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 Env. Bill of Rights Ontario Water Resources Act

7. 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 bylaws Certain waste collection contracts Certain municipal waste management initiatives (e.g., composting)

8. Legislation affecting waste management in Ontario Environmental Protection Act: Part V - Regulation 347 Waste Reduction (3 Rs) Regulations Manifest system, licensing provisions Dangerous Goods Transportation Act Environmental Assessment Act Environmental Bill of Rights Ontario Water Resources Act

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

10. PROVINCIAL Policy:

11. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL Policy:

12. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL REGIONAL Policy:

13. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL REGIONAL MUNICIPAL Policy:

14. NATIONAL PROVINCIAL REGIONAL MUNICIPAL LOCAL Policy:

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

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

17. ‘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

18. ‘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

19. ‘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

20. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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