The rights of reclaimers, or waste pickers as they are also known, have come under the spotlight in the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is arguing that the rights to housing and work for persons working in this informal sector must be protected in line with international law and standards.
The ICJ entered the fray as a friend of the court in the case which arises from an appeal of the City of Johannesburg against a decision of the high court handed down in Ryckloff-Beleggings Ltd, where the City was ordered to afford alternative accommodation for the waste pickers.
The City has tendered alternative accommodation, but on condition that the occupiers are prohibited from sorting and storing their reclaimed goods at the alternative accommodation.
The central controversy in this case is whether the City’s condition prohibiting sorting and storing at the alternative accommodation is lawful.
Accepting arguments put forward by the informal waste reclaimers, and supported by the ICJ from an international law perspective, the high court earlier ordered the City to allocate land to the reclaimers where they can live at night and lawfully and safely sort the reclaimed waste and from where they can reasonably go during the day to use their flat-bed trolleys and safely collect waste.
But the City now appealed this order.
“South African courts have indicated that there is a legal obligation to treat all people at risk of eviction with ‘care and concern’. Facing eviction is devastating for any person. Facing eviction and unemployment simultaneously is catastrophic”, said Tim Fish Hodgson, ICJ Senior Legal Advisor.
The ICJ argued that the courts should find that the City of Johannesburg has a duty to consider measures that would avoid violations of the reclaimers’ rights upon their eviction.
In this matter, the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa represented over 100 informal waste reclaimers who are opposing an application for eviction unless the alternative accommodation provided by the City of Johannesburg allows them to continue making a living reclaiming waste.
Many of the informal reclaimers in this matter have lived on the property for extensive periods of time and they assert that the eviction will result in them being rendered homeless. Many make a living by collecting, sorting, recycling, and selling valuable materials disposed of as waste at and near their homes.
The ICJ, represented by Lawyers for Human Rights, asked the court to fully consider the impact of any eviction order it grants on the rights to housing and work. Considering that all of the reclaimers cannot access any other employment, the ICJ argued that any eviction order granted should not decrease their access to employment.
The ICJ also stressed the impact that an eviction from a location in which the reclaimers work will have on their children.
“After an eviction, children do not have the same capacity as their parents to create the means of sustenance for themselves using the resources available to them in their new environment,” said Hodgson.
He added that where an eviction order diminishes their parent’s access to work, the reclaimers’ children’s rights will also be impacted negatively because their rights are clearly connected to their parent’s rights to make a living.
The reclaimers salvage materials from waste that hold recycling potential. Ultimately, these materials are sold to recycling companies. The companies do not accept mixed materials and pay a price for a specific material.
For example, there is a price per weight for glass, thus the reclaimers have to take time to sort their material.
Reclaimers often travel kilometres a day with trolleys weighing up to 200 kgs, to reclaim these materials. The distances are too great and the labour too demanding for the work of reclaiming and sorting to be finalised in one day.
Therefore, the reclaimers transport the materials home to sort and store them.
After sorting, the reclaimers then pack these sorted goods on their flat-bed trolleys and walk to the nearest buy-back centre or recycling company, who then recycle the goods.
Because the City of Johannesburg does not provide reclaimers with places to sort and store their materials, reclaimers do this where they live. The court was told that without being able to sort and store, the reclaimers cannot do their work.
The reclaimers submit that the City’s condition, which prohibits the sorting and storing of their reclaimed goods, deprives them of their existing livelihoods.
Pretoria News