| SAEP Intern Projects |  |
Amanda Moore and Sara Rollet
July 31, 1998
[There is a footnoted version available in text format.]
INTRODUCTION
Four years after elections that brought Nelson Mandela into power as President and signalled the end of apartheid, South Africa is still struggling with the environmental legacy of its race-based policies. Dramatic disparities between white and non-white living conditions testify today to the continuing impact of apartheid. Any environmental issue – but especially waste management and the location of dump sites – can only properly be understood within the broader historical context of apartheid and its lingering effects on non-white communities.
In the 1960s under the Group Areas Act, South Africa was parcelled into sections designed to separate people based on their racial classification. Within urban areas, whites, Indians, coloureds and blacks all lived in distinct neighbourhoods; whites were given the best services and preferential treatment, Indians and coloureds less so, and blacks were given least of all. The government created black "homelands" in the rural areas and restricted population movement through a pass system enforced by police power, but desperate economic conditions in the homelands caused many blacks to migrate to cities in search of employment. Backyard shacks and informal settlements on the urban periphery mushroomed. A deliberate government policy of minimal servicing and allocation of land created severe crowding and a breakdown in basic services during the 1970s and early 1980s in periurban townships.
Poor living conditions are part of the environmental costs borne by non-white communities as a result of the apartheid system. Other costs include high disease and mortality rates, water and air pollution, an unprotected work environment and a lack of education. Also known as environmental injustices, these ecological and human costs of economic activity and development impact non-white, marginalised communities, while wealthy elites enjoy access to social and economic benefits of the natural environment. As the primary caretakers who are most often responsible for cooking and cleaning in poor communities, women are especially burdened by these costs. This case study uses environmental justice theory to explore the intersection between human rights and environmental protection, placing environmental issues in the social and cultural context of poverty and racial discrimination.
The Eastern Cape, one of the poorest provinces in South Africa, and Port Elizabeth, its major urban centre, provide an ideal setting to analyse environmental injustices in disadvantaged communities. Forty-two percent of the population in Port Elizabeth receive a monthly income of less than R800 (US$130), the household subsistence level; these poor come almost entirely from black and coloured communities. Recent economic difficulties in the motor industry, Port Elizabeth’s industrial core, have led to retrenchments and large scale unemployment. Some estimate that the region’s unemployment rate is as high as 63%. An influx of people from rural areas, perhaps as many as 100 families per week, swells the informal settlements and burdens an already underfunded municipality. Infrastructure in the historically non-white areas remains poor to non-existent, and provision of municipal services is being extended too slowly to match the growing population. Informal settlements still do not receive garbage collection services.
DESCRIPTION OF TIP SITES
The study focuses on three tip (landfill) sites in the Port Elizabeth metropolitan area: Arlington, a municipal site accepting general waste; Ibhayi, a former tip in the black township, now closed; and Aloes, two tip sites (one closed) and a medical waste incinerator, which accepts highly hazardous material. Each site is located near residential areas and in close proximity to at least one non-white informal settlement.
Arlington
The Arlington municipal site, located south of central Port Elizabeth near the Walmer township, was identified as a possible tip site in the early 1970s and has formally been in operation since 1979. The site accepts about 570 tons of general (non-hazardous) waste per day, including domestic waste, commercial waste and building rubble. It is currently licensed by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) for 20 years of operation, but has a projected life span of between 45 and 65 years. There is an informal settlement in the woods next to the site.
Ibhayi
The Ibhayi/Salt Pan tip site, located on a former quarry in New Brighton, a black township north of central Port Elizabeth, served the Ibhayi Town Council after the black townships were excluded from municipal services in 1973. No records exist concerning the content of the waste stream, but it is likely that it includes chemical and toxic waste of both domestic and industrial origin. The site was officially closed in July 1997 but still accepts approximately 200 tons of builder’s rubble and garden waste per day. The site has not been rehabilitated, and security is lax; it is likely that wastes other than builder's rubble and garden waste are dumped there. It is estimated that 5,000 people live on the tip, a prime location because of its proximity to employment opportunities.
