Eunw1rOnme1nEta! 24027 Ipjeoerch P zi 4\ U. ~~x "If Not Us, Then Who?": Social Dimensions of Community-based Environmental Initiatives or over 10 years, the polluted waterways had become METHODOLOGY . q Metropolitan Environment- common urban features. MEIP H' al Improvement Program was initiated by the World Bank Sixteen community-based initia- _.~L _ (MEIP) worked with and UNDP, with support from the tives from Indoniesia and the communities in Asia to find governments of Australia, Belgium Philippines, representinig the range innovative solutions to urban and the Netherlands, to help urban of MEIP initiatives, were chosen for environmental problems. A centers in East and South Asia this study Selection criteria in- participatory process to build local address these mounting environ- cluded physical and geographic capacity was central to MEIP's mental concerns. environments, type of lead institu- approach. As a result, projects had social and institutional benefits as The program began in well as environmental ones. five cities-Manila, Jakarta, Bombay, ' j'- - This note summarizes a study that Beijing, and Colombo- examined the broader dimensions and supported a broad S and benefits of MEIP's commu- range of activities. It i 3# nity-based approach in Indonesia strengthened environ- , and the Philippines. It looks at how mental policies by MEIP's pilot projects enabled working with key communities to improve their lives urban actors -in envi- ' _ .5i and to help shape environmental ronmental programs. -7 policy and programs. Joint working groups A(6 .<-y-'; -: , developed environ- BACKGROUND mental policies, man- The Binan River in Manila before (above) and agement strategies, and after (below) the MEIP-supported initiative. By the 1980s, the environmental action plans for each problems of Asia's megacities had city. MEIP also sup- escalated dramatically Smoke- ported community- filled air, littered streets and based initiatives to promote innovation, encourage local initia- . tives, increase commu- , r _ Note: The title of this note as well as the nity participation and . - - full document, "If Not Us, Then Who?" is a ownership, and test ; - . - slogan from the people's protests of the new ideas through 1960s in the Philippines, adopted by the small-scale pilot environmental group Zero Kalat para sa exercises. Kaunlaran to mobilize community action for the environment. _____ ____ ____ -'-__ ____ T H E W O R L D B A N K G R O U P tions, characteristics of community members, and starting date of the Chart 1: Community Participation and Project Impact initiative. Local consultants used three sources of information for 8 ____ _ __ the report: (I) focus groups with 7 beneficiaries; (2) discussions with, 6 and documentation from, the MEIP National Program Coordina- tor in each country; and (3) case X 4 histories of community initiatives. z 3 MEIP APPROACH 2 1-_ _ __-- MEIP's approach was defined by a o small pot of funds and a few Low Medium High dedicated staff members. The program acted as a catalyst, Level of Participation M Low Impact . Medrum Impact assisting others to get the re- m High Impact sources, ideas and support they needed to implement projects themselves. MEIP provided seed funds to NGOs to work with communities to identify problems and implementation of the environmental degradation. and test innovative solutions. Kampung Improvement Program Initiatives aimed to demonstrate to NGOs initiated contact with (KIP), which worked to provide communities that, by working selected communities, mobilized basic infrastructure and sanitation together on a common cause, they their involvement and managed to low income settlements. In 1994, could make a difference, no matter the flow of funds. Community MEIP encouraged the local govern- how poor they might be. members implemented project ment in Jakarta to allow NGOs to activities. In each country, the take over ten sites under KIP. MEIP MEIP initiatives in the Philippines MEIP Coordinator worked with also helped establish the Commu- focused primarily on solid waste key stakeholders and helped them nity Environmental Grant, through management. The program col- to draw on existing resources to which funds were allocated directly laborated with the private sector, complement their efforts. to communities in KIP - a notable foundations, schools and residen- achievement in an era of strong tial communities. To raise the MEIP IN INDONESIA central rule. Communities used visibility of environmental con- these grants to repair water supply cems, MEIP worked closely with In 1990, when MEIP began its systems, build new toilets and local champions. Projects included work in Indonesia, open discussion restore homes damaged by floods. household-level solid waste of environmental issues or criti- Other MEIP initiatives in Indonesia programs, school involvement in a cism of existing policies and included water quality manage- city-wide solid waste reduction institutions was uncommon. ment, solid