The institutional frameworks governing marine plastics in South Africa - legal, policy and Exchange of perspectives to define priorities - IUCN
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MARPLASTICCs Webinar 29 July 2020
The legal, policy and institutional
frameworks governing marine plastics
in South Africa
Exchange of perspectives to define priorities
Report1 CONTEXT OF THE WEBINAR ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. 1
1.2 W EBINAR OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................. 1
2 WEBINAR PROCEEDINGS ........................................................................................................... 1
2.1 CONTEXTUALIZATION................................................................................................................ 1
2.2 PRESENTATION OF THE UPDATE ON THE HOTSPOT ANALYSIS ...................................................... 2
2.3 PRESENTATION OF THE LEGAL, POLICY AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS GOVERNING MARINE
PLASTICS IN SOUTH AFRICA ...................................................................................................... 3
2.4 PRESENTATION OF THE POLICY QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS .......................................................... 5
2.5 BREAKOUT GROUPS ................................................................................................................. 6
3 WEBINAR OUTCOMES ................................................................................................................ 8
3.1 INCREASING LEGAL CAPACITY ................................................................................................... 8
3.2 INFORMATION AND EXPERIENCE SHARING .................................................................................. 8
3.3 IDENTIFYING APPROPRIATE POLICY TOOLS ................................................................................. 8
4 ANNEX 1 - WEBINAR AGENDA ................................................................................................... 9
5 ANNEX 2 - LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ......................................................................................... 101 Context of the webinar
1.1 Background and overview
In the context of the Marine Plastics and Coastal Communities Project (MARPLASTICCs), the
International Union for Conservation of Nature, Environmental Law Centre (IUCN ELC) has conducted a
review of the legal, policy and institutional frameworks governing marine plastic pollution in South Africa
with the support of a national legal expert. This study is part of a larger framework analysing marine plastic
policy in five countries, namely: Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Thailand and Viet Nam.
Exchange workshops were scheduled to take place in each of these countries in order to share the
findings of the study and gather information to identify priorities with government stakeholders, NGOs,
consumer associations and the private sector. However, due to the Covid-19 travel restrictions, the
workshops were replaced by a two-stage process: 1) a stakeholders’ questionnaire to collect preliminary
answers to key questions related to marine plastics governance and validation of the scoping study and
2) a webinar that would allow stakeholders to discuss the results from the questionnaire and get additional
insights.
As a result, a webinar was organised on 28 July 2020, which was co-hosted by the Department of
Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF), that welcomed 31 (thirty one) participants from the above-
mentioned stakeholders’ categories.
All presentations held during the workshop and relevant documents can be downloaded here.
In addition, the webinar can be watched here, (password: k6&&bqaD)
1.2 Webinar objectives
The webinar aimed at identifying the priorities for an improved governance of plastics in South Africa in
order to tackle marine plastic pollution. More specifically to:
Enable the participants to have a better understanding of the legal, policy and institutional frameworks
and tools related to marine plastics;
Provide opportunity for participants representing different stakeholders’ categories to exchange
perspectives, experiences and knowledge; and
Identify the most appropriate legal tools to tackle marine plastic pollution in South Africa from the input
from stakeholders and aligned with the hotspot analysis.
2 Webinar proceedings
2.1 Contextualization
Mr. Kgauta Mokoena, Chief Director for Chemicals and Waste Policy, Monitoring and Evaluation at DEFF
presented different government initiatives addressing plastic waste management. The link between
population growth and waste generation and their impact on the natural environment is well researched,
established, and confirmed by the state of waste report 2020 for the department. Prohibition of certain
1plastic bags is part of existing regulations to address the situation in various parts of the world including
African countries.
The South African approach is based on the recycled content as opposed and in addition to banning as
part of the management of waste from plastic material. Proposals on the minimum requirements for plastic
carrier bags and flat bags are some of the current policy considerations and proposals that government
has implemented. The government’s efforts are focused on protecting the environment for our current and
future generations.
