If not us, then A Social Dimensions of Community-based Environment Initiatives 23150 December 2000 . TH WORD BNK KrrinGil THE WORLD BANK Ki rri n G il1 02000 The International Bank [or Reconstruction and Development/THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20433. U.S.A. Printed in Bangkok, Thailand First Printing December 2000 The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this study are entirely those of the author and should not be attributed to the World Bank, to its affiliated organizations or to members of its Board of Executive Directors or the countries they represent. The maps that accompany the text have been prepared solely for the convenience of the reader; the designations and presentation of material in them do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part ofthe World Bank, its aftiliates, or its Board or member countries concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city, or area, or of the authorities thereof, or concerning the delinmitation of its boundaries or its national affiliation. This paper wras written by Kirrin Gill of the Environment and Social Development Unit of the East Asia and Pacific Region. Tanvi Nagpal. Illangovan Patchamuthu, Heinrich Unger. Warren Van Wicklin. Thomas Walton. Anna Wetterberg. and David Williams provided peer review Katherin Golitzen provided editorial assistance. Kanchalika Klad-Angkul prepared the document for publication. Cover and layout designed by Ratchubol Chayutkul. Social Dimensions of Community-Based Environment Initiatives Kirrin Gill 5 FOREWORD BOXES 6 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 68 ABBREVIATIONS CKNOWLEDGEMEN25 Box 1. Babon River: Banding Together to 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Monitor the Health of a River 11 INTRODUCTION 28 Box 2. Paliko Creek Rehabilitation Program: 12 THE AIMS OF THE STUDY A Partnership Approach 13 METHODOLOGY 31 Box 3. ZKK Solid Waste Program: A Medical Clinic Tackles an Urban 15 Limitations of the Analysis Community's Garbage Problem 16 THE MEIP APPROACH 36 Box 4. The Kampung Improvement Program 16 Indonesia (KIP): A Comprehensive Approach to Environmental Problems 17 Philippines 41 Box S. Summay of Findings 23 BUILDING BLOCKS OF THE MEIP APPROACH 23 Country and Local Context FIGURES 23 Community Involvement 24 Figure 1. Community Involvement in MEIP 26 Local Decision-Making Initiatives: Extent 27 Local Contributions 25 Figure 2. Community Involvement in MEIP 29 Capacity Building Initiatives: Quality 29 Transparency and Accountability 32 Figure 3. MEIP Project Impacts 35 Figure 4. Sustainability of Project Investments 29 Inclusion 37 Figure 5. Sources of Funds for Project 32 BENEFITS OF THE MEIP APPROACH Maintenance 32 Project Impact 38 Figure 6. Community Involvement and Project Impact 33 Innovation and Dissemination 38 Figure 7. Community Perceptions of Positive 34 Institutionalization Factors 35 Sustainability TABLES 37 Expectations 38 Factors of Influence 12 Table 1. Analytical Framework 42 CONCLUSIONS 14 Table 2. MEIP Community Initiatives Selected 42 Implications of the Study Findings for the Study 45 Ripple Effects 19 Table 3. Projects Selected for the Study: The Ripple Effects ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Philippines 47 REFERENCES 21 Table 4. Projects Selected for the Study: Indonesia 49 ANNEX A: THE PHILIPPINES, PROJECT SUMMARIES 40 Table 5. Summary of Community Perceptions of the MEIP Initiatives 54 ANNEX B: INDONESIA, PROJECT SUMMARIES 45 Table 6. Key Social and Institutional 58 ANNEX C: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS FOR COMMUNITY LEADERS Indicators for MEIP ii1 if ot us, the. who? "Environmental problems are not problems of our surroundings, but in their origins and through their conseQuences - are thoroughly social problems, problems of people, their history, their living conditions, their relations to the world and reality, their social, cultural and living conditions... .At the end oF the twentieth century nature is society and society is also *nature'. (Beck, 1992, emphasis in the original) Community members in Srengseng Sawah, Indonesia admire a star fruit tree they have planted as part of the Kebagusan Green Corridors Project If not us, t&n wh0? j4 The Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Philippines, highlighting how communities gained Program, or MEIP, as it is commonly called, has from the process of establishing the projects, as been a pioneer in the World Bank's efforts to well as from their outcomes. We hope this paper address the environmental concerns of Asia's major will be useful to managers of community-based cities. MEIP called attention to the rapidly programs, non-governmental organizations, escalating solid waste and pollution problems of communities and policy-makers as they continue to urban areas and brought together key actors -- grapple with the environmental and development government, the private sector, non-governmental facing urban areas. organizations, and technical and research institutions -- to strategize how to resolve them. MEIP embodies the spirit of team effort, and we While working with central, provincial and local would like to extend our thanks to the governments governments to strengthen policies and develop of Indonesia and the Philippines, their officials, and environmental management strategies, MEIP also representatives of the private sector, media, and piloted community initiatives to test innovative technical institutes. In particular, we would like to ideas on the ground. These demonstration projects thank the people who made community action at the have improved environmental conditions and have grass-roots possible: community members, non- given communities the experience and structures governmental organizations, community-based they need to continue to improve their lives in the organizations, local government, and MEIP staff. future. This publication focuses on MEIP's community- Zafer Ecevit based initiatives and considers the social Director dimensions and long-term benefits of a community- Environment and Social Development based approach. It explores the experience of twelve East Asia and Pacific Region community projects in Indonesia and the The World Bank 5 If not us, then who? Bapedalda Badan Pengendalian Dampak MDF Muntinlupa Development Foundation Lingkungan Daerah(local environ mental protection agency in MEIP Metropolitan Environmental Indonesia) Improvement Program BHW Barangay Health Workers NGO Non-Governmental Organization CLEAR Citizens League for Ecological NPC MEIP National Program Coordinator Awareness and Responsibility PSF Public Sanitation Facilities DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the Philippines RW Rukun Warga (association consisting of several RTs) EWM Eco-Waste Management RT Rukun Tetangga (Indonesian IEC Information, Education, and neighborhood association) Communication UNDP United Nations Development KIP Kampung Improvement Program Programme LLDA Laguna Lake Development Authority ZKK Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran (Zero Waste for Progress program in the Philippines) If not us, then who? 6 n:s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Many people helped bring life to the stories Warren Van Wicklin,. Thomas Walton, and David about MEIP described on these pages. The field Williams. Bhuvan Bhatnagar, Lanfranco Blanchetti- work for the study was conducted by Victoria Revelli, John Clark, Scott Guggenheim, Espaldon in the Philippines and Deviariandy Patchamuthu Illangovan, Kumi Kitamori, Parmesh Setiawan in Indonesia. MEIP National Program Shah, Mark Sundberg, and Anna Wetterberg also Coordinators, Bebet Gozun in the Philippines and provided input. Suhadi Hadiwinoto in Indonesia, introduced the study team to the MEIP communities and Learning about MEIP has been an inspiring painstakingly provided the background details on a process. I particularly want to thank all the MEIP decade of experience in the two countries. Members partners who made these stories a reality: Illango, from MEIP communities sat for hours with the study Tanvi, Kumi, Bebet, Suhadi, and the MEIP team to describe their experiences. The report was communities, themselves. peer reviewed by Tanvi Nagpal, Heinrich Unger, If not us, then wh0? 8 I~~~~ I I |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ C I Executive Summary --l .S - , A call to action from the people's protests of the 1960s in the Philippines, adopted by the environmental group. Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran (Zero Waste for Progress). to mobilize a Manila community to tackle its garbage problem. For over 10years, the Metropolitan transparency and accountability of project finances Environmental Improvement Program (MEIP) was also uneven, which restricted community access worked with communities in Indonesia and the to information about the administrative decision- Philippines to find innovative solutions to urban making process. environmental problems. A participatory process to build local ownership, capacity and institutions was MEIP initiatives had broad benefits. central to MEIP's approach. As a result, projects Communities reported positive impacts on the their had not only environmental effects but social and environment, general well-being, and capacity to institutional ones as well. This paper examines organize and participate. MEIP efforts helped MEIP's social and institutional development process communities improve their livelihood through and the broader dimensions and benefits of its access to grant funds, savings programs and income community-based approach. It looks at how MEIPs generation opportunities. Pilot initiatives in both pilot projects enabled communities to be better Indonesia and the Philippines had considerable eQuipped to improve their own lives and helped success in institutionalizing their innovative shape environmental policy and programs. approaches through changes in policies and programs. For instance, in one of the earliest MEIP catalyzed communities and NGOs to instances of devolving financial control to address the environmental problems of their cities. communities in Indonesia, MEIP helped the The program provided seed funds and technical government to draft procedures to enable advice to NGOs to work in partnership with communities to control grant funds in the Kampung communities on local environmental issues, such as Improvement Program. In the Philippines, half of solid waste and water pollution. The paper looks at MEIP's innovative approaches have been adopted by the building blocks of MEIP's community-based government programs. Study findings suggest that approach, such as the level of community MEIP's focus on a participatory process, involvement, local decision-making, capacity institutional capacity building and a partnership building, local contribution and inclusion. approach benefited its communities. A high level of Communities in both countries were highly involved community involvement was associated with high in implementation of MEIP initiatives, and, in the impact of projects in both Indonesia and the Philippines, in project planning and management. Philippines. However, poor institutional capacity MEIP helped communities build their capacity by and lack of a network of support weakened the training them in technical environmental skills, and, sustainability of MEIP initiatives in Indonesia. to some degree, in management. All groups in the community took part in MEIP initiatives, and women The paper provides an outline of key indicators represented over 40 percent of participants. to monitor the social dimensions of a community- However, communities had little involvement in based approach and considers what the MEIP resource allocation or monitoring and evaluation, experience shows about expanding and scaling-up which limited the extent to which initiatives could grass-roots efforts. be driven by the communities themselves. The If not us, then who? 10 By the 1980s, the escalating environmental By the second year of the program, managers problems of Asia's megacities had become all too saw a need to link MEIP's activities with evident. Smoke-filled air, littered streets and communities to bring academic strategies to the polluted waterways were common features of urban ground level and to tap local innovations. They centers, and such problems were growing believed community-based initiatives would allow unchecked. The Metropolitan Environmental MEIP to pilot new ideas, as well as to explore and Improvement Program (MEIP) was initiated in the expand existing innovative strategies. Communities late 1980s by the World Bank and UNDP to help were both a demand and a resource that could not urban centers in East and South Asia address these be neglected. Community projects were also seen as mounting environmental concerns. MEIP aimed to a way to include the needs of the poor and most look at the relationship between natural vulnerable groups in environmental efforts. environmental systems and urban areas. This paper focuses on MEIP's community-based The program originaly began in five cities in initiatives in two countries, Indonesia and the five different countries, Manila, Jakarta, Bombay, Philippines. 'Community-based development' Beijing, and Colombo, and supported a broad range encompasses a wide range of different types of of activities. It strengthened environmental policies initiatives at the grass-roots level. By definition, by working with central, provincial and local community-based approaches are intended to governments to develop environmental management respond to local problems, constraints, and strategies, policies and action plans. MEIP opportunities, and so are deepy influenced by their emphasized the importance of strategic studies to local context. Looking at MEIP's experience in two help establish an empirical basis for future efforts. countries provides an opportunity to examine the specific building blocks of MEIP's approach, and MEIP focused on involving all key urban actors how they were adapted to different country contexts. in environmental activities. NGOs, government, the private sector and technical and research MEIP's community-based process is not typical. institutions worked together on MEIP's steering The program functioned primarily as a catalyst, committee. MEIP sponsored inter-country using a small budget for seed funds and a few workshops to facilitate exchange of experience and dedicated staff members. However, the lessons from learning between countries. To build capacity of its experience offer insights for other community- government agencies and NGOs, MEIP also assisted based efforts. its partners through training, seminars and field exercises, particularly as related to participatory approaches. 11 If not us, then who? In both Indonesia and the Philippines, a Table 1. Analytical Framework participatory approach to build local ownership, capacity and institutions was central to MEIP's Process Outcomes community-based initiatives. Thanks to this approach, project impacts extended beyond environment alone. The study examines the social * Planning * Environment and institutional aspects of MEIP's process and the . Management * Well-being ways communities gained from MEIP's community- based and participatory approach. The primary Implementation * Capacity toorganize and participate Question explored is: Local Decision-Making Innovation and Dissemination What are the broader dimensions and Local Contribution Institutionalization potential benefits of a community-based Capacity Building Sustainability approach? Transparency and Accountability Expectations To determine this, the study considers both the Inclusion process and outcome of MEIP's approach: * Process: What are the social and Finall, the study aims to provide guidance to institutional building blocks of MEIP's managers of community-based projects on how to community-based approach? expand the social and institutional benefits of their * Outcome: What are the social and projects. institutional benefits of MEIP's community-based approach? Because these questions are interlinked, the study then looks at the relationship between MEIP's building blocks and its social and institutional benefits. To understand the process and its outcomes, several hypotheses about the nature of community-based development and its benefits are explored through the indicators in Table I If not us, then 50h? 12 While MEIP was implemented at various levels, A total of sixteen community-based initiatives from national policy to the grassroots, this study were chosen for this study, eight from each country. focuses on MEIP's community-based initiatives. Initiatives were selected to provide a representative These initiatives were based in a particular sample of the range undertaken in each country. The geographic location and aimed to engage complete list of community-based initiatives was community members in the development process. In categorized into different project types, and each country, the definition of community was initiatives were chosen from among each type. (See adapted to the local context. Table 2 for project types and initiatives selected for the study, and Annexes A and B for a complete list In Indonesia, community was generally defined of all of MEIPs community-based initiatives.) by the administrative entities Rukun Tetangga (RT) (neighborhood association) covering about 300 To select from among initiatives of each project people and Rukun Warga (RW) (association type, criteria were developed to provide a consisting of several RTs) covering about 3,000 representative range of initiatives. Selection criteria people. In the Philippines, community was used as a included: generic term to identify any group with a common . physical and geographic environments set of interests, located in a particular geographic * type of lead institutions area. These included cities, barangays (the lowest . type of community members administrative level), industry associations, schools, * starting date of the initiative. offices, malls and residential communities. Communities ranged in size from a barangay of The second-oldest initiative in each category 40,000 people to a condominium community of was selected for two reasons: first, to provide an about 700 people. adequate time frame in which to observe the initiative's impact and second, to avoid the potential Some of MEIP's community-based initiatives in bias of problems that can be associated with pilot Indonesia were Quite large. The Pisang Baru efforts. Kampung Greening Project involved two to three communities in 75 sub-districts, covering about half Research was conducted by local consultants in a million people in total, and the Kebagusan each country. The study was based on three sources Corridor Greening Project involved 30 of information: (1) focus groups with beneficiaries in communities, covering 90,000 people. In the selected communities where a MEIP community- Philippines, MEIP initiatives worked intensively in a based initiative had been conducted; (2) discussions small number of communities of several thousand with and documentation from the MEIP National people, although some projects were considerably Program Coordinator in each country; and (3) case larger, such as the School Involvement in histories of each community initiative based on Muntinlupa Citys Solid Waste Reduction Plan, information from communities, NGOs, local leaders which involved 30 communities. and MEIP National Program Coordinators. 