Integral solid residue and waste management in Guatemala
A systemic national policy with local impact

The concept: An institutional arrangement as the basis for working with multiple players on different levels

Often the creation of policies, as one outcome of policy advice in the frame of international technical cooperation does not have the desired impact in terms of visible and tangible results on national and local level. In the Latin American context, this is generally due to policies being generated through desk studies by only a few government officials and experts, often failing to take into consideration the knowledge and interests of the sectors the policy is supposed to address. For this reason, policies lack the ownership of the stakeholders, with even worse results in unstable political circumstances with a high fluctuation of official staff. Moreover, policies frequently do not include mechanisms and means for their implementation, thus remaining theoretical exercises without practical impact.

A more effective solution may be a systemic policy design. This approach is oriented towards the practical implementation of concrete and simple measures and programs that are derived from a participatory and systemic analysis of a complex socio-political situation based on objective and technical criteria. As all interested sectors and experts are involved at the same time, the practical orientation is maintained and ownership is assured. The systemic approach involves actors and ongoing processes in a conducive policy implementation, which is focused on relations and feedback loops, as illustrated in the following.

Systemic advisory work is based on the interpretation of the term system, which has the following implications:

1. A system is formed by interrelated elements. The form of interrelation is defined by the structure of the system.
2. A system is formed by sub-systems. These subsystems can either be understood as black boxes, which can be described solely by their input and outputs, or they can be understood as systems themselves, composed of interrelated elements. It depends on the focus, whether these subsystems are interpreted as elements (black boxes) or systems.
3. A system can be delimited from its environment and consequently has borders. Although these borders are permeable and not necessarily well defined they give an identity to the systems (i.e. an ecosystem, and institution or a family)
4. The players and agencies may be interpreted as creative elements within the feedback processes, thereby influencing and modifying the system.

This interpretation emphasizes the importance of relationships among actors and agencies that are formalized through institutional arrangements. In addition, it includes the approach of capacity-building in an integral manner as it depends on the level of intervention or analysis, where the focus of the work is laid:

• on the relationships between institutions
• within the "black boxes" of agencies to work on intra-institutional relationships
• on the human resources inside the respective agencies

The focus is flexible can be shifted flexibly in the course of the process.
 
The systemic approach described above has the advantage that it is no longer necessary to think in "hierarchical" administrative or political levels. Furthermore in both the design and in the implementation of policies, one can design synergic and simultaneous processes that feed back to each other. Generating and agreeing on a policy may be interpreted as a first institutional arrangement that gives the basis for the creation of other more operational agreements.

In local capacity-building for the specific case of integral solid waste management, one can differentiate between four functions that should be joined through institutional arrangements:

• Political leadership and political coordination
• Financial support
• Technical advice and organizational development
• Local implementation of the integral management of solid waste and residues

The experience: Creation of a systemic policy and advice for its implementation at the national and local level

The experience presented herein is based mainly on the following processes and events that primarily took place simultaneously with mutual feedback.

• The systemic and participatory generation of integral solid residue and waste management policies through consultation with experts and stakeholders
• The establishment of an agreement between the National Commission for Solid Waste Management (CONADES), the Social Investment Fund (FIS) and the German Technical Cooperation Agency (GTZ) through de Program for Decentralization and Municipal Development (DDM-GTZ)
• Ongoing advice for the implementation of the policy by DDM-GTZ
• Local capacity-building for the integral management of solid waste in the municipality of Rabinal, Baja Verapaz, where the agreement on national level materialized locally
• The replication of local experiences generated in Rabinal elsewhere in the country through policy implementation
• The creation of technical bilateral cooperation between México and Guatemala to strengthen capacities

The process that facilitated the establishment of institutional agreements is presented in Illustration 1.

A range of participatory and systemic instruments were used for the generation of the National Policy for the Integral Management of Solid Residues and Waste. The composition of these instruments ensured that the inputs of each sector were gathered and addressed in a systematic manner based on a consensus reached by a group of experts on the subject.