Aloes
The Aloes tip site, located north of Port Elizabeth near the municipal boundary, handles highly hazardous (H:H) waste from the whole province. The site was formerly operated by Waste-tech, a private waste management firm, but is now operating under EnviroServ after a recent merger of the two companies. (EnviroServ is now the largest waste-disposal company in South Africa.) Aloes I, an unlined hazardous waste tip, is closed and being rehabilitated. The second tip, Aloes II, currently accepts 240 tons of hazardous waste per day; its permit expires in 2002. The site also includes a medical waste incinerator. The Aloes facility is near Motherwell township and the affluent suburbs of Bluewater Bay and Amsterdam Hoek, as well as immediately next to four informal settlements of approximately 149 households.
METHODOLOGY
Because we wanted to incorporate the views of a wide range of individuals and organisations, we structured our research in the form of a case study. This format has allowed us to report what we have witnessed and heard as well as to highlight recurring problems and gaps in information.
To get a first-hand look at the focus of our study, we began by visiting the three waste sites in question. This gave us a visual understanding of the site to which we could refer throughout the research. The visit also enabled us to experience the environment around the sites with all senses.
Next, we began interviewing people connected with waste management and the affected communities. The opinions and stories of all those involved formed a major part of our research. We spoke with waste management officials, environmental consultants, community members, university researchers, environmental activists, and city councillors. We talked to community leaders within the African National Congress (ANC) and South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO). We also interviewed a number of city officials from the environmental health, housing, and city engineering departments. In addition to the interviews, we referenced certain printed materials, such as environmental audits, public participation records, sociological health studies, and government regulations.
Finally, we examined all the information we had collected and looked for connections, contradictions, and gaps. It is the analysis of this information that follows.
It is important to note that the legacy of apartheid can be seen in the lack of historical statistics and records of the areas surrounding these waste sites. Many of the problems addressed in this study involve informal settlements, and no accounts are kept of their populations or movements. Because records are unavailable, we have had to rely on the estimates and memories of those whom we interviewed.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STATUS OF COMMUNITIES
The black and coloured communities surrounding the three tip sites comprise the poorest cross-section of the population in South Africa. Their shacks are a patchwork of tin, cardboard and plastic crowded on marginal sites; their communities have the least infrastructure and access to municipal services. (See Photo 1.) It is generally accepted that socio-economic status is a critical factor in the health of individuals and communities. Health problems such as acute respiratory diseases and diarrhoea are symptomatic of poor local environmental conditions experienced by disadvantaged communities. In 1996-1997, the last year for which data is available, pulmonary tuberculosis and chronic respiratory disease comprised 19% of reported deaths in Port Elizabeth.
In addition to unhealthy living conditions associated with their socio-economic condition, these communities are also exposed to health risks from tip sites. Often, these risks are in the form of a damaged immune system and increased susceptibility to respiratory diseases. Dust blown from the site can cause respiratory diseases, eye and skin irritation and gastrointestinal illnesses at high, continued levels of exposure. Fires, a significant potential problem, release carcinogenic substances including dioxins and furans from plastics containing chlorine. Chemical hazards such as heavy metals impact surrounding communities when contamination spreads through soil and groundwater.
Communities often ascribe the spread of diseases to nearby tip sites. Although studies suggest that biological hazards such as faecal coliforms, other bacteria, and fungal spores, as well as infectious diseases, such as Hepatitis B (from medical waste inadvertently placed in domestic refuse), primarily affect scavengers and their immediate families, the potential for transmission of infectious diseases increases among all residents under the poor living conditions of informal settlements.
Women are especially affected by these health risks, since they are often the primary scavengers, working for low rates of pay as part of piece work in adjacent informal settlements. In addition, women often bring their children to assist them in scavenging or to play nearby.
