AFRICANUS Vol 30 No 2 ISSN 0304-615X - University of South Africa

territories?), eighteen (90%) indicated that collecting was done on a ``first-comefirst-served''
basis. The remaining collectors had an understanding with a
storekeeper, who kept the goods aside for them. All but one collector indicated
that his or her goods had been stolen, and on all occasions the culprit had been
another collector. The response of most collectors that an organisation of informal
collectors would be beneficial is difficult to reconcile in view of the fact
that they cannot trust each other with their belongings. Three collectors believed
that such an association would give them voice, which would ultimately
be advantageous to all collectors. The benefits of belonging to an organisation
became clear when SEWU recently secured accommodation for many of the
female street traders in Durban (Lund & Skinner 1998: 21). At least 200 female
informal collectors in the CBD already operate under the auspices of SEWU
(DSW 1998: 3).
Only one collector had been chased by a property-owner. This would suggest
that informal collectors may not be viewed negatively by property- or shopowners.
In response to the possibility of establishing an informal association,
collectors felt that recognition by property-owners would facilitate and promote
their activities, resulting in a better return for their labour-intensive activities.
Recognition by property-owners would allow them relatively unrestricted but
presumably controlled access to materials. Of more importance in the long
term, however, would be recognition by local councils and government. A
number of collectors (55%) believed that this recognition might result in some
form of assistance or sponsorship, such as the provision of a trolley. Implicit in
the collectors' desire to be recognised by local authorities lies their belief of the
value associated with the work they undertake (eg cleaning). Most collectors did
not understand the true environmental benefits or impact of their activities. Only
three collectors (two women) understood that ``recycling'' meant reuse of waste.
For most, it was a means to get an income. There is no doubt that collectors
divert several hundred tonnes of recyclable paper products from the landfill site.
A single buyback centre in the Warwick Triangle turns over several tonnes of
cardboard per week (David Cooper, Coopak Recycling, personal communication),
while the buyback centre in Williams Road may purchase in excess of 100
tonnes per month from informal hawkers (Jeremy Droyman, Don't Waste
Services, personal communication).
The problems highlighted by collectors were few, but were of a serious nature:
theft, accommodation and transport. One collector believed that the local authority
should provide accommodation, while several others felt that trolleys
19