 

6.2. Site Manager

 

6.3. Environmental Practitioner / Environmental Control Officer

(contact person) List of Appendices

 

APPENDIX A: Design/CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS APPENDIX B: ENVIRONMENTAL

MANAGEMENT PLAN List of Maps Map 1: Site location

 

Map 2: Location of watercourses affected List of Tables

 

Table 1: Schedule of Crossings

 

Table 2: Programme (Start and Completion dates)

 

Table 3: Risk Rating Matric (Impacts and Significance Ratings)

 

Table 4: Mitigation Measures

 

Table 5: Rehabilitation Measures

 

Table 4: Stormwater Management Plan

 

Table 6: Monitoring and Review Measures

 

Compliance to this Emergency Protocol does not absolve any person

from complying to the requirements of any other laws and associated

regulations.

 

APPENDIX D1: Activities that are generally authorized for any person

subject only to compliance to the conditions of this Notice.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

Any person                         ACTIVITY

_________________________________________________________________________

Farmers and any other land owners  Emergency river crossings for

vehicles to gain access to

livestock, crops or residences etc.

Any landowner                      Maintenance to private roads and

river crossings provided that

footprint remains the same and the

road is less than 4 m wide.

Any landowner                      Erection of fences provided that

the fence will not in any way

impede or divert flow, or affect

resource quality detrimentally in

the short, medium to long term.

_________________________________________________________________________

 

APPENDIX D2: Activities that are generally authorized for SOC’s and

institutions subject only to compliance to the conditions of this Notice.

 

_________________________________________________________________________

 

SOC’s, INSTITUTION or   ACTIVITIES

Individual

_________________________________________________________________________

ESKOM and other         Construction of new transmission and

institutions            distribution power lines, and minor

maintenance of roads, river crossings, towers

and substations where footprint will remain

the same.

SAN PARKS and           All bridges, low water bridge crossings and

provincial              pipe lines below 500 mm in diameter.

conservation agencies

SANRAL and other        All maintenance of bridges over rivers,

provincial Departments  streams and wetlands and new construction of

of Transport or         bridges done according to SANRAL Drainage

municipalities.         Manual or similar norms and standards.

TRANS NET and other     All 1.5 meter diameter and smaller pipe lines

institutions            (except pipelines excluded in terms of this

Notice – paragraph 3 (e)) and maintenance of

railway line crossings of rivers and wetlands

outside the boundary of a wetland.

Gautrain Management     Maintenance of existing infrastructure and

Agency                  expansion to crossings of rivers within the

existing servitude.

TELKOM and other        All cables crossing rivers and wetland outside

communication           delineated wetland boundary.

companies

RAND WATER and other    All raw water 1.5 meter diameter and smaller

water boards            pipe lines crossings river and wetlands

outside delineated wetland boundary.

Municipalities and      Mini-scale hydropower developments with a

other institutions.     maximum capacity of 10kVV – 300kW

 

[Read together with General notice 665 of 6

Sept 2013 General Authorisation section 21 (e)

or as amended) These hydropower plants will

provide basic, non-grid electricity to rural

communities and agricultural land and must in

no way affect the flow regime, flow volume

and/or water quality including temperature.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNEXURE C

