Plastics environmental impact & possible ban; Minamata Convention on Mercury

Meeting report

Chairperson’s opening remarks

The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the Water Research Commission would join the meeting. After the briefing by the Department, there would be a workshop on the Minamata  Convention on mercury. The Department would do a briefing on the background and also on the inventory. Groundworks would be talking about the status of the phase out of mercury in regard to South Africa’s health status. The final briefing would be from the South African Weather Services (SAWS).

.Ms Nosipho Ngcaba, Director General: Department of Environmental Affairs introduced the presenters that would take the Committee through the morning session. She said that the DDG: Mark Gordon would lead the presentation outlining the policy science interphase, the Water Research Commission would be sharing science related to the challenges of the microplastics and microbeads and especially in relation to water resources and DDG from Oceans and Coasts Ms Judy Beaumont would then deal with the impacts on the ocean and planned response as a country in respect of plastic pollution. The Water Research Commission was represented by Dr Eunice Ubomba –Jasha.

Briefing by the Department of Environmental Affairs

Impact of Plastic on the Environment

Mr Mark Gordon, Deputy Director General (DDG): Chemicals and Waste Management, Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) presented on the policy approaches towards the management of plastic bags. He put forward some recommendations in terms of how the Department was managing and sharing the entire plastic management issue, and its impact on the environment.

The global plastic use continued to increase by 4% per annum, with about 322 million tonnes produced worldwide in 2015. Out of 40% of the plastics produced, 32% ended up in the environment, including oceans and rivers, 14 % went to recovery, and only 2% was recycled. He added that microplastics were the plastics that were once produced, but because of the actions of ocean they broke up into microplastics.

The uncontained plastic litter affected the overall image of regions and resulted in the need for expensive clean-up operations. South Africa had been ranked 11th in the world for mismanaged plastic waste, with 56% of plastic waste estimated to be mismanaged in the country. The Department was, however, reviewing the implementation and the effectiveness of South Africa’s plastic bag policies, with a view to making recommendations for policy improvement, including if necessary on a new plastic bag policy direction, not excluding the banning of plastics.

Impact of Plastic on the Ocean

Ms Judy Beaumont, Deputy Director General: Oceans and Coast, DEA, said that between 4.8 – 12.7 million tons of plastics enter the world’s oceans per year from 192 coastal countries. The volume of plastic entering oceans was one to three times greater than the estimated mass of plastics already at the sea. Large quantities were estimated to be coming from a relatively small number of countries in Asia and other middle income, rapidly developing countries. With no improvements to waste management infrastructure, the cumulative input of plastic would increase to 250 million tons by 2025.

Ms Beaumont outlined that these plastic bags had a negative impact in the environment. They may entangle fish, resulting in injury or death by suffocation, drowning, strangulation, or starvation through reduced feeding efficiency. Ingestion was another negative impact of plastic litter, as it may be mistaken for food and could therefore block the digestive system causing malnutrition, starvation and possible death, or it may cause diseases or reproductive problems if contaminated with chemicals. Plastic litter may also transfer alien/invasive species to where they were non-native.

The DEA had developed an Environmental Protection and Infrastucture Programme (EPIP), which was a project aimed at cleaning and rehabilitating the coastline while at the same time creating jobs and skills development.

Briefing by Water Research Commission

Dr Eunice Ubomba-Jaswa, Research Manager, Water Research Commission (WRC) presented on the science related to the challenges of microplastics in relation to water resources. She said that plastic pollution, and its effects in marine environments worldwide and in South Africa, was well documented. There have been few plastic pollution studies on freshwater and treated sources. The first evidence of microplastics was in the African Great Lakes -- recovery from Lake Victoria Nile perch and Nile tilapia. This was a preliminary study, which had detected microplastics in Lake Victoria by examining the gastrointestinal tracts of two local fish species. Plastic had been found in 20% of the fish examined.  Another plastic pollution study on abundance, size and type of microplastic pollution had also been conducted in five urban estuaries of KwaZulu-Natal.

The emerging contaminants (ECs) in the environment, including microplastics, were largely unregulated and the potential health impacts of individual compounds or mixtures were largely unknown. Contaminants posed a threat to humans and to ecosystems. South Africa needed a development of comprehensive strategies involving all stakeholders that aimed at the reduction and removal of contaminants at source, transfer, fate and organism response levels.

Discussion

Mr T Hadebe (DA) said he was quite taken back by the last presentation about microplastics. It had sent a chill down his spine, especially when they had said they did not know what the effects on human health were. What were the reasons for finding microplastics in the underground water?

