| Waste Bill will put pressure on business |
| Monday, 24 May 2010 20:56 |
|
A waste Bill, due to come into force over the next few weeks, will overhaul the way companies manage their waste, imposing heavy penalties on dirty businesses that contaminate land or dump waste illegally, notes the Financial Mail. Anyone found contravening the Act will face up to 15 years in prison or a R10m fine. It will also extend manufacturers' financial responsibility for their products, even if they have been consumed. ‘The Bill captures the concept of a duty of care from cradle to grave,’ says Joanne Yawitch, deputy DG at the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism. The private sector will now have to assume greater costs to keep the environment clean – or risk additional regulation, she adds. ‘Ideally we want industries to regulate themselves,’ says Yawitch. ‘But if necessary we can put in place waste quotas.’ Government is allocating more than R1.4bn over the next 10 years to cover the costs (mostly administrative) of implementing the Bill. Full Financial Mail report (subscription needed) Bill on Department of Environmental Affairs site Powers of Environment Minister to be tested in ConCourt The Constitutional Court will today (Thursday) hear a case, Department of Agriculture and Conservation MEC and Dr S T Cornelius v HTF Developers, concerning the powers of environmental authorities to issue directives under the Environmental Conservation Act. Section 31A of the Act empowers a named authority to direct any person who performs or fails to perform an activity that is causing or may cause damage to the environment, to stop the harmful activity or takes remedial steps within a specified period. Section 32 of the Act provides that a 30-day notice and comment procedure must be followed before directions are issued in terms of the law. The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the power to issue a directive in terms of section 31A of the Act could be exercised only in accordance with the procedures mandated by section 32. The applicants argue that the majority judgment in the Supreme Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the relationship between the two sections inhibits the ability of the Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment to act in emergency situations requiring urgent action to be taken in order to prevent damage to or destruction of the environment. |
