5.3. Waste Management Technology Needs of Emerging Farmers
5.3.1. Waste disposal options
Seventy two percent of respondents stated that they did not have access to a landfill site. This provides some insight as to why respondents generally employed alternative methods of waste disposal. However, the DAE- waste manager argues that the proximity of landfill sites to emerging farmers is irrelevant. The disposal methods employed by emerging farmers are based on cost, convenience and ease of implementation (DAE- municipal manager). The goal of local departments is to reduce waste that is being sent to landfill by 30% within the next three years (UDM- municipal manager). To do this however sustainable alternatives are required. To achieve this building material recovery facilities, in the form of waste sorting facilities and biodigestors, are to be constructed around the district (UDM- municipal manager). Ninety two percent of the farmers that do have access to a landfill site have disposed of animal waste to a landfill site at some point. Questionnaire results revealed that these wastes included feed waste;
spoilt animal products or food waste, such as meat and milk; and feathers. The construction of alternative facilities will not only reduce waste being sent to landfill but also would reduce illegal dumping of waste if programmes are implemented in the correct manner (UDM- municipal manager).
138
In local municipal IWMPs the following alternative disposal methods are recommended (Jogiat, 2010:11)
• Composting;
• Incineration, provided air emission standards are met;
• Biological treatment;
• Clean development mechanisms, such and bio gas collection; and
• Compaction
Of these processes only one (composting) was employed by emerging farmers. These IWMPs however, focus on domestic waste as this poses a bigger threat to the environment (UDM- municipal manager). Domestic waste is generated in large volumes over a relatively small area within the uMgungundlovu District Municipality as a result of existing vast commercial industries and a large residential areas (uMngeni- farm association director). The main focus of local waste management governance in the district therefore focuses on relieving landfill sites without encouraging the use of inappropriate waste disposal systems.
Farmers choose to utilise the most effective disposal optional (DAE- municipal manager). In most cases this means disposing of waste in places where the potential of environmental harm is heightened. The UDM-Municipal manager mentioned that there have been cases of livestock dying in open fields whilst grazing. In order to avoid transportation costs or taking responsibility for the death of the animal, the carcasses are abandoned leaving behind the risk of contamination and affecting the aesthetics of the countryside. Composting was employed by 54% of the respondents (Figure 5.7). Composting however has many pitfalls in that if it is not performed in the correct manner, water and soil contamination could threatens local ecosystems. Composting was however recommended as an alternative waste disposal method by both UDM- municipal manager and DAE- waste manager with local policy providing the following guidelines are adhered to. Burial pits should (DAE- waste manager):
be no less than 100 metres (m) from the site;
be done immediately;
be covered to a depth of at least 6m;
be at least 90m away from wells or domestic water intakes and 30m away from any other surface water;
139
be constructed so that the bottom of the pit is 1.2m above the high water table to facilitate the decomposition of a maximum of 700 kilograms;
treated with hydrated lime in order to speed up the decomposition process therefore avoiding the infestation of insects and other scavengers; and
be closed with soil to offer protection from scavengers and the overflow of waste and backfilled each time waste is added in.
Figure 5. 7. Percent of emerging farmers that implement alternative waste disposal methods (multiple responses) (n=50, 100%).
More than half (52%) of the sample group disposed of their waste by burning it (Figure 5.7).
These results confirmed the statement by the UDM- municipal manager that 50% of farmers dispose of waste through burning. The UDM- municipal manager moreover stated that the haphazard burial and the dumping of livestock waste, even though not recommended by policy, is common in the rural areas of the Midlands Meander. Dumping occurs mainly on vacant sites, neighbouring properties, and on river banks. The disposal methods of emerging farmers is
Animal Waste
Compost 54
Burn 52
Bury 46
Recycle 14
Other 2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PERCENTAGE WASTE
WASTE TYPE
Compost Burn Bury Recycle Other
140
almost impossible to regulate or control. Farmers are distributed across a vast landscapes within which there is little or no regulatory authority present (DAE- waste manager) therefore keeping records are difficult (UDM- municipal manager). UDM- municipal manager also stated that officials find it difficult to rectify problems when there is no evidence thereof. For example, local landfills mostly do not keep a record of waste that comes on site. Those that have been equipped with the necessary equipment have been robbed, losing equipment and the stored information. The constant replacement of such equipment is not budgeted for and it therefore not done when required.
Forty six percent of the respondents (Figure 5.7) buried their livestock waste. The burial of livestock carcasses is widely used amongst emerging farmers. Since animal waste occurs in relatively low volumes on emerging farmer sites and is bio degradable, this method is perceived as acceptable, provided that it is done under specific conditions, and is not likely to cause a nuisance in terms of odour; the acceleration of pest influxes or a health hazard (DAE- waste manager). The burning of waste was not recommended by any of the key informants, largely due to the fact that it creates unnecessary emissions, and is also a nuisance factor in terms of odour and aesthetics (uMngeni- farm association director). Incineration provides an alternative to haphazard burning, being used to destroy infected animal waste to prevent the spread of infectious diseases (Rahman et al., 2009:2). However due to that incinerators require an air emissions licence, further complications for department officials are created with regards to compliance.
Whether the implementation of these alternative methods is acceptable for agricultural waste is not specified by policy or municipal documents (Jogiat, 2010:18). Currently sites located outside of urban areas use their own bags and waste containers to store waste (Jogiat, 2010:18).
Furthermore, the municipality only accepts on-site disposal methods given that the process is supervised by an authority on a regular basis (Jogiat, 2010:18). When asked who carries out these functions within the study area key informants that were interviewed stated they did not know whom had been appointed.