Waste Disposal and Management - Literature review Example

A literature review of 1200-1500 words that frames the research question for the paper. Introduction In recent　years,　one　of　the　issues　that　has　strongly　caught　the　attention　and　imagination　of　the　whole　world is that of the environment. Issues relating to the environment come in many different forms, and may relate to the climate, waste management, or even protection of plant and animal species. In all of the debates surrounding these issues, governments around the world have been forced to get involved. Some have been eager participants in seeking solutions to environmental problems while others have had to be forced into it. While national governments have had to take the lead on issues pertaining to the environment, when it comes to implementation, it has been suggested in some quarters that local governments are in a much better position to take action. The slogan, “Think Globally; Act Locally” readily comes to mind. This paper focuses on the issue of waste management which is one of the more critical issues concerning the environment and reviews the literature surrounding it, taking into consideration issues of governance at the local and national levels in both Australia and Canada. It ends with the question of whether local government is truly in a better position to deal more effectively with issues of waste management compared to the federal governments of the two countries. Literature Review Dependence on State and Federal Governments When asked to name the different levels of government, most people are likely to refer to national, state, and municipal, with municipal, of course, referring to local government. While this form of arrangement is taken for granted in many countries, in Australia, the range of diversity among these local entities is staggering. According to Aulich, among the features of local governance are “strict limitations on sub-national capabilities to raise their own revenues. This leads to a major transfer role for the centralized revenue collector to state and local governments and leaves local government with limited revenue-raising capacity beyond the application of taxes (rates) on the unimproved value of property” (2005, p193) and relatively low participation rates such as in local elections. In fact, in Australia, in addition to the lack of constitutional recognition given to local government at the national level, local governments derive their power indirectly, through legislation and powers that flow from the state or territory levels. As Aulich (2005) notes, “These powers and functions have been confined to a relatively narrow range of functions, described as the weakest range of local government functions of any Western country (Gyford 1986). Together with the fragmentation of the system this has worked against high levels of autonomy” (Aulich 2005, p197). What Aulich suggests here is that local governments in Australia do not have a lot of room to maneuver in making their decisions even if these decisions are those that are of critical importance to those at the local level. In Canada as well, local governments have depended on the federal government for a large chunk of their financial base. In that respect, municipal governments in Canada, like their Australian counterparts, may feel somewhat powerless. As Edwards (2002) writes in a book review, In Citizens' Hall: Making Local Democracy Work, Carrel lays out his proposal for establishing municipal charters – or constitutions - that recognize that government legitimacy resides in citizens rather than in other governments. He starts by considering the well known state of municipal government in Canada, where local government is the creature of a provincial government. Carrel laments the inherent colonialism involved in this situation, which ensures that, although citizens may have rights, they have no power. What is also curious in the Canadian context is that the provinces have shifted more and more of the burden of services on local governments, which in principle, means more autonomy and power to act. As Vengroff and Whelan 2001) note, …functions, heretofore considered to be provincial or shared responsibilities are now being dumped on to the municipalities and local school boards. We find the somewhat paradoxical situation of seemingly greater “decentralization” of service delivery within provinces, but often without the accompanying transfer of revenue program delivery has moved well beyond the stage of rhetoric and is being actively pursued by governments across the country. (p 507) Such transfers have often been made under the notion that local governments can have the opportunity of making their own decisions and exercising flexibility, which could also translate into better services since those at the local level are those who know best what is essential in their areas. Canada seems quite similar to Australia in the sense that the constitution invests full authority for local government in the provincial government. If local governments had the power and the resources to do what they wanted, satisfaction levels among the people might be quite high in Canada considering that “In survey after survey, Canadians express greater trust and confidence in the governments that are closest to them, especially their own municipal government….The centralization of tax bases (e.g. property taxes and assessments) and functions like education, eliminate local initiative and the possibility for diversity and choice in the provision of many services” (Vengroff and Whelan 2001, p 509). Not everyone agrees, however, that municipalities in Canada should be considered creatures of provincial power and control. Magnusson (2005), for one, believes that subordinating local municipal power to the provinces is a 19th century phenomenon and does not match with the needs of today. According to Magnusson (2005 ), such submission of local to provincial authority “constricts innovation in much the same way that the actions of traditional local authorities did in the early 19th century, when reformers were trying to develop political authorities appropriate to the needs of an industrializing society. In our time, however, the state, rather than the local authorities, has been the main obstacle to innovation” (Magnusson 2005, p 129). From the above, it seems that to some extent Australia and Canadian local governments are in a similar boat, not able to exercise a great deal of power all by themselves. One development in Australia that arose out of reforms made in the 1980s was the strict limitations that had been placed on local governments in terms of what they could do. As Aulich points out, “a form of general competence powers was granted (labeled ‘positive’ powers in New South Wales) to enable councils to undertake any activities necessary for them to fulfill the functions and powers delegated to them” (Aulich 2005, p201). One might suppose that these new opportunities might be construed in positive terms by local authorities in Australia who do not have to act on the more restrictive terms of the past. In Australia, the result of the reforms instituted