Name: Gerhard Berchtold Personal Identifier: T6153858 · 3 to test the T860 EDM framework by a stakeholder in the process. The NCEDR (2002) defines environmental decisions as actions

T860 Environmental Decision Making:

A Systems Approach – Project Report

Name: Gerhard Berchtold

Personal Identifier: T6153858

Title of Project: A critique of the Austrian Environment Ministry approach to stakeholder participation in the decision making process of drafting and proposing a new federal waste management law – AWG 2002 using the T860 framework as comparison

Date: March 24th, 2002

T860 Project Report – 24.03.2002 - Gerhard Berchtold – Personal ID: T6153858 – page 2 of 49

Note

The T860 project report and the project (Appendix I) form a unity. The project was the first

draft of the project report, until I realised its volume. The appendix serves as reference to

„Perspective Boxes“, and there is no need to read it, hence, it is not a device to circumvent the

word limit.

I broke down the project into the report several times, still I was unable to edit it in 4.000

words. Sections 1 to 13 of the report contain approx. 7.500 words. A former student said on

the tape that she had a problem writing the report in just 10.000 words. Well, I think, 7.500

words are a quite acceptable compromise regarding the various subsystems of the decision-

making process investigated as well as the „musts“ of the project.


A critique of the Austrian Environment Ministry approach to stakeholder participation in the

decision making process of drafting and proposing a new federal waste management law –

AWG 2002 using the T860 framework as comparison

Table of contents

Summary – key words

1. Introduction

2. Exploring and summarising the system of interest

3. What makes the process an environmental decision?

4. The Federal Economic Chamber draft

5. Stakeholder participation is the right of a stakeholder to submit an evaluation statement

6. The perspective of the Environment Ministry - the draft

7. Stakeholder perspectives of the proposal

8. Stakeholders perspectives on making and proposing the draft and their involvement

9. The Ministers Council Resolution and Parliament legislation

10. How do stakeholders evaluate the outcome, draft, process, their role?

11. Would the application of the T860 framework have made a difference?

12. Critical analysis of the T860 framework in the project context

13. Conclusions

Acknowledgements

References

Appendix


Summary – key words:

Report investigates making of Austrian waste management law AWG 2002 - T860 framework for analysis,

comparison of process - recent EDM situation – systems thinking - root definition of system of interest - evaluate

decision making - learn how stakeholders could facilitate better environmental policy making - ministry

decision-maker – stakeholders pressure - EC-Commission suit – ministry proposal „AWG 2002“ – social

partners rejected – personal stakeholder involvement - waste management legislation is EDM process - EC and

national norms - protected public environmental interests - stakeholder analysis - who does law serve? –

stakeholders complain lack of participation and consideration - ministry hierarchical approach executing power

deciding for stakeholders over problems and opportunities - stakeholders participate after draft proposed –

ministry technocratic, politically expedient approach selecting, favouring stakeholders - exclusive evaluation –

ministers´ council resolution – lobbying in parliament– congressman appointed mediator - last minute crisis

management – congressmen exerted pressure on FEC EPD – FEC „positive progress“ – „improvements

achieved“ – parliament environment committee milestone – parliament passed law – minister claims tripartisan

success – traps in thinking – mediator reduced risk and uncertainty making provisions inapplicable –

uncertainty and ignorance approach – questionnaire monitor, evaluate stakeholders – evaluation of

questionnaire reveals trends - basis for change in political mechanisms - law serves no designer´s intentions –

overlapping stakeholder consensus on key questions – disappointment with process and law – no gain for

government or environment – clear learning message to ministry – law lose-lose-situation – T860 framework

application would have produced different outcome – systemic approach – purposeful system - open end

approach - start off participatory – „how to fold in other values in decision-making process and create policy

cohesion?“ - stakeholders reject models of ministry assessing effects and effectiveness of policy measures -

policy evaluation research - evaluation of existing policy is information relevant for making new policy - assess

future impacts of environmental policy measures - choices between alternative policy options – T860 framework

„ought“-model of prescriptive analysis - guide to EDM as learning process - strengths of framework

applicability for environmental decision-making - framework not a simple tool - simplified version of framework

should be promoted and presented to decision-makers - framework revealed shortcomings of process and

findings could demonstrate decision-makers how much they are off-course and how to do it better next time.


A critique of the Austrian Environment Ministry app roach to stakeholder participation

in the decision making process of drafting and proposing a new federal waste

management law – AWG 2002 using the T860 framework as comparison

1. Introduction

This paper investigates the making of the Austrian waste management law AWG 2002, using

several iterations of the T860 framework for analysis and comparison of the process. When

exploring the context of issues, major stakeholders, their problem or opportunity views are

identified, and the boundary around the system of interest drawn includes the decision maker

(ministry), and the major stakeholders, the legal representations of workers (consumers) AK,

economy (including myself) FEC, and agriculture PKLWK, they represent the social-partners

and were actively involved in the process. The investigation is normative and descriptive

regarding contents of the law stirring the stakeholders opposition, becomes prescriptive

analysis when evaluating the stakeholders perspective of the process during and afterwards. I

was actively involved as a real stakeholder: long-time environmental policy consultant, waste

management business man, elected officer of the executive committee of the FEC branch of

waste and waste water management and chairman of the legal advisory working group in

charge of producing the consolidated statements of the branch on legislative proposals within

the FEC evaluation process. The aims of the project are to analyse the decision-situation of

making the AWG from the T860 framework perspective to find out, what can be learned from

it, and how to improve the decision-making. Reasons for the choice are that the process is a

most recent environmental legislation decision-making situation as example of stakeholder

analysis during and at the end of the process, to reveal what characterises the type of decision-

making and contributing factors, analysing, evaluating views of individual stakeholders with

the outcome and the process. The interpretation of the results, based on this model of real


situation process analysis, is to demonstrate the decision-makers the need for different and

more participatory environmental policy making.

The application of the T860 framework is compulsory, and a very useful tool to understand

and learn from the decision-situation.

Finally the framework has to be investigated in terms of strengths and weaknesses, when

describing how and why it was applied.

Figure 1: System of interest – the introduction

AWG 2002 MINISTRY

DRAFT

THE CONTENT

THE PROCESS

STAKEHOLDERS PERSPECTIVES

MY AIMS OF THE

PROJECT

MY ROLE AS STAKEHOLDER

REASONS FOR MY CHOICE

APPLY THE T860

FRAMEWORK

CONTEST CRITICISE THE FRAMEWORK


2. Exploring and summarising the system of interest

The root definition of the system of interest is a system to evaluate the decision-making

process involved in the development of the AWG 2002 draft so as to learn how all involved

stakeholders could facilitate better environmental decision making (EDM) in the future, most

of all the ministry as major decision maker. The model (Fig. 2) of the system of interest

shows the main events and issues of the EDM process described in this paper.

Figure 2: System of interest – the making of the AWG 2002 process


The Austrian waste management law „Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz“ AWG 1990, BGBl. 325,

amended 14 times, came under pressure from various national and international stakeholders.

The EC-Commission took legal action against Austria in 2001 for non-compliance, „social-

partners“ demanded changes, a parliament resolution 1998 required government to propose a

new AWG. The government took up the issue as objective in the coalition agreement and

declaration of government 2000. The FEC version of a new AWG was published in July

2001. The ministry ordered three studies on waste management published in July 2001 as

scientific basis of the new AWG.

The ministry´s waste management section published the proposal for a new „AWG 2002“ in

September 2001. This draft immediately stirred opposition from stakeholders. The common

undertone was the lack of participation in the making of the law draft process. All

stakeholders objected to the draft.

On January 16th 2002 the new version of the AWG ministry draft was available among the

key stakeholders, taking account of many of the stakeholder´s complaints, but stopping short

of conceding to some key waste management branch´s requirements. The Council of

Ministers resolution passed this version on to the parliament on January 22nd 2002.

The FEC and I lobbied on parliament and government.

