Possible roles of governmental institutions

INFORMAL WASTE SECTOR 1

4.8 GOVERNMENT AS A STAKEHOLDER

4.8.1 Possible roles of governmental institutions

Governmental institutions are established and given a specific mandate by law, as one of the instruments through which a nation’s policy goals are defined and reached. For an effective waste management system, a strong, robust and transparent institutional framework is essential, within which institutions take various roles at different levels of government, from national to local.

At the national level, the main role of the government and its institutions is that of policy maker and legislator, which includes strategic planning and preparation of policies, and their translation into legislation. Institutions deploy various participatory governance processes so as to benefit from the interaction with other societal actors in which they can contribute their knowledge, insights, queries and concerns, as discussed in Section 4.7 on stakeholders. In order to integrate policies across a broader thematic scope, the process usually entails exchange and discussions on the topics from various adjacent areas, including air and water pollution, spatial planning, local governance and others. While governments usually take the lead in formulating strategies, policies and legislation, they may be prompted to do so through pressure from the public, interest groups or even individuals.¹⁷⁷

Figure 4.6: Possible roles of government institutions in a waste management system

Roles

Planning

Legislator

Regulator Client

Revenue collector

Operator Facilitator/

enabler Change

agent Policy

IN DIALOGUE

LEADING

SUPPORTING

PROVIDING SERVICES (BUT OFTEN OUTSOURCES

TO PRIVATE SECTOR)

SECURING FINANCIAL VIABILITY

MONITORING SERVICES INDEPENDENT

IN CONSULTATION IN DIALOGUE

Complementary to the policy maker/legislator role, governmental institutions have a prominent role as a regulator in charge of implementing strategies and enforcing the legislation. As discussed in Section 4.4 on implementation, the regulator role can be undertaken at different administrative levels, as long as the institution in charge has adequate capacity to perform its duties and the system works across the whole country. Another key point of discussion is the independence of such a regulatory agency, as it needs to enforce standards

177 For example, the discovery of hazardous waste dumped near residential areas in several European countries in the 1970s resulted in public outrage accompanied by broad media coverage; in response, pertinent environmental legislation was prepared and enacted right away. The UK Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972 – the first ever legislation in the UK to control hazardous waste – was drafted in just 10 days and passed by Parliament within a month. In India, it was an individual action – the case of Almitra H. Patel v. Union of India, Writ Petn. (C) No. 888 of 1996, D/- 15-2-2000 (Municipal Waste Case), that accelerated the preparation of the landmark environmental legislation, the Municipal Solid Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules of 2000. Finally, in a number of Latin American countries, sustained efforts of advocacy NGOs have been instrumental in bringing about legislation that establishes the rights of the informal sector in waste management.

equally on both private and public sector operators. Therefore, the accountability and transparency of the regulator are essential.

While it is relatively common for countries to put comprehensive environmental legislation in place (albeit after a long period of preparation), it is less common to have the institutional capacity, resources and commitment to effectively enforce the newly enacted legislation. Therefore, the role of regulator is arguably more critical for a well-functioning system. It is in this role that governmental institutions are often failing, due to problems of inadequate resources and capacities for the task and, equally importantly, due to problems with conflicting political interests, political interference, and corruption all playing a part.

At the local (municipality, county or similar) level, the role of government institutions is more about taking on the ‘client’ function, as it has responsibility as the ‘proxy-generator’ of municipal solid waste. The client function includes making decisions as to who delivers the service, how the revenues are collected and how the necessary finance for investment is raised.¹⁷⁸ In many countries, municipalities find the necessary efficiency of scale for implementing the SWM system through inter-municipal cooperation.¹⁷⁹

While it is important that the authorities show that they ‘mean business’ and ensure that the rule of law is upheld, the government also has a role in working with other actors in the system to increase their knowledge and understanding of the newly established situation, for example industries handling hazardous substances in their products or their production processes. In this role, the governmental institutions are not just law enforcers, but also educators and persuaders.¹⁸⁰ Finally, as reliance on regulation alone will not produce the envisaged results, governmental institutions have an important role in communicating with other actors in the system and facilitating their involvement, in order to get people to ‘own’ the issue of waste and sustainable resource management. This means that the role of institutions is to provide information, instructions, enable, encourage, and last but not least, lead by example, with the goal of influencing people’s attitude and ultimately their behaviour, as discussed in Section 4.6 on social instruments. It is important to note however that the roles of governmental institutions in their interaction with stakeholders evolve and change over time, as the policy regime and physical waste management system gradually mature and a culture of compliance takes root among stakeholders.

In addition to institutions in these diverse roles, political commitment and keen leadership are indispensable in producing tangible results.