CURRENT HEALTH RISKS TO THE COMMUNITIES
Arlington
At the Arlington tip site, scavengers roam freely across the waste as a security guard carrying an automatic rifle stands by. Animals graze and children play. The site is not fully enclosed by fencing and guards at the gate do not check the waste content of each vehicle, although these security measures are mandated by the Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill. It has been alleged by SANCO that between 1995 and 1996, seven people died on the site due to shocks from electric wire and contaminated food. No studies or reports have been done on the health impacts of the tip site on nearby informal settlements.
Ibhayi
At the Ibhayi tip site, animals drink from ponds contaminated by leachate, while scavengers pick through waste and children play among the rubble. (See Photos 2 and 3.) Shacks cover almost every available inch of the site. There are no records of the amount or kind of chemical waste dumped in the past, and although the site is now closed to all waste except for clean rubble and garden refuse, illegal dumping still occurs because of lax security. (See Photos 4 and 5.) There have been reports of shacks catching on fire, but a combination of ventilated shacks and high levels of methane gas in the site (over 50%) ironically reduce the risk of a major explosion. During the rainy season, shacks are flooded and the site turns into a mud pan, creating even more unhealthy living conditions. Residents complain of mosquitoes and skin rashes on children. A hazard assessment, conducted by Steffen, Robertson and Kirsten Consultants (SRK) and Port Elizabeth Technikon in 1997, recommended that the residents be relocated as soon as possible because of extreme health risks at the site.
Aloes
At the Aloes hazardous site, residents of nearby informal settlements complain of asthmatic attacks, lung cancer, burning eyes, skin problems, nose bleeds, dizziness, and high rates of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Residents say they only noticed these health problems after Waste-tech started its operations, especially burning medical waste. Stories also circulate of children who came into contact with hazardous waste and died. The communities are separated from Aloes I by a brick wall, but children still play near the site and sometimes crawl through holes or over the top of the walls into the site. Aloes II is enclosed by a barbed wire fence, with hazard signs in three languages, but some scavengers are still able to enter the site.
In response to these health concerns, especially the high rate of TB, Waste-tech funded a sociological health study of the surrounding communities. The study concluded that the abnormal TB rates (9.6% of the population) could most likely be attributed to poor socio-economic conditions, not to their proximity to a medical waste incinerator. However, the study fails to conclusively rule out health impacts of the incinerator such as a weakened immune system. First, the study utilised surveys and interviews; it did not employ a medical doctor to determine the community’s health status. Second, because the emissions from the incinerator were not tested, no relationship could be proved between the incinerator and community health. Third, the study did not use a control group to factor out socio-economic conditions. The affected communities have lobbied for a complete medical study, but the municipality says it does not have the funds.
The Human Rights Commission (HRC) recently announced a full-scale investigation of both EnviroServ/Waste-tech and the roles of the Departments of Water Affairs and Forestry and Environmental Affairs and Tourism after receiving complaints from residents and the Environmental Justice Networking Forum, a non-governmental organisation. A public hearing will be held in early 1999, and the HRC could recommend that legal action be taken.
WATER AND AIR QUALITY AT AND AROUND THE SITES
Despite these health concerns, there is little scientific data on water and air quality around the sites that is available to the public, and the few studies are hotly disputed. Current waste regulations do not require air quality monitoring around tip sites, and the municipal Air Pollution Control Office is neither equipped nor staffed to handle the task. The Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities does mandate groundwater monitoring; SRK currently monitors the Arlington and Aloes sites, but not Ibhayi. The lack of documented risks to marginalised communities has inspired distrust between tip operators and nearby residents.
Arlington
No air quality studies are available. During a visit to the site, we witnessed large quantities of dust from trucks and scavenging, as well as smells of decomposing matter. Groundwater monitoring has shown no problems with water quality because of a heavy layer of clay below the site.
