If not us, then A

Public Disclosure Authorized SocialDimensions of Community-basedEnvironment Initiatives 23150 December2000 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized

. THWORD BNK KrrinGil

THEWORLD BANK Kirri n Gil1 02000 The InternationalBank [or Reconstructionand Development/THEWORLD BANK 1818H Street,N.W., Washington,D.C. 20433.U.S.A.

Printedin Bangkok,Thailand FirstPrinting December2000

The findings,interpretations, and conclusionsexpressed in this studyare entirelythose of the authorand should not be attributedto the World Bank,to its affiliated organizationsor to membersof its Boardof ExecutiveDirectors or the countriesthey represent. The mapsthat accompanythe text havebeen prepared solely for the convenienceof the reader;the designations and presentation of materialin themdo notimply theexpression of anyopinion whatsoever on thepart ofthe World Bank,its aftiliates,or its Boardor membercountries concerning the legalstatus of anycountry, , , or area,or of theauthorities thereof, or concerningthe delinmitation of its boundariesor its nationalaffiliation.

Thispaper wras written by Kirrin Gill of theEnvironment and Social Development Unit of theEast Asia and Pacific . Tanvi Nagpal. Illangovan Patchamuthu, HeinrichUnger. Warren Van Wicklin. Thomas Walton. Anna Wetterberg. and David Williams provided peer review Katherin Golitzen provided editorial assistance. KanchalikaKlad-Angkul prepared the document for publication. Cover and layout designed by RatchubolChayutkul. Social Dimensions of Community-Based Environment Initiatives

Kirrin Gill 5 FOREWORD BOXES 6 ABBREVIATIONSAND ACRONYMS 68 ABBREVIATIONSCKNOWLEDGEMEN25 Box 1. BabonRiver: Banding Together to 8 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Monitorthe Healthof a River 11 INTRODUCTION 28 Box2. PalikoCreek Rehabilitation Program: 12 THEAIMS OF THESTUDY A PartnershipApproach 13 METHODOLOGY 31 Box3. ZKK SolidWaste Program: A MedicalClinic Tackles an Urban 15 Limitationsof the Analysis Community'sGarbage Problem 16 THE MEIPAPPROACH 36 Box4. The KampungImprovement Program 16 (KIP):A ComprehensiveApproach to EnvironmentalProblems 17 41 BoxS. Summayof Findings 23 BUILDINGBLOCKS OF THE MEIPAPPROACH 23 Countryand LocalContext FIGURES 23 CommunityInvolvement 24 Figure1. CommunityInvolvement in MEIP 26 LocalDecision-Making Initiatives:Extent 27 LocalContributions 25 Figure2. CommunityInvolvement in MEIP 29 CapacityBuilding Initiatives:Quality 29 Transparencyand Accountability 32 Figure3. MEIPProject Impacts 35 Figure4. Sustainabilityof ProjectInvestments 29 Inclusion 37 Figure5. Sourcesof Fundsfor Project 32 BENEFITSOF THE MEIPAPPROACH Maintenance 32 ProjectImpact 38 Figure6. CommunityInvolvement and Project Impact 33 Innovationand Dissemination 38 Figure7. CommunityPerceptions of Positive 34 Institutionalization Factors 35 Sustainability TABLES 37 Expectations 38 Factorsof Influence 12 Table1. AnalyticalFramework 42 CONCLUSIONS 14 Table2. MEIPCommunity Initiatives Selected 42 Implicationsof the StudyFindings for the Study 45 RippleEffects RippleEffects 19 Table3. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~PhilippinesProjectsSelected for the Study:The 47 REFERENCES 21 Table4. ProjectsSelected for the Study: Indonesia 49 ANNEXA: THE PHILIPPINES,PROJECT SUMMARIES 40 Table5. Summaryof CommunityPerceptions of the MEIPInitiatives 54 ANNEXB: INDONESIA,PROJECT SUMMARIES 45 Table6. KeySocial and Institutional 58 ANNEXC: FOCUSGROUP QUESTIONS FOR COMMUNITY LEADERS Indicatorsfor MEIP

ii1 if ot us,the. who? "Environmentalproblems are not problems of our surroundings,but in theirorigins and throughtheir conseQuences- are thoroughly socialproblems, problems of people, their history,their living conditions,their relationsto the world and reality,their social,cultural and living conditions....At the endoF the twentieth centurynature is societyand society is also *nature'.

(Beck,1992, emphasis in the original)

Communitymembers in SrengsengSawah, Indonesia admire a star fruit tree theyhave planted as part of the KebagusanGreen Corridors Project

If not us, t&n wh0 ? j4 TheMetropolitan Environmental Improvement Philippines,highlighting how communities gained Program,or MEIP,as it is commonlycalled, has fromthe processof establishingthe projects,as beena pioneerin the WorldBank's efforts to well as from their outcomes.We hopethis paper addressthe environmentalconcerns of Asia'smajor will be usefulto managersof community-based .MEIP called attention to the rapidly programs,non-governmental organizations, escalatingsolid wasteand pollutionproblems of communitiesand policy-makers as theycontinue to urbanareas and brought together key actors -- grapplewith the environmentaland development government,the privatesector, non-governmental facingurban areas. organizations,and technical and research institutions-- to strategizehow to resolvethem. MEIPembodies the spirit of teameffort, and we While workingwith central,provincial and local wouldlike to extendour thanksto the governments governmentsto strengthenpolicies and develop of Indonesiaand the Philippines,their officials,and environmentalmanagement strategies, MEIP also representativesof the privatesector, media, and piloted communityinitiatives to testinnovative technicalinstitutes. In particular,we wouldlike to ideason the ground.These demonstration projects thankthe peoplewho madecommunity action at the haveimproved environmental conditions and have grass-rootspossible: community members, non- givencommunities the experienceand structures governmentalorganizations, community-based they needto continueto improvetheir livesin the organizations,local government,and MEIPstaff. future.

This publicationfocuses on MEIP'scommunity- Zafer Ecevit basedinitiatives and considers the social Director dimensionsand long-termbenefits of a community- Environmentand Social Development basedapproach. It exploresthe experienceof twelve EastAsia and PacificRegion communityprojects in Indonesiaand the The World Bank

5 If not us, then who? Bapedalda BadanPengendalian Dampak MDF MuntinlupaDevelopment Foundation LingkunganDaerah(local environ mentalprotection agency in MEIP MetropolitanEnvironmental Indonesia) ImprovementProgram

BHW BarangayHealth Workers NGO Non-GovernmentalOrganization

CLEAR CitizensLeague for Ecological NPC MEIPNational Program Coordinator Awarenessand Responsibility PSF PublicSanitation Facilities DENR Departmentof Environmentand NaturalResources in the Philippines RW RukunWarga (association consistingof severalRTs) EWM Eco-WasteManagement RT RukunTetangga (Indonesian IEC Information,Education, and neighborhoodassociation) Communication UNDP United NationsDevelopment KIP KampungImprovement Program Programme

LLDA LagunaLake Development Authority ZKK Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran (ZeroWaste for Progressprogram in the Philippines)

If not us,then who? 6 n:s~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Manypeople helped bring life to the stories WarrenVan Wicklin,. Thomas Walton, and David aboutMEIP described on thesepages. The field Williams.Bhuvan Bhatnagar, Lanfranco Blanchetti- workfor the studywas conducted by Victoria Revelli,John Clark, Scott Guggenheim, Espaldonin the Philippinesand Deviariandy PatchamuthuIllangovan, Kumi Kitamori, Parmesh Setiawanin Indonesia.MEIP National Program Shah,Mark Sundberg, and Anna Wetterberg also Coordinators,Bebet Gozun in the Philippinesand providedinput. SuhadiHadiwinoto in Indonesia,introduced the studyteam to the MEIPcommunities and Learningabout MEIP has been an inspiring painstakinglyprovided the backgrounddetails on a process.I particularlywant to thankall the MEIP decadeof experiencein the two .Members partnerswho madethese stories a reality:Illango, from MEIPcommunities sat for hourswith the study Tanvi,Kumi, Bebet, Suhadi, and the MEIP teamto describetheir experiences.The report was communities,themselves. peerreviewed by TanviNagpal, Heinrich Unger,

If not us,then wh 0? 8 I~~~~I

I |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

:~~ C ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I ExecutiveSummary l -- .S , -

A call to action from the people's protests of the 1960sin the Philippines, adopted by the environmentalgroup. Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran(Zero Waste for Progress).to mobilize a communityto tackle its garbageproblem.

For over10years, the Metropolitan transparencyand accountability of projectfinances EnvironmentalImprovement Program (MEIP) wasalso uneven, which restricted community access workedwith communitiesin Indonesiaand the to informationabout the administrativedecision- Philippinesto find innovativesolutions to urban makingprocess. environmentalproblems. A participatoryprocess to build localownership, capacity and institutionswas MEIPinitiatives had broadbenefits. centralto MEIP'sapproach. As a result,projects Communitiesreported positive impacts on the their had not only environmentaleffects but socialand environment,general well-being, and capacity to institutionalones as well. This paperexamines organizeand participate. MEIP efforts helped MEIP'ssocial and institutionaldevelopment process communitiesimprove their livelihoodthrough andthe broaderdimensions and benefits of its accessto grantfunds, savings programs and income community-basedapproach. It looksat howMEIPs generationopportunities. Pilot initiativesin both pilot projectsenabled communities to be better Indonesiaand the Philippineshad considerable eQuippedto improvetheir ownlives and helped successin institutionalizingtheir innovative shapeenvironmental policy and programs. approachesthrough changes in policiesand programs.For instance,in oneof the earliest MEIPcatalyzed communities and NGOsto instancesof devolvingfinancial control to addressthe environmentalproblems of their cities. communitiesin Indonesia,MEIP helped the Theprogram provided seed funds and technical governmentto draft proceduresto enable adviceto NGOsto workin partnershipwith communitiesto controlgrant fundsin the communitieson localenvironmental issues, such as ImprovementProgram. In the Philippines,half of solidwaste and water pollution. The paper looks at MEIP'sinnovative approaches have been adopted by the buildingblocks of MEIP'scommunity-based governmentprograms. Study findings suggest that approach,such as the levelof community MEIP'sfocus on a participatoryprocess, involvement,local decision-making,capacity institutionalcapacity building and a partnership building,local contributionand inclusion. approachbenefited its communities.A high levelof Communitiesin bothcountries were highly involved communityinvolvement was associated with high in implementationof MEIPinitiatives, and, in the impactof projectsin both Indonesiaand the Philippines,in projectplanning and management. Philippines.However, poor institutional capacity MEIPhelped communities build their capacityby andlack of a networkof supportweakened the trainingthem in technicalenvironmental skills, and, sustainabilityof MEIPinitiatives in Indonesia. to somedegree, in management.All groupsin the communitytook part in MEIPinitiatives, and women Thepaper provides an outline of keyindicators representedover 40 percentof participants. to monitorthe socialdimensions of a community- However,communities had little involvementin basedapproach and considerswhat the MEIP resourceallocation or monitoringand evaluation, experienceshows about expanding and scaling-up whichlimited the extentto whichinitiatives could grass-rootsefforts. be drivenby the communitiesthemselves. The

If not us, then who?10 By the 1980s,the escalatingenvironmental By the secondyear of the program,managers problemsof Asia'smegacities had become all too sawa needto link MEIP'sactivities with evident.Smoke-filled air, litteredstreets and communitiesto bring academicstrategies to the pollutedwaterways were common features of urban groundlevel and to tap local innovations.They centers,and suchproblems were growing believedcommunity-based initiatives would allow unchecked.The Metropolitan Environmental MEIPto pilot newideas, as well asto exploreand ImprovementProgram (MEIP) was initiated in the expandexisting innovative strategies. Communities late 1980sby the WorldBank and UNDPto help wereboth a demandand a resourcethat could not urbancenters in Eastand South Asia addressthese be neglected.Community projects were also seen as mountingenvironmental concerns. MEIP aimed to a wayto includethe needsof the poor andmost look at the relationshipbetween natural vulnerablegroups in environmentalefforts. environmentalsystems and urbanareas. This paperfocuses on MEIP'scommunity-based Theprogram originaly began in fivecities in initiativesin two countries,Indonesia and the five differentcountries, Manila, Jakarta, Bombay, Philippines.'Community-based development' Beijing,and Colombo, and supported a broadrange encompassesa wide range of differenttypes of of activities.It strengthenedenvironmental policies initiativesat the grass-rootslevel. By definition, by workingwith central,provincial and local community-basedapproaches are intended to governmentsto developenvironmental management respondto localproblems, constraints, and strategies,policies and action plans. MEIP opportunities,and so aredeepy influencedby their emphasizedthe importanceof strategicstudies to local context.Looking at MEIP'sexperience in two helpestablish an empiricalbasis for futureefforts. countriesprovides an opportunityto examinethe specificbuilding blocks of MEIP'sapproach, and MEIPfocused on involvingall keyurban actors howthey were adapted to differentcountry contexts. in environmentalactivities. NGOs, government, the privatesector and technicaland research MEIP'scommunity-based process is not typical. institutionsworked together on MEIP'ssteering Theprogram functioned primarily as a catalyst, committee.MEIP sponsored inter- usinga smallbudget for seedfunds and a few workshopsto facilitateexchange of experienceand dedicatedstaff members.However, the lessonsfrom learningbetween countries. To build capacityof its experienceoffer insights for other community- governmentagencies and NGOs, MEIP also assisted basedefforts. its partnersthrough training, seminars and field exercises,particularly as relatedto participatory approaches.

11 Ifnot us, thenwho? In both Indonesiaand the Philippines,a Table 1.Analytical Framework participatoryapproach to build local ownership, capacityand institutions was central to MEIP's Process Outcomes community-basedinitiatives. Thanks to this approach,project impacts extended beyond environmentalone. The study examines the social * Planning * Environment andinstitutional aspects of MEIP'sprocess and the . Management * Well-being wayscommunities gained from MEIP'scommunity- basedand participatory approach. The primary Implementation * Capacitytoorganize and participate Questionexplored is: LocalDecision-Making Innovationand Dissemination

Whatare the broaderdimensions and LocalContribution Institutionalization potentialbenefits of a community-based CapacityBuilding Sustainability approach? TransparencyandAccountability Expectations

To determinethis, the studyconsiders both the Inclusion processand outcome of MEIP'sapproach:

* Process:What are the socialand Finall, the studyaims to provideguidance to institutionalbuilding blocks of MEIP's managersof community-basedprojects on howto community-basedapproach? expandthe socialand institutionalbenefits of their * Outcome:What are the socialand projects. institutionalbenefits of MEIP'scommunity-based approach?

