APPENDIX 3
Key Issues obtained from the Investigation Report on waste collection systems and
methodologies
1. Key issues arising from the waste collection status quo from Municipalities in Gauteng
From the interviews and desktop study undertaken numerous key issues relevant to waste collection
and cleaning have been identified. Questions on the introduction of collection standards also elicited a
number of relevant key issues from the local municipalities, to be addressed in the development of the
provincial waste collection standards. The key issues identified, include the following:

No waste collection standards are currently being implemented within the municipalities, with the
exception of the photometric standard in Johannesburg. This has resulted in service
provision/delivery which is non-equitable and non-uniform within the province.

Local by-laws or ordinances are currently the only “standard” that municipalities use for
provision of services. At the local municipal level, these are either absent or outdated.

The current definitions of waste terminology as well as the content of the definition need to be
addressed to ensure continuity and uniformity of thinking and implementation.

Waste collection systems have been designed around a number of factors including type of waste
generated, access, transport distances, storage units, frequency of collection, health hazards,
vehicle types, etc.

The issue of a Basic Level of Service for waste collection needs to be clearly defined and the
associated costs determined. Relating this to the equitable share component for waste has also
proven difficult in the past.

As Gauteng is continuously growing at a rapid rate, new housing and commercial developments
are placing undue pressure on existing infrastructure and resources, as these areas also need to be
serviced. This often does not go hand in hand with increased budgets and resources.

The lack of community participation has been cited as a problem in hindering the introduction of
certain initiatives and might be seen as a potential risk to the introduction of separation at source
projects.

Municipalities in Gauteng have indicated numerous problems related to service delivery. This
includes:
-
Insufficient budget.
-
Poor equipment and vehicle availability.
-
Ageing waste management fleet.
-
Problematic waste types such as building rubble placed in domestic containers causing
breakages of vehicle compaction mechanisms.
GDARD – General Waste Collection Standards
2
-
Insufficient manpower and human resources.
-
Lack of political buy in.
-
Excessive illegal dumping.
-
Servicing of informal settlements.
-
Lack of by-law enforcement.
-
Inefficient turnaround times.
-
Increase in waste generation related to current resource deficiencies.
-
Inadequate supervision on operations.
-
Illiteracy of staff and lack of management skills.
-
Poor productivity vs human capability.
-
Rapidly decreasing landfill space.
-
Sporadic increase in informal settlements as well as intensive increase in formal housing
developments.
-
Municipal waste related functions are not ring-fenced.

Because municipalities cannot enforce their by-laws effectively, they have indicated that
collection activities by the private sector are often problematic. Illegal dumping, unroadworthy
vehicles, transportation of uncovered waste, etc, are primary problems from the private sector that
municipalities face. Licensing of the private sector with the municipality has been advocated by
all municipalities interviewed.

Street cleaning is either undertaken using labour or by mechanical means using a street sweeper.
The biggest problems faced with this activity is labour absenteeism, high pedestrian areas always
appearing “unclean”, poor use of litter bins by pedestrians, inadequate monitoring of activities.

Clearing of illegal dumping is an excessive additional cost to the municipality. This is often
associated with poor service delivery and lack of by-law enforcement.

Limited inter-municipal communication and information sharing has prevented municipalities
from growing, and has led to “reinventing the wheel” in terms of project development and
implementation. Sharing information could assist municipalities in addressing common issues.

Most of the urban areas within Gauteng are provided with a waste collection service. However,
the majority of rural areas remain without a service and these households have to manage their
own waste.

Inefficiencies are exacerbated by poor information management systems. Standards will have to
rely on documentation of certain activities, which will have to be undertaken within current job
requirements.

As financing is a critical issue identified by all municipalities, development of mechanisms for
accessing funding from Provincial Government has been suggested, related specifically to
operational aspects and implementation of required standards. To achieve equitable service access
GDARD – General Waste Collection Standards
3
for low-income areas, some degree of cross-subsidisation and/or financing out of general
revenues is necessary.

Round balancing is elemental to efficient and effective collection of waste. Municipalities have
not conducted adequate round balancing exercises to maximise collection routes and as such
spend additional funds on petrol, staff, vehicle usage, etc.