I cannot say that I am pleased with the result, nor can any other stakeholder say this law

matches expectations, however, the law emerging from the parliament environment

committee on February 19th 2002 was remarkably different from the ministers council

resolution version, because the stakeholders pressure had initiated crisis management by

parliament and finally resulted in a substantially different version passed by parliament on

February 27th 2002.

The main multiple causes of the AWG 2002 draft are shown in Appendix 2 of App. I.


3. What makes the process an environmental decision?

The Austrian federal constitution provides the competence for federal law makers to regulate

matters of hazardous wastes and of all other wastes only as far as there is a requirement for

harmonised federal provisions. Because of this co-existence or dualism of federal and state

competences in Austria (2001) ten waste management laws and numerous federal ministry or

state government ordinances regulated the objectives and principles of waste management

implementing the precautionary principle, and protection of „public interests“ as of Article 4

waste directive (75/442/EEC, App. I Perspective Box PB 1) in order to prevent negative

impacts on human health or the environment. Waste management law making is an

environmental decision-making process regulated by EC and national norms, because the

treatment or disposal of wastes in a way not conforming with the precautionary principle can

cause an environmental problem as defined by Sloep and van Dam-Mieras (1995) by

changing the state of the physical environment brought about by human waste with

unacceptable effects from the perspective of society´s shared norms, and is thus socially

constructed in the sense of Liberatore (1995). It is a controversial issue partly shown in Figure

3 to test the T860 EDM framework by a stakeholder in the process. The NCEDR (2002)

defines environmental decisions as actions affecting the environment´s capacity to provide for

human needs and desires.

Figure 3


Waste management is covered implicitely by the environmental Title XIX of the EC-Treaty.

„Community policy on the environment shall contribute to preserving, protecting and

improving the quality of the environment; protecting human health; prudent and rational

utilisation of natural resources; ... aim at a high level of protection ... based on the

precautionary principle ... principles ... preventive action ... environmental damage ...

rectified at source ... polluter should pay.“ (Article 174)

The EC´s 5th Environmental Action Programme EAP „Towards Sustainability“ (1993)

continues to address major environmental issues such as waste management: „The choice of

priorities in this sector has direct economic and environmental consequences and is of direct

relevance not only to environment policies but to technology, economic and consumer

policies.“

The Council Directive on waste (75/442/EEC) provides the framework for harmonization of

legislation.

The Hazardous Waste Directive (91/689/EEC) adopted rules applying to correct management

of hazardous waste and to use a precise and uniform definition of hazardous waste based on

experience.

In January 2001 the EC-Commission took legal action against Austria (C-194/2001) for non-

compliance with waste directives (App. I, PB 2) as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4


4. The Federal Economic Chamber draft

The Federal Economic Chamber FEC established a working group, including myself, in

November 2000 and contracted environmental lawyers to jointly draft an FEC version of a

new AWG, itself a quasi-iconic model of specific environmental legislation.

The process started off participatory. In multiperspective round-table discussions the

problems with the existing AWG were explored and the opportunities of a new AWG defined.

There was room for conflict between various branches, and also conflict between the

economy and the lawyers with predetermined expert opinion of the new law. The issues were

openly discussed and mutual agreement was found by round-table participants at various

meetings before the final draft was published in July 2001. Considerable conflict emerged

between sectors´ representatives and contracted lawyers, when the FEC stakeholders later

learned that one of the law firms was also contracted by the ministry with a similar task.

The approach taken by the FEC EPD to resolve the conflicts was democratic, based on

scenario discussions, enabled stakeholders to jointly own the AWG draft, representing their

compromise. The key points are summarised in App. I, PB 3.

The FEC process was an example of participatory decision-making. The way it started off

enabled active democratic participation, open discussions finally produced joint ownership.

Figure 5: The FEC problem/opportunity view


The topic was applicability, simplification, harmonisation (state laws and EC-directives) and

less bureacracy. The level of decision-making was primarily national.

My personal interest was function-based, experience and self-mobilisation.

Public participation in the process was limited to the round-table participants.

Regarding public interest in the FEC draft only the stakeholders responded, the AK rejected it

as business oriented, the PKLWK rejected the draft, eliminating existing legal exceptions for

farmers, causing competition with waste management.

Figure 6: Competition between waste management and farmers over biowaste

The ministry took the ignoring bureaucratic approach and did not officially consider the draft,

supported by just one social-partner.

It would have produced a different outcome, if the FEC EPD would have invited the AK from

the beginning to participate in the FEC working group, support by two stakeholders would

have enforced the draft by the legal requirement for the ministry to consider it at least.

Figure 6


Figure 7: FEC - process stakeholders - objectives


5. Stakeholder participation is the right of a stakeholder to submit an evaluation

statement

The process of first evaluation allows for written statements of evaluation by those legally

entitled to evaluate a law draft, including „social partners“, the mandatory professional

representative organisations like the FEC, AK, PKLWK with compulsory membership at the

national level. By law governments are obliged to consult with Chambers on legislative

projects and important regulations. In many laws a provision is made to involve Chambers in

decision-making and administrative procedures. At the international level, the draft must also

satisfy the EC-Commission regarding harmonised legislation. The consideration and

evaluation of a stakeholder statement is beyond regulation and at the discretion of a ministry

proposing a draft in the first run, trying to push it through a ministers council resolution in the

second. The consultative participation process ends with an organisation´s evaluation of a

draft. Informally direct consultations between stakeholders and the ministry and parliament

may be held, at that stage the real decision-making process of developing the law in

parliament reaches its peak.

The stakeholders in this particular environmental decision making process are the ministry as

first decision-maker, the social-partners, and elected law-makers in parliament.

The branch of waste management is a stakeholder group as identified in App. I, PB 4, from

my perspective, one most affected by the waste management law. A stakeholder in this

system of interest is identified by CATWOE (App. I, Systems Box 1) as advocated in SSM

by Checkland and Scholes (1991) in combination with Ulrich´s (1996) systems boundary

setting questions. A stakeholder in this context is determined by exposure to the law, the

willingness to participate in the decision-making process and the written expression of

problems and opportunities of the draft. The stakeholders considered in this system of interest

are at the national level the BMLFUW, responsible for waste management and remediation of

„superfund“ sites, with the interest in waste management command-and-control as well as


surviving the bureaucracy reform, the FEC including the various branches with the business

perspective, the AK with the employees and consumers perspectives, the PKLWK with the

agricultural perspectives, the social-partners legally entitled to participate in the evaluation

statement phase of a law-draft, and because their comments are published. See App. I,

Systems Map in Figure 3, and App. I, Appendix 3, comprehensive stakeholder list.

The Austrian Federal Economic Chamber FEC coordinates and represents the interests of the

Austrian business community on the national and international level, is financially self-

sufficient, managed through democratic self-government, making it fully independent from

government.

The branch of waste and waste water management (2.256 member firms) is represented by an

executive committee in the FEC. I am an elected officer of this committe, heading the legal

advisory working group, actively participating in several working groups on waste

management and environmental law.

The Federal Chamber of Workers AK is the representation of social, economic, professional

and cultural interests of wokers and consumer protection.

The nine states representations of agricultural economies are represented by the PKLWK, its

federal umbrella organisation.

6. The perspective of the Environment Ministry - the draft

In September 2001 the Environment Ministry proposed a draft „federal law on a sustainable

waste management AWG 2002“, summarised in App. I, PB 5.

The effects are presented in their best side, however, the COBA models used were based on

public expenditure assumptions only. Unlike EC-legislation requires the Commission to

monitor and check the economic effects of measures the Austrian laws did not until De-

Regulation law 2001.


Figure 8: Problem / opportunity perspectives of ministry draft


Figure 9: Various subsystems of stakeholder conflicts with and pressures on ministry.


7. Stakeholder perspectives of the proposal

The AK saw the draft as basis for further discussion, weaknesses required repair. Basic

questions were still unresolved, sustainability requirements needed integration (App. I PB 6).

The PKLWK rejected the draft, questioning constitutional correctness and EU conformity

(App. I, PB 7).