Becausethese questions are interlinked, the studythen looks at therelationship between MEIP's buildingblocks and its socialand institutional benefits.To understand the process and its outcomes,several hypotheses about the nature of community-baseddevelopment and its benefitsare exploredthrough the indicators in TableI

If not us, then 5 0h? 12 While MEIPwas implemented at variouslevels, A total of sixteencommunity-based initiatives from nationalpolicy to the grassroots,this study werechosen for this study,eight from eachcountry. focuseson MEIP'scommunity-based initiatives. Initiativeswere selected to providea representative Theseinitiatives were based in a particular sampleof the rangeundertaken in eachcountry. The geographiclocation and aimedto engage completelist of community-basedinitiatives was communitymembers in the developmentprocess. In categorizedinto differentproject types, and eachcountry, the definitionof communitywas initiativeswere chosen from amongeach type. (See adaptedto the local context. Table2 for projecttypes and initiatives selected for the study,and Annexes A and B for a completelist In Indonesia,community was generally defined of all of MEIPscommunity-based initiatives.) by the administrativeentities (RT) (neighborhoodassociation) covering about 300 To selectfrom amonginitiatives of eachproject peopleand RukunWarga (RW) (association type,criteria were developed to providea consistingof severalRTs) covering about 3,000 representativerange of initiatives.Selection criteria people.In the Philippines,community was used as a included: genericterm to identifyany group with a common . physicaland geographic environments set of interests,located in a particulargeographic * type of lead institutions area.These included cities, barangays(the lowest . type of communitymembers administrativelevel), industry associations, schools, * startingdate of the initiative. offices,malls and residentialcommunities. Communitiesranged in size from a barangayof Thesecond-oldest initiative in eachcategory 40,000 peopleto a condominiumcommunity of wasselected for two reasons:first, to providean about700 people. adequatetime framein whichto observethe initiative'simpact and second, to avoidthe potential Someof MEIP'scommunity-based initiatives in biasof problemsthat canbe associatedwith pilot Indonesiawere Quite large. The Pisang Baru efforts. KampungGreening Project involved two to three communitiesin 75 sub-,covering about half Researchwas conducted by local consultantsin a million peoplein total, andthe Kebagusan eachcountry. The study was based on threesources CorridorGreening Project involved 30 of information:(1) focus groups with beneficiariesin communities,covering 90,000 people.In the selectedcommunities where a MEIPcommunity- Philippines,MEIP initiatives worked intensively in a basedinitiative had been conducted; (2) discussions smallnumber of communitiesof severalthousand with anddocumentation from the MEIPNational people,although some projects were considerably ProgramCoordinator in eachcountry; and (3) case larger,such as the SchoolInvolvement in historiesof eachcommunity initiative based on MuntinlupaCitys SolidWaste Reduction Plan, informationfrom communities,NGOs, local leaders whichinvolved 30 communities. andMEIP National Program Coordinators.

13 1If not us, tLen sh 0? Table2. MEIP CommunityInitiatives Selectedfor the Study

ProjectType TotalArea Covered by Project CommunitiesSelected for theStudy

PHILIPPINES CommunityAction Planningfor PublicSanitation 2 communities Marikina Community-based Water Quality Monitoring 3 communitiesNone Donor-BeneficiaryScheme 5 donorcommunities and 4 MakatiCity: Bldg.6750 and beneficiarycommunities Pinagkaisahan Household-levelSolid Waste 8 communities Zero Kalatpara sa Kaunlaran(ZKK) BarangayNew Era PublicMarket Solid Waste Clean-up 6 communities BinanRiver PacoPublic Market Recyclingof PolystyreneWaste from Commercial I community None Establishments RiverRehabilitation and Solid Waste 3 communities PalikoCreek SchoolInvolvement in City-wideSolid 30 communities MuntinlupaCity WasteReduction Plan

INDONESIA Community-basedRiver Monitoring 6 communitiesand 4 Schools BabonRiver CorridorGreening 30 communities Kebagusan HousingDevelopment I community None KampungGreening 2-3 communitiesin eachof PisangBaru 75sub-districts NGO Involvementin Kampung 10areas (each covering CipinangBesar Utara (Cibesut) ImprovementProgram (KIP) severalcommunities)and I PuloGadung small islandcommunity TuguUtara SolidWaste Habitat 10neighborhood communities PejatenBarat UrbanRenewal I community None WaterQuality Management 5 communities Semanan

Focusgroups were conducted in each Community leaderswere comprisedof communitywith three types of people: (I) representativesof NGOs working in the community, community leaders,(2) communitymembers actively local governmentleaders, and leadersof local involvedin the project,' and (3) femalemembers of community-basedorganizations. Community the communitywith no particular relationshipto the membersactively involvedin the project were project or the community members,both men and selected basedon guidance from key informantsand women,who were actively involved in the project.2 community leaders.

A focus group with active communitymembers was not held for two communityprojects in Indonesia.In Semananwhere the Water Quality Managementinitiative had been conductedin a neighborhoodof soybeanproducers, MEIP supported a communitydevelopment specialist from an NGO to encouragecommunity involvement in the establishmentof a wastewatertreatment plant. However, due to problemsbetween the soybean producers'collective and its members,few communitymembers were actively involved in the projectand nonewere available to takepart in the focus group.In PisangBaru, community members who had beenactively involved in the projectcould not be located.The relationship between the managing NGOand the communitywas limitedto largeinformation dissemination meetings and the provisionof seedlings.Although many community members tookpart in greeningactivities, they did not associatethem with the MEIPinitiative. I Focusgroups with women were not conductedin one communityin the Philippinesand fourcommunities in Indonesia.In New Era barangayin the Philippines,community members had beendisplaced to anotherarea, therefore,women currently living in the communitywere unfamiliar with the initiative.In Semanan(Water Quality Management),Pejaten Barat (Solid Waste Habitat),Babon River (Community-basedRiver Monitoring), and Kebagusan(Corridor Greening) in Indonesia,the MEIPinitiatives were conducted with a smallgroup of people,therefore, community members outside this groupwere not familiarwith the initiatives.

If not us, th.en who? 14 Thefindings presented in the paperare organizationsoutside the communityprior to the basedprimarily on responsesfrom community MEIPintervention, all of whichare importantfor leadersand active community members. understandingpre-existing institutional Responsesfrom focusgroups with womennot development.Insights are also restrictedby the involvedwith the projectare used to serveas a qualityand completeness of availablesources of check,first on bias in responsesof the other information.MEIP National Program Coordinators focusgroups, which had greaterinvolvement and (NPCs)offered a rich sourceof information thereforegreater stake in the projects;and concerningtenyears of projecthistory, but theyalso secondon potentialgender-differentiated biases presenteda potentialfor biasdue to their stakein and impacts.Findings from focusgroups with the program.Retrospective research was womenare reported in this paperonly in cases complicatedby MEIPsconscious effort, particularly wherethey are notably different from thoseof in Indonesia,to keepa low profilein orderto foster other focusgroups. communityownership of environmentalactions. The studyis basedon Qualitativemeasures and A literaturereview was conducted to develop subjectiveratings that mayhave different meanings hypothesesabout the buildingblocks and within differentcultural contexts. benefitsof community-basedinitiatives and to selectindicators to be investigatedin the study. To addressthese weaknesses, the studyfocuses Areasselected were restricted to thoserelevant on understandingthe processand outcomesrelated to the MEIPprocess and those about which to conductinga community-basedinitiative within a informationwas available. The indicatorswere particularcontext, rather than on comparingresults groupedinto categoriesand thenadapted for acrosscountries. It explorescommunity perceptions Questionnairesfor focusgroups. During field- of the developmentprocess to examinehow testing,the indicatorsand Questionnaireswere community-basedinitiatives start, functionand adaptedto the actualMEIP process in each prosper.While beneficiarysatisfaction is a country. subjectivemeasure, it is an importantoutcome for all developmentefforts, and a particularpriority for LIMITATIONSOF THE ANALYSIS community-basedinitiatives. Findings have been verifiedby the useof severaldifferent sources of Due to the retrospectivenature of the study, information.Three different groups of community the hypothesesand indicatorsthat couldbe memberswere asked the sameQuestions in focus examinedwere limited. The lack of a baseline groups.Qualitative information from communities surveymakes it impossibleto conductdetailed wascomplemented by quantitativedata, 'beforeand after' comparisonsof project Questionnairesfrom MEIP program staff andNGO outcomesand communitycapacity. Little representatives,and site visits. Lossof information informationwas available on the levelof dueto time passingis not extensivebecause MEIP's communityinvolvement, community oldestcommunity initiatives started sixyears ago, organizationalcapacity, or interactionwith andmany of themhave only recentlyended.

15 if not s, thenwho? XA Sa9xr F:Tm,: AllgS

MEIPnever sought to implementprograms: * to testnew ideas through small-scale pilot ratherit wasa catalyst,assisting others- exercises. particularlyNGOs and communities-toget the resources,ideas and support they needed to NGOswere central to MEIP'scommunity-based implementtheir ownprojects. MEIP's approach was initiatives.They initiated contact with the selected definedby a smallpot of fundsand a small communities,mobilized community involvement in dedicatedstaff. Theprogram provided seed funds activitiesand managed the flow of funds.NGO to NGOsto workwith communitiesto test selectionwas ad hoc, usuallyin responseto the innovativeideas. In eachcountry, the programwas opportunitiesand innovative ideas available, managedby a NationalProgram Coordinator (NPC). althoughsome key characteristics influenced the BothCoordinators identified promising strategies process.To work with MEIPin Indonesia,NGOs andworked together with NGOs,communities, and neededtwo Qualifications:expertise in other interestedpartners to put theminto action. environmentalissues and familiarity with a MEIPalso helped its partnersto drawon existing comprehensive,community development approach. resourcesand organizations to complementtheir In the Philippines,MEIP supported NGO efforts. community-basedinitiatives that were characterized by local ownershipand innovation.NGOs there had MEIP'searlyyears, beginning in the late 1980s, to havea strongcommunity-based partner wereoccupied at the nationalpolicy level with organization,be demand driven, and in the initial developingenvironmental strategies and stageof pilotinga newidea. regulations.The process involved work with a ange of keyactors in the environmentsector, including Descriptionsof the sixteenprojects selected NGOs.Through such interactions, MEIP NPCs for this studyare providedin TablesI and2. becamefamiliar with newgrassroots approaches and with the potentialfor furtherinnovations at the local INDONESIA level.At the sametime, many of the ideasbeing put forth at the policy levelhad not beentested in the WhenMEIP began its workin Indonesia,open field, and therewas a needfor environmentalresults discussionof environmentalissues or criticismof on the ground,particularly in poorcommunities existingpolicies and institutions was uncommon, that wereshouldering more than their shareof evenamong the media.In this context,MEIP aimed environmentaldegradation. to givevoice to the peopleto demonstratethat changecan be made though a localdecision-making MEIP'scommunity-based initiatives had several process.MEIP's emphasis was on improving aims: institutionalstructures by buildinglocal capacity, * to promoteinnovation ratherthan on environmentalchange per se.In this * to encouragelocal initiatives waythe programhoped to enablesustainable * to increasecommunity participation and environmentalimprovements. This wasa slow ownership processbecause the NGOsector, civil society

If not .. , then wLo? i 16 structuresand democraticprocesses required time greeningprograms and community-based river to develop.Civil societyorganizations and unions monitoring.They are spread throughout Jakarta and are nowrapidly emerging, but this is a relatively havealso been introduced in the citiesof Semarang recentphenomenon. MEIP had to buildon existing andSurabaya. MEIP's activities took manyforms, resourcesand organizations and encourage includingdiscussions on environmentalissues, communitiesto takean active role in localdecision- trainingin wastecollection and composting, makingwhile helping them to strengthen establishmentof a liquidwaste treatment facility, institutionalstructures to supportthe democratic andtraining in a bottom-upplanning process for process. land use.

MEIP'sfirst community-basedefforts in MEIPsupported NGOs, technical groups and Indonesiawere integrated with other comprehensive researchinstitutions to facilitateenvironmental and communitydevelopment efforts for the poor. From capacitybuilding activities within communities.To 1990on MEIPfacilitated preparation and makebest useof its limited resources,MEIP drew implementationof the KampungImprovement on a broadrange of partnersto providesupport to Program(KIP), which worked to providebasic communityinitiatives. Partnerships included infrastructureand sanitation to improvelow income governmentministries, industrial cooperatives, settlements.In 1994,MEIP encouraged the local internationalagencies, private foundations, governmentin Jakartato allow NGOsto takeover teachers,women's organizations,youth and student preparationand implementation of ten sitesunder organizations,and, in the caseof a greening KIP.MEIP also helped establish the Community program,a bird club.These organizations provided EnvironmentalGrant, through which funds were a networkof supportand technicaladvice for NGOs allocateddirectly to communitiesin KIP-a notable and communities. achievementin anera of strongcentral rule. Communitieshave used these grants to repairwater PHILIPPINES supplysystems, build newtoilets andrestore homes damagedby flooding. In contrastto Indonesia,civil societyin the Philippineswas well establishedand had an active OtherMEIP initiatives in Indonesiainclude role in nationaldevelopment when MEIP began in waterquality management, solid waste management, the country.NGOs were partners in policydialogue

17 If not us, then Aho? at the internationallevel, and community-based neighborhoods.Communities organizationswere widespread. MEIP's community and NGOsinitiated clean-up levelwork began with a studyon local efforts,waste segregation, environmentalefforts of NGOs.At that time, most compostingand recycling. The environmentalNGOs focused on 'green'issues, programcollaborated with the suchas forestry or logging,rather than the 'brown' privatesector, foundations, concernsof urbanareas. The study highlighted what schools,offices, malls, and wasand was not workingat the communitylevel and vendorassociations, as well as gaveMEIP an introduction to potentiallocal residentialcommunities. To partners.By 1993MEIP had begun to supportNGO raisethe visibilityof effortsto resolvethe environmentalproblems of environmentalconcerns, MEIP urbancommunities. workedclosely with local champions,including public TheMEIP approach in the Philippineswas officials,NGO representatives guidedby the philosophythat environmental anddedicated individuals. managementis everyone's concern since everyone contributesto and is affectedby environmental Projectsincluded degradation.The initiativesaimed to demonstrate householdlevel solid waste to communitiesthat, byworking together on a programs,school involvement commoncause, they can make a difference,no in a city-widesolid waste matterhow poor they may be. By involving the reductionplan, solid waste clean-up in public LorenzoCawali's painting communityin theentire process, from problem markets,river rehabilitation, and community action ofcommunities creating a cleanand green city won identificationthrough to findingsolutions, the planningfor publicsanitation. MEIP also supported the high school division programworked to build ownershipand a 'donor-beneficiaryscheme,' which matched a low grandprize in the commitment.MEIP advised NGOs and communities income,beneficiary community with a high-rise MuntinlupaCity environ- onhow to cut problemsdown to a manageablesize, buildingin anupper middle-class, donor mentalart competitionin makingsolutions easier. community.The donor communitylearned to the Philippines. segregateits wastewhile members of the low MEIPinitiatives in the Philippinesfocused incomecommunity managed waste segregation and primarilyon solid wastemanagement, a major recyclingand earned profits from the recyclable concernin the country,particularly in poor materials.

If not -s, th-en Ah? 18 Table 3. Projects Selectedfor the Study

Name Objectives

BarangayNew Era * To mainstreamthe conceptof EcologicalWaste Management in the barangays. HouseholdLevel Solid Waste * To set up a sustainablemechanism by whichtarget communities can attain self sufficiencythrough the viablelivelihood projects.

BinanRiver * To promotereduction, recovery and proper disposal of marketwastes. PublicMarket Solid Waste Clean-up

MakatiCity, Donor-Beneficiary * Totransform wastes into a resourcewith highervalue. SolidWaste Management Scheme * To involvecommunity in managingthe resource. * To providea systemwhere 'resource rich' groups'donate' segregated wastes to the barangayswho canrecycle and generate income from wastes,and create employmentfor communitymembers.

MarikinaCommunity Action Planning * Toassist user groups, barangays and municipal officials in improvingoperation, for PublicSanitation maintenanceand development of servicesrelated to PublicSanitation Facilities (PSF). * To rehabilitatePSF based on a communityplan. * To documentthe processesinvolved. * To determinemechanisms by whichpilot activitiescan be adopted by other PSFs.

MuntinlupaCity * To reduceschool waste by fifty percentin 1999. SchoolInvolvement in City-wide SolidWaste Reduction Plan

Paco * To promotereduction, recovery and proper disposal of marketwastes PublicMarket Solid Waste Clean-up

PalikoCreek River Rehabilitation * To raisethe levelof environmentaland health consciousness of the community. andSolid Waste * To mobilizelocal industriesto voluntarilycomply with effluentstandards. * To mobilizecity governmentand barangays to strictlyenforce anti-pollution andanti-littering laws, rules and regulations. * To reducedischarges of domesticand industrial wastewater and dumping of solid waste.