13 1If not us, tLen sh0? Table 2. MEIP Community Initiatives Selected for the Study Project Type Total Area Covered by Project Communities Selected for the Study PHILIPPINES Community Action Planning for Public Sanitation 2 communities Marikina Community- based Water Quality Monitoring 3 communities None Donor-Beneficiary Scheme 5 donor communities and 4 Makati City: Bldg. 6750 and Barangay beneficiary communities Pinagkaisahan Household-level Solid Waste 8 communities Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran (ZKK) Barangay New Era Public Market Solid Waste Clean-up 6 communities Binan River Paco Public Market Recycling of Polystyrene Waste from Commercial I community None Establishments River Rehabilitation and Solid Waste 3 communities Paliko Creek School Involvement in City-wide Solid 30 communities Muntinlupa City Waste Reduction Plan INDONESIA Community-based River Monitoring 6 communities and 4 Schools Babon River Corridor Greening 30 communities Kebagusan Housing Development I community None Kampung Greening 2-3 communities in each of Pisang Baru 75 sub-districts NGO Involvement in Kampung 10 areas (each covering Cipinang Besar Utara (Cibesut) Improvement Program (KIP) several communities)and I Pulo Gadung small island community Tugu Utara Solid Waste Habitat 10 neighborhood communities Pejaten Barat Urban Renewal I community None Water Quality Management 5 communities Semanan Focus groups were conducted in each Community leaders were comprised of community with three types of people: (I) representatives of NGOs working in the community, community leaders, (2) community members actively local government leaders, and leaders of local involved in the project,' and (3) female members of community-based organizations. Community the community with no particular relationship to the members actively involved in the project were project or the community members, both men and selected based on guidance from key informants and women, who were actively involved in the project.2 community leaders. A focus group with active community members was not held for two community projects in Indonesia. In Semanan where the Water Quality Management initiative had been conducted in a neighborhood of soybean producers, MEIP supported a community development specialist from an NGO to encourage community involvement in the establishment of a wastewater treatment plant. However, due to problems between the soybean producers' collective and its members, few community members were actively involved in the project and none were available to take part in the focus group. In Pisang Baru, community members who had been actively involved in the project could not be located. The relationship between the managing NGO and the community was limited to large information dissemination meetings and the provision of seedlings. Although many community members took part in greening activities, they did not associate them with the MEIP initiative. I Focus groups with women were not conducted in one community in the Philippines and four communities in Indonesia. In New Era barangay in the Philippines, community members had been displaced to another area, therefore, women currently living in the community were unfamiliar with the initiative. In Semanan (Water Quality Management), Pejaten Barat (Solid Waste Habitat), Babon River (Community-based River Monitoring), and Kebagusan (Corridor Greening) in Indonesia, the MEIP initiatives were conducted with a small group of people, therefore, community members outside this group were not familiar with the initiatives. If not us, th.en who? 14 The findings presented in the paper are organizations outside the community prior to the based primarily on responses from community MEIP intervention, all of which are important for leaders and active community members. understanding pre-existing institutional Responses from focus groups with women not development. Insights are also restricted by the involved with the project are used to serve as a quality and completeness of available sources of check, first on bias in responses of the other information. MEIP National Program Coordinators focus groups, which had greater involvement and (NPCs) offered a rich source of information therefore greater stake in the projects; and concerning tenyears of project history, but they also second on potential gender-differentiated biases presented a potential for bias due to their stake in and impacts. Findings from focus groups with the program. Retrospective research was women are reported in this paper only in cases complicated by MEIPs conscious effort, particularly where they are notably different from those of in Indonesia, to keep a low profile in order to foster other focus groups. community ownership of environmental actions. The study is based on Qualitative measures and A literature review was conducted to develop subjective ratings that may have different meanings hypotheses about the building blocks and within different cultural contexts. benefits of community-based initiatives and to select indicators to be investigated in the study. To address these weaknesses, the study focuses Areas selected were restricted to those relevant on understanding the process and outcomes related to the MEIP process and those about which to conducting a community-based initiative within a information was available. The indicators were particular context, rather than on comparing results grouped into categories and then adapted for across countries. It explores community perceptions Questionnaires for focus groups. During field- of the development process to examine how testing, the indicators and Questionnaires were community-based initiatives start, function and adapted to the actual MEIP process in each prosper. While beneficiary satisfaction is a country. subjective measure, it is an important outcome for all development efforts, and a particular priority for LIMITATIONS OF THE ANALYSIS community-based initiatives. Findings have been verified by the use of several different sources of Due to the retrospective nature of the study, information. Three different groups of community the hypotheses and indicators that could be members were asked the same Questions in focus examined were limited. The lack of a baseline groups. Qualitative information from communities survey makes it impossible to conduct detailed was complemented by quantitative data, 'before and after' comparisons of project Questionnaires from MEIP program staff and NGO outcomes and community capacity. Little representatives, and site visits. Loss of information information was available on the level of due to time passing is not extensive because MEIP's community involvement, community oldest community initiatives started sixyears ago, organizational capacity, or interaction with and many of them have only recently ended. 15 if not s, then who? XA xr Sa9 F:Tm,: AllgS MEIP never sought to implement programs: * to test new ideas through small-scale pilot rather it was a catalyst, assisting others- exercises. particularly NGOs and communities-to get the resources, ideas and support they needed to NGOs were central to MEIP's community-based implement their own projects. MEIP's approach was initiatives. They initiated contact with the selected defined by a small pot of funds and a small communities, mobilized community involvement in dedicated staff. The program provided seed funds activities and managed the flow of funds. NGO to NGOs to work with communities to test selection was ad hoc, usually in response to the innovative ideas. In each country, the program was opportunities and innovative ideas available, managed by a National Program Coordinator (NPC). although some key characteristics influenced the Both Coordinators identified promising strategies process. To work with MEIP in Indonesia, NGOs and worked together with NGOs, communities, and needed two Qualifications: expertise in other interested partners to put them into action. environmental issues and familiarity with a MEIP also helped its partners to draw on existing comprehensive, community development approach. resources and organizations to complement their In the Philippines, MEIP supported NGO efforts. community-based initiatives that were characterized by local ownership and innovation. NGOs there had MEIP's earlyyears, beginning in the late 1980s, to have a strong community-based partner were occupied at the national policy level with organization, be demand driven, and in the initial developing environmental strategies and stage of piloting a new idea. regulations. The process involved work with a ange of key actors in the environment sector, including Descriptions of the sixteen projects selected NGOs. Through such interactions, MEIP NPCs for this study are provided in Tables I and 2. became familiar with new grassroots approaches and with the potential for further innovations at the local INDONESIA level. At the same time, many of the ideas being put forth at the policy level had not been tested in the When MEIP began its work in Indonesia, open field, and there was a need for environmental results discussion of environmental issues or criticism of on the ground, particularly in poor communities existing policies and institutions was uncommon, that were shouldering more than their share of even among the media. In this context, MEIP aimed environmental degradation. to give voice to the people to demonstrate that change can be made though a local decision-making MEIP's community-based initiatives had several process. MEIP's emphasis was on improving aims: institutional structures by building local capacity, * to promote innovation rather than on environmental change per se. In this * to encourage local initiatives way the program hoped to enable sustainable * to increase community participation and environmental improvements. This was a slow ownership process because the NGO sector, civil society If not .., then wLo? i 16 structures and democratic processes required time greening programs and community-based river to develop. Civil society organizations and unions monitoring. They are spread throughout Jakarta and are now rapidly emerging, but this is a relatively have also been introduced in the cities of Semarang recent phenomenon. MEIP had to build on existing and Surabaya. MEIP's activities took many forms, resources and organizations and encourage including discussions on environmental issues, communities to take an active role in local decision- training in waste collection and composting, making while helping them to strengthen establishment of a liquid waste treatment facility, institutional structures to support the democratic and training in a bottom-up planning process for process. land use. MEIP's first community-based efforts in MEIP supported NGOs, technical groups and Indonesia were integrated with other comprehensive research institutions to facilitate environmental and community development efforts for the poor. From capacity building activities within communities. To 1990 on MEIP facilitated preparation and make best use of its limited resources, MEIP drew implementation of the Kampung Improvement on a broad range of partners to provide support to Program (KIP), which worked to provide basic community initiatives. Partnerships included infrastructure and sanitation to improve low income government ministries, industrial cooperatives, settlements. In 1994, MEIP encouraged the local international agencies, private foundations, government in Jakarta to allow NGOs to take over teachers, women's organizations,youth and student preparation and implementation of ten sites under organizations, and, in the case of a greening KIP. MEIP also helped establish the Community program, a bird club. These organizations provided Environmental Grant, through which funds were a network of support and technical advice for NGOs allocated directly to communities in KIP-a notable and communities. achievement in an era of strong central rule. Communities have used these grants to repair water PHILIPPINES supply systems, build new toilets and restore homes damaged by flooding. In contrast to Indonesia, civil society in the Philippines was well established and had an active Other MEIP initiatives in Indonesia include role in national development when MEIP began in water quality management, solid waste management, the country. NGOs were partners in policy dialogue 17 If not us, then Aho? at the international level, and community-based neighborhoods. Communities organizations were widespread. MEIP's community and NGOs initiated clean-up level work began with a study on local efforts, waste segregation, environmental efforts of NGOs. At that time, most composting and recycling. The environmental NGOs focused on 'green' issues, program collaborated with the such as forestry or logging, rather than the 'brown' private sector, foundations, concerns of urban areas. The study highlighted what schools, offices, malls, and was and was not working at the community level and vendor associations, as well as gave MEIP an introduction to potential local residential communities. To partners. By 1993 MEIP had begun to support NGO raise the visibility of efforts to resolve the environmental problems of environmental concerns, MEIP urban communities. worked closely with local champions, including public The MEIP approach in the Philippines was officials, NGO representatives guided by the philosophy that environmental and dedicated individuals. management is everyone's concern since everyone contributes to and is affected by environmental Projects included degradation. The initiatives aimed to demonstrate household level solid waste to communities that, by working together on a programs, school involvement common cause, they can make a difference, no in a city-wide solid waste matter how poor they may be. By involving the reduction plan, solid waste clean-up in public Lorenzo Cawali's painting community in the entire process, from problem markets, river rehabilitation, and community action of communities creating a clean and green city won identification through to finding solutions, the planning for public sanitation. MEIP also supported the high school division program worked to build ownership and a 'donor-beneficiary scheme,' which matched a low grand prize in the commitment. MEIP advised NGOs and communities income, beneficiary community with a high-rise Muntinlupa City environ- on how to cut problems down to a manageable size, building in an upper middle-class, donor mental art competition in making solutions easier. community. The donor community learned to the Philippines. segregate its waste while members of the low MEIP initiatives in the Philippines focused income community managed waste segregation and primarily on solid waste management, a major recycling and earned profits from the recyclable concern in the country, particularly in poor materials. If not -s, th-en Ah? 18 Table 3. Projects Selected for the Study Name Objectives Barangay New Era * To mainstream the concept of Ecological Waste Management in the barangays. Household Level Solid Waste * To set up a sustainable mechanism by which target communities can attain self sufficiency through the viable livelihood projects. Binan River * To promote reduction, recovery and proper disposal of market wastes. Public Market Solid Waste Clean-up Makati City, Donor-Beneficiary * To transform wastes into a resource with higher value. Solid Waste Management Scheme * To involve community in managing the resource. * To provide a system where 'resource rich' groups 'donate' segregated wastes to the barangays who can recycle and generate income from wastes, and create employment for community members. Marikina Community Action Planning * To assist user groups, barangays and municipal officials in improving operation, for Public Sanitation maintenance and development of services related to Public Sanitation Facilities (PSF). * To rehabilitate PSF based on a community plan. * To document the processes involved. * To determine mechanisms by which pilot activities can be adopted by other PSFs. Muntinlupa City * To reduce school waste by fifty percent in 1999. School Involvement in City-wide Solid Waste Reduction Plan Paco * To promote reduction, recovery and proper disposal of market wastes Public Market Solid Waste Clean-up Paliko Creek River Rehabilitation * To raise the level of environmental and health consciousness of the community. and Solid Waste * To mobilize local industries to voluntarily comply with effluent standards. * To mobilize city government and barangays to strictly enforce anti-pollution and anti-littering laws, rules and regulations. * To reduce discharges of domestic and industrial wastewater and dumping of solid waste. Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran (ZKK) * To conduct Waste Management and Awareness Seminar for residents, officials, Household Level Solid Waste leaders andyouth in the target areas. * To conduct training in waste segregation, recycling and composting involving at least 700 community members. * To organize community members into a cooperative. * To develop linkages with municipal and barangay governments in implementation of ordinances for proper management and improvement of sanitation. 19 If not us, then who? The Philippines Activities Partners * Information, Education and Communication Campaign Recycling Movement of the Philippines Foundation, Inc. * Training Barangay officials * Composting Community members * Recycling * Segregation at household level * Training of Trainers * Segregation Lions Club * Composting Local government * Information, Education and Communication Campaign Laguna Lake Dev. Authority * Training Fisheries and Aquatic Resource Management Council Academic Institutions League of Binan Leaders Media * Information, Education and Communication Campaign Low and mid income communities * Training Food stall and restaurant owners * Segregation Association of business establishments * Donor-Beneficiary Matching Polystyrene Packaging Council of the Philippines * Livelihood Ayala Foundation Department of Environment and Natural Resources * Management of Public Toilet Facility and Water Supply UP Social Action and Research for Development Foundation * Participatory action planning Barangay Council Barangay Sanitation * Information, Education and Communication Campaign School officials * Training Committee on Health and Sanitation of Muntinlupa City * Segregation School children * Composting * Segregation Paco Vendors Association * Composting Vendors * Information, Education and Communication Campaign Hawkers . Training Unilever Community members Local government Clergy * Solid waste management Barangay Cupang * Organizing urban communities City government of Muntinlupa * Information, Education and Communication Campaign LLDA (Laguna Lake Development Authority) * Training Muntinlupa Development Foundation Advance Warehousing Association, Inc. * Composting Dagat-dagatan Polymedic Medical Foundation, Inc. * Recycling Community members * Segregation at household level Recycling Movement of the Philippines Foundation, Inc. * Information, Education and Communication Campaign Local government * Training for Trainers Local civic organizations * Establishment of a Community Vegetable Farm * Seminar on Cooperative Development * Income generation activities from recycled waste materials if not us, then wh0? 