waste management, plan, solid waste clean-up in MEIP's emphasis was on improv- greening programs and commu- public markets, river rehabilitation, ing institutional structures by nity-based river monitoring. These and community action planning building local capacity, rather than projects are spread throughout for public sanitation. MEIP also on environmental change per se. In Jakarta and have also been intro- supported a 'donor-beneficiary this way the program hoped to duced in Semarang and Surabaya. scheme: which matched a low enable sustainable environmental income, beneficiary community improvements. This was a slow MEIP IN THE PHILIPPINES with a high-rise building in an process because the NGO move- upper middle class, donor com- ment, civil society structures and In contrast to Indonesia, civil munity. democratic processes required time society in the Philippines is well to develop. established and has an active role MAIN FINDINGS in national development. MEIPs MEIP's efforts in Indonesia were approach in the Philippines was integrated with other comprehen- guided by the philosophy that The study drew the following sive community development environmental management is conclusions from the experience efforts for the poor. Beginning in everyone's concern since everyone with MEIP in Indonesia and the 1990, MEIP facilitated preparation contributes to and is affected by Philippines: T H E W D R L D B A N K G R O U P LocAL AND COUNTRY CONTEXT social standing, age, or sex. Over 40 as positive factors for project percent of participants in both performance. Institutional capacity: The lack of countries were women. Sustainability: The outlook for pre-existing capacity and local level sustainability of MEIP initiatives is institutions may have restricted BENEns OF nE MEIP APRoAcH high in the Philippines, where community involvement and project projects received lligh ratings for outcomes in Indonesia. Those few Project impact: Communities extent and quality of use and community-based institutions that reported positive impacts on the maintenance. In Indonesia., these did exist had little experience in environment, as well as on their ratings are moderate, as is the In the Philippines, because of a general well being and capacity to outlook for sustainability vibrant civil society sector, MEIP organize and participate (see chart initiatives were able to draw on the 1). Other positive effects of MEIP IMPLICATIONS technical, management and financial initiatives included improved supportcof .nmeru exi sin n environmental behavior, establish- What does the MEIP experience community organizations and a ment of community institutions, tell program managers about how wide network of regional and greater access to credit, increase to develop community-based national institutions, knowledge, better economicprjcsadeanthibnft? opportunities, discipline and projects and expand their benefits? BuDINGNLoCKSOFllEMEIPAPPROACH Pre-existing institutions and Innovation and dissemination: capacity shape the nature and Community involvement: Commu- MEIP introduced many innovative performance of community-based nities had a high level of involve- approaches to resolving urban efforts. Baseline information and ment in both countries during environmental problems. The monitoring is important for project implementation. Involve- program also actively promoted understanding and promoting ment in project planning and dissemination of its lessons and community-based initiatives. management was more consistent in approaches through publications, Existing community organizations the Philippines. meetings, workshops, competitions, and the range of supportive videos and media events. Local decision-making: MEIP partner organizations outside the helped build local institutional Institution-building: MEIP had a community are two key indicators capacity by enabling comnmunities to posit'ive influence on policies and of capacity at the local level. have an active role in problem, programs. I noei,MI analysis and project design; to assisted the government in drafting Community involvement helps to obtain information and reach procedures to enable communities build local capacity and is associ- consensus on options, costs and to contes, KIP grant fundso InMe ated with better project impact. benefits. Phlpie,ffypreto EPs Communities want to be involved pilot approaches were adopted by in the project process. Their Capacity building: MEIP initiatives government programs. involem t prtant ineal provided training to develop . involvement is important in all technical, and to a lesser extent Effective process: A hgh level of project phases and activities. management skills. community involvement is associ- Community control over resources ated with high project impact (see and participatory monitoring and Inclusion: Projects generally had a chart 2). MEIP communities also evaluation have particular poten- good record of including all groups, identified cooperation, committed tial