Zero Kalatpara sa Kaunlaran(ZKK) * To conductWaste Management and Awareness Seminar for residents,officials, HouseholdLevel Solid Waste leadersandyouth in the targetareas. * Toconduct training in wastesegregation, recycling and composting involving at least700 communitymembers. * Toorganize community members into a cooperative. * To developlinkages with municipaland barangay governments in implementationof ordinancesfor propermanagement and improvement of sanitation.

19 If not us, then who? The Philippines

Activities Partners

* Information,Education and Communication Campaign RecyclingMovement of the PhilippinesFoundation, Inc. * Training Barangayofficials * Composting Communitymembers * Recycling * Segregationat householdlevel * Trainingof Trainers

* Segregation LionsClub * Composting Localgovernment * Information,Education and Communication Campaign LagunaLake Dev. Authority * Training Fisheriesand Aquatic Resource Management Council AcademicInstitutions Leagueof BinanLeaders Media

* Information,Education and Communication Campaign Lowand mid incomecommunities * Training Foodstall andrestaurant owners * Segregation Associationof businessestablishments * Donor-BeneficiaryMatching PolystyrenePackaging Council of the Philippines * Livelihood AyalaFoundation Departmentof Environmentand Natural Resources

* Managementof PublicToilet Facility and Water Supply UPSocial Action and Researchfor DevelopmentFoundation * Participatoryaction planning BarangayCouncil BarangaySanitation

* Information,Education and Communication Campaign Schoolofficials * Training Committeeon Healthand Sanitation of MuntinlupaCity * Segregation Schoolchildren * Composting

* Segregation PacoVendors Association * Composting Vendors * Information,Education and Communication Campaign Hawkers . Training Unilever Communitymembers Localgovernment Clergy

* Solidwaste management BarangayCupang * Organizingurban communities City governmentof Muntinlupa * Information,Education and Communication Campaign LLDA(Laguna Lake Development Authority) * Training MuntinlupaDevelopment Foundation AdvanceWarehousing Association, Inc.

* Composting Dagat-dagatanPolymedic Medical Foundation, Inc. * Recycling Communitymembers * Segregationat householdlevel RecyclingMovement of the PhilippinesFoundation, Inc. * Information,Education and Communication Campaign Localgovernment * Trainingfor Trainers Localcivic organizations * Establishmentof a CommunityVegetable Farm * Seminaron CooperativeDevelopment * Incomegeneration activities from recycled waste materials

if not us, then wh0 ? 20 Table4. Projects Selectedfor the Study

Name Objectives

BabonRiver * To improveinformation, awareness, skills andeconomic capability of Community-based communitiesto enabletheir participationin environmentalmanagement RiverMonitoring

Kebagusan * To creategreen corridors to connectmajor green areas in Jakartato improve GreenCorridors the city environment,encourage bird life andbiodiversity

PejatenBarat, * To reducesolid wasteby implementinglow-cost composting technology SolidWaste Habitat

PisangBaru Kampung Greening * To helplow incomecommunities establish green areas in their settlements, usingtheir own resources

PuloGadung, Cibesut, * To strengthencommunity involvement in basicinfrastructure provision and andTugu Utara, Kampung sanitationimprovement in slum areas. ImprovementProgram (KIP)

Semanan * To reduceriver pollutioncaused by tofu andtempe production along Banjir Kanal, WaterQuality Management by relocationof small-scaleproducers and development of a community-based watertreatment and sewerage system.

21 if not us, then who? Indonesia

Activities Partners

* Workshopson environmentalawareness and monitoring techniques Teachers * Trainingof TrainersProgram Women'sorganizations * Villagework groups Youthorganizations Universitystudents Themayor Municipalgovernment

* Provisionof seedlingsand raising awareness about greening SymbioseBirds Club (NGO) andhow to growplants Communitymembers * Selfhelp approach lakartaOffice of Agriculture * Encouragementof Dept.of PublicWorks to allow localnurseries to Departmentof PublicWorks utilize emptyspace along roads and rivers for growingplants Privatenurseries Mayorof Centrallakarta

* At sub-districtlevel, (I) increasedawareness for householdsabout UnitedNations Center for HumanSettlements/ communitysolid wastemanagement and encouragement of partnerships Habitat with scavengers,official wastepickers and the formalgovernment system; Communitymembers and(2) adjustmentof pick-upschedule, re-routing of garbagecart, Sub-districtgovernment andimproved services * At communitylevel, evaluation of existingRecycling and CompostingProduction Enterprises * At householdlevel, introduction of threemethods of composting

* Provisionof seedlings Communitymembers * Raisingawareness about greening and how to growplants Newgraduate volunteers * Self helpapproach NGOs

* NGOsmade responsible for KIPproject preparation and NGOs implementation,to strengthencommunity involvement Localgovernment * CommunityEnvironmental Grant provides a directroute funding Communitymembers communityneeds, such as (I) constructionof infrastructureand Privatefoundation (3 communities in public facilities,(2) micro-creditfor job creation,and (3) strengthening PelaMampung) socialand community organization. * HomeImprovement loans are available to families * Greening

* Constructionof central,community-based tofu andsoybean cake Semananco-op of tofuand soybean producers productionkitchen with water treatment and sewerage system Officeof PublicWorks of lakartaSpecial Territory * NGO-facilitatedconsultation with localcommunities; NGO facilitator BinaSwadaya (NGO) livedwith communityfor 3 monthsand provided assistance in community Communitymembers awarenessand organization * Construction,installation, assistance in operationand maintenance provided by the Officeof PublicWorks * Managementof kitchenand supply of soybeanthrough community co-op

1f not us, then wh0 ? 22 N~~~~~~~~t-> -- -- na 9... 7> g>

-tv *-- ~~' _-

1\X ,-v- !t\-- \,, -, s---

Whatis MEIP'scommunity-based approach? * Projectstaff: MEIPin Indonesiawas Whatare its socialand institutionalbuilding blocks managedby one NationalProgram Coordinator andwhat distinguishes it from othertypes of generallywithout any additional staff, whilethe initiatives?This sectionof the studylooks at the NationalProgram Coordinator in the Philippines MEIPcommunity-based process through the hadsupport from staff assistants. selectedcase studies. * Project scope:The scope of the project coveragewas particularly large in someIndonesia COUNTRYAND LOCALCONTEXT initiatives,likely affecting their intensityof involvementand impact. MEIP'sapproach varied according to the localand * Integrateddevelopment approach: Three countrycontext of eachproject. The institutional, of MEIP'sinitiatives in Indonesiawere integrated socialand cultural factors within eachcountry into a broader,comprehensive community determinedthe startingpoint of the initiativesand developmentprogram, the KIP.They are distinct werea critical influenceon their progressand from the other Indonesianprojects and tend to have outcomes.These factors included: strongersocial and institutionaldevelopment e (Civilsociety and institutional capacity: processesand outcomes. The Philippineshas a vibrantNGO andcivil society sector;MEIP initiatives were able to drawon Becauseof theseimportant contextual existingcommunity organizations and a wide differences,comparisons between Indonesia and the networkof other institutionsfor support.Indonesia Philippineshave limited use or validityunless seen is a recentlyemerging democracy; fewer in light of thesefactors. Although the following communitieshad existing local organizationsor sectionsof the studymake comparisons between institutionsprior to the start of MEIP. countriesfor specificaspects of the MEIPprocess * Culture: Cultureaffects how development andbenefits, both the characteristicsand projectsare managedand implemented,as well as achievementsof the programshould be viewed howtheir resultsare interpreted.In this study.for within the contextof eachcountry. example,cultural modes of expressionmay have influencedfocus group results, particularly on COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT subjectiverating scales. Indonesia and the Philippineshave distinct styles of showingapproval, A participatoryprocess was a focusof MEIPin with understatementthe generalprinciple in both Indonesiaand the Philippines,as a meansto Indonesiaand ebulliencemore common in the anend-to enableinitiatives to be moreresponsive Philippines.These differences in styleare likely to to communityneeds-and as animportant end in haveaffected the waycommunities rated initiatives. itself.The levelof involvementdiffered depending on projectphase, planning, management and Programmaticfactors in eachcountry also implementation.Communities reported that they influencedthe MEIPprocess and study findings. werevery active in projectimplementation in both Theseincluded: countries;about 90 percentof community

23 If not us, the- wi 0 ? respondentsin bothcountries reported that they and implementation. Figure 1: Community Involvement in MEIP werealways or ofteninvolved in the However,a lowerlevel Initiatives: Extent implementationof the projects.3 Participationin of involvementis to be planningand managementwas more irregular. expectedfor thesefocus EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN IMPLEMENTATION: groupsgiven that they To what extentwas the communityInvolved in Communityinvolvement in initiativeswas wereselected because Implementation? moderatelyhigh in keydecision-making stages, theywere not active 60 plannin,gand management in the Philippines. Most projectmembers. In CL01 50 - _ _ communityrespondents reported that theyhad comparison,other focus m 340-- - .E, 30 alwaysor oftenbeen involved in the planningand groupswere held with 20 E managementof the projects.In Indonesia, leadersand community E 10 t. 0 communityinvolvement in planningand membersactively Always Often Sometimes Never managementwas less consistent. engagedin project activities,both of which EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN PLANNING: Communityperceptions of involvementin wouldbe expectedto To what extent was the community Involved in

Indonesiadiffered by typeof focusgroup. havea high levelof 60

Communityleaders had a muchmore positive involvement.Although 2 50 = = perceptionof communityinvolvement during all someof the difference 0 40 - - projectstages than other community members. In in extentof involvement a. 30 - - fact, almostall the respondentswho reportedthe betweenwomen's groups , 20 highestextent of communityinvolvement in andthe otherscould be 10 0 -0 planning,management and implementation of the dueto agender bias, Always Often Sometimes Never initiativeswere community leaders. This suggests furtherresearch that the deepestlevel of communityinvolvement in comparingperceptions EXTENT OF INVOLVEMENT IN MANAGEMENT: Indonesiamay have been limited to the leadersof aboutthe projectof To what extentwas the communityInvolved in the community.In the Philippines,the levelof non-activefemales with 700 communityinvolvement was similar for all groups. thoseof non-active , 60 - - maleswould be needed 50 cc 40- - The extentof involvementin MEIPinitiatives to drawany conclusions. 30 = waslower among respondents in women'sfocus 20 _ groups,particularly in projectmanagement. This 0 10 0.) ______wastrue in boththe 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: BandingTogether to Monitor the Health of a River

TheIndonesian Government launched a Clean River Program (Prokasih) in 1988to reducethe water pollution caused by largeand medium industry. Prokasihintroduced a formalmonitoring system, but it wasnot enforcedsince the budgetdid not providefor the intensivemonitoring and inspections required.MEIP saw that therewas a needfor a communitymonitoring process to complementthe formalgovernment system and to put pressureon industry andgovernment to improvetheir performance. The idea was to usesimple methodsand equipment that communitiescould easily learn and manage themselves.

In theearly 1990s, the Indonesiangovernment was still verycentralized and focusedon formalinstitutions. Most officials were not interestedin a Figure 2: Community Involvement in MEIP participatoryprocess. With encouragementfrom MEIP, however, the city of Initiatives: Quality Semarangdecided to setup a community-basedriver monitoring program at BabonRiver. MEIP worked with the Mayorto developplans to strengthen QUALITYOF INVOLVEMENTINIMPLEMENTATION: environmentalefforts and with Bapedalda(the local environmental protection Are you satisfiedwith the communities'Involvement inImplementation? agency)to developthe project.MEIP encouraged Bapedalda to visit the 'I successfulriver monitoring effort of the PPHL(Environmental Study Center) in

j 70 - = '' Trawas,East lava. Bapedalda then brought PPHL to Semarangto assistwith . 6= settingup field sites and training local staff and community members. MEIP a) 50- uptann tafmmes 40 - i providedfunds for the trainingand some eQuipment and chemicals. An e C 3020 - i z j' organizingcommittee for the projectbrought together the efforts of several E 10 a sf n 2 governmentdepartments to supportthe project:public works, sanitation, Very satisfied n cultureand education, agriculture and fisheries.

QUALITYOF INVOLVEMENTIN PLANNING: Theproject team selected monitoring sites at differentpoints along the Areyou satisfied with the communities' Involvement inplanning ? river- upstreammiddle and downstream. They met with communitiesand

aa) 70 ''______schoolsalong the river and trained them to conductthe monitoring. A water i 0o qualitymonitoring expert from Sugyapranata University in Semaranghelped to e0 50 ~-- 1;developthe methodologyfor thesampling and project evaluation. High School

- 30 ^ = = f Biologyand Physics teachers invited their students to join rivermonitoring E 20 - _ I ,' groups.River monitoring was included as a topicin schoolessay writing E 20 gop.Rvrwsa E0 reQuirements. 0 Verysatisfied satisfied not satisfied ,j Theproject made steady progress, but fundingissues constrained some QUALITYOF INVOLVEMENTINMANAGEMENT: projectactivities on theground. Bapedalda supported the maintenanceof Areyou satisfied with the communities' Involvement inmanagement ? schooland community monitoring sites, but its budgetwas small. In then m) ______soughtassistance from other partners. The Education Department provided 0) 70 On 7o _ 1l fundsfor chemicalsfor the schoollaboratory but supplywas irregular. Due to ,, so _ 1, limitedfunds, field activitiesinvolved a smallnumber of communitymembers.

420 41 Gradually,training will be expandedto a largergroup. c 30- t E 20 0O 10- : | 1 partnership_ _ ,MEIP's with institutionsin Semaranghad impacts beyond the C.) Verysatisfied satisfied not satisfied river'scommunities and schools. Bapedalda's visit to PPLHin Tawasconvinced it of the needto integratecommunity-based approaches in environmental m Indonesia ETJPhilippines h protectionand improvement. The Babon River Monitoring Project has become a modelfor othercities. lust asBapedalda once visited PPLH in Tawas,other groupsnow come to Semarangto observeand learn from its communityriver monitoringactivities.

25 If not us, then who? Communitysatisfaction with involvementin the planning,management and implementation of MEIP initiativeshas generally been good. More than80 percentof communityrespondents reported that theywere satisfied or highlysatisfied. Satisfaction wasparticularly high in the Philippinesfor involvementin projectplanning. A smallpercentage (aboutIS percent)of communityrespondents in both countrieswere not satisfiedwith their involvementduring project planning. Indonesian respondentsalso expressed dissatisfaction with

involvementin projectmanagement, and, to a lesser - degree,in implementation.

LOCALDECISION-MAKING

Focusgroups with communityleaders involved detailedQuestions on decision-makingprocesses. Binan River in Manila before the MEIPproject. Communityleaders reported that Filipinoinitiatives and the comprehensiveKIP projects in Indonesia helpedbuild local institutionalcapacity by enabling communitiesto: *havean active role in problemanalysis and projectdesign. * haveinformation on options,costs and benefitsand reach consensus. *establishnew committees and their own rulesfor management.