20 Table 4. Projects Selected for the Study Name Objectives Babon River * To improve information, awareness, skills and economic capability of Community-based communities to enable their participation in environmental management River Monitoring Kebagusan * To create green corridors to connect major green areas in Jakarta to improve Green Corridors the city environment, encourage bird life and biodiversity Pejaten Barat, * To reduce solid waste by implementing low-cost composting technology Solid Waste Habitat Pisang Baru Kampung Greening * To help low income communities establish green areas in their settlements, using their own resources Pulo Gadung, Cibesut, * To strengthen community involvement in basic infrastructure provision and and Tugu Utara, Kampung sanitation improvement in slum areas. Improvement Program (KIP) Semanan * To reduce river pollution caused by tofu and tempe production along Banjir Kanal, Water Quality Management by relocation of small-scale producers and development of a community-based water treatment and sewerage system. 21 if not us, then who? Indonesia Activities Partners * Workshops on environmental awareness and monitoring techniques Teachers * Training of Trainers Program Women's organizations * Village work groups Youth organizations University students The mayor Municipal government * Provision of seedlings and raising awareness about greening Symbiose Birds Club (NGO) and how to grow plants Community members * Self help approach lakarta Office of Agriculture * Encouragement of Dept. of Public Works to allow local nurseries to Department of Public Works utilize empty space along roads and rivers for growing plants Private nurseries Mayor of Central lakarta * At sub-district level, (I) increased awareness for households about United Nations Center for Human Settlements/ community solid waste management and encouragement of partnerships Habitat with scavengers, official waste pickers and the formal government system; Community members and (2) adjustment of pick-up schedule, re-routing of garbage cart, Sub-district government and improved services * At community level, evaluation of existing Recycling and Composting Production Enterprises * At household level, introduction of three methods of composting * Provision of seedlings Community members * Raising awareness about greening and how to grow plants New graduate volunteers * Self help approach NGOs * NGOs made responsible for KIP project preparation and NGOs implementation, to strengthen community involvement Local government * Community Environmental Grant provides a direct route funding Community members community needs, such as (I) construction of infrastructure and Private foundation (3 communities in public facilities, (2) micro-credit for job creation, and (3) strengthening Pela Mampung) social and community organization. * Home Improvement loans are available to families * Greening * Construction of central, community-based tofu and soybean cake Semanan co-op of tofu and soybean producers production kitchen with water treatment and sewerage system Office of Public Works of lakarta Special Territory * NGO-facilitated consultation with local communities; NGO facilitator Bina Swadaya (NGO) lived with community for 3 months and provided assistance in community Community members awareness and organization * Construction, installation, assistance in operation and maintenance provided by the Office of Public Works * Management of kitchen and supply of soybean through community co-op 1f not us, then wh0? 22 N~~~~~~~~t -- -> --na 9... 7> g> -tv _- *-- ~~' 1\X - ,-v !t\-- \,, -, s--- What is MEIP's community-based approach? * Project staff: MEIP in Indonesia was What are its social and institutional building blocks managed by one National Program Coordinator and what distinguishes it from other types of generally without any additional staff, while the initiatives? This section of the study looks at the National Program Coordinator in the Philippines MEIP community-based process through the had support from staff assistants. selected case studies. * Project scope: The scope of the project coverage was particularly large in some Indonesia COUNTRY AND LOCAL CONTEXT initiatives, likely affecting their intensity of involvement and impact. MEIP's approach varied according to the local and * Integrated development approach: Three country context of each project. The institutional, of MEIP's initiatives in Indonesia were integrated social and cultural factors within each country into a broader, comprehensive community determined the starting point of the initiatives and development program, the KIP. They are distinct were a critical influence on their progress and from the other Indonesian projects and tend to have outcomes. These factors included: stronger social and institutional development e (Civil society and institutional capacity: processes and outcomes. The Philippines has a vibrant NGO and civil society sector; MEIP initiatives were able to draw on Because of these important contextual existing community organizations and a wide differences, comparisons between Indonesia and the network of other institutions for support. Indonesia Philippines have limited use or validity unless seen is a recently emerging democracy; fewer in light of these factors. Although the following communities had existing local organizations or sections of the study make comparisons between institutions prior to the start of MEIP. countries for specific aspects of the MEIP process * Culture: Culture affects how development and benefits, both the characteristics and projects are managed and implemented, as well as achievements of the program should be viewed how their results are interpreted. In this study. for within the context of each country. example, cultural modes of expression may have influenced focus group results, particularly on COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT subjective rating scales. Indonesia and the Philippines have distinct styles of showing approval, A participatory process was a focus of MEIP in with understatement the general principle in both Indonesia and the Philippines, as a means to Indonesia and ebullience more common in the an end-to enable initiatives to be more responsive Philippines. These differences in style are likely to to community needs-and as an important end in have affected the way communities rated initiatives. itself. The level of involvement differed depending on project phase, planning, management and Programmatic factors in each country also implementation. Communities reported that they influenced the MEIP process and study findings. were very active in project implementation in both These included: countries; about 90 percent of community 23 If not us, the- wi0? respondents in both countries reported that they and implementation. Figure 1: Community Involvement in MEIP were always or often involved in the However, a lower level Initiatives: Extent implementation of the projects.3 Participation in of involvement is to be planning and management was more irregular. expected for these focus EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION: groups given that they To what extent was the community Involved in Community involvement in initiatives was were selected because Implementation? moderately high in key decision-making stages, they were not active 60 01 plannin,g and management in the Philippines. Most project members. In CL 50 - _ _ community respondents reported that they had comparison, other focus m 340-- - .E, 30 always or often been involved in the planning and groups were held with 20 E management of the projects. In Indonesia, leaders and community E 10 t. 0 community involvement in planning and members actively Always Often Sometimes Never management was less consistent. engaged in project activities, both of which EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING: Community perceptions of involvement in would be expected to To what extent was the community Involved in Indonesia differed by type of focus group. have a high level of 60 Community leaders had a much more positive involvement. Although 2 50 = = perception of community involvement during all some of the difference 0 40 - - project stages than other community members. In in extent of involvement a. 30 - - fact, almost all the respondents who reported the between women's groups , 20 highest extent of community involvement in and the others could be 10 0 -0 planning, management and implementation of the due to a gender bias, Always Often Sometimes Never initiatives were community leaders. This suggests further research that the deepest level of community involvement in comparing perceptions EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN MANAGEMENT: Indonesia may have been limited to the leaders of about the project of To what extent was the community Involved in the community. In the Philippines, the level of non-active females with 0 70 community involvement was similar for all groups. those of non-active , 60 - - males would be needed 50 cc 40- - The extent of involvement in MEIP initiatives to draw any conclusions. 30 = was lower among respondents in women's focus 20 _ groups, particularly in project management. This 0 10 0.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ was true in both the Philippines and Indonesia. In aR Always Often Sometimes Never Indonesia, they were also less active in planning m Indonesia = Philippines Findings from focus groups may be positively biased since they depend on the information available. In some communities, particularly in Indonesia where some projects were no longer functioning, information was not available on building blocks of the MEIP process. if not us, then who? 24 Box 1. Babon River: Banding Together to Monitor the Health of a River The Indonesian Government launched a Clean River Program (Prokasih) in 1988 to reduce the water pollution caused by large and medium industry. Prokasih introduced a formal monitoring system, but it was not enforced since the budget did not provide for the intensive monitoring and inspections required. MEIP saw that there was a need for a community monitoring process to complement the formal government system and to put pressure on industry and government to improve their performance. The idea was to use simple methods and equipment that communities could easily learn and manage themselves. In the early 1990s, the Indonesian government was still very centralized and focused on formal institutions. Most officials were not interested in a Figure 2: Community Involvement in MEIP participatory process. With encouragement from MEIP, however, the city of Initiatives: Quality Semarang decided to set up a community-based river monitoring program at Babon River. MEIP worked with the Mayor to develop plans to strengthen QUALITY OF INVOLVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION: environmental efforts and with Bapedalda (the local environmental protection Are you satisfied with the communities' Involvement in Implementation? agency) to develop the project. MEIP encouraged Bapedalda to visit the 'I successful river monitoring effort of the PPHL (Environmental Study Center) in j 70 - = '' Trawas, East lava. Bapedalda then brought PPHL to Semarang to assist with . 6= setting up field sites and training local staff and community members. MEIP a) 50- uptann tafmmes 40 - i provided funds for the training and some eQuipment and chemicals. An C 30 e 20 - i z j' organizing committee for the project brought together the efforts of several E 10 a sf n 2 government departments to support the project: public works, sanitation, Very satisfied n culture and education, agriculture and fisheries. QUALITY OF INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING: The project team selected monitoring sites at different points along the Are you satisfied with the communities' Involvement in planning ? river - upstream middle and downstream. They met with communities and aa) 70 ''_____________________________ schools along the river and trained them to conduct the monitoring. A water i 0o quality monitoring expert from Sugyapranata University in Semarang helped to e0 50 ~-- 1;develop the methodology for the sampling and project evaluation. High School - 30 ^ = = f Biology and Physics teachers invited their students to join river monitoring E 20 - _ I ,' groups. River monitoring was included as a topic in school essay writing E 20 gop.Rvrwsa E0 reQuirements. 0 Very satisfied satisfied not satisfied ,j The project made steady progress, but funding issues constrained some QUALITY OF INVOLVEMENT IN MANAGEMENT: project activities on the ground. Bapedalda supported the maintenance of Are you satisfied with the communities' Involvement in management ? school and community monitoring sites, but its budget was small. In then m) _______________________________ sought assistance from other partners. The Education Department provided 0) 70 On 7o _ 1l funds for chemicals for the school laboratory but supply was irregular. Due to ,, so _ 1, limited funds, field activities involved a small number of community members. 4 20 41 t Gradually, training will be expanded to a larger group. c 30- E 20 0O 10- : | 1 _ _ ,MEIP's partnership with institutions in Semarang had impacts beyond the C.) Very satisfied satisfied not satisfied river's communities and schools. Bapedalda's visit to PPLH in Tawas convinced it of the need to integrate community-based approaches in environmental m Indonesia ETJ Philippines h protection and improvement. The Babon River Monitoring Project has become a model for other cities. lust as Bapedalda once visited PPLH in Tawas, other groups now come to Semarang to observe and learn from its community river monitoring activities. 25 If not us, then who? Community satisfaction with involvement in the planning, management and implementation of MEIP initiatives has generally been good. More than 80 percent of community respondents reported that they were satisfied or highly satisfied. Satisfaction was particularly high in the Philippines for involvement in project planning. A small percentage (about IS percent) of community respondents in both countries were not satisfied with their involvement during project planning. Indonesian respondents also expressed dissatisfaction with involvement in project management, and, to a lesser - degree, in implementation. LOCAL DECISION-MAKING Focus groups with community leaders involved detailed Questions on decision-making processes. Binan River in Manila before the MEIP project. Community leaders reported that Filipino initiatives and the comprehensive KIP projects in Indonesia helped build local institutional capacity by enabling communities to: *have an active role in problem analysis and project design. * have information on options, costs and benefits and reach consensus. *establish new committees and their own rules for management. In the Philippines, leaders of almost all the communities surveyed gave high ratings to all three aspects of decision-making. While leaders in the three KIP communities in Indonesia reported a high level of involvement in all three aspects of decision- making, other communities reported moderate or no involvement. Binan River after fisher folk and the Lion Club literally fished the garbage out of the river and hauled the garbage away in fishing boats. If not us, then who? 26 MEIP contributed to the institutional capacity provided several types of inputs to the MEIP of communities by building local structures and initiatives, including manpower, complementary processes for community control over decision- actions, materials, money and ideas. In the making and by enabling communities to have Philippines, all communities contributed control over resources. These capacity building manpower, and about half of the communities also efforts were evident among most projects in the supplied materials, money and ideas. About half Philippines and the KIP projects in Indonesia. of the communities in Indonesia provided According to community leaders, almost all manpower, complementary actions and ideas to communities in the Philippines and two of the KIP the projects. communities in Indonesia established new committees and their own rules for management and Municipal authorities and the private sector operation. Five Filipino communities and two also contributed to the projects. In both Indonesian KIP communities always managed their countries, municipal authorities provided own funds for project activities. In the third KIP materials and complementary actions for several community, Cibesut, the NGO working with the projects. In a few cases in the Philippines, they community managed the funds and led the project also supplied manpower and money. About half of activities, therefore, community involvement was the projects in both countries received private limited. sector contributions, such as materials, money, complementary actions and expertise. In the Before the start of the MEIP initiatives, almost Philippines, private sector involvement often took all the communities in the Philippines had an active several forms within one project. existing community organization. In Indonesia, about half of the communities had a pre-existing community organization. In both countries, the number of communities with an active community organization increased over time. LOCAL CONTRIBUTIONS Since MEIP's primary role was as a catalyst, its initiatives depended on support from other sources to carry out project activities. Contributions from the community were also considered an important aspect of building local ownership. Program Coordinators and NGOs encouraged communities to demonstrate their commitment to MEIP initiatives by committing their time and other resources to the project efforts. Communities 27 if not us, th-en wh? Box 2. Paliko Creek Rehabilitation Program: A Partnership Approach Surrounded by an industrial compound, shanties and railroad tracks, Paliko Creek became a sewer for industries and low income communities on the outskirts of Manila. The creek's rehabilitation was sparked by a fire. A community resident was burning garbage, and the fire grew out of control. When residents tried to extinguish the fire with water from Paliko Creek, the highly polluted water intensified the flames. After a complaint from the community about the high level of petroleum products in the water, the Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) sent a notice of violation to Amkor Anam, a semi-conductor industry located near the site of the fire. I Amkor Anam sought MEIP's assistance in resolving the problem. Together they held consultation meetings with community mem- bers, local government, the Muntinlupa Development Foundation and twenty-nine other industries in the area. The group sponsored a 'walk through' of the creek to appraise the issues and in 1997 initiated the Paliko Creek Rehabilitation Project. With the Muntinlupa Development Foundation (MDF) at the helm, the partnership aimed to raise community awareness; mobilize industries to comply with | eMuent standards; mobilize local government to enforce anti-pollution laws and regulations: and minimize garbage dumping and discharges of domestic and industrial wastewater. Since the community around the creek had grown habituated to the garbage problem, the rehabilitation initially focused on a strong information, education and communication (IEC) drive to galvanize community support and action for the enforcement of anti-littering and anti-dumping measures. In addition to disseminating printed materials, the project organized training on community-based environ- j mental management for women,youth, fisherfolk and school children, and initiated community action planning. The action plan included continued IEC, technical and management training, and an engineering support system with water separators and screens to reduce I industrial