The National Environment Management Act (NEMA) is the primary legislation for the environment,
secondary legislation includes the Waste Act, the Plastic Bag Regulation 2003, the Environment
Conservation Act, the Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Regulations 2018 which have recently
been published and the National Waste Strategy 2020 which is currently under revision and expected to
be finalized in September 2020. The Circular economy is one of the key principles, in addition to the waste
hierarchy and the polluter pays principle. Waste is getting into rivers and ultimately ends in the marine
environment. A diversity of plastic products and materials find themselves in the sea. The National Waste
Management Strategy 2020 has three pillars: waste minimization, effectiveness in waste services and
compliance and enforcement with zero tolerance in littering. EPR regulations were published for public
comment, and the period for doing so has been extended until 26 August. EPR will be contributing to the
separation of waste at source. Mr. Mokoena finally called for collaboration, building on the plastic
colloquium organised by the government last year with the commitment of taking forward the work on
plastic litter and pollution without forgetting the role of waste pickers.
Mr. Juan Manuel Sabio Morchio, Legal Officer at the IUCN ELC, specified the objectives of the webinar,
gathering stakeholders to exchange on the topic of marine plastic governance and identify legal tools that
would assist in the development of in-depth policy effectiveness assessments.
2.2 Presentation of the update on the hotspot analysis
Mr. Peter Manyara, Regional Project Officer, MARPLASTICCs in IUCN’s Eastern and Southern Africa
Regional office (ESARO) - Coastal and Ocean Programme, presented an update, including preliminary
results, of the hotspot analysis conducted by MARPLASTICCs in South Africa.
The MARPLASTICCs project is implemented in the Western Indian Ocean (WIO) region, and specifically
has activities in Kenya, Mozambique and South Africa. More recently, IUCN has initiated a national level
plastics hotspot assessment in Tanzania to complement a broader regional understanding of the plastic
pollution problem in the region. In its approach, the objective of the project is to assess the dynamics of
plastic leakage in the countries followed by a cost-benefit analysis both of which are intended to inform
appropriate policy and other options to address the issue. Going beyond, the project also aims at engaging
stakeholders to prioritise areas to address (hotspots), strategic interventions to pursue, and align through
a common set of policy and other instruments as a basis for action and monitoring future progress.
The hotspot methodology was developed by UNEP and IUCN. The methodology is currently applied in
seven countries by IUCN, including South Africa. The methodology comprises of data collection to define
priority hotspots, engaging stakeholders to prioritize the hotspots and determine appropriate interventions
and instruments to facilitate swift action within the context of South Africa.
2The preliminary results highlight that almost all plastics consumed in South Africa are locally produced or
imported. South Africa generates 2,576 thousand tonnes of plastic waste per year. Waste generation per
capita is fairly high compared to the average in African countries and estimated at 43 kg/cap/year. Also,
69% of the plastic waste is collected, from which 14% is recycled and 46% disposed of in sanitary landfills
or incineration facilities. 9% of the waste is disposed of in unsanitary landfills or dumpsites. Therefore,
41% of the waste is mismanaged with 80,000 tonnes of plastic leaking into the oceans and rivers annually.
Micro-leakage accounts for 2% of the overall country leakage but the efforts have borne fruit in minimizing
the leakage of pellets, and the greatest concern relates to pellets, while there are a lot of initiatives to
address leakages from tyres. When comparing these results to other studies conducted in South Africa,
including Verster et al, it is quite similar in terms of estimations on leakage.
The intention of the assessment is to analyse leakages categorized into five hotspot areas (regional, waste
management, plastic polymer, plastic application and sector). In this regard, a complete assessment will
be presented during a workshop that will be organised within the next two months providing a complete
overview. Once these are assessed, there will still be a lot of work ahead as interventions are to be
identified and prioritized based on stakeholders’ engagement. The idea is to be more proactive upstream
and emphasize on prevention. A stakeholders’ survey conducted during a previous workshop, showed
that improving waste collection systems is a priority. The hotspot analysis models the interventions based
on leakage mitigation potential and unintended consequences. 3 interventions provide high leakage
mitigation potential with low unintended consequences (e.g. impact on jobs or economic impact affecting
people’s livelihoods). Detailed discussions on this analysis will be conducted soon. There is also a more
detailed process to look at the interventions and instruments to address seven types of challenges. The
study would provide options for stakeholders to consider.
The final results of the hotspot analysis will be presented on the occasion of another workshop towards
the end of the year.
2.3 Presentation of the legal, policy and institutional frameworks governing
marine plastics in South Africa
Ms Olivia Rumble, a lawyer and director of Climate Legal, proceeded to present the results from the
scoping study, conducted by herself with the support of the IUCN ELC.
The initial report is intended as a background summary and a second phase will focus on specific tools to
be assessed in detail.
