Department of Cooperative Governance

1. Department of Cooperative Governance Inputs on the Implementation of the National Waste Management Strategy Modjadji Malahlela 29 May 2012

2. Structure • Purpose • Legislative Provision • Alignment to Outcome 9 • Key Issues • Way-forward • Conclusion

3. Purpose • Confirm DCoG’s commitment to support the implementation of the strategy • Provide DCoG’s inputs on the implementation of the National Waste Management Strategy. • Mobilise for support to municipalities in implementing the strategy

4. Legislative Provision • Constitution: Schedule 5 Part B: Refuse removal, refuse dumps and solid waste disposal • Municipal Structures Act: Chapter 5 : Powers and Functions • District municipalities • Section 84(e) : Solid Waste Disposal sites- strategy; regulation of waste disposal; establishments, management of bulk waste disposal transfer facilities. • All other functions related to the service resides in Category B municipalities(except where there has been a devolution of functions form local to district municipality) • Metros responsible for all the functions.

5. Legislative Provision • Municipal Systems Act: Chapter 5: Integrated Development Planning to give effect to Section 152 of the Constitution • Quality of integrated development planning dependent on quality inputs from sector legislation and policies, such as National Environment Management : Waste Act, the NWMS

6. Alignment with Outcome 9 • DCoG supports the Strategy • Goals as highlighted aligned to Outcome 9 vision of “A responsive, accountable, effective and efficient local government system” • Goal 2: Ensuring the effective and efficient delivery of waste services Output 2(improved access to basic services) • Goal 5: Achieve integrated waste management planning linked to Output 1: Outcome 9 Differentiated Approach to planning, financing and support

7. Alignment with Outcome 9 • Outcome 9: Output 1: Differentiated Approach to municipal financing, planning and support; • Development of IDP’s that focus on the delivery of critical services; • 2011/12- Revision of the IDP framework; • Identification of critical services- Waste Management identified as a critical service • Subsequently, Integrated Waste Management plan identified as a mandatory sector plan.

8. Key issues • Goal 2: Ensure the effective and efficient delivery of waste services(linked to Output 2 of Outcome 9) • IWMP to set out standards for achieving appropriate waste collection standards in each community- currently this area is a challenge in the IDPs- IWMP not developed, where they have been developed relevance to the unique nature of the environment highly questionable, especially in smaller municipalities; • Support urgently required for municipalities- move away from compliance but to realistic implementable plans that take into account the financial and administrative capabilities of the municipalities.

9. Key issues • Goal 5:Achieve integrated waste management planning • Guidelines for IWMP to be fast-tracked- the guidelines need to take into account the differences in municipalities as well as the powers and functions in the local govt sphere • E.g. District with its legislated functions- what should such an IWMP contain, Metros and secondary cities, smaller (rural) municipalities; medium –sized munic’s • Need to develop performance indicators in respect of each category of munics’, to ensure linkage between plans, implementation and performance management

10. Key issues • Goal 5: • Strategy requires munics to amend the IDP to align to IWMP- IDPs reviewed annually • Input: Ensure alignment between the SDF, Disaster Management Plan, Housing Plan and the IWMP • Emphasis of the strategy is on monitoring compliance and less focus on providing support to municipalities • Not coming clear: Capacity building to municipalities to develop and implement IWMP.

11. Key issues • Goal 5: Support to municipalities(Role of DCoG vs DEA) • DCoG as a coordinating dept(Table 5 page 56) • Proposed areas of support • Guidelines on the IWMP • Costing of rendering the services in a sustainable manner(Goal 6) • Training on the preparation of the IWMP and alignment with other plans esp the SDF and the Housing Plan • 2015 target: a full-indication of mid-term milestones to make up the 2015 targets

12. Key issues • Proposal of an interdepartmental team- DEA, SALGA, DCoG, NT, DHS welcome. • DEA’s participation in the municipal IDP process at least at a district level also critical. • Norms and standards on management of land fill sites also critical. • Goal 8: Waste Management Officers: Differentiation critical: E.g in smaller munics the WMO to be at district level, in cases of secondary cities and metros to have WMO.

13. Key issues • Norms and standards/ service levels that is relevant to the unique nature of municipalities continues to be a challenge – affecting ability to plan, manage expectations, budget and implement.

14. Way-forward • In line with Output 1(Outcome 9), 70 municipalities to be supported to develop IDPs that focuses on delivery of critical services, linked to budgets; • Provides an opportunity for collaboration between DCoG and DEA to implement some elements of the strategy as well as to test the applicability of the strategy; • The municipalities can be supported to develop service levels, standards, IWMP that are aligned to both the SDF’s and Housing plans in particular;

15. Conclusion • Municipality remain the primary implementers of the strategy; • Capacity and support to local government to be a priority in the implementation of the strategy; • Linking waste management and disaster risk reduction(disaster management); • How do disaster management plans take into account waste management related issues and address in an integrated manner. • On the overall, DCoG is commits to support the rollout of the strategy

16. thank you