The draft was rejected by the FEC, requiring extensive revision to meet objectives of

simplification and less bureaucracy (App. I PB 8).

The waste management branch statement rejected the draft (App. I, PB 9).

I perceived and evaluated the draft as a cover-up of the underlying causes of the authors´

intentions.

The central question is: cui bono? - who does the law serve?

Various first order competences for the federal environment minister, the topic of

„bureaucracy reform“, budgetary Maastricht-criteria, explain the ministry rationale.

I personally rejected the draft, because it reflected only opinions of ministry officials

introducing sticter command and control aimed to by-pass bureaucracy reform (App. I, PB

10).

A new waste management law offered a unique chance and opportunity to combine an

economic, acceptable, realistic and implementable waste regulation framework with the

objectives of the bureaucracy reform and sustainable development, an alternative way of

thinking was required, the draft missed all three targets.

The thesis of the draft-explanations– „alternatives: none“ – was contested, investigation of

variations was needed. Disappointing discovery that the FEC evaluation statement was not

delivered to parliament in time due to delayed forwarding.


Figure 10: Inputs to ministry draft - stakeholder reactions


8. Stakeholders perspectives on making and proposing the draft and their involvement

The decision criteria to evaluate the stakeholders views are their written documents summarised in App. I, PB 11. AK statement: „the integration of stakeholders, the institutional representatives of interests,

was started too late! The requirement for holistic evaluation .. together with integration of

involved actors ... has not yet been considered in the draft.“

PKLWK statement: „specific proposals have been made by the PKLWK, but were rejected by

the ministry with the argument that one social partner alone is not legitimised to make

proposals.“

FEC statement: „necessary picked-up-later consideration of the FEC draft. The FEC

regretfully recognises that the ministry´s draft does not take the FEC reform draft into

account.“

My statement on „stakeholder value is inclusion“:

„There was no participation of stakeholders, waste management branch was not involved in

the draft´s development. If the environment ministry would be serious about a „sustainable

waste management law“, it would have to apply a major principle of sustainability, that is

enabling participation of stakeholders.“

Sustainable development: the law carries that phrase in the title, all social partners mentioned,

one cannot find it in the law. The sustainability objective of the draft can be described as: The

ministry department will sustain!

Within the legislative context, the ministry wanted to push that law, and also to establish a

pushy law. The three social partners would have rather seen the new waste management law

as a pull law, as business and consumers opportunity.


One of the most important determinants for the outcome of an environmental decision making

process is how participatory the process gets started. The population does not participate in

environmental law making in Austria. Public hearing, interactive (proactive) planning, public

participation and consultation on law making is not applied.

The ministry did not mention any participatory approach in preparation of the draft.

The pending prosecution of the Austrian government put pressure on the time scale of passing

the law. The ministry intended to push the draft through the ministers council, the other

stakeholders hoped for a longer process of participation and co-operation. Time to act was

short.

The ministry was hampered by traps in command and control world-view thinking,

uncritically implementing bureaucratic mechanisms blinkered by disciplinary boundaries in

professional practice.

The ministry took an hierarchic approach executing power: Legislative powers, however, are

not with those expected to execute laws in a democracy.

Within the operating principles identified by Ackoff (1980) for interactive planning, the

ministry has not applied the participative principle, interpreting the main benefit of planning

by facilitating planning of others for themselfs, establishing widespread ownership of the plan

to be resolved.

The sustainable development approach to future resource management behind the waste

management law requires from all stakeholders to reach accord on their best determination in

achieving a win-win situation.

On January 8th 2002 I could discuss the main issues with two members of parliament, the

secretary of the environment minister, and the head of the ministry waste management

department. However, the new draft available on January 16th 2002 did not satisfy me, since

most minor changes aimed at other stakeholders, not at waste management.


9. The Ministers Council Resolution and Parliament legislation

On January 22nd 2002 the new draft was forwarded to parliament by ministers council

resolution.

The FEC reaction of Jan. 23rd 2002 to the ministers council resolution is summarised in App.

I, PB 12: „We achieved some, but not enough.“

Upon availability of the new draft, I have produced several detailed analyses of the new draf,

issued a new branch evaluation on January 25th 2002 focusing on the key issues: BAT

definition, EWC/HWC instead of a new Austrian waste list (compare EuCJ: Commission vs.

Luxembourg, 15.01.2002, C-196/2001), data-pool and reporting requirements, plant

authorisation provisions, and professional rights of operators. I targeted state governors,

ministers of the federal government, members and clerks of the parliament, some key people

in the FEC, AK and PKLWK.

Members of the executive committee of the branch engaged in direct political lobbying and

press releases. Changes were achieved step by step. Our involvement made an important

contribution to changes in the draft and the way the decision was finally made by parliament.

I reject the law and how it was made. A congressman appointed the head of a state

government waste authority as mediator for intergovernmental and inter-stakeholders crisis

management. The FEC EPD confidentially informed key FEC stakeholders about positive

progress, that intense FEC contacts with the parliament enabled a re-evaluation of

applicability and practicability of provisions and that improvements could be achieved.


I intensified my lobbying effort. The office of the Vice-Chancellor of Austria, and the office

of the governor of Carinthia state promised to consider the issues I have raised, in effect

substantial last-minute changes could actually be achieved.

The state governors remain their constitutional competences.

The opposition labour party got a trade-off on another area and supported the AWG in the

environment committee on February 19th 2002. The argument brought forward was, if the

labour party would not support the law, the governing parties would simply eliminate

constitutional provisions from the law and put the blame on the labour party.

The ecologist party rejected the law.

The parliament environment committee was seen as final milestone.

The environment minister´s press release claimed tripartisan success.

An FEC press release of February 20th 2002 heralded victory for FEC in committee (App. I,

PB 13).

The branch took a more cautious approach to evaluation of the achieved committe changes as

summarised in App. I, PB 14.

Parliament passed the law on February 27th 2002.


Figure 11: Ministers Council resolution – making of law in Parliament


10. How do stakeholders evaluate the outcome, draft, process, their role?

The official version of the FEC press release after parliament passed the new AWG was

positive (App. I, PB 15).

The FEC is controlled by the governing Christian Democratic Party CDP. Congressmen

exerted obvious pressure on the FEC EPD.

It was suggested to me from within FEC channels that if I would not adopt and express some

positive evaluations of the AWG 2002, I would look like a loser, I should realise and herald

how much actually I have personally achieved in the new AWG. I did so in my press release

on February 21st 2002 (App. I, PB 14).

I could not expect congressmen to pick up and unfold the more complex issues I have raised,

congressmen did not argue reasonably with the ministry expert officials over these issues, and

did not unfold the ministers council package. These are indications of limitations of

recognising change in situations, of uncritical implementation of bureaucratic mechanisms, of

traps in thinking within the usual legislative systems boundaries.

COBA models by the FEC and waste management branch were rejected as subjective risk

assessments by the ministry, but provisions were included in the law and the parliament

considerations that there should be no cost for the economy for the data-pool system. The

mediator was able to reduce the level of risk and uncertainty by virtually making the disputed

issues inapplicable and toothless, namely the data-pool or objectives of a hazardous waste list

different from the EWC. Parliament was aware of those problem perspectives, the approach

taken was a mix of uncertainty and ignorance – though, parliament was sensitive to

stakeholders´ demands and my papers on more cost, more bureaucracy, useless data-mess and

EC-non-compliance have really heated the discussion within the government coalition.


The ministry tried to determine who is a useful stakeholder in favouring the perspective of a

private waste management lobbying firm to the more critical perspective of the official branch

representation (App. I, PB 16).

To monitor and evaluate stakeholder perspectives after the decision-making process I have

emailed a questionnaire to approx. 40 participants in the process and received 16 responses

from 11 waste management professionals (including myself), 2 environmental policy officials

of the FEC organisation, the environmental policy officials of the AK and the PKLWK, as

well as a legal official at a state government waste administration level (App. 1, Table 1:

Questionnaire and Evaluation Matrix (March 14, 2002) Gerhard Berchtold, and PB 17 and 18

evaluating and listing the responses).