wastes. With support from other partners, the community led a series of activities to clean up the creek and establish a regular maintenance process. The city government financed construction of trolley bins to collect garbage from homes along the railroad track. The LLDA worked on monitoring the water quality of the creek. A steering committee was formed to explore the multi-sectoral issues related to the well-being of the creek, including income.generation and land tenure. Industries, community leaders and residents continue to take part in Quarterly clean-up activities to ensure that the gains of the rehabilitation movement are not lost. The LLDA institutionalized river rehabilitation councils in an LLDA resolution and adopted the project's partnership of industry, NGOs, local government and community as a model for other river councils in the area. MEIP's credibility and reputation for impartiality helped bring all the groups together to work on their common problem. The project was able to move beyond the adversarial relationship between the local residents and the neighboring industries to a synergy of interests and efforts. At the heart of the project, communities mobilized themselves to raise awareness, clean up the creek and ensure that the creek remained clean. Industry provided the expertise, ideas and financial resources to transform the degraded environment. The LLDA responded Quickly to the community complaint and provided the technical and legal framework for the partnership. The MDF was the L catalyst for community organizing, conflict management and coordination. If not -s, then vh.? 28 CAPACITY BUILDING and evaluation activities in the communities studied. Building the capacity of community members in TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY technical skills on environmental issues was a strong focus of MEIP. In some communities, MEIP also By bringing project decision-making and aimed to improve the management capacity of financial issues closer to the community level, MEIP community members by developing their initiatives aimed to create greater transparency and administrative skills. accountability in project finances. Focus group responses show that MEIP had a mixed record of Community members in most project areas took success. Focus groups were asked about who was part in technical skills training to build their responsible for project accounts and expenditures, capacity to address environmental problems. the availability of information to community Training topics ranged widely according to the members, procedures for complaints, and instances substance of particular initiatives, covering areas of complaints. While several projects in both such as composting methods, river monitoring, and countries had transparent procedures and accessible solid waste segregation. In addition, about half of information, the remainder did not. the communities in both countries also received some management training. According to community leaders, three of the communities in the Philippines and the three KIP Satisfaction with the skills development communities in Indonesia knew who was responsible component of the projects was high in the for accounts and expenditures and could ask for Philippines. All Filipino communities reported that information if they had a Question. Two of these the projects helped them to develop technical and communities in the Philippines had relied on these management skills, as well as the ability to sustain procedures to complain about a problem related to the project on their own. In Indonesia, where accounts and expenditures. In one community these training was more limited and informal, most complaints were resolved in a court case. The rest communities felt that the projects helped them of the MEIP communities in the Philippines and develop technical skills. However, only two of the Indonesia did not have access to basic information KIP communities felt their skills related to about the finances of the MEIP projects, which management or project sustainability had improved. would have affected their ability to engage in project This dissatisfaction may have stemmed from a lack decision-making and oversight. of training programs in these areas or from problems in the quality of the training provided. INCLUSION Community involvement in project monitoring MEIP projects in both countries made an effort and evaluation was not a focus of MEIP initiatives. to be inclusive. All types of community members- Therefore, there was little evidence of community including the rich, poor, women, youth, teachers capacity building through participatory monitoring and community leaders-took part in MEIP-related 29 If not us, then whb? community organization. In both countries, more communities had similar numbers of men and than 40 percent of project participants were women. women. In Indonesia, more men than women were According to respondents, no group was excluded represented among community leaders, and some from project activities. communities had no female leaders. In the Philippines, women were well represented among However, a project rule of the KIP, with which community leaders. Representation of women also MEIP closely collaborated, effectively excluded the was high among active community members in both poorest in communities from some of the key countries. In Indonesia, most communities had aspects of decision-making. Community members more women than men among active members. In reported that the poor could not take part in the the Philippines, overall percentages were similar for community organization because they did not have men and women. enough money for the initial deposit reQuired for the members' savings program. As a result, although most KIP community members were from low income households, the poorest in the i communities were not able to play the same role in project decision-making as other members of the communities. While the poor did benefit from the 7 project's charity activities and overall community improvements, project impact is likely to have been greater if the poor had had more say in project management. Since KIP aims to assist poor communities, giving the poor a significant role in project management would have helped to ensure that it was tailored to the needs of its key target group. Focus group composition reflects the representation of women in MEIP communities. The groups gathered together all community leaders and ' active community members who were available in Community Volunteers in the Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran (ZKK) the community at the time the group was held. Most (Zero Waste for Progress) program in Manila cleaning the streets of their community. if not us, then who? 30 Box 3. ZKK Solid Waste Program: A Medical Clinic Tackles an Urban Community's Garbage Problem Once a small coastal town, during the 1980s Navotas became a densely populated extension of Manila, with garbage lining the streets and filling the canals. Slum dwellers account for 27 percent of its population, and a quarter are unemployed. Perennially flood-prone, the town has earned the name Dagat-dagatan, meaning resembling an ocean. The Dagat-dagatan Polymedic Medical Foundation was established to provide affordable services to low income residents of the area. By the end of the 1980s, the garbage problem plaguing the community had become severe, leading to proliferation of flies, cockroaches and rats. The Foundation decided to tackle the solid waste problem to protect the community from the rising incidence of diarrhea and other illnesses. The Foundation staff contacted the University of the Philippines and the Recycling Movement of the Philippines to learn how the community could reduce its waste problem. The Foundation opted for a 'zero waste' program (Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran): waste products are segregated into three categories-reusable, recyclable, and biodegradable-and nothing is discarded. The project aimed to solve the solid waste problem and create employment for community residents. The program focused on teaching the community how to segregate and recycle waste; setting up a community garden to demonstrate the benefits of composting; and establishing a recycling and redemption center. With the help of the Recycling Movement, local government organizations and civic groups, the Polymedic Foundation launched an education and clean-up campaign in 1996. A two-week training course in ecological waste management was provided to 30 trainers, and a team of eco-supervisors and eco-aides was formed. Every Saturday over two months, leadership training was provided to volunteers who, in turn, taught community members. About 3,000 participants attended the training seminars. For two hours every morning, community volunteers joined together for the painstaking and humbling process of removing the garbage from the neighborhood. Wearing the brightyellow T-shirts donated by one of the partner groups, they collectedyears of accumulated waste from the curbsides, canals, and along the main drain of the neighborhood. The community instituted a night watch to prevent garbage from being dumped in the community during the night. After several months, the area was transformed: canals were clean, streets were swept and green plants began to appear in communal spaces. In 1997, a core group of 140 volunteers established a recycling and redemption cooperative, and eco-aides began to collect and segregate waste from local households and businesses. Reusable and recyclable materials were sold in by weight to businesses and manufacturers. The cooperative also produced craft and household items recycled materials, including stylish handbags made from paper and floor wax made from discarded plastic. Each worker was paid on an incentive system, according to how much they brought in and produced. After twoyears. the cooperative had become economically self-sustaining and employed forty full-time workers and twenty part- time workers. While the project's work with recycled and reusable products was very successful, composting of biodegradable waste stalled. Community efforts to segregate waste matter were only partially successful, leading to problems with odor and disposal, and the cooperative had trouble finding a location for the composting. The project continues to refine its approaches to work toward the zero [waste ideal. 31 if not u t-n who? 3R 1 e;7, 21 ,_ V-s1 PROIECT IMPACT the role of the project in any changes over time. In the Philippines, four communities attributed Communities were positive about the impact of improvements in conditions to MEIP project the MEIP initiatives. Focus group respondents in interventions. They stated that the projects lead to both countries reported positive project impacts on working surface drains, and regularity in water the environment, well-being,4 and community supply, garbage collection within the community, capacity to organize and participate. Communities and garbage transport from the community to the rated impacts in all three areas at an eQually high main collection site. In Indonesia, some level in the Philippines. In Indonesia, communities communities noted that the projects brought about perceived environmental impacts to be greater than regular garbage project impacts in other areas. collection within the Figure 3: MEIP Project Impacts community. Communities believed MEIP initiatives Very Positive 4 -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ contributed to a variety of environmental, social, The majority of economic and institutional benefits. Community communities in both Positive 3 members and leaders in about half the communities countries reported that E Neutral 2 in Indonesia identified cleaner surroundings, an MEIP projects had ev improved aesthetic environment, access to credit improved the and increased knowledge as positive effects of the environmental behavior Very Negative o - projects. Two communities also cited establishment of community members. Environment Well-being Capacityto of a cooperative as a benefit of the initiatives. In the Changes in behavior o Indonesia =Philippines Participate Philippines, most communities noted that the varied according to the initiatives had brought about cleaner surroundings; type of initiative, but about half thought they improved income-earning included waste segregation, composting, and opportunities, discipline and unity. Respondents helping to maintain a clean and green environment. also mentioned that increased independence and The degree to which behavior had changed was mutual trust were other positive outcomes of the greater in the Philippines, where half the projects. communities reported dramatic improvement. In addition to qualitative changes in community Few negative project impacts were reported. surroundings and the environment, some MEIP Three communities in the Philippines and one in communities reported improvements in their Indonesia mentioned that there had been minor physical and environmental infrastructure. Focus complaints from non-participating members of the groups involved discussions about the physical and community about the initiatives. For example, in the environmental conditions in their communities Philippines, one community had complaints due to before and after the MEIP-supported project and noise from a paper shredder. 'Well-being covers the broader project impacts on the community unrelated to environment or capacity to organize and participate. It includes economic and social factors, and is an intentionally broad term so it could be adapted to community perceptions of the ways the projects have affected their lives. if not us, then who? 32 INNOVATION AND DISSEMINATION and NGOs an unusual level of autonomy and control during a period when devolution of control Innovation. Community respondents and MEIP was uncommon. NGOs took over responsibility for National Program Coordinators recognized MEIP's the planning and implementation of the project in achievements in fostering innovation in the 10 sites. Communities controlled decision-making environment sector. Communities in both countries and resources through the community managed pointed to several examples of MEIP initiatives that environmental grant and revolving fund, and developed new approaches to resolve environmental established a local committee to manage the fund. and community development problems. In the This was one of the earliest instances of Philippines. the partnering of resource rich government budgets being used for community communities with poor communities in the Donor- directed work. Beneficiary Scheme helped resolve a solid waste problem and create employment. Rich and poor Dissemination. In the Philippines, to ensure that communities learned to segregate their waste and successful initiatives were replicated and had sell the recyclable and reusable components, and impacts on a larger scale, MEIP promoted their poor communities benefited from new jobs and the achievements through 'how to' booklets, sale of recyclable materials. The Binan River monographs with photo documentation, rehabilitation in the Philippines mobilized fisherfolk pamphlets, site visits, meetings and media events. and used their boats to collect floating debris in the Several of the communities surveyed had visited river clean-up. This idea was expanded to other other MEIP community initiatives and then applied communities when a River Council was created for newly learned approaches in their own efforts. the Binan River System, which included the Communities also used documentation of other upstream portion of adjoining municipalities. Since projects, pamphlets on technical environments the river traverses several municipalities, approaches and 'how to' booklets for guidance. As cooperation was crucial. Through the River Council, a result, the majority of the MEIP initiatives in the the core team for the Binan River Project now serves Philippines became models for other programs as a resource group to assist other communities. elsewhere. Three MEIP initiatives in the Philippines were also scaled up: the Donor- In Indonesia, the Pisang Baru Kampung and the Beneficiary Scheme, the Binan River Public Market Kebagusan Corridors Greening Projects introduced Clean-up, and the Paliko Creek River the idea of providing green spaces in urban Rehabilitation and Solid Waste Project. The River communities for the enjoyment of both people and Council established for Paliko Creek was adopted birds. The Babon River Monitoring Project as a model by the Laguna Lake Development empowered communities to learn river monitoring Authority for other areas. skills so they could better understand and protect their environment. Under the Kampung In Indonesia, communities generally Improvement Program in Indonesia, with MEIP exchanged lessons learned about their experiences encouragement, the government gave communities with MEIP and other initiatives on an informal 33 if not .s, then wh0? basis. News about MEIP's approach also spread MEIP contributed some funds for the initial informally. For example, other cities heard about the competition. The competition was successful in river monitoring initiative in Semarang and sent gaining community interest, and the city now government representatives to the site to learn more organizes ayearly competition. MEIP phased out its about it. NGOs who worked in several communities support after the first Kampung Greening were a useful source of information about what had Competition. Now kampung greening is been tried in other areas. Under KIP, NGOs were implemented in many other cities in Indonesia. encouraged to meet with other NGOs to exchange ideas and experiences. Both KIP facilitators and When the local government of Jakarta agreed to NGO representatives brought information about let NGOs take over the management of additional other initiatives into communities. In the Pisang project sites under KIP, the Governor issued a Baru Kampung Greening, the government facilitated decree that gave priority to NGOs in community- dissemination of information through competitions based development projects and exempted them and exchanges among the 75 community sites. from complicated bureaucratic reQuirements. MEIP worked with the Ministry of Finance to draft the INSTITUTIONALIZATION financial procedures that enabled communities to control the grant funds. These policies have made it Governments in both Indonesia and the possible for NGOs and communities to have an Philippines changed policies and adapted programs active role in driving development decision-making. to institutionalize MEIP's environmental and community development approaches. MEIP's Philippines. In the Philippines, the government innovations have also affected other actors, such as established an anti-dumping law as a result of the private sector institutions. MEIP facilitated this Binan Market Clean-up Project, and a barangay process by working in partnership with numerous ordinance was passed to mandate waste segregation institutions and providing practical assistance, for at source to support the efforts of the Donor- example in drafting legal documents. Beneficiary Scheme. River rehabilitation and ecological waste management practices employed in Indonesia. In Indonesia, under the Babon River Muntinlupa were replicated by the government. The Monitoring Program, the local government of local lake development authority in Muntinlupa Semarang borrowed the concept of community passed a resolution to institutionalize the Paliko involvement in river monitoring from an Creek Rehabilitation Project's partnership of environmental organization in another part of lava industry, NGOs. local government and community and then replicated it successfully. Influenced by the as a model for other river councils in the area. MEIP success of kampung greening efforts including the innovations in Binan and ZKK were also adopted by MEIP-supported Pisang Baru Project, the Parks government programs. The private sector changed Department in Indonesia organized a Kampung its environmental practices thanks to the efforts of Greening Competition to encourage communities several MEIP initiatives, including Binan, Paliko and throughout Jakarta to develop similar activities. Makati. If not us, then o? ! 