The policy came into effect on April 4, 2005 through Government Resolution No. 111-2005.  The methodology is regarded as innovative in Guatemala and has generated a great deal of interest on the part of other sectors. In addition, it is being replicated in a systemic process to generate the National Policy for Conservation and Environmental Protection and Enhancement, promoted by the Ministry for the Environment and Natural Resources. So far it is the only policy in Guatemala whose accomplishment is measurable through indicators.

In addition to the policy generation, CONADES and the Social Investment Fund (FIS) received advice on establishing formal relationships with each other to complement the political efforts by CONADES through an investment and training strategy. This arrangement was formalized through an agreement for which GTZ provided the technical advice. A first pilot project was set up in the municipality of Rabinal, Baja Verapaz. A municipal solid waste management facility was built with financing from FIS, which included the improvement of services for garbage collection, production of compost, recycling and the final disposal. The project thoroughly involved the local communities living in the surroundings of the municipal waste management facility. Through the improved waste management the quality of living of the local population could be improved immediately through the elimination of smoke from uncontrolled fires and the reduction of odors and flies. The overall administration of the municipality was strengthened through continuous advice by DDM-GTZ: An office for municipal services and environment was set up and equipped, a cadastre for users of municipal services was set up, tariffs for the municipal services were defined and applied. The latter led to an immediate improvement of the municipal income.

Ilustration 1: Creation of joint programs through the establishment of institutional agreements

At the same time, CONADES and eight other municipalities received direct advice for the promotion of municipal and inter-municipal projects relating to the integral management of solid waste and residues within the area of intervention of the DDM-GTZ program. Outside of this area, CONADES promoted an investment program in other municipalities without direct advice from DDM.

Throughout the process, instruments for the decentralization and promotion of municipalities developed by the Mexican government (based on local agenda 21) were adapted in the context of solid waste management. Through the advice of DDM-GTZ, CONADES realized the power of this methodology. Following this, formal contacts were established between the Government of Mexico and the Government of Guatemala (through the Presidential Commission for the Modernization and Reform of the State -COPRE-,  the Presidential Secretariat of Executive Coordination -SCEP - and the Programming and Planning Secretariat - SEGEPLAN).  This led to the implementation of bilateral projects between both countries in the issues of decentralization and solid waste management.

In this manner and through the strategic and systemic linkage of different consultation processes, always taking into account the importance of working in networks and alliances, it was possible to achieve national impact through institutional agreements that produced visible and tangible local results. In addition, it was possible to create an international synergy through the establishment of technical bilateral cooperation between Guatemala and Mexico.

Conclusions:  Success factors, lessons learnt  and replicability

 
The following general success factors and lessons learnt may be drawn from this experience:

1. The key approach was to achieve a commitment among the various actors in providing advice for the management of relationships based on objectives, goals and clear rules, in other words, through institutional agreements.
2. It is important to design consultation processes properly, combining process architecture with a vision of flexibility and of possible interrelationships among projects.
3. The design of an impact-oriented policy with the participation of key actors paved the way for its successful implementation and created a commitment that gave sustainability to the process.
4. The policy created the political space for the agency in charge of this topic to establish relationships with other entities such as local governments, national agencies, donors and other national governments.
5. Facilitators, designers and directors participating in the "preparation process" must have a strong professional profile. The process can be easily impeded by lower professional quality. This involves a difficult selection of facilitators in developing countries, where the facilitation profession is very new.

Replicability of the consultation process:

• It is necessary to have professional experience and certitude in the design and systemic facilitation of a systemic policy development process, even if instruments and methodologies seem to be simple.
• Teamwork is extremely important.
• The consultation process combined the work done in the field of relationships and institutional arrangements between agencies with technical consultation aimed inwardly towards the agencies.
• The champions of the process need to have a systemic vision.
• The methodology is being replicated for the creation of other policies, still broadening the range of applied systemic instruments.
• The institutional arrangement approach is being replicated in other agencies that deal with solid waste and residues with the purpose of promoting investment and training programs.

Lessons learned:

• The amount of time needed for a complete policy development process is often underestimated. This is to a large extent due to the political and social dynamics inside and between institutions. On the other hand, an impact-oriented policy development induces changes inside the respective institutions that need to be at least partly absorbed within the process.
• The processes can easily become politicized. This requires advice with foresight and for the advisors to remain within their role as consultants in order not to become part of the political game.