Wasting the Nation.indd - Groundwork
Wasting the Nation.indd - Groundwork
Wasting the Nation.indd - Groundwork
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Chapter 3: The politics of wasteSpurred by controversy and bad publicity, <strong>the</strong> state began to fashion a response from<strong>the</strong> early 1990s. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) undertooka desktop study which gave a general outline of <strong>the</strong> situation of waste managementand pollution control. Referring to <strong>the</strong> Thor case, it also warned that “action groupsin whatever form are here to stay”. In response, <strong>the</strong> authorities would need todevelop public relations expertise and “promote an image of being more aggressiveand proactive in <strong>the</strong> field of environmental protection” [CSIR 1991: 297]. Activistswere later informed that <strong>the</strong> intelligence services had also investigated Earthlife. Theirkey concern was to prevent a political mobilisation on environmental issues and<strong>the</strong>y recommended soaking up <strong>the</strong> organisation’s capacity by engaging it in technicalprocesses such as <strong>the</strong> DWAF’s minimum requirements for landfills.A second CSIR report focused on hazardous waste and revealed a dismal picture ofneglect. “Very few industries have waste management strategies” or expertise and <strong>the</strong>rewas “no registration or permit requirements” for contractors handling hazardous waste[CSIR 1992: 81ff]. It argued, however, that a few very large waste streams from miningand energy dominated waste generation and <strong>the</strong> bulk of it should not be “consideredhazardous” [1]. This conclusion followed from an overriding concern to containcosts: Given “<strong>the</strong> poor current state of <strong>the</strong> national economy”, disposal should be “asaffordable as possible” to corporate waste producers. The report <strong>the</strong>refore proposed ahazard rating system to prioritise spending and relegate most mining waste to <strong>the</strong> lowhazard categories 4 and 5. Never<strong>the</strong>less, <strong>the</strong> report admitted that “<strong>the</strong>re is room forconsiderable debate regarding <strong>the</strong> speculative hazard rating of waste streams” [1992:52].These reports fed into <strong>the</strong> Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) process, initiated in 1993and jointly managed by <strong>the</strong> DWAF and <strong>the</strong> DEAT, which centred on <strong>the</strong> interests of<strong>the</strong> state and corporate capital. It was criticised for its exclusion of labour and civilsociety and even industry agreed that it was ill-conceived and ineffective. In fact, risingenvironmental activism, linked to <strong>the</strong> prospects of a democratic government, appearedto be driving change – albeit not quite as <strong>the</strong> activists intended. Earthlife adopted <strong>the</strong>waste hierarchy to reduce, re-use and recycle waste but pointedly omitted disposal.Poison dumpsAs <strong>the</strong> illegal dumping was exposed, however, industry began looking for managedend-of-pipe solutions. The formal market for waste services expanded dramatically to<strong>the</strong> benefit of <strong>the</strong> larger waste corporations. This raised <strong>the</strong> costs of disposal but had<strong>Wasting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Nation</strong> - groundWork - 41 -