In some cases the development is driven by the mayor of the capital city who takes waste management to the next level within a comprehensive vision for the city; sometimes it is a minister of the environment or another politician or government official. Or it may be strong central planning for development and determined implementation – in which local affordability is not an issue as the costs are covered by central financial resources – that result in reliable, robust and modern waste services, such as in many cities in the PRC.

178 These four aspects of a financing model for MSWM are discussed in Sections 5.4 and 5.6 through 5.8.

179 See Section 5.6.4 on achieving economies of scale. Examples of inter-municipal cooperation are given from Asia and Latin America in Box 5.7, and from Europe in Case Study 6 on SYSAV and Case Study 8 on Flanders, both found after Chapter 5.

180 However, while this description is very typical of the situation in Europe in the 1980s – when government would be leading the way in environmental management – at this point in time, in the 2010s, it is often frontrunner businesses that take the lead in innovation for sustainable production. The role of governmental institutions in such a regime is that of enabler, creating conditions under which businesses will be comfortable and trusting enough to make the necessary investments in research and development for environmental sustainability.

© J. IJgosse

Discussing plans.

Waste governance 183 BOX 4.29 WORKING THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS IN CEBU CITY, PHILIPPINES

¹⁸¹

The passage in the Philippines in 2000 of the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act, widely known as the Republic Act No. 9003 (RA 9003), provides the required policy framework, institutional mechanisms and mandate to Local Government Units to establish sound SWM practices. The main policy targets include the elimination of open dumping and a 25% reduction in waste disposal through a focus on material recovery from waste, including the introduction of separate collection and facilities at the barangay level (the smallest unit of local government).

When implementing this law, the local government in Cebu City, the country’s second-largest city, considers SWM to be a multi- stakeholder engagement involving innovative strategies and partnerships. Authorities promulgated local legislation mandating a wide range of instruments, so as to address multiple issues in synergy. Under Ordinance No. 2017, a newly established SWM Board, headed by the mayor, developed a long-term vision for SWM in the city and translated it into a 10-year plan for solid waste reduction, drafted in 2005 with technical assistance from its sister city, Fort Collins in Colorado, U.S. and in consultation with various stakeholders in the community. Due attention was given to collaboration with the private sector and local NGOs, so as to promote and ensure the viability and the effective implementation of the plan.

Local Ordinance No. 2031 was passed in 2004 to introduce waste segregation at source, establish penalties for violations, and facilitate the creation of a special fund for incentives. Since April 2011 the city has introduced separate collection of three waste categories: biodegradable, recyclable and residual, under the slogan ‘No segregation, no collection’. One of the innovative approaches is the creation of the Cebu Environmental Sanitation and Enforcement Team (CESET), whereby not only officials but also designated residents and civil society groups can apprehend offenders and are entitled to 20% of the fine. Effective enforcement has resulted in not only a substantial amount of money for the city from penalties but also a steep decrease in the number of violations. From these funds, the city supports barangays in establishing material recovery activities through an annual grant of 400 USD, awarded upon request.

Recognizing that implementation of the SWM programme depends on people’s level of environmental awareness and involvement, the municipality introduced information and education campaigns in which volunteers served as community leaders. These campaigns were based on communication and exchanges with and among householders, who had previously been uninterested in SWM.

Pilot projects involving simple, cost-effective composting technologies were initiated in parallel to develop the evidence base to convince both the people and the barangay officials of the merits of composting. Various stakeholders such as companies and shopping malls are involved in resource recovery from waste as part of their corporate social responsibility efforts. Economic value of waste materials is highlighted through a ‘Cash for Trash’ programme, focusing on the recovery of recyclables, led by women’s organizations and other local NGOs. Particularly in the area of capacity development, the city authorities actively collaborate with international entities, including the city of Kitakyushu (Japan), the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES, Japan), UNESCAP and its sister city of Haarlemmermeer (the Netherlands).

The city’s concerted efforts have borne fruit: its target of reducing waste by 30% by 2012 has been achieved; treating organic waste within neighbourhoods has led to lower transportation costs and a longer use period of the landfill; and a couple of hundred jobs have been created, mainly for the poor. Cebu City has shown a successful mix of instruments in its SWM system: a clear vision supported by strong political commitment and collaborative interaction with local stakeholders, ranging from businesses to NGOs to barangay councils to householders, coupled with strict law enforcement and economic incentives. As emphasized by the authorities in Cebu City, solid waste can exist only when people lose sight of its value.

One of the very important – albeit not that obvious – roles of government is to facilitate communication and interaction among stakeholders in the system, for sharing and exchanging ideas and experiences. This can be done through various platforms for knowledge diffusion and through demonstration projects.

