The Stakeholders Involved in Management of Toxic Wastes - Term Paper Example

TOXIC WASTE LAND FILL COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION AND ENGAGEMENT AT WONDERTON By (Name) Class Professor School City Date COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT IN MANAGEMENT OF TOXIC WASTE THROUGH LANDFILLS Introduction Disposal of toxic wastes has elicited fiery debates across the world due to their hazardous impact on the human and animal health in addition to degradation of the natural environment. The American Centers for Disease Control has named eleven key products that qualify to be named toxic wastes. Among them are Arsenic, asbestos, cadmium, chromium, clinical wastes, cyanide, lead, mercury and strong acids and alkalis. In the past, wastes were dumped in rivers, oceans and landfills which often took advantage of the poor and vulnerable community neighbourhoods (Erickson, 2016, p. 1). An investigation carried out in neighbours within a kilometre from a landfill revealed potential association with high levels of cancer (Goodman et al., 2010, p. 1). Potential harmful health effects in addition to poor dumping practices and poor community engagement during the process are possible reasons for community uprising against dumping sites near their homes (Banda, 2016). However, the toxic wastes levels continues to rise with due to advancement in global trade, manufacture of new products and wide utilisation of electronics which contain significant levels of toxic wastes. Recycling consumes approximately 50 % of wastes in Australia while the rest of the waste is dumped in landfills (Ritchie, 2016, p. 1). Efforts to reduce production and sale of items with less toxic components have not borne significant results to increasing volume of trade and consumption of goods with toxic wastes. Besides, new products especially the electronic products such as mobile phones and laptops have become household necessities which are distributed worldwide. Globalisation and competition for markets by manufacturing companies have influenced development of cheap products that meets the immediate consumer needs ignoring the potential long term harm caused by toxic components. Hence, green products are expensive to obtain by low-level citizens (Esty and Porter, 1998, pp. 34–43; Ongondo et al., 2011, pp. 714–730). In consideration of the above trends, measures are required to engage the relevant stakeholders and achieve community approval for safer management of toxic wastes and their dumping sites. This essay will discuss the stakeholders involved in management of toxic wastes and devise a strategy that can be used in management of the dumping site at Wonderton in the Mallee District of North Western Victoria. Nature of Conflicts Associated with Landfills A reference famous case of toxic waste land fill is the Toxic Waste Land Fill in Kettleman City, USA (EJOLT, 2016). The landfill is located about 3.5 miles from Kettleman City which mainly comprises of poor farm worker communities. The dumping site was opened in 1979 by a waste management company without consent from the local community where each day 200 twenty ton trucks filled it with toxic wastes. The waste management company violated several environmental laws and attempted to open an incinerator at the same place without informing the local community. The community sued the company after public hearing efforts with the company were unsuccessful (EJOLT, 2016). After the community successfully sued the company, it stopped construction of incinerator and paid fines for pollution but the landfill still operates to date. Various actors involved in Kettleman City Land Fill are the government, California Waste Management board, California EPA, the community through representative civil societies such as People for Clean Air and Water among others. The land fill has been expanded recently making rallies and demonstrations a characteristic of Kettleman City with more research findings revealing high levels of birth defects associated with the landfill (EJOLT, 2016). The Toxic Waste Land Fill conflict is a clear example of conflicts associated with management of toxic wastes whereby communities are getting more agitated while the level of toxic waste has been rising every year. Australia has faced numerous scenarios with public protesters managing to prevent contrition of incinerators and landfills as it happened in Australia Hazmat Caste number 173 of 1989(Loy, 2005, pp. 19–33) forcing the government to export wastes to lack of adequate dumping sites (Ritchie, 2016). In 2010, 84 % of electronic waste in Australia was dumped in landfills (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Key Stakeholders for a Landfill at Wonderton Unauthorised interstate transfer of toxic products was banned in 2008 at a time when Victoria did not have a plant to process the highly toxic materials. Hence, resulting to piles of toxic wastes accumulating on the roadsides. Waste management stakeholders in Victoria are required to move with speed and discuss the proposal to set up a landfill at Wonderton (Egan, 2008). When setting up a land fill the government is a reliable source of policy in waste management in a land. Evaluating the community and industry perceptions and level of awareness on environmental factors associated with landfills is key before setting up the landfills in Wonderton. Everybody is affected by landfills issues. To name a few, the government, communities, manufacturers, retailers and civil societies have a role to play in management of toxic wastes. Therefore, they should be involved in evaluating the viability of a landfill in Wonderton. In Mallee District North Westen Australia, waste management is regulated by several agencies that ensure the landfills are