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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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;

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

thank you