Wasting the Nation.indd - Groundwork

Chapter 3: The politics of wasteSpurred by controversy and bad publicity, the state began to fashion a response fromthe early 1990s. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) undertooka desktop study which gave a general outline of the situation of waste managementand pollution control. Referring to the Thor case, it also warned that “action groupsin whatever form are here to stay”. In response, the authorities would need todevelop public relations expertise and “promote an image of being more aggressiveand proactive in the field of environmental protection” [CSIR 1991: 297]. Activistswere later informed that the intelligence services had also investigated Earthlife. Theirkey concern was to prevent a political mobilisation on environmental issues andthey recommended soaking up the organisation’s capacity by engaging it in technicalprocesses such as the 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 therewas “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 the bulk of it should not be “consideredhazardous” [1]. This conclusion followed from an overriding concern to containcosts: Given “the poor current state of the national economy”, disposal should be “asaffordable as possible” to corporate waste producers. The report therefore proposed ahazard rating system to prioritise spending and relegate most mining waste to the lowhazard categories 4 and 5. Nevertheless, the report admitted that “there is room forconsiderable debate regarding the speculative hazard rating of waste streams” [1992:52].These reports fed into the Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) process, initiated in 1993and jointly managed by the DWAF and the DEAT, which centred on the interests ofthe 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 the prospects of a democratic government, appearedto be driving change – albeit not quite as the activists intended. Earthlife adopted thewaste hierarchy to reduce, re-use and recycle waste but pointedly omitted disposal.Poison dumpsAs the illegal dumping was exposed, however, industry began looking for managedend-of-pipe solutions. The formal market for waste services expanded dramatically tothe benefit of the larger waste corporations. This raised the costs of disposal but hadWasting the Nation - groundWork - 41 -