Ms J Steenkaap (DA) wanted to know if there had been direct discussions with the industry on the intent to contain the new plastic quality direction, and how the plastic bag levy was implemented by the Department. Did the Department conduct an assessment on how the plastic bags were converted into microbeads?  If plastic bags yielded microbeads that were created problems, what was the economic impact?  Why had the Department not gone out of its way to get a plastic bag of a decent value when it came to recycling, rather than going for the one that was vulnerableto yielding microbeads?

Mr R Purdon (DA) asked if there was a way to get rid of microplastics, or if a reduction of microplastics was the only way forward.

Mr S Makhubele (ANC) wanted to know whether there was sufficient capacity both within government and industry, to re-design the product. If the country was not ready for that approach, had the DEA solicited any views from the industry, other than studies? It had been indicated that there was a need for a review of policy regarding a new kind of plastic bag design, but what was it that the Department was looking for? Would it be enough to just look at some new kind of a plastic bag, or did it want to ban them completely. He asked about the role of local government, particularly in the catchment areas, because it could not be that they had no role – but did it have the capacity to ensure that some of these problems did not happen?

Was the Water Research Commission looking to other sources beyond government for funding, because if the only focus of the Commission on the source of funding was the government then most of the work would not be done now or in the near future? Was Water Affairs assisting? Apart from Water Affairs and DEA, were any other funding sources being looking at, and to what extent had this been successful?

The Chairperson asked about the impact of plastic use, where mention had been made to the percentage of recycling of these products and plastic being at 18%. He thought the study had been done in 2011, when tyres were at 4% and the tyres were the least of the materials that were recycled.. He was not sure how correct that information was, because he thought that the recycling rate of tyres was not as low as it appeared in the presentation. Looking at the three presentations, all of them were making a compelling argument against the use of plastic bags, and the effect of microbeads in the last presentation.

There was no question that plastic bags were causing a considerable impact on the environment, especially in the oceans. Plastic bags were having a huge impact on the environment. In 2003, South Africa had introduced a plastic bag levy, which had increased from three cents to 53 cents. Not all retailers were selling them for that amount -- some were selling them for R1. Even the introduction of that levy had not discouraged people from using plastic bags. What was of more concern was that the original idea was that the income derived from the levy was also going to be used to encourage the recycling of plastics. He was not sure whether they were succeeding with that, as at the circular economy colloquium they had requested a presentation on how much had been collected since the levy was introduced, and still had not received that information. The money that came from plastic bags was just passive income for the retailers, and he was sure that most of their margins were profits from the sale of plastic bags. It was really not serving the purpose it was intended for.

Looking at small countries in Africa, there was information that Burundi had recently banned plastic bags through a presidential decree by President Nkurunziza. The countries that had banned plastic bags were Benin, a very small country, Cameroon, Ivory Coast and Chad. These were very small countries, and one may argue that it did not have much impact on the economy, but these countries were taking bold steps to protect the environment. It was not only these small countries -- there was also Morocco, Rwanda and Kenya. There were quite a number of countries in Africa that had completely banned the use of plastic bags, and South Africa was tailing behind.

Despite the compelling arguments that had been made in the presentations against the use of plastic bags, the Department could not say it was going to ban plastic bags because the process would still have to be taken to the Cabinet. From there it would have to go to the departments, but it was very clear from where everyone was sitting that the banning of plastic bags was the only alternative. Even the recommendations made by the Water Research Commission about the possible consideration of banning microbeads referred to plastics as well. From the scientific point of view, with the empirical evidence that existed and the fact that the levels of degradation that was being caused by plastics in the ocean was so much that it could not be afforded, there was no time to talk about possibilities.

The DEA had talked about policy changes, and this entailed taking it through the Cabinet process. There should be some kind of commitment as to how soon the Department could look at this policy review and come back to the Committee. This would enable it to be better informed of the processes that the Department was following and the turnaround time. Considerations about economic impacts and jobs were issues of concern, but an example had been made by the small countries, which were moving away from this problem because it was causing untold damage to the environment.

DEA’s response

Mr Gordon said that he thought the Chairperson’s last comment summarised a lot of the problem statements around the questions. Giving the example of countries in Africa, he had hit the nail on the head in terms of the gaps around the socio-economic implications, and some of the follow up work the Department still needed to do with the industry, labour and relevant government departments. The Department was doing a study at the moment on the plastic bag policy, headed by Ms Mamogala Musekene, Chief Director. It would be completed by the end of October this year, when it would have a firm policy direction after consultation with the necessary stakeholders and also addressing some of the gaps around the economic impact. If the compelling argument from the study showed that the Department needed to be looking in the direction, then they would take the Chairperson’s cue and come with recommendations.