As Mr. Manyara highlighted, there is a certain degree of leakage in the country and there are still
considerable waste management issues, including a number of policy, legal and institutional challenges.
There is a fragmented legal regime in South Africa, with a number of laws, for instance, NEMA, National
Environmental Management: Waste Act (NEMWA), National Water Act (NWA), etc… There are also
specific acts dedicated to pollution arising from ships or focused on trade. There are also international
obligations such as UNCLOS, MARPOL, the London Protocol and the Basel Convention. South Africa is
also party to Regional Conventions such as the Nairobi Convention and the Abidjan Convention, as well
as a number of soft law engagements that are not legally binding but inform the adoption of strictly binding
legal commitments.
3Institutions involved in marine plastic management were summarily mapped to give a basic overview of
the main players involved and how they related to each other. For instance, the Minister of Water, Human
Settlements and Sanitation deals with freshwater resources, on the receiving end of major plastic
pollution. DEFF deals with coastal management and has the main responsibility for the Waste Act. The
institutional overview is available in the scoping study.
The scoping study focuses mainly on the Waste Act because this Act regulates plastic throughout the
plastic life cycle so it is not only from the disposal perspective. It provides a number of comprehensive
instruments prior to plastic being transformed into a product. There are also multiple plans and strategies
such as the National Waste Management Strategy which is currently being reviewed, as well as the
Operation Phakisa targets for Chemicals and Waste and the National Coastal Management Programme.
All these instruments have their own targets and do not necessarily respond to each other.
In terms of legal instruments, the Plastic Bag Regulations (2003) impose minimum design restrictions on
the type of plastic bags that can be retailed as well as environmental levy. There are also product bans
that have not been implemented yet but in theory one could use Section 14 of the Waste Act to ban
particularly problematic products such as carrier bags or straws. Section 17 of the Waste Act requires a
minimum recycled content in plastic products. At the moment it applies to garbage bags, but in theory it
could be applied on a larger scale to packaging requirements for example. In terms of EPR, Section 28 of
the Waste Act provides for Industry Waste Management Plans, a voluntary mechanism by the industry
but amended and refined by the Minister to require industries to develop plans that contain various targets
and aspirational goals and reporting requirements. A new approach under section 18 of the Waste Act
has been pursued in which the Minister instead of the industry specifies the various elements that must
be in the plan. There are also various measures regulating trade and transport, as there is, for instance,
a permit requirement for the import of waste.
There are not as many instruments regulating the retail and consumer level but it is mostly managed
through voluntary initiatives such as Producer Responsibility Organisation (PRO), voluntary levy and
consumer education plans, clean up campaigns primarily driven by PROs.
In terms of end of life, there is a complex and technical and highly regulated legal framework dealing with
Municipal bylaws. The multiple Municipalities in the country each have their own bylaws. The Waste Act
also requires Municipalities to develop Waste Management Plans with recycling targets. There are also
National Domestic Waste Collection Standards that effectively require separation at source, at household
level, in metropolitan and secondary cities. There is also a duty for Municipalities to provide an enabling
environment for households to recycle domestic waste.
The laws exist in South Africa but it’s a matter of implementation, this includes the manner of
implementation and capacities for implementation. There are some gaps, especially with regard to the
Municipal bylaw regime, but there is generally no need for new laws but a creative discussion to see how
we can use what is there to promote shared objectives. Another complicating factor is that there is and
has been a lot of change in policy development. A number of plans are being developed which contain
different targets, and these are proposed by different sectors. It would be ideal to align these plans and
targets. Some other issues concern the improvement of municipal service delivery and how to make
licensing and recycling easier, particularly from an authorization point of view, and in this was reconceive
how we approach licensing and obtaining information. There are still considerable information gaps. The
implementation off the plastic bag levy could also be improved, and we need to accelerate the
implementation of EPR. These are ongoing discussions. There has been progress under section 18 but
4the momentum needs to be carried forward into timely implementation. There is also a need to improve
policy coherence and governance between different departments and amongst the different policy
measures.
2.4 Presentation of the policy questionnaire results
Mr. Juan Manuel Sabio Morchio then presented the results from the survey that was sent to stakeholders
ahead of the webinar.
He first presented the process that was followed, including the elaboration of the scoping studies and the
alternative tools that were used to determine priorities, namely a policy questionnaire and the webinar.
This process will be followed by an in-depth policy assessment focusing on one or two legal tools as
identified through the questionnaire and discussions from the webinar.