Ibhayi
There have been no air quality studies at Ibhayi, although methane levels in the tip site indicate methane pollution. Dust levels and smells were similar to those at the other tip sites, though these problems were exacerbated by the effects of those living on the site. No groundwater monitoring is in place.
Aloes
During our visit to the site, rubbish trucks stirred up quantities of dust and strong smells emanated from the leachate pond. (See Photos 6 and 7.) As a result of the controversy surrounding this site, a study was commissioned by Waste-tech to monitor emission levels from the tip sites and the incinerator, and assess the health risks to the community. A dispersion model predicted emissions from the tip, while emissions from the incinerator were tested experimentally. Only dust, hydrogen chloride and cadmium levels exceeded the recommended guidelines. Odours were found as far as four kilometres downwind during calm atmospheric conditions at night. (Both Motherwell and the Aloes communities confirmed that smells from the leachate pond are worse during night-time and early morning.) The study did not measure dioxin levels because testing facilities exist only in the United States.
One of the study’s recommendations was a scrubber to capture emissions from the incinerator. After the Port Elizabeth City Council required a scrubber as a condition of renewal of its lease, Waste-tech fitted one; it exploded after three weeks. Since then, the insurance company and manufacturer have engaged in a legal dispute over the repair costs, and the incinerator continues to burn waste without a scrubber.
No water quality reports have been released to the public. Some activists believe leachate from the tip site is polluting the Swartkops River, and one Aloes resident reported that leachate comes out of a pipe in front of her house. (See Photo 8.) Many people in the community said they are worried about groundwater quality because the tap water tastes "funny."
POPULATION GROWTH IN SETTLEMENTS SURROUNDING WASTE SITES
Residential areas are present near the Arlington and Aloes waste sites, and the Ibhayi site has a community residing on top of it. These situations do not fit with the generally accepted principle that population centres and waste disposal sites do not mix. This principle was set forth in DWAF's Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal by Landfill. Section 4.3 states that no landfill site may be developed in an area with a "Fatal Flaw," such as being upwind from or too close to a residential area. The minimum requirements also mandate a buffer zone of 500-1000 metres between the site boundary and residential developments.
These regulations highlight a common environmental justice concern -- determining whether the community or the waste site came first and why each decided to locate there. This problem is even more difficult in South Africa, given the past government system and the current growth of informal settlements. Because there have been no records of population movement, it is difficult to prove whether or not a facility was originally sited near a pre-existing disadvantaged community. The problem for South Africa has now become one of addressing the uncontrolled development and expansion of informal settlements within the required buffer zone.
Aloes
There are informal settlements situated near Waste-tech, but the history of this area and the relationship between the company and the communities is anything but clear. We heard conflicting reports about the history of settlement in these communities. An environmental activist, an ANC focus group from Motherwell, and an official with the City Environmental Health Department all claimed that there had been people living on the land beside Waste-tech's current facilities for at least 70 years. However, a focus group of residents from van Coller, the informal settlement between the Aloes I dump and the medical incinerator, said the community had formed around 1960. A town planning official could remember people living there for at least 30 years. A Waste-tech official told a different story, claiming that people had only moved in after Waste-tech came 17 years ago.
There were also conflicting reports about the change in the size of the settlement over the years. The focus group from van Coller said its community size had remained static. Waste-tech claimed that both van Coller and Motherwell have expanded and come closer to its facilities. Still another tale came from a city health official, who said a few people originally lived there and then more came after the brickworks was established nearby.
More conflicting reports came from an inquiry as to who actually owns the land upon which the settlement sits. The Motherwell focus group and an environmental activist claimed that the brickworks owns the land and long ago gave permission to the community to stay there. A member of the van Coller community said that a man named Vermaak owned the land and gave permission to the community to live there. He went on to say that the community had paid Vermaak one rand a month to stay on the land. He believes that Vermaak's son must own the property now and that the community still has permission to stay there. (An interesting note is that the van Coller community is also known as Vermaak's ground.) However, a panel of city councillors and officials said that the Port Elizabeth Municipality (PEM) owns the land and leases it to Waste-tech and that therefore the community is an illegal squatter camp. Still another person agreed that Waste-tech leases the land, but upon examination of a map, he was unsure as to the ownership of the plot where the community is located.