Chairperson asked how much a plastic bag was sold for. Was it just passive income?

Mr Gordon said that the government only received 12 cents. The rest of it went to the retailer and it was way less than the cost of producing a plastic bag.

The Chairperson said that he does not want to put Mt Gordon on the spot, but if he said it was less than the cost of producing a bag, what did they get as profit from the bag’s sale.

Mr Gordon said the idea was the retail sector was supposed to have also invested somehow in the infrastructure for recycling, so some retailers and supermarkets charged for the bag but others did not. Woolworths had recently announced that by the end of next year that they were phasing out plastic bags completely. The Department was also talking to the retailers’ forum. He asked, through the DG, if the Department could come back to the Committee with a final study after it had closed all the gaps around the matter.

He responded to the question asked about how a regulatory instrument, which was a waste and source regulation, was being implemented. The Department had discussed this at length at the Phakisa conference last year, where local government was represented. It had engaged a lot with the local government through the Department of Cooperative Government and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) and other forums. He spoke about the dynamics between a push and pull mechanism, and that from the source the Department needed to start regulating and get cleaner recyclate materials that could go back into the recycling economy. Diversion to recycling required a balanced approach, and the pricing signals had to be right.

He gave an example of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, where there was about 65% recovery rate, which was was higher than the world average for PET bottles. This sold for about R500 a kilo compared to glass, which was about 44 cents a kilo as recycled glass. He was not sure about the value for aluminium cans, but it was rare to find aluminium cans in the environment because they had a very high value and there was a very high recycling rate on cans.

Responding to the question on how the Department would implement this, he said that they were now targeting metros, where the highest amount of waste was produced, and the concern was the ability to enforce the preventive measures and deal with non-compliance. He thought the concern was valid. In terms of the Phakisa target, it was targeting 50% of the metros, focusing on suburbs where they could easily do this. Some of the metros had been doing this for many years, and the Pikitup programme was an example. The Department have given these metros the option of a three bag system and one bin, or a three bin system. The Department had left it to the metros as to how they would do that. Some used different colour bags for recyclables and non-recyclables, and green garden organics waste bags, and a different collection system. This required an integrated policy approach, which would include how the collection of recyclables would go back into making new products. Non-recyclables and residual waste would go to landfill sites and other operations to look at deriving more value from them, and green waste and organic waste would go into energy production. That was all in the Department’s policy.

The issue of policy and problem plastics was something that the DEAt had to consider in terms of what the Chairperson said about bans. Intergovernmental coordination was something that the Department was engaged in already, particularly in respect of service delivery and the basic services work of COGTA. The DEA’s role was basically to do the policy work, set targets and prepare whatever standards and regulations were required, and that work was getting a lot of traction within the Inter-Ministerial Technical task Team’s (IMTT’s) inter-ministerial committees.

There was a lot of inter- governmental work around how the Department would start creating the policy direction for local government and municipalities. In terms of how funding worked, he hoped the DG was going to help, but some funding had been earmarked for local government. How that correlated with the functions was another story, but at the level of waste collection, the Department was trying to turn the situation around to become more viable. Waste management had not been a big priority for the municipalities, but that was changing. The Department was also looking at how to incentivise households to separate waste.

Responding the question about the capacity of the industry to actually do this, he replied that some of the industries had been present in the Phakisa conference, where they had looked at design standards for packaging, and how to reduce the amount of packaging that was produced. Examples were a champagne bottle a cornflakes box that were both three-quarters full of product. The design standard was an agreement the Department had with the industry. The DEA would still consult with industry on the plastic bag policy direction. The economic assessment and consultation with producers and manufacturers still had to be done before a possible plastic bag ban was decided on.

Regarding microbeads, if the Department of Health could get it right about microbeads on cosmetics, toothpaste and similar products, that would be a very quick win. A ban on microbeads would have solved a major problem.

Some of the plastic bag levy did come back to the DEA, and was being used for various programmes in the Department like the recycling of the plastic bags, and other programmes. It had been getting money from Treasury that it had been using to fund recycling programmes for small, medium and micro enterprises (SMMEs) and cooperatives. The pricing of waste had been what it considered when it put out pricing in 2012. The idea was that if there was an increase in the value of something, maybe people would not kick it around or throw it out. If one goes into a landfill site there was a serious bartering and trading that went on there, and companies went to landfill sites to buy recyclate material from the micro-collectors.

