Solid Waste Management

Environmental Policy: The Case of Municipal Solid Waste

Management

Outline• History Timeline, Policy Problem

• Civic engagement mechanisms

• Advisory Group & Support Group

• Institutional arrangement for engagement

• Actors

• Engagement process

• Engagement result

History Timeline

1977

1986

1989

1990

1997

1999

2000

2001

2002

2004

2005

EPU established

EPD established

White Paper Pollution: A Time to Act

International cooperation on environmental issues

Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance

Tung Chee-hwa Policy Address : Sustainable Development

2 Major policy : Partnership & Public education

Seven major initiatives to enhance prevention, separation,and recycling of domestic waste.

Waste Recycling Campaign, Mobile-phone-battery recycling programme

Pilot programme on separation of waste at the source

Gov published “A First Sustainable Development Strategy for H.K

History Timeline

0

Year

Origin of The Policy Problem

Landfill (Per Hectare)

2005

2014

2030

FULL

Mor

e 40

0 H

ecta

res

Advisory Group of Environmental Protection Department

Structure of Advisory GroupEnvironmental Protection

Department(EPD)

Advisory Group

The areas of

environmental

impact

Economic

viability

Technological

feasibility

Social impact

Consumer

preference

Civic engagement processesExpressions of Interest(EOI) evaluationReceive informationAssess the various technologiesDisposal of municipal solid waste

Tenders

Examine and

shortlist the tenders

Submit a detailedproposal

Civic engagement resultsEnvironmental Protection Department Combine the proposalsConsider a list of technologies and facilitiesSet out a comprehensive strategy for

municipal solid waste management

Council for Sustainable Development (CSD) & the Support Group on Solid Waste Management

Council of Sustainable Development (CSD)

Chairman (Chief Secretary of Administration)

Secretariat(Chief Secretary’s office,

Sustainable Development Unit)

Senior government

officials(Administrative Officers)

Five stages of engagement processof the CSD and the Support Group

1) Identifying pilot areas

2) Preparatio

n of IR document

3) Community involvemen

t

4) Report composing

5) Invite governmen

t to act / implement

Civic engagement results

1) The CSD compiled its comments and suggestions: establishment of principles for three pilot areas

2) Government invitation for responding the issues

3) Enhancement on the quality of stakeholders and public engagement process

Institutional arrangement for engagementoMembership & representationoFunctions, powers, resources, and institutional supportoDecision-making rules

Membership & representationbackground

Comment(+)positive

Comment (-)negative

suggestion

Balanced committeeEffectiveness

Composition:Green group,Academics,Professionals,Social elites

Policy:free handsubgroup chairperson

Good:Same field sub-group level mutual understanding

Policy:Academics as neutral third parties

reasons:Can provide professionalexpertiseNo private interest

*1.green groupfull council

*2.academicstrengthened engagement

*3.mechanism in appointing membersno misuse ofpower

Function, power, resources & institution supportBackground Comment

(+)positiveComment(-)negative

suggestion

Both support group &Advisory groupconsiderable influence

Support groupchief secretary

Advisory groupno high ranking government official

1.Secretariateffectivemediating the diverse interest of various stakeholder

2.Governmentresearch supportprivate consultancyex-officio members: policy history

Secretariat--too directive--not responsive enough

restricted free discussion

hindered mutual trust

independent secretariats

led by social actors

reduce influence of gov’t official

no selective summarizing

Decision-making rulesBackground Comment

(+)positive Comment(-)negative

suggestion

amount of procedural autonomy

Advisory groupchairperson selected members

free exchangetrust & consensus

Statutory power:Support group >advisory group

reach decision by consensus

if views divided voted

some never voted

government retained right of advisory groupnot obliged to adopt

but forSupport groupif rejected Explain in writing

some welcome the arrangement

improvement in government led advisory group

ActorsConceptions of civic engagement

Government OfficialsPositive (Worthy) Negative (Dangerous)

Enhance society ‘s awareness

Make things complicated

Enhance mandate for a policy

Irrational responses

Built social consensus Aggressive criticisms

Less controversial Govn’t remains control

Help formulate suitable implementation strategies

Public consultation only for complex issues

Open & Transparent Depend on nature of problem

Engagement Targets: Broad Engagement Targets: Limited

Civil society actorsCivil society actors (1) Civil society actors (2)

Advice, grievance, deliberate Green groups

Create mandates awareness-based activists” “knowledge-based advocates”

Reduce political risk Increase relationships with government

Government Departments with sufficient deliberation

Better than private consultancies

Higher Cooperation Expand role of consultancy

More practical policy comments

ActorsInterests, values and knowledges

Opinions (1) Opinions (2) Opinions (3)

Civil society actors More government appreciation

Lack of independence

Positive due to technical expertise

Consulted vs Engaged Financial aid from government

AOs can’t perform as well as departmental technocrats

Mistrust between officials & green groups

More dependent on private companies

Technical nature of policy

Prejudices in green groups

Sponsorships & income

Background of AOs May involve business sector

More Training Marionettes of largecorporation seekingcommercial Adv.