Arlington
The Arlington municipal dump is located next to Walmer township, and the apartheid connotations of this site selection were noted in a comment during the public participation process for Arlington's license application. An informal settlement also exists in the woods next to the site. A city official involved in town planning stated that no squatters lived in that area before the dump was located there. He estimated that approximately 5,000 people now live in the area that extends from Walmer to the University of Port Elizabeth (UPE). There are no fences surrounding the site; only the entrance for automobiles is gated and staffed. As a result, scavengers, presumably from the surrounding settlements, can be found in the dump.
Ibhayi
The dump at Ibhayi has the most obvious problem of populations residing where a buffer zone should exist. There are approximately 5000 people living on the actual dump site. A town planning official reported that 15 years ago, there were very few people living on the site and that within the past 7-10 years the population has increased rapidly. Councillor Ngoqo, who represents the area, stated that the population has now stabilised. He went on to say that, ironically, Ibhayi is in a desirable location, as it is next to a police station, a technical school, and an industrial area that could provide jobs. Places of employment can be reached quickly and inexpensively from the dump. The residents also scavenge through the refuse to find goods that can be reused or resold. (See Photo 9.)
The current situations at Arlington, Ibhayi, and Aloes exemplify two environmental justice issues. First, the lack of one clear story about the Aloes site suggests that the lines of communication and information sharing are not operating well. Problems associated with the lack of public knowledge and decision-making will be discussed later in the report.
The second environmental justice issue demonstrated by these sites is the perverse incentive to live in areas that are most unhealthy. Families from both Aloes and Ibhayi are in line to be moved to future housing developments planned for Wells' Estate. Accusations of "jumping the queue" for housing have been fired at the residents of these areas, especially given the fact that there are no clear records of population numbers or movement. When people are willing to subject themselves to life in a dump on the chance that they might find permanent housing more quickly than others, the grim nature of the housing situation becomes apparent. This seems an unfair choice -- health and safety versus permanent legal housing.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO COMMUNITIES
Similar to the problem of jumping the queue for housing is the issue of communities trading their health and quality of life for a potential economic benefit from a waste site. Many people try to justify the existence of communities near dumps by saying that the residents are deriving income from the refuse; therefore, they want to be there. Once again, given the dire economic conditions of the Eastern Cape, one must ask whether this is a fair choice for any citizen to be forced to make.
Arlington
Scavengers are a daily part of the Arlington tip site. During the public participation process for Arlington's license application, many comments were made regarding the welfare of the scavengers on the site. Some comments concerned establishing protective measures for the scavengers' health, but most sought to protect scavengers' ability to gain an economic benefit from the site. In fact, there is a community-based refuse project operating on the site that employs ten people from the nearby Gqebera settlement.
Ibhayi
The public participation process regarding the closure of the Ibhayi disposal site revealed sentiments different from those of the Arlington communities. Contrary to what the public process facilitators expected, the communities supported the closure of the site, despite the fact that people were able to scavenge on it. Councillor Ngoqo also stated that the Ibhayi residents are genuinely looking for housing and are not there to profit from the dump.
Aloes
The Aloes hazardous waste site also has a problem with scavenging, although the occurrence is much less frequent. The economic benefits to the communities around the Aloes site focus more on employment opportunities and community investment rather than on scavenging. Once again, there are a number of different stories and opinions surrounding the actions and intents of Waste-tech. Members of the focus group in Motherwell stated that the medical incinerator was supposed to bring jobs, but now they feel it has brought nothing but sickness. Two residents of the van Coller community are employed by Waste-tech as labourers who ride on the dump trucks. Waste-tech maintains that as far as possible, it tries to employ labour from the immediate vicinity. Waste-tech also says that it provides assistance to neighbouring schools as well as free waste disposal.
