Effecting Change: Approaches to decision making, planning, and community development

1. Effecting Change:Approaches to decision making, planning, and community development TREN 3P14: Sustainable Integrated Waste Management

2. 1. Decision making and jurisdictional authority

3. 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

4. jurisdiction For meaningful change to occur, the appropriate jurisdictional authority must be involved in the decision making process

5. Example: • Waste Management in Canadaoperates in at least four jurisdictional levels:Federal, Provincial, Regional, Municipal

6. 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 Jurisdictional mandate pertaining to waste management

7. Ontario 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/

8. 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) Jurisdictional mandate pertaining to waste management

9. 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 FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT, O. Reg. 206/97 • WASTE MANAGEMENT - PCB'S, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 362

10. 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 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 Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 PART V:WASTE MANAGEMENT

11. 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 EQUIPMENT, O. Reg. 393/04

12. Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario • Waste Management Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 1

13. 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

14. Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario Also: • Environmental Assessment Act • Environmental Bill of Rights • Ontario Water Resources Act

15. Jurisdictional integration For meaningful change to occur, policies and programs at all jurisdictional levels must be integrated and complementary

16. Policy: PROVINCIAL

17. Policy: NATIONAL PROVINCIAL

18. Policy: NATIONAL PROVINCIAL REGIONAL

19. Policy: NATIONAL PROVINCIAL REGIONAL MUNICIPAL

20. Policy: NATIONAL PROVINCIAL REGIONAL MUNICIPAL LOCAL

21. Policy: National Policy NATIONAL PROVINCIAL REGIONAL MUNICIPAL LOCAL Local Policy

22. 2. ‘Bottom Up’ and ‘Top Down’ Approaches to Decision Making

23. ‘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

24. ‘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

25. Advantages 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 ‘Bottom up’ approach

26. Advantages 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 Top down approach

31. 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

32. Arnstein’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

33. Arnstein’s Ladder Bottom 2 rungs are CONTRIVED PARTICIPATION (NON-PARTICIPATION): 1) Manipulation – no participation, no input 2) Therapy -to ‘educate’ or ‘cure’ participants, with no input

34. Arnstein’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

35. Arnstein’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