BAN Amendment to Basel Convention on Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes & their Disposal: Department of Environmental Affairs

Meeting report

The Chairperson opened the meeting with sad news, announcing the passing on of the Committee’s former assistant Ms Claudia Adams, and the Members observed a moment of silence.

Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) on the BAN Amendment to Basel Convention

Ms Edna Molewa, Minister of Environmental Affairs, said that the presentation related to an international issue -- the BAN Amendment to the Basel Convention -- which had been dealt with by several parties. It was a requirement for it to be ratified by a number of parties who would be revealed during the course of the presentation.

Mr Obed Baloyi, Chief Director: Chemicals Management, DEA, said the purpose of the presentation was to get the approval of the Committee regarding the ratifications made at the Basel Convention relating to the BAN Amendment. The Basel Convention was an international treaty that was responsible for the trans-boundary movement of hazardous waste and other chemical waste. Prior notice of a shipment of this kind of waste needed to be lodged with the relevant entity, otherwise the shipment would be deemed illegal. Basically, if a country shipped hazardous waste to another country, a consultation with the destination country was required and the destination point needed to be submitted to the destination country, and it had to accept the shipment before it proceeded.

The Department of Environmental Affairs was the focal point at which the submission of such notices needed to be lodged. The waste would then be assessed to determine to what extent it was hazardous. The acceptance of the shipment to come into South Africa was dependent on those findings. The Basel Convention emphasised that hazardous waste needed to be disposed of as close as possible to where it was produced in order to avoid the risk that was associated with the transportation of such waste. The role of the Department as a focal point was also to assess the environment in which the waste was going to be disposed, and then to assess if compliance of the disposal of such waste was adhered to as outlined in the hazardous waste disposal licence, prior to accepting the disposal of that waste.

The Convention had been established by developed countries to regulate hazardous waste disposal in developing countries by developed countries. There had been a case in Ivory Coast where hazardous waste had been illegally dumped and many people had been affected, and now electronic waste had been illegally dumped in Ghana, affecting the health as well as the environment of the people. The Basel Convention had been established to ensure that such situations did not happen. The Department had been a party to the Convention since 1994.

BAN Amendment to the Basel Convention

The Convention had been amended in 1995 to include the BAN Amendment. This specifically prohibited the export of hazardous waste from European Union (EU) countries and other corporate organisations in those regions, directing that they should not export their waste to members of the Basel Convention who were not part of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the EU. The BAN was established to protect developing countries, which did not have the capacity to deal with such waste, from the imports of hazardous waste from developed countries.

At the first conference of the Basel Convention, the members of the Convention had agreed that no exportation of hazardous waste should be shipped to developing countries. In 1994, at the second conference, the Convention had then been amended to ban such shipments and exportation. It had also been agreed to ban the export of hazardous waste intended for recovery and recycling, and the deadline had been 31 December 1994. The agreement for when this amendment would come into force had been 10 October 2011, but it had not yet come into force because of certain ratifications. It would come into force globally only when three-quarters of the parties ratified it. There were 88 members of the Convention, but only 41 had so far ratified the amendment, so a further 16 were needed. In the past few weeks the number had changed -- there had been more ratifications, and now only ten more members were needed to make the required quota.

The Department had already applied for the notification and control system in the Basel Convention, and had indicated that there was no waste that was or would be coming to the country that was not authorised, or without the consent of the government. The Department had recommended that government should ratify the amendment, and this would complement was what had already been agreed on in the Convention concerning South Africa.

There was the International Trade Administrative Act that was administered by the Department of Economic Development. A memorandum of understanding between the DEA and the Department of Economic Development reflected that when it issued a permit, the permit could not be issued without the DEA having looked into the application and recommended whether the permit should be issued or not.

South Africa supported the objective of the ban and recognised that Africa had no capacity to deal with hazardous waste. The Ban Amendment would make a significant difference in reducing the dumping of hazardous waste, and South Africa had increasingly experienced the import of used products such as used tyres and electronic equipment, but as soon as those products arrived in the country they were not functional or could not be used, so they became waste. If South Africa ratified the amendment, it would have no negative economic implications -- the country already restricted imports of hazardous waste from countries other than the Southern African Development Community (SADEC) for recovery or final disposal. South Africa supported SADEC countries regarding the treatment and disposal of hazardous waste. This would have a positive impact on the environment and the health of the people. In line with the Ban Amendment, South Africa would accept only hazardous waste from SADEC countries that did not have the capacity to deal with hazardous waste themselves. South Africa could export the hazardous waste which the country did not have the capacity to handle, but only to the EU and OECD countries which had the capacity to deal with the hazardous waste.

In the process of getting South Africa to ratify the amendment, the DEA had been working with the Department of Justice and Correctional Services in order to give an opinion, and it had been found that there was no conflict with domestic laws. The DEA had also consulted with the State Law Advisor from the Department of International Relations, and there had been no conflict with current international obligations. It had also been working with various other state entities that worked with chemical management.

In conclusion, the DEA recommended that the Committee ratify the Amendment.

