Participatory Local Governance - IRC · International workshop on participatory local governance 45...

Participatory Local Governance

LIFE’s Method and Experience1992–1997

Technical Advisory Paper 1

Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE)Management Development and Governance Division

United Nations Development Programme

LIFEUnited Nations Development ProgrammeManagement Development and Governance DivisionBureau for Policy and Programme Support304 East 45th Street, 12th FloorNew York, NY 10017

Photography credits: LIFE national coordinators

Copyright © 1997by the United Nations Development ProgrammeNew York, NY 10017

The Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE)demonstrates what UNDP can do to make its contribution tosustainable human development practical. The project wasintended as a pilot effort in constructing practical models toinfluence the building of local partnerships to tackle urbanpoverty and improve the condition of the urban environment.The project has had a demonstration effect and significant localimpact. In some cases it has also influenced the way in whichUNDP designs an element of its country programmes. With aproperly developed and adequately financed learning strategy,this project could also contribute to broader developmentthinking, in UNDP and elsewhere, as well as help to informcountry programme formation. For UNDP the project demon-strates the effectiveness of new partnerships in buildingcommunity-level projects and the positive benefits to beachieved through participatory approaches to project planningand implementation.

–Office of Evaluation and Strategic Planning, UNDP

ACHR Asia Coalition for Housing RightsAP2000 Asia-Pacific 2000BPPS Bureau for Policy and Programme SupportCASSAD Centre for African Settlement Studies and

DevelopmentCBO Community-based OrganisationCEVAE Cento de Vivência Agro-EcológicalCSO Civil Society OrganisationDANCED Ministry of Environment, DenmarkEMME Eastern Mediterranean and Middle Eastenda-TM Environmental Development Action in the

Third WorldDGIS Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of the

NetherlandsGAC Global Advisory CommitteeGEF/SGP Global Environment Facility-Small Grants

ProgrammeGO Governmental OrganisationGTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische

ZusammenarbeitHIC Habitat International CoalitionICLEI International Council for Local Environmental

InitiativesIULA International Union of Local AuthoritiesLIFE Local Initiative Facility for Urban

EnvironmentNC National coordinator

Abbreviations

v

NGO Non-governmental organisationNSC National selection committeeMDGD Management Development and Governance

DivisionOESP Office of Evaluation and Strategic PlanningPDP Partners in Development ProgrammePLUS Programme of Livelihood Improvement in the

Urban SettlementsRAED Arab Network for Environment and

DevelopmentRDC Regional Development CommitteeSHD Sustainable human developmentSida Swedish International Development

Cooperation AgencySPARC Society for the Promotion of Area Resource

CentreUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNOPS United Nations Office for Project ServicesWHO World Health OrganisationWB World Bank

vi


Foreword xi

Preface xiv

Executive Summary xvii

1. LIFE’s Origins and Objectives 1Sustainable human development 3Governance 4Urbanisation 5LIFE’s objectives 7

2. LIFE’s Structure, Process and Method 10A structure for increasing dialogue and participation 10

Local, municipal and country levels 11Regional and inter-regional levels 11Global level 12

A process for focussing a range of actors 12Stage 1. Setting up 15Stage 2. Policy experiments 16Stage 3. Evaluation, dissemination and policy 17

A method for local-local dialogue 17

3. LIFE in the 12 Countries 19Local-local dialogue helps local actors create partnerships 22

Strengths and weaknesses of local actors 24Dialogue and community partnerships 25Dialogue in a variety of settings 25Dialogue: not always easy 27

vii

Contents

Project impact is wide ranging 28Water supply and sanitation 28Solid and liquid waste management 29Air and water pollution 30Hazard-prone areas 30Environmental health 31Income generation 31Environmental education 32Environmentally conscious urban planning 32

Quantitative impact assessment needed 33

4. LIFE Around the World 35Regional and inter-regional programmes 35The global learning culture 43

External evaluations 44Annual internal reviews by LIFE national coordinators 44Annual global advisory committee workshops 45International workshop on participatory local governance 45

The financing strategy and results 45Leveraging funds 46

5. LIFE’s Participatory Process 48Strengths of the method 48

Participation 48Partnership 49Local-local dialogue 49The upstream-downstream-upstream approach 49Replicating and sustaining LIFE at the local level 50Donor participation and experimental learning 51Combining process with solutions 51Holistic, multi-sectoral approach 51Visible results through local projects 52Decentralised structure 52Reliance on local expertise 53

Constraints of the method 54Government and non-governmental organisations 54Geographic spread and focus 55Scaling up 56

viii


6. LIFE’s Long-term Impact 57Governance 58

Control 58Agenda 59Returns 59Empowerment 59

Country stories 61Brazil 62Colombia 62Egypt 63Jamaica 63Kyrgyzstan 64Lebanon 64Pakistan 65Senegal 65South Africa 65Tanzania 66Thailand 67

7. LIFE’s Lessons 68Implementing small projects 68Scaling up the dialogue 72Exchanging regional and global lessons 74Funding implications for UNDP 75Programming implications for UNDP 76

8. LIFE’s Tasks Ahead 79The challenges 79Recommendations for the method 83Recommendations for project impact 83Phase III: 1997–2000 84A global learning laboratory 86

Bibliography 87

Annex 1 LIFE’s Programme by country 90

Annex 2 Project details by country 102

Annex 3 Sample grant application 120

Annex 4 LIFE’s national and global coordinators and UNDP resident representatives 122

ix

Contents

x


Tables3.1 Origins of LIFE 203.2 Gender break-down of national selection committees 203.3 Strengths and weaknesses of local actors 243.4 Making effective use of local-local dialogue 264.1 Inter-regional and global partners 364.2 Regional partners 376.1 Agency approach versus LIFE approach 607.1 The meaning of LIFE for UNDP 77

Figures1.1 The three domains of governance 42.1 Steps to a national programme: the LIFE process 132.2 The LIFE Programme dynamics 183.1 Orbits of local-local dialogue 233.2 Projects addressing priority areas 307.1 LIFE’s cycle 73

Boxes3.1 Standpipes for low-income communities in Kingston, Jamaica 297.1 Dar es Salaam community finds solution to poor sanitation 70

xi

Sustainable human development (SHD) places people at thecentre of development and gives the highest priority to povertyreduction, sustainable livelihood, environmental regenerationand women’s participation in all phases of the developmentprocess. The goal of sustainable human development is to cre-ate an enabling environment where all people can act toimprove the quality of their lives.

Attaining sustainable human development is not possiblewithout good governance. Improving governance means effect-ing change at the local, national, regional and global levels.UNDP is committed to developing capacities for good gover-nance as a primary means of eradicating poverty and all otherforms of exclusion. On an unprecedented scale, central gov-ernments around the world are allocating substantial portionsof their national budgets, devolving administrative responsibil-ities and decentralising economic control to regional and localauthorities.

Building capacity for local governance requires involvingcivil society organisations and the private sector in partnershipwith government. A key message of UNDP’s Policy onGovernance is that building capacity in all three domains ofgovernance—the state, civil society and the private sector—iscritical for sustaining human development. The role of govern-ment becomes that of a facilitator—a catalytic force to spurpartnerships and encourage cooperative solutions to the chal-lenges of urban and rural development.

Foreword

In the past, a large portion of UNDP funding was given tocentral governments to improve public sector economic andfinancial management. This focus has changed. UNDP—at therequest of governments and in support of sustainable humandevelopment—assists in building capacity for good governance,popular participation, private and public sector developmentand growth with equity. Almost 30 percent of UNDP fundingsupport is currently provided to projects focussing on strength-ening capacities for governance. Support to decentralisationand local governance appears in almost 70 percent and supportto civil society institutions in 65 percent of all planned UNDPprogrammes.

The UNDP 2001 change management process has high-lighted the need to transform UNDP into a learning organisa-tion to link policy development and evaluation by capturing anddisseminating country-based experience and best practices.Within this change process, the key responsibilities of theBureau for Policy and Programme Support (BPPS) include act-ing as a global hub for the synthesis and development of cross-regional and global knowledge and products, developingpolicies, strategies and methodologies in UNDP’s main focusareas, and developing and pilot-testing a series of well-definedglobal products and programme instruments.

The Management Development and Governance Division(MDGD) of BPPS has assumed these responsibilities since theinception of the Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment(LIFE) in 1992. The primary objective of LIFE is to demon-strate that facilitating local dialogue can lead to local coopera-tion and, in turn, to effective and sustainable local action ondevelopment projects.

We intend the LIFE Programme to continue to serve as aglobal laboratory of method and practice for future develop-ment efforts. Our understanding of what constitutes “good”local governance will also benefit from informed discussionaround this topic. We therefore welcome the opportunity tohear your thoughts and comments on this book.

Special thanks are due to the governments of theNetherlands, Sweden, Germany and Denmark for their contin-uing substantive and financial contributions to this globalprogramme.

xii


The views expressed in this volume are not necessarilyshared by UNDP’s executive board or the member govern-ments of UNDP.

G. Shabbir CheemaDirectorManagement Development and Governance DivisionBureau for Policy and Programme SupportNew YorkJune 1997

xiii

Foreword

This book analyses the method and experience of the UNDPLocal Initiative Facility for Urban Environment (LIFE) fromSeptember 1992 to May 1997. It reviews the LIFE process asa facilitator of participatory local governance through “local-local” dialogue—the participatory method at the heart of theprocess. Although these development activities focus on theurban environment, the method is neutral—and can be appliedto any sector where multiple stakeholders have an interest in anagreed upon development strategy, implementation and sus-tainable outcome.

This book is intended primarily for the partners of the LIFEP rogramme, the local governments, NGOs and UNDP offic e sin programme countries, and the bilateral donor developmentagencies in Denmark, Germ a n y, the Netherlands and Swedenthat have joined UNDP in financing the project through cost-sharing and parallel co-financing. It is also for a wider audience:those interested in effective approaches to improving the livingconditions in the low-income urban settlements in developingc o u n t ry cities and towns through part i c i p a t o ry local governance.

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the origins of the LIFEProgramme, which includes the UNDP mandate of sustainablehuman development (SHD), the importance of participatorylocal governance in achieving SHD; the global trend of urban-isation; the underlying rationale for LIFE embedded in theneed for local initiatives; and a description of the LIFEProgramme objectives. Chapter 2 details the design of the pro-gramme and describes the LIFE structure, process and

xiv

Preface

methodology. Chapters 3 and 4 describe the LIFE experienceto date, illustrating the impact of the LIFE methodology at thecountry, regional, inter-regional and global levels. These chap-ters also include a look at the financial strategy and cost-sharingapproach of the programme. Chapter 5 assesses the strengthsand constraints of LIFE’s participatory process and the local-local dialogue method. Chapter 6 examines the critical issues inmainstreaming and institutionalising the methodology and theimplications for LIFE’s future. Chapter 7 reviews the lessonslearned from experiences at the local, national and global lev-els, and it summarises the implications for donors of UNDP’snew country-based trust-fund proposal. It also considers theimpact of LIFE Programme experience on UNDP program-ming. Chapter 8 includes recommendations for the tasks aheadand a summary of the challenges to be faced in the last phaseof the pilot programme. As a companion to this book a financialsummary report has been prepared to complete the picture ofProgramme inputs, outputs and impact to date, and this reportis available upon request.

We are deeply indebted to the team of consultants led byProfessor Babar Mumtaz (DPU, London) who reviewed the lastfour years of reports and who prepared the primary analysisupon which this publication is based. In addition to ProfessorMumtaz, Ms. Kendra Collins, Ms. Catherine Davis and Ms.Deborah Musinger provided inputs to the report. Editorialassistance and correlative inputs were provided by Mr. GeorgeWalters, UNDP editorial consultant, and Mr. Bruce Ross-Larson and Ms. Heidi Gifford, Communications DevelopmentIncorporated. The most up-to-date sources of information werethe comprehensive surveys completed by the nationalcoordinators on almost every dimension of the programmewithin their country. Other sources used in preparing thisreport include quarterly and annual country programmeprogress reports, country programme assessments by nationalconsultants, Global Advisory Committee workshop reports,global coordinator reports and analysis, an external assessmentof the programme conducted by Mr. Hugo Navajas, interna-tional consultant, several UNDP policy and discussion paperson urban development and local governance, and feedbackfrom cost-sharing partners, LIFE national coordinators andtechnical support staff on the draft edition of this report. TheDirector of MDGD provided substantive guidance throughout.

xv

Preface

UNDP hopes that this analysis will contribute to the globaldialogue about the role of participatory local governance inachieving sustainable human development objectives, particu-larly for urban poverty alleviation.

Robertson WorkSenior Technical AdvisorDecentralisation and Local Governance TeamGlobal Coordinator, LIFE Programme (1992–97)Management Development and Governance Division, BPPSNew YorkMay 1997

xvi


The Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environment, popularlyknown as “LIFE”, has become operational at the community,country, regional, inter-regional and global levels with morethan $11 million in programme resources since its launch at theEarth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

The LIFE Programme is a community-based initiativeoperating in more than 60 cities in 12 pilot countries—Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Jamaica, Kyrg y z s t a n ,Lebanon, Pakistan, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, andThailand. It confirms the effectiveness of part i c i p a t o ry localg o v e rnance through local-local dialogue to address urban envi-ronmental problems affecting the poor. In collaboration withlocal urban authorities, non-governmental org a n i s a t i o n s(NGOs), community-based organisations (CBOs) and the pri-vate sector, the programme supports small projects thati m p rove the local environment. These projects become thebasis for policy dialogues and strategies for scaling up theassault on urban environmental problems that mar urbann e i g h b o u rhoods and deter the economic advance of the poor.

LIFE also funds and supports regional and inter-regionalNGO networks and cities’ associations concerned with localurban environmental problems, guiding and propellingcountry-based initiatives from conception to reality. It encour-ages sharing and dissemination of best practices at all levels ofthe programme’s reach: local, municipal, country, regional,inter-regional and global. LIFE also engages its bilateral andmultilateral donor partners in national and global dialogues to

xvii

Executive Summary

reflect on, analyse and advocate local participatory governancein achieving sustainable human development.

The premise of LIFE is that local people and org a n i s a-tions best determine which environmental problems needu rgent attention—and that local solutions to local pro b l e m shave a better chance of creating lasting change in a commu-n i t y. The programme has had a profound impact on thosecommunities where it is active, and the success of its collab-orative eff o rts is evidence that community-based org a n i s a-tions, non-g o v e rnmental organisations and local authoritiescan work together to improve the lives of people in theswelling low-income urban settlements of the developingworld.

LIFE has emerged within the larger context of concern foridentifying and incorporating participatory methods that fur-ther sustainable human development. Integral to the paradigmis the notion of decentralisation–nurtured by the awareness thatthe central government cannot be the sole source and supportfor development. As a mode of sustainable human develop-ment, LIFE’s focus has been empowering individuals and insti-tutions in local communities to understand and improve theenvironment in which they live and work.

LIFE is designed to incorporate action at country,regional and global levels, but the core focus is at the coun-t ry level—on a three-stage process that includes “upstre a m-d o w n s t re a m - u p s t ream” phases. In the initial upstream phase,interactive workshops and broad-based consultations helpf o rmulate national strategies to activate communities andmobilise re s o u rces for local projects. Through downstre a mongoing local consultations, collaborative projects are identi-fied, supported and implemented, and systems for monitor-ing and evaluation are established. An upstream policydialogue occurs in the final phase as collaborative pro j e c t slead to a collective impact on the means and methods ofmunicipal or national policy-making.

The overarching objective of the LIFE process is to main-stream and institutionalise this participatory approach by forg-ing new partnerships among government, civil society and theprivate sector. While mainstreaming and institutionalisation ofthe LIFE process have begun in some quarters, the degree towhich they can effect change requires a major paradigm shift inthe development community.

xviii


“To me LIFE meansmuch more than a process ormethodology fordevelopment—to me it seems to be an ideology orphilosophy for gettingcommunity peopleinto the centre ofdevelopment.”

—Najmus Sahar Sadiq,Programme Officer,

Bangladesh

LIFE has found that strengthening the institutional capaci-ties of NGOs, CBOs and local authorities requires technicalassistance in proposal writing, financial reporting, project devel-opment and management, fund-raising and negotiation. It isalso clear that the skills and methods learned in LIFE’s smallenvironmental projects are easily transferred and applied toissues in other areas, such as health or education. In some pro-jects LIFE’s impact has already extended beyond local envi-ronmental problems to address other issues such as genderequality and income generation.

Other lessons include the awareness that the media and theprivate sector are key elements to sustaining LIFE’s projectsand practices. The media must be enlisted to publicise andcelebrate successful projects, to educate and inform the publicabout the programme method and to disseminate best practicesto as wide an audience as possible. The private sector must beinvolved to help sustain the projects over time: by leveragingprivate source support, encouraging the income-generationaspect of projects and ensuring that small development enter-prises are investment opportunities.

The success of the LIFE programme will be measured bythe extent to which LIFE takes on appropriate institutionalforms in countries and the extent to which it influences nationaland international policy-making. At the regional and global lev-els, significant progress has been made working with NGO net-works and cities’ associations to exchange and share successfulapproaches and experiences. Inter-regional conferences andworkshops have extended the LIFE philosophy and practice toevery region of the world. And a process of reflection, analysisand advocacy of local participatory governance has begun tochange the thinking of the global development community.

S i g n i ficant challenges remain in the last phase of the LIFEp rogramme (1997–2000) to institutionalise, mainstream andscale up its methods and practices. One challenge is grapplingwith the political and institutional resistance to a shift in the bal-ance of power as more citizen groups take action. A second isensuring quality leadership and building capacity within localNGOs and CBOs to make them more effective agents of change.A third is internalising the programme to make it part of nationalstrategic planning rather than an independent pilot underU N D P ’s aegis. And a fourth is developing a system to expand thep rogramme across regions and within national borders in ways

xix

Executive Summary

“What we are lookingat now are thelessons learned—that this could be thebest solution to urbanenvironmentalproblems. Thisincludes partnershipsand the involvementof the local commu-nity in deciding whathas to be done for thecommunity and theirsharing in the imple-mentation and theevaluation of theseexperiences.”—Brigitte Kheir Keirouz,

National Coordinator,Lebanon

that balance LIFE’s decentralised stru c t u re with the need forc o u n t ry-level communication, evaluation and feedback.

In the next few years the LIFE cycle will continue with pilottesting of new small projects and the initiation of the local-localdialogue method at the same time as projects already estab-lished will focus on lessons, mainstreaming and institutionalisa-tion. The projects just starting in Bangladesh and South Africawill benefit from the lessons shared and evaluations exchangedfrom other pilot countries. The other 10 countries where LIFEis already active will continue to fund new “policy experiments”while shifting to dissemination of best practices, scaling up andinstitutionalisation.

There are encouraging signs that the local-local dialoguemethod and the local participatory approach to project devel-opment have taken hold outside of LIFE’s direct influence.Programmes in Mongolia and Uganda are being patterned onthe LIFE cycle, and other countries will follow.

The goal in the next few years is to build the capacities andpartnerships of local actors in communities all over the globe.To this end, LIFE will ensure high-quality evaluation of theexperiences to date, promote the documentation, dissemina-tion and interchange of successful approaches to urban envi-ronmental improvements, and continue to move the local-localmethodology and policy dialogue from a local context tonational and international arenas.

xx


“It is the purpose ofthe LIFE team to helpus face problems ofthe environment, andthe environmentproblems ofKyrgyzstan, orPakistan, Colombia,or Jamaica are notthe problems of thesestates or these par-ticular peoples butthe problems of allhumankind.”

—Bakyt Beshimov,National Coordinator,

Kyrgyzstan

1

LIFE—The Local Initiative Facility for Urban Environ-ment—was launched as a pilot by the United NationsDevelopment Programme (UNDP) at the Earth Summit

in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Its primary objective is to demon-strate local solutions to urban environmental problems. At thecore of the programme are small projects designed, imple-mented and operated by local community-based organisations(CBOs), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and localauthorities. The programme incorporates a three-stage processand uses “local-local” dialogue to address urban environmentalissues and improve the lives of the urban poor. These small pro-jects are intended as “policy experiments” that provide feed-back for policy elaboration at the national, regional and globallevels.

In 1991–92 the LIFE Programme was designed in a partic-ipatory process that involved consultations among mayors fromdeveloping country cities, NGO networks, cities’ associations,UN administrators, World Bank officers and bilateral donors.The networks and partnerships that emerged during this con-sultative process helped build a strong foundation for the prepa-ration of the LIFE Programme Document and its approval byUNDP in April 1992.

