Dear Editor,
The recently launched ‘name and shame’ anti-littering campaign by the Mayor and City Council (M&CC) has been praised by some and condemned by some. However, I believe the campaign is not the most effective and can be interchanged with a Community Service Programme.
Litter can be expensive to clean up, so the act of littering has been made a fineable offence by statute in many places.
The most common type of litter found in the city are food packaging materials, Styrofoam, bottles, cans, plastics, papers, metals and waste materials.
In order to discourage littering, it is imperative that criminal penalties be enforced that punish unwanted behaviours. In some countries, these penalties vary whereby the weight and volume of litter determines the severity of the crime while in others the penalties vary based on the type of litter, imposing penalties for dumping large items.
In Guyana, we have the Litter Enforcement Regulations, 2013, which is enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency through its Enforcement and Compliance Division. The Regulations speak about the penalties under the following litter offences:
- Depositing litter in a public place
- Disposal of litter from a motor vehicle
- Failure of owner of bus to provide receptacle for
litter
- Offences of litter premises
There is also the Municipal District Councils Act, Chapter 28:01 which governs the work of the M&CC. The M&CC handles waste matters by enforcing the provisions of the City of Georgetown (Collection and Disposal of Waste) and Offensive Matter (Removal) By-laws and the Public Health Ordinance.
However, Guyana still lacks specific legislation on Solid Waste Management and current legislation are said to overlap each other. A draft Solid Waste Management Bill was taken to Cabinet in February 2014 for discussions. The bill sought to bring order to the way in which solid waste is managed through a solid waste management authority and provides for enforcement and penalties. Perhaps attention should be refocused on the draft Solid Waste Management Bill as soon as possible.
In the meantime, I commend the M&CC for embarking on several cleanup programmes to restore Georgetown as the Garden City. And as mentioned, I have observed the attention gained by the current ‘name and shame’ anti-littering campaign.
It is my view, if the campaign is a temporary one that the impact it seeks to make will not be very great. Additionally, I believe that those named and shamed could care less about the publication of their names and pictures in the newspapers and social media. In Guyana, people now consider littering ‘normal’, therefore the embarrassment which the campaign seeks to make will be little to none. Name and shame is inconsequential and is an easy escape from a fine or imprisonment
I believe that a more effective and sustainable substitute to the name and shame campaign could be the implementation of a Community Service Programme as alternative sentencing to non-violent offenders in relatively minor cases. The offender should be given the option of completing a set number of hours of unpaid work in the clean-up campaign in lieu of a fine or spending time in prison. The M&CC will gain more workers at no cost and the community will be able to benefit from the initiative, it is a win-win for all. However, in more serious cases, offenders should be subjected to a fine or imprisonment.
This type of strategy will be able to create a greater impact since offenders will really feel the consequences of their actions and simultaneously learn a valuable lesson on ethical behaviour. It irks people to take them away from their regular day to day routines and today, nobody wants to be in sun, especially to pick up trash and clean drains around the city. This alone should be able to jolt and shift the mindsets of offenders, hence creating an attitudinal metamorphosis that is oh so badly needed in Guyana.
However, these are just my views and it is hoped that the M&CC will make consideration for such a programme.
Yours faithfully,
Marissa Lowden