If the price of a plastic bag was doubled, people would still buy it. The Department was considering the whole ban of plastic spoons, knives, cutlery, balloon sticks, and straws. It had not concluded all the work -- it would be presented to the Committee once it was done, but other countries had already banned these products. The alternative for straws would be stainless steel straws, paper straws and other types of straws.

As mentioned by the Chairperson, there seemed to be quite a rapid move towards banning single use products around the world, as well as the bans on plastic bags in Africa. This was what the Department would have to consider going forward.

Chairperson asked that other delegates make their answers short.

Ms Beaumont referred to the role of local government in the source to sea initiative. Mr Gordon had covered quite a lot of it in the sense that waste management was a local government responsibility in terms of the constitution, so local government had to be right at the heart of the coordination and implementation of the source to sea initiatives. It would also need to be focusing on improving waste collection services upstream, because that was where the Department was trying to reduce the input of waste into the river systems.

In the case of the eThekwini Municipality pilot test case, the waste management office at the municipality had been leading with the process of mapping the different sources of waste and litter coming from the communities. One of the slides had shown the five river systems with different colourings, and red showed the areas that were an indication of the greatest amount or sources of litter going into the catchment area, so,eThekwini waste management in this case study had been right at the heart of the coordination and implementation of the source to sea initiative.

Dr Ubomba-Jaswa responded to the first question about the microplastics in groundwater. In this study, the groundwater plastic concentration had been very low in comparison to the surface water, but the reason why that sample had been taken was because in South Africa, quite a number of people depended on groundwater, so it was important for the WRC to establish that, because it might choose groundwater without any treatment. Technically, microplastics do go through the soil and the soil layers. Deposition of microplastics in the soil had the potential to lead them into groundwater, which was why the WRC had done the sampling. Mr Gordon had also touched on getting rid of microplastics, but currently that was impossible because plastics had started around 1950s, and with the amount of plastics that were present, microplastics could not all be cleared out. However, the production of plastics could be cut down, which would eventually cut down the presence of microplastics in the future.

With regard to risk studies, a study was recently done that looked at microplastics in bottled water, where some of the concentrations had been higher than in tap water, so the World Health Organisation (WHO) had decided to conduct a risk review study on people who were drinking bottled water, to try and see if there was any kind of linkage. At least now it had a population target where people drinking bottled water could be assessed -- that was the only study for now that a regulatory body was progressing.

Regarding funding for microplastic research, she thought microplastics was a unique situation, where all the stakeholders had come into play. The responsibility did not sit with only one stakeholder, but was really an opportunity for the Departments of Trade and Industry (DTI), Water and Sanitation (DWS), the DEA and Health (DoH) to provide an input.  The WRC, as a research organisation, was committed to funding projects around microplastics and driving those research programmes forward in order to have more conclusive results as to what risks were associated with the microplastics.

Ms Musekene said that government and industry have the capacity to re-design products. The Department had looked at plastic bags, and there was a problem with regards to the fillers -- for example, calcium carbonate -- and currently the Department was working with the industry together with National Research Council (NRC) and the DTI to amend the compulsory specifications for plastic bags. The DEA was also working with the industry and the DoH with regard to microbeads, and their association with cosmetic toiletries and fragrances. The DEA had also brought in the DTI to assist with determining the economic impact on the businesses in the cosmetic industry.

Ms Ngcaba (DEA said there was an inter-ministerial committee on service delivery that looked at all the basic services: water, electricity, as well as waste. It was important for all districts and metros to be able to scale up the activities that dealt with the interventions on more resource efficiency on separation and source. With enough resources, the Department should be able to continue beyond the initial 27 districts, but it would have to look within the medium term strategic framework (MTSF) process of planning.

She said that unfortunately after many years, the plastic bag was not as recyclable as the Department would have expected. The technical colleagues had talked about the introduction of the fillers which had made the quality to be not good value for recycling, the DEA had to look at all of these elements and tell DTI that it had not done what it was supposed to do according what had been agreed on, and the industry itself. There was a process through the National Economic Development and Labour Council (NEDLAC) where they engaged in respect of changes to compulsory specifications. That was a real inhibitor. The question was, considering the amount that the public was paying when they purchased plastic bags, what was happening? That was also going to be part of the conversation between the industry, the DTI and Treasury. The Department hopes that the study would be done before the next budget process, because the Minister of Finance was supposed to outline what would happen to the plastic levy in the future.