When these situations are examined through the lens of environmental justice, the economic incentives to have a waste site nearby can be seen as something of a pay-off to suppress any potential community resistance. There is also a tension between public health concerns and the economic needs of the residents of informal settlements. It is paternalistic to tell a community what is best for it, indicating it is not equipped to make a reasonable decision. However, the economic circumstances of these communities are so desperate that no just decision can be made when the choices presented are this skewed.
EXTENT AND NATURE OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND SHARED INFORMATION
The desire of post-apartheid South Africa to make its government more transparent and accessible to its citizens has resulted in waste regulations that require a public participation process during the licensing of waste sites. All interested and affected parties (IAPs) are invited and encouraged to participate. Initially, any negative perceptions stated by the IAPs were "Fatal Flaws" that would prevent a license from being granted. However, when three years went by and only one new site had been approved in the whole country, DWAF amended the rule in 1997, saying that negative perception by interested parties would no longer count as a Fatal Flaw. Opinions are still to be taken into consideration, but they will no longer be an instant veto to the license if all other factors favour the site. A consultant who has facilitated a number of public participation processes stated that it is still unclear to what extent the community should participate in decision-making.
The steps in the public participation process include: 1) identification and consultation with IAPs, 2) holding public meetings, 3) the decision-making process, and 4) feedback to the IAPs. A researcher involved with public participation studies claimed that the process makes it relatively easy to prevent new projects, but discontinuing existing projects is difficult. He also criticised the current methods as too shallow and superficial, allowing no real results.
One benefit of the public participation process is that, if properly done, environmental education inevitably becomes a part of the process. In order for the community to exercise any real power in the decision making, it must have a reasonable understanding of how waste management operates and the risks it poses. In addition, education can remove some of the fear and speculation surrounding waste sites. One researcher has described the education component of public participation as "critical."
Arlington
A public participation process was held in 1996 with respect to the license application for the Arlington disposal site. There were two general public meetings and one meeting with the leadership of the Walmer community. A list of issues and concerns was compiled from comments made during these meetings. The facilitators noted that the technical language of Environmental Impact Assessment reports poses a problem in the public participation process. This again stresses the importance of environmental education and the need for accessible information for community members.
Ibhayi
In late 1996, a public participation process was held regarding the closure and rehabilitation of the Ibhayi disposal site. The community supported the measures to close the site, and the meetings focused on finding ways to rehabilitate the area. There were few limitations in the process for this particular site.
Aloes
An organisation to include the public in the decisions of Waste-tech is the Aloes Monitoring Committee. The Committee has met every three months for the past 2 1/2 years. Despite this effort, there is a large degree of distrust in the communities surrounding Waste-tech's facilities. Nearby residents tell horror stories of illness and death allegedly caused by Waste-tech. For example, the focus group of van Coller residents reported that Waste-tech offered them the services of their staff doctor, but they refused, saying that they would not trust a doctor who worked for that company. Another member of the community denied that Waste-tech ever made this offer, stating that it had never offered them assistance.
The perception in the nearby communities is that Waste-tech is an uncaring, unapproachable neighbour, who ignores the residents until it needs to renew its license. They do not believe the facility's location resulted from any fair decision-making processes. Regardless of the veracity of these claims, the mere fact that these perceptions exist demonstrates the failings of the current structures for information-sharing and community participation.
THE FUTURE SITUATION IN PORT ELIZABETH
Port Elizabeth is now experiencing rapid population growth among its poorest socio-economic classes, stemming from high birth rates and influx from rural areas. By 2020, the metropolitan population is predicted to be 2.6 million, more than double the current population. To accommodate this predicted growth, the municipality will need to allocate at least 16,000 hectares of land. The municipal Housing Department, which is responsible for housing the poorest families, already faces a backlog of 111,000 units. Meanwhile, the poor are growing increasingly frustrated by overcrowded, unhealthy living conditions and a high incidence of stress, domestic violence, rape and homicide.