in the past few years, have actually meant, that “local government retains much of its traditional focus of concern yet is demonstrably leaner, more efficient and better managed2 (Aulich 2005, p 208). Community Consultation Whereas citizens may not feel the need to talk back to their federal representatives who seem far removed from the local sphere, they may be able to walk a few minutes to their local office and express themselves. Rather than waiting for citizens to come into the local office in anger after a decision has been made, there are indications that some local offices are consulting with citizens prior to embarking on major projects. With the community’s approval, it is difficult for the project to be condemned once it is up and running. In fact, more than ensuring that a project meets the approval of the public, Bishop (2000) suggests that community consultation is an important way to ensure that ethics plays an important role in the community: “Consultation also renders a perception of a more transparent and accountable policy process. This lends legitimacy and credibility not only to the policy in question, but also to the elected representatives or officers. In turn, public confidence in council decision-making is improved and trust generated” (p 24). Citizens often feel angry when important decisions are taken that affect them but without their input. In 2001, two municipalities in Canada, Pickering and Clarington, were upset that the federal government had decided on storing high-level radioactive waste permanently in their region. One local of Clarington, John Mutton, said that the “new waste management organization, outlined in Bill C27, the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, would include members of the nuclear industry but nobody from the local communities. "That's like putting the fox in charge of the nuclear chicken coop," Mutton said in an interview. He said the nuclear industry traditionally has been less than sensitive to local concerns” (Nuclear waste disposal plans worry mayors 2001). Even if the citizens end up agreeing with the government, they would feel empowered and have the feeling that they have a stake in their own future. Without such consultation, citizens almost feel the need to challenge the decision even if it is not as bad as it might seem. Municipal Waste Every municipality or local area has to worry about issues of waste, whether solid waste or those involving effluents or even medical waste. Such local decisions are certainly of great importance to people at the local level but sometimes the effects of the decision transcends the local area. For example, untreated effluents that are allowed to drift into the sea may affect communities outside the immediate area, meaning that bad decisions made in one area could end up becoming the headache of another municipality or area. Also, if a municipality fails to properly dispose of its waste, there are issues that tie in with the new drive towards sustainability across the globe. Municipalities in Canada take the issue of waste disposal very seriously. For example, the Canadian Federation of Municipalities has held several forums in which concrete plans are made to deal with issues of waste management in conjunction with the provincial and federal governments. In one such forum in 2003, among a number of problems identified was the following: Forum participants identified lack of political will as the major barrier to SWM projects in most municipalities. This stems from insufficient understanding of the costs and benefits among municipal councils and senior management, and an unwillingness to give SWM the same priority and funding as other infrastructure investments (e.g. competing demands in transportation, water and wastewater management). Another significant barrier is lack of legislation on waste diversion. In fact, municipal governments in Canada do not want to take a backseat to the waste management or other issues relating to the environment. They want to be considered important voices and partners in solving the problem. As the Federation of Canadian Municipalities note, “The complexity of this issue requires a renewed governance approach, with strengthened intergovernmental coordination, and clear, committed federal leadership. Municipal governments want to be part of a solution that positions Canada as a sustainable, competitive and prosperous nation. Canadians want to feel pride in their communities, and want to see their municipal governments implementing innovative solutions” (Clean Air and Climate Change). In Australia as well, it seems that local governments are very much involved in all phases of waste management. As the report Zero Waste notes, “all metropolitan and over half non-metropolitan respondents indicated they provide programs for either recycling promotion or waste education. Of the local governments not providing either service, the vast majority were classified as outer regional, remote or very remote districts. This would seem to confirm the expectation that recycling and waste education services are less likely to be provided in more sparsely populated, isolated communities.” The enthusiasm of municipalities and local communities in getting involved in waste management is admirable whether in Canada or in Australia. It seems obvious that if every individual and community contribute effectively towards such efforts, it is likely that the planet as a whole will benefit. And this raises the research question: Are local or municipal governments the best entities to make critical decisions regarding waste disposal and management? This will be examined in the next section of paper which will draw on various sources to consider whether the local level is truly equipped to make such weighty decisions on waste management. Bibliography Aulich, C. 2005. Australia: still a tale of Cinderella? In Comparing Local Governance Trends and Developments, ed B. Denters and L. Rose Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 193-210. Bishop, P. 2000. Customers, Citizens and Consultation: The ethics of representation. In Local Government, Public Enterprise & Ethics, ed P. Bishop and N. Preston. Leichhardt, NSW: Federation Press, 23-36. Clean Air and Climate Change. http://www.fcm.ca/English/View.asp [Retrieved May 7, 2009] Edwards, Anne. 2002. Citizens’ Hall: Making Local Democracy Work. 134, 108. FCM Solid Waste Management Forum, Halifax, Nova Scotia – November 2003 Forum Report http://www.sustainablecommunities.fcm.ca [Retrieved May 8, 2009] Magnusson, Warren. 2005. Are Municipalities Creatures of the Provinces? Journal of Canadian Studies, 39.2, p 5-18. Towards Zero Waste Development Scheme. 2007. Department of Environment and Conservation. http://www.zerowastewa.com.au [Retrieved May 7, 2009] Vengroff, Richard & Whelan, Robert K. 2001. Canadian Municipal Government in an Age of Neoliberalism. International Journal of Public Administration, 24.6, 503-510. Nuclear waste disposal plans worry mayors. 2001. Toronto Star, Nov 14, p. 04. Walls, Janice. 1997. Smoothing the move to a megacity. Daily Commercial News and Construction Record, May 6, 70.88, pA1. Read More