acceptable and safe for the communities and environment. The first key stakeholder on landfills is the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) of Australia which develops, implements and monitors applicable laws and policies on waste management. The EPA Australia was established by the Environmental Protection Act of 1970 to establish environmental standards, prevent pollution and regulate management of Wastes in Australia in addition to imposing environmental requirements. Therefore, establishing a land fill at Wonderton will require approval form EPA Australia as the topmost organ responsible for regulation of matters related to environment (E. P. A. Victoria, 2004, pp. 1–3). The second key stakeholder in implementation of the landfill project is the local government of Victoria. The local governments have been mandated to plan waste management services within their areas of jurisdiction through The Local Government Act of 1989. The local governments are tasked to draft long term strategic and corporate plans that include waste management strategies. Therefore, establishment of a landfill at the Wonderton will require inclusion in the local government plans and subsequent approval. The Local Council of Victoria is responsible for approval of local government fiscal plans. Additionally, there is minister of the local government in charge of Environment, Water and planning who is key to successful engagement with the local government. The Department of Environment, Water and Planning under the local government will technical skills in the assessment and approval Wonderton Land Fill (E. P. A. Victoria, 2004, pp. 1–3). The regional civic groups on waste management are also crucial in operationization of the land fill. They represent the views of communities and groups with interest on waste management and environmental protection as well as representing interests of the people living near the land fill. Victoria has 16 regional groups that champion proper waste management practices. The land fill at Wonderton will be under the Northern group. Therefore, the input of Northern Region Waste Management Group will contribute to development of the intended landfill and will improve community participation and keep monitoring the utilisation of the landfill thus contributing to the success of the project (E. P. A. Victoria, 2004, pp. 1–3). The Ecorecycle Victoria is a government agency that was established to enable Victoria reduce wastes Australia policy. The Ecorecycle Victoria input in decision making regarding a land fill in Wonderton is essential especially regarding the discussion of what needs to be disposed in the land fill. Some of the wastes can be recycled thus reducing the load of wastes at the landfill, creating jobs and revenue for the community living near the land fill. The Ecorecycle Victoria has the mandate to advise businesses and agencies on waste reduction strategies, better management of disposed wastes in Victoria, waste disposal infrastructure and programs within Australia. Therefore, it is a highly valued stakeholder when establishing a landfill at Wonderton (E. P. A. Victoria, 2004, pp. 1–3). The other stakeholders in the project are businesses which are interested in understanding how the landfill will influence their business. Will the cost of managing their wastes reduce? Businesses in Mallee district and major companies in Victoria are stakeholders in this project. The immediate households surrounding the Land fill are also key stakeholders. They will be interested in understanding how the landfill will affect their wellbeing. Will they be displaced? What discomforts will the land fill cause and how will they be compensated or protected? Those are some of the questions that the Minister should aim to answer to the immediate community living in wonderton. The Mallee District Aboriginal Services is a community controlled institution that is a key provider of health services to the people of Mallee District. It’s inclusion as a stakeholder in this project will be important since it generates toxic wastes and can also represent the community in reviewing the health impact of the project (MDAS, 2016, p. 3) Mallee District has key opinion leaders who are invaluable in community engagement and seeking community approval for the project. One such leader is Aunty Patsy Doolan who served in Mildura Koori Court as an officer. She is highly recognised as a vocal community volunteer who has provided community leadership in justice, welfare and family services. Another key opinion leader in the region is Sandra Stewart who is highly respected for a long term service to the community through investment in education, families and young people. She was bestowed with the highest honor for community leadership in August 2016 during the National Aboriginal and Islander Day of Celebration. It is important that the minister includes such key opinion leaders in discussions regarding the landfill project since they have the potential to influence community acceptance or rejection (Mildura, 2016, p. 1). An example of a Successful Engagement Strategy Successful community engagement programs for toxic waste management must give the public all facts, consult the public and notify the public of all developments during the course of the project. The Mornington Peninsula Community Engagement program offers numerous lesson for the current project engagement strategy. The Mornington Peninsula Shire Council in Victoria once engaged the public during drafting of wastes and water resources strategy. Several mechanisms were put in place including evening community participation furums, telephone surveys, online discussion forums, letters to key stakeholders and dissemination information through use of brochures and