effecting change: approaches to decision making, planning, and community development
DESCRIPTION
Effecting Change: Approaches to decision making, planning, and community development. TREN 3P14: Sustainable Integrated Waste Management. 1. Decision making and jurisdictional authority. jurisdiction. - the legal power to administer and enforce the law - the exercising of this power - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Effecting Change:Approaches to decision making, planning, and
community development
Effecting Change:Approaches to decision making, planning, and
community development
TREN 3P14: Sustainable Integrated Waste Management
1. Decision making and jurisdictional authority1. Decision making and jurisdictional authority
jurisdiction- the legal power to administer and
enforce the law
- the exercising of this power
- the region within which this power is valid or in which a person has authority
- authority - Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary
jurisdictionFor meaningful change to occur,
the appropriate jurisdictional authority must be involved in the decision making process
Example:
Waste Management in Canada operates in at least four jurisdictional levels:Federal, Provincial, Regional, Municipal
Jurisdictional mandate pertaining to waste management
Canada• Canadian Environmental
Protection Act• Transportation of
Dangerous Goods Act• Fisheries Act• Canadian Water Act
Ontario• Environmental Protection Act• Dangerous Goods
Transportation Act• Environmental Assessment Act• Environmental Bill of Rights• Ontario Water Resources Act• Waste Diversion Act• Waste Management Act
Ontario Statues and RegulationsOntario Statues and Regulations
• Summary and full text available at CanLII(Law Society of Upper Canada):
http://www.iijcan.org/en/
• Federal: http://www.iijcan.org/ca/sta/
• Ontario: http://www.iijcan.org/on/laws/
Jurisdictional mandate pertaining to waste management
Regional(e.g., Niagara region)
• Landfill siting and management
• Household hazardous waste depots
• Recycling infrastructure
Local(e.g., City of St. Catharines)
• Local waste management bylaws
• Certain waste collection contracts
• Certain municipal waste management initiatives (e.g., composting)
Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario
• Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 70 Regulations, 15 pertaining to solid waste
•
– CONTAINERS, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 340 – DESIGNATION OF WASTE, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 342 – DISPOSABLE CONTAINERS FOR MILK, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 344 – DISPOSABLE PAPER CONTAINERS FOR MILK, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 345 – FEES - CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL, O. Reg. 363/98 – GENERAL - WASTE MANAGEMENT, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 347
Waste Reduction (3 Rs) Regulations Manifest system, licensing provisions
– INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAMS, O. Reg. 103/94 – LANDFILLING SITES, O. Reg. 232/98 – PACKAGING AUDITS AND PACKAGING REDUCTION WORK PLANS, O. Reg. 104/94 – RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING OF MUNICIPAL WASTE, O. Reg. 101/94– REFILLABLE CONTAINERS FOR CARBONATED SOFT DRINK, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 357 – TRANSFER OF CONTAINERS TO BREWERS RETAIL INC. AND OTHERS, O. Reg. 17/07 – WASTE AUDITS AND WASTE REDUCTION WORK PLANS, O. Reg. 102/94 – WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL UNDER OR EXEMPT F
ROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT, O. Reg. 206/97
– WASTE MANAGEMENT - PCB'S, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 362 •
• 37.Return of deposit• 38.Information to be furnished• 39.Powers of Director, certificates of
approval• 40.Prohibition as to deposit of waste• 41.Prohibition as to use of facilities,
etc.• 42.Ownership of waste• 43.Order for removal of waste• 44.Order by Director• 45.Right to compensation• 46.Former disposal sites• 47.Security Fund
Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario
25.Definitions, Part V• 26.Application of Part, domestic waste• 27.Certificates of approval• 28.Transition, repeal of Part VIII• 29.Report by Minister• 30.When Tribunal hearing required• 31.Where emergency situation exists• 32.When Tribunal hearing
discretionary• 33.Hearing before Tribunal• 34.Appeal from decision of Tribunal• 35.Condition precedent to issue of
certificate• 36.Hearing as to by-law
Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19