National Government projects (e.g. Gautrans projects, DPLG public works project) which
interfere or encroach on municipal waste management functions, prohibit municipal control or
management of a waste management activity which is supposed to be undertaken by the
municipality. Standards will have to also apply to these contracts or arrangements.

Lack of formal waste management information systems.

Perception that a lack of participation and commitment by communities to assist or partake in
waste related projects.

There has been a perception created that more waste is generated by the introduction of 240ℓ bins.
Quantities have not increased substantially as a direct result of the introduction of these bins.

Health and Safety requirements according to the OHSA are not being adhered to. The
municipalities have seen the need for additional requirements/standards relating to health and
safety to be provided in the standards.

Contractors are not monitored as well as they should be and standards will have to be written into
their contracts, which will have to be enforced and monitored by the municipalities.

Capacity building of staff as well as awareness raising in communities will have to be part of the
implementation of the provincial standards. Attitudes towards waste management need to be
positively influenced. The importance of understanding the social and cultural characteristics of
the user communities must be emphasised.

The effectiveness and sustainability of the implementation of the waste collection standards
depends on the acceptance by local municipalities as well as the degree to which the served
community understands the purpose of the standards and supports them.

The development of standards and the uniformity to service provision that would be associated
with this has been generally accepted as positive by the municipalities. However, they have
indicated that a lack of finances, human resources and infrastructure, could prevent them from
implementing the required standards or complying with them. In addition, they indicated that the
waste generator might have to pay more for their service to keep up with the standards set, which
could be problematic. Some believe that standards should not be prescriptive as this could have a
profound impact on budget and resources and could interfere with daily operational issues. These
standards should also integrate National and Provincial requirements.

Trying to implement standards which have not be proven to be feasible could prove to be
unsustainable. Feasibility studies to determine if standards can be successfully implemented might
be required. Standards must allow for affordability and must be implementable. Cost effectiveness
and value for money also need to be considered. In addition, waste collection requirements must
GDARD – General Waste Collection Standards
4
be designed and selected with careful regard to operating characteristics, performance,
maintenance requirements and expected life cycle costs.

Private waste contractors will have to adhere to the same standards as that of the local
municipalities when providing a service to a customer. No waste service provider will be exempt
from implementing these standards.

Waste collection cost recovery is currently inadequate. Alternative fee structuring or invoicing
should be considered.

Separate accounting procedures are required for waste management service revenues, to ensure
that revenues obtained for waste management service delivery are used for the intended purpose.

To ensure sustainability of implementation of the standards, the municipalities will have to
consider alternative ways or systems of collecting the waste or cleaning their areas.

The effective demand for waste management services, and the willingness and ability to pay for a
particular level of service, is influenced by the economic context of an area. High-density lowincome areas generally cannot afford to pay for waste management services.

The municipalities have put very little focus on waste minimisation and recycling. This has never
been their core function. But in order to meet the Polokwane Declaration, to reduce waste going
to landfill, and promoting job creation, the municipalities will have to start integrating separation
at source as part of their waste collection systems.

Garden waste separation at source would allow for great volumes of waste to be diverted away
from landfill and will also reduce the quantity of landfill gas generation.

The waste generator and the specific service currently provided to them needs to be considered in
terms of appropriateness, equitability, meeting the needs of the constitution in terms of a healthy
and clean environment, sustainability, social acceptability and cost. Current systems which work
well considering all the above will be promoted and alternative suggestions made for inadequate
systems.
2. Key issues arising from the waste collection information from a national perspective

The development of municipal waste collection standards has been on the backburner in South
Africa, which has resulted in inequality of service delivery, poor service delivery, and little
incentive to change current systems.

Local municipalities have less ability than Metropolitan Municipalities to provide services to the
same level and standard.

Waste collection / cleansing standards are a rare occurrence. Those that are available do not take
account of waste minimisation, recycling or separation at source.

The provision of both waste collection services and cleaning services is very similar throughout
South Africa. Within Gauteng, Best Practice service delivery models are already taking place.
GDARD – General Waste Collection Standards
5

Communities need to be informed of changes to services or participation in pilot projects to
ensure and maintain high levels of community support.

