1.     There is high interest and engagement from local governments and communities on how to solve the challenge of waste collection. However, there are concerns regarding who finances this effort, how to increase technical skills, and their political/electoral effects.  2.     We’ve learned through mapping that the implementation of previous public policies  (particularly legal tools implemented by local governments such as “Transmetro”) have higher chances of success when there is a process of adaptation that helps people understand and adopt changes. Also, we learned that the use of sanctions enforced locally have worked (such as using parking-locks).  3.     Waste management is a complex challenge linked to the achievement of each SDG. The use of “sensemaking” during a brainstorming workshop identified potential barriers to implement policies: lack of public support, inappropriate incentive structure, policy flaws, lack of institutional capacity, or unfavorable contexts.  4.     We need to better understand how people change their behavior to adopt sound waste management practices, considering that many people already understand what needs to be done and its benefits.  5.     Using non-traditional data sources such as high-resolution satellite imagery offer opportunities to increase the capacity to monitor and understand waste management practices. However, insights derived from such data sources can only complement (rather than substitute) official statistics needed to inform decisions, and there are associated costs related to infrastructure as well as human capital. 

Blog link will be updated on February 7 https://muniestanzuela.gob.gt/taller-del-lanzamiento-acuerdo-164-2021/

Regarding the process itself, with counterparts, it was good. We set a schedule of meetings and particularly workshops, so everybody could plan and get ready for the participatory exchanges. Good will to work together with UNDP was not a barrier, allowing to impact the system with openness to opportunities to try new things.   Procurement of services and goods within UNDP in the short period of time were difficult. We had difficulties to hire the consultant who was facilitating the workshops to develop a waste-management transition plan. This delay had implications which compromise support and coordination with counterparts. Also, we did were not able to purchase the data collection devices, which limited the capacity to involve more people in the observation exercises.    We also see that there are difficulties to integrate different actors into a joint effort. Some of these difficulties have to do with differences over who must bear the economic burden of the effort of implementing waste management policies, if the local government, the national government, or citizens. Other difficulties have to do with managing expectations of citizens and focusing the effort on a topic, because there is fear from public institutions that it could have political or electoral setbacks trying to address unreasonable expectations. In general, coordinating the multiplicity of actors and interests involved in waste management is challenging.    There is a barrier in the use of unusual data for public institutions, because most data sources are not public by nature and hence do not constitute official statistics in which decisions can be based (for example to impose sanctions or craft regulations). Also, they require additional expertise and investments. We may be able to address the difficulty of expertise and investment through alliances.   Finalizing partnership agreements, with academia for example, is challenging using UNDP standard templates (Statement of Intent and MoU), where any recommended change to such templates or use of new formats proposed by a potential partner needs to be escalated to regional and/or headquarters offices for review. This impacts the lab’s ability to execute activities with partner organizations in an agile way and under the learning cycle structure.   Knowledge and understanding that the protection of the environment is beneficial is insufficient to change behavior. And waste management does not seem to be cost-effective, and there are legal and political limitations to trying to use taxation to shift incentives that would affect vulnerable populations disproportionately. 

Several of the categories described above apply to the same data sources.    We used examples of high-resolution satellite images to test how they could help increase the capacity of public institutions to implement waste-management policies. This type of data can be regarded as “spatiotemporal data” (to see change over time in a location), “geospatial data”, “drone & satellite data”, “spatial data”, and “primary data”. We, tested the use of these data through a “focus group”, which we then transcribed (“Automated language processing / transcription data”).    We used freely available data about public opinion by LAPOP to evaluate the association between participation in decision making and supporting environmental public policies. This type of data can be regarded as “open data”, “citizen data”, “socioeconomic data”, “surveys”, and “secondary data”.    We used observational data we collected when conducting randomized control experiments to test if practical demonstrations helped to correctly classify organic and non-organic waste, and to test if understanding the effort of public institutions increased support. To assess the level of homogeneity in the sample, we also collected data about socio-economic characteristics associated with development. This type of data can be regarded as “socioeconomic data”, “behavioral nudge messaging”, “observation”, and “primary data”.    We used data from workshops, as well as from literature, to identify existing solutions to waste-management practices. This type of data can be regarded as: “participatory observation”, “issue mapping”, and “literature review and grey documents analysis”.    Finally, we used ethnographic as well as data from characterization studies to understand the type of waste produced in households, allowing us room to work within the prioritized areas of Estanzuela, Guatemala City, and Pachalum. 

We used co-creation, participatory design, and human-centered design, to develop a waste-management transition plan along with citizens, local government, and the ministry of environment.    To test our hypothesis, we needed to devise interventions quickly. Therefore, we used a proof of concept to see if satellite imagery was effective, before needing to gain real access and capacity to analyze them. We also piloted the prototype of a demonstration on how to classify organic waste, informed by behavioral insights. We used randomized control trials to test these interventions between groups, and data visualizations to share the results.    We used solutions mapping to identify existing solutions to waste-management, and used sensemaking to organize barriers to implementing environmental policies into categories and subcategories. 

During this cycle we worked with citizens from neighborhoods to understand how waste management currently works, and what could be done to improve it.    We worked with development committees to develop a waste-management transition plan along with the local governments (municipalities).     We worked with waste-collectors to understand their needs and challenges during waste collection and develop ways to improve the waste-collection truck.

We worked closely with Universidad del Valle de Guatemala, and students to propose improvements to waste collection truck.    We started a collaboration with Carnegie Mellon University in USA to develop a partnership in which postgraduate students could get involved in data analysis for shaping environmental policies. 

We worked with private sector enterprises, particularly with a glass factory, who is interested in collaborating to expand the use of glass, given its environmental benefits and capacity to prevent it from becoming waste. 

We worked with the local government of Guatemala in zone 5. We conducted workshops to device a transition plan to implement waste-management policies. This effort also involved the Ministry of Environment, and we conducted similar activities with the local government of Estanzuela in the department of Zacapa.    In addition, we started solid waste characterization with municipalities of Estanzuela, Zacapa; and Pachalum, Quiché, both as prioritized municipal territories in the Motagua River Watershed.    We also worked with the Ministry of Environment to assess capacity regarding the use of satellite images, and data management linked to waste. Particularly, the team in charge of the National Information System for Climate Change.

Waste collectors were certainly an unusual partner, and they were special, because their perspective was never considered by the public institutions when devising the waste-management policy. 

We worked closely with the programmatic area of Environment within the country office, to propose and validate the activities within the cycle in order to make them relevant, and to coordinate approaches with public institutions. 

We may not had been able to gain insights quickly regarding the use of satellite imagery if we had not used a proof of concept. It would have taken too much effort to gain access, and by that point, there is usually too much invested to back down, and we might have overseen how important is to be aware that this form of data cannot replace officialized data yet.    We may not had been able to gain insights of the main components of a transition plan to implement a waste-management policy if we had not used participatory workshops that engaged actors from society and public institutions. Without this diversity of perspectives, the map of relevant actors would have been limited, not letting us understand the nuances of waste-management in different geographies and socioeconomic strata. Also, gaining insight into the tensions on how to distribute responsibility to implement these policies. We would not have shared insights among actors on which are the priorities to start with, such as sensibilization of the policy, improving regulation, setting tariffs, and setting up a data management system.     The use of sensemaking was quite useful to organize the variety of potential barriers to implement environmental public policies, and through this, it was relatively straight forward to come up with hypothesis, and design experiments to test them.

Closed