An evaluation of the objectives of the law as prioritised by the ministry and by the FEC shows

that both have met somehow half-way and the outcome is in effect neither male nor female,

regarding the core issues. The design stage is the most important phase of planning for

outcomes. The AWG was a last-minute compromise, mixing together different designs, and

the product in fact serves neither designer´s original intentions. Nobody really owns this law.

Part 1 of the questionnaire (App. I, Table 1) asks about the draft´s content, whether it meets

stakeholders expectations, SWOP, part 2 asks questions about the decision-making process

and how the stakeholders evaluate their role and participation in it.

The amazing observations are the overlapping consensus on some key questions from all

stakeholder groups, and the „peaks“ against the trend did not come from stakeholders on the

other side of the isle but from within the waste management branch (on some issues there is a

9:2 relationship).

Stakeholders are disappointed about outcome and process, do not see any improvement for

the environment and don´t think the government can profit from the law.


The questionnaire can be seen as limited and tendencial, because I have and emailed it, may

be seen as biased by the few responses and the great number of waste firm responses.

However, those excluded, it would only enhance prevailing trends. And it is useful as a model

of monitoring and evaluation to identify and interpret general trends.

The learning exercise and message to the environment ministry should be clear: stakeholders

are disappointed about their role in the decision-making process and with the outcome of the

legislative process, demand greater participatory rights in preparing and evaluating the draft.

When asked who the law serves, nobody indicated to be a winner.

Instead of the win-win heralding in the media, in effect the outcome of the AWG 2002 is a

lose-lose situation from various stakeholders perspectives.

11. Would the application of the T860 framework have made a difference?

Figure 6: The T860 framework for environmental decision-making (Open University, 2001)

The perception of the T860 framework promoters is described in App. I, PB 19.


Would the decision-making process have produced a different outcome, if the T860

framework would have been applied?

All respondents to the questionnaire are disappointed with their role as participants and

complain about the lack of stakeholder involvement and powers in preparation and evaluation

stages of the process.

The T860 framework for environmental decision making could have provided the systemic

and systematic guideline to a joint-learning exercise in a decision-making process.

The ministry could have taken a systemic approach as proposed in App. I, PB 20, how the

decision-makers could have applied the framework - in a way the Systems Thinking Press

(2002) describes as "simplicity on the far side of complexity".

Vester (1999) makes a critical point on systems thinking: „Since we never have learned to

deal with complex systems and their special behaviour ... we don't know how they behave ...

we can no longer cope with our increasingly complex world without networked ... thinking in

contexts and relationships, and as the next higher level without systemic thinking and

planning. A thinking that is oriented around the structure and the special processes in

complex systems, namely the cybernetics that control them. With the usual linear and selectiv

thinking we will, therefore, suffer ever more frequent shipwreck in the future.“

The T860 framework can be used to help question and consider the decision making process.

• Has the context been considered sufficiently?

The questionnaire indicates overwhelming „NO“ answers.

According to the National Centre for Environmental Decision-Making Research NCEDR

(2002) tools can frame the context of the decision by identifying relevant information and

issues, and can ease interactions among participants in the decision process.


The Ministry took the technocratic approach by favouring ministerial experts opinion.

Anderson (1972) identified a governmental habitat in which expertise finds opportunity to

exert itself and influence policy in administrative decision making. Swinbanks (1997) and

Dickson (1997) made points on the erosion of public confidence in scientific evidence, the

latter quoted Wynne´s argument that standard risk management techniques of government can

ignore important differences in the social and political contexts in which risks arise.

Barkenbus (1998) considered the role of expertise in decision-making: „Decision makers are

... aware of ... the fact that technical solutions to problems in the policy-formulation process

are only a part of problem solving ... not be expected to lead directly to these solutions.“

Sloep and van Dam-Mieras (1995) conclude; ... ethical matters ... are too important to be left

to either scientists or politicians ...“.

The ministry took a politically expedient approach within the framework of a purposive

system. The T860 framework as an ideal practicable purposeful system instead offers an open

end approach serving the joint development of objectives and outcomes.

The way the government started off non-participatory aimed at pushing the law through the

decision making process to serve the ministry. The disadvantages of this approach are obvious

in the final law, that actually does not serve anybody, as an example of poor stakeholder

involvement, hierarchic and bureaucratic politically expedient approaches. The T860

framework application could have made a difference in producing a law that stakeholders

accept and support through a process that stakeholders agree with. It is not simply a matter of

constitutional rules guiding legislation, rather than a matter of how and why to include

stakeholders in decision-making.


• Who did participate and how?

The questionnaire asked about sufficient stakeholder participation in decision-making and

evaluation, receiving 100 % negative responses. Agenda 21 (App. I, PB 21 -

Recommendations of Agenda 21 for environmental decision making) requires improving

decision-making processes (8.4, 8.54), strengthening the role of major groups (23.1-23.4) and

workers and their trade unions (29.14), and business and industry (30.7, 30.8). The ICC

Business Charter for Sustainable Development requires contributing to the common effort and

openness to concerns. Entitled stakeholders participated actively but not from the beginning.

The ministry acted politically expediently in selecting and favouring stakeholders and by

exclusive evaluation. The decision-makers could have endorsed co-ordinated interactive

planning as advocated by Margerum and Born (1995) and started the process off

participatory. The T860 framework could have provided a joint exploration and formulation

and modelling process of the new AWG. Crisis management by parliament was a mere repair

of the failure in how the process was started off originally by the ministry. The U.S. EPA

Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management (1995) argues that a successful waste

management programme requires wide-spread public participation. The EEA report on

Development and application of waste factors (1999) identifies stakeholders as interested

parties and corresponding different levels. At the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting

(2002) some participants endorsed the idea of the interconnectedness of different interest

groups and to make decision-making more democratic. "The issue is, how to fold in other

values in the decision-making process and create policy cohesion," said Daniel C. Esty,

Director, Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, USA.

An indicator of stakeholder involvement is the classification of drafts and papers:

„confidential – do not pass on to third parties“. This is how participatory environmental law is

made in Austria.


• Have problems and opportunities been allowed to emerge?

Respondents to the questionnaire negate this question.

Only the ministry decided for stakeholders over problems and opportunities. The essential

T860 framework stage in the process of developing the problems and opportunities views of

the stakeholders early on could have lead to a different final assessment of who decided with

whom over what. Joint exploration of the context of issues could have revealed various

stakeholders perspectives of problems and opportunities, requirements of areas of intervention

and appropriate instruments, enabling room for conflict resolution through feedback

mechanisms of a group learning process involving stakeholders.

The scenarios and risk assessments could have provided alternative models to evaluate the

different outcomes and their utilities in support of decision-making.

• Will modelling help or not? If modelling helps, what kinds of models?

The questionnaire reveals that stakeholders reject the ministry COBA models and the scenario

based on the the data-pool model.

Stakeholder involvement would have enabled a joint modelling of risks and uncertainties

issues, such as data pool and cost-benefit effects of the various provisions of the new law. All

stakeholders reject the models and forecasts, that clearly indicates a requirement for changing

the taken approach. The one-sided interpretation of models used by the ministry and the

completely different forecasts of stakeholders lead parliament to provide some locks in the

law preventing cost-explosions. However, from my perspective they are half-hearted and only

practice will tell. Again, the framework could have provided an alternative approach to

applying social concepts and problem structuring methods of systemic decision-making.


According to the NCEDR (2002) environmental decision makers must be able to see and

understand patterns, trends, and dependencies to predict the effects of a decision over time.

Addiscott et.al (1995) advocate some form of critical evaluatory procedures for models to

maintain modelling integrity, whereby no model can be validated, acceptable probability is a

subjective decision.

The European Environment Agency EEA’s (Regulation EC/933/1999) role in evaluating

effects and effectiveness of policies is to provide the Community and Member States with

objective information necessary for framing and implementing sound and effective

environmental policies; ... identifying, preparing and evaluating measures and legislation in

the field of the environment; to assist the monitoring of measures...’.