181 More details can be found in Ancog, R.C., N.D. Archival & C.M. Rebancos (2012). Institutional arrangements for solid waste management in Cebu City, Philippines, Journal of Environmental Science and Management 15(2): 74-82; Premakumara, D.G.J., A.M.L. Canete, M. Nagaishi & T.A. Kurniawan (2014). Policy implementation of the Republic Act (RA) No. 9003 in the Philippines: A case study of Cebu City, Waste Management 34(6): 971-979.

BOX 4.30 PEARL PEER EXPERIENCE AND REFLECTIVE LEARNING IN INDIA

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) is a flagship project launched by India’s Ministry of Urban Development (MoUD) in 65 ‘mission cities’ for planned development and urban reforms, with a focus on efficiency in urban infrastructure and service delivery. Capacity building and knowledge sharing are important elements of the project. Under the name PEARL – Peer Experience and Reflective Learning – a network was launched in 2007 for cross-learning and exchanging experiences. Groups were formed among mission cities having similar socio-economic profiles, complexities of urban problems and issues, size and urban growth patterns, along with their affinity in pairing them. Besides national and group workshops, PEARL also includes a website to update and document best practices in projects, reforms and innovations.¹⁸²

Experimentation is essential for innovation and for changes to existing ways of thinking and doing. The flip side of the experimentation coin is that experimentation does not necessarily pay off. Therefore, as ample evidence shows, companies and organizations interested in innovative waste management practices (and, more broadly, sustainable consumption and production) like to see examples of best practices already in action and learn from them. With this in mind, various government-funded programmes have been established to facilitate exchanges among companies and thus support businesses as they transition toward sustainability.

For example, among a diverse range of such schemes funded by the UK government within their Best Practice programme since the early 1990s, so-called waste minimization clubs or resource efficiency clubs have been particularly successful; the best-run among them generates tenfold ‘returns on investment’ in terms of cost savings realized by the participating companies compared to the budget allocated by the government to run such a club. A similar approach to the role of government in this field is shared by the Dutch, whose government agencies facilitate gatherings of a diverse range of actors and enable the creation of communities engaged in practice regarding specific topics, such as zero waste regions and the prevention of food waste.

BOX 4.31 EXPERIENCE EXCHANGE IN THE NETHERLANDS

In their efforts to respond to a societal transition toward better recycling, several publicly owned waste companies have experimented with various novel waste collection systems so as to encourage householders to segregate more of their waste more effectively.¹⁸³ For example, in the Netherlands, the ROVA public waste company introduced a ‘pay-as-you-throw’ (PAYT) charging scheme linking payments directly to quantities of residual mixed waste presented for collection; this resulted in a 20% decrease in costs and a 25% decrease in residual mixed waste. After the positive effects had stabilized, ROVA introduced a so-called ‘reverse’ collection system, whereby only source-segregated waste material fractions are collected door-to-door, while householders have to bring their residual mixed waste themselves to designated collection points, which is exactly the opposite of what is commonly done in the Netherlands.¹⁸⁴ The results are very positive, both in terms of the amounts of segregated waste and the cost savings. This and other experiments are shared through Royal NVRD¹⁸⁵, the largest national waste association, as their peers are curious about the positive results achieved and the financial implications. This attitude of willingness to ‘compare notes’ and learn in a network of peers is quite typical of the Dutch public waste sector in general. There are two voluntary benchmark systems in place, where participating public companies compare their own performance with that of their peers.

Government also has a role as a facilitator or a participant in network building, participation platforms and joint learning. As mentioned in Section 4.7 on stakeholders, international networks have a significant role in expanding knowledge and sharing experiences. Concerning governmental institutions, the UNEP Global Partnership on Waste Management assembles national agencies in charge of waste matters;¹⁸⁶ IPLA is the International Partnership for Expanding Waste Management Services of Local Authorities;¹⁸⁷ the U.S. National

182 See http://jnnurm.nic.in/ and http://www.indiaurbanportal.in

183 These innovative waste collection schemes are described in Goorhuis, M. et al. (2012). New developments in waste management in the Netherlands. Waste Management and Research 30(9 SUPPL.1): 67-77.

184 Interestingly, this system is de facto present in many places around the world, where itinerant buyers visit households to obtain their valuable waste materials, whereas householders walk to collection points to bring their other waste.

185 NVRD – Nederlandse Vereniging van Reinigingsdiensten

186 http://www.unep.org/gpwm/InformationPlatform/CountryWasteManagementProfiles/tabid/104472/Default.aspx 187 http://www.iplaportal.org

Waste governance 185

Recycling Coalition (NRC) has formed the basis for knowledge-sharing during the rapid modernization period in the U.S. and Canada since the 1980s;¹⁸⁸ ACR+ is an association of cities and regions for waste prevention, reuse, recycling and sustainable resource management;¹⁸⁹ and Zero Waste Europe advocates zero waste strategies and lifestyles and supports communities, businesses and individuals in implementing them.¹⁹⁰