to ensure that initiatives are regardless of socioeconomic status, leaders, and private sector support adapted to community needs because they enable communities to take a leading role in project ,:jirt2,MEIP Projqcl mat decision-making. Very P ll = - [ eaing br doing and monitor- ing progress improves insight and CL ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~performance. The flexible nature E La of project design enabled learning by doing. Project managers piloted Negam ve *-11 * -- * -1 ' new approaches, which they scaled I- -' *r t f * 1"2-- , ~-up when successful and modified Very Negalive _ _ when unsuccessful. Many of the __ Emn,. rWf eW a-;cltvto- onz Environmenl,rli - Organize "al CandicipaW - indicators described in the study represent implicit aspects of the a Indonesia * Philippines MEIP approach and were not formally tracked or measured. A T H E W 0 R L D B A N K G R 0 U P small number of key indicators proaches. Organizations that can would have complemented MEIP's assist in drafting laws and regula- Key Social Indicators "learning-by-doing" approach and tions and sharing program docu- for MEIP helped its project managers to ments have considerable potential Existing Capacity better understand and assess their to influence this process. m Existing community organ- own efforts (see Text Box). ization- Sustainability requires careful izations Technical training and manage- attention. MEIP community n Range of partner organiza- ment skills help to build local members in both countries cited tions (prior to intervention) capacity. Community response was difficulties with assistance, leader- Process most positive when technical skills ship, cooperation and funding as * Community Involvement in development was matched with major concerns during project * PrepartIn training to help community implementation. Preparation members develop their abilities to Management direct programs and lead organiza- Several factors may have contrib- Implementation tions. Finance and accounting uted to the moderate level of use * Resource allocation training also helped communities and maintenance of MEIP's Monitoring and evaluation to address institutional weaknesses Indonesian initiatives. The at the local level. government's record of investing in * Local decision-making operation and maintenance has e Involvement in problem Mechanisnms to document the not been strong. Low capacity and analysis and diagnosis process and share experience help lack of a network of supportive * Availability of information to build capacity and spread institutions also undermined on options, costs and innovation. The exchange of sustainability. benefits information about best practices is n Range of partner organiza- a critical aspect of training and Building partnerships with other tions (after intervention) helps ensure that local results feed institutions and sharing-experi- * Capacity building into national programs. Lessons ences help to strengthen coopera- Technical learned from community-based tion and create a network for pilots are often lost with the end of technical assistance, management Management projects and go no further than advice, and funding. Efforts to help Mechanisms to foster one community. Managers need to communities build a network of exchange of lessons make special efforts to ensure that support and establish ongoing learned and best practices these lessons-both positive and sources of funds through commu- * Transparency and account negative-are shared with others nity revolving funds or other ability and applied. Such efforts also help mechanisms can play a critical role build partnerships between in improving the sustainability of Outcomes communities and local institutions, community-based initiatives. * Project impact on which in turn improves * Environment sustainability. Special efforts may be needed to * Well being encourage inclusion. Specific, . Capacity to organize and Institutions are bunilt and targeted efforts may be needed to participate strengthened through partner- ensure that all groups have an pation ship, dissemination, and changes equal opportunity to participate in * Innovation in progrars and policies. Innova- community-based efforts. If the * Dissemination tive community-based approaches cultural and institutional context of n Institutionalization can have institutional impact at the a country hinders the involvement * Through policy policy level through changes in of particular groups, a participatory * Through programs laws and regulations, and at the approach alone may not be program level through adoption of adequate to reach those who are * Sustainability pilot ideas or partnership ap- excluded. * Inclusion March 2001 For more information about MEIP, see the full document, If Not Us, Then Who? Socal Dimensions of Community- based Environmiental Initiatives by Kirrin Gill, or contact Tanvi Nagpal, Environment and Social Development Sector Unit, MC8-106, 473-6i711. Tr H E W O R L D B A 19 K G R O U P