Answering the question on how the Department makes sure that local government actually perfoms its functions, she said national legislation made the DEA responsible for creating the framework and policy on the financing of collection -- not yet recycling, just collection -- because that was a municipal function. For indigent households there was a policy that the Department had developed, and that was a policy that was used by the Treasury and COGTA to inform how much could at least be subsidised at the municipal level, so all the municipalities in South Africa now had a subsidy for waste collection. However, some of them were not using the subsidy to actually implement what was expected from them. She suggested that Treasurer should be asked to come and present how much the allocations for each municipality were. The Department had gone further, because the formula for the municipalities’ waste and environmental functions were only covered under 4% of the budget, which was for street lighting, refuse removal and so on. The Department had therefore engaged with COGTA and Treasury to make sure that there was a ring fenced amount for waste management. Effectiveness was still a big question, so those were the areas where the DEA should really invest its capacity to improve and maybe review the legislation and tighten other measures, to make sure that the municipalities did the minimum that was required.

The Chairperson said that it had been a fruitful engagement, and the Committee would await the DEA to finalise the study and share with the Committee what the way forward was. That engagement would be scheduled in the next term -- October to December -- because next year he did not think the Committee Members would be around.

Minamata Convention: Briefing by DEA

The Chairperson said that the Committee had approved the Minamata Convention on mercury, and had received the report. It had then asked whether there was a workshop so that it could understand what the convention was all about. There was an appreciation that there was not deep understanding of mercury and the threats it posed. The Committee had decided to have a workshop to help one another on the Convention on mercury, because South Africa was a signatory to it. The rules were that the Parliament had to approve it so that South Africa there could be full ratification. According to the Parliamentary programme, on Thursday the Assembly would be was considering adoption of the Committee’s report on the Convention, which was at adopted on 18 June. The House would most likely adopt it on Thursday 23 August 2018. This report, together with the Southern African Development Community (SADC) protocol on Environmental Management for Sustainable Development, would also be discussed by the House on Thursday.

Mr Obed Baloyi, Chief Director: Chemicals and Waste Management, DEA, gave the background to the Minamata Convention on mercury. Mercury was a naturally occurring heavy metal which could cause toxic effects on humans and the environment. It was released through natural processes like volcanic and geothermal activities, or through human activities. The man-made mercury emissions primarily come from gold mining, which used mercury and the combustion of coal, especially coal-fired power stations.

Human activities continued to increase the mercury in the air, oceans, freshwater and soil, creating a global threat to humans and the environment. Mercury could travel globally through oceans and the atmosphere, and cyclesd through the processes for years, or even decades. It accumulated in the ecosystem and from food chains, particularly fish, and was passed on to larger animals and humans who ate those foods. The health effects included significant damage to the nervous system, the immune and digestive systems, lungs and kidneys.

The Convention text had been finalised in January 2013, and had entered into force on 16 August 2017 with the aim of reducing mercury anthropogenic emissions and releases. 

Discussion

Mr Hadebe said that since Mr Baloyi hadmentioned that the DEA would get financial assistance for the Minamata Convention, he would like to know the financial effect it would have on the economy of the country. Had the Department perhaps had a look at that as well?

Mr Baloyi said that what the Department had done was the study, and it had also looked into the socio-economic impact and the cost benefit. It had looked into the cost of implementing the Convention. It was going to be very expensive, which was why financial assistance had been indicated as a benefit. South Africa could adopt this Convention, though it was going to cost a lot of money.

The Chairperson asked where the contamination occurred.

Mr Baloyi said that it occurred in KwaZulu-Natal.

The Chairperson asked what kind of contamination occurred.

Mr Baloyi said that it was a heavy mercury contamination.

The Chairperson asked for the part of KwaZulu-Natal where the contamination took place.

Mr Baloyi said that it was in Cato Ridge

Chairperson asked what really happened there.

Mr Gordon explained that in the 1980s, waste containing mercury entered South Africa as sludge from America and other countries. A company called Thor Chemicals was responsible for recycling and recovery, but the technologies had never worked. Thor Chemicals had about 3 000 cubic meters of mercury catalyst that contained mercury chloride in warehouses that had been under control of the Department of Labour, and there were about 8 000 drums full of mercury sludge there, and it was the subject of a commission in the early 1990s. The Department was looking at solutions, either to repatriate the waste back to where it came from, or to find a safe and environmentally friendly way of dealing with it. It was busy dealing with this. As for dealing with treatment options for the mercury, being a member through ratifying the Convention would help the Department to access some of the funding from government.

Chairperson asked again where in KZN this mercury contamination occurred.

Mr Gordon said that it was in Cato Ridge near Hammarsdale, on the old Comrade’s Marathon route between Pietermaritzburg and Durban.