I, Nomvula Mokonyane, Minister of Water and Sanitation hereby, interms of Section 5 subsection 5(1) of the National Water Act, 1998 (ActNo 36 of 1998) declare that-        a)  Nine water management areas has been established as contained in        the Schedule hereto as a component of the National Water Resource        Strategy 2;        b)  The boundaries for each water management area are described; and        that        c)  A Catchment Management Agency (CMA) will be established in each        Water Management Area.        SCHEDULE_________________________________________________________________________WATER MANAGEMENT AREA and major    BOUNDARY DESCRIPTIONRivers_________________________________________________________________________1. Limpopo: Major rivers include   Primary drainage region Athe Limpopo, Matlabas, Mokolo,Lephalala, Mogalakwena,Sand,Nzhelele, Mutale, and Luvuvhu 2. Olifants: Major rivers include  Primary drainage region BElands, Wilge, Steelpoort,Olifants and Letaba. 3. Inkomati-Usuthu: Major rivers   Primary drainage region X and theinclude Nwanedzi, Sabie, Crocodile portions of tertiary drainage(East), Komati and Usuthu          regions W51 to W56 falling within                                   the boundary of the RSA 4. Pongola-Mtamvuna: Major rivers  Tertiary drainage regions W11 toinclude the Pongola, Mhlatuze,     W13, W20, W31 to W32, W41, W45, andMfolozi, Mkuze, Thukela, Mvoti,    the portions of W42, W43, W44, W57Umgeni, Umkomazi, Umzimkulu and    and W70 falling within the boundaryMtamvuna                           of the RSA; Primary drainage                                   regions V and U; Tertiary drainage                                   regions T40, T51 and T52 5. Vaal Major: rivers include the  Tertiary drainage regions C11 toWilge, Liebenbergsvlei, Mooi,      C13, C21 to C25, C31 to C33, C41 toRenoster, Vals, Sand, Vet, Harts,  C43, C60, C70 and C81 to C83;Molopo and Vaal                                                       Tertiary drainage regions, C91, C92                                   (excluding the lower portions of                                   quaternary catchments C92B and                                   C92C), D41 and and portions of                                   quaternary catchments D42C, D42D,                                   D73A, D73B, D73C, D73D and D73E.                                   The western boundary runs from the                                   border between South Africa and                                   Botswana along the boundary of the                                   Kalahari East Water User                                   Association (WUA). It follows the                                   boundary of the mentioned WUA in a                                   westerly direction to a point, west                                   of the Langberge, 19 kilometres                                   west of Beeshoek, near Postmasburg.                                   The Water Management Area boundary                                   then runs South East to meet the                                   watershed between quaternary                                   catchments D73A and D73B. The                                   boundary then follows this                                   watershed and that between D73A and                                   D71B, until it meets the boundary                                   of the Hay district. It follows                                   this boundary until it meets the                                   watershed between D71B and C92C.                                   The Water Management Area boundary                                   continues along this watershed                                   until it meets the boundary of the                                   Orange Vaal Water User Association.                                   It continues south-easterly on this                                   boundary until it meets the                                   watershed between C92B and C51M                                   where it follows this watershed and                                   that between C92B and C51L.                                   Thereafter it follows the watershed                                   between C51L and C91E. It continues                                   on this watershed until it reaches                                   the farm boundary of Wolwe Dam 87.                                   The Water Management Area boundary                                   then follows the mentioned farm                                   boundary up to the farm boundary of                                   Vaalboschhoek 85. It then follows                                   successive farm boundaries as they                                   meet, progressively moving in a                                   westerly direction, namely:                                   Weltevrede 117, Vaalpan 118,                                   Koppiesdam 119, Spijt Fontein 122,                                   Kareebosch 130, Osfontein 121,                                   Benaauwheidsfontein 442,                                   Olifantskop 196, Sussana 197, and                                   Olifantsdam 170. The Water                                   Management Area boundary then                                   follows the eastern boundary of                                   Olifantsdam 170 in a northerly                                   direction to include the farm                                   Olifantsrug 293 until it meets the                                   watershed between C91E and C52L.                                   Hereafter, the Water Management                                   Area boundary follows the                                   boundaries of the drainage regions                                   as mentioned initially in this                                   description. 6. Orange: Major rivers include    Tertiary drainage regions C51the Modder, Riet, Caledon, Kraai,  (excluding a portion of quaternaryOngers, Hartbees and Orange        catchment C51L), C52 (excluding a                                   small portion of quaternary                                   catchment C52L), D12 to D14, the                                   portions of D15 and D18 that falls                                   within the boundary of the RSA,                                   D21, the portion of D23 that falls                                   within the boundary of the RSA, D24                                   (excluding the portion of                                   quaternary catchment D24A that                                   falls in Lesotho), D31 to D35;                                   Tertiary drainage region D42                                   (excluding portions of quaternary                                   catchments D42C and D42D), D51 to                                   D58, D61, D62, D71 to D73                                   (excluding portions of quaternary                                   catchments D73A, D73B, D73C, D73D                                   and D73E), D81, D82. In the area of                                   the confluence of the Vaal and                                   Orange Rivers the Water Management                                   Area boundary                                   follows the boundary of the Orange                                   Vaal Water User Association until                                   it meets the boundary of Water                                   Management Area 5. Hence, the lower                                   portions of quaternary catchments                                   C92B and C92C are included in this                                   Water Management Area. Primary                                   drainage region F (excluding                                   quaternary catchments F50D, F60B,                                   F60C, F60D and F60E). 7. Mzimvubu-Tsitstkamma: Major     Primary drainage regions P, Q, R,rivers include the Mzimvubu,       S, L, M and N, tertiary drainageMtata, Mbashe, Buffalo, Nahoon,    regions T11 to T13, T20, T31 toGroot Kei and Keiskamma, Fish,     T36, T60, T70, T80, T90, K80 andKowie, Boesmans, Sundays, Gamtoos, K90Kromme, Groot and Tsitsikamma 8. Breede-Gouritz: Major rivers    Primary drainage region H and J;include the Breede, Sonderend.     Tertiary drainage regions G40Sout, Bot, Palmiet, Gouritz,       (excluding quaternary catchmentOlifants, Kamanassie, Gamka,       G40A) and G50; Tertiary drainageBuffels, Touws, Goukou and         regions K10 to K70Duiwenhoks 9. Berg-Olifants: Major rivers     Tertiary drainage regions G10 toinclude the Berg, Diep and         G30 and quaternary catchment G40A;Steenbras, Olifants, Doorn, Krom,  Sand and Sout                      Primary drainage region E and                                   tertiary drainage regions F60                                   (excluding                                                                      quaternary catchment F60A) and                                   quaternary catchment F50D_________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNEXURE D

DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND SANITATION NO. 1057 16 SEPTEMBER 2016

 

BREEDE-GOURITZ AND BERG-OLIFANTS WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS LIMITING THE

USE OF WATER IN TERMS OF ITEM 6 OF SCHEDULE 3 OF THE NATIONAL WATER ACT

OF 1998 FOR URBAN, IRRIGATION AND INDUSTRIAL (INCLUDING MINING) PURPOSE

IN THE CATCHMENT AREAS OF THE DAMS SUPPLYING THE WESTERN CAPE WATER

SUPPLY SYSTEM AND FROM THE SYSTEM

 

I, Margaret-Ann Diedricks, in my capacity as Director-General of the

Department of Water and Sanitation, on reasonable grounds believe that a

water shortage may exists on/in the Western Cape Water Supply System

(WCWSS) and/including other areas in/of the Berg River, Palmiet River and

Riviereonderend River catchment areas due to insufficient rains and

restricted rainfall predictions for the oncoming winter season and that

it is necessary to limit the taking of water that feeds the major dams

and is taken from the Western Cape Water Supply System.

 

The WCWSS comprises of several dams, mostly located in the upper

regions of the Berg River and Breede River catchments. The system

supplies raw water to the City of Cape Town, the West Coast District

Municipality (DM) for domestic supply to Swartland Local Municipality

(LM). Saldanha Bay LM and Bergrivier LM, the Stellenbosch LM to augment

the supply to Stellenbosch, and to agricultural users downstream of the

Berg River Dam, Voelvlei Dam and Theewaterekloof Dam.

 

The Minister of Water and Sanitation may in terms of Item 6 (1) of

Schedule 3 of the National Water Ad of 1998 (Act 36 of 1998) (The Act)

limit the use of water in the area concerned If the Minister on

reasonable grounds believes that a water shortage exists within the area

concerned. This power has been delegated to me in terms of section 63 (1)

(b) of the Act.

 

Therefore in my capacity as the Director General of the Department of

Water and Sanitation, I hereby under delegated authority In terms of item

6 (1) of Schedule 3 to the Act limit the taking of water from the Western

Cape Water Supply System (including ell areas within the Berg-Olifants

and Breeds -Gouritz Water Management Areas) by all users as follows:

 

1.20% of curtailment on all water use in the aforementioned areas.

 

  1. The limitation applies from the date of this notice until further

notice.

 

In exercising the powers, I have given preference to the maintenance

of the Reserve, treated all water users on a basis that it is fair and

reasonable, considered the actual extent of the water shortage, the

likely effects of the shortage on the water users, the strategic

importance of any water use and any water rationing or water use

limitations by a water services institution having Jurisdiction in the

area concerned under the Water Services Act 108 of 1997.

 

Placing limitation on the taking of water use as sat out in this

notice Is an administrative action affecting the rights of the public as

contemplated in section 4 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act

3 of 2000 (PAJA). After I have taken into consideration all relevant

factors, including those referred in section 4(4)(b), I have decided that

it is reasonable and justifiable in the circumstances to depart from the

requirements referred to in section 4(1)(a) to (e), (2) and (3) and

instituted this limitation without allowing the water users affected and

other role players to comment on the matter before I institute the

limitation.