Rae Ian, Brown Paul
School of Philosophy, Anthropology and Social Inquiry, Faculty of Arts, University of Melbourne, Vic, Australia.
J Environ Manage. 2009 Apr;90(4):1583-92. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.05.013. Epub 2008 Sep 18.
This paper explores issues of governance and decision-making structures associated with the problem of hexachlorobenzene (HCB) waste at Botany in New South Wales. From a government perspective, the problem is 'downstream' of a well-known national controversy over whether Australia should have a high-temperature incinerator (HTI) to 'dispose' of such scheduled wastes. The 1992 decision not to proceed with HTI followed an extensive process of public consultation, which, against the expectations of industry and government, saw the emergence of Australia-wide community opposition. Alternative national management plans were formulated for the treatment of several types of organochlorine waste, with the scheme of these plans first approved in 1993 by the Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council (ANZECC). The HCB Management Plan is one of three such plans (the others being for PCBs and organochlorine pesticides). With this, ANZECC established the Scheduled Waste Management Group comprising government officials, and the National Advisory Body (NAB) made up of stakeholders. Officially the NAB had oversight of the HCB problem until 2002 when it was disbanded. As a result of the HTI experience, new community consultation protocols were introduced in association with the alternative management plans. For HCBs, which are confined almost entirely to Orica's Botany site in southeastern Sydney, this led to the establishment of the Community Participation and Review Committee (CPRC), a representative body with review and advisory functions. This paper draws conclusions from this history about government processes of decision making, the role of individual and institutional actors, the central importance of trust, and the democratisation of risk management. Using concepts delineated by McDonell [1991. Toxic waste management in Australia: why did policy reform fail? Environment 33(6), 11-13, 33-39; 1997. Scientific and everyday knowledge: trust and the politics of environmental initiatives. Social Studies of Science 27, 819-863.] we identify swings towards, then away from institutionalised trust. Across two decades, government and industry have placed faith in centrally controlled mechanisms for public participation, hoping to garner trust and legitimate privileged technological solutions. On the 'backswings', these processes have seen public trust dissipate in the face of government misunderstanding of the opportunities for effective bureaucratic interventions.
本文探讨了与新南威尔士州博特尼的六氯苯（HCB）废物问题相关的治理和决策结构问题。从政府的角度来看，这个问题是在澳大利亚是否应该拥有一座高温焚烧炉（HTI）来“处理”此类列入清单的废物这一全国性著名争议的“下游”。1992年决定不推进高温焚烧炉项目之前经历了广泛的公众咨询过程，出乎行业和政府的预料，出现了全澳大利亚范围的社区反对。针对几种有机氯废物的处理制定了替代性的国家管理计划，这些计划的方案于1993年首次获得澳大利亚和新西兰环境与保护委员会（ANZECC）批准。六氯苯管理计划是此类计划中的三个之一（其他两个分别针对多氯联苯和有机氯农药）。据此，澳大利亚和新西兰环境与保护委员会设立了由政府官员组成的列入清单废物管理小组以及由利益相关者组成的国家咨询机构（NAB）。正式而言，国家咨询机构一直对六氯苯问题进行监督，直到2002年被解散。由于高温焚烧炉项目的经历，在推行替代性管理计划时引入了新的社区咨询方案。对于几乎完全局限于悉尼东南部奥rica公司博特尼场地的六氯苯，这导致成立了社区参与和审查委员会（CPRC），这是一个具有审查和咨询职能的代表机构。本文从这段历史中得出有关政府决策过程、个人和机构行为体的作用、信任的核心重要性以及风险管理民主化的结论。运用麦克唐奈[1991年。澳大利亚的有毒废物管理：政策改革为何失败？《环境》33(6)，11 - 13，33 - 39；1997年。科学知识与日常知识：信任与环境倡议的政治。《科学的社会研究》27，819 - 863。]所阐述的概念，我们确定了先是倾向于、然后又背离制度化信任的摆动情况。在二十年的时间里，政府和行业一直信赖集中控制的公众参与机制，希望获得信任并认可有特权的技术解决方案。而在“回落”阶段，面对政府对有效官僚干预机会的误解，这些过程导致公众信任消散。