Adequate levels of supervision and administration must be applied to services to ensure quality
and consistent service delivery. This is also true for contractors providing a service on behalf of
the municipality. Contract performance has to tie in with contract conditions and requirements.

Issues stipulated within the Guideline for waste collection in high density unserviced areas should
be noted as part of the development of the standards.

Because SMMEs, entrepreneurs and the like have proved themselves in terms of delivering waste
collection services to informal areas, standards developed for the collection process, should not
necessarily hinder these current operations. However, practicalities regarding implementation will
need to be determined.

Waste service contracts should be structured with respect to expected deliveries and
remuneration. This is very important especially as many collection contracts and remunerations
are based on quantity of waste collected. If source separation projects are to be successful,
contractors should be remunerated, say, based on number of households serviced in addition to
the mass of recyclables collected as part of a source separation project. Waste Collection
Standards have to form part of all contracts between the municipality and contractors as well as
between the private waste sector and their clients. Consideration to be given for Municipalities to
include penalties for poor performance by contractors or non-implementation of standards.

Due to the fact that the OHSA and the National Road Traffic Act deal with health and safety
issues and transport issues respectively, very little additional work on standards/by-laws or
guidelines with respect to waste related activities have been developed. There is therefore a need
to consider these aspects in more detail in the standards.

The implementation of standards should not be a singular process. Changes to systems also need
to consider finding solutions for problems identified. This is true for littering, for example. What
are the major causes of littering and to what extent can the municipality be proactive rather than
reactive. This will also assist in maintaining the required standard in an area for far longer.

The size and siting of litter bins has to be decided in the light of local experience. The needs of
the disabled and visually handicapped people should be consider when placing bins. The cost of
litter bin provision can be offset by sponsorship or by using them for advertisements.

The type of equipment which will make collection of waste easier and more efficient should be
investigated, especially with regard to street sweeping and litter picking.

Because separation at source has not been implemented as part of a municipal function yet,
standards or methodologies for this practice have not been defined. Many pilot studies currently
taking place are going through teething pains, and lessons learnt are numerous. Addressing the
problems and challenges has not yet proven to be successful. Instituting separation at source,
within the municipal setting, is going to require a great deal of effort, time and planning.
Feasibility studies (pilot studies) might well be required to establish success rates. In addition to
this, additional infrastructure, changes to systems and additional expenses will be accrued to get
any separation at source system in place. However, there are numerous advantages to
GDARD – General Waste Collection Standards
6
implementing separation at source and the subsequent recycling of the waste which should be
focused on.

Source separation at commercial entities is currently being undertaken without the assistance of
government to do so and this should be utilised. Minimum standards for separation and collection
can be established without too much debate.

Key Performance Indicators reported on are very broad and do not relate to specific activities. The
KPI outputs generally include what percentage of the population is receiving a service, cost per
service, staff per service, vehicle per service, cost per ton, etc. In some instances the performance
of the cleaning function, and the overall cleanliness of the city is measured utilizing the
photometric index.

Drivers for change which would substantiate the use of standards and new initiatives, such as
separation at source, are critical to obtain by-in from municipalities. These could include adopting
free basic service policies and obtaining subsidies to pay for these services, freeing budget to
address other issues related to the standards. Municipalities should determine what amount of
environmentally acceptable available airspace is available within the municipality, and weigh up
the costs of how much it would cost to close, rehabilitate older sites and permit, construct and
operate a new site, versus airspace savings achieved from diverting waste from landfill.
3. Key issues arising from the waste collection information from an international perspective

Specialist reference documents from the US, which include guidelines and regulations relating to
waste collection will be used as a basis for the development of the Gauteng standards. In addition,
a basic level of service will be defined as a result of information obtained during the investigation
report compilation.

Information reported on regarding specification will be viewed in relation to the context of
Gauteng as well as considering the differences between local municipalities versus metropolitan
municipalities.

International examples have been taken from developed and developing countries. It has been
noted that waste collection service models for collection in low, middle and high income areas are
comparable to that found in Gauteng. The difference in service is only realised when activities
such as separation at source are presented. Many of these systems have been introduced a number
of years back and progression in technology and methodology has already been introduced.