Population growth will also increase waste production. Waste-tech’s license for the Aloes site ends in 2002, and it is likely that Port Elizabeth will be left with the Arlington municipal site and no depository for hazardous waste. One solution is to site a new regional waste tip outside of the city, far away from residential areas, and use rail lines to transport general and hazardous waste from a centrally situated transfer station to the site. The new site would ideally be 300 hectares, large enough to operate for 80 to 100 years.
The site may be located in the Coega Industrial Development Zone, 20 kilometres north of Port Elizabeth; however, critics say Coega is too close to Port Elizabeth and hazardous waste disposal would be dwarfed by large amounts of industrial waste. Others say siting a regional tip site at Coega would be foolish, given the continued environmental controversy surrounding the IDZ. All the representative problems of poverty, insufficient housing and servicing will only intensify once the Coega IDZ begins operation. Desperate people from rural areas in the Eastern Cape and from the nation are likely flock to Coega for its promised employment, spawning massive informal settlements around the site. If the regional waste site is located at Coega, the same environmental justice issues surrounding these three tip sites will only be magnified.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Given the short time available for this study (approximately two months) and because we are not from South Africa and do not share a common set of experiences with those involved, it would be inappropriate for us to prescribe solutions to these complex problems after our relatively short stay in the country. Rather than provide our own opinions or conclusions, we would like to share the ideas and suggestions of those with whom we met:
1. Mitigate and reduce the adverse impacts of waste disposal sites.
2. Separate waste sites and communities by removing the one or the other.
3. Empower communities to participate more fully in the decision-making process.
4. Compensate for past injustices and present effects.
5. Undertake more local planning.
6. Provincial and national planning.
We hope that these recommendations will stimulate and provide a basis for action on the part of all concerned parties.
APPENDIX A: MAP OF TIP SITES
APPENDIX B: PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C: WORKS CONSULTED
Aloes Environmental Monitoring Committee. Minutes, 10 February 1997.
Ballenger, Josey. "EnviroServ Faces Toxic Waste Probe," Business Day, 14 July 1998.
Crowther, Jonathan, et al. "Experience of Public Participation in Developing New Waste Disposal Sites," WASTECON All Africa Congress, 27-29 September 1994.
CSIR. The Operation of Aloes Landfill Site, and a Medical Incinerator in Aloes, Port Elizabeth and Their Potential Impact on Human Life and the Immediate Environment, March 1996.
De Lange, WA. "Smells From Aloes Landfill Site, Martins Landfill Site and the Incinerator," Letter, 18 December 1996.
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. Aloes I Permit, 2 May 1995.
--------. Aloes II Draft Permit, 6 June 1997.
--------. Minimum Requirements for Monitoring at Waste Management Facilities, 1994.
--------. Minimum Requirements for the Handling and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, 1994.
--------. Minimum Requirements for Waste Disposal By Landfill, 1994.
Dierwechter, Y.A. and Robert Macdonald. "The Influence of Community Participation on the Waste Management Agenda in Khayelitsha: Self-Sustainability Through a ‘Developmental Impact’ Perspective," WASTECON All Africa Congress, 27-29 September 1994.
Ferguson, Colin C. "Assessing Human Health Risks from Exposure to Contaminated Land: A Review of Recent Research," 4 Land Contamination & Reclamation 3, 1996.
Hattingh, Billy. "Refuse Development Program Through Community Involvement," WASTECON All Africa Congress, 27-29 September 1994.
Health in Industrial Occupations Consultants. Noise Survey – Landfill Site, 16 October 1995.