The programme has had financial support from UNDP andthe governments of four industrial countries as well as frompublic and private organisations in the participating developingcountries. Funding for the first two-year pilot phase was gener-ously committed by the governments of Sweden, the

c h a p t e r o n e

LIFE’sOrigins andObjectives

Netherlands, and Germany and by three units in UNDP—theDivision for Global and Inter-regional Programmes, theEnvironment and Natural Resources Group of the SpecialProgramme Resource for Environment and the PovertyAlleviation Programme through the Special ProgrammeResource for Poverty Alleviation.

Following discussions by the bilateral donors, the re g i o n a lb u reaux of UNDP, the UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS)and Programme Development and Support Division, criteriaw e re established to determine the countries to be selected forthe pilot programme. The criteria included a well-developedNGO and CBO movement, sufficient autonomy and strength ofmunicipal authorities, willingness on the part of local authoritiesto collaborate with CBOs and NGOs, and serious urban envi-ronmental issues. Geographic distribution and social and eco-nomic contexts were also factors.

Seven countries were chosen for the first two-year phase:Thailand and Pakistan in the Asia-Pacific region; Senegal andTanzania in the Africa region; Brazil and Jamaica in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean; and Egypt in the Arab States. Theyvaried in their urban population (from 23 percent of the total inThailand to 75 percent in Brazil), in urban growth rates (from2.2 percent in Jamaica to 7.5 percent in Tanzania), in GNP percapita (from $110 in Tanzania to $2,680 in Brazil), and in lifeexpectancy (from very low in Senegal to high in Jamaica). LIFEbegan in all countries with initiating missions that included dia-logue with more than 260 representatives from local, munici-pal, provincial and national governments; NGOs; CBOs;participants from the private sector; bilateral donor agenciesand multilateral organisations. Dialogue took the form of indi-vidual interviews and briefings, group meetings and brain-storming sessions and on-site visits to low-income urbansettlements. The missions were intended to initiate the local-national process and not to select particular projects. Each mis-sion was a catalytic intervention to introduce a process—not toadminister another small grants programme.

The LIFE cycle has been divided into three phases, endingin 2000 with completion of the programme.

• In Phase I (1993–94) the programme was initiated inseven countries, and national committees selected 45 projectsto receive support. Four regional and two inter-regional pro-jects also received support.

2


• In Phase II (1995–96) the programme was extended toanother five countries—Bangladesh, Colombia, Kyrgyzstan,Lebanon and South Africa—with 129 projects being imple-mented in the 12 countries and with support for six regional andfour inter-regional projects. The programme held its thirdannual Global Advisory Committee (GAC) workshop inIstanbul in June 1996 to coincide with the Habitat II CitySummit to review and share its performance and lessons andmake proposals for future directions and action.

• Phase III (1997–2000) will complete the implementationof projects initiated between 1992 and 1996, will initiate newprojects and will facilitate the mainstreaming and institutional-isation of the local-local method at the national and interna-tional levels.

Sustainable human developmentThe free market reforms and structural adjustment strategiesof economic policy of the 1980s and the 1990s by and large dis-counted the negative social impact of policy on developingcountry populations. In response, UNDP advocated a conceptof sustainable human development (UNDP 1990) to place peo-ple at the centre of the development process.

The conventional model of development sought to achievesocial welfare and the harmonisation of conflicting intereststhrough a combination of macroeconomic growth and welfarepolicies. The sustainable human development concept rede-fines economic growth as a means for enhancing all humanlives—and defines human development as enlarging the rangeof choices available to people in all spheres of their lives.Development is understood to be a process that not only gen-erates growth but distributes it equitably. It enhances peoples’capabilities and creates opportunities for using these capabili-ties. It helps to empower the poor rather than marginalise them.It regenerates rather than destroys the environment. And itensures choices for present and future generations (UNDP1994). The critical issues of sustainable human developmentinclude poverty elimination, gender equity, employment cre-ation, environmental improvement and sound governance.

Integral to sustainable human development is the idea ofsocial capital—accumulated as the result of living together insociety and sharing norms and values. Social capital enablescommunity members to make conscious decisions for achieving

3

LIFE’s Origins and Objectives

common goals through collective action. To address sustainablehuman development, the LIFE Programme uses urban envi-ronmental problems—and remedies—as entry points.Consistent with UNDP’s urban development cooperation strat-egy, LIFE provides the poor with services and infrastructure; itenlists and empowers women in all phases of projects; itstrengthens local CBOs, NGOs and governments; and it investsin income-generating projects.

GovernanceAdapting the concept of sustainable human developmentre q u i res concerted eff o rts by those managing the affairs ofdeveloping countries.1 G o v e rnments—the elected officials andcivil servants who make up governing institutions—used to beb roadly equated with the term “governance”, which re f e rred toa political regime or to those with the capacity to formulate andimplement policies and discharge functions and with the author-ity to manage a country ’s economic and social re s o u rces. Due totheir public administration and management functions, govern-ment officials were believed to have the ultimate capacity andwisdom to manage and influence development—in all its form s .Although it was understood that “government” re f e rred to thecollective tiers of administration, including local govern m e n t ,the emphasis was on central or national governments.

Over the years, this somewhat limited concept of gover-nance has been replaced by a broader, more inclusive definitionthat takes into account the realities of how countries are run andmanaged and recognises the limitations of governments. Theterm “governance” refers to the process by which society man-ages its economic, social and political resources and institu-tions—not only for development, but also for the cohesion,integration and well-being of its people. Clearly, the ability ofdeveloping countries to achieve their development goals hingeson the quality of governance and the extent to which govern-ment interacts with commercial and civil society organisations.

UNDP defines governance as the exercise of political, eco-nomic and administrative authority to manage a society’s affairs.This broad concept encompasses the organisational structuresand activities of central, regional and local government; the par-liament; the judiciary; and the institutions, organisations andindividuals that constitute civil society and the private sector(figure 1.1). This concept of governance stresses the nature and

4


Local slum communities cleaned and dredged thiscanal and built acommunity boardwalk inThailand

quality of interactions among social actors and between socialactors and the state.

Governance begins in communities, villages and towns, andlocal governance provides the basis for the concept and thestructure of governance. Two aspects of governance are partic-ularly relevant: the technical and the representational. Thetechnical aspect refers to the how and what of development—the processes and procedures of resource mobilisation, planformulation, technical application and resource allocation. Therepresentational aspect refers to the way decisions are takenand who takes them—and thus includes issues of representa-tion and participation, accountability and empowerment.

With this as the context, the implementation of sustainablehuman development strategies requires a decentralised, localparticipatory process to identify and address the priority objec-tives—of poverty elimination, employment creation, genderequity and ending environmental degradation. This is theapproach used in LIFE—participatory local governance.Underlying these objectives are issues that can most effectivelybe resolved through local coordination, planning and action, allsupported by enabling national and international policies.

Urbanisation Another factor leading to the LIFE Programme was the searchfor ways to counter the negative effects of urbanisation and thedeleterious impacts of industrial policies on cities.2

Cities promote the modernisation of agriculture by provid-ing domestic markets for farm goods, providingthe infrastructure necessary for wider exportmarkets and relieving land pressures by absorb-ing rural migrants. Cities also offer residents theopportunity to obtain the knowledge and skills tobecome more productive. Employment andwage opportunities—particularly for women—are generally greater in cities than in rural areas.That is why national economic developmentrequires the growth and development of cities.But without adequate city planning and manage-ment, the efficiencies of cities can be overshadowed byincreased poverty and environmental degradation.

Until recently, the response in most countries was to insti-tute land-use planning measures to minimise the immediate

5


environmental impact by separating economic and residentialareas. In practice, however, this has contributed to the creationof low-value and even no-value urban land—often the only landaccessible to the poor and those with limited incomes. As aresult, thousands of “unplanned” communities evolved—with-out adequate sanitation, access to safe water or basic health con-siderations—throughout the urban areas of developingcountries.

Residents of urban slums and squatter settlements are oftendenied legal access to municipal services and infrastructure,and they end up paying disproportionately more for inferior,privately supplied water and other urban services. Systematicwaste disposal and sanitation services often do not exist. So, thehazards affecting the urban poor include undisposed wastes,contaminated water, flooding, landslides, erosion and poisoningfrom industrial pollution. When insecurity of tenure and inad-equate employment are added, the result is not just severehealth and malnutrition problems but also a fragmentation ofsocial values that leaves the poor open to exploitation and abuse.

Improvements in these conditions are, therefore, visible—and in many cases immediate. They produce mutual, collectivebenefits rather than individual benefits and can best be broughtabout through collective, cooperative action rather than indi-vidual action.

The creators of the LIFE Programme recognised that urbanenvironmental problems are an ideal entry point for gettinglocal actors to work together and to arrive at a greater mutualunderstanding. Introducing the programme through smallenvironmental projects provides the opportunity to developand test the viability of implementing community-based partic-ipatory projects in urban settings. The characteristics of urbanpopulations—young, often mobile populations, great diversityand heterogeneity, weak social cohesion and interaction and ahigh degree of anonymity—are often cited as detrimental tocooperative and collective action of the sort that has been advo-cated and implemented in rural communities. But workingtogether, local actors can accomplish more and be more pro-ductive and efficient than acting alone.

The LIFE Programme focuses on eight urban environmen-tal problems:• Inadequate provision of water supply and sanitation services• Deficiencies in solid and liquid waste management

6


“Sound governance isa prerequisite forsustainable humandevelopment, andgovernance at thelocal level is of cru-cial importance forattaining sustainablehumandevelopment.”

—Rasheda Selim

• Air and water pollution• Occupancy of hazard-prone areas• Poor health from environmental degradation• Poverty from limited income-generation opportunities• Absence of environmental education• Exclusion of environmental considerations in urban

planningThe extent to which a project addresses these areas is one of themain criteria developed in each country for the selection of theprojects to be supported by the LIFE Programme. Additionalcriteria include gender equity, income generation, participatorygovernance and the professional capacity of the implementingorganisation.

LIFE’s objectivesThe LIFE Programme has consciously used urban environ-mental improvements to galvanise local actors—to reach con-sensus and to understand each actor’s strengths, weaknessesand contribution to solving a community’s problems. The largerobjective of the LIFE Programme has been for the initiativesof local actors to complement national efforts.

Identifying a local institution that is both able and willing toact is not easy. Local authorities have the mandate to act andshould therefore provide institutional support. But in mostdeveloping countries, local authorities have been renderedineffective and powerless, often by central governments thathave stripped them of their revenue and authority. Until therecent decentralisation to rehabilitate local governments inmany developing countries, few could meet even their operat-ing expenses—and most were totally reliant on central govern-ment grants.

The involvement and intervention of NGOs is motivated bythe inability of local governments to deal with the gro w i n gdemand for urban shelter services and income-generatingo p p o rtunities, especially for women. Most urban NGOs havee m e rged in response to the problems affecting a locality andt h e re f o re operate locally, often limiting their intervention to asingle area in a city. Even where they are part of a larg e r, eveni n t e rnational organisation, each intervention is local. The par-ticipation of the affected community in these projects has beena pragmatic way to ensure their “involvement” and guaranteetheir “acceptance” of the project and thereby legitimise the

7


“The word dialoguecomes from theGreek roots dia andlogos—meaningflowing through—whereas the worddebate means tobeat down anddiscussion has thesame root asconcussion.”

—Joseph Jaworski

N G O ’s intervention. But the emphasis on the participation of thecommunity often excluded other actors. Indeed, many NGOsw e re seen to oppose government agencies and institutions.

NGO-led community participation and involvement clearlydemonstrated its effectiveness and efficiency—and should havebeen attractive for governments and international agencies.Indeed, international agencies have had few problems in turn-ing to NGOs to act as their implementing agents (often bypass-ing government agencies). But governments have oftenperceived NGO–led interventions as a tacit admission of failure

and an abrogation of their natural functions. Inmany countries, there thus exists mistrust—if notanimosity—between governments and NGOs.

The challenge for UNDP was to discernwhether the positive experiences of NGOs andcommunity groups could be capitalised on andconsolidated into a programme that would havethe support of local and national governments; ofprivate, community and non-govern m e n t a lo rganisations; and of international agencies.Such a programme could help resolve local pro b-

lems and promote part i c i p a t o ry local governance within theframework of the long-term goals of sustainable humand e v e l o p m e n t .

Those goals were echoed at the Earth Summit in Rio deJaneiro, which endorsed Local Agenda 21, an action plan to putcontrol of local issues and local resources into local hands forsustainable human development through decentralised, partic-ipatory local governance. In conjunction with the aims andobjectives of the Summit, a series of consultative meetings—bringing together mayors, CBOs, NGOs, citizen action groups,regional and inter-regional cities’ associations and UNDP andother bilateral and multilateral donor agencies—were used toformulate the LIFE Programme’s three objectives:

• To demonstrate local solutions to urban environmentalproblems and strengthen institutional capacities and collabora-tion through small projects involving NGOs, CBOs and localauthorities at the neighbourhood, city and country levels.

• To facilitate policy dialogue and scaling up based on localinitiatives through national and local consultations involvingNGOs, CBOs and local authorities at the neighbourhood, cityand country levels.

8


Solid waste collection and disposal, Ein Helwan,Egypt

• To promote the exchange of successful approaches andinnovations to local urban environmental improvement at thesub-regional, regional and inter-regional levels by NGO net-works, cities’ associations and international agencies.

Notes1. This section draws upon Rasheda Selim, “An Approach to

Participatory Local Governance: Local Initiative Facility forUrban Environment” (UNDP 1996).

2. This section is based on Cities, People & Poverty: UrbanDevelopment Cooperation for the 1990s (UNDP 1991) andHugo Navajas, LIFE: Forward Looking Assessment of Phase 1(1992–94), (UNDP 1995).

9


The LIFE Programme’s structure incorporates action atthe country, regional and global levels. Within these tiersis a three-stage process at the country level that includes

an initial “upstream” phase, a “downstream” phase and a final“upstream” phase. All phases of the programme use the LIFEmethod—essentially local-local dialogue within each commu-nity. But the method is also applied at country, regional andglobal levels. This method of local dialogue leading to localcooperation and local action underpins the philosophy of allLIFE projects.

A structure for increasing dialogue The programme stru c t u re is designed to get the most fro mcontinuous dialogue and participation at six levels—local,municipal, national, regional, inter- regional and global—ine v e ry aspect of LIFE Programme development andimplementation.

The “local, municipal and country” levels and the “regional,inter-regional and global” levels form natural triads in the pro-gramme structure and operations. The first triad is a spring-board from which direct action, policy change and day-to-daydevelopment activity can come about through collaborativeplanning and action. The second triad is a framework that sup-ports the efforts of development practitioners on the ground.This support comes in the form of documenting, disseminatingand sharing the successful approaches and best practices ofgrass-roots efforts in communities.

10

c h a p t e r t w o

LIFE’sStructure,Process andMethod

When the two triads come together they work like a sextantto navigate through and around the many obstacles confrontingdevelopment efforts today. Future analysis and documentationof the LIFE Programme should investigate what makes thisconfluence of efforts work well and how to apply the pro-gramme’s structure to other development efforts.

Local, municipal and country levelsAt the core of the LIFE Programme is a national consultationto determine an overall national strategy and the criteria forproject selection. Integral to this process is a national coordi-nator who arranges and organises local-local dialogues to bringtogether communities, local authorities and the private sectorto raise and resolve local issues. The process is elaborated,tested and validated through a series of “policy experiments” inthe form of small projects aimed at improving the urban envi-ronment through activities by the local community. In support-ing these local initiatives, LIFE seeks to share the lessons witha wider audience.

Local authorities, CBOs and NGOs discuss their environ-mental needs and priorities and develop and implement theirown plans. LIFE national coordinators and national selectioncommittees help them formulate strategies and secure thefinancial support for implementing the projects they design.

Regional and inter-regional levelsThe LIFE Programme promotes country-level collaborationand interchange with regional and inter-regional NGOs andcities’ associations addressing environmental degradation andpoverty though participatory means. To broaden the LIFEProgramme’s impact regional and inter-regional conferences,workshops, research, newsletters and publications report onperformance and disseminate methods and experience.

Criteria for the selection of regional and inter-regional activ-ities include:• Facilitating the testing of different urban-environmental

development strategies.• Providing a basis for comparison among NGOs and local

authorities.• Broadening the outreach of projects.• Strengthening communications and networking among par-

ticipating NGOs and local authorities.

11

LIFE’s Structure, Process and Method

Pre-LIFE solid waste treatment, Beirut, Lebanon

Global levelA regular process of self-evaluation and planning ensures inter-action and participation among country and regional actors withdonors. In addition, third-party evaluations and assessments atall levels ensure objectivity regarding what is done and

learned—both qualitatively and quantitatively. The Global Advisory Committee (GAC) meets

annually, augmenting the continuous reportingand interchange among GAC members and thebilateral donors. Through dialogue and docu-mentation, donors facilitate a global process formainstreaming and institutionalising what islearned from the LIFE approach. UNDP techni-cal support staff review and advise on the work ofnational coordinators. And annual meetings ofnational coordinators and periodic global work-

shops involving mayors, local practitioners and regional/inter-regional partners further contribute to a “learning culture” forlocal governance.

The LIFE initiative is testing approaches to providing tech-nical support and guidance to local development initiatives.Through the LIFE Programme Office at UNDP Headquartersand the GAC workshops, it supports and advises the country,regional and inter-regional activities by practising participatorymethods itself.

LIFE uses cost-sharing funding mechanisms through whichUNDP contributions are combined with those of several bilat-eral donors to meet a basic programme budget. This is furtherleveraged by parallel financing and country inputs to expandproject coverage and impact. Funding for the LIFEProgramme from UNDP and a few industrialised countries isimportant, but more important is the credibility and strengththat such support provides to the local initiatives.

A process for focussing a range of actorsThe three-stage process for the LIFE Programme in each coun-try may be unique in bringing together national, urban andcommunity actors to focus on immediate local needs and onlonger-term national policy issues (figure 2.1).

The stages can be thought of as a stream flowing through acommunity, nourishing it and bringing new “life”. The streamfirst flows with national assessments, strategies and pro-

12



Figure 2.1Steps to a national programme: the LIFE process

13

grammes developed within each context. It next flows downwith the selection and implementation of small projects that useparticipatory methods to test urban environmental policyoptions. It then flows up again with the dissemination andexchange of information nationally and internationally.Throughout all three stages, local-local dialogue and participa-tory methods encourage cooperative work.

Stage 1. Upstream—Catalysing a national dialogue, developingstrategies, gathering support• Set up a preparatory committee and identify key local actors:local authorities, private sector organisations, NGOs, andCBOs.• Recruit a national coordinator to animate the LIFE process.• Hold a national participatory workshop at which local,national and international participants develop a local andnational strategy for the programme.• Activate a national selection committee involving local andnational figures.• Mobilise local resources and support to ensure the sustain-ability of the programme.

Stage 2. Downstream—Ensuring effective and collaborativesmall projects• Conduct provincial and municipal workshops to help poten-tial participants formulate collaborative projects.• Solicit project proposals from CBOs and NGOs as well asfrom local authorities.• Select and fund relevant, well-designed small pro j e c t s .• Help implement projects by providing training, monitoringand networking.

Stage 3. Upstream—Disseminating and exchanging informa-tion nationally and internationally• Assist in evaluating and documenting the projects.• Assist in disseminating and exchanging information on suc-cessful ways to improve the urban environment.• Conduct national and international workshops to shareeffective project, programme and policy approaches, and initi-ate an “upstream” policy dialogue based on project results.

These three stages are implemented in the context of thethree global objectives of the LIFE Programme which guide


14

the overall strategic planning and implementation processwithin each country.

Stage 1. Setting up The LIFE Programme starts with an assessment of the institu-tional arrangements, expectations and other conditions thatdetermine the suitability of a country to participate. An initiat-ing mission—carried out by a small team, usually including theglobal coordinator and the UNDP country office—helps to gen-erate interest, analyse problems and identify supporting play-ers. If the conditions are suitable for a LIFE Programme, aLIFE preparatory committee is established during the initiat-ing mission, and the process of catalysing a national dialogue isput in motion. Of immediate concern is identifying and recruit-ing a national coordinator, followed by national consultationsand the appointment of a national selection committee.

National coordinators, the chief animators of the pro-gramme process, are selected for their familiarity with the con-ditions in their country and their ability to manage smallprojects through motivating people to work together. Typically,they have been involved in other projects or organisationsimproving conditions in poorer sections of a city. The coordi-nators manage the daily activities; mobilise local resources; andhelp to support, document and evaluate projects. As thenational focal point for the LIFE Programme, they liaise withthe regional, inter-regional and other programmes.

National consultations take the form of two-day or three-dayparticipatory workshops including representatives of govern-mental and non-governmental organisations, civic leaders, indi-viduals from community-based organisations, and occasionallydonors that may be willing to provide funds to supplement theLIFE grants. The workshops help rank local urban problems,establish criteria for project selection and in the larger countriesdetermine which geographical areas should be the focus of thefirst group of projects. Most importantly, the workshops providea trial run in stimulating a dialogue among the local actors, whomay be coming together for the first time to seek collaborativeapproaches to problems.