In the Philippines,leaders of almostall the communitiessurveyed gave high ratingsto all three aspectsof decision-making.While leaders in the threeKIP communities in Indonesiareported a high levelof involvementin all threeaspects 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 notus, then who? 26 MEIPcontributed to the institutionalcapacity providedseveral types of inputsto the MEIP of communitiesby buildinglocal structures and initiatives,including manpower, complementary processesfor communitycontrol over decision- actions,materials, money and ideas. In the makingand by enablingcommunities to have Philippines,all communitiescontributed controlover resources. These capacity building manpower,and about half of the communitiesalso effortswere evident among most projects in the suppliedmaterials, money and ideas.About half Philippinesand the KIPprojects in Indonesia. of the communitiesin Indonesiaprovided Accordingto communityleaders, almost all manpower,complementary actions and ideas to communitiesin the Philippinesand twoof the KIP the projects. communitiesin Indonesiaestablished new committeesand their own rulesfor managementand Municipalauthorities and the privatesector operation.Five Filipino communities and two alsocontributed to the projects.In both IndonesianKIP communities always managed their countries,municipal authorities provided ownfunds for projectactivities. In the third KIP materialsand complementaryactions for several community,Cibesut, the NGO workingwith the projects.In a fewcases in the Philippines,they communitymanaged the fundsand led the project alsosupplied manpower and money.About half of activities,therefore, community involvement was the projectsin both countriesreceived private limited. sectorcontributions, such as materials,money, complementaryactions and expertise. In the Beforethe start of the MEIPinitiatives, almost Philippines,private sector involvement often took all the communitiesin the Philippineshad an active severalforms within one project. existingcommunity organization. In Indonesia, abouthalf of the communitieshad a pre-existing communityorganization. In both countries,the numberof communitieswith anactive community organizationincreased over time.

LOCALCONTRIBUTIONS

SinceMEIP's primary role wasas a catalyst,its initiativesdepended on supportfrom other sources to carryout projectactivities. Contributions from the communitywere also considered an important aspectof buildinglocal ownership. Program Coordinatorsand NGOsencouraged communities to demonstratetheir commitmentto MEIP initiativesby committingtheir time andother resourcesto the projectefforts. Communities

27 if not us, th-enwh? Box 2. Paliko Creek Rehabilitation Program: A Partnership Approach

Surroundedby anindustrial compound, shanties and railroad tracks, Paliko Creek became a sewerfor industriesand low income communitieson theoutskirts of Manila.The creek's rehabilitation was sparked by a fire.A communityresident was burning garbage, and the fire grewout of control.When residents tried to extinguishthe firewith waterfrom Paliko Creek, the highly polluted water intensified the flames.After a complaintfrom the community about the high levelof petroleumproducts in the water,the LagunaLake Development Authority(LLDA) sent a noticeof violationto AmkorAnam, a semi-conductorindustry located near the siteof the fire.

I AmkorAnam sought MEIP's assistance in resolvingthe problem. Together they held consultation meetings with communitymem- bers,local government, the Muntinlupa Development Foundation and twenty-nine other industries in thearea. The group sponsored a 'walkthrough' of the creekto appraisethe issuesand in 1997initiated the PalikoCreek Rehabilitation Project. With the Muntinlupa DevelopmentFoundation (MDF) at the helm,the partnership aimed to raisecommunity awareness; mobilize industries to complywith | eMuentstandards; mobilize local government to enforceanti-pollution laws and regulations: and minimize garbage dumping and dischargesof domesticand industrial wastewater.

Sincethe community around the creekhad grown habituated to thegarbage problem, the rehabilitationinitially focused on a strong information,education and communication (IEC) drive to galvanizecommunity support and action for the enforcementof anti-littering andanti-dumping measures. In additionto disseminatingprinted materials, the projectorganized training on community-basedenviron- j mentalmanagement for women,youth,fisherfolk and school children, and initiated community action planning. The action plan included continuedIEC, technical and management training, and an engineering support system with water separators and screens to reduce I industrialwastes.

With supportfrom other partners, the communityled a seriesof activitiesto cleanup the creekand establish a regularmaintenance process.The city governmentfinanced construction of trolleybins to collectgarbage from homes along the railroadtrack. The LLDA workedon monitoringthe water quality of the creek.A steeringcommittee was formed to explorethe multi-sectoral issues related to the well-beingof the creek,including income.generation and land tenure.

Industries,community leaders and residents continue to takepart in Quarterlyclean-up activities to ensurethat the gains of the rehabilitationmovement are not lost.The LLDA institutionalized river rehabilitation councils in anLLDA resolution and adopted the project'spartnership of industry,NGOs, local government and community as a modelfor otherriver councils in the area.

MEIP'scredibility and reputation for impartialityhelped bring all thegroups together to workon theircommon problem. The project wasable to movebeyond the adversarialrelationship between the localresidents and the neighboringindustries to a synergyof interests andefforts. At the heartof the project,communities mobilized themselves to raiseawareness, clean up the creekand ensure that the creekremained clean. Industry provided the expertise,ideas and financial resources to transformthe degraded environment. The LLDA respondedQuickly to thecommunity complaint and provided the technicaland legal framework for the partnership.The MDF was the Lcatalyst for communityorganizing, conflict management and coordination.

Ifnot -s,then vh.? 28 CAPACITYBUILDING andevaluation activities in the communitiesstudied.

Buildingthe capacity of communitymembers in TRANSPARENCYAND ACCOUNTABILITY technicalskills on environmentalissues was a strong focusof MEIP.In somecommunities, MEIP also By bringingproject decision-making and aimedto improvethe managementcapacity of financialissues closer to the communitylevel, MEIP communitymembers by developingtheir initiativesaimed to creategreater transparency and administrativeskills. accountabilityin projectfinances. Focus group responsesshow that MEIPhad a mixedrecord of Communitymembers in most projectareas took success.Focus groups were asked about who was part in technicalskills trainingto buildtheir responsiblefor projectaccounts and expenditures, capacityto addressenvironmental problems. the availabilityof informationto community Trainingtopics ranged widely according to the members,procedures for complaints,and instances substanceof particularinitiatives, covering areas of complaints.While severalprojects in both suchas composting methods, river monitoring, and countrieshad transparent procedures and accessible solid wastesegregation. In addition,about half of information,the remainderdid not. the communitiesin both countriesalso received somemanagement training. Accordingto communityleaders, three of the communitiesin the Philippinesand the threeKIP Satisfactionwith the skills development communitiesin Indonesiaknew who was responsible componentof the projectswas high in the for accountsand expendituresand could ask for Philippines.All Filipinocommunities reported that informationif they hada Question.Two of these the projectshelped them to developtechnical and communitiesin the Philippineshad relied on these managementskills, aswell asthe abilityto sustain proceduresto complainabout a problemrelated to the projecton their own.In Indonesia,where accountsand expenditures.In one communitythese trainingwas more limited and informal,most complaintswere resolved in a court case.The rest communitiesfelt that the projectshelped them of the MEIPcommunities in the Philippinesand developtechnical skills. However,only two of the Indonesiadid not haveaccess to basicinformation KIPcommunities felt their skills relatedto aboutthe financesof the MEIPprojects, which managementor projectsustainability had improved. wouldhave affected their ability to engagein project This dissatisfactionmay have stemmed from a lack decision-makingand oversight. of trainingprograms in theseareas or from problemsin the qualityof the trainingprovided. INCLUSION

Communityinvolvement in projectmonitoring MEIPprojects in both countriesmade an effort and evaluationwas not a focusof MEIPinitiatives. to be inclusive.All typesof communitymembers- Therefore,there was little evidenceof community includingthe rich, poor,women, youth, teachers capacitybuilding through participatory monitoring andcommunity leaders-took part in MEIP-related

29 If not us, then whb? communityorganization. In both countries,more communitieshad similar numbers of menand than40 percentof projectparticipants were women. women.In Indonesia,more men than women were Accordingto respondents,no groupwas excluded representedamong community leaders, and some from projectactivities. communitieshad no femaleleaders. In the Philippines,women were well representedamong However,a projectrule of the KIP,with which communityleaders. Representation of womenalso MEIPclosely collaborated, effectively excluded the washigh amongactive community members in both poorestin communitiesfrom some of the key countries.In Indonesia,most communities had aspectsof decision-making.Community members morewomen than men among active members. In reportedthat the poorcould not takepart in the the Philippines,overall percentages were similar for communityorganization because they did not have menand women. enoughmoney for the initial depositreQuired for the members'savings program. As a result, althoughmost KIP community members were from low incomehouseholds, the poorestin thei communitieswere not able to playthe samerole in projectdecision-making as other membersof the communities.While the poordid benefitfrom the 7 project'scharity activities and overall community improvements,project impact is likelyto havebeen greaterif the poorhad hadmore say in project management.Since KIP aims to assistpoor communities,giving the poora significantrole in projectmanagement would have helped to ensure that it wastailored to the needsof its keytarget group.

Focusgroup composition reflects the representationof womenin MEIPcommunities. The groupsgathered together all communityleaders and ' activecommunity members who were available in CommunityVolunteers inthe Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran (ZKK) the communityat the time the groupwas held. Most (ZeroWaste for Progress)program in Manilacleaning the streets of theircommunity.

if not us, then who? 30 Box 3. ZKK Solid WasteProgram: A MedicalClinic Tacklesan UrbanCommunity's Garbage Problem

Oncea smallcoastal , during the 1980sNavotas became a denselypopulated extension of Manila,with garbagelining the streets andfilling thecanals. Slum dwellers account for 27 percentof its population,and a quarterare unemployed. Perennially flood-prone, the townhas earned the nameDagat-dagatan, meaning resembling an ocean.

TheDagat-dagatan Polymedic Medical Foundation was established to provideaffordable services to low incomeresidents of the area. Bythe endof the 1980s,the garbage problem plaguing the communityhad become severe, leading to proliferationof flies,cockroaches andrats. The Foundation decided to tacklethe solid waste problem to protectthe communityfrom the risingincidence of diarrheaand otherillnesses. The Foundation staff contacted the Universityof thePhilippines and the Recycling Movement of the Philippinesto learn howthe communitycould reduce its wasteproblem. The Foundation opted for a 'zerowaste' program (Zero Kalat para sa Kaunlaran): wasteproducts are segregated into three categories-reusable, recyclable, and biodegradable-and nothing is discarded.

Theproject aimed to solvethe solidwaste problem and create employment for communityresidents. The program focused on teachingthe communityhow to segregateand recycle waste; setting up a communitygarden to demonstratethe benefitsof composting; andestablishing a recycling and redemption center. With the helpof the RecyclingMovement, local government organizations and civic groups,the PolymedicFoundation launched an education and clean-up campaign in 1996.A two-weektraining course in ecologicalwaste managementwas provided to 30 trainers,and a teamof eco-supervisorsand eco-aides was formed. Every Saturday over two months, leadershiptraining was provided to volunteerswho, in turn,taught community members. About 3,000 participants attended the training seminars.

Fortwo hours every morning, community volunteers joined together for the painstakingand humbling process of removingthe garbagefrom the neighborhood.Wearing the brightyellowT-shirts donated by one of the partnergroups, they collectedyears of accumulatedwaste from the curbsides,canals, and along the maindrain of the neighborhood.The community instituted a nightwatch to preventgarbage from being dumped in the communityduring the night.After severalmonths, the areawas transformed: canals were clean, streetswere swept and green plants began to appearin communalspaces.

In 1997,a coregroup of 140volunteers established a recycling and redemption cooperative, and eco-aides began to collectand segregatewaste from localhouseholds and businesses. Reusable and recyclable materials were sold in byweight to businessesand manufacturers.The cooperative also produced craft and household items recycled materials, including stylish handbags made from paper andfloor wax made from discarded plastic. Each worker was paid on an incentivesystem, according to howmuch they brought in and produced.After twoyears. the cooperativehad become economically self-sustaining and employed forty full-time workers and twenty part- timeworkers.

Whilethe project'swork with recycledand reusable products was very successful, composting of biodegradablewaste stalled. Communityefforts to segregatewaste matter were only partially successful, leading to problemswith odorand disposal, and the cooperativehad trouble finding a locationfor the composting.The project continues to refineits approachesto worktoward the zero [wasteideal.

31 if notu t-n who? 3R 1e;7, 21,_V-s1

PROIECT IMPACT the role of the projectin anychanges over time. In the Philippines,four communitiesattributed Communitieswere positive about the impactof improvementsin conditionsto MEIPproject the MEIPinitiatives. Focus group respondents in interventions.They stated that the projectslead to both countriesreported positive project impacts on workingsurface drains, and regularityin water the environment,well-being, 4 and community supply,garbage collection within the community, capacityto organizeand participate.Communities andgarbage transport from the communityto the ratedimpacts in all threeareas at an eQuallyhigh maincollection site. In Indonesia,some levelin the Philippines.In Indonesia,communities communitiesnoted that the projectsbrought about perceivedenvironmental impacts to begreater than regulargarbage projectimpacts in other areas. collectionwithin the Figure 3: MEIP Project Impacts community. Communitiesbelieved MEIP initiatives Very Positive 4 -______contributedto a varietyof environmental,social, The majorityof economicand institutional benefits. Community communitiesin both Positive3 membersand leaders in abouthalf the communities countriesreported that E Neutral 2 in Indonesiaidentified cleaner surroundings, an MEIPprojects had ev improvedaesthetic environment, access to credit improvedthe and increasedknowledge as positiveeffects of the environmentalbehavior Very Negative o - projects.Two communities also cited establishment of communitymembers. Environment Well-being Capacityto of a cooperativeas a benefitof the initiatives.In the Changesin behavior o Indonesia =Philippines Participate Philippines,most communities noted that the variedaccording to the initiativeshad brought about cleanersurroundings; type of initiative,but abouthalf thought they improvedincome-earning includedwaste segregation, composting, and opportunities,discipline and unity.Respondents helpingto maintaina cleanand green environment. alsomentioned that increasedindependence and Thedegree to whichbehavior had changed was mutualtrust wereother positiveoutcomes of the greaterin the Philippines,where half the projects. communitiesreported dramatic improvement.

In additionto qualitativechanges in community Fewnegative project impacts were reported. surroundingsand the environment,some MEIP Threecommunities in the Philippinesand one in communitiesreported improvements in their Indonesiamentioned that therehad been minor physicaland environmental infrastructure. Focus complaintsfrom non-participatingmembers of the groupsinvolved discussions about the physicaland communityabout the initiatives.For example, in the environmentalconditions in their communities Philippines,one communityhad complaints due to beforeand afterthe MEIP-supportedproject and noisefrom a papershredder.

