View
143
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
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
Recommended