Each local actor has a complementary role in developing theprogramme strategies specific to each site. Community-basedorganisations, given their direct experience with local problems,must be involved in planning, implementing and evaluating the

15


Oil disposal and storage, Lebanon

projects. Non-governmental organisations often act as the linkbetween the community and outside resources—and providetraining and support for projects. Local authorities offer theirexpertise, financial resources and coordination with other net-works and government institutions. Working together, theselocal actors build a solid foundation of support for projects.

The national selection committees consist of 8 to 22 con-cerned and competent individuals invited to serve for two years.The primary task of the Committees is to review, select and

approve local LIFE projects. They also promotethe programme, mobilise human and financialresources, and act as an ongoing forum for policydialogue on the urban environment. But they arenot intended as a permanent body. Instead, theyare ad hoc task forces for the participation of localactors in project selection.

Mobilising resources and support at all levels ineach country ensures a broad and deep commit-ment to sustaining each project—from munici-

pal, central and provincial governments, NGOs, CBOs, privatefirms and companies, research and training institutes, the massmedia, UNDP country offices, and national coordinators andnational selection committees. Together, these actors bringLIFE to life and ensure the programme’s continuity.

Stage 2. Policy experiments Municipal and provincial workshops are held for potential par-ticipants to collaborate on small projects. Provincial workshopsinvolve local actors in planning and assist organisations in for-mulating proposals for small projects intended to make tangi-ble improvements in the living environment of low-incomesettlements. Not an end in themselves, these small projects areevaluated—and their approaches documented—so that theycan have a ripple effect as policy experiments influencingmunicipal and national practice.

The process of inviting project proposals has always beenp receded by one or more workshops to explain the LIFEP ro g r a m m e ’s aims and objectives—and to elaborate on thep roject criteria and selection process. In Pakistan, pro v i n c i a lconsultations followed a national consultation held in the cap-ital—the kind of follow up essential for promoting a newmethod. Creating a better understanding of the projects that

16


LIFE is pre p a red to support, workshops have also been heldon other aspects related to LIFE and its objectives—such ason squatters and on cultural heritage in Egypt and on identi-fying issues and building a city strategy for Cart a g e n a ,Colombia.

The project proposals received by the national coordinatorare reviewed and discussed by the national selection commit-tee, using criteria that reflect the LIFE Programme objectives,modified to reflect national or provincial objectives. In mostcases, the LIFE grants are supplemented with local funds frompublic and private sources. Intended as seed money to attractlarger contributions from local groups, LIFE grants fund pilotor demonstration projects that can be later duplicated by oth-ers. The ceiling for any one grant is $50,000.

Stage 3. Evaluation, dissemination and policyTo maintain the achievements of each project and to enable thecommunity to operate the programme without external inputs,a plan for self-sufficiency is developed and put in place. TheLIFE process also includes an extensive evaluation that usesestablished criteria to assess the extent to which expectationshave been fulfilled. This evaluation is followed by documenta-tion and dissemination of the lessons from the project—lessonsfor other community and country programmes.

National and international workshops are held to share thelessons and foster policy dialogues with local and national gov-ernments, NGOs, CBOs, the private sector and internationaldonors—all to explore ways to incorporate lessons into policyobjectives and frameworks and to mainstream and institution-alise best practices.

A method for local-local dialogueThe LIFE Programme involves all stakeholders in an ongoingparticipatory process called local-local dialogue. This inclusiveprocess creates links and communication among all actorsinvolved in solving a community’s environmental problems,encouraging representatives of local, national and internationalorganisations to cooperate, coordinate and compromise on ini-tiatives to improve the urban environment in low-income set-tlements. Used at all stages of the LIFE Programme, thelocal-local method is the most important feature ensuring thesuccess and sustainability of LIFE projects.

17


In the initial “upstream” stage of the programme in nationalworkshops, consultations and task forces, local-local dialogue isused in setting up the national selection committees and indefining the roles and responsibilities of each country’s coordi-nator. In the “downstream” stage, the method promotes anactive dialogue among the NGOs, CBOs, private sector entitiesand local government authorities to identify project ideas, todevelop collaborative projects and to implement plans. In thefinal “upstream” stage, the method is used to exchange experi-ences and ideas and to share lessons at the national, global andinternational levels. The goal is to use the local-local dialogueto translate the lessons of successful and innovative micro-inter-ventions into concrete policies at the macro level.

18


Figure 2.2The LIFE Programme dynamics

LIFE incorporates a process of dialogue and participationat all its levels of involvement—from local to global—butthe focus is at the country level. The programme is

launched with the recruitment of a national coordinator, theintroduction of national participatory workshops, and the for-mation of a national selection committee to identify and selectsmall projects. Although project responsibility and manage-ment rest with local communities, support for LIFE’s methodmust be strong and constant at the national level. This chapterexplores the Programme’s impact in specific countries; the nextchapter broadens the view to look at LIFE’s impact regionallyand globally.

The LIFE Programme began in 1992–93 with initiating mis-sions to eight countries—Egypt, Brazil, Pakistan, Jamaica,Thailand, Tanzania, Senegal and Morocco. Due to constraints,the programme in Morocco did not extend beyond the initiat-ing mission and has since been put on hold. Phase II saw theaddition of five countries in 1995–96—Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon,Colombia, South Africa and Bangladesh—bringing the total to12 pilot countries as the programme entered phase III for1997–2000 (table 3.1, annex 1). The programme is now activein more than 60 cities in these 12 countries. Senegal, Thailand,Jamaica and Lebanon have five or more cities participating—the other counties, one to four.

LIFE was launched in each country with the recruitment ofthe national coordinator and the national consultation(annex 4). National coordinators were identified through rec-

19

c h a p t e r t h r e e

LIFE in the12 Countries

Table 3.2 Gender break-down of national selection committees

Country Men Women

Brazil 4 4Colombia 6 3Egypt 7 9Jamaica 9 10Kyrgyzstan 8 3Lebanon 8 4Pakistan 5 5Senegal 19 3Tanzania 10 4Thailand 11 6

Total 87 51Percentage 63 37

Source: UNDP.

ommendations arising from the national consultation, theUNDP resident representative and such other UNDP pro-grammes as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) smallgrants programme. The national coordinators also serve ascoordinators of the GEF in Egypt and Pakistan and ofAsia–Pacific 2000 in Pakistan and Thailand. The national coor-dinator in Kyrgyzstan also serves on the national selection com-mittee for the UNDP Partners in Development Programme.Where national coordinators were not selected before thenational consultation (Jamaica and Tanzania), there were delaysin carrying the programme forward.

National selection committees (known in Thailand as theNational Task Force) operate in 10 of the 12 countries. Thecommittee members’ responsibilities include promoting local-local dialogue, reviewing and selecting projects, providing tech-nical assistance in proposal writing, mobilising resources andmonitoring projects.

The committee composition varies from country to countrybut generally includes representatives from local and nationalgovernments, CBOs, NGOs, the private sector, academic insti-tutions, UNDP and other aid agencies, as well as the nationalcoordinator. In most countries the committee meets three tofour times a year, but when LIFE is starting out in a country, itmay meet once a month or more.

The size of the national selection committee ranges from 8members in Brazil to 22 in Senegal, with an average of 14.Representatives from NGOs, at 27 percent, make up the largestproportion of members, followed by representatives fromnational government (19 percent), local authorities (12 percent)and CBOs (10 percent)—and there is at least one representa-tive from the private sector in all but two countries, Kyrgyzstanand Senegal (for more information see table 3.2 and annex 1).This is an encouraging sign of LIFE’s ability to bring the pub-lic sector, the private sector and civil society organisationstogether. Private sector representatives will contribute toLIFE’s ability to mobilise resources. And national governmentrepresentatives will contribute to LIFE’s ability to enter intonational policy dialogues. But the predominance of CBO, NGOand local authority representatives should be maintainedbecause they are the grant recipients.

Each country, in its national consultation, establishes projectselection criteria for providing grants to local initiatives. And

20


Table 3.1 Origins of LIFE

Year ofinitiatingmission Country

1992–93 ThailandTanzaniaBrazilPakistanJamaicaEgyptSenegal

1995 KyrgyzstanLebanonColombiaSouth AfricaBangladesh

Source: UNDP.

Educating the community in environmental issues,Thailand

each country is allocated approximately $100,000–$150,000 forgrants to small projects during each two-year phase—funds thatare augmented through local resource mobilisation. InThailand, LIFE has $650,000 for grants due to collaborationwith the German donor agency GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaftfür Technische Zusammenarbeit) and DANCED (the Ministryof Environment, Denmark). And in Brazil the national coordi-nator solicited more than $630,000 from country sources forgrants.

So far, LIFE has approved 129 small policy experiments andtransferred funds to 111. UNDP and bilateralcost-sharing allocations for the grants total $2.3million. These funds have leveraged another $4.1million from country resources and parallelfinancing for a total of $6.4 million. Most coun-tries that began the programme in earlier phaseshave implemented all projects initiated between1992–96 and are concentrating their efforts onproject evaluation for best practice and scalingup. Some of these countries are now beginningthe LIFE cycle again with the selection of newprojects. Others, such as Bangladesh and South Africa enteredthe programme later and are selecting projects for the first time.

Of the projects approved, 86 percent have received fundingfrom UNDP–LIFE, and of the remaining 14 percent, manyhave been approved recently and have not yet received fund-ing. Why are some projects approved but not funded? InPakistan, one of the approved projects received its funding fromanother source. In Colombia, five projects are waiting to nego-tiate the budget with the Ministry of Environment before theproject begins. In one case in Tanzania and another in Pakistan,LIFE withheld funding because the grant recipient lackedmanagerial capacity and credibility. LIFE–Tanzania chose towork directly with the community to build capacity beforereleasing funds.

Of the funded projects, 62 percent are ongoing and 38 per-cent have been completed, with 6 percent in the evaluationstage (annex 1).

An important development in the management system hasbeen the establishment of Local Support Committees inTanzania, Brazil, Lebanon, Colombia, Egypt and Jamaica. InTanzania and Brazil these are city-based committees that iden-

21

LIFE in the 12 Countries

tify and screen proposals. In Lebanon the committees are pro-ject-based, and in Colombia neighbourhood-based. As thenational coordinator in Lebanon explains, “the national selec-tion committee has asked all project applicants to form a pro-ject committee to help to design the project before applying toLIFE”. These committees run the projects and raise resourcesfor them. Egypt and Jamaica have established committees topre-screen project proposals before they go to the full nationalselection committee.

To introduce eligible grant recipients to the programme andassist in proposal writing, LIFE has conducted 139 workshops(with 2,275 participants) in the 12 countries (annex 3). Theseworkshops help to ensure that promising projects do not auto-matically get rejected due to a lack of capacity in proposal writ-ing— important because many participants, especially citizensgroups and community-based organisations, lack experience insubmitting proposals. Often forming the basis for collaborativeaction, these proposal-writing workshops also offer an opportu-nity for local-local dialogue about solutions to urban environ-mental problems.

Local-local dialogue helps local actors create partnershipsThe purpose of the local-local dialogue is to get local actors towork together to improve the conditions of the urban poor andto influence policy at the local, provincial, national and interna-tional levels. The dialogue is often the first time that CBOs,NGOs, local authorities and other actors have come together todiscuss common issues, and it can be the first step in formingpartnerships to address those issues.

LIFE has held 409 local-local dialogue meetings and work-shops involving more than 6,686 participants at the community,municipal, provincial and national levels. In addition, LIFE hasfunded 11 regional and inter-regional projects to promote local-local dialogue through workshops, newsletters and networks.

The LIFE Programme has found that local-local dialoguecreates awareness, develops communication and forges collab-oration among local actors. In some cases it can be described asa forum for conflict resolution, providing an opportunity toforge partnerships where mistrust and conflict have prevailedand to focus community action on issues that directly affecteveryone. People are more eager to get involved when there is

22


a chance to share in the decision-making and when they feelempowered to act on the decisions made.

Local-local dialogue empowers, giving a voice to those oftennot heard. LIFE–Lebanon has found that local-local dialoguerepresents an opportunity for women to voice their opinionsand exercise decision-making in areas where they are oftenoverlooked. Community members are also empowered by thefact that with local-local dialogue they can talk directly to rep-resentatives of local authorities. Experience in Jamaica andLebanon has shown that the LIFE Programme often providesthe first opportunity that community residents have to partici-pate in determining plans for their community. It is also oftenthe first opportunity that local authorities have to deal directlywith community residents.

The involvement of UNDP and the support of bilateraldonors lends credibility to the local-local dialogue and, in mostLIFE countries, this has helped to bring the actors together.LIFE–Tanzania invites local actors to participate in communitymeetings when a project is being considered—giving the resi-dents, CBOs, NGOs and local authorities the chance to beinvolved from the beginning. Of course, the possibility of grantfunds is an important incentive for these groups to get involved,but the small amount of grant funds prevents money from beingthe sole objective in contributing to community efforts.

23


Figure 3.1Orbits of local-local dialogue

Strengths and weaknesses of local actorsThe success of local-local dialogue is due, in large part, to thefact that local actors can learn about their strengths and weak-nesses and identify areas to learn from each other (table 3.3).They begin to view each other less as competitors and more aspartners.

LIFE–Egypt found that the local authorities were originallysceptical about the benefits of participating in local-local dia-logue with NGOs and CBOs—and about the potential impactof the LIFE Programme given its limited resources. Once theybecame involved, however, they recognised its advantages, andthey now plan to include the process in more of their activities.Experience in Senegal indicates that CBOs are the most moti-vated partners in implementing projects to improve the urbanenvironment. At the same time, financial participation from theCBOs is possible in projects once the population begins to seepositive, effective and tangible changes in their environment.The local-local dialogue quells the suspicion that surroundedthe programme at its onset.

As a result of the local-local dialogue of the EnvironmentalProtection and Solid Waste Management Programme in Khudaki Bustee, Hyderabad, Pakistan, “There is a clear understand-

24


Table 3.3Strengths and weaknesses of local actors

Non-governmental Community-based Local organisations organisations authorities

Strengths Professional expertise. Good Strong participation by women. Established institution.negotiation skills. Strong Willingness to improve. Authority for decision-making.networks. Innovative solutions. Credibility with community. Implements project. Sustains

Ability to mobilise community. projects. Support from national Utilise low-cost solutions. government.

Weaknesses Poor financial basis. Poor links Lack participatory experience. Poor financial basis. Lack with private sector.Conflict with Poor organisation skills. Poor technical capacity. Controlled government. Lack of technical networking. Lack of collective by central government. Lack skills. initiative. Lack of access to credibility with community.

credit. Bureaucratic, red tape. Under-utilised resources. Use high-cost solutions

LIFE Capacity-building workshops. Mobilise resources. Build Initiate dialogues. Encourage responses Encourage cooperation with networks. Build organisation cooperation with NGOs.

local authorities. skills. Capacity-building.

Source: Compiled from questionnaires to all national coordinators.

New community water supply, Jamaica

ing between the community, NGO and local authorities abouttheir respective roles. Their perception about sharing theresponsibility has undergone a complete change. . . . For exam-ple, previously the community thought that the entire develop-ment activity should be funded by the local authority. But nowthey are ready to partially fund it and also take up responsibil-ity for maintaining the services.”1

Dialogue and community partnershipsAs a result of the LIFE dialogue process, community repre-sentatives became part of the working groups of the Dar-es-Salaam City Council under the Sustainable DarProject. These working groups address issuessuch as solid waste management, air pollutionand petty trading.

The consolidation of new partnerships linkinggovernment institutions, NGOs and communitystakeholders is a fundamental objective of LIFE.Given the interaction of the many political, social,legal and cultural variables that condition thescope and modes of a given country’s participa-tion, dialogue inevitably involves a gradual, incre-mental process with its own dynamics—dynamicsthat evolve, to a large extent, independent of pro-ject plans.

Dialogue in a variety of settingsLocal-local dialogue occurs in varied settings ineach LIFE country, as well as through the regional and inter-regional projects and the annual workshops of the GlobalAdvisory Committee. The promotion of local-local dialogueinvolves heterogeneous—and often antagonistic—sectors ofsociety coming together in an interactive, consensus-buildingprocess in which the LIFE Programme plays a catalytic, facili-tating role. At the country level are small meetings and largeworkshops, priority-setting and strategy-setting workshops,project formulation meetings and workshops, information-sharing workshops and seminars and priority-specific lessonslearned from workshops. All this makes it somewhat difficult totrack the local-local dialogue activities of the LIFE Programme,but it also demonstrates that local-local dialogue has become anintegral part of almost everything the LIFE Programme does.

25


LIFE is therefore fostering communication, collaboration andmutual understanding—and continually demonstrating thebenefits of the process with every activity it undertakes. This isone of the aspects that makes LIFE much more than simply asmall grants programme.

For local-local dialogue to be useful and productive, it isimportant to appreciate where an actor’s effectiveness is great-est. As experience in Egypt demonstrates, stronger parties areless likely to want to enter into dialogue than the weaker ones.2

Parties that have little or nothing in common are also less likelyto be interested in dialogue and interaction. Thus, while it is

26


Table 3.4Making effective use of local-local dialogue

Project stage Problems, contradictions Local-local dialogue use

Programme Defining problems and Collective national formulation defining needs. Competing consultation allows for

claims within and between exchange of views and sectors. establishment of criteria.

Problem Local versus regional needs. Collective problem identification Short-term versus long-term identification allows for better

needs. understanding of community context and municipal needs.

Design Accountability for project Collective design design. Lack of innovative incorporates plan to design. implement.

Implementation Ensuring progress. Ensuring Collective negotiations identify adherence and compliance bottlenecks and create to project goal. alternatives that can be

implemented quickly.

Monitoring Allowing adequate and timely Collective discussion permits feed-back. Managing, not just faster agreement to and policing, project. incorporation of variation

in monitoring mechanisms.

Evaluation Involving stakeholders. On-going evaluations involve project beneficiaries and project implementors.

Informing Incorporating lessons from Sharing experiences and policy experience. Distinguishing lessons learned affects

between short-term and policy formation at local, longer-term impacts. regional, national and global

levels.

Source: UNDP.

National participatory workshop, Senegal

possible to bring a range of actors together in a forum, mean-ingful dialogue may not take place unless there is a commoninterest. The dialogue between national and provincial actors ismore likely to be productive than that between national andcommunity actors (table 3.4).

Dialogue: not always easyBecause the dialogue among actors too dissimilar in their con-cerns and areas of operation may not be productive, the role andpurpose of the dialogue need to be clearly established. In addi-tion, not all meetings and confrontations are or can be turnedinto a useful dialogue. A dialogue is most effective when theactors are in a position to exchange rather than to receive views.Local-local dialogue can be effective in resolving some of themore common problems that beset conventional project designand execution.

The local-local dialogue has the greatest impact on thethinking of those directly involved. For this reason, it may beadvisable for the LIFE country programmes to increase theinvolvement of provincial and national government representa-tives, as well as the private sector in the dialogue process,including their participation in the national selection commit-tees. Most countries already have one or two national selectioncommittee members who are not from CBOs,NGOs or local authorities, and this can fosteradvocacy for the process in preparation for policydialogue. In addition, it would be very effectiveto hold annual national consultations such asthose held at the initiation of the Programme ineach country. The national consultations are fre-quently described as providing an importantopportunity for local-local dialogue at thenational level and as a first opportunity for peo-ple from different sectors to get together to dis-cuss urban environmental priorities. The very positive responseof participants indicates that this may be an effective mecha-nism for fostering national local-local dialogue.

The key challenges to an effective local-local dialogue areovercoming the resistance of many existing institutions to oper-ate differently and institutionalising a process that is new to theparticipants. Many organisations see dialogue and collaborationas a time- and resource-intensive process that they cannot

27


Cans sor ted for recycling, Lebanon

afford. If this process is to change the way organisations work,it will have to prove itself through experience: the end solutionachieved by local-local dialogue and the participatory and col-laborative process must be more appropriate, more efficientand therefore more sustainable than the solutions achieved bythe current decision-making processes. This change in thinkingwill require continual reinforcement of the benefits of local-local dialogue.

Project impact is wide rangingGiven the interconnected nature of the priority areas, all butone of the 129 approved small projects address multiple objec-tives, and most projects meet more than two criteria (figure 3.2and annex 2). Frequently, projects include environmental edu-cation as one of their objectives. Environmental education isessential to prepare communities for the project and to ensurethe management, maintenance and sustainability of the projectonce it has been implemented.

