The relaunch of the Central Environmental Authority’s “e-Kunu” electronic-waste collection program is a welcome initiative. Electronic waste obviously contains hazardous substances and cannot be disposed of safely, together with ordinary household waste. Providing the public with authorised collection centres and ensuring that the collected items are handled by registered recyclers are therefore important steps towards protecting both public health and the environment.
However, the announcement leaves one essential question unanswered: *When will the public actually be able to use these collection centres?*
The signing of the Memorandum of Understanding was attended by the Minister and Deputy Minister of Environment, the Chairman and Director General of the CEA, and other officials. The event received considerable publicity. We have been informed about the types of electronic waste that may be handed over and that collection points will be established across the country. Yet the public has not been told when collection will begin, where the main centres will be located, or when the promised nationwide network is expected to become operational.
This is not a criticism of the “e-Kunu” program per se. It reflects a wider weakness in the manner in which Government programs and projects are announced in Sri Lanka and left to wither away.
Agreements are signed and new initiatives are launched amid considerable ceremony and publicity. Photographs are published and speeches are delivered, repeated by a supportive media. Nevertheless, the exact date by which the program will commence—or, in the case of a construction or development project, the expected date of completion—is frequently not disclosed.
This is one of the important differences between the public and private sectors. In the private sector, a project would ordinarily have a commencement date, an implementation schedule, measurable milestones and a completion date. Responsibility would be assigned to identified persons, and progress would be reviewed against the agreed timetable and cost centres. A project announcement without a timeframe would generally be regarded as incomplete.
Government programs should be subject to the same basic discipline. A public announcement should not merely describe an intention. It should also tell the public:
n
When implementation will begin;
n
What the principal stages of implementation will be;
n
Where the service will initially be available;
n
How and by whom the funding would be met;
n
When the full program is expected to become operational; and
n
Which Minister, institution or official is responsible for delivering it.
These details need not become an administrative burden. Even where an exact date cannot immediately be guaranteed, the Government could announce a realistic target date and subsequently explain any unavoidable delay. Such transparency would give the public a basis on which to follow progress and would encourage the institutions concerned to maintain momentum after the publicity surrounding the launch has ended.
President Anura Kumara Dissanayake’s Government has an opportunity to change this longstanding culture. It can establish a simple but meaningful principle: *whenever a Government project, program or agreement is publicly announced, the expected commencement and completion date should also be announced.*
This would distinguish a commitment to delivery from the familiar practice of governing by announcement and erection of costly commemoration plaques. It would also strengthen public confidence because citizens would be able to judge Government initiatives by measurable results rather than by the publicity generated at their launch.
Agreements are signed and new initiatives are launched amid considerable ceremony and publicity. Photographs are published and speeches are delivered, repeated by a supportive media. Nevertheless, the exact date by which the program will commence—or, in the case of a construction or development project, the expected date of completion—is frequently not disclosed
Private-sector organisations participating in Government programs should also have a responsibility in this regard. Publicity is understandably important to companies that contribute their funds, expertise or facilities to a public initiative. There is nothing objectionable about recognising their participation. However, the value of such recognition will ultimately depend on whether the promised service becomes available to the public.
The CEA and its private-sector partners should now jointly inform the public:
n
The date on which the collection of electronic waste will commence;
n
The towns in which the first collection centres will be established;
n
The addresses and operating hours of those centres; and
n
The timetable for extending the service to other parts of the country.
Publicity at the time an agreement is signed is important but not a guarantee that the program will be fully implemented. Therefore, the purpose of raising these questions is not to diminish a worthwhile environmental initiative. It is to help ensure that the initiative moves promptly from an agreement signed at a public ceremony to a service available to ordinary citizens and of course, the nation.
The true measure of the “e-Kunu” relaunch will not be the signing ceremony. It will be the day on which a member of the public can take an unwanted mobile phone, battery, laptop or charger to a clearly identified collection centre and know that it will be disposed of responsibly.
The public deserve to be told when that day will come.
A worried citizen- Moratuwa