With regards to the questionnaire, it was sent to 87 stakeholders and 19 responded giving a participation
rate of 21.84%. The respondents were mainly from civil society (42%), consulting companies (21%) and
government (16%) and a minority were industry actors (10%) or academics (11%).
Below are the results from three questions that were subsequently discussed by participants:
Where is the most appropriate leverage point for addressing plastic waste?
The participants expressed that the leverage point that has the best mitigating impact is production (58%).
End of life (17%) and retail and consumer use (17%) follow while Trade and Transport (8%) is not
favoured. The comments highlight that plastic production must take end of life into consideration with a
clear vision towards the management of the product once it becomes waste.
What legal tools are the most appropriate to tackle marine plastic pollution?
This question aimed at ranking the different legal tools addressing marine plastic pollution from the most
appropriate to the least appropriate. The results highlighted that Incentives from the production and use
of alternatives and EPR are considered the most appropriate. It is interesting to note that bans on plastic
products are ranked as the least appropriate tool to tackle this issue.
INCENTIVES FOR THE PRODUCTION OF ECO-FRIENDLY PRODUCTS
(E.G. TAX EXEMPTION OR REDUCTION)
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY
PROHIBITION ON FREE DISTRIBUTION OF PLASTIC PRODUCTS
REGULATIONS ON IMPORTATION OF PLASTIC WASTE
TAX ON PLASTIC PRODUCTS
PERMITTING AND LICENSING
VOLUNTARY LEVY
BAN ON PLASTIC PRODUCTS
5 How could the institutional framework be improved to ensure the proper implementation of such tools?
What requirements must be in place for these legal tools to be properly implemented?
The participants provided a number of requirements and areas for improvement, especially on the
institutional and legal aspects, as described below, namely:
Institutional requirements Legal requirements Others
Better coordination amongst relevant
Mandatory EPR Education and Awareness
government departments
Single department or single body to oversee Adjustment to SARS and Treasury
all environmental laws and legislation policy/legislation
Stringent monitoring and evaluation Clear legal requirements
Enhanced institutional capacity Effective enforcement
Legally binding global agreement to address
plastic pollution
Strengthen penalties for dumping and
littering
2.5 Breakout groups
Following this presentation, the participants were divided into three groups of 10 participants in order to
discuss these three different questions. Below are the results from these small group discussions that
were conveyed at the end of the session by the groups’ respective focal points.
Group 1: Where is the most appropriate leverage point for addressing plastic waste?
It became apparent that the proper implementation of waste management systems in South Africa was
a highly important aspect. In addition, the separation of waste at source was also discussed.
Furthermore, the role that society plays in the consumption of plastic products certainly has an
overwhelming impact on the amounts of waste produced which needs to be considered. In this regard,
consumerism habits play a vital part as a leverage point for addressing plastic waste.
The issue of infrastructure was also discussed, whereby participants depicted theirs views on the fact
that while the lack of infrastructure is certainly an issue to be addressed, more importantly, the proper
usage of the existing infrastructure is certainly an aspect which deserves support.
Lastly, the participants also deemed imperative to mention that plastic alternatives need to be
considered through proper research being conducted, how other jurisdictions have created such
alternatives and how they have financed them.
6Group 2: What legal tools are the most appropriate to tackle marine plastic pollution?
A Municipal intervention may be of no use because we cannot control separation of waste. EPR feels
like the most appropriate tool but a lot of grey zones must be addressed in discussions with the
departments. However, a lot of efforts have already been put into a developing Industry Waste
Management Plans that could be amended and revised and finally approved and published by the
Minister because they do not deal only with one specific stage of the plastic life cycle but multiple
stages from product design until disposal. It is a comprehensive mechanism to use even though there
are gaps.
In terms of Municipalities, there is a tender on how we can revise bylaws of Municipalities including the
ones that have already been published to require separation at source at the metropolitan level. This
is a good step forward.
There is no proper waste management system in place. 3-4% of South African citizens do not have
access to proper waste management system. A number of PROs focus was to look at collection
systems and make sure that products are recycled. There is a lot happening. The plastic bag levy
should have flown back to the industry to improve product design but it did not happen.
Instead of taxing all bags equally, could the levy be based on the recycled content to incentivize
recycling or incentivize reusable bags or products? There are not enough incentives in South Africa.