34 SUSTAINABILITY about the Solid Waste Habitat in Pejaten Barat because the project was no longer active. The sustainability of MEIP activities and investments differed in Indonesia and the * Initiated in 1995, the project in Pejaten Barat Philippines. Filipino projects had a strong record of was one of MEIP's earliest community-based use and maintenance, while that of Indonesia was projects. It trained communities in different moderate. All but one community in the Philippines composting methods, and composting continued in reported that MEIP investments were usualy or the community until 1998. By then, the organization always used and maintained. In Indonesia, most that provided marketing support and technical communities gave projects moderate ratings for assistance to the project had folded. The community frequency of use and initiative collapsed due to the loss of this assist- Figure 4: Sustainability of Project maintenance. ance, combined with a low profit margin for Investments composting and lack of government subsidy for Community composting. perceptions of ouality of use and maintenance * MEIP's role in the projects in Pisang Baru 6- X were associated with and Semanan had been limited, both in terms of 2 4 their perceptions of people and time. Community members who had Z 2 - extent of use and originally worked in partnership with MEIP could ri nE n _ I maintenance. not be located in either place. In Pisang Baru the Communities who community was still involved in greening activities, none low med high N/A reported that their but communities members had no recollection of Level of Use and Maintenance project investments were MEIP's role in promoting greening in the commu- Il Indonesia =l Philippines always or usually used nity. In the Semanan Water Quality Management and maintained, also Project, MEIP supported a field officer based in the generally reported that they were well used and well community for several months to encourage maintained. Likewise, communities that performed community involvement in installation of a poorly on extent of use and maintenance had poor wastewater treatment plant. Due to problems performance on Quality. between the community collective and community members, the treatment plant was still in the Information could not be obtained for two process of being constructed. However, communi- communities in Indonesia: Kampung Greening in ties continue to maintain the existing drainage Pisang Baru and the Water Quality Management basins, which had been an objective of the MEIP Project in Semanan. Although project-related initiative. investments and activities were still in use in these communities, community members who knew about MEIP or the NGO involved in the project could not be located. In addition, no information was available 35 iif not us, then wh.? Box 4. The Kampung Improvement Program (KIP): A Comprehensive Approach to Environmental Problems Begun in 1969, the Kampung Improvement Program (KIP) in Jakarta has been replicated in many cities throughout Indonesia. KIP provides basic infrastructure and improves sanitation in low income areas, or kampungs. Initially KIP focused on solid waste management and physical infrastructure, such as footpaths, drainage and public toilets. By the third phase of the project, KIP Ill, it had evolved into a comprehensive community development program with income generation and social components as well, such as assistance to low income families and school children. In 1990, MEIP began to collaborate with the government on KIP Ill preparation and implementation, particulary in strengthening community and.NGO involvement in the project process. MEIP helped initiate micro credit and small enterprise schemes for KIP communities, and encouraged the local government to give NGOs a role in project management. These initiatives have since been replicated in other cities. During early phases of the project, KIP management hired community development specialists from engineering consulting firms to design and implement the project. MEIP persuaded the government to let NGOs manage project preparation and implementation in ten additional areas. To facilitate NGO involvement in the project, the Governor issued a decree that gives NGOs priority in community- based projects and exempts them from bureaucratic reQuirements. The decree also makes it easier for NGOs to get involved in other development efforts. MEIP worked with government departments to develop the procedures to devolve control to the NGOs and commu- nities. It collaborated with the Ministry of Finance to draft procedures for disbursement, reporting and accounting that enabled NGOs to have management responsibility for project implementation. NGO involvement in KIP significantly strengthened the project's links to communities: NGOs worked closely with communities in planning the project and deciding on project activities and investments. However, communities were frustrated by the lengthy clearance process for proposed initiatives, and by outcomes that did not reflect the needs they had expressed. Community proposals went from the community to the district to the municipal level to be approved, and the final decision often did not match the original aspirations. To enable the communities to have a more direct role in development efforts, KIP established a Community Environmental Grant for small, local initiatives and gave communities control over how to allocate resources. The grant was one of the earliest instances of use of government budgets for community-directed work in Indonesia. KIP also instituted a community-managed revolving fund. KIP's ambitious pilot initiatives in the ten NGO-managed areas sparked a wide range of community activities. The program has also been a learning process. In Pulo Gadung, the community was slow to take part in KIP. Initialy, only 16 people joined the KIP-related community organization. But by making the community meetings more of a social gathering, the group was able to increase its member- ship over time to 660. The program funded public toilets, a drainage system, concrete paving for streets, and garbage carts. Low income families and school children received aid, and a micro credit program helped generate income. Community members learned how to write proposals and keep accounts, and they took part in auto mechanics, silk screening and other skills training programs. In Tugu Utara, ayear went by before the community received any funding. After the initial delay, KIP funded garbage containers and business activities in the community, including a school uniform sewing project and a furniture project. KIP investments in Cibesut included improvement of physical infrastructure, such as streets, toilets and hand pumps, and a micro-credit scheme. Although a community organization existed prior to the start of KIP, the project initiated new community groups but these soon became inactive. The original community organization then took over the revolving fund and other project activities. if ot us, the- who? 36 Figure 5: Sources of funds for Sources of funds for did so only occasionally or not at all. Project Maintenance project maintenance differed in the two EXPECTATIONS Indonesia: Sources of funds for project maintenance countries. In Indonesia, (by % of community responses) the community was the MEIP experience shows that, to some extent, Government major provider of funds, community expectations of MEIP initiatives may 10% while the government have been higher than they would have been for Private Sector and private sector were other, non-participatory environmental projects. 1% \minor contributors. Expectations extended to a variety of socio- Community Many groups funded economic concerns in addition to environment. 80% project maintenance in Nevertheless, the initiatives were able to satisfy the the Philippines. expectations of most community respondents. Communities and the Community involvement may have played a role in private sector played a this by ensuring that project design was tailored to large role, but community needs. Philippines: Sources of funds for project maintenance gernment. (by % of community responses) government, Other international Community expectations included cleaner 10°/, organizations and surroundings, general improvements, additional Community NGOs also contributed. income and increased knowledge. Indonesian 10% 28% The availability of communities also expected to help others and numerous sources of expand the scope of existing projects. The majority Intermational Orgs funding may have made of communities in both countries believed their 13% \/ / it easier to maintain expectations had been well met by the projects. Governmen 23% initiatives in the Ony one community in each country reported that 13% Philippines. The high some of its expectations had not been met. The level of capacity and ZKK community in the Philippines felt that its resourcefulness of Filipino community institutions expectations for project expansion and increased and members, and the wide sharing of MEIP income had not been satisfied. This is despite the experiences may also have helped sustain projects. fact that the community gave the ZKK Project high Sharing of lessons learned gave community ratings for all three areas of project impact, the initiatives greater exposure to new ideas and environment, overall well-being and community contacts, making it easier to leverage additional capacity to organize and participate. In Cibesut, one financial resources. of the KIP communities in Indonesia, the community felt the funding was inadeQuate to provide the In both countries, the regularity of community community with much help. The community hoped contributions to project operation and maintenance for aid from others to supplement it. varied widely. A few communities always contributed to project operation and maintenance, while others 37 i f not us, then who? FACTORS OF INFLUENCE positive factors for Figure 6: Community Involvement project success. The and Project Impact Community involvement and project impact. emphasis given to these 8- Although the type and depth of participation factors differed in the differed, both country programs emphasized two countries, however. 6 community involvement and believed it would Most Indonesian 4 _ improve the impact of the projects. Findings from respondents stressed & this study provide support for this aspect of MEIP's cooperation and a good z 2 approach. Analysis shows that projects with a high NGO as key factors, L Meiu Hi_g level of community involvement tended to have a while Filipinos pointed Low Medium High high impact. Impact was measured by a composite to the importance of indicator giving eQual weight to impact on committed leaders, Low Impact = Medium Impact = High Impact environment, well-being and capacity to organize determination and and participate. Involvement was based on a partnership with other composite indicator giving equal weight to organizations. Several Figure 7: Community Perceptions of community ratings of their extent of involvement in communities in the Positive Factor project planning, management and implementation. Philippines cited factors INDONESIA: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF The association between involvement and impact is at the national level, POSITIVE F ACTOR weak at lower levels of involvement, however, such as supportive Committed leaders perhaps partly due to the small number of projects environmental policies Other that fall into this category. Although the small and programs, as other P | s sample size makes the findings statistically notable influences on insignificant, the analysis indicates support for a projects. Good NGO participatory approach ooperation A similar analysis of project involvement and sustainability showed no relationship between the two. Sustainability did not increase with level of community participation. Other factors, such as size PHILIPPINES: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF of staff, length of project period, and existence of POSITIVE FACTOR Other institutional support mechanisms for sustainability, may have obscured an association. Partnership with Committed other Orgs leaders Positive factors. Community perceptions of the factors that positively affected MEIP initiatives were Determination similar in the two countries. Cooperation, committed leaders, private sector support, and the Pvt sector support role of other organizations were seen as significant Cooperation if not us, then ho? '38 Negative factors. Few focus groups in either Community perceptions of MEIP initiatives in country identified factors that had negatively Table 5 encapsulate some of the key aspects of the affected the projects. In Indonesia, some MEIP process and its outcomes. Perceptions of both communities did point to financial issues that they the process and impact of MEIP initiatives in the felt had hindered their initiatives. Most Filipino Philippines and the KIP projects in Indonesia were communities believed the projects were based on a very positive. Communities gave these projects a financially sound idea, but about half of the high rating for community involvement and capacity Indonesian communities reported problems in the building efforts, as well as for project impact and financial planning of the projects. In the Kampung sustainability. These projects also received good Greening and Green Corridors Projects, costs were ratings for community involvement in local decision- high since the areas covered were large and making. incentives were needed to encourage community participation. In the river monitoring project, the The performance of non-KIP projects in funds were just enough to cover initial activities. In Indonesia was not as positive. Most projects addition, some respondents in the two countries received low to moderate ratings. These were mentioned concerns such as differences in opinion, probably due in part to the lower institutional lack of facilities and lack of a market for products. capacity in Indonesia, both inside the community in terms of the number and ouality of community Communities in both countries described organizations, and outside the community with various problems they had encountered in project regard to supportive partner organizations. The KIP implementation. In the Philippines, respondents projects in Indonesia did not suffer from these pointed to difficulties with leadership, cooperation, weaknesses as much because they had the support and funds as the most common problems in of a large governmental system and its many implementation. In Indonesia, lack of interest and collaborating institutions. assistance were the greatest barriers. When asked how they would have changed the way the project worked, community respondents had several ideas. In the Philippines, the issue mentioned most often was fundraising, while in Indonesia, it was the need for greater assistance in general. Communities in the Philippines also talked about the need to improve storehouse facilities: conduct information, education and communication campaigns; network; and recruit more members, including women. In Indonesia, community members noted the need for additional project inputs; networking; recruiting more members; and fundraising. 39 If not us, then who? Table 5. Summary of Community Perceptions of the MEIP Initiatives Project Name Process Outcome Involvement' Capacity Impact7 Sustainability8 Building,6 Philippines ZKK Household Solid Waste New Era Household Solid Waste ** ** Muntinlupa City School Involvement ** Binan River Market Clean-up ** ** Paco Public Market Clean-up * Paliko Creek River Rehabilitation *** * *** Makati City Donor-Beneficiary Scheme *** Marikina Community Sanitation Planning *** Indonesia Pulo Gadung NGO Involvement in KIP *** Cibesut NGO Involvement in KIP *** * Tugu Utara NGO Involvement in KIP *** *** ** Pelaten Barat Solid Waste Habitat ** ** ** None Pisang Baru Kampung Greening,9 NA * NA NA Semanan Water Quality Management"0 NA ** NA NA Babon River Monitoring * ** ** ** Kebagusan Corridor Greening * * * ** High: ***, Medium: **, Low: *, Not available: NA 'Composite indicator giving equal weight to community ratings of extent of involvement in project planning, management and implementation. 'Measured according to training in technical and management skills taken by communities with equal weight given to both. Communities rated at a high level of capacity building participated in both types of training. Medium describes communities that had only one type of training, and low describes communities that had no formal training. I Composite indicator giving equal weight to community perceptions of project impact on environment, well-being and capacity to organize and participate. -Composite indicator of community perceptions of the extent and quality of use and maintenance of the projects, with equal weight given to both extent and quality. I MEIP-related activity is ongoing in this community, although no details about project sustainability could be obtained through the focus group. 