Discussion

Mr A Nyambi (ANC, Mpumalanga) asked for clarity on the stakeholders that were, or should be, involved in the ratification process, because only the Department of Justice and Correctional Services had been consulted and lodged an opinion. What was the role of the provinces in the ratification process and assisting in chemical hazardous waste management, so that the provinces could start the process immediately? Where does the illegal importation of hazardous waste take place in the country?

Mr M Rayi (ANC, Eastern Cape) asked if there were companies that are or were trading in hazardous waste before the Ban Amendment came into effect.  What was the process of making sure that they refrained from trading in hazardous waste? It seemed like there were no socio-economic implications, but were the importers of hazardous waste going to be granted a transitional period in order to rectify the situation? While South Africa could assist SADC countries by accepting their hazardous waste, was there a likelihood that other countries outside Africa might export to South Africa through the SADC countries by “window dressing” the hazardous waste as though it was coming from the SADC countries? How many countries in Africa were yet to ratify the amendment?

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) asked whether there would be a need to make amendments to local legislation when the Ban amendment was enforced in order to incorporate the prescripts of some of the regulations in the Ban amendment. If so, what was the time frame for that? Could the Department explain what the stance on radio activities was? Did the Department have an idea of the extent of illegal import activities of hazardous waste that was taking place?

Ms E Prins (ANC, Western Cape) asked if the DEA was confident that the provinces would have the capacity to deal with the imports of hazardous waste.

Responses

Mr Mark Gordon, Acting Director General, DEA, said companies that disposed of hazardous waste needed to have hazardous waste disposal licences and the licences were issued by the Department. Anyone dealing with hazardous waste nationally needed to have a licence. The Department had this operation very well organised -- the hazardous nature of the waste is classified and gets tested before it is actually classified. In terms of working with other departments, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) also deals with the import and export of hazardous waste coming in and out of the country. The DTI had the Second Hand Goods Act, in terms of which it monitored a lot of the waste coming in the country, and second hand goods from other countries.

There was also the International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) that worked closely with the DEA in the area of companies requesting to ship goods into the country, especially of a hazardous nature -- ITAC checked with the DEA first and obtained the prior informed consent. With that being said, the DEA had not encountered any illegal shipment activity in recent years, the last occurrence being about 20 years ago.

With regard to any amendments to existing legislation, there were no further adjustments or amendments that would be necessary.

In terms of capacity, the DEA certainly did have the capacity to handle the amount of hazardous waste coming into the country. There were the Green Scorpions and border control patrols, and the DEA worked with the DTI to ensure that capacity was maintained.

The countries that had ratified the amendment in Africa were Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Egypt, Ethiopia, and Lesotho. There were countries on the continent that did not have the capacity to treat hazardous waste, and the facilities in South Africa were world class compared to those in other African countries. There was toxic waste that some of the SADC countries could not deal with, and so they ask permission to bring it to South Africa for it be dealt with safely.

Mr Baloyi responded to the question relating to the opinion of other stakeholders. The entities that had been consulted had directly addressed the issues that might arise as a result of the ratification, to ensure that the ratification would not conflict with any domestic or international laws.

Regarding the issue of illegal importation, the importation of electronic goods had not been labelled as waste, but when they arrived in the country they had been identified as waste, and the environmental experts had had to be involved in that situation. Other than that, no other illegal activities had occurred in the country.

With regard to the question of companies trading with hazardous waste, the Department did not encourage it and grant a transitional period.

Regarding the importation of hazardous waste from developed countries through developing countries, the prior informed consent reflected where the waste originated. For example, if a country like Lesotho requested bringing in mercury for disposal, this would raise concern because where could Lesotho possibly get mercury from, and they were not a huge consumer of mercury. The DEA looked at where the waste originated to make sure that the capacity of the country was not being abused.

The Minister had said there were instances where some chemicals had caused land problems. 756 declarations had been forwarded to the Department where, at the industrial level, land had been polluted and needed remediation. The question that a lot of people asked was where and how did they report, because legislation encouraged people to report when such activities happened at the industrial level.

Mr Gordon said that in the past week, the DEA had met with various stakeholders and entities in order to discuss and come up with an integrated plan that addressed managing chemical waste and land remediation in the country. Part 8 of Chapter 4 of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act (59/2008) came into effect on May 2 2014, which called for remediation orders and the issue of remediation. Now companies had a platform where they could come forward and report the contaminated land and the Department could issue an order for a clean-up -- and such clean-ups could sometimes amount to hundreds of millions of rands.

The chemical sector was very vital to the country. It contributed about five percent to the Gross Domestic Product, and globally it continued to prove to be very profitable for economic growth. The country would continue producing a lot of chemicals, and this might increase as result of the unique projects that Sasol had been undertaking. The DEA had started a new process this year that would complement the new legislation -- a frame work that governed all chemicals in South Africa.

The Chairperson proceeded to propose that the Committee adopt the Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention, as recommended by the Department of Environmental Affairs.

The Ban Amendment to the Basel Convention was adopted.

Adoption of minutes

The minutes of 28 July, 4 August and 22 September 2015 were adopted without amendments.

Report on oversight visit to Madibeng area: platinum mining

The report was adopted without amendments.

The meeting was adjourned.