Institute for Democracy in South Africa. Arlington Refuse Disposal Site: Public Participation Process of Interested Parties and Affected Individuals (IAP’s), August 1996.
--------. Eastern Cape Incinerator Services: Public Participation Process of Interested Parties and Affected Individuals (IAP’s), September 1996.
--------. License Application for Medical Waste Incinerator, Public Meeting, 21 August 1996.
--------. Rehabilitation of Ibhayi (Saltpan) Refuse Disposal Site: Public Participation Process Report, May 1997.
Liebenberg, Chris J. "Operating a Landfill Site By Means of Labour Based Methods and Community Involvement," WASTECON All Africa Congress, 27-29 September 1994.
Ligthelm, Magda. "Public Participation: Closure of the Margolis Hazardous Waste Disposal Site," WASTECON All Africa Congress, 27-29 September 1994.
Lombard, Chris. History of Waste Disposal in the GAB Area, undated.
--------. "Up To Our Necks in Rubbish," SRK Newsletter, undated.
--------. "Waste Disposal in the Greater Algoa Bay Area: Strategic Planning Towards Solutions," Municipal Engineers, undated.
Lombard, June and Richard Nevill. "The Public’s War on Waste," WASTECON All Africa Congress, 27-29 September 1994.
London, L. Paarl Landfill Evaluation: Report on the Health Aspects of Landfill Waste Disposal, 29 November 1996.
Mbande, Chuma. "Design of a Community Based Solid Waste Management System in Developing Areas: Mdantsane Case Study," WASTECON All Africa Congress, 27-29 September 1994.
Nero, Richard. "R.D.P. Type Community Sub-Contracting," WASTECON All Africa Congress, 27-29 September 1994.
"Participate! Help Solve Our Waste Problem," Public Participation Brochure, undated.
Petters, Hilton J. "The Advantages and Pitfalls of Community Based Contractors Based on a Case Study in the Durban Functional Region," WASTECON All Africa Congress, 27-29 September 1994.
Port Elizabeth City Engineer’s Department. Port Elizabeth Cleansing Services, October 1997.
Port Elizabeth Health Department. Port Elizabeth Municipality Health Report, 1996/1997.
Potgieter, F.E. The Primary Health Care Status of the Aloes Community, Port Elizabeth, Special Publication No. 22, February 1997.
Sachs, Aaron. Eco-Justice: Linking Human Rights and the Environment, Worldwatch Paper 127, December 1995.
Solomon, Keith R. "Overview of Recent Developments in Ecotoxicological Risk Assessment," 16 Risk Analysis 5, 1996.
Steffen, Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists. "Ibhayi Waste Site – Delineation of Landfilled Waste," Report Letter, 19 February 1998.
Van Zyl, Marius, et al. "Community Involvement in the Rehabilitation of the Boipatong Landfill Site," WASTECON All Africa Congress, 27-29 September 1994.
Waste-tech Waste Disposal Dispute Briefing Document, undated.
APPENDIX D: CONTACT LIST
Alcock, Susan. Waste-Tech.
Anthony, Tony. Municipal Housing Department Officer.
Bradshaw, Gavin. Professor, Political Studies, University of Port Elizabeth.
Coulderidge, Joan. Environmental Activist, Bluewater Bay.
Horak, Etienne. Environmental Health Department Officer.
Kendall, Ken. Chief Cleansing Officer, Port Elizabeth.
Lombard, Chris. Steffen, Robertson and Kirsten Consulting Engineers and Scientists.
Mapazi, Nondumiso. Motherwell ANC Executive.
Mercer, Jonathan. City Engineering Officer.
Fezi, Nelson. van Coller Community Leader.
Ngoqo, Councillor. Ibhayi Representative, Port Elizabeth City Council.
Potgieter, Francois. Researcher, Institute for Development Planning and Research, University of Port Elizabeth.
Tofile, Mike. SANCO.
Wren, Sandy. Institute for Democracy in South Africa.