• 
• Japanese
• 
• IETC's Focal Area
• Waste Management
• Publications & Tools
• Meetings & Workshops
• Global Partnership on Waste Management
• Background
• Objectives
  & Expected Outcomes
• Framework
• Sub-focal Areas
• Information Platform
• Meetings
• Participation / Membership
• Water and Sanitation
• Publications & Tools
• Meetings & Workshops
• Resources
• Publications & Tools
• About IETC
• Background and History
• Director
• Activity Reports
• Supporting Foundations
• Internship
• Contact Us

2.5 Topic h: Management and planning

Local governments in North America have primary responsibility for managing MSW, with some involvement by state or provincial authorities and less by the federal or central government. Canada's approach is even more decentralized than that of the US; the Canadian federal government has few legislative mandates regarding MSWM, although it does have authority regarding hazardous wastes. In the US, on the other hand, there are minimum national-level design and operating standards in existence or under development for landfills, incineration, and materials recovery facilities. State-level standards that meet or exceed these federal minimums must be adopted at the state level and implemented by local governments and private firms.

Local public works departments normally administer solid waste programs, although other departments such as health or the environment are often involved. In addition, a number of parties who have an interest in local MSWM decisions have access to the political process, including elected officials, the news media, business interests, and citizens organizations. In some states and provinces, the economic and environmental pressures of waste disposal are causing the responsibility for waste management to shift from the local to the state/provincial level. The most serious or publicly contentious concerns have tended to get pushed even to the federal level in the US.

Planning and incentives

Some states and provinces have done little in the way of solid waste planning, while others have developed extensive legislation, innovative approaches, and highly skilled solid waste staff. Most have solid waste plans of some sort that define the goals and agenda for regional waste management action. These plans and supporting law often place requirements on the resources and programs of the local community and suggest appropriate program approaches. Approaches for fostering planning include both mandatory requirements for plan development, adoption, and implementation, as well as voluntary programs bolstered by incentives. Some laws require local governments to set up recycling centers or programs that will achieve specific levels of recycling; other laws impose recycling responsibilities on industries and businesses.

States and provinces also encourage local waste management approaches by making funding contingent upon indicators of program activity, such as yard waste and recycling programs. Legislation may also contain provisions for grants, matching funds for feasibility studies, technical assistance, program development and implementation, training programs, public education, educational curriculum materials, household hazardous waste and special waste programs, marketing and service directories, and information networks for both public and private waste managers.

The US Environmental Protection Agency and many states have established a hierarchy for waste management planning and implementation that ranks options roughly in terms of their desirability and relative role in an integrated waste management system: reduction and reuse, recycling and composting, waste-to- energy incineration, and land disposal. The specific application of this planning scheme will of course depend on local geographic, environmental, social, and economic conditions. The State of Oregon, for example, has established strict priorities for local planners, resulting in several very successful integrated waste management strategies on the county level and one of the most successful recycling programs in the US. Some state recycling plans are mandatory, while others make recycling services available to local communities on a voluntary basis. Some states encourage a regional approach in order to better coordinate waste management efforts.

Tax and other incentive-based policies also play a role in some jurisdictions, with tax credits being given for the purchase of recycling equipment or for particular industries that undertake recycling activities, such as paper or used oil recycling. Deposit-refund systems are used in some jurisdictions for beverage containers and automotive batteries. The beer industry in Ontario has been remarkably successful operating a deposit-refund system for years with more than a 90% capture rate. The success is in a large part due to the centralized nature of beer distribution through provincially operated Brewers Retail outlets, the only authorized distributors of beer. The soft drink industry across Canada has been far less successful in operating deposit-refund systems, largely due to the decentralized nature of its distribution.

Product procurement guidelines are another tool governmental units at all levels sometimes employ. The US federal government, for example, has procurement guidelines mandating the purchase of paper, lubricating oil, retread tires, building insulation, and other products with a certain recycled content.

Ownership and management

Ownership and management of solid waste collection and disposal facilities in North America varies along a spectrum from fully publicly owned and operated programs, to government contracts with private firms, to freely operating private firms in an open market. Often-cited advantages of private or contractual systems include increased system efficiency and service due to competition, less susceptibility to political influence, greater management flexibility, and lower strain on government budgets. The advantages of a publicly-owned and -operated system include its nonprofit character, government purchasing advantages, centralized operation, and standardized procedures.

As an outgrowth of restrictions on local government spending, municipalities have increasingly turned to private ownership and operation of solid waste disposal and collection services. Studies have shown that municipalities can often cut their costs significantly by contracting out waste collection services. Private ownership also transfers much of the technical, financial, and potential cleanup risks to the private sector. In addition, many municipalities prefer privatization because they do not have ready access to the necessary pool of operators, engineers, and maintenance personnel required to operate a facility.

Some municipalities prefer public ownership of solid waste facilities because public ownership gives community officials more control over facility development and operation. Another alternative is some form of joint public/private ownership and operation agreement. This option has the advantage of enabling the risks and costs of facility design, construction, and operation to be allocated between a community and its contractors in a way that is tailored to local needs and circumstances. Many municipalities choose facilities that are publicly owned, but privately operated, often by the same firms that designed and built the facilities.

To encourage efficient MSW operations, some cities, such as Phoenix, have turned to privately operated service in some areas, while maintaining municipally operated service in others. Some of these cities have even adopted competitive bidding between the public works department and private contractors.

Table of Contents

• Brochure
• 
• 



• International Year of Forests
• 
• 



• World Environment Day
• 
• 



• UNEP Campaign
• 
•