According to the EEA (2001) report on environmental measures „Are we being effective?“

the process of assessing the effects and effectiveness of policy measures falls within policy

evaluation research. An evaluation of existing policy is information relevant for the making of

new policy, evaluation information can usefully serve the assessment of future impacts of

environmental policy measures, and informing choices between alternative policy options.

„ Is the legislation effectively reducing the problem for which it was designed? If not, is this

because the legislation is defective? ... The importance given in the 6th EAP (Council, 2001)

to ex ante evaluations of the expected effects of policy measures and ex post evaluations of the

actual effects of measures, supports the main four reasons, why it is important to assess

effects and effectiveness, namely:

• scenario development

• distance to target analysis

• comparing the cost-effectiveness of policy measures

• shared policy learning“ by learning from experience and from sharing experiences

that allows for improving policy- and decision-making processes.“


The report provides definitions of ‘effects’ and ‘effectiveness’:

„Effects of an environmental measure: the results of a measure that can be directly attributed

to its implementation. This requires that a causal link exists between the policy action and its

intended impacts on human behaviour and the environment.

Effectiveness of a measure: a judgement about whether or not the expected objectives and

targets of the policy measure have been achieved. This requires comparing the effects of the

measure with its intended objectives.

Cost-effectiveness of a measure: a comparison of the effects of a set of measures with the

costs of implementing them. A more cost-effective measure will have achieved greater results

for less money.“

The authors propose this report should read those ... „in the Member States who are involved

in policy and legislation formulation and the assessment of their effects and effectivness“, and

propose several measures on how the evaluation of effects and effectiveness can be built into

the design of legislation, whereby evaluation should not be an afterthought and linked into the

policy process.

The T860 framework is an „ought“-model of prescriptive analysis in combining descriptive

and normative analysis with evaluation based on beliefs, perceptions and personal values of

the stakeholders, enabling the interpretation of the results in a democratic and open-end

approach.


• What have we learned from the process and how can that learning inform our future

decisions and actions?

All but one respondents agreed that the process was a learning experience. The answer to

whether the T860 framework application would have made a difference seems quite simple:

Any kind of participatory and democratic environmental decision making other than the

hierarchic approach taken by the ministry or the last-minute crisis management conducted by

the parliament mediator could have produced a better outcome in terms of stakeholders

participation. The ministry could have approached evaluation as a learning process advocated

by Woodhill (1991) involving participants in the evaluation to identify criteria and participate

in review by using adequate systemic social techniques of evaluation as suggested by

Wadsworth (1991).

The T860 framework could have enabled interactive participation, could have formed a useful

basis for step-wise and iterative democratic planning, joint learning and decision-making,

could have helped the decision makers to „cope with limitations of rational choice and

accomodate difficulties“ (March, 1994).

The crisis management initiated by parliament as last-minute stakeholder analysis was a

management and mediation tool in the process, while the framework could have helped the

decision makers become concerned with the project cycle, policy and improved understanding

of the nature of problems.

Such a crisis management is an indication of failed environmental decision making which in

essence the T860 framework aims to prevent from happening. Therefore, it is worth

considering the T860 framework as a guide to environmental decision making through a

learning process and a prompt to consider it for similar environmental decisions.


12. Critical analysis of the T860 framework in the project context

Perspective Box 22 in App. I maps the T860 framework´s strengths and weaknesses from its

promoters´ perspective.

The framework enabled me to

• systems thinking in terms of environmental decision-making processes,

• define such a process as a system of interest including perspectives of other stakeholders,

• understand a complex situation by modelling it as system to be investigated.

I learned to apply the framework to the real-life situation, both processes concurred

simultaneously. Learning T860 was accompanied by applying the framework to the decision-

process and feedback from learning about the process in the framework context.

The framework guided me to explore the decision-making process. I used systems thinking in

the past, however, related to production processes or waste (water) treatment technologies,

with inputs-outputs being materials, energy or operations, however. the role of people

regarded only process functions as designers, operators or controllers. Within integrated

SHEQ management systems people play an important role in policy formulation and

implementation in self-empowered teams, but it was not until I discovered the T860

framework that I applied systems thinking as advocated by Capra (1996) to the social

processes and cognitive acts of decision-making.

I learned about the process during the process by applying what I learned at the same time

from the framework – this is the learning outcome of the purposeful systemic framework for

myself. I have changed going through the process of decision-making as a major stakeholder

while at the same time re-exploring the process through other stakeholders´ perspectives of

problems and opportunities, modelling and monitoring the development as a system of

interest, analysing, evaluating and critically interpreting the results in order to trigger my

actions on both fields: stakeholder involvement and project work. The framework application


reminded me on the importance of co-operative planning and the value of inclusion of

stakeholders in decision making.

It is not the framework to be contested rather than the question whether my individual one-

man approach is sufficient application of the framework? The T860 framework can well be

applied for various EDM iterations, it is not restrictive in choice of methods and technologies;

the interconnectedness of the various stages allows room for flexibility, there is exploration,

formulation, modelling, monitoring, analysis, evaluation and interpretation as part of taking

action at all stages of the framework.

Otherwise it could be seen as hampered by traps in systematic linear thinking. It could in

effect, if applied, enhance the quality of and satisfaction with decision-making processes and

their outcomes in the context of Austrian environmental law-making.

The framework´s inherent weaknesses may be due to its holistic and flexible systems nature,

linear-thinking technocrats could rather intend to apply a stricter structure and argue against

the systems openness as being too undefined. One argument brought forward in the

questionnaire was that parliament makes the laws and not the stakeholders. It will always be

up to the decision-situation and the decision-makers to determine the degree of participation

of stakeholders and choice of their approach.

If the framework is applied, the outcomes are undetermined and supporters of politically

expedient, pre-determined purposive environmental decision-making may actually find

arguments against the framework for its undeterminable outcome, because it will assist in

learning about and developing objectives and results during the process only.

The framework helped me in exploring the context of issues systemically and systematically

to understand the decision situation. The identification of major stakeholders considered in

my project helped me to identify the root definition of my system of interest and where to

draw the boundary. I chose the decision-maker and the three social-partners as major

stakeholders and explored their perspectives, formulations of problems and opportunities.


Major documents considered were the draft and the evaluation statements. It was not simply

done by exploring these issues stand-alone; iterations of the framework on the FEC drafting

process and the EC-requirements were background-explorations.

Exploring was part of all stages. Re-exploring and re-formulating was permanently conducted

as part of the learning process inherent in realising change in situations and taking the right

action. I reduced the exploration of my role and stakeholder activities in order to focus on me

within the T860 framework, playing one role among other stakeholders, how and why I

applied the framework, and what I learned from it.

The framework gave me some guidance how to explore the decision-making process

(CATWOE, systems map...), also how and why other stakeholders have formulated their

problem or opportunity perspectives, formulation of my own stakeholder perspective. That

the two processes occurred simultaneously, the T860 course and the related decision-making

process, has certainly influenced and changed my role as stakeholder in forcing me to take a

holistic approach including other perspectives in my system of interest.

The modelling stage of the framework was an essential aspect, along with evaluation and

connected with the other stages. I have written a detailed evaluation of the ministry draft as

chairman of the legal advisory group of the branch´s executive committee. Mental graphical

models were my rich visual language to support text explaining statements and articles, these

diagrams were repeatedly used by branch colleagues when argueing for optimisation of the

draft with graphical effects-and-effectiveness forecasts and alternative COBA models.

The models used in this paper are cognitive mind maps in the form of „Perspective Boxes“,

rich pictures to catch the system of interest at a glance, systems map, multiple cause diagram,

particularly applicable to enable descriptive, normative and prescriptive analyses of the

decision-situation.


I have used the framework in iterations as a prescriptive purposeful model to monitor,

analyse, evaluate and interpret the process at its various stages.