Many projects address the whole range of priority areasbecause of their interconnectedness and because this reflects

the concerns of the communities themselves.Access to safe water and adequate sanitation areseen as much more important than, say, theimprovement of air quality. It is therefore easierto motivate and mobilise communities aroundthe issues of water supply and sanitation. Andsince the LIFE Programme is set up to deal withthese priority areas, it naturally attracts proposalsthat relate directly to them. Communities andorganisations concerned with other problems are

not likely to approach the LIFE Programme for funding orassistance—and if they do, they are unlikely to be selected.

Water supply and sanitation. Most of the 12 countries haveLIFE projects that address water supply and sanitation. One ofmany water supply and sanitation projects, implemented by aCBO, is the provision of water to the Yombo Dovya communityin the Temeke District of Dar es Salaam (Tanzania). The onlysource of water for the community was a highly polluted riversome distance away. The project constructed 10 shallow wellsand trained women and youths in maintenance and upkeep.Another, in Mominabad, Gujranwala (Pakistan), provides mod-

28


ern sanitation to low-income families through the constructionof a low-cost sewerage system, self-financed and self-managed.The project funds the organisation of social mobilisation, tech-nical guidance and training and, based on the experience of theimplementing agency, opens avenues for health education andcredit programmes for women.

In Jamaica the S-Corner Metered Standpipe Project wasplanned through local-local dialogue between the city and acommunity development council and implemented with com-munity participation. The facility now provides potable water to109 homes and costs the city very little (box 3.1).

Solid and liquid waste management. The most commonp roblem addressed by LIFE is inadequate solid and liquid wastemanagement, a component in at least 46 projects. A project inB e h e rri, Lebanon has had success in solv-ing problems of solid waste managementt h rough a combined recycling andincome-generating project. The Ministerof the Environment is currently looking toreplicate the LIFE project in variousp rovinces in Lebanon. Another project inBeni Suef, Egypt—considered major andreplicable—includes educating the localpopulation on environmental and healthissues and having the community con-tribute funds. Senegal, too, has severalwaste management projects in variousstages of development. One in Thiés—just outside of Dakar and set up in part-nership with a women’s CBO, an NGO,and the Thiés Municipal and PublicHealth Services—combats health ande n v i ronmental hazards posed by inade-quate garbage collection. Project activi-ties include training locals in fin a n c i a lmanagement and technical skills, educat-ing local and district groups in garbagecollection and making sustainable envi-ronmental improvements such as plant-ing trees on compost sites. Anotherp roject in Senegal—the Drain Traps and

29


BOX 3.1 Standpipes for low-incomecommunities in Kingston, Jamaica

In an inner-city community in Kingston, about17,000 people had been sharing two standpipes.The water shortage created not only dependenceon public water and land degradation, but theft,violence and corruption. The CommunityDevelopment Council (CDC), an affiliate of thegrass-roots organisation S-Corner, responded tothe crisis by initiating a standpipe project thatwas then funded by the LIFE national selectioncommittee.

With strong community involvement, CDCcarried out a survey of water needs and mobilisedsupport for a new metered standpipe in the area.When the CDC reached an impasse with theNational Water Commission, LIFE used local-local dialogue to help broker an agreement.

The LIFE method also helped keep dialogueflowing among S-Corner, CDC and the commu-nity. Now five lanes and 109 houses have runningwater. The project also succeeded in conflict res-olution and in improving health, cleanliness andtimesaving. Perhaps most importantly, the com-munity has confidence in its ability to change itsenvironment: the National Water Commissionhas since revised its policy on water provision tolow-income communities based on the LIFE-brokered agreement.

Sanitation Counsellor Training Project in Ye u m b e u l — c o m b i n e seducation and training with construction activities to pro m o t esustainable sanitary conditions.

Air and water pollution. Only nine LIFE projects addressthe problems of air and water pollution, perhaps because theresults of such projects are not always immediately evident. InThailand the canal and river improvement projects serve as afocus for community mobilisation. In Tanzania—where tradi-tional methods of dumping fish waste pollute Lake Victoria,which serves 20 million people—the Fish-Smoking KilnsProject focuses on environmental improvements and onincome-generation opportunities for women.

Hazard-prone areas. Hazard-prone areas are the leastaddressed problem by the LIFE Programme, presumablybecause the conventional solution is likely to involve resettle-ment and few communities would opt for such a solution. InBrazil, where deforestation of the hill slopes has increased thehazard of landslides and erosion, projects call for reforestation.


30

And both the Adopt-a-Tree Project in Rio de Janeiro and theCEVAE/TAQUARIL Project in Belo Horizonte include hazardmitigation as part of their environmental education and upgrad-ing proposals. Other projects have the occupancy of hazard-prone areas only as a marginal component—such as theSocio-Economic and Physical Survey of Squatter Settlementsin Islamabad, Pakistan, aimed at producing a complete base-line survey of squatters and their living conditions.

Environmental health. Environmental health is usuallyincluded as one of the problems being addressed by water andsanitation projects. For example, the improvement of MwaloniMarket in Mwanza, Tanzania primarily addresses inadequatewater supplies—the market serves some 40,000 people a day.Since inadequate water is the main cause of unsanitary condi-tions, it is hoped that improving water supply and constructinglatrines will also alleviate environmental health problems.Because poor environmental management and environmentalhealth problems have hurt trade in the Fresh Market inNonthaburi, Thailand, a project, implemented by the FolkDoctors Association, is improving environmental health toboost income-generation possibilities. The May Pen and PortMaria Sanitation Projects in Jamaica provide public toilet facil-ities and are thereby aimed at reducing environmental healthproblems from the pollution of local water sources. The LatrineInstallation Project in Cairo, Egypt has improved environmen-tal health in the affected communities. And the Healthy CitiesProject, a component of LIFE implemented in five countriesby WHO, is working to improve environmental health.

Income generation. Although the entry point is always envi-ronmental, LIFE projects provide income-generation oppor-tunities, mainly in two ways. The first is when thee n v i ronmental and area upgrading facilities lead to better earn-ing opportunities, either by improving health or by making ana rea more attractive for trade. The second is when the envi-ronmental improvement itself generates income-earning pos-sibilities, as with various recycling and composting projects inTanzania, Pakistan and Jamaica. The Rio-Mexilhão project inNiterói, Brazil, aims to stop the depletion of shellfish stocks inGuanabara Bay as well as to mainstream the income-generat-ing activities for traditional and local shellfish collectors and

31


S-Corner water supply project, St. Joseph Road,Jamaica

fis h e rmen. The project, filmed by CNN for broadcasting in1997, includes commercial marketing of shellfish under thebrand name Mexilhão Rio.

E n v i ronmental education. A component of 37 pro j e c t s ,e n v i ronmental education is seen as a first step in conscious-

ness-raising to reduce environmental degrada-tion and to mobilise communities to undert a k ee n v i ronmental improvements. Some entire pro-jects are specifically aimed at enviro n m e n t a leducation, particularly for school children andeducational establishments. Ta rgeting studentsattending state schools on hillside slums, theLupa-Zona Project in Rio de Janeiro is raisinge n v i ronmental awareness through an educa-tional programme on the theme of water. TheScience Learning Centre Project in Kingston,

Jamaica, is establishing an environmental science learning lab-o r a t o ry for children living in the Tel Aviv/Southside areas ofdowntown Kingston, targeting the age groups of 3–5, 6–12 and13–17. The Green Patrol in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, support se n v i ronmental education of youths through Agat, a childre n ’sclub. The Book Group project in Karachi, Pakistan, is pro d u c-ing a primary school book and teacher’s guide on enviro n m e n-tal training—and providing training to five project schools inlow-income are a s .

Environmentally conscious urban planning. This area isaddressed more with physical improvements or constructionworks, such as the brick-lining of sewage drains in Lahore,Pakistan, or the provision of potable water to the Sikilo Quartersin Kolda, Senegal. But some projects, such as theEnvironmental Seminar in St. Mary, Jamaica, have broughttogether community groups, public sector agencies and gov-ernment bodies to discuss environmental issues affecting theparish and to prepare an action plan. In Tanzania a tree plant-ing project is providing shaded pedestrian pathways as an alter-native to motorised transport. On a more systemic level is thework in Thailand to assist municipalities in the production oflocal environmental plans. And Egypt has a notable overall envi-ronmental development effort in Cairo.

32


Cleaning up and planting greenery on the SuliemanMountain, Osh, Kyrgyzstan

Quantitative impact assessment is neededThe short span of most LIFE projects poses a constraint on col-lecting the data for quantitative assessments. But the lack of datais also a result of the emphasis on process and method. Mostevaluations concentrate more on whether projects are indeedp a rt i c i p a t o ry and include local-local dialogue—less on whetherp rojects are efficient or effective by numerical measure. Forexample, it is unclear whether, in the absence of marketing plansand fig u res, the recycling and composting projects are econom-ically justified—or whether the public toilets being provided inZanzibar will generate enough revenue to provide sustainableemployment for the youth trained to maintain them. Why?Some methods of analysis common in the development fie l d —such as cost-benefit analysis, input-output relations, rigidly seg-mented workplans and other quantitative measures—can ru ncounter to the emergence and maturation of a “dialogue culture ”that links public administration with local stakeholders.

Quantitative assessments of the LIFE process do not cap-ture the full costs and benefits. In Egypt the Hekr Abu HashimProject aims to improve the poor living conditions, health andhygiene by upgrading sanitation, directly benefiting 250 house-holds at a cost of $37,000, or about $150 a head. In contrast, theEin Helwan Project in Cairo aims to benefit 22,500 inhabitantsby upgrading the environment and improving living conditions.The project includes street cleaning, solid waste collection anddisposal, the covering of drains, planting 10,000 trees, creatinga park/playing area and conducting regular public seminars onenvironmental and hygiene issues, especially for housewivesand mothers—at a cost of $50,000, or $2.20 a head. Such amarked contrast points to the need to be more critical in accept-ing the costs of one or the claimed benefits of the other. Thereasons for accepting a project are likely to go beyond the purelyeconomic, but there is the need to be more precise and torequest more detailed evaluations than most local groups areused to providing. Without such evaluation, much of the hardwork and effort that has gone into many of the LIFE projectsis unlikely to be replicated. Each pilot country is evaluatingsmall projects with a common format and method during phaseIII (1997–2000). These evaluations will be analysed, synthe-sised, documented and disseminated.

33


Notes1. Small Project Summary, Response to Questionnaire,

National Coordinator, LIFE–Pakistan, August 1996.2. Elements of The Egyptian Partnership Experience in

Urban Development, LIFE–Egypt, June 1996.

34


While the focus of LIFE activities is at the country level,LIFE is reinforced and sustained by regional, inter-regional and global partnerships and alliances.

Coordination and cooperation with a network of regional andglobal organisations brings rich variety to LIFE and bolsters theoverall programme.

Regional and inter-regional programmesThe regional and inter-regional programmes of support and col-laboration with networks have spread the message and image ofLIFE faster and more extensively than would have been possi-ble with the national programmes alone (tables 4.1 and 4.2).The majority of the regional and inter-regional organisationswere already committed to approaches similar to LIFE’s, mak-ing collaboration possible to further the objectives and impactof a programme focused on the local level but with national andinternational implications.

The funding provided by the LIFE Programme for docu-mentation, transfers and information dissemination—usuallybetween $30,000 and $90,000 per grant—has been well spentin furthering the LIFE message. By involving the national coor-dinators in these programmes, there has been genuine learningand appreciation at the national level. Such collaborative workis essential to develop a consistent, mutually reinforcingapproach to local area and community development. The work-shops, discussions and exchanges of information and documen-tation through meetings and the media have further spread the

35

c h a p t e r f o u r

LIFE Aroundthe World

message and the impact of LIFE. These exchanges reducetransaction costs because each successful initiative makes it eas-ier for subsequent activities to get support and gain acceptanceas a new way of approaching community issues.

The International Council for Local EnvironmentalInitiatives (ICLEI), an international environmental agency forlocal governments, was established in September 1990 after anextensive consultation with 200 local governments from 43countries. Its main objective is to strengthen the institutionalcapacity of local governments to address local and global envi-ronmental problems. It does this by facilitating the exchange ofinformation and technical assistance among municipalities in itsnetwork. Municipal project consortiums develop new solutionsand approaches to environmental problems, and local govern-ment implementation capabilities are integrated with interna-tional strategies for environmental protection.

ICLEI is conducting the Local Agenda 21 ModelCommunities Programme in Latin America, Asia and Africa,selecting municipalities in these regions to develop their LocalAgenda 21 for sustainable development. LIFE, in its first phase,supported ICLEI in conducting regional workshops inColombia, Thailand and South Africa to initiate the process inselected cities in each region. One innovative tool of this effort,

36


Table 4.1Inter-regional and global partners

Regions Network Project

Asia, Habitat International Promotion of Successful Latin America Coalition (HIC) Technologies in Drinking and Africa Water and Sanitation

Services in Urban SettingsInternational Council for Local Agenda 21 InitiativeLocal Environment Initiatives (ICLEI)

Asia and MegaCities Project Transfer of Solid Waste Arab States Management Innovations

from Cairo to Manila and Bombay

Asia and Asian Coalition for Housing Bombay–South Africa Poor Africa Rights Peoples’ Exchange

Global World Health Organisation Healthy Cities Project

Source: UNDP.

the Strategic Services Planning Framework, addresses many ofthe organisational and institutional problems related to gover-nance and public service delivery. The three guiding principlesare participation, empowerment and partnerships. In its secondphase, LIFE supported ICLEI in conducting a workshop inMwanza, Tanzania, and in producing “Local Agenda 21Network News”, a newsletter to disseminate the lessons in thelocal agenda programme.

The Habitat International Coalition, with 300 CBOs andNGOs as members, has worked with LIFE in the investiga-tion of alternative solutions to community problems. The jointp roject identified 15 part i c i p a t o ry projects in safe drinkingwater and sanitation—four in Africa, four in Asia and seven inLatin America. All the projects involved at least three actorsf rom NGOs, CBOs, local government and international agen-cies. Whether the technology was conventional or altern a t i v edid not matter. Mechanical, technical inputs were not asi m p o rtant as sociological relationships, which were key to thee ffective management and operation of water supply and san-

37

LIFE Around the World

Table 4.2Regional partners

Region Network Project

Africa CASSAD “Africa NGO Network” Workshop

Environmental Development Documentation and Action in the Third World Dissemination of Community-(enda-TM) based Approaches in

West Africa

Asia Asian Coalition for Housing “People’s Plan for the 21st Rights Century”

CITYNET Regional Training Workshop on Waste Water Management

Latin America Habitat International Training and Exchange in Latin Coalition (HIC) America

Arab States Arab Network for Environment Information and Exchange and Development (RAED) NewsletterInternational Union of Local Documentation and Exchange Authorities/ Eastern of Information on Successful Mediterranean and Middle Projects and InstitutionsEast (IULA/EMME)

Source: UNDP.

itation. Job creation and time and money savings had ani m p o rtant impact. Sanitation was seen to be a function ofp o w e r, even in decentralised situations, and the experiencesgained in each of the projects contributed to the understand-ing of political relationships. And water was perceived to benot merely a necessity or a right but a symbol—a major stepin the development process. The coalition is now conductinga second LIFE project in the Latin American region on waterand sanitation.

Environmental Development Action (enda) and otherAfrican NGOs are conducting a regional research-action pro-gramme on local initiatives in eight urban areas in Benin,Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Mali,Niger and Senegal. Despite harsh conditions, thousands of fam-ilies manage to eke out a living, and some families prosper. Howare these cities sustained? Largely by the efforts and initiativesof local communities, and enda is committed to understandinghow these initiatives are organised and managed.

In most African cities NGOs are relatively new. One meansof strengthening them is through exchanging information andadopting local-local dialogues to pave the way for negotiationand cooperation. Recent initiatives include: setting up coopera-tives to reduce the prices of materials in Dakar, Senegal; impro v-

ing the workplaces of market women in Cotonou,Benin; improving methods of waste collection bywomen in Ouagadougou, Burkino Faso; andupgrading a settlement in Bamako, Mali.

These case studies indicate a very importantrelationship between the traditional and themodern. Most communities are ethnic or clan-based, and groups are formed and kept togetherby long-held traditions. For communities to besustainable, they need to be broader based intheir concerns. NGOs are regarded as an integral

part of society, and their staff work as facilitators in discussionswith the community.

One of several regional programmes focusing on the role ofNGOs, the enda/LIFE Programme produced three videos andheld several workshops, including one on community develop-ment in Guinea Bissau. The Habitat II Conference provided anopportunity for networks of NGOs to exchange valuable infor-mation and resources.

38


LIFE national consultation, Senegal

The International Union of Local Authorities (IULA), oper-ating through regional divisions on each continent, is involvedin a wide range of activities, but its main goal is the promotionof local government and democracy. It definesdecentralisation as a process from the municipal-ities to the people, not to the municipalities fromthe people. IULA has long advocated theenabling role of local governments, and the LIFEProgramme provided IULA with an opportunityto also collaborate with NGOs in the Arab Statesregion and in Turkey.

The project supported by LIFE, havingemerged from a roundtable discussion on newmethods of collaboration, consisted of surveyingand documenting the significant extent and strength of NGOsactive in environmental work. The results were published, anda symposium was held in Istanbul to disseminate the findings.The project’s intent was to assist NGOs, but IULA and LIFEbenefited greatly from lessons about alternative forms of oper-ation. IULA is continuing its cooperation with the LIFEProgramme in a new regional project with RAED (see below).

The MegaCities Project is an international network aimed atfinding out what works, providing an information exchange forcities, replicating and transferring experiences and bringingthem to bear on policy formulation.

The inter-regional project funded by LIFE focused on theZabaleen, the rubbish collectors of Cairo, who took three prob-lems (poverty, garbage and dumping places) and developed asolution to tackle them. They introduced a recycling systemwhereby the garbage was collected, sorted, cleaned and trans-formed by backyard industries into paper products, metalobjects and other such items. By adding value to the recyclablematerial, they generated an income to build schools and otherinfrastructure. A literacy programme was an integral part of theproject.

This experience is being transferred through a LIFE projectto Manila and Bombay. MegaCities Project coordinators visitedCairo and later returned with a 12-person team from Manila tostudy the process. They conducted a feasibility study, mobilisedand trained a team to study the composition of garbage and thepossible products that could be produced from it, and ended upwith six community guilds for recycling paper, glass, metals and

39


Members of an environmental awarenessgroup give instruction onhousehold wastetreatment, Pakistan

Cleaning drainage systemOsh, Kyrgyzstan

so on. The local government was initially against the project, butthe regional government managed to fund it through a debt-swapping arrangement, and the project has now been repli-cated in other communities. Bombay has no real system ororganisation of garbage collection. Rag pickers sift through thegarbage, select anything useful and leave the rest strewn aroundthe street. The Municipal Corporation is now keen for theMegaCities Project to help replicate the Zabaleen experiencein Bombay, to see if it can work there.

The MegaCities Project provides five valuable lessons:• Flexibility is a good thing, although NGOs don’t change

as governments do after each election.• Ideas can’t be imposed—they work only if they can be

adopted.• There is no exact replication. Teachers and participants

must learn together as each city has different challenges. Thereneeds to be local-local dialogue since most communities do nottrust “outsiders”.

• Seeing is believing. Although reading about a project ishelpful, it is better to see it.

• Transfers within neighbourhoods and across citiesencourage collaboration since many issues are common.

The Healthy Cities programme was designed to introducehealth awareness and education to people at work, in their

homes, at schools and in the market-place. SinceApril 1995 the World Health Organisation(WHO) and LIFE, with the support of the DutchGovernment, have collaborated to illustrate thisconcept in five cities. In Quetta, Pakistan, theprocess has been introduced in work groupsaround specific issues in workplaces and inschools, and the university is identifying health-housing links. In Cox’s Bazaar, Bangladesh, thefocus is on tourism. In Managua, Nicaragua, 40NGOs are involved. In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania,

the focus is on consciousness-raising. In Fayoum, Egypt, theprogramme includes activities in both urban and ruralcommunities.

The regional and global impact of the Healthy Cities pro-gramme is felt in the way health issues—particularly the admin-istration of health programmes—are viewed by the WorldHealth Organisation and by national governments.

40


CITYNET, the Regional Network of Local Authorities forthe management of human settlements, is a network of localurban governments, development authorities, and non-govern-mental organisations in the Asia-Pacific region. Its mission is toact as a facilitator at the regional level to promote the exchangeof expertise, information and experience among its 90 mem-bers. The objectives of CITYNET are to strengthen the capac-ities of local governments to manage the urban developmentprocess and to develop partnerships among the various actorsat the local level, specifically among local authorities and NGOs.The goal is to create people friendly cities that are socially just,ecologically sustainable, politically participatory, economicallyproductive and culturally vibrant.