'MEIP-related activity is ongoing in this community, although no details about project sustainability could be obtained through the focus group. nf ot us, then who? 40 Box 5. Summary of Findings Local and country context * Institutional capacity: The lack of pre-existing capacity and local level institutions may have restricted community involvement and project outcomes in Indonesia, where there were few community-based institutions in the MEIP communities, and those that existed had little experience in local activism and decision-making. In the Philippines' vibrant civil society sector, MEIP initiatives were able to draw on many existing community organizations and a wide network of supporting institutions. Building blocks of the MEIP approach * Community involvement: Communities had a high level of involvement in project implementation in both countries. Filipino communities were highy involved in project planning and management. * Local decision-making: Filipino initiatives and the comprehensive KIP projects in Indonesia helped build local institutional capacity by enabling communities to have an active role in problem analysis and project design; to obtain information on options, costs and benefits and reach consensus; and to establish new committees and their own rules for management. * Capacity building: Initiatives in both countries provided communities with training to develop technical skills, and to a lesser extent, management skills. * Inclusion: The projects generally have a good record of including all groups, regardless of socioeconomic status, social standing, age, or sex. Over 40 percent of participants in both countries were women, and women were also represented among community leaders. Benefits of the MEIP approach * Project impact: Communities reported positive impacts on the environment, as well as on their general well-being, and capacity to organize and participate. In the Philippines, these impacts received particularly high ratings. Other positive effects of MEIP initiatives included improved I environmental behavior, establishment of community institutions, greater access to credit, increased knowledge, improved economic opportunities, discipline and unity l Innovation and dissemination: MEIP initiatives in both countries had considerable success in introducing innovative approaches to resolving urban environmental problems. All the MEIP initiatives piloted new ideas. The program also actively promoted dissemination of its lessons and approaches through publications, meetings, workshops, competitions, videos, media events and other means. * Institutionalization: MEIP's success in disseminating its ideas is evident from the spread of its ideas into policies and programs in both Indonesia and the Philippines. For example, in one of the earliest instances of devolving financial control to communities in Indonesia, MEIP helped the government to draft procedures to enable communities to control grant funds in the Kampung Improvement Program. In the Philippines, half of MEIP's pilot approaches were adopted by government programs. * Effective process: The study suggests that MEIP's focus on a participatory process, capacity building and a partnership approach benefited communities. A high level of community involvement is associated with high project impact in projects in both Indonesia and the Philippines. MEIP communities also identified cooperation, committed leaders, private sector support and the role of other organizations as positive factors for project performance. * Sustainability: The outlook for the sustainability of MEIP initiatives is high in the Philippines and moderate in Indonesia. Projects in the Philippines received high ratings for extent and Quality of use and maintenance, and moderate ratings in Indonesia. 41 if not us, then who? IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY Community involvement helps to build local FINDINGS capacity and is associated with better project impact. In Indonesia, communities had little role in What does the MEIP experience tell program local development efforts prior to MEIP's managers about how to expand the benefits of interventions. MEIP's efforts to bring communities community-based initiatives? What issues should into the project decision-making process was managers of community-based projects consider in therefore slow especially in the planning period, but developing their initiatives? The following points significantly increased civil society capacity to highlight some of the key lessons that emerge from engage in local governance. Community involvement the MEIP experience: in MEIP was also associated with better project outcomes. Communities want to be involved in the Pre-existing institutions and capacity shape the project process. nature and performance of community-based efforts. Less pre-existing capacity at the local level Community involvement is important in all and among NGOs in Indonesia affected how MEIP project phases and activities-preparation, functioned and what it was able to achieve. management, implementation, resource allocation Therefore, baseline information and monitoring in and monitoring and evaluation. While MEIP did not this area is important to understanding and focus on community control over resources or promoting community-based initiatives. Existing participatory monitoring and evaluation, these community organizations and the range of aspects of involvement have particular potential to supportive partner organizations outside the ensure that initiatives are adapted to community community are two key indicators of capacity at the needs because they enable communities to take a local level. MEIP helped communities build both leading role in project decision-making. The ability these dimensions of capacity. It worked with existing of MEIP communities to drive the development groups and helped them develop their skills through process was restricted by the fact that few technical and management training. In cases where community members had control over resources or parallel community organizations were established access to information about project progress for the purpose of the project, they did not last. In through participatory monitoring and evaluation. addition, MEIP assisted communities in widening their range of partner organizations. By Learning by doing and monitoring progress collaborating with the private sector, academic improves insight and performance. One of the institutions, technical organizations, NGOs and greatest strengths of the MEIP approach is the government, MEIP helped communities establish a flexible nature of project design, which enabled network of institutions outside the community on learning by doing. Project managers piloted new which they could draw for support on a range of approaches, which they scaled up when successful concerns, including technical, financial, policy and and modified when unsuccessful. To assess the management issues. success of a pilot approach, managers kept a keen eye on how well the ideas were being received by If not us, then who? 1 42 the community, whether the community was programs and lead organizations. They expressed a supporting the initiative and whether the community particular interest in formal training programs. needed special training to provide the needed Finance and accounting training also helps support. The managers were intuitively monitoring communities to address institutional weaknesses at both process and outcome indicators of the success the local level. of the initiatives. Mechanisms to document the process and share While many of the indicators described in this experience help to build capacity and spread study represent implicit aspects of the MEIP innovation. The exchange of information about approach, they were not formaly tracked or best practices is a critical aspect of training and measured. A small number of key indicators could helps ensure that local results feed into national have complimented MEIP's learning by doing programs. The lessons learned from community- approach and helped its project managers based pilots are often lost with the end of the understand and assess their own efforts (see Table projects and go no further than one community. 6). These indicators help identify the numerous Managers need to make special efforts to ensure ways a community-based initiative has an impact on that the lessons-both positive and negative-are its beneficiaries. Process indicators examine the shared with others and applied. Such efforts also extent to which a project is actualy engaging the help build partnerships between communities and community and, if they are monitored, can help flag local institutions, which in turn improves problems at an early stage. Outcome indicators sustainability. In the Philippines and Indonesia, capture how well a project is doing and provide a efforts to document and disseminate the process of way to measure and show results. By keeping track taking action at the community level and to share of the number of project innovations that were experiences with other areas made the expansion of adopted into programs and policies, for example, MEIP's innovations possible. Several ways of sharing the manager of a community project is better able to experience were effective, including site visits to explain the impact of a project to others outside the pilot communities; short dissemination notes about community. Indicators of existing capacity help the initiatives with 'before' and 'after' photo evaluate the starting point of a project. documentation; workshops to facilitate sharing of experience: practical 'how to' guidance notes on Technical and management skills training helps community-based environmental management to build local capacity. Communities experience practices; videos on project process and results for the greatest benefits when technical skills (such as field training and advocacy at the policy level; and composting methods) are complemented by media events to raise attention to environmental management training. Communities emphasized the concerns. usefulness of MEIP's skills training efforts. They were most positive when technical skills Institutionalization occurs through partnership, development was matched with training to help dissemination, and changes in programs and community members develop their abilities to direct policies. Innovative community-based approaches 43 if not -s, then wh.? can be institutionalized at the policy level, through wide sharing of MEIP experiences may also have changes in laws and regulations, and at the program strengthened project sustainability. Sharing of level, through the adoption of pilot ideas or lessons learned gave community initiatives greater partnership approaches in large-scale programs. exposure to new ideas and contacts, making it Governments and other local institutions often need easier to leverage additional financial resources. help in making these changes, and organizations Building partnerships with other institutions and that can assist in drafting laws and regulations and sharing experiences helps to strengthen cooperation sharing program documents have considerable and creates a network of support from other potential to influence this process. MEIP institutions for technical assistance, management successfully mainstreamed its approaches by advice, and funding. Efforts to help communities drafting policy changes and disseminating its pilots build a network of support and establish ongoing through program documentation and site visits. sources of funds through community revolving funds MEIP's partnership approach helped spread the or other mechanisms can play a critical role in word about the program's successes, in addition to improving the sustainability of community-based creating a powerful advocacy group. initiatives. Sustainability reQuires more attention. Several Special efforts may be needed to encourage factors may have contributed to the moderate rather inclusion. Specific, targeted efforts may be needed than high level of use and maintenance of MEIP's to ensure that all groups have an equal opportunity Indonesian initiatives. The governments record of investing in operation and maintenance has not - been strong. Low capacity and lack of a network of ' supportive institutions in Indonesia also ,. i 1 rx undermined sustainability. The Pejaten Barat Waste Management Project collapsed after the institution that had provided it with marketing support and technical assistance folded. MEIP community members in both countries cited difficulties with assistance, leadership, cooperation and funding as major concerns during project implementation. Lack of continuous funding is a major problem for community initiatives. Access to funding is often related to a network of support. Filipino communities had access to many sources of funding to help maintain their initiatives, which contributed to their sustainability. Filipino community capacity and resourcefulness, and the Community members in Pisang Baru in Jakarta discuss their work in the Kampung Greening project. if not s, t6en wo?, 44 Table 6: Key Social and Institutional Indicators for MEIP to participate in community-based efforts. If the cultural and institutional context of a country Existing Capacity hinders the involvement of particular groups, a * Existing community organizations participatory approach alone may not be adequate * Range of partner organizations (prior to intervention) to reach those who are excluded. Although MEIP projects were generally inclusive, their local context Process sometimes created barriers to participation. For a Community Involvement example, in Indonesia the Kampung Improvement * In preparation Program's reQuirement for a minimum level of * In management community contribution effectively excluded the * In implementation poorest groups from joining the community savings * In resource allocation program. In addition, although women were well represented among active community members, • In monitoring there were fewer women than men among leaders in * Local decision-making ~~~~~~~~the MEIP communities, particularly in Indonesia. * Involvement in problem analysis and diagnosis * Availability of information on options, costs and benefits RIPPLE EFFECTS * Range of partner organizations (after intervention) * Capacity building For the long term, MEIP sought to spread the * Technical (i.e. environmental skills) ideas and lessons from its initiatives to support a * Management (i.e. organizational skills, accounting, etc) broader movement for environmental action. Other * Mechanisms to foster exchange of lessons learned and best practices than instances of dissemination and * Transparency and accountability institutionalization of specific initiatives, how has the overall MEIP approach been extended beyond Outcomes small target groups to a larger audience? * Project impact Although it is still early to evaluate this * On environmentDJ question, the answer appears to depend on the * On well-being specific needs and opportunities of each country * On capacity to organize and participate context. In Indonesia, MEIPs greatest impact may • Innovation come from its efforts to create a participatory * Dissemination process that actively engages people to address the * Institutionalization problems of their environment. While its ratings for . Through policy community involvement and other aspects of the * Through programs social and institutional capacity building process * Sustainability were less impressive than those of the Philippines, * Inclusion Indonesia began at a lower level of capacity, so what gains it made eventually may have greater relative 45 If not us, then h0o? impact. initiatives, MEIP had limited impact at the national level. The major challenge is to mainstream MEIP's MEIP had some success in Indonesia with the lessons and approaches in national programs so technical aspects of its initiatives, but its efforts to they can be replicated in more places and/or strengthen democratic processes and civil society gradually scaled-up. Bringing MEIP's lessons to the involvement in environmental efforts contributed to national level will require greater attention to a larger process with a potentially greater impact in advocacy and policy dialogue, and expansion of its the long run. Recent political events and the innovative, multi-media information dissemination movement toward democratization and efforts. Environmental activists in the Philippines decentralization have fueled efforts like MEIP's to have now made this a priority concern. devolve decision-making and action to the grassroots levels. A new generation of Both MEIP's democratic process in Indonesia environmental initiatives-forums-have emerged and its communication efforts in the Philippines are to give people an opportunity to voice their closely linked to the program's emphasis on concerns about their environment. In several building local capacity. The Metropolitan Indonesian cities, forums are operating at the Environmental Improvement Program's ultimate municipal and sub-district levels to create a bottom- legacy, therefore, rests on its contributions to social up planning process, increase public and private and institutional processes as well as on its participation, and build capacity through training technical solutions. programs. Each city has defined its own membership and operating rules for forums. Forums bring together universities, NGOs, media, private sector and, in some cases, government. The political pressure brought to bear by these forums creates an opportunity to advance the technical lessons from MEIP's environmental efforts as well as the importance of inclusive, participatory processes. In the Philippines, the ultimate success of MEIP may depend on its efforts to communicate and mainstream its lessons, particularly at the national and policy level. Many of MEIP's innovations have spread to other communities and four have been adopted by government programs. Nevertheless, these successes remain small scale and do not have much impact on the vast scale of urban environmental problems in the country. While some local governments became partners of MEIP if not th-en wo? 1 46 'i i La:rayralTge Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society -- Towards a New Modernity, London: Sage. Borda, Orlando Fals, ed. 1998. People's Participation: Challenges Ahead. New York: The Apex Press. Brown, Gillian and Richard Pollard. 1998. "Responding to Demand: Two Approaches from Indonesia." Paper written for Community Water Supply and Sanitation Conference held in May 1998 in Washington, D.C. by UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Group. Buckingham-Hatfield, Susan and Susan Percy, eds. 1999. Constructing Local Environmental Agendas. London: Routledge. Chandrakirana, Kamala. 1999. "Local Capacity and Its Implications for Development: The Case of Indonesia. Local Level Institutions Study." Mimeo, World Bank: Washington, D.C. Drijver, Carel. March 1990. People's Participation in Environmental Projects in Developing Countries. (booklet) Leiden, The Netherlands: Centre for Environmental Studies. Issues Paper, Number 17. Fellizar, Francisco P., ed. 1993. Community-based Resource Management:: Perspectives, Experiences and Policy Issues. College, Laguna, Philippines; Halifax, Nova Scotia: Environment and Resource Management Project (ERMP) Philippines. Ford, Richard, et al. 1992. Sustaining Development Through Community Mobilization: A Case Study of Participatory Rural Appraisal in The Gambia. Worchester, USA: Program for International Development, Clark University. Hinchcliffe, Fiona, et. al. 1995. "New Horizons: The Economic, Social and Environmental Impacts of Participatory Watershed Development." Gatekeeper Series No. 50. London: International Institute for Environment and Development. Hinchcliffe, Fiona, et al., eds. 1999. Fertile Ground: The Impacts of Participatory Watershed Management. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. 47 If not us, then who? Illangovan, Patchamuthu, et al. 1999. The Colombo Story: Piloting Environmental Change in Sri Lanka. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Isham, Jonathan, Deepa Narayan, and Lant Pritchett. 1995 "Does Participation Improve Performance? Establishing Causality With Subjective Data. " The World Bank Economic Review, Vol.9, No.2, pp. 175-200. Jackson, Edward T and Yusuf Kassam, eds. 1998. Knowledge Shared: Participatory Evaluation In Development Cooperation. West Hartford, Connecticut: Kumarian Press, Inc. Marsden, David, Peter Oakley, and Brian Pratt. 1994. Measuring the Process: Guidelines for Evaluating Social Development. Oxford: INTRAC. Moser, Caroline. 1989. Community Participation in Urban Projects in the Third World.. Oxford: Pergamon Press. Nagpal, Tanvi, et al. 1998. "Piloting Urban Environmental Change in Sri Lanka: Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program 1990-1998." Washington, D.C.: Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program (MEIP) Environment Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region, World Bank. Narayan, Deepa, and Katrinka Ebbe. 1997. Design of Social Funds: Participation, Demand Orientation, and Local Organizational Capacity. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Nelson, Nici and Susan Wright, eds. 1995. Power and Participatory Development: Theory and Practice. London: Intermediate Technology Publications. Silas, Johan. 