The framework helped me to understand how the models were used by the ministry and the

FEC, check assumptions, validity of the models, discover motives and expectations of

designers. I realised that the FEC draft was a maximax strategy while the approach taken by

the ministry was the „minimax“ version, as a worst case scenario from business perspective

allowing minimal flexibility at maximal regulation (command-and-control) level. The

outcome negotiated by parliament was a maximin model application to playing safe.

The T860 framework helped me checking the process from a multicriterion decision making

perspective what various stakeholders consider as available options. The critical analysis of

financial criteria of the ministry draft enabled me to develop alternative cost evaluations,

financial arguments were the most convincing during the decision-making process.

The model for prescriptive monitoring, analysis and evaluation was the questionnaire of how

stakeholders think about the process at its end. The framework inspired me to find out how

the stakeholders perceive the process and to use the data for the project and in the real

decision situation. This outcome justifies the framework.

T860 has proven practicability in the given decision situation and this usefulness has already

paid–off the personal engagement. The value added to me during this transformation process

is the practical learning and application exercise I could experience.


The framework actually assisted me in investigating and analysing the situation, it obviously

encouraged me to consider different aspects. My understanding of the decision-making

situation was enhanced by the framework. It helped me overcome traps in thinking.

Figure 12: How and why I used the T860 framework

„We, the trapped, tend to take our own state of mind for granted – which is partly why we are

trapped“, Sir Geoffry Vickers (1972).


Strengths of the framework clearly lie in its applicability for exactly the type of decision

situation I have selected.

A weakness is that it takes months of intense learning and project work to try a first

application of the framework. Is it readily available for general application? The framework is

not a simple tool one takes from the tool-box, goes ahead and uses it.

Certainly, the course aimed at making it a learning exercise, but in order to apply it more

readily, a simplified version of the framework should be promoted and presented to decision-

makers.

Table 1: SWOT Analysis Mindmap of the T860 framework in the project context

STRENGTHS holistic and systemic

step-wise, concurrent and iterative SSM helps overcome traps in thinking

enables stakeholder analysis stakeholder participation

modelling techniques joint evaluation processes

undetermined open end approach enables reflection

(group) learning process partnership in decision-making

WEAKNESSES non-linear & non-systematic

no clear decision route not simple in application

requires stakeholder involvement no pursuit of pre-determined decision

no tool for management based on objectives not readily applicable tool without training

decisions cannot easily be pushed requires to stand back and explore the context of

issues and stakeholder perspectives requires consideration of different perspectives

OPPORTUNITIES systemic holistic approach to environmental

decision-making decisions are owned by the stakeholders views of the stakeholders are integrated

risks and uncertainties can be addressed by social techniques

enables modelling of complex situations provides monitoring and evaluation techniques

for decision-making processes improves the quality of environmental decisions

Agenda 21 is implemented

THREATS hierarchic and technocratic and predetermined

approaches are challenged bureaucratic powers are endangered

the roles of individual and organisational stakeholders are up-graded by power sharing in

decision-making classical pathways of decision making become

outdated requires change in thinking

leads to democratic decision-making


13. Conclusions

The systemic T860 framework stakeholder analysis and the prescriptive evaluation of the

process of environmental decision making with regard to social technologies of participation

applied reveals that neither the final outcome, the AWG 2002, nor the process of decision-

making can be interpreted as satisfying.

Several hard facts in the law remain open questions. The evaluation by questionnaire has

revealed underlying soft factors that the stakeholders criticise their participatory rights and

roles in environmental decision-making. The application of the framework enables a systemic

and systematic approach to explore and analyse the decision situation, to reflect on

stakeholder involvement and activities and to develop models for monitoring and evaluation

of the social processes characterising the decision-situation, to feed back revelations into the

process, within an iterative nature of various developments going on concurrently by using

more than one stage of the framework at the same time, able to flexibly fit to real situations.

The learning experience the framework provides is about how the stakeholders look at the

decision-making situation at the end and why?

Participatory environmental policy decision-making is fundamental to Agenda 21, the

framework revealed shortcomings of the process and the findings could demonstrate decision-

makers how much they are off-course and how to do it better next time.

Gerhard Berchtold, Innsbruck, March 24, 2002


Acknowledgements

Professor Ray Ison for making this class possible

Tim Curtis for holding my creative balloon on the ground

Christian Günther, parliament clerk, for his openness and listening ability

Helmut Ogulin, Harald Höpperger, Herbert Spreitzer, chairmen of the executive committee,

Peter Hodecek, Ernst Schöffel and the other branch colleagues for their support during the

process

Respondents to the questionnaire

Finally the environment ministry for its decision-making inspired this project


References

Abbot, J. and Guijt, I. (1998) „Changing views on change“, A Working Paper on Participatory Monitoring of the Environment, IIED, London. Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz – AWG - Bundesgesetz vom 6. Juni 1990 über die Vermeidung und Behandlung von Abfällen, mit dem das Chemikaliengesetz, BGBl. Nr. 326/1987, das Bundesstatistikgesetz, BGBl. Nr. 91/1965, die Gewerbeordnung 1973, BGBl. Nr. 50/1974, das Altlastensanierungsgesetz, BGBl. Nr. 299/1989, das Umwelt- und Wasserwirtschaftsfondsgesetz, BGBl. Nr. 79/1987, und das Umweltfondsgesetz, BGBl. Nr. 567/1983, geändert werden, BGBl. Nr. 325/1990 idF: BGBl. Nr. 417/1992, BGBl. Nr. 715/1992 , BGBl. Nr. 185/1993, BGBl. Nr. 230/1993, BGBl. Nr. 257/1993, BGBl. Nr. 155/1994, BGBl. Nr. 505/1994, BGBl. Nr. 434/1996, BGBl. I Nr. 115/1997, BGBl. I Nr. 151/1998, BGBl. I Nr. 90/2000, BGBl. I Nr. 99/2000, BGBl. I Nr. 54/2001, BGBl. I Nr. 108/2001, Vienna. Ackoff, R.L. (1980) „The systems revolution“, in Organizations as Systems, M. Locket and R. Spear (eds.), pp. 26-33, The Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Addiscott, T., Smith, J. and Bradbury, N. (1995) „Critical evaluation of models and their parameters“, Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 24, pp. 803-807. Agenda 21 (1992) Chapters 8, 23, 29, 30, United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Earth Summit, Rio de Jainero, on: http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/agenda21. Anderson, James E. (1972). Public Policy-Making. New York: Praeger Publishing. Arbeiterkammer Wien (2002) „AK kritisiert Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz - Weniger Kontrolle, Freibrief für private Abfallsammelsysteme = Die Wirtschaft darf es sich richten, die Politik hält sich raus und die Konsumenten dürfen die Zeche zahlen", Workers Chamber press release, AK criticises waste management law – less controls, freeway for private waste collection systems – economy profits, politics stand back and consumers pay the bill, OTS077 5 CI 0519 AKW002 WI 20.Feb 02, Umwelt AK Wien Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz, Vienna. Austrian Parliament Resolution (1998) Entschließung des parlamentarischen Umweltausschusses vom 30.6.1998; 1327 der Beilagen zu den Stenographischen Protokollen des Nationalrates, XX. GP, Vienna. Austrian Parliament, (2002) Summary of the ministers council resolution of a new waste management law, Parlamentarische Materialien, PARLAMENTSKORRESPONDENZ/03/11.02.2002/Nr. 74, „Regierungsvorlagen und Bericht an den Budgetausschuss – Der Entwurf für ein neues Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz, 984 d.B. XXI GP, Vienna. Austrian Parliament (2002) „Entwurf – Abänderungsantrag in die Regierungsvorlage eingearbeitet - Bundesgesetz, mit dem ein Bundesgesetz über eine nachhaltige Abfallwirtschaft (Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz 2002 – AWG 2002) erlassen und das Kraftfahrgesetz 1967 und das Immissionsschutzgesetz – Luft geändert werden Der Nationalrat hat beschlossen. Lower House of Parliament passed the waste management law on 27 February 2002, 984 d.B. XXI GP, Vienna.