The World Bank and the DEAT Guideline document for collection in high density areas are
important guidelines to be used when drafting standards for these services.

Standards can only be achieved if all aspects of a system are operating correctly. Municipalities
not being able to provide for secondary collection of a bulk container, for example, should
consider alternative approaches to the provision of this service.

All the elements in a waste management chain are related. For example, the choice of containers
to receive the waste generated by households also dictates the choice of collection vehicle.
Introduction of waste separation at source will require separate collection and transport, and the
GDARD – General Waste Collection Standards
7
sale of products as well. Separation of waste at source may not be considered a necessity from a
strictly hygienic point of view (with many municipal waste management systems operating
without this), but the issue is the municipal obligation for reduction of waste to landfill, which
cannot be met without separation of waste.

There is a move within the developing countries to organise salvagers into cooperatives, to assist
in collection of separated out waste at the kerbside.

Source separation has other infrastructural implications such as the establishment of Material
Recovery Facilities / buy-back centres, as well as Composting facilities. Partnership with the
private sector might have to be a consideration.

Source separation is being done throughout the developed world. However, there are differences
in storage containers used, level at which separation is undertaken, frequency of collection,
vehicle type used to collect recyclables, as well as the service being provided by the municipality
directly, or by a contractor or by the private sector.

There is a definite move towards households being responsible for the amount of waste they
generate and making an effort to separate out recyclables and garden waste. This has been
reinforced as a result of municipalities implementing intentional reduced container services.

As with separation at source programmes, considering other generation reducing projects such as
PAYT will require feasibility studies to determine implementation viability.

Types of recyclables to be separated out by residents during separation at source seem to be
specific, which is often related to market trends, availability of processing, etc.

Targeting the commercial sector, which generates the highest quantity of recyclables, for source
separation should be considered. Standards to assist them in obtaining greater outcomes must be
actively taken up.

Extensive time, money and effort have to go into promoting separation at source and educating
the users of the system. This is also true for any changes which will affect residents or
commercial users.

Source separation should include both recyclables and garden waste which can be composted.

Capacity building of local government officials and intermediary institutions should be carried out
to jointly promote small enterprise development at municipal level. A particular emphasis is given
to fostering public-private partnerships for the delivery of municipal services to the urban poor.

The use of skips for domestic waste collection is only done in third world situations and in the
case of South Africa, for informal settlements. Because of the health and environmental risks
posed by the placement of skips, the basic level of service should be moving away from endorsing
this particular collection method.

Household hazardous waste is not actively handled at the generation point, but the onus is on the
resident to take this waste to provided containers at waste depots.

Local authorities and other duty bodies may wish to review their approach and ensure that litter
and cleansing issues are considered throughout the design process. Duty bodies may for example
GDARD – General Waste Collection Standards
8
find it useful to produce design guidelines indicating location, style and capacity of the litter
receptacles, and making provision for waste storage facilities, and ease of cleansing.

Changes in systems, and hence improvements in service delivery, is at a price. However, this is
offset against other benefits which need to be considered within the waste management chain.

Occupational health and safety issues are regarded as a high priority and as a result extensive
changes have been made to service models (bins and vehicle modification). Certain waste specific
conditions/standards have been reviewed, but will need to be evaluated based on conditions in
Gauteng.

Planning for recycling and storage areas, during the design and construction phase of
development for housing developments, is imperative to ensure a higher success rate of
participation, as implementation is made easier.

The photometric index to determine cleanliness levels is a world wide accepted methodology,
already being implemented in part of Gauteng.

Transporting of waste can be very messy, and often creates a bad impression of the waste
industry. Specifications, not only related to roadworthiness, licensing, maintenance, etc. are
considered, but aspects of an aesthetic nature and with regard to potential for pollution have been
developed elsewhere and should be considered in Gauteng.

Provision of litter bins in respect of location, distances between bins, etc. in high use areas, is not
specifically defined. Monitoring of areas where bins have been placed will indicate to what extent
collection frequency should be undertaken, and if the distance between bins has an effect on
littering. It may be that someone is not prepared to walk a required distance to the bin, but rather
litters.