The Chairperson said that the only thing about this was that the document had been written secretly, which meant the Committee and the Department were dealing with a highly secretive subject. He requested that the Department remove the “secret” that was written on the document when they came back, because it was no longer a secret – it was open to the public. Once the information was shared with the Parliament, it was no longer secret.

Mr Makhubele referred to the work that happened on the mines, and said the “zamazamas” (illegal miners) got their mercury to process their ore from neighbouring countries. If South Africa ratified the Convention, did the Department know what was happening in the neighbouring countries? By 2023, when the total ban would probably be implemented, big businesses or industry may be able to comply, but would zamazamas or new entrants be able to comply, or would they still need mercury for processing?

Mr Baloyi replied that the mining Industry had told the Department that it had moved away from using mercury in the gold sector. Mr Makhubele was correct that the illegal miners were the ones who were using mercury in their activities. Certainly, they got their mercury illegally, as he had already indicated that the Department had discovered it was being smuggled in. The Convention did deal with small scale gold mining, but the challenge in South Africa was that currently that sector was illegal.

The Department was working with the Department of Mineral Resources (DMR), and had formed a committee to look at how the environment and human health could be protected from the use of mercury. In respect of what was happening outside, the Department was trying to strengthen up the country’s border controls because it would be illegal to bring mercury into the country for money. If the Department continued strengthening the border controls, mercury would be dealt with whether the neighbouring countries had phased it out or still had it, but the environment of South Africa would be protected by strengthening the border controls.

Ms Steenkamp asked what type of products mercury was used in.

Mr Baloyi said that Mr Rico Euripidou, of Groundworks, would certainly cover that in his presentation because he was always concerned about illegal mercury coming into the country.

Mercury inventory level 2 results

Ms Noluzuko Gwayi, Director: International Chemicals and Waste Cooperation, DEA, presented on South Africa’s mercury inventory level 2 results. She said the Minamata Convention on mercury identified mercury sources, releases and emissions. It had banned primary mercury mining and phased out mercury containing products. This convention promoted scientific research and information exchange amongst parties, and provided financial and technical assistance.

Ms Gwayi said that in the socio-economic perspective, mercury pollution resulted in costs to society  including, for example, damage costs from negative impacts on human health and the environment, loss of income from reduced commercial fisheries, administrative costs for scientific research and development, control and risk communication. The most serious human health impact of global mercury pollution was neurological damage, leading to impaired development of the brain.

She referred to the Extended Emission Control results into about 50-60% mercury reduction. This executive scenario assumed economic progress at a rate dependent on the future development of industrial and emission control technologies. The maximum feasibility technical reduction (MTFR) result was a 93-98% mercury reduction. The MFTR scenario assumed implementation of all solutions/ measures leading to the maximum degree of reduction of mercury emissions in the environment and its loads discharged at any component of the environment. Cost was taken into account, but only as a secondary consideration.

Discussion

Mr Hadebe said the Department had embarked on minimum emission standards, and asked if the industry required additional retrofitting of the abatement measures in order to cater for mercury as well. The engagement of the Department in retrofitting with the minimum basic emission standards might backfire.

Mr R Purdon said he was interested in how one even began to calculate the cost of neurological (IQ) damage. He asked what type of model was used, as he needed more details on it.

Mr Rico Euripidou, Environmental Health Campaigner, Groundworks, added a supporting statement. If a coal-fired power station was being retrofitted to install pollution control technology, there were core benefits for all the pollutants emitted. It was not necessary to make a specific retrofitting for mercury, although specific adjustments were made for it. Ratifying the Convention opened up spectrum technology transfer. It opened up the window to learn from those countries that had got it right and had managed to control the mercury in their coal-fired power stations. There was a UN environment sponsored partnership, specifically on emissions and releases, and the technical expertise embedded within that at the International Energy Agency meant that one had the opportunity to use the optimisation guidance documents, so that adjustments could be made without spending money in the first place. Any additional retrofits to meet emission standards would give one significant benefits of at least up to 65%, without doing anything specific.  

Mr Makhubele, temporarily acting as Chairperson, said that the Convention did not place an additional burden on industry, and therefore there was no need to change deadlines. The Department would not get any postponements. It should be understood that the vehicle to synergise and comply with the minimum emission standards was currently in doubt.