'Well-being coversthe broaderproject impacts on the communityunrelated to environmentor capacityto organizeand participate.It includeseconomic and social factors,and isan intentionallybroad term so it could be adaptedto communityperceptions of the ways the projectshave affected their lives.

if not us, then who?32 INNOVATION AND DISSEMINATION and NGOsan unusuallevel of autonomyand controlduring a periodwhen devolution of control Innovation.Community respondents and MEIP wasuncommon. NGOs took over responsibilityfor NationalProgram Coordinators recognized MEIP's the planningand implementationof the projectin achievementsin fosteringinnovation in the 10sites. Communities controlled decision-making environmentsector. Communities in both countries and resourcesthrough the communitymanaged pointedto severalexamples of MEIPinitiatives that environmentalgrant and revolvingfund, and developednew approaches to resolveenvironmental establisheda localcommittee to managethe fund. andcommunity development problems. In the This wasone of the earliestinstances of Philippines.the partneringof resourcerich governmentbudgets being used for community communitieswith poorcommunities in the Donor- directedwork. BeneficiaryScheme helped resolve a solidwaste problemand create employment. Rich and poor Dissemination.In the Philippines,to ensurethat communitieslearned to segregatetheir wasteand successfulinitiatives were replicated and had sell the recyclableand reusable components, and impactson a largerscale, MEIP promoted their poorcommunities benefited from newjobs and the achievementsthrough 'how to' booklets, saleof recyclablematerials. The Binan River monographswith photodocumentation, rehabilitationin the Philippinesmobilized fisherfolk pamphlets,site visits, meetingsand mediaevents. andused their boatsto collectfloating debris in the Severalof the communitiessurveyed had visited riverclean-up. This ideawas expanded to other other MEIPcommunity initiatives and then applied communitieswhen a RiverCouncil was created for newlylearned approaches in their ownefforts. the BinanRiver System, which includedthe Communitiesalso useddocumentation of other upstreamportion of adjoiningmunicipalities. Since projects,pamphlets on technicalenvironments the river traversesseveral , approachesand 'how to' bookletsfor guidance.As cooperationwas crucial. Through the RiverCouncil, a result,the majorityof the MEIPinitiatives in the the coreteam for the BinanRiver Project now serves Philippinesbecame models for other programs as a resourcegroup to assistother communities. elsewhere.Three MEIP initiatives in the Philippineswere also scaled up: the Donor- In Indonesia,the PisangBaru Kampung and the BeneficiaryScheme, the BinanRiver Public Market KebagusanCorridors Greening Projects introduced Clean-up,and the PalikoCreek River the ideaof providinggreen spaces in urban Rehabilitationand Solid Waste Project. The River communitiesfor the enjoymentof both peopleand Councilestablished for PalikoCreek was adopted birds. TheBabon River Monitoring Project asa modelby the LagunaLake Development empoweredcommunities to learnriver monitoring Authorityfor other areas. skills so they couldbetter understandand protect their environment.Under the Kampung In Indonesia,communities generally ImprovementProgram in Indonesia,with MEIP exchangedlessons learned about their experiences encouragement,the governmentgave communities with MEIPand other initiativeson aninformal

33 if not .s, then wh 0 ? basis.News about MEIP's approach also spread MEIPcontributed some funds for the initial informally.For example,other cities heardabout the competition.The competitionwas successful in rivermonitoring initiative in Semarangand sent gainingcommunity interest, and the city now governmentrepresentatives to the site to learnmore organizesayearly competition. MEIP phased out its aboutit. NGOswho worked in severalcommunities supportafter the first KampungGreening werea usefulsource of informationabout what had Competition.Now kampunggreening is beentried in other areas.Under KIP, NGOs were implementedin manyother citiesin Indonesia. encouragedto meetwith otherNGOs to exchange ideasand experiences.Both KIPfacilitators and Whenthe localgovernment of Jakartaagreed to NGOrepresentatives brought information about let NGOstake over the managementof additional other initiativesinto communities.In the Pisang projectsites under KIP, the Governorissued a BaruKampung Greening, the governmentfacilitated decreethat gavepriority to NGOsin community- disseminationof informationthrough competitions baseddevelopment projects and exempted them andexchanges among the 75community sites. from complicatedbureaucratic reQuirements. MEIP workedwith the Ministryof Financeto draftthe INSTITUTIONALIZATION financialprocedures that enabledcommunities to controlthe grantfunds. These policies have made it Governmentsin both Indonesiaand the possiblefor NGOsand communities to havean Philippineschanged policies and adapted programs activerole in drivingdevelopment decision-making. to institutionalizeMEIP's environmental and communitydevelopment approaches. MEIP's Philippines.In the Philippines,the government innovationshave also affected other actors,such as establishedan anti-dumping law asa resultof the privatesector institutions. MEIP facilitated this BinanMarket Clean-up Project, and a barangay processby workingin partnershipwith numerous ordinancewas passed to mandatewaste segregation institutionsand providing practical assistance, for at sourceto supportthe effortsof the Donor- examplein draftinglegal documents. BeneficiaryScheme. River rehabilitation and ecologicalwaste management practices employed in Indonesia.In Indonesia,under the BabonRiver Muntinlupawere replicated by the government.The MonitoringProgram, the localgovernment of local lakedevelopment authority in Muntinlupa Semarangborrowed the conceptof community passeda resolutionto institutionalizethe Paliko involvementin river monitoringfrom an CreekRehabilitation Project's partnership of environmentalorganization in anotherpart of lava industry,NGOs. local government and community andthen replicated it successfully.Influenced by the asa modelfor other rivercouncils in the area.MEIP successof kampunggreening efforts including the innovationsin Binanand ZKK were also adopted by MEIP-supportedPisang Baru Project, the Parks governmentprograms. The private sector changed Departmentin Indonesiaorganized a Kampung its environmentalpractices thanks to the effortsof GreeningCompetition to encouragecommunities severalMEIP initiatives, including Binan, Paliko and throughoutJakarta to developsimilar activities. Makati.

If not us, then o? ! 34 SUSTAINABILITY aboutthe SolidWaste Habitat in PejatenBarat becausethe projectwas no longeractive. Thesustainability of MEIPactivities and investmentsdiffered in Indonesiaand the * Initiatedin 1995,the projectin PejatenBarat Philippines.Filipino projectshad a strongrecord of wasone of MEIP'searliest community-based useand maintenance,while that of Indonesiawas projects.It trainedcommunities in different moderate.All but one communityin the Philippines compostingmethods, and composting continued in reportedthat MEIPinvestments were usualy or the communityuntil 1998.By then, the organization alwaysused and maintained.In Indonesia,most that providedmarketing support and technical communitiesgave projects moderate ratings for assistanceto the projecthad folded. The community frequencyof useand initiativecollapsed due to the lossof this assist- Figure 4: Sustainability of Project maintenance. ance,combined with a low profit marginfor Investments compostingand lackof governmentsubsidy for Community composting. perceptionsof ouality of useand maintenance * MEIP'srole in the projectsin PisangBaru 6- X wereassociated with and Semananhad been limited, both in termsof

2 4 their perceptionsof peopleand time. Communitymembers who had

Z 2 - extentof useand originallyworked in partnershipwith MEIPcould rinE n _ I maintenance. not be locatedin eitherplace. In PisangBaru the Communitieswho communitywas still involvedin greeningactivities, none low med high N/A reportedthat their but communitiesmembers had no recollectionof Level of Use and Maintenance projectinvestments were MEIP'srole in promotinggreening in thecommu- IlIndonesia =l Philippines alwaysor usuallyused nity.In theSemanan Water Quality Management and maintained,also Project,MEIP supported a field officerbased in the generallyreported that theywere well usedand well communityfor severalmonths to encourage maintained.Likewise, communities that performed communityinvolvement in installationof a poorlyon extentof useand maintenancehad poor wastewatertreatment plant. Due to problems performanceon Quality. betweenthe communitycollective and community members,the treatmentplant was still in the Informationcould not beobtained for two processof beingconstructed. However, communi- communitiesin Indonesia:Kampung Greening in ties continueto maintainthe existingdrainage PisangBaru and the WaterQuality Management basins,which had beenan objectiveof the MEIP Projectin Semanan.Although project-related initiative. investmentsand activitieswere still in usein these communities,community members who knew about MEIPor the NGO involvedin the projectcould not be located.In addition,no informationwas available

35 iif not us, then wh.? Box 4. The KampungImprovement Program (KIP): A ComprehensiveApproach to EnvironmentalProblems

Begunin 1969,the KampungImprovement Program (KIP) in Jakartahas been replicated in manycities throughout Indonesia. KIP providesbasic infrastructure and improves sanitation in low incomeareas, or kampungs.Initially KIP focused on solid waste management andphysical infrastructure, such as footpaths, drainage and public toilets. By the third phaseof the project,KIP Ill, it hadevolved into a comprehensivecommunity development program with incomegeneration and social components as well, such as assistance to low incomefamilies and school children.

In 1990,MEIP began to collaboratewith the governmenton KIPIll preparationand implementation, particulary in strengthening communityand.NGO involvement in the projectprocess. MEIP helped initiate micro credit and small enterprise schemes for KIP communities,and encouraged the localgovernment to giveNGOs a rolein projectmanagement. These initiatives have since been replicatedin othercities.

Duringearly phases of the project,KIP management hired community development specialists from engineering consulting firms to designand implement the project. MEIP persuaded the governmentto let NGOsmanage project preparation and implementation in ten additionalareas. To facilitateNGO involvement in the project,the Governorissued a decreethat gives NGOs priority in community- basedprojects and exempts them from bureaucratic reQuirements. The decree also makes it easierfor NGOsto get involvedin other developmentefforts. MEIP worked with governmentdepartments to developthe proceduresto devolvecontrol to the NGOsand commu- nities.It collaboratedwith theMinistry of Financeto draftprocedures for disbursement,reporting and accounting that enabled NGOs to havemanagement responsibility for projectimplementation.

NGOinvolvement in KIPsignificantly strengthened the project'slinks to communities:NGOs worked closely with communitiesin planningthe projectand deciding on projectactivities and investments. However, communities were frustrated by the lengthyclearance processfor proposedinitiatives, and by outcomes that did not reflectthe needsthey had expressed. Community proposals went from the communityto the districtto the municipallevel to beapproved, and the final decision often did not matchthe original aspirations. To enablethe communitiesto havea moredirect role in developmentefforts, KIP established a Community Environmental Grant for small, localinitiatives and gave communities control over how to allocateresources. The grant was one of the earliestinstances of useof governmentbudgets for community-directedwork in Indonesia.KIP also instituted a community-managedrevolving fund.

KIP'sambitious pilot initiativesin the ten NGO-managedareas sparked a widerange of communityactivities. The program has also beena learningprocess. In PuloGadung, the community was slow to takepart in KIP.Initialy, only 16people joined the KIP-related communityorganization. But by making the community meetings more of a socialgathering, the group was able to increaseits member- shipover time to 660. Theprogram funded public toilets, a drainagesystem, concrete paving for streets,and garbage carts. Low income familiesand school children received aid, and a microcredit program helped generate income. Community members learned how to write proposalsand keep accounts, and they took partin automechanics, silk screeningand other skills training programs.

InTugu Utara, ayear went by beforethe communityreceived any funding. After the initialdelay, KIP funded garbage containers and businessactivities in the community,including a schooluniform sewing project and a furnitureproject. KIP investments in Cibesut includedimprovement of physicalinfrastructure, such as streets, toilets and hand pumps, and a micro-creditscheme. Although a communityorganization existed prior to the startof KIP,the projectinitiated new community groups but thesesoon became inactive. The originalcommunity organization then took over the revolvingfund and other project activities.

if ot us, the- who? 36 Figure 5: Sources of funds for Sourcesof fundsfor did so only occasionallyor not at all. Project Maintenance projectmaintenance differedin the two EXPECTATIONS Indonesia:Sources of fundsfor projectmaintenance countries.In Indonesia, (by % of communityresponses) the communitywas the MEIPexperience shows that, to someextent, Government majorprovider of funds, communityexpectations of MEIPinitiatives may 10% while the government havebeen higher than they would have been for PrivateSector andprivate sector were other,non-participatory environmental projects. 1% \minor contributors. Expectationsextended to a varietyof socio- Community Manygroups funded economicconcerns in additionto environment. 80% projectmaintenance in Nevertheless,the initiativeswere able to satisfythe the Philippines. expectationsof mostcommunity respondents. Communitiesand the Communityinvolvement may have played a role in privatesector played a this by ensuringthat projectdesign was tailored to largerole, but communityneeds. Philippines:Sources of funds for project maintenance gernment. (by % of communityresponses) government, Other international Communityexpectations included cleaner 10°/, organizationsand surroundings,general improvements, additional Community NGOsalso contributed. incomeand increasedknowledge. Indonesian 10% 28% Theavailability of communitiesalso expected to help othersand numeroussources of expandthe scopeof existingprojects. The majority

Intermational Orgs fundingmay have made of communitiesin bothcountries believed their 13% \/ / it easierto maintain expectationshad been well met by the projects. Governmen 23% initiativesin the Onyone communityin eachcountry reported that 13% Philippines.The high someof its expectationshad not beenmet. The levelof capacityand ZKK communityin the Philippinesfelt that its resourcefulnessof Filipinocommunity institutions expectationsfor projectexpansion and increased and members,and the wide sharingof MEIP incomehad not beensatisfied. This is despitethe experiencesmay also havehelped sustain projects. factthat the communitygave the ZKK Projecthigh Sharingof lessonslearned gave community ratingsfor all threeareas of projectimpact, the initiativesgreater exposure to newideas and environment,overall well-being and community contacts,making it easierto leverageadditional capacityto organizeand participate.In Cibesut,one financialresources. of the KIPcommunities in Indonesia,the community felt the fundingwas inadeQuate to providethe In both countries,the regularityof community communitywith muchhelp. The community hoped contributionsto projectoperation and maintenance for aid from othersto supplementit. variedwidely. A fewcommunities always contributed to projectoperation and maintenance,while others

37 i f not us, then who? FACTORSOF INFLUENCE positivefactors for Figure6: CommunityInvolvement projectsuccess. The and Project Impact Communityinvolvement and project impact. emphasisgiven to these Althoughthe type and depth of participation factorsdiffered in the 8- differed,both country programs emphasized two countries,however. 6 communityinvolvement and believed it would MostIndonesian 4 _ improvethe impact of theprojects. Findings from respondentsstressed & thisstudy provide support for thisaspect of MEIP's cooperationand a good z 2 approach.Analysis shows that projects with a high NGOas key factors, L Meiu Hi_g levelof communityinvolvement tended to havea whileFilipinos pointed Low Medium High highimpact. Impact was measured by a composite to theimportance of indicatorgiving eQual weight to impacton committedleaders, LowImpact = MediumImpact = HighImpact environment,well-being and capacity to organize determinationand andparticipate. Involvement was based on a partnershipwith other compositeindicator giving equal weight to organizations.Several Figure 7: CommunityPerceptions of communityratings of theirextent of involvementin communitiesin the Positive Factor projectplanning, management and implementation. Philippines cited factors INDONESIA:COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF Theassociation between involvement and impact is at thenational level, POSITIVEF ACTOR weakat lowerlevels of involvement,however, suchas supportive Committedleaders perhapspartly due to the smallnumber of projects environmentalpolicies Other that fall into this category.Although the small and programs,as other | P s samplesize makesthe findingsstatistically notableinfluences on insignificant,the analysis indicates support for a projects. GoodNGO participatoryapproach ooperation

A similaranalysis of projectinvolvement and sustainabilityshowed no relationshipbetween the two.Sustainability did notincrease with level of communityparticipation. Other factors, such as size PHILIPPINES: COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF of staff,length of projectperiod, and existence of POSITIVEFACTOR Other institutionalsupport mechanisms for sustainability, mayhave obscured an association. Partnershipwith Committed other Orgs leaders Positivefactors. Community perceptions of the factorsthat positively affected MEIP initiatives were Determination similarin thetwo countries. Cooperation, committedleaders, private sector support, and the Pvtsector support roleof otherorganizations were seen as significant Cooperation

if not us, then ho? '38 Negative factors. Fewfocus groups in either Communityperceptions of MEIPinitiatives in country identified factorsthat had negatively Table 5 encapsulate some of the key aspects of the affected the projects. In Indonesia,some MEIPprocess and its outcomes. Perceptionsof both communitiesdid point to financial issues that they the process and impact of MEIPinitiatives in the felt had hindered their initiatives.Most Filipino Philippinesand the KIPprojects in Indonesiawere communitiesbelieved the projects were based on a very positive.Communities gave these projects a financiallysound idea, but about half of the high rating for communityinvolvement and capacity Indonesian communitiesreported problems in the building efforts, as well as for project impact and financialplanning of the projects. In the Kampung sustainability.These projects also receivedgood Greeningand Green Corridors Projects, costs were ratings for communityinvolvement in local decision- high since the areas coveredwere large and making. incentiveswere needed to encouragecommunity participation.In the river monitoringproject, the The performanceof non-KIPprojects in funds were just enough to cover initialactivities. In Indonesiawas not as positive. Most projects addition, some respondents in the two countries received low to moderate ratings. These were mentionedconcerns such as differencesin opinion, probably due in part to the lower institutional lack of facilitiesand lack of a market for products. capacity in Indonesia, both inside the communityin terms of the number and oualityof community Communitiesin both countries described organizations, and outside the communitywith 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 difficultieswith leadership, cooperation, weaknessesas much because they had the support and funds as the most common problems in of a large governmentalsystem and its many implementation.In Indonesia,lack of interest and collaborating institutions. assistance were the greatest barriers. When asked how theywould have changed the way the project worked, communityrespondents had several ideas. In the Philippines,the issue mentionedmost often was fundraising,while in Indonesia,it was the need for greater assistance in general. Communitiesin the Philippinesalso talked about the need to improvestorehouse facilities:conduct information, education and communicationcampaigns; network; and recruit more members,including women.In Indonesia, communitymembers 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