ActorsStrategies

Technique of civil engagement (1)

Technique of civil engagement (2)

Technique of civil engagement (3)

Forum (E.g. 城市論壇 ) Dispersion of sustainable Development Fund

Make use of media (Informal engagement)

Positive Negative Civil society groups

Rather negative

Effective Limited district location

Undertake pilot projects

Aggressive & irrational thoughts or opinions

Promote interaction & communication

Inflexible time schedule

Rich supply of information from advisory group

Informal meetings

Balanced & Genuine

Not convenient

Highly efficient No political considerations & collective responsibility

Should increase variety of stakeholders for consultation

Reduction of readiness of groups to participate in civil engagement

Engagement ProcessCommonality of goal and level of trustLevel of transparencyLevel of accountabilityBreadth and depth of engagement of stakeholdersPolicy coordination

Engagement Process

Advisory Group(EPD)

Support Group(CSD)

Commonality of goal and

level of trust

-Successful Demonstrated-Open & Free Sharing-Ideas were treated with respect-Freedom to select members

-High marks to committee engagement

-Mistrust -(lacked green group representatives)-Platform of Gov-Civil society dialogue over sustainable development

Level of transparency

-Clear guidelines and procedures on information release and publication-All activities on web are open to public-More transparency

-less transparent-Gov reducing the public’s will and capacity to respond constructively

-Very little input from public setting the CSD agenda.

By comparison, the level of transparency of the Harbour-front Enhancement Committee was said to be much higher.

Engagement Process

Level of Accountability

1.No accountability to the public∵Advisory Group(EPD)&Support Group(CSD) = Advisory bodies∴Gov. = full responsibility decisions of those groups

2.In CSD, Gov. explains in writing why CSD suggestions rejected

3.Third party(academics from Poly U) monitors CSD

∴Gov. balanced view

Breadth & Depth of Engagement of Other Stakeholders

1.Support Group attempts to involve stakeholders informal linke.g.Advisory Group(EPD)

2.Engages with general publicdistrict councils, district officers, district NGO & schools

Policy Coordination

Support Group( CSD) Advisory Group

1. ↑ Tension between the departmental & the bureau staff

Changes of Government Personnel & Structures

↓ ∴ Policy Continuity & ↓ Civic Engagement

Engagement resultsPolicy papers, higher legitimacy of policy, building the capacity for governance partnership, promoting the concept of sustainable development

Policy PapersEnvironmental Protection Department

Council for Sustainable Development

2005Document – A Policy Framework for the Management of Municipal Solid Waste 2005–2014

2004Invitation for Response (IR) Document – Sustainable Development— Making Choices for Our Future

2005Document – Making Choices for Our Future: Report on the Engagement Process for a First Sustainable Development Strategy

Integrated Waste Management Scheme

Solid Waste Management, Renewable Energy, and Urban Living Space

Higher Legitimacy of PolicyEnvironmental Protection Department

Council for Sustainable Development

Although it could not Force People to Agree to Locate an Incinerator in their District

Most Green groups Accept Incineration as a Safe Alternative to Landfill Successfully

Provide Appropriate Responses to Public Concerns Over Sustainable Development

The product of Public Consultation

Can Reflect the Concerns of the Stakeholders

The Public Submissions were Mostly Unscientific, but they Exposed a Range of Outstanding Issues the Public Wanted to Resolve

Building the Capacity for Governance PartnershipConsulting Ways

Consultation Paper were submitted to publicVarious workshops, forums, and summits to the

district

Building the Capacity for Governance Partnership Effectiveness

Increase Civic Awareness Signal to Policy Maker that they Success or not

Limited in Scale and Improvements are Essential

The Role is too PassiveAmbivalent that Influential Figure from the

Government Difficult to Play an Important Role in Monitoring

Existing Policies

Promoting the Concept of Sustainable DevelopmentCSD Stimulate Public Discussion and Set up

the Sustainable Development Fund

Enabled the Society to Undertake Related Projects

Heightened Awareness of Sustainable to the Public and the Politician.

Promoting the Concept of Sustainable DevelopmentEvaluate

CSD should play a more active roleNot just Devising SD Strategy for the futureMonitoring Existing Actions and Policies tooTake up a Guardian Role