In its first collaborative venture with LIFE, CITYNETorganised a regional training workshop in Sri Lanka on waste-water management, aimed at an exchange of knowledge andinformation between localities in the region and targetedtowards personnel in charge of city sewerage departments.Under a two-year collaboration programme, other workshopsare planned on Community-based Housing Finance (Metro-Manila), Community-based Infrastructure Development(Orangi, Karachi), Gender-aware Planning, NGO-local author-ity cooperation, and the media in urban environment projects.

The Asia Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR)—a regionalNGO network, in cooperation with two national NGOs, SPARCin India and People’s Dialogue in South Africa, is collaboratingwith LIFE on the South Africa–India Poor People’s ExchangeProgramme. Legal and financial arrangements are coordinatedby ACHR in Bangkok, with project implementation by all fourorganisations. The target cities are Bombay, India andJohannesburg, South Africa. The primary objectives are to doc-ument and disseminate information on the three-year experi-mental dialogue and training exchanges between twocommunity shelter projects on different continents. Thisexchange and cross-fertilisation of ideas and solutions providesa learning environment to generate new and creative solutions.The main goal of the programme is to share at all levels—local,national and international—the ways in which poor communi-ties undertake successful development on their own and toencourage community members to exchange ideas. The docu-mentation of the exchanges is being published for distribu-tion—and produced for radio in India, South Africa, the United

41


Solid waste collection, Rio, Brazil

Kingdom (BBC), the United States (public radio) and severalother developing countries. Earlier, LIFE provided support fora regional conference—”People’s Plan for the 21st Century”—organised by ACHR.

The Arab Network for Environment and Development(RAED), founded in 1991 in Cairo and now a network of morethan 100 NGOs from all over the Middle East, gathers, dis-seminates and exchanges regional and inter-regional data onenvironmental and development problems. It also mobilisesgrass-roots efforts and ensures equitable information sharingand participatory planning methods. With LIFE Programmesupport, RAED cooperated with IULA to prepare a regionalworkshop in Istanbul on 27–28 June 1995 that focused on urbanenvironmental projects involving the joint efforts of communi-ties, NGOs and local governments.

RAED joined IULA–EMME for phase II of the LIFEProgramme in the Middle East to implement several new ele-ments of the programme as outlined in the Global AdvisoryCommittee Report, Cairo 1995, including systemic monitoringand assessment of small projects and documentation and dis-semination of lessons. The organisations will also strengthencollaboration with other programmes of bilateral and multilat-eral donor agencies, NGO networks and cities’ associations.RAED’s involvement in this collaboration greatly extends theoutreach of phase II activities to include the many NGOs affil-iated with RAED throughout the Arab world. RAED is man-aging the publication of a quarterly newsletter covering LIFEactivities, promoting the LIFE methodology and sharing andexchanging experience in the region. IULA–EMME is pro-moting the LIFE method and the exchange of experience andinformation in the region by organising a second regionalworkshop.

RAED in collaboration with IULA is managing the publica-tion and distribution of quarterly reports on LIFE Programmeactivities in Arabic and English in six countries—Egypt, Jordan,Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia and Yemen. IULA then translatesthese newsletters into Turkish for distribution in Turkey andKyrgyzstan. IULA has also published the Middle East LocalEnvironment Monitor in collaboration with LIFE as an inven-tory of the Urban Environmental NGOs in the six MiddleEastern countries. This widely used directory helps promoteNGO collaboration with local authorities and governments.

42


The Centre for African Settlement Studies and Development(CASSAD) is a regional NGO engaged in the development ofenvironmental indicators (criteria for measurement) through ajoint effort involving researchers, policymakers and grassrootsNGOs and CBOs. CASSAD recently hosted with LIFE supporta post-Habitat II workshop in Nigeria, bringing togetherAfrican NGOs, NGO networks, donors and development agen-cies (all from Sub-Saharan Africa) and LIFE Programme coor-dinators (Senegal, South Africa and Tanzania) to discussstrategies for implementing the recommendations fromHabitat II.

The global learning cultureThe global impact of the LIFE Programme reflects the powerof dialogue and participation in project planning, evaluation andassessments and of collaborative approaches among the manyplayers engaged in its implementation. Through the GlobalAdvisory Committee meetings, the LIFE national coordinators’annual meetings and regional and inter-regional workshops, theongoing programme is guided by a continuous participatoryprocess of planning, implementation and evaluation involvingits global partners. Through this participatory approach, theLIFE Programme has developed a built-in learning culture.The numerous informal exchanges of information and experi-ence between the global players build new alliances and coali-tions to support the LIFE method.

The many meetings and exchanges of information betweenLIFE’s global players are documented in published materials,which are building a significant bibliography ofexperience. With the dissemination of these doc-uments, programme participants and others con-cerned with LIFE’s purposes and results will beable to promote and encourage dialogue andlearning in other communities.

While quantitative accomplishments may bei m p ressive, even more critical is what is beingl e a rned about the LIFE approach and how thep rogramme is implemented within each country.How do countries learn from each others’ successes and mis-takes? What aspects of LIFE should be institutionalised at thec o u n t ry level? How can UNDP and the larger developmentcommunity benefit from the mainstreaming of LIFE’s part i c i-

43


LIFE National Coordinators at an internationalworkshop, United Nations,New York, January 1996

LIFE National Coordinators at an internationalworkshop, United Nations,New York, January 1996

p a t o ry local-local dialogue method? Four mechanisms for sus-taining a continuous learning process have been used so far.

External evaluations. The first independent evaluation ofthe LIFE Programme from September 1992–September 1994,conducted in April 1995, concluded that “LIFE offers a state ofthe art response to urban environmental management needs”.The report also stated that the “first two years of implementa-tion have validated the programme’s rationale and established

conditions for the expansion and consolidation ofactivities”. The evaluation highlighted LIFE’spotential in “integrating policy dialogue, advo-cacy and participatory implementation dynam-ics” and “disseminating substantive impacts andmethodologies to a wide range of users”. It rec-ommended steps to establish the link betweenmicro-level initiatives and macro-level policy,including stronger monitoring and evaluation ofsmall projects. In addition, the report suggestedthat resources be earmarked for capacity-build-

ing in the areas of project design, budget management, negoti-ation and monitoring and evaluation. The main findings andrecommendations were incorporated into the phase II strate-gies and the phase III design.

National consultants have completed evaluations of LIFE inBrazil, Egypt, Jamaica, Pakistan and Thailand. An externalassessment of LIFE Thailand by Sida has also contributed tothe learning process. And in September 1996 an analyticalreport, completed at the request of Sida and DGIS, providedmajor insights into how to implement phase III. It also servedas the basis for this publication.

Annual internal reviews by LIFE national coordinators.Four global internal reviews have been held—August 1994,January 1996, June 1996 and January 1997. In these meetingsthe national coordinators report on the status of their country-level activities, including projects, local-local dialogues, policydialogues, resource mobilisation and institutionalisation. Eachcoordinator shares lessons and keys to success. The nationalcoordinators, along with the global coordinator and the projectmanagement officer for UNOPS, discuss strategies for thefuture of the LIFE Programme, incorporating them into mid-

44


course corrections for phase II and the preparations for phaseIII. These reviews are supplemented by quarterly and annualprogress reports by each national coordinator.

Annual global advisory committee (GAC) workshops. ThreeGAC workshops have been held, the first in Stockholm in 1994,hosted by Sida, and the second in Cairo in 1995. The third washeld in June 1996 in Istanbul as an aspect of LIFE Programmeparticipation in Habitat II. The workshops document lessonsand strategic plans of action, and the recommendations arisingfrom each of them are incorporated into the planning for thenext phase. The 1997 meeting will be held in Tanzania.

International workshop on participatory local governance.In February 1996 at the UN in New York, 43 representatives ofregional and inter-regional NGOs and city associations, relatedUN agencies, mayors and central government representatives,and LIFE national coordinators and global technical advisorystaff exchanged experiences and explored strategies for extend-ing and transferring their successes in participatory environ-mental initiatives that address urban poverty. Relevantrecommendations from that workshop were incorporated intophase III.

The financing strategy and results UNDP has worked with four bilateral donor agencies to usecost-sharing, trust funds and parallel financing modalities asstrategies to finance the LIFE Programme: • The Netherlands, DGIS (Ministry of Foreign Affairs)—cost-sharing• Sweden, Sida (Swedish International DevelopmentCooperation Agency)—cost-sharing• Denmark, DANCED (Ministry of the Environment andEnergy)—trust fund• Germany, GTZ (Deutsche Gesellschaft für TechnischeZusammenarbeit)—parallel financingThis strategy, when first employed five years ago to initiate theLIFE Programme, had little track record at UNDPHeadquarters and was still considered an emerging strategy tocompensate for diminishing core resources. LIFE has thusbeen a laboratory for demonstrating the potential for buildingeffective and efficient development partnerships at the global,

45


Replenishing fish stock through marine education,Mexilhão Rio project, Brazil

regional and country levels—and for attracting local govern-ments and UNDP country offices in cost-shared developmentefforts. The LIFE Finance Report—prepared for the bilateralcost-sharing partners and UNDP—summarises bilateral part-ner and UNDP contributions and expenditures, documentingthe significant levels of funds leveraged through parallel financ-ing and country-level inputs.

In each of the 12 countries where LIFE currently operates,project expenditures do not exceed allocated budgets. Some$3.6 million—or 64 percent of the total—have been directlyallocated to the 12 countries. Of the UNDP/cost-sharing fundsallocated at the country level, 71 percent is for grants to localactors. Ten international NGO networks and cities’ associationshave received LIFE regional and inter-regional grants for doc-umentation, transfers and interchange of local initiatives thatcomplement or directly support LIFE country initiatives. Forthis, some $993,000—17 percent of the total—have been allo-cated. Combined with direct country-level allocations, this

means that 81 percent of all UNDP/cost-sharingfunds have been allocated to country, regionaland inter-regional programme activities. To coverglobal technical support costs, $1 million hasbeen allocated for all aspects of substantive andoperational support of the LIFE Programme—less than 19 percent of total cost-sharing alloca-tions of $7 million.

The amount of parallel financing and country -level inputs LIFE has leveraged is large. Anadditional $4.1 million of non-UNDP core / c o s t -

sharing funds have gone directly into country grants with a totalof $11.2 million allocated to LIFE Programme activities. Thismeans that the $2.3 million of grant funds from UNDP and thebilateral cost-sharing partners for small projects has leveraged183 percent of additional funds, for a grand total of $6.4 mil-lion for the small pro j e c t s .

Leveraging fundsSeveral fiscal accomplishments show the tremendous potentialthat LIFE Programme activities have for leveraging fundsthrough its financing strategy. In Brazil an input of $220,000leveraged an additional $660,000—or more than 300 percentabove the initial input. These funds came from government and

46


private sources in response to the urban environmental projectproposals. In Thailand parallel financing from GTZ ($365,000),the Asia Pacific 2000 ($60,000) and DANCED ($400,000) morethan tripled the core resource/cost-sharing inputs. In Colombia$90,000 in community contributions in manpower, tools andpayment have been directed towards 13 urban environmentprojects. In Pakistan the UNDP country office committed $3million for development of the programme for LivelihoodImprovements in Urban Settlements (PLUS) to build on theLIFE method and small project success. Also in Pakistan a pro-posal to the Japanese government is being considered to takethe initial LIFE environmental projects to scale, demonstratinghow successful small ventures can, if closely monitored andevaluated, significantly influence the policy dialogue and plan-ning for sustainable human development. When the results ofa successful venture are disseminated throughout a country, asthey were in Pakistan, the record of success can be a basis forscaling up an approach and attracting significant inputs to coun-try-level development.

47


The most obvious strength of the LIFE Programme is theparticipatory processes it introduces and supports at everylevel of operation. The notions of participation and inclu-

siveness are built in from the very earliest stages, starting withthe national consultations and extending to the processes ofproject design, implementation and evaluation. Since the initi-ation of the LIFE method, other strengths have emerged, andthe programme has successfully capitalised upon them. Butsome constraints to the method will pose a challenge to LIFEparticipants in the last phase of the programme.

Strengths of the method

Participation. In many ways, participation is the main distin-guishing feature of the LIFE Programme. Other programmesand methods share the objectives of urban environmentalupgrading through community-based action, and many pro-mote participatory processes. But few incorporate participatoryprocesses that are vertically as well as horizontally integrating.In many other programmes to improve local conditions, “par-ticipation” is limited—seen only as a mechanism for involvingthe “beneficiaries” of the project. This limitation is due to thepolicies of the organisations and agencies that initiate the pro-gramme and the overarching implementation process.

One notable achievement of the LIFE Programme has beenits ability to develop and demonstrate a method that overcomessuch limitation. The programme aims to build positive, mutu-

48

c h a p t e r f i v e

LIFE’sParticipatoryProcess

ally beneficial relationships by providing the opportunity forgovernment, civil society organisations, the private sector andcommunity members to work together in a non-confrontationalsetting.

Partnership. Although it may be easier to encourage aweaker party to seek dialogue and accommodation with astronger party, the LIFE process has been successful in over-coming the reluctance of those in power to negotiate. This hasbeen achieved by identifying and working with each local actor’sstrengths and weaknesses. By capitalising on each entity’sstrengths, an effective partnership can develop in which bothparties gain.

The notion of partnerships is built into the programme atevery step, even in the funding structure. Funding a projectbecomes virtually impossible without collaboration and part-nership with other local, provincial or regional sources of fund-ing and support.

Local-local dialogue. The method of “local-local dialogue”used by the programme to bring together the various stake-holders is a powerful tool for project identification, problem-solving, monitoring and implementation. It provides anefficient channel of communication and decision-making—andis an effective means for instilling a sense of “ownership” in theproject. Local-local dialogue also provides an opportunity forunderstanding the needs and limitations of each party by bring-ing the users and providers of urban services together. And itfosters long-term relationships that are useful beyond the LIFEprojects. But there is a minor risk within the programme thatevery meeting or workshop will be treated as if it were a “local-local dialogue”. This could weaken what is currently the mostpowerful and effective tool. It could also lessen the impact ofthe process if organisations and agencies feel that local-localdialogue is merely a different name for a meeting.

The upstream-downstream-upstream approach. The three-step upstream-downstream-upstream process contributes tothe greater influence and impact of the projects beyond thecommunities they serve. The projects have been rightly termed“policy experiments” through which the participatory processof tackling local environmental improvement and participatory

49

LIFE’s Participatory Process

Planting trees in Senegal

local governance can be tested and demonstrated. Theupstream-downstream-upstream cycle ensures that projectimpact is not simply measured in visible environmental terms.The dynamism of the programme lies with a process that beginswith “upstream” initiatives and continues “downstream” with

project implementation, then resumes“upstream” through policy dialogues with gov-ernment, the private sector, NGOs and CBOs.

By involving re p resentatives from CBOs,NGOs, the private sector and local, provincial andcentral government in all phases of project devel-o p m e n t — f rom the national consultation work-shops and the national selection committees tofinal policy formulation—a whole range of actorsis brought together to work towards a commongoal. Working together in the non-hostile contextof a workshop (particularly one that is based oninteractive part i c i p a t o ry methods) allows for thedevelopment of better understanding and appre-

ciation of alternative points of view and the possibility of betterworking relationships and alliances beyond the workshop itself.

Replicating and sustaining LIFE at the local level. The smallamounts that the programme allocates for each project (an aver-age of about $20,000, with a maximum of $50,000) is an incentivefor the national selection committee and the national coord i n a t o rto seek collaborative partnerships. The size of the grants keeps thefocus of the projects firmly on the process—since the money is nots u fficient to seduce the participation of the larger (intern a t i o n a l )NGOs. This also allows smaller, local NGOs to part i c i p a t e — a n dgives CBOs the chance to take on the management and adminis-trative roles. The financial commitments are also within the capac-ity of most local governments and there f o re amenable toincorporation in future development budgets. In demonstratingwhat is possible with relatively small funds and a decentralised,p a rt i c i p a t o ry process of local governance, the funding role ofUNDP and other external donors in the LIFE Programme couldv e ry easily be replicated and taken over by local agencies and gov-e rnments to enlarge or extend the programme.

Donor participation and experimental learning. Unlikemany other development assistance programmes that come

50


Affordable urban sanitationproject, Quetta, Pakistan

with pre-designed, ready-to-assemble projects, the LIFEmethod has been designed to elicit local responses to local prob-lems. While the programme has its own methods and guidelineson a number of issues and actions, the actual projects are seenas the “policy experiments” to demonstrate, test and elaborateon the methodological framework. In such an approach, thedonors become genuine participants too—learning from thefeedback of the design and implementation of the projectswithin the LIFE Programme. The idea of starting with a “pilot”programme, initiated in seven countries and then extended tofive more through “learning by doing” is also an integral part ofthis participatory learning process.

The LIFE Programme is further strengthened by havingmultiple donor participation, and the donors (includingDenmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden) contributeto and learn from the LIFE experiences. Through regional andinter-regional partnerships, other development agencies andinstitutions also learn from the policy experiments of the LIFEProgramme. The programme is thus enriched and reaches outfurther than if it had the participation of only one donor or didnot involve other development institutions.

Combining process with solutions. The introduction of theLIFE method and process to the participating countries and insti-tutions has been coupled with designing responses to local issues.Within the overall ambit of environmental upgrad-ing and improvement, each project is proposed bya community to respond to one or more issuesincluding waste management, water and sanitation,p r i m a ry health care and environmental education.In developing projects that solve local pro b l e m s ,the community and other partners in the LIFEP rogramme become acquainted with the pro c e s sas well. Feedback from the policy experimentsi n f o rms policy within and between countries.E x p o s u re to the LIFE process as it applies to envi-ronmental issues enables communities to extend the scope of theiractivities and to apply the lessons of participation, partnership andlocal-local dialogue to other areas and issues.

Holistic, multi-sectoral approach. The LIFE Programmedeliberately chose environmental issues as its point of entry to

51


deal with visible and tangible problems that affected wholecommunities and that could best be tackled through collectiverather individual action. Poverty, one of the underlying causesof environmental degradation, is simultaneously tackled—either directly through the creation of employment andincome-earning opportunities or indirectly through reductionsin the costs of infrastructure and health care brought about bysafer environmental conditions. Concern for gender equity andpromoting the role of women is also an integral part of the LIFEProgramme. The programme uses an inclusive method so thatwhole communitites can participate in identifying a commu-nity’s development needs.

Visible results through local projects. The LIFE process andmethodology uses the local environment as its entry point foraction on issues that can be tackled visibly and resolved tangi-bly. Improved drainage, sanitation or refuse collection have animmediate impact on the environment of a locality, and findingsuccessful solutions to these fundamental problems builds thecommunity’s confidence in effecting further change.

Local problems demand local solutions: the LIFEProgramme empowers everyone with a stake in the communityto get involved and accept responsibility for a part of the pro-ject. At the same time, the partner organisations and institutions

participating in the process can see an immediatereturn on their investment and can use thelessons of these local projects to extend theapproach to other localities.

Decentralised structure. The decentralisedstructure of the LIFE Programme allows forwork to be undertaken simultaneously in a num-ber of localities within a settlement or in differ-ent settlements in the country. The process doesnot get bogged down in constraints and bottle-

necks from a lack of decision-making personnel. It also permitsdifferent localities and communities to use variations that arebest suited to their circumstances. This is incorporated in theLIFE method at all stages from the initial problem identifica-tion through implementation.

LIFE operations are decentralised within UNDP as well. Infact, the programme as a whole is decentralised to the country

52


Women clearing new community drainagesystem, Hanna Nassif, Dares Salaam, Tanzania

Teaching about recyclable waste materials, Pakistan

and local levels, with UNDP Headquarters playing an enablingrather than a decision-making role. Over 75 percent of total LIFEallocations are given to country- and local-level activities; globaltechnical support costs re p resent only 19 percent of total alloca-tions. The straightforw a rd and effective division of operations isat the core of LIFE’s success. The country office is re s p o n s i b l efor implementation at the country level, backstopped by theglobal coordinator in the Bureau for Policy and Pro g r a m m eS u p p o rt (BPPS) and by UNOPS. The responsibility for day-to-day project management and monitoring is shared by the LIFEnational coordinator and the country office, with technical sup-p o rt provided by the national coordinator and the national selec-tion committee within the country of implementation.

Reliance on local expertise. By focusing on local issues relat-ing to the environment and using a decentralised participatoryprocess, the LIFE methodology encourages the use of localsolutions to local problems. The project planning and prepara-tion strategies of LIFE make concerted efforts to involve abroad-based group of stakeholders with a view to designing aproject to be implemented at the community level. As an inter-regional project, LIFE has been successful in devising from theonset a practical implementation framework to adapt to coun-tries that differ greatly in their political, socio-cultural and eco-nomic circumstances. This flexible approach results in thealmost exclusive reliance on local and national expertise—rather than international consultants—to develop and devisesolutions. This keeps costs down, builds local capacity and capa-bility and increases the confidence and self-reliance of the com-munity—with obvious implications for replicating andsustaining the process over time.