ProjectName Process Outcome

Involvement' Capacity Impact7 Sustainability8 Building,6 Philippines ZKK HouseholdSolid Waste NewEra Household Solid Waste ** ** MuntinlupaCity School Involvement ** BinanRiver Market Clean-up ** ** PacoPublic Market Clean-up * PalikoCreek River Rehabilitation *** * *** MakatiCity Donor-BeneficiaryScheme *** MarikinaCommunity Sanitation Planning ***

Indonesia PuloGadung NGO Involvement in KIP *** CibesutNGO Involvementin KIP *** * TuguUtara NGO Involvementin KIP *** *** ** PelatenBarat Solid Waste Habitat ** ** ** None 9 PisangBaru Kampung Greening, NA * NA NA 0 SemananWater Quality Management" NA ** NA NA BabonRiver Monitoring * ** ** ** KebagusanCorridor Greening * * * **

High: ***, Medium:**, Low:*, Not available:NA

'Composite indicatorgiving equal weight to communityratings of extentof involvementin projectplanning, management and implementation. 'Measured accordingto trainingin technicaland managementskills taken by communitieswith equalweight given to both. Communitiesrated at a high level of capacitybuilding participated in both types of training. Mediumdescribes communities that had only one type of training, and low describescommunities that had no formaltraining. I Compositeindicator giving equalweight to communityperceptions of projectimpact on environment,well-being and capacityto organizeand participate. -Composite indicatorof communityperceptions of the extentand qualityof useand maintenanceof the projects,with equalweight given to both extentand quality. I MEIP-relatedactivity is ongoingin this community,although no detailsabout project sustainability could be obtainedthrough the focusgroup. 'MEIP-relatedactivity is ongoingin this community,although no detailsabout project sustainability could be obtainedthrough the focus group.

nfot us,then who? 40 Box 5. Summaryof Findings

Localand country context

* Institutionalcapacity: The lackof pre-existingcapacity and local level institutions may have restricted community involvement and project outcomesin Indonesia,where there were few community-based institutions in the MEIPcommunities, and those that existedhad little experiencein local activismand decision-making. In the Philippines'vibrant civil societysector, MEIP initiatives were able to drawon many existingcommunity organizations and a wide networkof supportinginstitutions.

Buildingblocks of the MEIPapproach

* Communityinvolvement: Communities had a highlevel of involvementin projectimplementation in both countries.Filipino communities werehighy involvedin projectplanning and management.

* Localdecision-making: Filipino initiatives and the comprehensiveKIP projects in Indonesiahelped build localinstitutional capacity by enablingcommunities to havean active role in problemanalysis and project design; to obtain informationon options,costs and benefits and reachconsensus; and to establishnew committees and their own rulesfor management.

* Capacitybuilding: Initiatives in both countriesprovided communities with trainingto developtechnical skills, andto a lesserextent, managementskills.

* Inclusion:The projectsgenerally have a goodrecord of includingall groups,regardless of socioeconomicstatus, social standing, age, or sex.Over 40 percentof participantsin both countrieswere women, and women were also represented among community leaders.

Benefitsof the MEIPapproach

* Projectimpact: Communities reported positive impacts on the environment,as well as on their generalwell-being, and capacity to organize andparticipate. In the Philippines,these impacts received particularly high ratings. Other positiveeffects of MEIPinitiatives included improved I environmentalbehavior, establishment of communityinstitutions, greater access to credit,increased knowledge, improved economic opportunities,discipline and unity l Innovationand dissemination: MEIP initiatives in both countrieshad considerable success in introducinginnovative approaches to resolvingurban environmental problems. All the MEIPinitiatives piloted newideas. The programalso actively promoted dissemination of its lessonsand approaches through publications, meetings, workshops, competitions, videos, media events and other means.

* Institutionalization:MEIP's success in disseminatingits ideasis evidentfrom the spreadof its ideasinto policiesand programs in both Indonesiaand the Philippines.For example,in oneof the earliestinstances of devolvingfinancial control to communitiesin Indonesia,MEIP helpedthe governmentto draft proceduresto enablecommunities to controlgrant funds in the KampungImprovement Program. In the Philippines,half of MEIP'spilot approacheswere adopted by governmentprograms.

* Effectiveprocess: The studysuggests that MEIP'sfocus on a participatoryprocess, capacity building and a partnershipapproach benefited communities.A highlevel of communityinvolvement is associatedwith highproject impact in projectsin both Indonesiaand the Philippines. MEIPcommunities also identifiedcooperation, committed leaders, private sector support and the roleof otherorganizations as positivefactors for projectperformance.

* Sustainability:The outlookfor the sustainabilityof MEIPinitiatives is highin the Philippinesand moderate in Indonesia.Projects in the Philippinesreceived high ratingsfor extentand Quality of useand maintenance, and moderate ratings in Indonesia.

41 if not us, then who? IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY Communityinvolvement helps to build local FINDINGS capacityand is associatedwith better project impact. In Indonesia,communities had little role in Whatdoes the MEIPexperience tell program localdevelopment efforts prior to MEIP's managersabout how to expandthe benefitsof interventions.MEIP's efforts to bring communities community-basedinitiatives? What issues should into the projectdecision-making process was managersof community-basedprojects consider in thereforeslow especially in the planningperiod, but developingtheir initiatives?The followingpoints significantlyincreased civil societycapacity to highlightsome of the keylessons that emergefrom engagein localgovernance. Community involvement the MEIPexperience: in MEIPwas also associated with better project outcomes.Communities want to be involvedin the Pre-existinginstitutions and capacity shapethe projectprocess. natureand performanceof community-based efforts. Lesspre-existing capacity at the local level Communityinvolvement is importantin all andamong NGOs in Indonesiaaffected how MEIP projectphases and activities-preparation, functionedand what it wasable to achieve. management,implementation, resource allocation Therefore,baseline information and monitoring in and monitoringand evaluation.While MEIPdid not this areais importantto understandingand focuson communitycontrol over resourcesor promotingcommunity-based initiatives. Existing participatorymonitoring and evaluation, these communityorganizations and the rangeof aspectsof involvementhave particular potential to supportivepartner organizations outside the ensurethat initiativesare adapted to community communityare two keyindicators of capacityat the needsbecause they enable communities to takea local level. MEIPhelped communities build both leadingrole in projectdecision-making. The ability thesedimensions of capacity.It workedwith existing of MEIPcommunities to drive the development groupsand helpedthem develop their skillsthrough processwas restricted by the factthat few technicaland managementtraining. In caseswhere communitymembers had control over resources or parallelcommunity organizations were established accessto informationabout project progress for the purposeof the project,they did not last.In throughparticipatory monitoring and evaluation. addition,MEIP assisted communities in widening their rangeof partnerorganizations. By Learningby doing and monitoring progress collaboratingwith the privatesector, academic improvesinsight and performance.One of the institutions,technical organizations, NGOs and greateststrengths of the MEIPapproach is the government,MEIP helped communities establish a flexiblenature of projectdesign, which enabled networkof institutionsoutside the communityon learningby doing.Project managers piloted new whichthey could drawfor supporton a rangeof approaches,which they scaled up whensuccessful concerns,including technical, financial, policy and andmodified when unsuccessful. To assessthe managementissues. successof a pilot approach,managers kept a keen eyeon howwell the ideaswere being received by

If not us, then who? 142 the community,whether the communitywas programsand lead organizations. They expressed a supportingthe initiativeand whether the community particularinterest in formaltraining programs. neededspecial training to providethe needed Financeand accountingtraining also helps support. The managerswere intuitively monitoring communitiesto addressinstitutional weaknesses at both processand outcome indicators of the success the locallevel. of the initiatives. Mechanismsto document the processand share While manyof the indicatorsdescribed in this experiencehelp to build capacityand spread studyrepresent implicit aspectsof the MEIP innovation.The exchangeof informationabout approach,they were not formaly trackedor bestpractices is a criticalaspect of trainingand measured.A smallnumber of keyindicators could helpsensure that localresults feed into national havecomplimented MEIP's learning by doing programs.The lessonslearned from community- approachand helped its projectmanagers basedpilots are often lost with the end of the understandand assess their own efforts(see Table projectsand go no furtherthan one community. 6). Theseindicators help identifythe numerous Managersneed to makespecial efforts to ensure waysa community-basedinitiative has an impacton that the lessons-both positiveand negative-are its beneficiaries.Process indicators examine the sharedwith othersand applied. Such efforts also extentto whicha projectis actualy engagingthe help build partnershipsbetween communities and communityand, if they aremonitored, can help flag local institutions,which in turn improves problemsat an earlystage. Outcome indicators sustainability.In the Philippinesand Indonesia, capturehow well a projectis doingand provide a effortsto documentand disseminate the processof wayto measureand showresults. By keepingtrack takingaction at the communitylevel and to share of the numberof projectinnovations that were experienceswith other areasmade the expansionof adoptedinto programsand policies, for example, MEIP'sinnovations possible. Several ways of sharing the managerof a communityproject is betterable to experiencewere effective, including site visitsto explainthe impactof a projectto othersoutside the pilot communities;short dissemination notes about community.Indicators of existingcapacity help the initiativeswith 'before'and 'after' photo evaluatethe startingpoint of a project. documentation;workshops to facilitatesharing of experience:practical 'how to' guidancenotes on Technicaland managementskills training helps community-basedenvironmental management to build local capacity.Communities experience practices;videos on projectprocess and resultsfor the greatestbenefits when technical skills (suchas field trainingand advocacy at the policylevel; and compostingmethods) are complemented by mediaevents to raiseattention to environmental managementtraining. Communities emphasized the concerns. usefulnessof MEIP'sskills trainingefforts. They weremost positive when technical skills Institutionalization occurs through partnership, developmentwas matched with trainingto help dissemination,and changesin programsand communitymembers develop their abilitiesto direct policies. Innovativecommunity-based approaches

43 if not -s, thenwh.? canbe institutionalizedat the policylevel, through widesharing of MEIPexperiences may also have changesin lawsand regulations,and at the program strengthenedproject sustainability. Sharing of level,through the adoptionof pilot ideasor lessonslearned gave community initiatives greater partnershipapproaches in large-scaleprograms. exposureto newideas and contacts, making it Governmentsand other local institutionsoften need easierto leverageadditional financial resources. help in makingthese changes, and organizations Buildingpartnerships with other institutionsand that canassist in draftinglaws and regulations and sharingexperiences helps to strengthencooperation sharingprogram documents have considerable andcreates a networkof supportfrom other potentialto influencethis process.MEIP institutionsfor technicalassistance, management successfullymainstreamed its approachesby advice,and funding.Efforts to help communities draftingpolicy changes and disseminating its pilots build a networkof supportand establish ongoing throughprogram documentation and site visits. sourcesof fundsthrough community revolving funds MEIP'spartnership approach helped spread the or other mechanismscan play a critical role in wordabout the program'ssuccesses, in additionto improvingthe sustainabilityof community-based creatinga powerfuladvocacy group. initiatives.

SustainabilityreQuires more attention. Several Special efforts maybe neededto encourage factorsmay have contributed to the moderaterather inclusion. Specific,targeted efforts may be needed thanhigh levelof useand maintenanceof MEIP's to ensurethat all groupshave an equal opportunity Indonesianinitiatives. The governments record of investingin operationand maintenance has not - beenstrong. Low capacity and lackof a networkof ' supportiveinstitutions in Indonesiaalso ,. i 1 rx underminedsustainability. The Pejaten Barat Waste ManagementProject collapsed after the institution that hadprovided it with marketingsupport and technicalassistance folded.

MEIPcommunity members in both countries cited difficultieswith assistance,leadership, cooperationand fundingas majorconcerns during projectimplementation. Lack of continuousfunding is a majorproblem for communityinitiatives. Access to fundingis oftenrelated to a networkof support. Filipinocommunities had access to manysources of fundingto help maintaintheir initiatives,which contributedto their sustainability.Filipino communitycapacity and resourcefulness,and the Communitymembers in PisangBaru in Jakartadiscuss their work in theKampung Greeningproject.

if not s, t6en wo?, 44 Table 6: KeySocial and Institutional Indicators for MEIP to participatein community-basedefforts. If the cultural and institutional context of a country Existing Capacity hinders the involvementof particular groups, a * Existingcommunity organizations participatory approachalone maynot be adequate * Rangeof partnerorganizations (prior to intervention) to reach those who are excluded. Although MEIP projects were generallyinclusive, their local context Process sometimescreated barriers to participation. For a CommunityInvolvement example,in Indonesiathe KampungImprovement * In preparation Program'sreQuirement for a minimum level of * In management community contribution effectivelyexcluded the * In implementation poorest groups from joining the communitysavings * In resourceallocation program. In addition, although womenwere well representedamong active community members, • In monitoring there were fewerwomen than men among leaders in * Localdecision-making ~~~~~~~~theMEIPcommunities, particularly in Indonesia. * Involvementin problemanalysis and diagnosis * Availabilityof informationon options,costs and benefits RIPPLEEFFECTS * Rangeof partnerorganizations (after intervention) * Capacitybuilding For the long term, MEIP sought to spreadthe * Technical(i.e. environmentalskills) ideas and lessons from its initiatives to support a * Management(i.e. organizational skills, accounting,etc) broader movementfor environmentalaction. Other * Mechanismsto fosterexchange of lessonslearned and best practices than instancesof disseminationand * Transparencyand accountability institutionalization of specific initiatives, how has the overall MEIP approachbeen extendedbeyond Outcomes small target groups to a largeraudience? * Projectimpact Although it is still early to evaluatethis * OnenvironmentDJ question, the answerappears to depend on the * On well-being specific needs and opportunities of each country * Oncapacity to organizeand participate context. In Indonesia,MEIPs greatest impact may • Innovation come from its efforts to createa participatory * Dissemination processthat actively engagespeople to addressthe * Institutionalization problemsof their environment.While its ratings for . Throughpolicy communityinvolvement and other aspectsof the * Throughprograms social and institutional capacitybuilding process * Sustainability were lessimpressive than those of the Philippines, * Inclusion Indonesiabegan at a lower level of capacity,so what gains it madeeventually may havegreater relative

45 If not us, then h0o? impact. initiatives,MEIP had limited impactat the national level.The major challenge is to mainstreamMEIP's MEIPhad some success in Indonesiawith the lessonsand approaches in nationalprograms so technicalaspects of its initiatives,but its effortsto theycan be replicatedin moreplaces and/or strengthendemocratic processes and civil society graduallyscaled-up. Bringing MEIP's lessons to the involvementin environmentalefforts contributed to nationallevel will requiregreater attention to a largerprocess with a potentiallygreater impact in advocacyand policy dialogue, and expansionof its the long run.Recent political events and the innovative,multi-media information dissemination movementtoward democratization and efforts.Environmental activists in the Philippines decentralizationhave fueled efforts like MEIP'sto havenow made this a priorityconcern. devolvedecision-making and action to the grassrootslevels. A newgeneration of BothMEIP's democratic process in Indonesia environmentalinitiatives-forums-have emerged and its communicationefforts in the Philippinesare to give peoplean opportunity to voicetheir closelylinked to the program'semphasis on concernsabout their environment.In several buildinglocal capacity. The Metropolitan Indonesiancities, forums are operatingat the EnvironmentalImprovement Program's ultimate municipaland sub- levels to createa bottom- legacy,therefore, rests on its contributionsto social up planningprocess, increase public and private and institutionalprocesses as well ason its participation,and build capacity through training technicalsolutions. programs.Each city hasdefined its ownmembership andoperating rules for forums.Forums bring togetheruniversities, NGOs, media, private sector and,in somecases, government. The political pressurebrought to bearby theseforums creates an opportunityto advancethe technicallessons from MEIP'senvironmental efforts as well asthe importanceof inclusive,participatory processes.

