LETTER: Banning scrap metal exports is capitulating

The proposed, highly likely introduction of an export ban of ferrous and nonferrous scrap can only be seen as an acceptance of defeat by the government against organised criminal gangs.

It is hard to accept that such a ban is now the only way for the government to protect its infrastructure and assets of companies such as Eskom or the railways. It is difficult to accept why our government is unable to protect its assets as it has been able to do so for many years before — and other countries are also able to do. It is not easy to steal 12m steel railway lines, bolted to the ground in a city such as Johannesburg or Kempton Park, as done in recent years, or high-voltage conductor cables.

The proposed law is similar to banning the sale of big couches because some people use them to hide illegally gained stashes of cash.

The result of such an export ban is clear to Ebrahim Patel. The price of such scrap will fall in the country, which will have various serious effects, as in the production process of many metal products used by all of us, a certain percentage of scrap will be produced. For the manufacturer of such items now to receive much less for this scrap will increase the total cost of production, which will in turn result in an increase of the sales price of all these items. So inflation will get another boost and some local production will cease as it will then be cheaper to import the finished product. Local jobs will be lost.

This proposed ban on scrap exports and the consequent drop in the price of scrap contradicts the recent government implementation of section 18 of the Extended Producer Responsibility Act (EPR), which was introduced to encourage the development of a circular economy, regulating the recycling of post-consumer scrap. Patel should talk to his colleague at the ministry of environmental affairs, as they seem to be working in opposite directions.

But the biggest effect of this proposal will be felt by the informal scrap collectors, estimated to number about 200,000, as the price for metal scrap, in particular the huge quantity of used beverage cans made from aluminium, will generate much less value for the collector than currently received. These people, working at the bottom of the economic food chain but playing a truly relevant economic and environmental role, and without any lobby speaking for them and therefore having no say in this proposal and process, will pay the highest price in this proposal.

Metal scrap, particularly that used in beverage cans, is the most valuable scrap for them to collect from rubbish. Due to the drop in its price, their income will be severely affected. They might even stop collecting this kind of scrap, increasing the volume of rubbish filling our landfills and reducing the recycling rate of this kind of metal scrap. Such a development would be in contradiction of what we all want to achieve: increase the recycling of metal products, and protect our environment and jobs.

Patel should rather look at other legal ways to stop the activities of these criminal gangs with means already available to the government.

Carlos Schütte
Kempton Park