Barkenbus, J. (1998) , „Expertise and the Policy Cycle“, Environment, Energy, and Resources Center, The University of Tennessee, September 1998, http://www.ncedr.org/pdf/policy.pdf Berchtold, G. (2001) statement of the waste and waste water management branch evaluating the ministry draft AWG 2002, Nov. 2001, Innsbruck-Vienna. Berchtold, G. (2002) „AWG und EG-Konformität“, Waste mangement law draft and EC-compliance, Innsbruck, January 2002. Berchtold, G. (2002) „AWG und Bürokratiereform“, Waste management law draft and bureaucracy reform, Innsbruck, January 2002. Berchtold, G. (2002) „Mythos EG-Abfallstatistikverordnung“, Myth EC-waste statistics regulation, Innsbruck, January 2002. Berchtold, G. (2002) „Different COBA calculations“, Innsbruck, 2002, (www.entsorgungswirtschaft.at), January, 2002. Berchtold, G. (2002) „Stellungnahme des Fachverbandes Abfall- und Abwasserwirtschaft zum Ministerratsbeschluss für ein AWG 2002“, branch evaluation statement to the ministers council resolution draft, Innsbruck/Vienna, January 2002. Berchtold, G. (2002) „Fragebogen zum AWG“, questionnaire about the waste management law, Innsbruck, February 2002. Berchtold, G. (2002) „Abfallwirtschaft lehnt AWG 2002 ab“, waste management rejects AWG 2002, press release, February 2002. Berchtold, G. (2002) „Abfallwirtschaft zieht kritische Bilanz zum AWG“, waste management takes a critical account of the waste management law, press release, February 2002, (www.entsorgungswirtschaft.at). Bundesministeriengesetz 1986, BGBl.Nr. 76/1986 zuletzt geändert durch BGBl. I Nr. 141/2000, Federal ministries law, Vienna. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft (2002) „Entwurf - Bundesgesetz über eine nachhaltige Abfallwirtschaft (Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz 2002 – AWG 2002) und über die Änderung des Kraftfahrzeuggesetzes 1967“ = draft „Federal law about a sustainable waste management (AWG 2002)“, September 24th, 2001, BMLFUW, Zl. 32-3504/107-III/2 U/01. Cross-reference to parliament: 252 ME XXI. GP. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt- und Wasserwirtschaft (2001) „Bundesabfallwirtschaftsplan 2001“, national waste management plan 2001, environment ministry, Vienna. Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz (B-VG), BGBl. Nr. 1/1930 idF BGBl. I Nr. 121/2001, „Federal Constitutional Law“, Vienna. See: http://www.ris.bka.gv.at/info/bvg_eng.pdf Capra, F. (1996) „The Web of Life. A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter“, HarperCollins, London.


Checkland, P.B., and Scholes, J. (1990) „Soft Systems Methodology in Action“, Wiley, Chichester. Council Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste Official Journal L 377 , 31/12/1991 p. 0020 - 0027 Council Directive of 15 July 1975 on waste (75/442/EEC) (OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 of 7 May 1990 on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European Environment Information and Observation Network - Council Regulation (EC) No 933/1999 of 29 April 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1210/90 on the establishment of the European Environment Agency and the European environment information and observation network, Official Journal L 117 , 05/05/1999 p. 0001 – 0004. Deregulierungsgesetz 2001, BGBl. I Nr. 151/2001, De-Regulation Law, Vienna. Dickson, D. (1997) „UK Policy learns about risks the hard way“, Nature (London), Vol. 385, 2. January, pp. 8-9. Environmental Protection Agency (1995) „The Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management“, Second Edition, US EPA 1995, Id. no. EPA530-R-95-023 p. 1-10 — 1-13 Chapter 1: Public ecucation and involvement on http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/dmg2/chapter1.pdf. European Court of Justice (2001) Commission vs. Austria, C194/2001, pending case. European Court of Justice (2002) Judgement against Luxembourg, Urteil des Gerichtshofes (Erste Kammer) vom 15. Januar 2002. Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften gegen Grand-duché de Luxembourg. Vertragsverletzung eines Mitgliedstaats - Umwelt - Richtlinie 75/442/EWG - Entscheidung 94/3/EG - Europäischer Abfallkatalog. Rechtssache C-196/01. EEA (1999) European Environment Agency Technical report No 37 Development and application of waste factors - an overview Prepared by: Lutz Mertins, ABAG-itm GmbH, Carles Vinolas, Anna Bargallo, Gisela Sommer & Josep Renau, Generalitat de Catalunya, Junta de Residus, Project manager: Anton Azkona, November 1999 EEA (2001) European Environment Agency Environmental issue report No 25 Reporting on environmental measures: Are we being effective? This report has been prepared by: Sofia Guedes Vaz — EEA Jock Martin — EEA David Wilkinson — IEEP Jodi Newcombe — IEEP November 2001, Project manager: Teresa Ribeiro European Union Treaty, Title XIX, Environment, Article 174 – 176, Treaty of Maastricht (1992) in the version of the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) Hochreiter, P (2001), Evaluation Statement of the Workers Chamber to the National Waste Management Plan 2002, 333541/1-III/3-U/01, UV/GSt/Hen Mag Hochreiter, 23.04.2001, Anhörung zum Bundesabfallwirtschaftsplan 2001/Stellungnahme - Die Bundeskammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte nimmt zum im Betreff genannten Entwurf Stellung, Vienna.


Hochreiter, P. (2001), Evaluation Statement of the Workers Chamber to the Environment Ministry draft of a waste management law 2002, 32 3504/107-III/2 U/01, GSt/Ho/Ku Hr Mag Hochreiter, 19.11.2001, Entwurf eines Bundesgesetzes, über eine nachhaltige Abfallwirtschaft (Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz 2002 – AWG 2002) und über die Änderung des Kraftfahrzeuggesetzes 1967 - Die Bundesarbeitskammer nimmt zu dem im Betreff genannten Entwurf Stellung, Vienna. Cross-reference to parliament: http://www.parlinkom.gv.at/pd/pm/XXI/ME/his/002/ME00252_.html. Huger, P. (2001) FEC-evaluation statement by the environmental policy department of the FEC, A 1045 Vienna, December 11, 2001, on http://wko.at/up/enet/awg_ref. Huger, P. (2002), „Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz 2002 vom Nationalrat beschlossen“, waste management law passed by parliament, Federal Economic Chamber Press Release, Up/242/Hu/Ho, 3015, 28.02.2002, Vienna. Hutton, W., and Kay, J. (1996) The Observer, 13. October.

International Chamber of Commerce ICC, „The Business Charter for Sustainable Development - 16 principles“, http://www.iccwbo.org/sdcharter/charter/principles/principles.asp. Kopf, K. and Fallent, G (2002), parliament committee resolution, 19 February, Vienna. Abänderungsantrag der Abgeordneten Kopf, Ing. Fallent, Mag. Sima und Kollegen zur Regierungsvorlage eines Bundesgesetzes, mit dem ein Bundesgesetz über eine nachhaltige Abfallwirtschaft (Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz 2002 – AWG 2002) erlassen und das Kraftfahrgesetz 1967 und das Immissionsschutzgesetz – Luft geändert werden (984 der Beilagen). Der Umweltausschuss wolle beschließen: Die Regierungsvorlage (984 der Beilagen) eines Bundesgesetzes, mit dem ein Bundesgesetz über eine nachhaltige Abfallwirtschaft (Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz 2002 – AWG 2002) erlassen und das Kraftfahrgesetz 1967 und das Immissionsschutzgesetz – Luft geändert werden, wird wie folgt geändert. Liberatore, A. (1995) „The social construction of environmental problems“, in P. Glasbergen and A. Blowers (eds.), pp. 59-70. March, J. (1994) „A Primer in Decision-Making: How Decisions Happen“, pp.8-15, Free Press, New York. Margerum, R.D., and Born, S.M. (1995), „Integrated environmental management: moving from theory to practice“, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 38, No 3, pp. 371-379. Ministerratskommuniqués (2002) Kommuniqué zur 83. Sitzung des Ministerrates vom 22. Jänner 2002, 83. Sitzung des Ministerrats, press release of the ministers council, 83. council meeting, 22 January, Vienna. Ministers Council Resolution (2002) Entwurf - Bundesgesetz, mit dem ein Bundesgesetz über eine nachhaltige Abfallwirtschaft (Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz 2002 – AWG 2002) erlassen und das Kraftfahrgesetz 1967 und das Immissionsschutzgesetz – Luft geändert werden, ministers council resolution draft for a waste management law, 22 January, Vienna. Cross-reference to Parliament: 984 Blg, Vienna.