Regular exchanges and discussions between the nationalc o o rdinators and others involved in the programme creates aconstant flow of information and knowledge about lessons fro mlocal to national and international participants. These contactsalso help identify needs for training and expertise that can befilled by limited international technical assistance or consul-tancies that may be re q u i red to fill gaps locally. LIFE has builta set of mechanisms into the core of its operations to link allactors through ongoing consultations and participation. LIFEdemonstrates the way in which globally based programmes canbuild a foundation at the level of local communities and com-

53


munity organisations while also establishing two-way linkagesto the national and global levels—in a part i c i p a t o ry and cost-e ffective way.

Constraints of the methodThere are limitations in the LIFE Programme method thatneed to be analysed and addressed. Many constraints are aresult of operating in an environment still engaged in more con-ventional projects and approaches. The stage of the develop-ment of the local authorities and of the NGO sector and thereadiness of the CBOs to get involved, the status of the socio-political situation, the shape of the private sector and estab-lished institutions—all profoundly affect the ability to introducethe programme through local-local dialogue. LIFE provides amechanism for internalisation of a style of inter-institutionalbehaviour of participation and partnership, but each countryuses the process differently.

In some cases, the effective participation of CBOs and pri-vate sector entities in national selection committees and in pro-ject implementation has been rather limited. Interaction withCBOs is likely to be restricted by the short time-lines of LIFEprojects (most do not exceed one year), which do not allow ade-quate time to develop the appropriate resources or institutionalinfrastructure to implement the method optimally. In other sit-uations, the LIFE Programme is helping to sustain strugglingCBOs and even helping to create new CBOs and NGOs. WhereCBOs and NGOs are independent of the local power struc-tures, they may have difficulties in continuing after their directinvolvement with the LIFE Programme comes to an end. Butthey may also be able to demonstrate their utility and effec-tiveness so that communities will want to continue to operatewith them, regardless of, or even in despite of, the local powerstructures.

Governmental and non-governmental organisations While the LIFE methodology requires the involvement ofnational and local governments to operate in partnership withNGOs and CBOs, the relative involvement of these organisa-tions varies from country to country. In some countries, such asPakistan, the local government structure is fairly weak. In oth-ers local government officials tend to be unsympathetic towardsthe LIFE methodology and approach. The result is that part-

54


Group discussion and slideshow of LIFE communityprojects, Pakistan

nerships are often led and dominated by the NGOs and, to alesser extent, by the CBOs.

In some instances, the local government component may bed o rmant or merely nominal. In others, government depart m e n t sa re still understaffed and do not have the capacity to get involvedin what are seen as “additional” duties and re s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .Often, their training and experience does not encourage themto engage in dialogue with communities, especially if the com-munities are made up of poor or “illegal” settlements. The LIFEP rogramme could thus end up becoming a NGO/CBO pro-gramme rather than a partnership involving all sectors, asintended. In many instances, however, as in Tanzania, the re s u l t sf rom implementing and operating the LIFE method are help-ing to convince governments that a govern m e n t - c o m m u n i t yp a rtnership can be more productive and more effective, gradu-ally converting them to support partnerships.

Geographic spread and focusJust as the LIFE Programme was introduced to seven selectedpilot countries and then extended to another five, selectiveintroduction and expansion has been part of theLIFE method. While this has advantages infocusing efforts and concentrating resources in afew countries and a few cities rather than dis-persing the limited funds in a greater geographicarea, there are problems in this approach.Limiting the programme geographically posesproblems of both testing and demonstration,especially for larger countries such as Egypt andPakistan. Given large variations across countries,a limited geographic concentration does not per-mit nationally applicable conclusions. Nor does it mean themessage “doing by seeing” will be applicable to many partici-pants.

But if the programme is spread too thinly in too many loca-tions, it is more difficult to control quality or even to providesupport. The establishment of the programme in 28 towns andcities across Thailand, and the logistics of setting up and moni-toring those sites, have put stress on the national coordinator.There must be a balance between limiting the number of pro-jects to allow for adequate management and encouragingenough projects to use the experience and lessons to tailor the

55


programme to fit national needs. Countries must be able toadapt the programme to respond to specific problems withouteliminating or weakening the method and its backstopping andsupport measures.

Scaling upAlthough the LIFE Programme and method was introduced asa pilot in a small number of countries and cities, it was alwaysenvisaged that, if successful, it would be scaled up and usedthroughout entire countries and extended to many others.Guidelines and procedures to map this course of expansion arenot in place but will be developed as more is learned about thestrengths and constraints of the LIFE method in each country.As the LIFE Programme is scaled up, the process and methodwill be put to new tests. As a limited programme, it was “pro-tected” from some of the pressures that inevitably arise in coun-tries where not as much time or attention is paid to how andwith whom LIFE operates. In places where the people whobenefit from the status quo are challenged and their power baseis threatened, the programme is bound to meet resistance.

I ro n i c a l l y, the success of the LIFE Programme is cre a t i n gp re s s u re to extend and scale up the programme nationally andi n t e rn a t i o n a l l y. If these pre s s u res are not addressed, the scalingup process may be initiated before the programme is ready for it.But if the programme does not respond fast enough, it may be“hijacked”, and hybrid models may emerge that do not ade-quately re flect LIFE’s objectives or pro fit from its experiences.

56


The goal of the LIFE Programme—the criterion for its suc-cess—is for its process and method to be mainstreamedby the donor community and institutionalised in develop-

ing country policies and structures. LIFE starts as a process toaddress local urban environmental improvements through par-ticipatory local governance. But it is adapted to address otherissues, such as access to health services, education, the role ofwomen in communities and the development of income-gen-erating activities. In seeking to mainstream and institutionaliseLIFE, the concern is to have its objectives and intentions bepart of development strategies—not to merely use the nomen-clature and administrative structures to meet very differentobjectives.

This is ambitious, since the proposition is to change what isdone for local urban environmental improvements, the way itis done and who is involved in doing it. Furthermore, once theapproaches promoted by LIFE are incorporated, they leave lit-tle room for carrying on business as before: in other words, it isunlikely that traditional ways of approaching local urbanimprovement can coexist with LIFE methodologies.

It is not an impossible task to generate new ideas and intro-duce new governance structures while keeping aspects of theold system intact. A good example of this is the “sites and ser-vices” approach advocated by the World Bank in the 1970s. Theessence of the approach—which provided plots of serviced landinstead of ready-built housing units—was neither invented bynor unique to the World Bank. But by coining a name for it and

57

c h a p t e r s i x

LIFE’s Long-termImpact

Community participation in project design andmanagement, Pakistan

associating itself almost exclusively with the approach, asopposed to any other housing approach (such as pre-fabrica-tion, core-housing, multi-storey flats or mass-housing), theBank popularised and spread the sites and services approachacross the developing world. This was done to such an extentthat it sometimes appeared that any other form of housing pro-

vision undertaken by other aid agencies, as wellas by national governments and housing agencies,required an explanation if not an apology. Thoughthe Bank has stopped advocating sites and ser-vices for more than a decade, the term and theprocess are still current and dominant.

At its height, the sites and services approachwas backed by millions of dollars in projectfinance, which in turn leveraged more than 10times as much from national governments andprivate financial sources. Can the LIFE

Programme achieve anything like the dominance of the sitesand services approach through a pilot programme with very lim-ited project funds and a method that requires considerableaccommodation by vested interests? On the implications formainstreaming, it is essentially local and national governmentactions and reactions that will be critical.

GovernanceFor governments and their agencies the implications of a switchfrom conventional to LIFE-like approaches can be summarisedin four inter-related issues, each concerned with “who governs”:

C o n t rol. The LIFE approach often leads to a reduction inc o n t rol over policy and decision-making by government, and ac o rresponding increase in control by civil society. This is likelyto affect centralised governments since it implies allowing awider audience to play an active role in governance pro c e s s e s .As long as LIFE is seen to be a minor and marginal operation,this may not be an issue. But as the programme becomes insti-tutionalised, its method could be seen as a direct threat and chal-lenge to government authority. To limit hostile reactions, it isi m p o rtant that the process be presented as sharing re s p o n s i b i l-ities and reducing the workload and burden for govern m e n t ,rather than as a loss of power or prestige. Indeed, it might helpto show that in sharing responsibilities, LIFE partners share in

58


accepting blame and criticism for problems with the pro-gramme, relieving the government of its constituent complaints.

Agenda. The LIFE approach shifts problem-solving from anagency-centric definition of problems towards a community-based definition. Agencies traditionally have prescribed man-dates—specified areas of operations and imposedbudgets—and are reluctant to initiate action in areas outsidetheir immediate concern. Collaborative work with outsideorganisations is seen as more work because it means goingbeyond the prescribed agency mandate. LIFE’s incrementalapproach—where dialogue and interaction gradually lead tocollaborative problem-solving—is an antidote to governmentreluctance to work in partnership with other organisations(table 6.1).

Returns. A LIFE approach leads to a reduction of quick-fixprojects in favour of longer term programmes. Developmentprojects traditionally have been neatly packaged to allow foreasier control, and they were often timed to evolve within thetime frames of incumbent administrations. With a more pro-gramme-oriented approach that at its core is a process of pro-ject management, it is not as easy to determine how specificinputs affect a project. Nor is it clear when “results” of the pro-gramme are evident. This makes it more difficult to claim creditfor, and thereby “own”, a particular project or series of projects.This change in metaphorical “ownership” will require all par-ties involved—from the politicians, to the electorate, to thedevelopment agencies—to shift their ideas of governance andrecast their roles in the community.

Empowerment. The LIFE approach is likely to reducereliance on government and increase self-sufficiency—movingfrom enablement to empowerment. This may be viewed bylocal and national government bureaucrats as a loss of power ifgovernance is seen as a zero sum game. Dialogue is needed toassure vested interests that, through sharing responsibilitiesand encouraging participatory intervention, much more can beachieved by all parties, for all parties.

A good illustration of the sorts of problems faced by a pro-gramme like LIFE is in the national consultant’s re p o rt commis-sioned after the Moroccan Exploratory Mission. The national

59

LIFE’s Long-term Impact

consultant was not able to meet with any re p resentatives ofNGOs, CBOs or local government and found it “difficult to makeany definite conclusion about the necessary conditions for theoperation of the LIFE Programme in Morocco”. The consultantw rote: “The local authorities are reluctant to cooperate with anyassociation that would seem to create an interface with the peo-ple. Similarly they do not seem to be in favour of the institution-alisation of such groups formed for a particular project. Furt h e r,local authorities do not usually consider close cooperation withthe community as an efficient development service but rather asa sign of under- d e v e l o p m e n t . . . . In fact, the cooperation

60


Table 6.1Agency approach versus LIFE approach

Conventional, LIFE approach Considerations Aspect agency approacha and method and implications

Programme Agency uses consultants to National Consultation includes Brings public-private-NGO formulation shape agency’s mandate and dialogue and open-forum sectors together to formulate

formulate programme exchange of ideas. “government” policy and recommendations. programme

Problem Agency uses “information” from Community, with CBO or NGO Community determines terms identification community surveys to determine assistance, uses local-local of reference and the resulting

problems. dialogue to identify problems. project may not be restricted to the originating agency's remit.

Project Agency, using consultants and Community members, using CBO Community becomes the formulation other professionals, sets project or NGO assistance, dialogues client/owner of project and

parameters. with local, municipal, provincial the judge of its success.groups.

Project Agency, using contractor. Coordinated action by multiple Complex coordination and implementation actors, sectors. management requirements.

Project Agency evaluates contractor's Community evaluates project and Standardisation across monitoring performance. determines future action. projects becomes difficult. and evaluation

Role Finite set of actions, culminating Actions aimed at initiating policy Projects become less of project in an end product. dialogue and change. important, agencies unable

to claim successes.

Project- Rarely built into project design. Projects seen as “policy Need for an on-going policy links Usually policy formulation and experiments”, used to inform debate to use feedback from

p roject design and implementa- and support policy change. projects to formulate policy.tion done by separate bodies.

a. AGENCY is used as a synonym for government ministry, municipality, public or private institution, non-governmental organisationand the like.Source: UNDP.

Sanitation and water project, Senegal

between NGOs and the local authorities is almost non-existent . . .Rather than the planned partnerships, more vertical org a n i s a t i o nis favoured. The ‘immaturity’ of the population is the more re c u r-rent remark about the implementation of the (LIFE)P rogramme.” As a result of the re p o rt, the initiation of the LIFEP rogramme in Morocco has been delayed. The UNDP FieldO ffice in Morocco believes that there is a role for LIFE inM o rocco, and in 1997 it began eff o rts to re i n t roduce it.

The first step in confronting these attitudes and resolvingthese issues, as LIFE recognises, is to increase dialogue andinteraction. LIFE needs to continue to use its fora—especiallythe national consultations—to begin to prepare the groundmore actively for the shift in public opinion required in manycountries. The small projects should be used more explicitly as“policy experiments” to build confidence through demonstrat-ing the efficacy of using the LIFE approach and method and toextend the dialogue and debate towards more inclusive, partic-ipatory governance and human resource development.

Country storiesSo, how far has LIFE come in mainstreaming and institution-alising the programme in the countries in which it operates?Much remains to be done in carrying forward the innovativeapproaches and cooperative processes gained at the micro levelinto policy formulation and institutional building at the mesoand macro levels. It must be stressed that mainstreaming andinstitutionalising the LIFE method requires along time. Enlarging the programme must beviewed as a progression contingent upon the suc-cesses and dissemination of best practices of aseries of local initiatives—the emphasis of phaseIII for 1997–2000.

Although it is too soon to expect LIFE to havebeen institutionalised at the national level, therea re indications that LIFE has moved the pro c e s sof part i c i p a t o ry local governance in the rightd i rection, even if much of the pro g r a m m e ’simpact is limited to the organisations and institutions with whichit has had direct contact. This is evident in the collective ideasand collaboration on improving the urban environment. Still,most of the impact has been limited to UNDP field offices, theg r a n t - receiving NGOs and CBOs and some local authorities.

61


The following country profiles show how the challenges ofmainstreaming and institutionalising LIFE differ in each regionand yet many of the problems and issues surrounding scaling upthe programme are shared by countries—regardless of culturaland institutional differences. All quotations are from responsesof national coordinators to a programme questionnaire.

Brazil. In the words of the Brazilian national coordinator:“My impression is that LIFE really makes a difference when ithighlights the crucial importance of participatory process (part-nership is the buzz word here). Also I believe that the conceptof ‘community enterprise’ as an evolution of the traditional pro-ject vision is really innovative. However, I think that we still haveto reach a more mature phase so that we can claim that we havesomething really tangible working. Having completed the pilotcases, we can start discussing in-depth, larger partnerships,including those with the mainstream private sector.” CurrentlyLIFE in Brazil has leveraged some $630,000 from private sec-tor sources emphasising its enterprise concept, and the gov-ernment and UNDP in Brazil are considering making LIFE anongoing country programme.

Colombia. “LIFE has been successful in providing techni-cal assistance and training activities which resulted in the selec-tion of 13 small projects. Three of these projects have beenfunded, and some 70 workshops and policy dialogues have beenheld involving 1,050 participants from public sector ministries,universities and the private sector. There are plans for a policydialogue workshop in Cartagena, a partnership with localauthorities in Riohacha and an information and shared-experi-ence session with the mayor of Barranquilla.”

Continuing the education workshops and introducing aneducation campaign to enlist the private sector in the pro-gramme are important to mainstreaming and institutionalisingthe LIFE process. LIFE–Colombia is hoping to put in place anew citizen culture, which must include consciousness-raisingof the rights and responsibilities of community members. Withthese rights come obligations, and LIFE must design a consul-tative plan to introduce the concept of shared responsibility forthe projects identified as community initiatives. To dateLIFE–Colombia has committed funding of $110,000 towardsLIFE small projects.

62


New pipe provides low-cost sewerage system for thecommunity, Pakistan

Solid waste management project separateshousehold waste,recyclable materials andcompost biodegradables,Lebanon

Egypt. “When LIFE was launched in Egypt, most of thegovernment officials said that this programme will not add any-thing to Egypt because it has very little money. After they lis-tened to the process they felt that the methodology of LIFE isdifferent from other UNDP programmes and also that of otherdonors. They were sceptical about the role of NGOs and CBOsin this process. NGOs also felt that government will inhibit theprocess. During the National Consultation they all felt that themethodology is very much needed because it helps in provid-ing the communities with what they really need.”

On the other hand, “local authorities are very happy with theprogramme because [they realise that] at the end of the day, itserves their needs”. However, though they “like the methodol-ogy and have even said on many occasions that they should useit in all their activities with communities”, they do not see whythey should always have to work through NGOs and CBOs.

Since that time, LIFE–Egypt has taken the lead in buildingpartnerships among government, civil society organisations andthe private sector. A recent document titled“Elements of the Egyptian PartnershipExperience in Urban Development” presented atthe Habitat II Conference in June 1996 showssignificant progress in disseminating the LIFEmethodology and approach among local urbanauthorities. In June 1995 a regional workshop inIstanbul, organised by IULA and RAED, pre-sented and discussed three LIFE projects inEgypt as part of a regional discussion of issuesand innovative responses throughout the Arabregion. LIFE–Egypt has also leveraged some $833,000 fromGTZ in parallel financing support for small projects duringphase III.

Jamaica. In Jamaica the government is formulating a $60million island-wide infrastructure reconstruction project.Sustaining the project depends on two primary factors drawnfrom the successful experience of the LIFE Programme’s smallcommunity projects in municipalities across Jamaica:• Decentralisation of governance to the parish level with theauthority, resources and responsibility for long-term infrastruc-ture maintenance, planning and development.• Collaborative participation of NGOs, CBOs and local

63


Clearing the ground for a new irrigation system andrecently planted trees,Osh, Kyrgyzstan

authorities in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluat-ing infrastructure projects affecting their communities.

Jamaica’s infrastructure project plan proposes using theLIFE Programme’s national and international experience andmethod in the several hundred communities involved in theproject over a period of four years, further decentralising infra-structure care and responsibility to the community level.

Kyrgyzstan. Since its initiating mission in August 1995,LIFE has facilitated 19 meetings and workshops, whichincluded 280 participants from the community, municipal,provincial and national levels. There are currently six projectsbeing implemented in Kyrgyzstan: three in Bishkek and threein Osh. Most projects involve tree planting, solid waste man-agement and environmental monitoring. The future goals ofLIFE–Kyrgyzstan include building networks and partnershipsto develop NGO ties to local governance, training local partic-

ipants in group skills and developing local educa-tion activities. Recently, a member of the nationalselection committee was elected mayor of Osh.

The main problems of LIFE–Kyrgyzstan con-cern the slow development of the local-local dia-logue. Often, the mayors do not recognise local,community-led action, and many of the NGOsare not willing to cooperate with the municipali-ties. As a result of these tensions, there is weaksupport for the projects. The private sector issmall, weak and inexperienced because it is

emerging from the buckles of a centralised state-controlledeconomy. Perhaps most significant, there is no clear under-standing of the concepts of urban environmental protection andwhat exactly constitutes an environmental hazard.

Lebanon. “In Lebanon LIFE has had the effect of changingthe way local authorities view NGOs and CBOs. When workingt o g e t h e r, the municipalities are appreciating the role of theNGOs as active and dedicated elements in their community,which is creating an atmosphere of trust. During the nationalconsultations, [participants re p resenting] local authorities beganthe actual dialogue with NGO and CBO members on matters ofc o n c e rn and interest, and local authorities are starting to re a l i s ethat these organisations are not the threat they had imagined.”

64


The Kedougou Youth Association and communityvolunteers planted treesand organised amaintenance system,Senegal

As a result, “the local authority is now ready to help the re f o r-estation eff o rts that the NGOs and CBOs had been working onfor several years”. Intere s t i n g l y, as a consequence of the local-local dialogues, “the NGOs and CBOs, besides workingt o g e t h e r, now are starting to perceive the municipality as a part-ner working on their side”. The minister of the environment isc u rrently looking to replicate LIFE projects in other pro v i n c e s .The NGOs and CBOs that were involved in pro-ject activities are now looking to develop similarp rojects in the communities they serve. In addi-tion, the donors that witnessed the success of theB c h e rri project are enthusiastic about fundingsimilar initiatives.