flyers. The feedback was quite objective in enabling the council to make an informed decision regarding the location the bill on Management of Wastes and Water Resources Strategy (Parry and Fletcher, 2016). Applicable Engagement Strategy for a Landfill at Wonderton In regard to the landfill at Wonderton, a more vigorous process is essential but should borrow from the above successful community engagement strategy. The Minister should share the proposal with the stakeholders stated above beginning with Environmental Protection Agency of Australia. Once approved by EPA Australia, the proposal should be disseminated to other stakeholders through the Minister in Charge of Envir onment, Water and Planning at Victoria Local Government which will disseminate it to the responsible local council for deliberations and action. Thereafter, a thorough dissemination of information through the local council advertisement in the website, radio, local diaries and brochures should inform the public about the intention to construct a landfill at Wonderton providing factual details of the project. A deliberative forum should be held at Wonderton comprising member of the public and stakeholders mentioned above where the minister would share information about the project and address concerns raised. A direct public engagement has the potential to rally the community in support of the project as reported by Goven and Langer (2009). As the public participation is ongoing, ecological, economical and other technical evaluations regarding the project would be conducted by EPA Australia in conjunction with the Victoria Government Department of Environment, Water and Planning. All the reports should be made public through the all the available forms of media. Thereafter, the local council should hold a final deliberative forumn where the public decision will be sought. Additional surveys should be carried out through mobile letters to the stakeholders, calls and radio surveys after which a combined report is made. If community accepts, the project will be incorporated into the fiscal plans of the Victoria Government and passed. Building a Community Acceptance Plan In addition to community engagement, community acceptance should be advanced by utilising the local labour force to mann the plant and corporate social responsibilities that improve wellbeing of the community such as supporting community infrastructural projects through revenue generated from the management of the land fill. Moreover, displaced households or affected community members should be compensated handsomely. Compensation mechanisms have been associated with increased community acceptance of the projects (Ter Mors et al., 2012). A committee to oversee running of the landfill and to represent the community should be set up so as to raise community concerns and represent their concerns without undue unrests. References Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010. Measusres of Australia’s progess, 2010 : Waste disposed to landfill [WWW Document]. URL http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0~2010~Chapter~Landfill%20(6.6.4) (accessed 1.30.17). Banda, H.M.N., 2016. Landfilling and Environmental problems in Sri Lanka (with reference to Gampaha District). E. P. A. Victoria, 2004. Waste Management Policy (Siting, Design And Management of Landfills). Melbourne, http://www. gazette. vic. gov. au/Gazettes2004/GG2004S264. pdf (accessed 12 May 2006). Egan, C., 2008. Clampdown on toxic waste. The Age. EJOLT, 2016. Toxic Waste Landfill in Kettleman City, USA | EJAtlas [WWW Document]. Environ. Justice Atlas. URL http://ejatlas.org/conflict/toxic-waste-landfill-in-kettleman-city-usa (accessed 1.30.17). Erickson, J., 2016. Targeting minority, low-income neighborhoods for hazardous waste sites [WWW Document]. Univ. Mich. News. URL http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/23414-targeting-minority-low-income-neighborhoods-for-hazardous-waste-sites (accessed 1.30.17). Esty, D.C., Porter, M.E., 1998. Industrial ecology and competitiveness. J. Ind. Ecol. 2, 35–43. Goodman, J.E., Hudson, T.C., Monteiro, R.J., 2010. Cancer Cluster Investigation in Residents Near a Municipal Landfill. Hum. Ecol. Risk Assess. Int. J. 16, 1339–1359. doi:10.1080/10807039.2010.526504 Goven, J., Langer, E.L., 2009. The potential of public engagement in sustainable waste management: Designing the future for biosolids in New Zealand. J. Environ. Manage. 90, 921–930. Loy, J., 2005. IMPLEMENTING THE CODE OF CONDUCT ON THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF RADIOACTIVE SOURCES AUSTRALIA’S EXPERIENCE AND PROGRESS. Secur. Radioact. Sources 76. MDAS, 2016. Mallee District Aboriginal Services - Annual Report 2016 [WWW Document]. URL http://www.mdas.org.au/page.php?id=53 (accessed 1.30.17). Mildura, 2016. Mallee District Aboriginal Services - News [WWW Document]. URL http://www.mdas.org.au/page.php?id=3&bid=134 (accessed 1.30.17). Ongondo, F.O., Williams, I.D., Cherrett, T.J., 2011. How are WEEE doing? A global review of the management of electrical and electronic wastes. Waste Manag. 31, 714–730. Parry, L.J., Fletcher, S., 2016. Let’s Talk Waste - Mornington Peninsula Community Engagement Program | Participedia [WWW Document]. URL http://participedia.net/en/cases/lets-talk-waste-mornington-peninsula-community-engagement-program (accessed 1.30.17). Ritchie, M., 2016. State of Waste 2016 – current and future Australian trends | The Tipping Point [WWW Document]. URL https://blog.mraconsulting.com.au/2016/04/20/state-of-waste-2016-current-and-future-australian-trends/ (accessed 1.30.17). Ter Mors, E., Terwel, B.W., Daamen, D.D., 2012. The potential of host community compensation in facility siting. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 11, S130–S138. Read More