Concerns Raised Over Evidence And Funding Model In NWMS 2026 Draft

Redisa believes the NWMS 2026 lacks strategic coherence, contains factual inaccuracies and does not present a workable funding model.

Unserious

In a media statement, Redisa says important targets were also simply rolled forward or reduced from the 2020 NWMS.

The initiative says that, as the basis of waste management in the country, the renewed strategy document should establish a coherent framework that safeguards the environment, protects communities from harmful pollution, and unlocks the economic potential of recycling — and the NWMS 2026 does not do this.

"The draft NWMS 2026 does not take waste management seriously.

“Redisa calls on the new Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Willie Aucamp, to fix our country's broken waste management system," said Hermann Erdmann, CEO of Redisa.

Redisa says its core concern is the NWMS's lack of an evidentiary basis.

“It depends on implausible entries in the South African Waste Information System (SAWIS),” said the statement.

“For instance, the reporting on Health Care Risk Waste is instructive in this sense.

“According to SAWIS, the Western Cape generated 526,033 tonnes of health waste in 2022 and 1,824,551 tonnes in 2023.

“For comparison, the UK’s entire national health system generates about 156,000 tonnes,” it continues.

Fantastical data

Crozier claims that “numerous fantastical data sets in SAWIS fail basic sanity checks.”

Similarly, says Redisa, another key source for the NWMS 2026 — the 2018 State of Waste Report — includes “internal contradictions and misleading definitions, undermining all confidence in recycling performance figures.”

For plastics, a 43.7% recycling rate is claimed.

This is misleading, says Redisa, as 43.7% is the percentage of plastics available for recycling that is recovered from the waste stream.

Adding that if the accepted definition (the volume of recylate produced as a proportion of total plastic manufacture) is used, the figure drops to 17.5%, and is even lower when imported plastics in finished goods and packaging are included.

The glass recycling rate reported is 71.2%.

This is also incorrect, says the initiative, as examination reveals that returnables are counted as recycled.

"This is absurd. It is a bit like counting a rental car as being recycled every time it is rented out," says Crozier.

According to Redisa, the most favourable figure you can put on glass recycling using standard definitions is 35%.

Clear model

Redisa says that the diversion targets set in the new NWMS are rolled forward and reduced from the 2020 targets — without verifiable baselines, a common methodology, or reliable inputs.

It adds that an analysis using the government's own reporting shows that of the 2020 NWMS's 69 targets, three had positive outcomes, 10 had some progress, and the remaining 56 had little or no progress.

It claims that the published NWMS is also largely silent on how its ambitions will be financed.

"It is an exercise more in hope and encouragement than in government spending allocation," said Crozier.

Redisa is calling for a clear model that ring‑fences environmental levies and extended producer responsibility (EPR) fees for their streams, enables independently‑managed schemes with regulatory oversight, and prioritises market development for secondary materials to make diversion financially viable.

Redisa says EPR models can be a powerful remedy to waste management in the country, as they can address environmental degradation and public health problems while creating jobs.