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: l Waste Management in Canada operates in at least four jurisdictional levels: Federal, Provincial, Regional, Municipal

6. 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

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. 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)

9. Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 70 Regulations, 15 pertaining to solid wasteEnvironmental Protection Act 70 Regulations –CONTAINERS, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 340CONTAINERS –DESIGNATION OF WASTE, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 342DESIGNATION OF WASTE –DISPOSABLE CONTAINERS FOR MILK, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 344DISPOSABLE CONTAINERS FOR MILK –DISPOSABLE PAPER CONTAINERS FOR MILK, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 345DISPOSABLE PAPER CONTAINERS FOR MILK –FEES - CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL, O. Reg. 363/98FEES - CERTIFICATES OF APPROVAL –GENERAL - WASTE MANAGEMENT, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 347GENERAL - WASTE MANAGEMENT Waste Reduction (3 Rs) Regulations Manifest system, licensing provisions –INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAMS, O. Reg. 103/94INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAMS –LANDFILLING SITES, O. Reg. 232/98LANDFILLING SITES –PACKAGING AUDITS AND PACKAGING REDUCTION WORK PLANS, O. Reg. 104/94PACKAGING AUDITS AND PACKAGING REDUCTION WORK PLANS –RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING OF MUNICIPAL WASTE, O. Reg. 101/94RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING OF MUNICIPAL WASTE –REFILLABLE CONTAINERS FOR CARBONATED SOFT DRINK, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 357REFILLABLE CONTAINERS FOR CARBONATED SOFT DRINK –TRANSFER OF CONTAINERS TO BREWERS RETAIL INC. AND OTHERS, O. Reg. 17/07TRANSFER OF CONTAINERS TO BREWERS RETAIL INC. AND OTHERS –WASTE AUDITS AND WASTE REDUCTION WORK PLANS, O. Reg. 102/94WASTE AUDITS AND WASTE REDUCTION WORK PLANS –WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL UNDER OR EXEMPT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT, O. Reg. 206/97WASTE DISPOSAL SITES AND WASTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL UNDER OR EXEMPT FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ACT –WASTE MANAGEMENT - PCB'S, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 362WASTE MANAGEMENT - PCB'S

10. 37.Return of deposit37. 38.Information to be furnished38. 39.Powers of Director, certificates of approval39. 40.Prohibition as to deposit of waste40. 41.Prohibition as to use of facilities, etc.41. 42.Ownership of waste42. 43.Order for removal of waste43. 44.Order by Director44. 45.Right to compensation45. 46.Former disposal sites46. 47.Security Fund47. Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario 25.25.Definitions, Part V 26.Application of Part, domestic waste26. 27.Certificates of approval27. 28.Transition, repeal of Part VIII28. 29.Report by Minister29. 30.When Tribunal hearing required30. 31.Where emergency situation exists31. 32.When Tribunal hearing discretionary32. 33.Hearing before Tribunal33. 34.Appeal from decision of Tribunal34. 35.Condition precedent to issue of certificate35. 36.Hearing as to by-law36. Environmental Protection ActEnvironmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 PART V: WASTE MANAGEMENT PART V:

11. Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario Waste Diversion Act, 2002Waste Diversion Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 6 Enabled Regulations (6): –BLUE BOX WASTE, O. Reg. 273/02BLUE BOX WASTE –MUNICIPAL HAZARDOUS OR SPECIAL WASTE, O. Reg. 542/06MUNICIPAL HAZARDOUS OR SPECIAL WASTE –STEWARDSHIP ONTARIO, O. Reg. 33/08STEWARDSHIP ONTARIO –USED OIL MATERIAL, O. Reg. 85/03USED OIL MATERIAL –USED TIRES, O. Reg. 84/03USED TIRES –WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT, O. Reg. 393/04WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT

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

13. Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario Dangerous Goods Transportation Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.1Dangerous Goods Transportation Act –1 ENABLED REGULATION: GENERAL, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 261 GENERAL

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. PROVINCIAL Policy:

17. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL Policy:

18. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL REGIONAL Policy:

19. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL REGIONAL MUNICIPAL Policy:

20. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL REGIONAL MUNICIPAL LOCAL Policy:

21. Local Policy National Policy NATIONAL PROVINCIAL REGIONAL MUNICIPAL 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. ‘Bottom up’ approach 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

26. Top down approach 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

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. 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 Ladder

34. 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 Ladder

35. 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 Ladder