Mitterlehner, R. (2002) „Mitterlehner zu neuem Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz: Akzeptabler Kompromiss - Reformprojekt der WKÖ hat sich gelohnt - Wirtschaft von Sisyphusarbeit befreit", 20 February, FEC general secretary and congressman Mitterlehner press statement: „Acceptable compromise – reform project of FEC paid off“, Vienna. Molterer, W. (2002) „Molterer legt neues Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz dem Ministerrat vor - Rechtsbereinigungen und EU-Anpassungen als Hauptelemente“, Environment Minister Molterer presents new waste management law to the ministerial council – legal harmonisation and EU-adjustments are core elements, 23 January, press release, Vienna. Molterer, W. (2002) „Breiter Konsens für Umweltgesetze ist positives Signal - Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz mit Verfassungsbestimmungen und Umweltförderungsgesetz im Umweltausschuss beschlossen“, Wien (bmlfuw, 20.02.2002) OTS153 5 CI 0725 MLA001 WI 20.Feb 02 UMWELT ABFALLWIRTSCHAFT. Press release of the Austrian Minister for Agriculture and Forestry Economies, Environment and Water Management: waste management law has been agreed with constitutional changes in parliament environment committee, Vienna. National Centre for Environmental Decision-Making Research (2002) http://www.ncedr.org/tools/default.html and http://www.ncedr.org/data_info/default.html Open University (2001) „Environmental Decision Making: A Systems Approach“ (T860), Milton Keynes. Präsidentenkonferenz der Landeslandwirtschaftskammern (2001) evaluation statement of the waste management law ministry draft by the Agricultural Chambers Presidents Conference, Vienna, November 21, 2001, V/1-1001/Mi-120. Cross-reference to parliament: http://www.parlinkom.gv.at/pd/pm/XXI/ME/his/002/ME00252_.html Raschauer, B., Onz, C., Bergthaler, W. (2001) Neugestaltung des Bundesabfallwirtschaftsgesetzes – New regulation of the federal waste management law, Rechtsanwälte, Wien, am 14. Mai 2001, (AWG 2000), TEILBEITRAG 1. Behandlungsgrundsätze, 2. Anlagenrecht E N D B E R I C H T; „AWG-Studien“, studies supporting the ministry draft, issued on the internet in July 2001, http://www.bmu.gv.at/u_abfall/abfallrecht/awgneu_studien.htm, Vienna. Resolution of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 1 February 1993 on a Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development - A European Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development Official journal NO. C 138 , 17/05/1993 P. 0001 – 0004 Ringhofer, J., Scharf, W. and Neubacher, F. (2001) „Vorschläge zur Neugestaltung des österreichischen Abfallwirtschaftsrechts Endbericht – Erstellt für Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt- und Wasserwirtschaft, Verbindungsstelle der Bundesländer, erstellt von der Arbeitsgruppe Behandlungsgrundsätze und Systeme“, 17.07.2001, „AWG-Studien“, studies supporting the ministry draft, issued on the internet in July 2001, Vienna, http://www.bmu.gv.at/u_abfall/abfallrecht/awgneu_studien.htm. Sagoff, M. (1989) „The Economy of the Earth“, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.


Schmelz, C. and Ermacora, F. (2001) „Rechtsgutachten zur Neugestaltung des Abfallwirtschaftsgesetzes Begriffe und Definitionen“, 8. Juni 2001, Sm-Er BMU/06003, SCHÖNHERR BARFUSS TORGGLER & PARTNER, RECHTSANWÄLTE/ATTORNEYS AT LAW „AWG-Studien“, studies supporting the ministry draft, issued on the internet in July 2001, http://www.bmu.gv.at/u_abfall/abfallrecht/awgneu_studien.htm. Schmelz, C., Huber, K., Ermacora, F., Bergthaler, W. and Niederhuber, M. (2001) „Entwurf eines Bundesabfallwirtschaftsgesetzes“, Wien, 29.06.2001 = „AWG Neu“, draft by the FEC, published on July 12th, 2002, on http://wko.at/up/enet/awg_ref. Schüssel, W. and Haider, J. (2000) „Responsibility for Austria - A Future in the Heart of Europe“ Government Declaration Treaty, Vienna, 3rd February 2000, Vienna, http://www.fpoe.at. Schüssel W. (2000) „A New Governance for Austria“ Coalition Agreement The Chancellor´s Declaration of Government to Parliament: Responsibility for Austria – A Future in the Heart of Europe, on http://www.austria.gv.at/e/. Schwarzer, St., Huger, P. (2001), „Neues Abfallrecht – eine Initiative der Wirtschaftskammer Österreich“, new waste law – an FEC initiative, press release, FEC EPD, 12.07., on http://wko.at/up/enet/awg_ref. Schwarzer, St. (2002) „Bericht zum aktuellen Stand des AWG 2002“, Up/003/Sch/Mi, 4195, 8.2.2002, report on current state of the waste management law draft in parliament, Federal Economic Chamber Environment Policy Department, Vienna. Schwarzer, St. and Huger, P. (2002) „Abfallwirtschaftsgesetz (AWG) vom Umweltausschuss beschlossen“, Up/240/Hu/Ho, 3015, 20.02.2002, press release of the Federal Economic Chamber Environment Policy Department – environment committee in parliament agreed on waste management law, Vienna. Sloep, P.B., and van Dam-Mieras, M.C.E. (1995) „Science on environmental problems“, in Environmental Policy in an International Context, 1. Perspectives, pp. 31-58, in P. Glasbergen and A. Blowers (eds.), Edward Arnold, London. Swinbanks, D. (1997) „Bloodscandal and E. coli raise questions in Japan“, Nature (London), Vol. 385, 2. January, p. 9. Ulrich, W. (1996) „Critical Systems Thinking for Citizens: A Research Proposal“, Research Memorandum No. 10, Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull. Vester, F. (1999) „Cybernetic System Management as a guarantor of sustainable development“, Club of Rome Annual Conference, Nov 25th-27th 1999 "Globalisation - Governance - Sustainable Development", Vienna, papers delivered to the conference: www. clubofrome.org.docs/vester.moscow_ac_2000.doc Vickers, G. (1972) „Freedom in a Rocking Boat“, Penguin, London.


Wadsworth, Y. (1991) „The evaluation industry´s toolbox of models and techniques“, Chapter 5 in Everday Evaluation on the Run, pp. 61-84, Action Research Issues (Ind.), Melbourne. Woodhill, J. (1992) „Landcare in NSW. Taking the Next Step – Final Report and Recommendations for the Development of Landcare in NSW from the 1991 Landcare Review“, Faculty of Agriculture and Rural Development, University of Western Sydney – Hawkesbury, pp. 1-10. Reprinted in University of Western Sydney – Hawkesbury (1992) „Landcare: Extension and Natural Resource Management in Australia“, June 1992, pp. 80-84, Landcare Ag Pak Ex 5. World Economic Forum Annual Meeting (2002) – Conference Papers „Integrating Economic, Social and Environmental Priorities: The Case for International Policy Coherence“, 04.02.2002 Annual Meeting 2002 Formal Links Needed to Create International Policy Cohesion, Source: http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/Annual+Meeting+2002.

Documents

Name: Gerhard Berchtold Personal Identifier: T6153858 · 3 to test the T860 EDM framework by a stakeholder in the process. The NCEDR (2002) defines environmental decisions as actions