Pakistan. The quality and effectiveness ofinteraction among local actors participating inLIFE has resulted in local authorities and com-munity members gaining confidence to pursuejoint solutions to local urban environmental problems. It is nowrecommended that LIFE methods be used on a large scale tointroduce UNDP interventions in urban areas, building on thesuccesses of LIFE in the Urban Sustainable LivelihoodProgramme, to which the UNDP country office has committedsome $3 million.

Senegal. LIFE is monitoring the implementation of its sixon-going projects. With the passage of a law to transfer tradi-tionally central government responsibilities to the region, com-munes and rural communities in January 1997, LIFE–Senegal’sstrategy for the implementation of phase III will directly sup-port local authorities in the elaboration of a national strategy.The national coordinator will be organising discussion work-shops to promote harmonious partnerships among all levels.

South Africa. LIFE was initiated in late 1995, and the pro-ject document is scheduled for completion in April 1997 fol-lowing the formation of the national selection committee andthe first national consultation in which every province is repre-sented. For its proposed country plan and projects, LIFE hasreceived support of $550,000 from the UNDP country office.

65


Tanzania. According to Tanzania’s national coordinator:“Institutionalisation has not taken place, LIFE methodology isyet to be rooted in many communities. The programme is stillbeing looked upon as a UNDP Programme.” Although thewidespread success of the programme has evoked requestsfrom a number of municipalities to participate, “due to limitedresources, especially finance, LIFE is yet to be expanded”.

On the other hand, LIFE “is an ambitious programme. Theexperience gained at the micro level is expected to influence themacro level (policy-making level). Influencing policy needsmore time. However with LIFE there is no such time, one isexpected to show vivid examples or efforts towards achievingthis goal within two years or so. Probably it will be wise to giveourselves more time to create enough impact at the micro level,which will be used to influence policy-making. Policy-makingdiffers from country to country, thus, depending on the cir-cumstances specific to a country policy, dialogue may requiremore time and more efforts.”

Nevertheless, the impact of the programme to alter the waypeople work is already being felt. As the result of a workshopreviewing the first year of operations in Mwanza, a five-personcommittee was elected, “representing NGOs, CBOs, women’sgroups, the media and the local authority”. Among their respon-sibilities is “forming an umbrella CBO representing otherCBOs at Mwaloni, which will work with the Municipal Councilon issues affecting this community. The umbrella CBO will beinvited to attend some meetings of the Municipal Council andlikewise the Municipal Council will be invited to the CBO’smeetings.” The “committee started its work immediately andmanaged to convince the Regional Authorities to consider theparticipation of the community groups on the RegionalDevelopment Committee (RDC). This was accepted and twomembers were invited to the RDC meetings. However, due torecent changes in the country there are no more RDCs. Wehope that another body which will be undertaking the respon-sibilities of the former RDCs will accommodate the CBOrepresentatives.”

The journey in Tanzania may be typical of what to expect inmany countries and is indicative of the time, resources andeffort involved before institutionalising and mainstreaming maybegin to take place. Recently the UNDP country office com-mitted $50,000 to the Tanzania LIFE Programme.

66


Thailand. With a growing history of successful small projectsand collaborative working relations with local authorities, muchcurrent activity is focused on follow up with assistance to localgroups for partnership building. LIFE established its presenceand credibility as a facilitator for urban development projectsthrough integration with other development works in urbanareas. LIFE also participated in the process to draft the nationalurban environment and urban development plans as a part ofThailand’s Eighth National Economic and Social DevelopmentPlan (1996–2000). And it helped create an urban environmentconsortium by coordinating with the League of Municipalities,NGO Coordinating Committee on Development, urban activ-ity groups, businesses and slum community developmentorganisations. This process was carried out by sustained dia-logue and participatory planning across sectors.

In a spring 1996 visit to project sites, a representative fromthe Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) con-gratulated the LIFE team on local partnership building andnetworking. The success of LIFE is promoted through a pub-lic relations project implemented by Lok Bai Mai (The NewWorld) Magazine. The chairman of the LIFE National TaskForce was recently elected governor of Bangkok, and policy isbeing formulated to develop a partnership betweenLIFE–Thailand and the urban authority. Plans for forming theThai–LIFE Foundation are also being discussed.

Although LIFE–Thailand does not have active country levelsources of funds, the programme has been very successful inleveraging funds from GTZ ($365,000), Asia Pacific 2000($60,000) and DANCED ($400,000) for additional small grants.The success of LIFE projects is leading to adoption of itsmethod as a basis for development planning and implementa-tion within several Thai government agencies, by the UNDPcountry office and within the UN system-wide CapacityDevelopment Programme.

67


A t the country level, the lessons may best be viewedthrough two primary categories—the implementationof small projects and the beginnings of policy dialogue

and scaling up, both of which are essential to long-term institu-tionalising and mainstreaming of the LIFE cycle. At theregional and inter-regional levels, the lessons must be viewed interms of how they influence country-level effectiveness andbilateral and multilateral donor co-financing strategies.

Implementing small projectsThrough the successful implementation of small projects, LIFEhas learned many lessons for future application of the pro-gramme.

Strengthening institutional capacities of NGOs, CBOs andlocal authorities. NGOs and CBOs, as well as local authorities,require technical assistance in proposal writing, financialreporting, project development, project management, fund-raising, group dynamics (especially conflict resolution), negoti-ation, and governance issues. The most common reasons why aproposed project was rejected include:• The project was not technically feasible.• The group was not strong enough.• The community was not involved enough.• No other funding sources were involved.• The project was too big for LIFE.LIFE provides technical assistance to NGOs and CBOs for pro-

68

c h a p t e r s e v e n

LIFE’sLessons

posal writing in Egypt, Lebanon and Tanzania; planning for self-financing in Pakistan; and conflict-resolution training in Jamaicaand Tanzania. It needs to expand these aspects of the pro-gramme and incorporate more technical assistance into projectdevelopment.

Extending the reach. Successful small environmental pro-jects are often part of larger projects that address related issues.As intended through the design of the LIFE method, commu-nities can use the opportunity presented by their involvementin urban environmental issues to begin to tackle other issues,such as health education or employment. Project implementa-tion also provides opportunities to build community problem-solving skills and develop group dynamics, as evidenced in theChamazi project in Tanzania, where a community youth groupand experts from the Ministry of Water solved a water problemby constructing a water distribution network from the river tothe community centre. Water for domestic use was taken fromthe roofs of houses. The Chamazi project also included treeplanting to help preserve the uplands and the river bank and tosustain the project over time. The youth group acquired basicskills in group dynamics and project management and learnedthe principles of sustainable environmental management.

Another project in Tanzania, the Mwaloni project,addressed inadequate water supply, lack of latrines, improperwaste collection, pollution and a dangerous marketplace. UnderLIFE support, a CBO and the Mwanza municipal counciljoined forces to install a water tap, public latrines, better light-ing, a security fence and a rubbish collection system for the mar-ket. To sustain the project, the municipality council will leavepart of the levy and tax funds to the CBOs at Mwaloni for main-tenance and repair of the marketplace.

Sustaining projects over time. As promoted by the LIFEcoordinator in Colombia, collective pride in one’s environmentis the foundation of sustainable human development. The costsinvolved and the commitments necessary to sustain environ-mental improvements cannot be discounted in assessing thelong-term success of the project. Recognising this, a number ofLIFE projects have incorporated a fee collection to keep theproject going. In the Solid Waste Collection and Recycling pro-ject in Peshawar, Pakistan, and in a similar project in Tanzania,

69

LIFE’s Lessons

LIFE requires the community to contribute 10 percent of thecost of the project, ensuring that they are serious about doing itand making clear that the costs are real. This commitmentenhances their sense of pride and ownership in the project. TheMwaloni project in Tanzania is proposing that the fees the CBOneeds for maintenance come from the taxes collected by themunicipality. At the same time, LIFE has learned that it can bedifficult to collect in-kind or cash contributions promised bylocal authorities or communities.

The Cesspit Emptying Project in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, isdemonstrating that a LIFE project can lead to a feasibility studythat demonstrates to the local authority that a service can be pro-vided at a recoverable cost. The initial project involved re p a i r i n ga cesspit emptying truck for community use in an area serv i c i n g168,000 people. A small increase in fees covered its costs. Thesuccessful collaboration of city government with the local com-munity to accomplish this led to a feasibility study to extend thiscollaborative approach to other areas of the city (box 7.1).

Attracting expanded support. Many LIFE projects will havean impact much larger than just the local project site becausethe programme deals with environmental problems. For exam-

70


Sinza Block B is among the areas of Dar esSalaam City not connected to the centralsewage system, so it must rely on pit latrinesand septic tanks. Because the City Council hadtoo few emptying tanks, wastewater was over-flowing around residential areas and nearbystreams, increasing the spread of malaria,dysentery, and diarrhea. A high water tableexacerbated the problem. Community mem-bers formed a group to address the overflow,and the LIFE national selection committeerecommended their project to the CityCouncil’s Sustainable Dar Project, whichallows for design and implementation collabo-ration with CBOs and NGOs.

The result? “The Cesspit EmptyingServices” project in Sinza Block B improvedsanitation using environmental education andcommunity mobilisation. Monthly awareness

meetings and health education campaignsempowered the community. With supportfrom LIFE and the City Council, a cesspitemptying truck was repaired for the commu-nity’s use. A proposal has been submitted tothe Councilor’s Board to increase citywide ser-vice charges to cover the costs of repairing thetruck. This is important: if implemented, qual-ity of service will greatly improve for 168,000people.

The community of Sinza Block B now hasthe experience to influence the planning ofshort and long term solutions to sewerageoverflow problems in other areas of the city.Stakeholders have documented the currentdemand for the cesspit emptying services, datathat will strengthen the case for privatizingthese services in other areas, a topic under dis-cussion with city authorities.

BOX 7.1 Dar es Salaam community finds solution to poor sanitation

ple, the Lake Victoria Project in Tanzania reduces pollution inits local fisheries and has a positive impact on the communitiesdirectly involved, but its influence extends to thousands of otherpeople in East Africa who also depend on the lake for theirlivelihood.

Another positive consequence of local initiatives that have abroader impact is increased financial support for scaling up theLIFE process and transferring the approach to other non-LIFErelated efforts in a given country. Participation by governments,donors and private sector firms who have the capacity to pro-vide financial support to small projects in each country is key toleveraging parallel funding and country-level support beyondthe cost-sharing inputs by UNDP and its bilateral donor part-ners. Approximately $7.1 million has been leveraged by UNDPthrough cost-sharing from local, national and internationalsources. In 1996 UNDP–Pakistan announced a $3.25 millionbudget allocation for 1997–99 for the Programme forLivelihood Improvements in Urban Settlements (PLUS), basedon the LIFE method. In some countries UNDP field offices areproviding additional support. The field office in South Africahas committed $550,000 for country-level activi-ties, and the field office in Tanzania $50,000.

In each country, the national coord i n a t o r s ,along with the resident re p resentatives of UNDP,work to mobilise local re s o u rces to complementthe global re s o u rces of the LIFE Pro g r a m m e .Many of the LIFE countries have had success inaccessing funds from the govern m e n t .LIFE–Colombia has raised $150,000 from theM i n i s t ry of Environment. LIFE–Brazil has raised$85,000 from the local government of Niterói, the state govern-ment of Rio de Janeiro and Unibanco to fund the Shellfis hP roject. Support has also come from private sector sources. TheNational Consultation in Lebanon was sponsored by ByblosBank, now funding the production of Lebanon LIFE pamphlets.

Sparking interest in projects through the media and privatesector participation. Media coverage has been a cost-free formof promotion for the LIFE Programme and an effective way toshare the LIFE method. In Brazil numerous newspaper articlesand TV news events have led to increased interest from newcommunities and support for LIFE.

71

LIFE’s Lessons

LIFE workshop withnon-governmentalorganisations, Pakistan

LIFE–Brazil is also seeking private sector support by help-ing to shift the view of small development efforts from ineffi-cient, unproductive projects that depend on continual supportfrom outside sources to the view that self-sufficient enterpriseswith broad support and a long-term commitment offer invest-ment opportunities. Community-based organisations are intro-duced as collective entrepreneurs developing solutions toenvironmental problems, while also achieving economic suc-cess by cutting costs and creating jobs.

Increasing community benefits through technology.Technology can address social priorities through collaborativeefforts. In Brazil a broad range of technologies used for sanitarytoilets, impermeable cesspools, selective collection of house-hold and public solid waste and recovery of collapsed waterreservoirs have improved health and sanitation. In Jamaica anegotiated water supply agreement, which provided technologyto deliver safe drinking water to 109 households, has led to mea-surable time-savings in water acquisition, improved infanthealth and cleanliness and increased confidence in the com-munity that through their own efforts they can assess their infra-structure needs and develop plans to meet those needs.Another community that dug its own trenches and laid its ownpipe cited how this enabled children to have more time to studybecause they did not have to fetch water. The same communityis now working together to resolve other problems concerningtheir roads and electricity.

Scaling up the dialogueIn addition to selecting and approving proposals for small pro-jects, the LIFE national coordinators and the national selectioncommittees have conducted 199 city, national and provincialworkshops with 3,996 representatives of CBOs, NGOs, localauthorities, national governments and the private sector. Thereis ample evidence that LIFE has had a profound influence onlocal and national dialogue and collaboration and that its resultshave improved urban environmental conditions in almost everycommunity where the method has been used.

Opening avenues. When CBOs, NGOs, governments andi n t e rnational agencies first attempt to work together with thep o o r, women and other marginalised persons, conflict is virt u a l l y

72


inevitable due to differing positions and perceptions. Care f u l l yfacilitated dialogue (sometimes long term) can open the avenuesof understanding to make compromise possible. Once coopera-tive work begins, alliances and partnerships can emerge to helpstave off new conflicts that inevitably arise throughout thep rocess. LIFE calls this the “LIFE cycle—from Conflict toC o m p romise to Cooperation to Alliance” (fig u re 7.1).1

Building trust. Local-local dialogue is not only the key to thesuccessful implementation and sustainability of small projects,it also builds the trust and collaboration essential to initiatingpolicy dialogues and scaling up successful efforts. In one munic-ipality in Jamaica, the mayor was the chief opponent to initialCBO project efforts, but he has since become the chief propo-nent for the approach and is adjusting policies to promote andsupport CBO initiatives. What brought about the mayor’s trans-formation? The local-local dialogue.

Disseminating lessons. Lessons and examples from smallprojects can be shared by their participants through local-localdialogues at community, municipal and country levels andthrough participation in larger projects focused on relatedpoverty and environment issues.

73

LIFE’s Lessons

Figure 7.1LIFE’s cycle

The actors involved in dialogues play unique and comple-mentary roles. Their relations to each other are an importantfactor in the effectiveness of the dialogue that unfolds. In Egypttoo great a gap existed between the various parties involved indialogue, and this imbalance stifled cooperation and inhibitedpeoples’ willingness to talk. Sometimes CBOs can more effec-tively hold a dialogue with their local municipal officials thanthey can with central government officials on the same subjectwithout the municipal officials’ presence and participation. ButCBOs cannot speak for municipal officials, and municipal offi-cials cannot speak for CBOs. All must speak for themselves, beheard and exchange views. Inclusive dialogue may start frommistrust and conflict, but it can lead to compromise, coopera-tion and alliances. Thrashing out mistrusts and apprehensionsamong partners is crucial for creating an environment of trust.

Drawing in the private sector. In some countries it is diffi-cult to enlist the participation of the private sector because itsbusiness people see themselves as separate from the commu-nity. That merely underscores why the business sector needs tobe oriented to the local-local dialogue, made aware of commu-nity concerns and initiatives and engaged in social investment.But there is also much work the community can do to reach outto the private sector. LIFE participants must help dissolve theresistance from citizen groups and community organisationsthinking that the private sector exploits its workers and is inter-ested only in profit. Successful partnerships between the pri-vate sector and the community—such as two LIFE projects inJamaica co-funded by the Jamaican Chamber of Commerce—must be documented and disseminated at national and inter-national workshops and meetings.

Exchanging regional and global lessonsSignificant progress has been made in working with NGO net-works and cities’ associations to exchange successful approachesand innovations. Concern for the urban poor and for findingpractical approaches with broad applicability has characterisedthe working relationship of LIFE with its regional and inter-regional partners.

• Regional and inter-regional workshops and conferencesprovide opportunities for sharing LIFE methods and reachingmore institutions, cities and countries than LIFE’s country-

74


based approaches could hope to do alone. An estimated 60countries have regional and global gatherings and exchanges forensuring inclusive participation and ownership by all stake-holders in the process. Dissemination of lessons among LIFEcountry programmes and regional partners deepens insightsinto the local-local dialogue and how people have benefitedfrom these activities.

• The technologies that various NGOs and associations useare secondary to the social relations forged in formulating part-nerships among local and regional actors. Through new per-sonal alliances and partnerships, new technologies can beexplored and shared—as in the ACHR project between Indiaand South Africa.

• Transfers of methods and technologies are never exactreplications. They require adaptation, moulding, modificationand internalisation by the “importing agent” through its ownlocal-local dialogues. This was the experience of the MegaCitiesProject transfer between Cairo and Manila.

• LIFE national coordinators observe that they benefit andlearn from their regional and inter-regional partners throughinterchange of materials and reports and participation in eachother’s activities. Presentations led by LIFE national coordina-tors at international conferences and workshops, such as theHabitat II Conference in Istanbul, are interactive participatoryevents that draw on the experiences of all conference attendeesto evaluate programmatic structure and processes. DuringHabitat II more than 60 people were involved in a full reviewof LIFE’s design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.No papers were presented at the workshop: the emphasis wason discussing issues and listening, in the form of a local-localdialogue. National coordinators gave short presentations onlessons from the programme, and discussions of the LIFEmethod followed. LIFE coordinators have led similar discus-sions at other international workshops in Canada, Jordan,Mauritius, Nigeria, the Netherlands and Sweden, to name afew.

Funding implications for UNDPM a i n s t reaming of the LIFE Programme in UNDP has alre a d ybegun. A concept paper, based on the LIFE method and experi-ence, has recently been produced by UNDP at the request of thea d m i n i s t r a t o r. The paper proposes to increase support for local

75

LIFE’s Lessons

New car ts aid the collection and sorting ofsolid waste, Senegal

initiatives by improving the access of local actors, both local gov-e rnment and civil society organisations (CSOs), to bilateral donorand UNDP core re s o u rces at the country level through a coun-t ry-based trust fund. The proposal is to establish country tru s tfunds for local governance innovations, especially those dealingwith issues of gender equality and other sustainable humandevelopment objectives. The recommendation is that local,

global and donor country re s o u rces be incorpo-rated in the trust funds and that UNDP countryo ffices be the fund managers and administrators.

The LIFE experience would serve as the basisfor defining the country-based trust fund. Thetrust-fund mechanism would provide integratedsupport at two levels: first in financially support-ing innovations in local governance and manage-ment, and second in providing support for theinstitutionalisation of such innovations throughnetworking, complementary financing and

administrative and operational support to locally designed pro-jects. It has been suggested that the 12 pilot countries of theLIFE Programme could be appropriate places to test the estab-lishment of a country-based trust fund.

Programming implications for UNDP As new LIFE cycles begin and the local-local method is adoptedin other countries, UNDP must remain flexible and adaptive tothe changing needs of member countries (table 7.1). And as par-ticipatory local governance shifts the balance of power in com-munities, UNDP must encourage local and municipalgovernments to recognise that, while participation leads tochanges in responsibility and ownership, the changes do nothave to be threatening.

The LIFE global learning network can, in a substantivecapacity, help other countries set up programmes. And as inter-est in LIFE grows, UNDP should help identify entry points forparticipatory development projects that focus on other priorityareas for sustainable human development, such as genderequality and income generation. Algeria, Malawi, Mauritius,Mongolia and Uganda have expressed interest in starting theirown LIFE Programmes.

In Mongolia the UNDP country office is using the LIFEmethod in an urban renewal programme. The country office has

76


77

LIFE’s Lessons

Table 7.1The meaning of LIFE for UNDP

UNDP focal areas LIFE Programme variables Implications for UNDP

Sustainable Environment is strategic point UNDP should encourage human of entry. Improved identification of entr y points development environment and quality of for participator y development priorities life promotes economic projects in which the poor can

development. Participation of co-operate with local the poor, women and authorities to determine their marginalised is essential. development priorities.

Decentralisation Participation leads to UNDP should encourage and local ownership and responsibility. governments to recognise thatgovernance Dialogue is key to although participation shifts

participation and leads to the balance of power in alliances. Local favour of the governed, it does participatory governance not have to be confrontational empowers community to work if based on the “local-local” with local authorities and dialogue approach.the private sector.

Policy-making Capacity-building empowers UNDP should accelerate the local actors. Policy dialogue National Execution approach can be based on replicating with its priorities for inclusive successful projects. Policy participation as a basis for changes can support winning vertical and horizontal policy-participatory approaches. making.