Illegal dumping is something that is quite difficult to control, and as such could potentially affect
the cleanliness standard which could be linked the area.

Monitoring of programmes to establish success has been the cornerstone of many of the waste
management initiatives implemented. Consideration to frequency of monitoring, who will provide
the monitoring, etc. will have to be given.
These are listed as follows:

Waste collection standards are currently not being implemented within the municipalities.

The issue of a Basic Level of Service needs to be well defined. Relating this to the equitable share
component for waste has also proven difficult in the past.

Municipalities in Gauteng have indicated numerous problems related to service delivery many of
which need to be taken into account during the development of the standards. Local
GDARD – General Waste Collection Standards
9
municipalities have less of an ability to provide services to the same level and standard as is
currently the case for the Metropolitan Municipalities.

Illegal dumping is currently uncontrolled

Health and Safety requirements are not being adhered to according to the Occupational Health
and Safety Act. Specific requirements however need to be provided for the collection service.
This is also true for issues relating to transporting of waste.

The feasibility of implementing new concepts within the GWCS, such as separation at source,
would need to be investigated, to ensure successful implementation.

The effective demand for waste management services, and the willingness and ability to pay for a
particular level of service, is influenced by the economic context of an area.

The GWCS need to focus on appropriateness, equitability, sustainability, social acceptability,
associated cost and meeting the needs of the constitution in terms of a healthy and clean
environment.

Useful information will be taken from successful and unsuccessful service delivery models.

Communities need to be informed of changes to services or participation in pilot projects to
ensure and maintained high levels of community support.

Adequate levels of supervision and administration must be applied to services to ensure quality
and consistent service delivery. This is also true for contractors providing a service on behalf of
the municipality. Contract performance has to tie in with contract conditions and requirements.

Because the use of SMMEs, entrepreneurs and the like have proved themselves in terms of
delivering service to informal areas, standards developed for the collection process, should not
necessarily hinder current operations. However, practicalities regarding implementation will be
determined.

The use of skips for domestic waste collection is only done in third world situations and in the
case of South Africa for informal settlements. Because of the health and environmental risks
posed by the placement of skips, the issue of a basic level of service should be moving away from
endorsing this particular collection method.

The size and siting of litter bins has to be decided in the light of local experience. Provision of
bins in respect of location, distances between bins, etc. in high use areas, is not specifically
defined. Monitoring of areas where bins have been placed will indicate to what extent collection
frequency should be undertaken and if the length of distance between bins, will have an effect on
whether someone is prepared to walk a required distance before littering.

International examples have been taken from developed and developing countries. It has been
noted that waste collection service models for collection in low, middle and high income areas is
comparable to that found in Gauteng. The difference in service is only realised when activities
such as separation at source are presented. Many of these systems have been introduced a number
of years back and progression in technology and methodology have already been introduced.
Instituting separation at source, within the municipal setting is going to require a great deal of
GDARD – General Waste Collection Standards
10
effort, time and planning. Feasibility studies (pilot studies), might well be required to establish
success rates.

All the elements in a waste management chain are related. Changes made to one aspect could
have a rippling affect to consequent activities and this need to be taken into account when
developing standards.

There is a definite move towards households being responsible for the amount of waste they
generate and making an effort to separate out recyclables and garden waste. This has been
reinforced as a result of municipalities implementing intentional reduced container services.

Household hazardous waste is not actively handled at the generation point, but the onus is on the
resident to take this waste to provided containers at waste depots.

Trends in planning during the design and construction phase of development for recycling and
storage facilities is imperative to ensure a higher success rate of participation.

The photometric index to determine cleanliness levels, is a world wide excepted methodology,
already being implemented in part of Gauteng.

Specialist reference documents from the US, which include guidelines and regulations relating to
waste collection will be used as a basis for the development of the Gauteng standards. In addition,
a basic level of service will be defined as a result of information obtained during the investigation
report.
Monitoring of programmes, with key performance indicators, to establish success has been the
cornerstone of many of the waste management initiatives implemented. Consideration to frequency of
monitoring, who will provide the monitoring, etc. will have to be established.
GDARD – General Waste Collection Standards