In the Philippines,the ultimatesuccess of MEIP maydepend on its effortsto communicateand mainstreamits lessons,particularly at the national andpolicy level.Many of MEIP'sinnovations have spreadto other communitiesand four havebeen adoptedby governmentprograms. Nevertheless, thesesuccesses remain small scale and do not have muchimpact on the vastscale of urban environmentalproblems in the country.While some localgovernments became partners of MEIP

if not th-enwo? 146 'ii La:rayralTge

Beck, Ulrich.1992. Risk Society -- Towardsa New Modernity,London: Sage.

Borda, Orlando Fals, ed. 1998. People'sParticipation: ChallengesAhead. New York:The Apex Press.

Brown,Gillian and RichardPollard. 1998. "Responding to Demand:Two Approachesfrom Indonesia."Paper written for CommunityWater Supply and SanitationConference held in May 1998 in Washington,D.C. by UNDP-WorldBank Water and SanitationGroup.

Buckingham-Hatfield,Susan and Susan Percy,eds. 1999.Constructing Local Environmental Agendas.London: Routledge.

Chandrakirana,Kamala. 1999. "Local Capacity and Its Implicationsfor Development:The Case of Indonesia.Local Level InstitutionsStudy." Mimeo, World Bank: Washington,D.C.

Drijver,Carel. 1990.People's Participation in EnvironmentalProjects in Developing Countries.(booklet) Leiden,The Netherlands:Centre for EnvironmentalStudies. Issues Paper,Number 17.

Fellizar,Francisco P., ed. 1993.Community-based Resource Management:: Perspectives, Experiencesand Policy Issues.College, Laguna, Philippines; Halifax, Nova Scotia: Environmentand ResourceManagement Project (ERMP) Philippines.

Ford,Richard, et al. 1992.Sustaining Development Through Community Mobilization: A Case Study of ParticipatoryRural Appraisalin The Gambia.Worchester, USA: Programfor International Development,Clark University.

Hinchcliffe,Fiona, et. al. 1995."New Horizons:The Economic,Social and EnvironmentalImpacts of ParticipatoryWatershed Development." Gatekeeper Series No. 50. London:International Institutefor Environmentand Development.

Hinchcliffe,Fiona, et al., eds. 1999.Fertile Ground:The Impactsof ParticipatoryWatershed Management.London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

47 If not us, then who? Illangovan,Patchamuthu, et al. 1999. The ColomboStory: Piloting EnvironmentalChange in Sri Lanka.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Isham,Jonathan, DeepaNarayan, and Lant Pritchett.1995 "Does ParticipationImprove Performance?Establishing Causality With SubjectiveData. " The WorldBank Economic Review,Vol.9, No.2, pp. 175-200.

Jackson, EdwardT and YusufKassam, eds. 1998.Knowledge Shared: Participatory Evaluation In DevelopmentCooperation. West Hartford,Connecticut: Kumarian Press, Inc.

Marsden,David, Peter Oakley,and Brian Pratt. 1994.Measuring the Process: Guidelinesfor EvaluatingSocial Development.Oxford: INTRAC.

Moser,Caroline. 1989. Community Participation in UrbanProjects in the Third World..Oxford: PergamonPress.

Nagpal,Tanvi, et al. 1998."Piloting Urban EnvironmentalChange in Sri Lanka:Metropolitan EnvironmentalImprovement Program 1990-1998." Washington, D.C.: Metropolitan EnvironmentalImprovement Program (MEIP) Environment Sector Unit, East Asia and Pacific Region,World Bank.

Narayan,Deepa, and KatrinkaEbbe. 1997.Design of SocialFunds: Participation,Demand Orientation,and Local OrganizationalCapacity. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Nelson,Nici and SusanWright, eds. 1995.Power and ParticipatoryDevelopment: Theory and Practice.London: Intermediate Technology Publications.

Silas, Johan. 1986."Community Participation in a Low Income SettlementImprovement Programme: The KampungImprovement Programme of Indonesia,"in Bamberger,Michael. Community ParticipationExperience in UrbanDevelopment Programs and in Agricultureand Rural Development.Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Uphoff,Norman. 1992. Local Institutionsand Participationfor SustainableDevelopment. (booklet). London:International Institute for Environmentand Development.

if not us, th-enwh? 48 ANNEX A: THE PHILIPPINES,PROJECT SUMMARIES

Name, Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (ProjectType)

Zero Kalatpara sa . Toconduct Waste Management and Awareness Seminar for * Composting * Dagat-dagatan Kaunlaran(ZKK) residents,officials, leaders andyouth in the targetareas. * Recycling PolymedicMedical IC- (ZeroWaste for . To conductecho training involving at least700 community * Segregationat householdlevel Foundation,Inc. Progress) memberswithin six monthsfrom the start of the project. * Information,education, * BarangayDagat- o To organizethe communitymembers into a cooperative. communication(IEC) dagatan * Todevelop linkages with the municipaland barangay * Trainerstraining governmentsin the implementationof ordinancesfor the * Acquisitionof shredderand truck a., (Householdlevel propermanagement and improvement of sanitation. * Establishedcommunity vegetable farm solid waste) * Seminaron cooperativedevelopment

EcologicalWaste . To promotereduction, recovery and proper disposal of . Segregation . RotaryClub . This is a replication Mgmt.Project for marketwastes. . Composting . City Governmentof of the MetroManila PublicMarket * IEC Mandaue experienceon market * Training . MarketVendors wastesmanagement MandaueCity Association outsideLuzon. * BarangayCouncil (Publicmarket solid . DENRRegion 7 wasteclean-up)

CasiliSolid Waste * To organizemultisectoral bodies that will identifyand * Information,education, * CitizensLeague for . Trainingon floor wax Management establisha showcasesite for solidwaste management communication EcologicalAwareness makingfrom discarded ShowcaseFacility andcomposting. * Communityorganizing andResponsibility soft plasticsis an . To.strengthenIEC on solid wastemanagement. * Training (CLEAR) incomegenerating BarangaysCasili. * To establishnetworking and cooperative relationships with * Composting * DENRRegion VII activitythat hasbeen MandaueCity, otherNGOs and POs for the successfulimplementation . Recycling * Barangayresidents and very successful. Metro Cebu of the project. scavengers * Tostudy, plan and design a solid wastemanagement/ . Barangayofficials (Householdlevel compostingplant. * Universityof Cebu solid waste) . To incorporateinto the projectthe majorcomponents of * RotaryClub, Eco-WasteManagement (EWM). Departmentof . Toestablish an effective system of wastecollection within Agriculture the pilot site. * Toconstruct, operate and maintain the pilot areafacility until it hasbecome self-supporting. ANNEXA

N _ame 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 . BarangayCouncil 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 . Segregationat household level * BarangayHealth the 1995-1996Regional solid waste) Workers (BHW) Searchfor 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 MuntinlupaCity * Composting * School children

(School involvement in city-wide solid waste reduction plan)

Community-based * To mainstreamthe concept of Eco-WasteManagement in * Information, education, * Recycling Movement * Manufactured organic IntegratedWaste the barangays. communication of the Philippines fertilizer through two Management * To set up a sustainable mechanismby which target * Composting, recycling and Foundation, Inc. composters and 61 communities can attain self sufficiency through segregationat household level * BarangayEra compost heaps. BarangayNew Era, viable livelihood projects. * Training and training-of-trainers community members OuezonCity * Acquisition of shredder and barangayofficials

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 Managementfor community membersof the BangkerohanPublic Market communication on EWM BangkerohanPublic of the experiences Bangkerohan and the surrounding community on the benefits and * Training activities Market Vendors in for Public Market techniques of Eco-WasteManagement. * Segregationand composting Association managingmarket . To establish a larger scale and replicable model of * Establishmentof micro-enterprise * DENR and CENRO wastes. Davaocity EWM in Davao City and Region 11. . BarangayBangkerohan

(Public market solid waste clean-up) ANNEXA

Name, Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (Project Type)

Community * To draw up an implementableprocess of cleaning up . IEC . Unilever . Composting activity was Participation and the market and the residential communities. . Training Philippines, Inc. not sustained becauseof 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 BarangayChairpersons 671, 673, 679 the activity and Three Barangays and * Paco Soriano PandacanCooperative 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 HawkersAssociation . AWARE, Inc. (Public market solid waste clean-up)

Santa Maria Public . To document the EWM processfor replication * IEC Documentation * AWARE, Inc. * The involvementof MEIP is Market Wastes in other similar sites. . Training * Local Governmentof Sta. Maria, only in the documentation Documentation * Establishmentof 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 educatethe fast food operators and crew about * IEC campaign . Fast food Companies . The PPCPdecided 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 * BarangaySan 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 (Recyclingof polystyrene recycling plant operated by the PPCP. * Nightly collection of . The PPCP . polystyrene waste segregatedPP waste * Since the mall is within from commercial and its delivery to the BarangaySan 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. ANNEXA

Name Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (Project Type)

GlobalRivers * Totrain communityleaders and members in * Orientationand training . The EMB . The initiativewas supposed Environmental first level (using their sensesand 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 and on the basis of the . To develop a checklist which will be used for participating communities . The LLDA pilots, a general guideline Binan, Lagunafor the first level monitoring. . Testing of the river . The Binan Local Government wasto be formulated by the Binan River; . To eventually deputize the trained community Quality checklist by * The Binan Lions Club the DENR and LLDA. leadersand members so that they can serve communities . The Fisheriesand Aquatic Resources Although all partners were OuezonCity and as partners of government (the DENR and the LLDA) * Finalization of the ManagementCouncil of Binan enthusiastic about the Manilafor the Pasig in monitoring both the ambient quality and effluents. checklist and the . The fisherfolk of Binan project and the communities Riversystem * To identify hotspots where the technical staff/ development of the . The community membersof keento 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 Governmentof Binan project participants to other wastes reduction. * Training * FARMCI (Fisherfolkorganization) communities undertaking Binan,Laguna * To create a model for solid waste managementcan be * Market Vendors Association a successful urban 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 * BarangayCupang * Clean-up of the creek I Rehabilitation consciousnessof the community. * Organizing urban * City government of Muntiniupa is conducted regularly 1U1 Project * To mobilize local industries to voluntarily comply communities * LLDA (Laguna LakeDevelopment by the people's with effluent standards. * IEC Authority) organization. MuntinlupaCity * To mobilize the city governmentand barangaysto * 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 (ProjectType)

Donor-Beneficiary * To transformwastes into a resourcewith a IEC * Low incomecommunities (DB)Solid Waste highervalue. . Training . Middle-highlevel communities Management . To involve community in managingthe resource. * Segregation . Food stall and restaurantowners Schemein Makati * To provide a systemwhere 'resource rich' groups . Donor-beneficiary * Association of businessestablishments City donate segregatedwastes to the barangays matching . PolystyrenePackaging Council . Livelihood of the Philippines Kapatiranng Maralita . Ayala Foundation sa Pio del Pilar. Inc. * Department of Environment and (KAMPPI) Natural Resources SusanRoces and PanchoCompound, Inc (SRAPCAIi SanLorenso Ecology Viilage (Donor -Beneficiary Scheme)

Participatoy . To assist the PSFuser groups and appropriate . Managementof public * UP Social Action and Researchfor * Bath, laundry area, Action Planning barangaysand municipal officials in developing toilet facility and Development Foundation toilets, water supply for the Development actions to improve the operation, maintenance water supply * BarangayCouncil installed and managed of Two (2) Public and developmentof other services related to PSF. . Participatory action * BarangaySanitation by the community. Sanitation Facilities * To rehabilitate PSFbased on the community plan. planning (PSF)Projects * To document the processesinvolved . To draw out mechanismsby which the pilot CaloocanCity can be adopted by other PSFs. MarikinaCity

(Communityaction planning for public sanitation) ANNEX B: INDONESIA, PROIECTSUMMARIES

Name Objectives Activities Actors Notes Location (ProjectType)

Community . Toempower communities to * Discussionson environmentalissues * Ministry of Education,Community Developmentalong helpmaintain the cleanlinessof with communitygroups, organized by EducationAgency (Dikmas) ThreeRivers the river neartheir community. the CommunityEducation Agency. * Communitygroups * Practicalactivities developed in ciliwung Cipinang cooperationwith communities,such as and Mookervart wastecollection and composting. Riversnear lakarta

(Waterquality management)

WasteManagement * To reduceriver pollution . Managementof tofu production * Tofuhome industry, community * Destroyedby fire and of SmallScale causedby tofu production. process,including sanitation and members redevelopedfor other landuse. Industry wastemanagement * Establishmentof liquid waste TanahTinggi. treatment facility Centrallakarta

(Waterquality management)

WasteManagement * To reduceriver pollution * Constructionof central,community- * Semananco-op of tofu and * Problemsincluded limited of SmallScale causedby tofu andtempe basedtofu andsoybean cake soybeanproducers capacityof kitchento In dustry productionalong Banjir Kanal, productionkitchen with water * Office of PublicWorks of accommodatemore users, by relocatingthese small-scale treatmentand sewerage system. JakartaSpecial Territory andweak coordination between 5Swakerta Small-scale producersto the Cluster. * NGO-facilitatedconsultation with local * BinaSwadaya (NGO) agenciesin theprogram. IndustryCluster, communities:an NGO facilitatorlived * Communitymembers * Futureissues are an urgent olKampung Semanan, with the communityfor 3 monthsto needto builda channelfrom uWestlakarta raiseawareness and provide the watertreatment facility to organizationalassistance. the maincanal and continued (Waterquality * Constructionof installation,assistance encouragementfor the management) in the technicaloperation and communityto maintain maintenanceexpertise provided by cleanliness,sanitation and the office of PublicWorks. cost-sharing. . Managementof kitchenand suppy of soybeanthrough 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 * Evaluationof UPDKs showed Project implementing low-cost awarenessfor households about Settlements/ Habitat that marketingwas not well

- composting technology. community solid waste management * Community members conducted and some technical 10 neighborhood units system and encouragementof * Sub-district government details had been adjusted. MRTs)in Southlakarta 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 handlegreater volume and management) schedule, re-routing of garbagecart, a broader service area. and improved services. * Problems included some * At community level, evaluation of changesin 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 processof 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 awarenessand monitoring techniQues. youth organizations and university capability of communities to * Training of trainers program. students; Bapedalda of Semarang, Sixvillages along enable their participation in * Village work groups. mayor and municipal government the BabonRiver, environmentalmanagement. Semarang

(Community-based river monitoring) ANNEX B

Name. Objectives Activities Actors Notes Locatiort (ProjectType)

Involvementof NGOs . To strengthencommunity . NGOsresponsible for KIPproject * NGOs * This initiativebegan after in Kampung involvementin the basic preparationand implementation, . Localgovernment 1992when MEIP encouraged Improvement infrastructure provision and to strengthen community involvement. * Community members the city government to invite Program(KIP) sanitationimprovement in * CommunityEnvironmental Grant * Privatefoundation (3 communities NGOsto do the KIPproject slum areas. provides a direct route to funding in PelaMampung) preparation and 10areas community needs, such as (1) * Community Development implementation. construction of infrastructure and Consultation * The Governor issueda Decree (Improvementof 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 exemptsthem 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 loansto families for home improvement and kampunggreening. 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 Empowermenton acceptableapproach to crackers,sweets, dressmaking of Education and Culture's environmental activities, Small Island in environmentalimprovement in and mechanics. Community Education Department, becausethe community was not lakarta Bay the area. . Environmentalactivities, e.g. location of Subdistrict government interested. It started with privies, solid waste management,tree income generation activities Small Island in planting, water conservationand Quality. such as making crackersand lakarta Bay * Mobilization of community to form seaweedcultivation. Later cooperatives and other groups. MEIP moved into community (Improvementof 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 processand 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-baseddevelopment, 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 areasin their raising about greeningand how graduate volunteers, NGOs financed by MEIP led to settlements, using their own to grow plants. community members 75 communities resources. * Self help approach. themselvesundertaking other activities, such as home (Greening) improvementand renovation. * The kampung greeningapproach 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 creategreen corridors to * Provision of seedlings and awareness * SymbioseBirds 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, encouragebird life . Self help approach. of Public Works, private nurseries, identified as and biodiversity. * Encouragementof Dept. of Public Works Mayor of Central lakarta 'corridors to allow local nurseries to utilize empty space along roadsand rivers for growing (Greening) plants. ANNEX C: FOCUS GROUP OUESTIONS FOR COMMUNITY LEADERS A. HISTORYAND OVERVIEW

Thesequestions are intended to provideinformation for the casehistory of the project,therefore, use them to promptthe communityfor as muchinformation as possible. Follow up eachQuestion with furtherquestions to probespecific issues.