We need to change of paradigm for reusable products. There is a need to get rid of single use plastics
and we cannot rely on consumer behaviour change. Therefore, we should focus on product design
and product bans.
Group 3: How could the institutional framework be improved to ensure the proper implementation of
such tools? What requirements must be in place for these legal tools to be properly implemented?
There is a highly fragmented institutional framework (not unique to SA) and no agreement reached on
a systemic approach to deal with the problem. There are different visions as the Department of Trade
and Industry see plastic as a growth area while DEFF sees plastics as a problem
o Principles under the 2020 waste management strategy (prevention; awareness raising)
o The problem also stretches across a wide value chain – presents a challenge
o Bringing all stakeholders together - How do you bring all players in a meaningful way
o Can the Oxford model (from the PEW/SYSTEMIQ) scenarios be considered?
→ The Government needs to anchor the leadership of the plastic pollution somewhere
The Regulatory environment may be overregulated (many policies and regulations, overlapping) but
the multiplication of regulations is not necessarily negative.
In these terms, are we intending to add to the legal burden or step back to incentivize the private sector
(brand owners and producers) to deal with the issue across the entire value chain? It is important to
initiate a dialogue with the different stakeholders, including industry:
o How is pressure e.g. from civil society organisations (CSOs) perceived e.g. by industry? Is it
noise? We need a shift from conversing with CSOs but an advocate for one on one behaviour
change
o Voluntary mechanisms (e.g. Plastics Pact) could support in strengthening implementation of
existing instruments
A number of participants highlighted that the leverage is the design phase. Alternative delivery
mechanisms need to be explored to improve recycling.
73 Webinar outcomes
3.1 Increasing legal capacity
The participants developed their capacity thanks to the presentation and input from Miss Olivia Rumble,
who presented the different legal aspects of plastic management in South Africa at the different leverage
points and detailed the institutional framework. Specific gaps and challenges were also highlighted to
enable participants to acknowledge them and reflect on potential solutions.
3.2 Information and experience sharing
The participants took part in group activities where they shared their experiences, perspectives and
knowledge on different topics regarding plastic regulations and management.
3.3 Identifying appropriate policy tools
The results from the discussions will enable the IUCN ELC to identify the most appropriate legal tools to
be assessed in the framework of an in-depth policy effectiveness assessment that will result in
recommendations to further strengthen the regulatory and institutional framework in South Africa.
84 Annex 1 – Webinar agenda
11:30 - 11:40 Welcome remarks from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment
11:40 - 11:45 Presentation of the objectives
11:45 - 11:55 Update on the National plastic pollution hotspotting and shaping action assessment
Presentation of the scoping study The legal, policy and institutional frameworks governing
11:55 - 12:10
marine plastics in South Africa
Discussions based on survey results
12:10 - 12:50 • Where is the most appropriate leverage point for addressing plastic waste?
• What legal tools are the most appropriate to tackle marine plastic pollution?
• How could the institutional framework be improved to ensure the proper implementation
of such tools? What requirements must be in place for these legal tools to be properly
implemented?
12:50 - 13:00 Wrap up
95 Annex 2 – List of participants
Name Organisation
Aluwani Ramugondo IUCN
Andrew Gilder Climate Legal
Annabe Pretorius Plastix 911
Anton Hanekom Plastics SA
Cecilia Njenga UNEP
Celestine Chemorkok IUCN ESARO
Charlotte Mousnier IUCN ELC
Danica Marlin Sustainable Seas Trust
Diony Lalieu Ocean Pledge
Douw Steyn Plastics SA
Dumisani Buthelezi DEFF
Hayley McLellan Two Oceans Aquarium Education Foundation
Janaka De Silva IUCN GMPP
Juan Manuel Sabio Morchio IUCN ELC
Kgauta Mokoena DEFF
Léa Badoz IUCN ELC
Linda Godfrey CSIR
Lorren de Kock WWF South Africa
Marie Parramon Gurney Self employed
Mulalo Tshikotshi DEFF
Nhlanhla Sibisi Greenpeace Africa
Nicole Crozier SST
Niven Reddy groundWork
Olivia Rumble Climate Legal
Palisa Ntsala Sustainable Seas Trust
Peter Manyara IUCN ESARO
Presha Soogrim KZN Beach Clean Up
Sean Swanepoel Sustainable Seas Trust
Yazeed Peterson DEFF
Zaynab Sadan WWF South Africa
10You can also read