PART V: WASTE MANAGEMENT
Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario
Waste Diversion Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 6Enabled Regulations (6):
– BLUE BOX WASTE, O. Reg. 273/02 – MUNICIPAL HAZARDOUS OR SPECIAL WASTE
, O. Reg. 542/06 – STEWARDSHIP ONTARIO, O. Reg. 33/08 – USED OIL MATERIAL, O. Reg. 85/03 – USED TIRES, O. Reg. 84/03 – WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUI
PMENT, O. Reg. 393/04
Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario
• Waste Management Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 1
Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario
• Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.1
– 1 ENABLED REGULATION:GENERAL, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 261
Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario
Also:
• Environmental Assessment Act
• Environmental Bill of Rights• Ontario Water Resources Act
Jurisdictional integrationJurisdictional integration
For meaningful change to occur,
policies and programs at all jurisdictional levels must be
integrated and complementary
PROVINCIAL
Policy:Policy:
NATIONAL
PROVINCIAL
Policy:Policy:
NATIONAL
PROVINCIAL
REGIONAL
Policy:Policy:
NATIONAL
PROVINCIAL
REGIONAL
MUNICIPAL
Policy:Policy:
NATIONAL
PROVINCIAL
REGIONAL
MUNICIPAL
LOCAL
Policy:Policy:
Local Policy
National Policy
NATIONAL
PROVINCIAL
REGIONAL
MUNICIPAL
LOCAL
Policy:Policy:
2. ‘Bottom Up’ and ‘Top Down’ Approaches
to Decision Making
2. ‘Bottom Up’ and ‘Top Down’ Approaches
to Decision Making
‘Bottom up’ approach:‘Bottom up’ approach:
• “grassroots”• Individual citizens have a role in effecting
change• May occur through formal processes of
governance (e.g., participatory democracy) or through informal processes (e.g., activities of citizen groups, activist groups, individuals, NGOs)
• Changes result from collective decision making and / or individual initiatives
‘Top Down’ approach‘Top Down’ approach
• Power is wielded by a central authority (e.g., centralized government [elected or not], monarchy, dictatorship, religious leadership)
• Role of citizen in effecting everyday change is small to nonexistent
• Changes result from decisions which are imposed upon the populace, for better or worse
‘Bottom up’ approach‘Bottom up’ approachAdvantages
• Broad range of views• Reflects citizen will• Input from many voices• Participants set own agenda• Adaptable process• Less formal process• Local expertise involved• ‘Ownership’ of process• Avoids bureaucracy• Short path to
implementation
Disadvantages• Power base may be weak• Small resources (money,
expertise)• Lack of focus• Competing agendas• Inefficient procedures• Dissention• Prone to ‘political hijacking’• No clear decision making
mechanisms• Mandate may be unclear• Jurisdictional authority may
be weak to nonexistent
Top down approachTop down approachAdvantages
• Clear jurisdictional mandates
• Capable of engaging experts
• Decision making mechanisms may be clear and efficient
• Generally well funded• May be well organized
Disadvantages• May be out of touch with
the populace• Public input is limited• May be bureaucratic• May be politically
influenced for re-election (in democracies)
• No requirement for justification of decisions
• May be arbitrary and corrupt
Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’
Typology
Arnstein’s ‘Ladder of Citizen Participation’
Typology
• Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. Ladder of Citizen Participation. American Institute of Planners Journal, July 1969, pp. 216-224
Arnstein’s LadderArnstein’s Ladder
• Developed to help explain the relative power exercised by people as they ‘participate’ in decision making
• Rungs of ladder correspond to the level of meaningful participation
Bottom 2 rungs are CONTRIVED PARTICIPATION
(NON-PARTICIPATION):
1) Manipulation – no participation, no input
2) Therapy - to ‘educate’ or ‘cure’ participants, with no input
Arnstein’s LadderArnstein’s Ladder
Middle 3 rungs are TOKEN POWER SHARING
3) Informing - the pretense of participation, but with no input
4) Consultation - input is allowed, but with no promise or accountability for its implementation
5) Placation – citizens can advise, but degree of implementation is discretionary
Arnstein’s LadderArnstein’s Ladder
Top 3 rungs are MEANINGFUL PARTICIPATION
6) Partnership - negotiated sharing of power
7) Delegated Power - specific powers are delegated directly to citizenry
8) Citizen Control – citizens have the majority of decision making seats, or full managerial power
Arnstein’s LadderArnstein’s Ladder