1986. "Community Participation in a Low Income Settlement Improvement Programme: The Kampung Improvement Programme of Indonesia," in Bamberger, Michael. Community Participation Experience in Urban Development Programs and in Agriculture and Rural Development. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Uphoff, Norman. 1992. Local Institutions and Participation for Sustainable Development. (booklet). London: International Institute for Environment and Development. if not us, th-en wh? 48 ANNEX A: THE PHILIPPINES, PROJECT SUMMARIES Name, Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (Project Type) Zero Kalat para sa . To conduct Waste Management and Awareness Seminar for * Composting * Dagat-dagatan Kaunlaran (ZKK) residents, officials, leaders andyouth in the target areas. * Recycling Polymedic Medical IC- (Zero Waste for . To conduct echo training involving at least 700 community * Segregation at household level Foundation, Inc. Progress) members within six months from the start of the project. * Information, education, * Barangay Dagat- o To organize the community members into a cooperative. communication (IEC) dagatan Navotas * To develop linkages with the municipal and barangay * Trainers training governments in the implementation of ordinances for the * Acquisition of shredder and truck a., (Household level proper management and improvement of sanitation. * Established community vegetable farm solid waste) * Seminar on cooperative development Ecological Waste . To promote reduction, recovery and proper disposal of . Segregation . Rotary Club . This is a replication Mgmt. Project for market wastes. . Composting . City Government of of the Metro Manila Public Market * IEC Mandaue experience on market * Training . Market Vendors wastes management Mandaue City Association outside Luzon. * Barangay Council (Public market solid . DENR Region 7 waste clean-up) Casili Solid Waste * To organize multisectoral bodies that will identify and * Information, education, * Citizens League for . Training on floor wax Management establish a showcase site for solid waste management communication Ecological Awareness making from discarded Showcase Facility and composting. * Community organizing and Responsibility soft plastics is an . To.strengthen IEC on solid waste management. * Training (CLEAR) income generating Barangays Casili. * To establish networking and cooperative relationships with * Composting * DENR Region VII activity that has been Mandaue City, other NGOs and POs for the successful implementation . Recycling * Barangay residents and very successful. Metro Cebu of the project. scavengers * To study, plan and design a solid waste management/ . Barangay officials (Household level composting plant. * University of Cebu solid waste) . To incorporate into the project the major components of * Rotary Club, Eco-Waste Management (EWM). Department of . To establish an effective system of waste collection within Agriculture the pilot site. * To construct, operate and maintain the pilot area facility until it has become self-supporting. ANNEX A N _am e Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (Project Type) Communitv . To reduce household wastes by introducing a system . Information, education, - Rural Health Unit . 80 % of Bustos Mobilization for of waste segregation. communication * Community members population was Zero Waste . To improve the Quality of life by improving living . Training . Barangay Council active in the initiative. Management conditions in the town. * Composting and the Municipal a Bustos was chosen as . Recycling Mayor the first runner up in (Household level . Segregation at household level * Barangay Health the 1995-1996 Regional solid waste) Workers (BHW) Search for Clean and . Recycling Movement Green and Hall of Fame of the Philippines Award for the Gawad Foundation, Inc. Galing Pook. * Community members School-based . To reduce school waste by 50% in 1999. * Information, education, * School officials Ecological Waste communication * Committee on Health Management * Training and Sanitation of * Segregation Muntinlupa City Muntinlupa City * Composting * School children (School involvement in city-wide solid waste reduction plan) Community-based * To mainstream the concept of Eco-Waste Management in * Information, education, * Recycling Movement * Manufactured organic Integrated Waste the barangays. communication of the Philippines fertilizer through two Management * To set up a sustainable mechanism by which target * Composting, recycling and Foundation, Inc. composters and 61 communities can attain self sufficiency through segregation at household level * Barangay Era compost heaps. Barangay New Era, viable livelihood projects. * Training and training-of-trainers community members Ouezon City * Acquisition of shredder and barangay officials o (Household level solid waste) 0 - ul Eco-Waste . To educate and train the managers, vendors and * Information, education, * Rotary Club * This is a replication Management for community members of the Bangkerohan Public Market communication on EWM Bangkerohan Public of the experiences Bangkerohan and the surrounding community on the benefits and * Training activities Market Vendors in Metro Manila for Public Market techniques of Eco-Waste Management. * Segregation and composting Association managing market . To establish a larger scale and replicable model of * Establishment of micro-enterprise * DENR and CENRO wastes. Davao city EWM in Davao City and Region 11. . Barangay Bangkerohan (Public market solid waste clean-up) ANNEX A Name, Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (Project Type) Community * To draw up an implementable process of cleaning up . IEC . Unilever . Composting activity was Participation and the market and the residential communities. . Training Philippines, Inc. not sustained because of Advocacy for * To involve both private and public sectors in EWM. * Segregation . DENR lack of appropriate Ecological Waste . To train individuals for effective leadership in * Composting (for a time) * City Government composting site.The Management the implementation of the EWM Action Plan. of Manila community is re-starting Barangay Chairpersons 671, 673, 679 the activity and Three Barangays and * Paco Soriano Pandacan Cooperative is looking for Public Market in the * New Paco Retailers and Stall Owners suitable site outside Paco District of Association Metro Manila. Manila * Paco Street Hawkers Association . AWARE, Inc. (Public market solid waste clean-up) Santa Maria Public . To document the EWM process for replication * IEC Documentation * AWARE, Inc. * The involvement of MEIP is Market Wastes in other similar sites. . Training * Local Government of Sta. Maria, only in the documentation Documentation * Establishment of Bulacan of the case. This is part processing center of the IEC material (Public market solid for organic fertilizer development for training waste clean-up) in EWM. This project serves as a learning center for composting technology. Polystyrene . To educate the fast food operators and crew about * IEC campaign . Fast food Companies . The PPCP decided to Recycling in the value of proper waste management. . Incorporation of the . The Ayala Property Mgt. Inc. set up a PP recycling plant Glorietta Mall . To minimize the waste that needs to be collected requirement of waste . The Ayala Foundation to show that they are and thrown away by recovering the polystyrene segregation in the * Barangay San Lorenzo responsible producers of Makati Commercial plastic waste from various fast foods operating contract of each fast food . The City Government plastic. They did this Center, Makati City within the Glorietta (Mall). outlet with Ayala * Metro Manila Development due to the growing pressure * To provide a regular source of materials for the Properties Inc. Authority to ban plastic in the (Recycling of polystyrene recycling plant operated by the PPCP. * Nightly collection of . The PPCP county. polystyrene waste segregated PP waste * Since the mall is within from commercial and its delivery to the Barangay San Lorenzo, to establishments) recycling plant in Sta. support the project, the Maria. Brgy. Council passed a local ordinance reQuiring waste segregation of the entire community. ANNEX A Name Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (Project Type) Global Rivers * To train community leaders and members in * Orientation and training . The EMB . The initiative was supposed Environmental first level (using their senses and simple testing * Identification of industries * The DENR Regional office for to be piloted in 3 areas Education Network equipment) water quality monitoring, within the area of the the National Capital Region and on the basis of the . To develop a checklist which will be used for participating communities . The LLDA pilots, a general guideline Binan, Laguna for the first level monitoring. . Testing of the river . The Binan Local Government was to be formulated by the Binan River; . To eventually deputize the trained community Quality checklist by * The Binan Lions Club the DENR and LLDA. leaders and members so that they can serve communities . The Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Although all partners were Ouezon City and as partners of government (the DENR and the LLDA) * Finalization of the Management Council of Binan enthusiastic about the Manila for the Pasig in monitoring both the ambient quality and effluents. checklist and the . The fisherfolk of Binan project and the communities River system * To identify hotspots where the technical staff/ development of the . The community members of keen to proceed, the inspection teams of DENR/LLDA are to be fielded. draft guidelines Punta, Sta, Ana, Manila deputation of the (Community-based * Provision of manuals * The community members communities never came water quality and simple testing in Quezon City out from the DENR. monitoring) eQuipment * The Sagip Pasig Movement (an NGO) The existence of too many * Follow up training bureaucratic reQuirements prevented the progress of the project. Binan River * To reduce the volume of garbage dumped into the * Public market clean-up * Binan Lion's Club - * Facilitated the visit of Clean Up Project Binan River by approximately 50% through market * IEC * Local Government of Binan project participants to other wastes reduction. * Training * FARMCI (Fisherfolkorganization) communities undertaking Binan, Laguna * To create a model for solid waste management can be * Market Vendors Association a successful urban Province replicated in other communities. * Communities along the river banks environmental management program. (River rehabilitation and solid waste) Paliko Creek * To raise the level of environmental and health * Solid waste * Barangay Cupang * Clean-up of the creek I Rehabilitation consciousness of the community. * Organizing urban * City government of Muntiniupa is conducted regularly 1U1 Project * To mobilize local industries to voluntarily comply communities * LLDA (Laguna Lake Development by the people's with effluent standards. * IEC Authority) organization. Muntinlupa City * To mobilize the city government and barangays to * Training * Muntinlupa Development Foundation strictly enforce anti-pollution and anti-littering law, * Advance Warehousing (River Rehabilitation rules and regulations. Association, Inc. and solid waste) * To reduce discharges of domestic and industrial waste water and the dumping of solid waste. ANNEX A Name, Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (Project Type) Donor-Beneficiary * To transform wastes into a resource with a IEC * Low income communities (DB) Solid Waste higher value. . Training . Middle-high level communities Management . To involve community in managing the resource. * Segregation . Food stall and restaurant owners Scheme in Makati * To provide a system where 'resource rich' groups . Donor-beneficiary * Association of business establishments City donate segregated wastes to the barangays matching . Polystyrene Packaging Council . Livelihood of the Philippines Kapatiranng Maralita . Ayala Foundation sa Pio del Pilar. Inc. * Department of Environment and (KAMPPI) Natural Resources Susan Roces and Pancho Compound, Inc (SRAPCAIi San Lorenso Village Ecology Viilage (Donor -Beneficiary Scheme) Participatoy . To assist the PSF user groups and appropriate . Management of public * UP Social Action and Research for * Bath, laundry area, Action Planning barangays and municipal officials in developing toilet facility and Development Foundation toilets, water supply for the Development actions to improve the operation, maintenance water supply * Barangay Council installed and managed of Two (2) Public and development of other services related to PSF. . Participatory action * Barangay Sanitation by the community. Sanitation Facilities * To rehabilitate PSF based on the community plan. planning (PSF) Projects * To document the processes involved . To draw out mechanisms by which the pilot Caloocan City can be adopted by other PSFs. Marikina City (Community action planning for public sanitation) ANNEX B: INDONESIA, PROIECT SUMMARIES Name Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (Project Type) Community . To empower communities to * Discussions on environmental issues * Ministry of Education, Community Development along help maintain the cleanliness of with community groups, organized by Education Agency (Dikmas) Three Rivers the river near their community. the Community Education Agency. * Community groups * Practical activities developed in ciliwung Cipinang cooperation with communities, such as and Mookervart waste collection and composting. Rivers near lakarta (Water quality management) Waste Management * To reduce river pollution . Management of tofu production * Tofu home industry, community * Destroyed by fire and of Small Scale caused by tofu production. process, including sanitation and members redeveloped for other land use. Industry waste management * Establishment of liquid waste Tanah Tinggi. treatment facility Central lakarta (Water quality management) Waste Management * To reduce river pollution * Construction of central, community- * Semanan co-op of tofu and * Problems included limited of Small Scale caused by tofu and tempe based tofu and soybean cake soybean producers capacity of kitchen to In dustry production along Banjir Kanal, production kitchen with water * Office of Public Works of accommodate more users, by relocating these small-scale treatment and sewerage system. Jakarta Special Territory and weak coordination between 5 Swakerta Small-scale producers to the Cluster. * NGO-facilitated consultation with local * Bina Swadaya (NGO) agencies in the program. Industry Cluster, communities: an NGO facilitator lived * Community members * Future issues are an urgent ol Kampung Semanan, with the community for 3 months to need to build a channel from uWest lakarta raise awareness and provide the water treatment facility to organizational assistance. the main canal and continued (Water quality * Construction of installation, assistance encouragement for the management) in the technical operation and community to maintain maintenance expertise provided by cleanliness, sanitation and the office of Public Works. cost-sharing. . Management of kitchen and suppy of soybean through community co-op. ANNEX B Name, Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (Project Type) MEIP-Habitat loint . To reduce solid waste by * At sub-district level: (I) increased * United Nations Center for Human * Evaluation of UPDKs showed Project implementing low-cost awareness for households about Settlements/ Habitat that marketing was not well - composting technology. community solid waste management * Community members conducted and some technical 10 neighborhood units system and encouragement of * Sub-district government details had been adjusted. MRTs) in South lakarta partnerships with scavengers, official * Existing UDPKs in the waste pickers and the formal government community doubled their units (Solid waste system; and (2) adjustment of pick-up to handle greater volume and management) schedule, re-routing of garbage cart, a broader service area. and improved services. * Problems included some * At community level, evaluation of changes in the formal system existing Recycling and Composting which slowed down the process. Production Enterprises (UDPKs). * At household level, introduction of three methods of composting. Community-based * To help communities decide on * Bottom up process of planning * Community members, Government Housing Development their own plan for housing facilitated by a development consultant agencies, Development consultant development. for land use, budget, provision of Moiosongo. Solo material, construction and maintenance. * Land consolidation and relocation. (Housing * Development of zone for informal development) sector activities. Clean River Program . To improve information, * Workshops on environmental * Teachers, women's organizations, (Prokasih) awareness, skills and economic awareness and monitoring techniQues. youth organizations and university capability of communities to * Training of trainers program. students; Bapedalda of Semarang, Six villages along enable their participation in * Village work groups. mayor and municipal government the Babon River, environmental management. Semarang (Community-based river monitoring) ANNEX B Name. Objectives Activities Actors Notes Locatiort (Project Type) Involvement of NGOs . To strengthen community . NGOs responsible for KIP project * NGOs * This initiative began after in Kampung involvement in the basic preparation and implementation, . Local government 1992 when MEIP encouraged Improvement infrastructure provision and to strengthen community involvement. * Community members the city government to invite Program (KIP) sanitation improvement in * Community Environmental Grant * Private foundation (3 communities NGOs to do the KIP project slum areas. provides a direct route to funding in Pela Mampung) preparation and 10 areas community needs, such as (1) * Community Development implementation. construction of infrastructure and Consultation * The Governor issued a Decree (Improvement of public facilities, (2) micro-credit for that gives priority to NGOs low income job creation, and (3) strengthening in community-based settlements) social and community organization. development projects and * Home improvement loans are exempts them from complicated available to families. bureaucratic requirements. . Greening. * Since community involvement in KIP was a lengthy and frustrating process. KIP created the grant program to provide a faster route to support local concerns. Other KIP-related initiatives include loans to families for home improvement and kampung greening. The first KIP focused on physical infrastructure such as footpaths, drainage, public toilets and solid waste manage ment, while KIP-III includes physical and social benefits, and income generation/job creation. Community * To provide a suitable and * Income generation activities, e.g. fish * Community members, Department * MEIP did not start with Empowerment on acceptable approach to crackers, sweets, dressmaking of Education and Culture's environmental activities, Small Island in environmental improvement in and mechanics. Community Education Department, because the community was not lakarta Bay the area. . Environmental activities, e.g. location of Subdistrict government interested. It started with privies, solid waste management, tree income generation activities Small Island in