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 –
- on the basis of socio-economic aspects within the area in
question;
- 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 –
- on the basis of the manner in which the waste is
generated or disposed of;
- 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 –
- a) the characteristics of the waste disposed of
- b) the volume of the waste disposed of
- c) the toxicity of the waste disposed of
- d) the nature and extent of the impact on the environment caused by
the waste disposed of
- 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
- 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 –
- 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.
- 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.
- 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 –
- Voluntary measures insufficient – where participation rates or
waste diversion from landfill remain low for voluntary EPR schemes
- 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;
- Revenues accrue to the fiscus and are allocated to
priority spending needs through the normal budgetary
process as approved by Cabinet; and/or
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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) 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
- 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
- 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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
- 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) 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
- 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:
- Identify River Management Plan domain, preferably from a whole-
catchment perspective;
- Identify an accountable, representative body that should take
unbiased custodianship of the RMP and drive its implementation;
- Identify key stakeholders;
- Divide the river into useful management units;
- Identify major drivers of river disturbance and instability-human
and natural, and their primary and secondary effects;
- Complete Risk assessment as per Risk Matrix (Appendix A) for
identified mitigation activities;
- Solicit input from stakeholders on their priorities and
objectives;
- Define best practice measures for rehabilitation and maintenance
implementation;
- Design a plan for ecological monitoring which is specifically
linked to the stated objectives; and
- Develop an implementation programme and review mechanism.
Report should contain supporting technical information used to ensure
the tow risk to resource quality like:
- a) Impact assessment and mitigation report completed by an
independent consultant as required by NEMA and NWA;
- 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;
- 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;
- e) Generic designs and method statements, where applicable;
- f) Norms and standards, where available;
- g) Monitoring programme that must include “present day” conditions to
be used as base line values;
- h) Monitoring, auditing and reporting programme (reports must be send
on request to the region or CMA); and;
- 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:
- Date of occurrence of the emergency;
- Date at which any person became aware of the emergency;
- Nature of emergency;
- A motivation and definition of the emergency;
- Description, location and receiving environment sensitivity of the
emergency;
- Description of short, medium and long term actions, environmental
management and rehabilitation, and emergency plan required to be
taken to respond to the emergency
- Date(s) when the actions will be taken (or have taken place):
- 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
- DESCRIPTION OF Emergency situation, location, date, etc.
1.1. Motivation that situation was an emergency
- EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROGRAMME
- METHODOLOGY FOLLOWED
- 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
- RESPONSIBILITIES AND PRESCRIBED OCCUPATIONS
- 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.
- 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.