Topic Question

Howdid the communityget involvedwith the project?(For example, through an NGO)

Whatis the historyof the projectinyour community?

Whatwere the activitiesof the project?

In whatways was the communityinvolved in eachof theseactivities?

Whatis the percentageof all householdsthat actively participated in the project(in decision-making,planning, implementation,management or otherwiseproviding contributions) _ >75% >50% >25% >10%_>5% _<5%

B. SOCIALAND INSTITUTIONALIMPACT LOCALDECISION-MAKING

Wasthe communityinvolved in planningthe initiative? How?

Towhat extent? The communitywas always involved in planningthe initiative. -The communitywas often involved in planningthe initiative. -The communitywas sometimes involved in planningthe initiative. -The communitywas never involved in planningthe initiative.

Towhat extent was the communityinvolved in analysisand problem diagnosis? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low

Towhat extent did the communityhave information on rangeof optionsand costs and benefits? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low

Towhat extent did the communitygroup reach consensus on priorities? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low

Towhat extent did the communitypropose the designof project/create a planof action? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low

Areyou satisfiedwith the wayyourcommunity was involved in planning? _very satisfied -satisfied -not satisfied

Why?

COMMENTS:

If notns, thenwho? 58 B. SOCIALAND INSTITUTIONALIMPACT(continued) ANNEX C

LOCALMANAGEMENT

Management Wasthe communityinvolved in the implementationof activities? How?_

To whatextent? -The communitywas always involved in implementingthe initiative. The communitywas often involved.In implementingthe initiative. -The communitywas sometimes involved in implementingthe initiative. -The communitywas never involved in implementingthe initiative

Areyou satisfiedwith the wayyourcommunity was involved in the implementation? -very satisfied _satisfied -not satisfied Why?

Wasthe communityinvolved in managingthe initiative? How?_

To whatextent? -The communitywas always involved in managingthe initiative. -The communitywas often involved. In managingthe initiative. -The communitywas sometimes involved in managingthe initiative. -The communitywas never involved in managingthe initiative.

Areyou satisfiedwith the wayyourcommunity was involved in the management? _very satisfied -satisfied -not satisfied Why?

Wasa communitycommittee/new group established? -yes _no Did the communityestablish its ownmanagement and operation rules ? -yes _no Ifyes, whatwere they?

Did the communitymanage its own funds? -always -sometimes _never If yes,explain how?

Transparency Whohad all the detailsabout the accountsand expenditures of the project? and accountability lfyou hadany Questions about accounts and expenditures can you askthe responsibleperson?

If therewas a problemwith the accountsand expenditures, who wouldyou complain to?

Did anyonetry to complain?

Whatwas the outcome?

COMMENTS:

59 if not Us, then wAo? B. SOCIALAND INSTITUTIONALIMPACT(continued) ANNEXC

LOCALCONTRIBUTION

Community Whatdid the communitycontribute to the project? contributions _land -labor -materials -money -expertise -ideas -complimentary actions other_

Municipal Whatdid the municipalauthority contribute to the project? authority _land contributions _labor -materials -money -expertise -ideas complimentaryactions other_

Privatesector Whatdid the privatesector contribute to the project? contributions -land labor materials -money -expertise -ideas -complimentaryactions other_

Contributions Whatdid othersources provide to the project? from othersources Source

Typeof contribution_

SKILLSTRAINING

How manycommunity members received training through the project? Whatwas the typeof trainingprovided? -Technical -Management

Whatwas the topicof the training?

How manydays of trainingwere provided?

How manyNGO representatives received training through the project? Whatwas the typeof trainingprovided? Technical -Organizational -Management

Howmany days of trainingwere provided?

COMMENTS:

If notus, then who? 60 B. SOCIALAND INSTITUTIONALIMPACT(continued) ANNEXC

CAPACITYBUILDING

IMPACT ON CAPACITYTO 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?

PROIECTIMPACT

COMMUNITY IMPACT: In what ways has the project affected the community?

POSITIVE OUTCOMES: What havebeen the major positive achievementsof the project? (in terms of both project impact and process)

NEGATIVE OUTCOMES: What have been the major negativeaspects of the project? (in terms of both project impact and process)

ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT: 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. SOCIALAND INSTITUTIONALIMPACT(continued) ANNEX C

EXPECTATIONS

Whatwereyour expectations of the project?

How well did the projectmeetyour expectations and needs? -Vey well -Well _Partially -Not well -Very poorly

Whatexpectations were not met?

Why not?

COMMENTS:

SUSTAINABILITY

Use,maintenance FREQUENCY:Is the activity/investmentstill usedand maintained? andbehavior change __Theactivity/investment is always used and maintained. _ The activity/investmentis usually used and maintained -The activity/investmentis sometimesused and maintained The activity/investmentis not usedand maintained

Howmanyyears ago was the projectinitiated?

QUALITY:How well is the projectstill usedand maintained? -Very well -Well _Partially -Not well -Very poorly

Whatare the sourcesof fundsfor the operationand maintenance of the projectactivity/investment? -Community -Private sector _Government -International organizations _NGOs -Other_

Did the communityprovide funds for the operationand maintenance of the projectactivity/investment? -The communityalways funded the operationand maintenance of the projectactivity/investment. -The communityusually funded the operationand maintenance of the projectactivity/investment. -The communitysometimes funded the operationand maintenance of the activity/investment. -The communitydid not fundthe operationand maintenance of the projectactivity/investment.

Hasthe communityimproved its environmentalbehavior related to the projectactivity? -The communityhas dramatically improved its environnientalbehavior. -The communityhas considerably improved its environmentalbehavior. -The communityhas somewhat improved its environmentalbehavior. -The communityhas not improvedits environmentalbehavior.

Explain:

if not us, th-6 h.? 62 B. SOCIALAND INSTITUTIONALIMPACT(continued) ANNEX C

Useand Wasthe activity/investmentstill used/maintainedafter oneyear? maintenanceover time _ After oneyear,the activity/investmentwas always used/maintained. _ After oneyear,the activity/investmentwas usually used/maintained. _ After oneyear,the activity/investmentwas sometimes used/maintained. _ After oneyear,the activity/investmentwas not used/maintained.

How well wasthe projectstill used/maintainedafter oneyear? _Very well Well _Partly well -Not well -Not at all

Wasthe activity/investmentstill used/maintainedafter threeyears? _ After threeyears,the activity/investmentwas always used/maintained. -After threeyears,the activity/investmentwas usualy used/maintained. -After threeyears, the activity/investmentwas sometimes used/maintained. -After threeyears,the activity/investmentwas not used/maintained.

Howwell wasthe projectstill used/maintainedafter threeyears? _Very well -Well _Partly well -Not well -Not at all

Wasthe activity/investmentstill used/maintainedafter fiveyears? _ After threeyears,the activity/investmentwas always used/maintained. _ After threeyears,the activity/investmentwas usualy used/maintained. -After threeyears,the activity/investmentwas sometimes used/maintained. -After threeyears,the activity/investmentwas not used/maintained.

How well wasthe projectstill used/maintainedafter fiveyears? _Very well _Partly well -Well -Not well -Not at all

FinancialPlanning Towhat extent was the projectbased on a financialysound idea? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low

If belowmedium, explain:

Towhat extent were project funds adequate to carryout pilot activity? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low

If belowmedium, explain:

Towhat extent were additional funds contributed to the pilot from othersources? _high medium/high-medium _medium/low_low

Ifyes, from whomand for what?

COMMENTS:

63 if not us, th-envh? B. SOCIALAND INSTITUTIONALIMPACT(continued) ANNEX C

MAINSTREAMING

Did the governmentadopt a policychange as a resultof the initiative?

Whattype?

To whatextent did the governmentadopt a policychange as a resultof the initiative? -high -medium/high _medium _medium/low_low

Haveprivate enterprises changed their environmentalpractices as a resultof the initiative?

How?

To whatextent have private enterprises changed their environmentalpractices as a resultof the initiative? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low

Did thegovernment adopt the communities'pilot approach?

How?

To whatextent did the governmentadopt the communities pilot approach? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low

COMMENTS:

INNOVATIONAND DISSEMINATION

Whathas been done to ensurethat othersbenefit from the lessonsof the project?

Did the pilot projectintroduce an innovation? -yes no

lfyes, explain.

Wasthe pilot conceptreplicated in non-programsites? -yes _no

Ifyes, explain.

Wasthe pilot projectscaled up withinyourarea? -yes _no

lfyes, explain.

Did the projectbecome a modelfor other programs? -yes -no

Ifyes, explain.

COMMENTS:

If not us, then wh.o? 64 B. SOCIALAND INSTITUTIONALIMPACT(continued) ANNEX C

EXCLUSIONAND EOUITY

Who tookpart in the project-relatedcommunity organization? -rich people -poor people -women -youth -teachers -community leaders Other

Who did not takepart in the projectactivities? -rich people poorpeople -women -youth -teachers -community leaders Other

Whatpercentage of the total memberswere women?_

Who benefitedfrom the project? -rich people -poor people -women -youth -teachers -community leaders Other

Whowas negatively affected by the project? -rich people -poor people -women -youth -teachers -community leaders Other

65 If not us, then wi0 ? C. LESSONSAND OTHER FACTORS(continued) ANNEX C

Lessonslearned Whatproblems has the communityfaced in implementingthe project?

How did it addressthese problems?

Whatconditions and factors contributed to the positiveaspects of the project?

Whatconditions and factors contributed to the negativeaspects of the project?

How wouldyouhave changed the project'sway of working?

COMMENTS:

Nationaland To whatextent are there supportive national policies on the environment? municipallevel -high medium/high medium_medium/low _low factorsthat may haveaffected Whatare they? the successof the project To whatextent are there supportive national programs on the environment? -high -medium/high -medium -medium/low_low

Whatare they?

To whatextent is therea networkof environmentalorganizations at the nationallevel? =high medium/high medium_medium/low _low

To whatextent are there supportive municipal policies on the environment? high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low

Whatare they?

To whatextent are there supportive municipal programs on the environment? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low

Whatare they?

To whatextent is therea networkof environmentalorganizations at the municipallevel? -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low

COMMENTS:

If not us, then who? 66 C. LESSONS AND OTHER FACTORS (continued) ANNEX C

Nationaland To whatextent did governmentauthorities assist the projectby: municipallevel factorsthat may A. providingimplementation support? haveaffected the -high -medium/high -medium _medium/low_low successof the project B. monitoringcommunity development activities? high medium/high medium_medium/low _low

C. encouragingfuture development and progress? .high medium/high medium_medium/low _low

D. Other ?

COMMENTS:

Factorswhich Wasthere a delayin the planningprocess? mayhave -yes _no affectedthe capacityof the If yes,why? communityto participatein the Wasthere a delayin the implementationof the project? project -yes _no

lfyes. why?

Werethere significant differences in opinionabout the projectamong community members? -yes _no

Ifyes. why?

Wasthere difficulty in obtaininga contributionfrom the communityfor the project? -yes _no

Ifyes. why?

COMMENTS:

67 If not us,then wlho? D. BEFOREAND AFTERPROIECT GROUP EXERCISE ANNEX C

Directions:Help the focusgroup to fill out the followingchart. The aim of the exerciseis to identifythe differentways the communityhas been affected by the project-relatedactivity.

Before Project After Project Project'sRole

Physical/EnvironmentalConditions: Whatwas Project's role in anychanges that occurred?

Whatwas the environmentalcondition ofyour community(specifically related to the project)?

RegularWater Supply? Yes_No_ Yes_No_

RegularGarbage Pick-up? Yes_No_ Yes_No_

RegularGarbage Collection within community? Yes_No_ Yes_No_

ExistingSurface Drains? Yes_No_ Yes_No_

Workingsurface drains? Yes_No_ Yes_No_

Freefrom localizedflooding? Yes No_ Yes No_

AdeQuatetoilet facilitiesfor all? Yes_No_ Yes_No_

Existingopen space for communityuse? Yes No_ Yes_No_

Before Project After Project Project'sRole

Organizations: Nameof Activities # people Nameof Activities # people Whatwas the relationship Organization active Organization active betweenthe projectand Whatare the theseorganizations? community organizationsthat havebeen active withinyour communityto make life betterforyour community?

Partner Organizationsand Institutions: Whatorganizations andinstitutions from outside the communitydidyour community collaboratewith on community development(Local Govt,Nat Govt., Private,NGOs, others)?

If not us, then who? 68 E. PARTICIPATION ANNEX C

Directions: For eachtime period,enter the appropriatelevel (H = high,M = medium,L = low) of participationfor eachprimary and secondarystakeholder that was involved in the project.

PROIECTSTAGE STAKEHOLDER LEVELOF PARTICIPATION*

._ ~~~.°- .°0

E

Planning PRIMARYSTAKEHOLDERS Communitymembers Women Thepoor Other t SECONDARYSTAKEHOLDERS CBOs NGOs Research/academicInstitutions Technicaland scientific institutions Municipalauthorities Nationalgovernment Privatesector Churches Unions Other_ Implementation PRIMARYSTAKEHOLDERS Communitymembers Women Thepoor Other_ SECONDARYSTAKEHOLDERS CBOs NGOs Research/academicinstitutions Technicaland scientific institutions Municipalauthorities Nationalgovernment Privatesector Churches Unions Other_

Information Sharing:One-way flow of informationreceived by the stakeholder. Consultation: Two-wayflow of informationbetween the stakeholderand other partners. Collaboration: Sharedcontrol over decision-making in the projectby the stakeholder. Empowerment:Transfer of controlover decisions and resources in the projectto the stakeholder.

69 if not us, then who?

TH-ElWORILD 13ANKGROUP 18i8 1-ISIrccl 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 24X1123WORLDI3ANK ,-itcr:icl .bI://www.wvoricilik.org

MET-ROPOLITAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Ellnvironnicntand Sociadl Developimient Seclor East.Asiai and Ilaci [ic Regiopn -111iWo)rl i'l 3,,k IlIX 1I Sliecl. N.W. W<,shillgion. ED.C. 20(133ll.S.A. -1-cl.(202) ]5v-27/17 I-,ix. (2()2) 522-1(,(,(