Ms Ngcaba said that there would be investments required from industry in addition to what the Department expected it to invest, whether it was climate change, or where there were carbon emissions reductions required. The Department had initiated consultations with the industries, but they still had to get to those details established. The industry still had to confirm first in terms of its own implementation plans, what it was going to take for it to retrofit, and if it was already retrofitting some of other requirements for quality compliance, what was then additional. The Department still had to get to that point to be really sure about the industry’s implementation plans, because at this stage the industry had not signed off on a transition plan that would make it comply with mercury compliance requirements.

Ms Gwayi responded to the question about IQ damage, and how it was calculated. A model had been utilised, where the Department had data in terms of how much was being released to the environment from the emission. The Department had utilised that data to fit into a model to determine how much it would impact on people, and given that mercury was a potent neurotoxin that affected the central nervous system, the Department was realising that people would be affected and then translating the data to the IQ.

Mr Purdon asked if it was an international model, or if it belonged to the Department.

Ms Gwayi replied that it was an international model that had been recommended by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

Mr Makhubele updated the Chairperson that there was an expectation on the industry to retrofit in a manner that accommodated the mercury situation. There was a suspicion that the industry would need to do additional work which may affect the emission standards and deadlines that had not been set.  This would be the position until the Committee had agreed with the DEA and signed off on its implementation plans.

The Chairperson said that in regard to the programme of Parliament, it should schedule receiving an update on minimum emission standards sometime late in August or early September. The Committee would probably have to factor this into that discussion, because the industry may not have to come up with another new plan for retrofitting, and the Committee could accommodate the mercury issue in its existing plan to deal with minimum emission standards, if that was possible. He suggested that this should be factored in when compliance with minimum emission standards was discussed.

Ms Ngcaba said that when the Department came back to discuss emission standards, she was not sure if the Committee would have received the implementation plans of the industries. It was better that mercury was treated separately, because it was a separate issue. She suggested that all the industries that were affected by the phasing out of mercury should be asked to submit their plans, and based on that they could identify possible benefits from retrofitting for emission standards, they would be accommodated. Where this was not necessarily the case, the Department needed to understand what was it going to take for them to phase out mercury. At this point in time, it was still an academic exercise.

Briefing by Groundwork

Mr Euripidou reported that it had received bad notices in the last three days from Eskom, Sasol (Secunda) and Sasol (Sasolburg). It intended to oppose them all, and seek postponement for meeting the new plans’ standards by 2020. Groundworks had been working on mercury health care specifically. It had been working with the health care sector for the last 15 years in partnership with a global organisation called Health Care Without Harm. Health Care Without Harm and Groundworks had developed the first mercury partnership with the UNEP, and had a long history of trying to think about mercury and health care -- what it was, what it looked like, what its problems were and how to deal with it.

In South Africa, compared to the rest of the world, it was very seldom safe to eat fish because there was mercury everywhere. Mercury was toxic to nervous, digestive and immune systems and to the lungs, kidneys, skin and eyes. Adults were also affected through occupational and consumer exposure.

The World Health Organisation had recommended a better understanding of the problem of mercury in the health care sector, and had recommended that countries conduct assessments of current mercury usage and health care waste management programmes. Many countries had already phased out mercury in many of the products banned by the Convention. As more countries banned products, the markets responded and economies of scale increased availability.

Discussion

The Chairperson asked when the study by Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) on fish had been done.

Mr Euripidou said that it was an ongoing study by the CSIR. Mr Newman, a CSIR scientist, had been collecting fish all over the South African coast and had also been measuring the organic pollutant and other pollutants in harbours and estuaries. The infograph on his presentation had been developed in 2014.

The Chairperson said that as part of healthy eating, fish was a recommended source of protein, and kingklip was the most popular fish. He then asked if it should be consumed not more than three times a month.

Mr Euripidou replied that not more than twice per month was the recommendation in the presentation. This related to Mr Purdon’s question earlier about how exposure was linked to outcomes or health impacts. The epidemiological science gave a direct correlation between the exposure and health outcomes. For instance, mercury would impact on the neurological system at a certain concentration and its impact was directly measurable, in exactly the same way as lead had a direct impact on the development of children, their brains and IQ. Mercury acted in the same way. What one got with mercury was a population shift in IQ. It might not be seen at the individual level, but if there was a population shift in IQ, it meant all those people would need help -- not just help but extra help, because they would never be economically productive, and those people might have been geniuses. In other words, there would be reduction of in the number of bright people in the population. Mercury specifically was particularly potent to a developing foetus -- if a pregnant mother ate a fish that was contaminated with mercury, that mercury would cross the placental barrier and it would impact on the development of that child without question, and the more fish she had, the greater the impact. That was clear. It was not contested science. Dr Somerset, who was a scientist at the CSIR, was present to answer specifically on this.