planting, water conservation and Quality. such as making crackers and lakarta Bay * Mobilization of community to form seaweed cultivation. Later cooperatives and other groups. MEIP moved into community (Improvement of low sanitation. income settlements) ANNEX B Name, Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (Project Type) Bandarharjo * To improve the environmental * Strengthening of urban development, * Community members, Community Urban Renewal conditions of low income groups. participatory process and environmental, development consultant, NGOs ul social and economic development of area. ~ ~ - Bandarharjo. * Planning, provision of roads, footpaths, Semarane drainage, water supply, solid waste management, greening, land (Urban renewal) consolidation. * Community-based development, housing loans, micro-credit, job creation, training for women, facilities for children. Kampung * To help low income communities * Provision of seedlings and awareness . Community members, new . Small improvements Greening Project establish green areas in their raising about greening and how graduate volunteers, NGOs financed by MEIP led to settlements, using their own to grow plants. community members 75 communities resources. * Self help approach. themselves undertaking other activities, such as home (Greening) improvement and renovation. * The kampung greening approach was adopted by the government in its eco-tourism efforts. * The kampung greening approach was adopted by the lakarta Agricultural Office to help communities develop income generation activities and kitchen gardens. Green Corridors . To create green corridors to * Provision of seedlings and awareness * Symbiose Birds Club (NGO), Project connect major green areas in raising about greening and community members, lakarta jakarta to improve the city. how to grow plants. office of Agriculture, Department Communities in areas environment, encourage bird life . Self help approach. of Public Works, private nurseries, identified as and biodiversity. * Encouragement of Dept. of Public Works Mayor of Central lakarta 'corridors to allow local nurseries to utilize empty space along roads and rivers for growing (Greening) plants. ANNEX C: FOCUS GROUP OUESTIONS FOR COMMUNITY LEADERS A. HISTORY AND OVERVIEW These questions are intended to provide information for the case history of the project, therefore, use them to prompt the community for as much information as possible. Follow up each Question with further questions to probe specific issues. Topic Question How did the community get involved with the project? (For example, through an NGO) What is the history of the project inyour community? What were the activities of the project? In what ways was the community involved in each of these activities? What is the percentage of all households that actively participated in the project (in decision-making, planning, implementation, management or otherwise providing contributions) _ >75% >50% >25% >10% _>5% _<5% B. SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT LOCAL DECISION-MAKING Was the community involved in planning the initiative? How? To what extent? The community was always involved in planning the initiative. -The community was often involved in planning the initiative. -The community was sometimes involved in planning the initiative. -The community was never involved in planning the initiative. To what extent was the community involved in analysis and problem diagnosis? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low To what extent did the community have information on range of options and costs and benefits? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low To what extent did the community group reach consensus on priorities? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low To what extent did the community propose the design of project /create a plan of action? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low Areyou satisfied with the wayyour community was involved in planning? _very satisfied -satisfied -not satisfied Why? COMMENTS: If not ns, then who? 58 B. SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT(continued) ANNEX C LOCAL MANAGEMENT Management Was the community involved in the implementation of activities? How?_ To what extent? -The community was always involved in implementing the initiative. The community was often involved. In implementing the initiative. -The community was sometimes involved in implementing the initiative. -The community was never involved in implementing the initiative Areyou satisfied with the wayyour community was involved in the implementation? -very satisfied _satisfied -not satisfied Why? Was the community involved in managing the initiative? How?_ To what extent? -The community was always involved in managing the initiative. -The community was often involved. In managing the initiative. -The community was sometimes involved in managing the initiative. -The community was never involved in managing the initiative. Areyou satisfied with the wayyour community was involved in the management? _very satisfied -satisfied -not satisfied Why? Was a community committee/new group established? -yes _no Did the community establish its own management and operation rules ? -yes _no Ifyes, what were they? Did the community manage its own funds? -always -sometimes _never If yes, explain how? Transparency Who had all the details about the accounts and expenditures of the project? and accountability lfyou had any Questions about accounts and expenditures can you ask the responsible person? If there was a problem with the accounts and expenditures, who wouldyou complain to? Did anyone try to complain? What was the outcome? COMMENTS: 59 if not Us, then wAo? B. SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT(continued) ANNEX C LOCAL CONTRIBUTION Community What did the community contribute to the project? contributions _land -labor -materials -money -expertise -ideas -complimentary actions other_ Municipal What did the municipal authority contribute to the project? authority _land contributions _labor -materials -money -expertise -ideas complimentary actions other_ Private sector What did the private sector contribute to the project? contributions -land labor materials -money -expertise -ideas -complimentary actions other_ Contributions What did other sources provide to the project? from other sources Source Type of contribution_ SKILLS TRAINING How many community members received training through the project? What was the type of training provided? -Technical -Management What was the topic of the training? How many days of training were provided? How many NGO representatives received training through the project? What was the type of training provided? Technical -Organizational -Management How many days of training were provided? COMMENTS: If not us, then who? 60 B. SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT(continued) ANNEX C CAPACITY BUILDING IMPACT ON CAPACITY TO ORGANIZE AND PARTICIPATE: What was the impact of the project on the capacity of the community to organize and participate? Has the impact of the project on the community capacity to organize and participate been: -very positive -positive -neutral -negative _very negative Did the project help the community develop organizational skills? -yes _no In what way? Did the project help the community develop technical skills? -yes _no In what way? Did the project help the community develop skills to sustain the project on their own? -yes _no In what way? COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION: Before the project was the community organization _active or -inactive? After the project was the community organization _active or -inactive? PROIECT IMPACT COMMUNITY IMPACT: In what ways has the project affected the community? POSITIVE OUTCOMES: What have been the major positive achievements of the project? (in terms of both project impact and process) NEGATIVE OUTCOMES: What have been the major negative aspects of the project? (in terms of both project impact and process) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: What was the impact of the project on the environment? The impact of the project on the environment has been: _vey positive -positive -neutral -negative very negative IMPACT ON WELL-BEING: What was the impact of the project on the well-being of the community? The impact of the project on community well-being has been: _very positive -positive -neutral -negative _very negative 61 if not us, then who? B. SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT(continued) ANNEX C EXPECTATIONS What wereyour expectations of the project? How well did the project meetyour expectations and needs? -Vey well -Well _Partially -Not well -Very poorly What expectations were not met? Why not? COMMENTS: SUSTAINABILITY Use, maintenance FREQUENCY: Is the activity/investment still used and maintained? and behavior change __The activity/investment is always used and maintained. _ The activity/investment is usually used and maintained -The activity/investment is sometimes used and maintained The activity/investment is not used and maintained How manyyears ago was the project initiated? QUALITY: How well is the project still used and maintained? -Very well -Well _Partially -Not well -Very poorly What are the sources of funds for the operation and maintenance of the project activity/investment? -Community -Private sector _Government -International organizations _NGOs -Other_ Did the community provide funds for the operation and maintenance of the project activity/investment? -The community always funded the operation and maintenance of the project activity/investment. -The community usually funded the operation and maintenance of the project activity/investment. -The community sometimes funded the operation and maintenance of the activity/investment. -The community did not fund the operation and maintenance of the project activity/investment. Has the community improved its environmental behavior related to the project activity? -The community has dramatically improved its environniental behavior. -The community has considerably improved its environmental behavior. -The community has somewhat improved its environmental behavior. -The community has not improved its environmental behavior. Explain: if not us, th- 6 h.? 62 B. SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT(continued) ANNEX C Use and Was the activity/investment still used/maintained after oneyear? maintenance over time _ After oneyear, the activity/investment was always used/maintained. _ After oneyear, the activity/investment was usually used/maintained. _ After oneyear, the activity/investment was sometimes used/maintained. _ After oneyear, the activity/investment was not used/maintained. How well was the project still used/maintained after oneyear? _Very well Well _Partly well -Not well -Not at all Was the activity/investment still used/maintained after threeyears? _ After threeyears, the activity/investment was always used/maintained. -After threeyears, the activity/investment was usualy used/maintained. -After three years, the activity/investment was sometimes used/maintained. -After threeyears, the activity/investment was not used/maintained. How well was the project still used/maintained after threeyears? _Very well -Well _Partly well -Not well -Not at all Was the activity/investment still used/maintained after fiveyears? _ After threeyears, the activity/investment was always used/maintained. _ After threeyears, the activity/investment was usualy used/maintained. -After threeyears, the activity/investment was sometimes used/maintained. -After threeyears, the activity/investment was not used/maintained. How well was the project still used/maintained after fiveyears? _Very well _Partly well -Well -Not well -Not at all Financial Planning To what extent was the project based on a financialy sound idea? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low If below medium, explain: To what extent were project funds adequate to carry out pilot activity? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low If below medium, explain: To what extent were additional funds contributed to the pilot from other sources? _high medium/high -medium _medium/low _low If yes, from whom and for what? COMMENTS: 63 if not us, th-en vh? B. SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT(continued) ANNEX C MAINSTREAMING Did the government adopt a policy change as a result of the initiative? What type? To what extent did the government adopt a policy change as a result of the initiative? -high -medium/high _medium _medium/low _low Have private enterprises changed their environmental practices as a result of the initiative? How? To what extent have private enterprises changed their environmental practices as a result of the initiative? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low Did the government adopt the communities' pilot approach? How? To what extent did the government adopt the communities pilot approach? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low COMMENTS: INNOVATION AND DISSEMINATION What has been done to ensure that others benefit from the lessons of the project? Did the pilot project introduce an innovation? -yes no lfyes, explain. Was the pilot concept replicated in non-program sites? -yes _no Ifyes, explain. Was the pilot project scaled up withinyour area? -yes _no lfyes, explain. Did the project become a model for other programs? -yes -no Ifyes, explain. COMMENTS: If not us, then wh.o? 64 B. SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL IMPACT(continued) ANNEX C EXCLUSION AND EOUITY Who took part in the project-related community organization? -rich people -poor people -women -youth -teachers -community leaders Other Who did not take part in the project activities? -rich people poor people -women -youth -teachers -community leaders Other What percentage of the total members were women?_ Who benefited from the project? -rich people -poor people -women -youth -teachers -community leaders Other Who was negatively affected by the project? -rich people -poor people -women -youth -teachers -community leaders Other 65 If not us, then wi0? C. LESSONS AND OTHER FACTORS(continued) ANNEX C Lessons learned What problems has the community faced in implementing the project? How did it address these problems? What conditions and factors contributed to the positive aspects of the project? What conditions and factors contributed to the negative aspects of the project? How wouldyou have changed the project's way of working? COMMENTS: National and To what extent are there supportive national policies on the environment? municipal level -high medium/high medium _medium/low _low factors that may have affected What are they? the success of the project To what extent are there supportive national programs on the environment? -high -medium/high -medium -medium/low _low What are they? To what extent is there a network of environmental organizations at the national level? =high medium/high medium _medium/low _low To what extent are there supportive municipal policies on the environment? high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low What are they? To what extent are there supportive municipal programs on the environment? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low What are they? To what extent is there a network of environmental organizations at the municipal level? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low COMMENTS: If not us, then who? 66 C. LESSONS AND OTHER FACTORS (continued) ANNEX C National and To what extent did government authorities assist the project by: municipal level factors that may A. providing implementation support? have affected the -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low _low success of the project B. monitoring community development activities? high medium/high medium _medium/low _low C. encouraging future development and progress? .high medium/high medium _medium/low _low D. Other ? COMMENTS: Factors which Was there a delay in the planning process? may have -yes _no affected the capacity of the If yes, why? community to participate in the Was there a delay in the implementation of the project? project -yes _no lfyes. why? Were there significant differences in opinion about the project among community members? -yes _no Ifyes. why? Was there difficulty in obtaining a contribution from the community for the project? -yes _no Ifyes. why? COMMENTS: 67 If not us, then wlho? D. BEFORE AND AFTER PROIECT GROUP EXERCISE ANNEX C Directions: Help the focus group to fill out the following chart. The aim of the exercise is to identify the different ways the community has been affected by the project-related activity. Before Project After Project Project's Role Physical/Environmental Conditions: What was Project's role in any changes that occurred? What was the environmental condition ofyour community (specifically related to the project)? Regular Water Supply? Yes_No_ Yes_No_ Regular Garbage Pick-up? Yes_No_ Yes_No_ Regular Garbage Collection within community? Yes_No_ Yes_No_ Existing Surface Drains? Yes_No_ Yes_No_ Working surface drains? Yes_No_ Yes_No_ Free from localized flooding? Yes No_ Yes No_ AdeQuate toilet facilities for all? Yes_No_ Yes_No_ Existing open space for community use? Yes No_ Yes_No_ Before Project After Project Project's Role Organizations: Name of Activities # people Name of Activities # people What was the relationship Organization active Organization active between the project and What are the these organizations? community organizations that have been active withinyour community to make life better foryour community? Partner Organizations and Institutions: What organizations and institutions from outside the community didyour community collaborate with on community development (Local Govt, Nat Govt., Private, NGOs, others)? If not us, then who? 68 E. PARTICIPATION ANNEX C Directions: For each time period, enter the appropriate level (H = high, M = medium, L = low) of participation for each primary and secondary stakeholder that was involved in the project. PROIECT STAGE STAKEHOLDER LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION* ._ ~~~.°- .° 0 E Planning PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS Community members Women The poor Other t SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS CBOs NGOs Research/academic Institutions Technical and scientific institutions Municipal authorities National government Private sector Churches Unions Other_ Implementation PRIMARY STAKEHOLDERS Community members Women The poor Other_ SECONDARY STAKEHOLDERS CBOs NGOs Research/academic institutions Technical and scientific institutions Municipal authorities National government Private sector Churches Unions Other_ Information Sharing: One-way flow of information received by the stakeholder. Consultation: Two-way flow of information between the stakeholder and other partners. Collaboration: Shared control over decision-making in the project by the stakeholder. Empowerment: Transfer of control over decisions and resources in the project to the stakeholder. 69 if not us, then who? TH-El WORILD 13ANK GROUP 18i8 1-I SIrccl NVW. W;ishi%ion, [D.C. 201)33 LU.S.A. T1h. (202) 477-1231 Flx. (202) 477-(,391 -hclcx: MCI (,4115 WORLKI ANK MCI 24X1123 WORLDI3ANK ,-itcr:icl .bI://www.wvoricilik.org MET-ROPOLITAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Ellnvironnicnt and Sociadl Developimient Seclor East. Asiai and Ilaci [ic Regiopn -111i Wo)rl i'l 3,,k IlIX 1I Sliecl. N.W. W<,shillgi on. ED.C. 20(133 ll.S.A. -1-cl. (202) ]5v-27/17 I-,ix. (2()2) 522-1(,(,(