The Chairperson asked Dr Somerset if he wants to elaborate.    

Dr Vernon Somerset, Environmental Scientist: CSIR said that they had done a study around the coast of South Africa, as Mr Euripidou had said, and they had seen with the measurement of fish samples that there was mercury all over in the environment. Using that information, they now suggested the amount of fish that could be eaten, due to the concentration of mercury bioaccumulated in the fish species.

The Chairperson said that this was shocking information.

The Chairperson said that skin lightening products were very popular in the country, even amongst those who were celebrities. People who were thought to have a certain level of knowledge about what was dangerous and what was not, were still using these skin lightening products

Mr Euripidou said that skin lightning products had already been banned in South Africa. The National Department of Health had a national standard, and it restricted the use of mercury in cosmetics. They had taken that legislative step.

The Chairperson said that Mr Euripidou’s presentation had been very informative and well presented, and had opened their eyes, especially around fish. He liked kingklip, so he did not know what he was going to do now, or what it might have done to him. He added that this required a lot of education because people were not aware of this. The presenters had given them an awareness on mercury. Earlier on, in the previous presentation, they had been told that fish ate the microbeads/microplastics, so when one ate a fish, one ended up eating microbeads in the fish product. He doesn’t know the safe alternative -- maybe it was safer to eat chicken.

He said he noticed that Members did not have a lot of questions, which it showed that the presentation was very informative. It was a good thing that Groundwork was also supporting the adoption of the Minamata Convention on mercury and was not very critical of it, because he knew that most of the time they were very critical government policy, especially around air quality and to some extent, climate change issues.

Mr Makhubele asked which other countries in SADC have actually ratified the Convention.

The Chairperson replied that the Department had mentioned the countries in the first presentation, it was in the document.

He said that the process would be on Thursday. They would consider the possible adoption by the National Assembly, from where it would go to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP). South Africa could submit instruments of ratification under this Convention, and then it would be approved. The only thing that would remain was for the Committee to get industry into line.  However, there was a lot of benefit in moving away from mercury products for the reasons that the Department had explained to the Committee. Issues of cost would be raised, but the Committee would have to deal with that.

The Chairperson said he had been told that the South African Weather Service (SAWS) had not submitted the presentation which it was supposed to have sent through.

Briefing by SAWS

Dr Lynwill Martin, Senior Scientist, South African Weather Service (SAWS) presented on mercury monitoring at SAWS. SAWS was a member of a Global Atmospheric Watch which was stationed in Stellenbosch, but had its laboratory at Cape Point. The Cape Point Global Atmospheric Watch (GAW) station was part of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) stations. Globally there were about 31 of these stations, and the reason for that station was basically to monitor background concentrations of greenhouse gases. Most of the air that was detected from that station came from the ocean and was classified as clean air, meaning that it was not polluted. In winter time, the situation changed a bit as they could see the influence from the city of Cape Town, and they did detect some pollution.

SAWS had been monitoring atmospheric mercury since 1995. They were monitoring Gaseous Elementary Mercury (GEM), Gaseous Oxidised Mercury, and Particulate Bound Mercury (PBM). The Gaseous Elementary Mercury could travel very far in the atmosphere. Studies had proved that GEM could stay in the atmosphere for more than a year. Research on mercury had shown that South Africa was the second highest mercury polluter in the world, after China.

Dr Martin said that with support from the government, the Cape Point GAW site could be a key stakeholder supporting South Africa to become a partner of the Minamata Convention. If the Hg (mercury) monitoring network could be expanded, South Africa could have a better understanding of local vs long range transport of mercury, and also identify hotspot areas more easily. SA could play a leading role in the SADC region for capacity building and skills transfer for mercury monitoring.

Discussion

Chairperson said that this was highly technical information, but he was worried about the report that SAWS had produced which indicated that from their monitoring station, there seemed to be rising levels of mercury concentrations. It was very worrying, and he did not know what was causing the rise in mercury, but the Committee might have to interrogate that report at some point once it became available. It would liaise with the DEA when it dealt with minimum emission standards, so as to understand what it meant and what needed to be done.

The Chairperson said that it seemed Members of the Committee were happy with what had been presented. He told the SAWS to keep up the good work that they were doing. He had not known about the existence of that programme, and they were doing a good job by monitoring mercury from the Cape Point.

Next week, the Committee would have to look at this issue, and what would be critical was how they followed up after the Convention had been finally ratified, in terms of obligations arising from the convention and its articles.

The meeting was adjourned.