The programme Document and disseminate UNDP should involve its approach successful methods and bilateral donor partners in

technologies used in regional more regional and cross-and inter-regional projects. cultural participatory Transfer best practices of programming to encourage NGOs, CBOs and municipal networking and disseminate authorities through cities findings.associations. Shift focus of global technical support from management and evaluation to teaching and interchange.

Co-financing Donor participation in UNDP should publish its leveraged funding can lessons learned on multiply the impact of funds. co-financing and policy Local actors are effective and reforms needed to increase efficient when provided with the use of parallel financing capacity. and trust fund modalities.

Source: UNDP.

mobilised more than a million dollars to cover programmecosts, with an initiating mission in June 1997. The national coor-dinators of Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan will assist Mongolia in thestart-up phase and continue in a regional partnership through-out the programme.

In Uganda the UNDP country office is reviewing LIFEmethods and guidelines, and an initiating mission is scheduledfor late 1997. The national coordinator of Tanzania will be work-ing with Uganda on programme implementation.

Note1. The LIFE Cycle was originally articulated by the LIFE

Coordinator in Thailand, Sompong Patpui.

78


LIFE is a small pilot programme with modest funding foran extensive effort. By almost any criterion, the pro-gramme has been very efficient and delivered good value

for the money invested. National selection committees havebeen established in each of the participating countries, andthrough a process of national consultations and workshops, theprogramme has initiated a series of dialogues at various levelsand provided funds to numerous small projects.

The programme has demonstrated how participatory localgovernance leads to successful community-based initiatives forimproving urban environmental conditions. Its success hasprompted requests from other countries, communities andNGOs to participate in the programme. While most of theimpact of the programme has been limited to the “host” insti-tutions with which it has been working most closely, signs ofinstitutionalisation and mainstreaming have emerged withinUNDP offices, the grant-receiving NGOs and CBOs, bilateraldonors, other UN agencies and—to a lesser extent—in local andregional governments.

The challengesLIFE was set up as a “pilot” initiative to test the validity of theprocess of participatory local governance in tackling develop-ment issues. Given the success of the programme, the LIFEmethod and process should be scaled up by UNDP and otherinternational agencies and adopted by local and national gov-ernments. Although it is still too soon for complete institution-

79

c h a p t e r e i g h t

LIFE’s TasksAhead

alisation, the results show a level of success that suggests thatgovernments and donors ought to be internalising the process.The final “upstream” stage of the method is designed to encour-age governments and donors to do just that. But several ques-tions must be addressed before mainstreaming andinstitutionalisation can be fully achieved. To successfully com-plete phase III and establish the LIFE Global Laboratory, sixchallenges need to be analysed and responded to.

How to turn micro interventions into macro-policy impact.National coordinators and national selection committees mustformulate effective strategies to influence the policy thinking ineach country. Although the method indicates that the nationalselection committee will be responsible for propagating andpublicising the LIFE process, the exact procedures for how todisseminate the method have been left open for each countryto develop. The difficulty with this is that the members of thecommittees, and indeed the national coordinators, were chosenlargely for their ability to intervene and act on local projects.

Although the committees usually have govern-ment representation, there is generally a lack ofpolicy-making experience and expertise in eachof the country organisations.

How to move from a globally independent pro-gramme to appropriate national legal forms.Though each country programme has had theacceptance and participation of local and nationalgovernments, LIFE should not be introduced asa “government” programme, since this would

make some actors reluctant to participate. For the same reason,LIFE cannot be instituted as a private sector or NGO pro-gramme. The programme is therefore designed independentlybut under the umbrella of UNDP to give it credibility to get offthe ground. Although this has worked, it can only be a tempo-rary state and the programme must become genuinely nation-alised. True, there are the beginnings of a trust fund in somecountries, but more work needs to be done to get the pro-gramme funded at the national level. In the longer term, it willbe the process rather than the programme that will be inter-nalised by governments, donors and implementing agencies.But given the current time frame of the programme, steps to

80


Teamwork and cooperative efforts sow the seeds forthe next generation, Osh,Kyrgyzstan

internalise the process must be taken now. The national con-sultations seem to have been designed as one-time events tointroduce and initiate the programme: clearly, they could alsoserve as vehicles to transfer the lessons and to develop policy.

How to translate community-based initiatives into eff e c t i v ef o rms of governance. An important objective of the programme isto empower the urban poor by giving them a greater say in iden-tifying issues, resolving problems and managing their affairs. Aslong as the programme is operating in a few communities, theimpact and implications for the city and the countryat large remain marginal. But as the LIFE local-local method expands and influences policy-mak-ing in hundreds of communities, empowerm e n twill become a major issue, particularly for local gov-e rnment authorities. Although local govern m e n t sa re re p resented on the national selection commit-tee, the programme needs to address the issue ofg o v e rnance from the beginning and stress thestrategic links that will make the jobs of local authorities easier inp a rtnership—for example, shared financing, augmented technol-o g y, better communication networks and shared responsibility formonitoring and repair of projects. The challenge remains to intro-duce LIFE as a new cooperative process rather than a re p l a c e-ment or substitute for local government authorities.

How to ensure quality leadership within local NGOs andCBOs. The LIFE method and process depend heavily on localCBOs and NGOs for the selection and implementation of pro-jects in partnership with local governments. As such, the natureand direction of the projects—and there f o re the viability and suc-cess of the LIFE Pro g r a m m e — a re to a large extent a function ofthe character, strength and leadership of the local NGOs andCBOs. Inevitably, the leadership of these organisations is re l a t e dto the local power stru c t u res, from which they draw support andoften legitimacy. In situations where the leadership of local CBOsand NGOs is dominated by autocratic leaders, there is a negativeimpact on some aspects of the LIFE projects, even though theymay be “successfully” completed. The challenge remains to buoythe support and active participation of CBOs and NGOs whileensuring that their influence and leadership is in keeping with thegoals and spirit of LIFE.

81

LIFE’s Tasks Ahead

Community workshop, Pakistan

Clearing service road, Pakistan

How to transform random micro “policy experiments” intosystematised geographical extension. The process of expandingthe programme needs to be more systematic. At present thereappears to be no consensus or criteria for selecting regions,cities or even localities for the national programmes. Nor arethere guidelines that could help national coordinators discernthe advantages and the disadvantages of concentrating the pro-gramme versus spreading it out nationally—each of themappears to be exploring and setting its own criteria. LIFE’sdecentralised structure encourages each national selectioncommittee to design a system for expanding the programmethat works best given each country’s particular needs. But theremust be more data and documentation on expansion strategiesthat have succeeded or failed. The challenge of establishingcountry-level monitoring and documentation remains.

How to enlarge the focus from “what to do” to “how to doit.” Mainstreaming and expanding the programme involvesstriking a balance between what is feasible nationally, in termsof political and social constraints, and what is required to meetglobal guidelines that ensure that the projects are in keepingwith the true spirit of the LIFE Programme. To that end, the

guidelines may need to focus more on “how to”rather than “what to” do. Guidelines should indi-cate how each country must develop criteria—and have a system to evaluate those criteria—fordeciding how the programme evolves andexpands within national borders. Guidelinesshould show how to identify key proponents inthe many institutions of each country to act asentry points for promoting inclusive consulta-tions. The challenge here is to provide enoughspecific information and guidance to steer

national coordinators and their teams through the LIFEprocess, while simultaneously allowing latitude for country-spe-cific adaptation and interpretation.

How to shift from methodological review to rigorous evalu-ation of impact analysis. An important challenge to the pro-gramme is to develop a more rigorous system for evaluatingprojects. This means getting a better understanding of the base-line conditions in the communities. Assessments need to be

82


made of the relative status of a project in a community. AreLIFE projects given priority, and how are they evaluated by thecommunity? LIFE is a programme based on human interactionand participatory local governance, and the measure of its suc-cess is more qualitative than quantitative. But it is still essentialto have data as a base-line measure of a project’s impact and anindicator to assess whether the programme achieved itsobjectives.

These are significant challenges to be answered by the LIFEcycle as it unfolds in phase III. But the LIFE Programme,which heralds a sea-change in policy thinking and in methodsof local governance by enlisting all members of a community ina participatory process, is designed to meet them.

Recommendations for the method• Increase the emphasis on the LIFE process and approach

as objectives in themselves for NGOs, CBOs and local govern-ments rather than as a means to obtaining LIFE grants.

• Broaden the involvement of local and national govern-ment and private sector representatives in consultations, selec-tion committees and reviews.

• Increase the dissemination of method and programmeresults, both within and beyond the pilot countries and partici-pating institutions.

• Scale up activities that influence donor and bilateral agen-cies to adopt LIFE–like approaches as a vehicle for leveragingincreased parallel financing and country inputs.

• Mainstream the programme by promoting national andinternational policy dialogue workshops based on LIFEexperiences.

Recommendations for project impact• Continue the existing programme to maintain momen-

tum and to increase credibility in the 12 pilot countries and atthe regional and inter-regional levels.

• Make more judicious and inventive use of the small grantscomponent to encourage more organisations and institutions toadopt and institutionalise LIFE–like approaches and processes.

• I n c rease the emphasis by national and local government ondecentralisation of local governance functions to communities.

• Increase the empowerment and self-sufficiency ofselected CBOs by helping them become legal entities.

83


• Strengthen the emphasis on human resource develop-ment and capacity building, especially within CBOs and localgovernments, to enable community members to perform theirnew tasks and fulfill their responsibilities.

• Ensure objective evaluations, ample documentation, reli-able dissemination and adequate access to the results of smallprojects by using publicity mechanisms to educate people aboutthe programme.

Phase III: 1997–2000As a pioneer for an approach to sustainable human develop-ment that is effective, close-to-the-ground, inclusive and par-ticipatory, the LIFE Programme sees three primary tasks forphase III: institutionalising, mainstreaming and scaling up.

Institutionalising. To increase the credibility and sustain-ability of the projects, the LIFE Programme at the municipaland country levels must identify the appropriate legal forms forthe programme in each country. NGOs and CBOs need helpwith fiscal management and capacity building to augment theirinvolvement with LIFE. Small projects can also be made sus-tainable, and the local-local dialogue can be institutionalised.

Mainstreaming. The LIFE method of local-local dialoguemust be showcased at national, regional, inter-regional andinternational gatherings for donors, governments, NGOs andothers engaged in development. To do this, LIFE must applycreative, user-friendly methods for evaluating and document-ing its projects. And to improve opportunities for the transferof successful case studies, the programme needs to opera-tionalise feedback at the national and regional levels, linkinglocal activities with national policy-making and regional net-works. Increased public relations, environmental awarenesscampaigns that draw on the LIFE experiences, visits by gov-ernment and donor representatives to project sites, andexchanges among national coordinators, implementors, or pro-ject recipients should all be considered.

Scaling up. The long-term goal of the LIFE Programme isto bring about fundamental reform in the social and economicsystems of developing countries through a new vision of part-nership between government and civil society. By replicating

84


Teaching the next generation aboutcommunity-ledenvironmental projects,Senegal

successful small projects and institutionalising the dialogue andcollaborative process, LIFE can affect change in local gover-nance and influence macro-policy formulation. By increasingprivate sector participation in local-local dialogue and repre-sentation on the national selection committees, combined pub-lic-private commitments to environmental initiatives will fostera stronger and more resilient community.

Phase III objectives and activitiesOver the next three years the LIFE Programme in each pilotc o u n t ry will focus on consolidating local, national, regional andi n t e r- regional eff o rts to support dialogue andaction to improve the urban environment and willoversee the evaluation of the small projects usinga part i c i p a t o ry evaluation method (aMethodological Note on Part i c i p a t o ry Evaluationis available). The lessons from all these pro j e c t swill support policy dialogue, scaling up of pro j e c t s ,replication of successful models and transferr i n gof successful approaches to finding local solutionsto local problems. In addition, each LIFE countryp rogramme will document country-level experi-ences in preparation for sharing the LIFE methodology andexperience with CBOs, NGOs and local authorities in othercountries to expand the impact.

The regional and inter-regional emphasis will be on dissem-inating lessons and mainstreaming the process. NGO networks,cities associations and international agencies will share infor-mation on projects. There will be regional and inter-regionalworkshops for UNDP offices and donors—and other work-shops for local and national actors in countries beyond thoseoriginally involved in the LIFE Programme.

The emphasis for global technical support will be to ensurerigorous analysis and evaluation efforts—and to oversee pro-duction of quality documentation (videos, slide shows, trans-parencies, CD-ROMs, global internet website) and publishedmaterials such as manuals on “Conducting Local-LocalDialogue” and on how to set up training events in the“Technologies of Participation”. The LIFE approach will bedisseminated and mainstreamed throughout UNDP and thebilateral and multilateral donor organisations—and at theGlobal Advisory Committee workshops.

85


A global learning laboratoryThe success of the LIFE Programme will be measured by theextent to which the method and projects take on appropriateinstitutional forms in the countries where LIFE operates—andby its influence on policy at the community, municipal, national,regional, inter-regional and global levels. This ambitious taskproposes to change what is done, who does it, and how it is donewhen addressing urban environmental improvements. This willrequire intensive follow-through on mainstreaming effortswithin UNDP. Bilateral donors also must encourage others inthe development community to use the LIFE Programmeapproach.

In 2000 the LIFE Programme as conceived will be com-pleted, and the methods and materials essential to its continu-ation will be accessible by every country—so that localauthorities, CBOs, NGOs, cities’ associations and bilateral andmultilateral donors can develop the LIFE process in a commu-nity. In the 12 pilot countries, the LIFE Programme will con-tinue to serve as a global laboratory for future developmentefforts—a practical repository for both method and practice tobe applied to any community enterprise.

86


Jaworski, Joseph. 1996. Synchronicity. San Franciso: Berrett-Koehler.

Navajas, Hugo, 1995. Forward-Looking Assessment of LIFEPhase I (1992–1994), April. New York: UNDP.

Robert, Jean. 1994. Water is A Commons. Mexico City:HIC/LIFE.

Selim, Rashida, 1995. Participatory Local Governance and theLIFE Methodology, February, New York: UNDP.

Spencer, Laura. 1989. Winning Through Participation,Dubuque, Kendall/Hunt.

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 1991.Cit ies , People and Poverty, Urban DevelopmentCooperation for the 1990s, Strategy Paper. New York.

———. 1992. Urban Environment in Developing Countries,Environment and Natural Resources Group, UrbanDevelopment Programme. New York.

———. 1993. The First Year of “Local-Local Dialogue”,December. New York.

———. 1994. Report on the LIFE Global Advisory Committeeand Donor Workshop: First Year Review and StrategicPlanning, held 11–12 January 1994 in Stockholm, Sweden.New York.

———. 1995a. Phase I Report of the LIFE Programme,September 1992–December 1994. New York.

———. 1995b. Report of the Second Annual Global AdvisoryCommittee Workshop, Phase I Assessment and Phase II

Annex

Bibliography

87

Strategies, LIFE, held 23–26 May 1995 in Cairo, Egypt.New York.

———. 1996a. Eight LIFE Initiating Mission Reports1992–1995, New York.

— — — . 1 9 9 6 b . Local Ini t iat ive Faci l i ty for UrbanEnvironment, (brochure) January. New York.

———. 1996c. Report of the International Workshop onApproaches to Participatory Local Governance, held 1–2February 1996 at United Nations Headquarters. New York.

———. 1996d. Report of the Third Annual Global AdvisoryCommittee Workshop, Review Phase II and Strategies forPhase III, LIFE, held 9–10 June 1996 in Istanbul, Turkey.New York.

———. 1996e.Summary Report of the International Workshopof LIFE National Coordinators, held 29–30 January 1996 atUnited Nations Headquarters. New York.

———. 1996f. Evaluation of Impact, Regional, Inter-regionaland Global Programmes. Office of Evaluation and StrategicPlanning. New York.

———. 1997a. Report of the International Workshop ofNational LIFE Coordinators, “Launch of Phase III(1997–2000)”, held January 13–15 in Kingston, Jamaica.New York.

———. 1997b. Public Sector Management, Governance andSustainable Human Development, Discussion Paper 1,Management Development and Governance Division,Bureau for Policy and Programme Support. New York.

— — — . 1 9 9 7 c . Governance for Sustainable HumanDevelopment, Management Development and GovernanceDivision, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support, aUNDP Policy Document. New York.

———. 1997d. Reconceptualising Governance, DiscussionPaper 2, Management Development and GovernanceDivision, Bureau for Policy and Programme Support.January. New York.

Regional and inter-regional publicationsCASSAD (Centre for African Settlement Studies and

Development). 1997. Report on the LIFE RegionalWorkshop of NGOs and the Implementation of HABITAT II,Global Plan of Action. Nigeria.

88


CITYNET. 1997. Report on LIFE Regional Training Workshopon Wastewater Management. Tokyo.

enda (Environmental Development Action in the Third World).1996. Les Initiatives Locales de Developpement en MilieuUrban Ouest Africain. May. Dakar.

HIC (Habitat International Coalition). 1995. Case StudiesCross Analysis, 15 Alternative Experiences in DrinkingWater and Sanitation in Urban Communities. Mexico City.

ICLEI (International Council for Local EnvironmentalInitiatives). 1996. Manual for Local Agenda 21, Toronto.

IULA-EMME (International Union of Local Authorities—Section for the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle EastRegion). 1996. Middle East Local Environment Monitor 1,An Inventory of Urban Environmental NGOs in Six MiddleEastern Countries. Istanbul.

Mega Cities. 1996. Report on LIFE Transfer of WasteManagement Innovation From Cairo to Manila. New York.

RAED (Arab Network for Environment and Development).1997 . Montada Al-Biah (Newsletter). Regional ArabNetwork for Environment and Development. Cairo.

SourcesElsesser, Raymond. 1997. LIFE—Every Voice Counts (video).

New York. UNDP.UNDP. 1996. Human Development Report 1996. New York:

Oxford University Press.

89

Bibliography

90


bangladeshAfter a highly successful initiating mission, the LIFE Programme was delayed due to instabili-ties within Bangladesh. Following negotiations with the Bangladeshi government in 1996, theLIFE Programme selected a national coordinator and will begin reviewing project proposals bylate spring 1997. LIFE is collaborating on health-related projects with the World HealthOrganisation (WHO) Healthy Cities Programme. Bangladesh’s population is expected to grow6.6 percent by 2020, increasing to 245 million from the current 123 million. The city ofDhaka alone is expected to grow to 11 million by 2020. With poverty rates and populationdensity among the world’s highest, Bangladesh will face extensive urban environmental chal-lenges in the next decade.

LIFE initiating mission April 1995

National coordinator Ms. Tanzina Haque Hossain

91

Annex 1

brazilThe LIFE Programme has been operating in Brazil since its national consultation in 1993.Since then LIFE has funded nine projects in four cities, choosing those from a pool of 57proposals submitted by joint ventures of NGOs, CBOs and local governments.

Four of the approved projects were funded by investors, rather than by donors. This ispartly because LIFE-Brazil adopts an entrepreneurial style towards its projects, which itdefines as community enterprises. Many new cities are interested in the programme, andprivate sector support is growing because the CBOs engaged in LIFE are seen as social entre-preneurs who are reinventing development. Investment in their efforts is thus consideredventure capital.

LIFE-Brazil now needs to learn the techniques to rigorously evaluate its projects, to pack-age and advertise its assessments and to disseminate its results. To date, four projects havebeen documented using audio-visual presentations and computer slide shows. And a numberof workshops with NGOs, CBOs and local authorities have been held to share lessonslearned. But the programme would also like to develop maps, spreadsheets, internet websites, video and CD-ROM presentations to further disseminate lessons learned and bestpractices.

LIFE initiating mission December 1993

National coordinator Mr. Ricardo NevesRecruited January 1993Background NGOLocation Institute of Technology for the Citizen in Rio (NGO)

National consultation March 1993Participants 60Priorities Strengthen civil society organisations (NGOs, CBOs)

National selection committeeComposition NGO–2; CBO–1; LA–1; private sector–0; national government–2;

UNDP–1; academic–1Men–4; women–4

Local support committees Yes. In two cities, for project identification.Subcommittees No.

Small-scale projectsGeographic focus Greater Rio metropolitan area and three other citiesNumber of cities 4Selection criteria Proposals must represent a joint venture of at least one civil

society organisation (NGO, CBO) and a local government. Local governments are not eligible to receive grants.

Proposals/Approved/Funded 57 / 9 / 9Ongoing/Completed/Evaluation 3 / 4 / 4

Dialogue workshopsNumber Municipal–8; national–1Participants 12 to 40 for each municipal; 60 in nationalSubjects LIFE methodology; LIFE par ticipatory process

PublicityMentions 100+ in TV, radio, newspaperVideos Mussels Community Centre Association

92


colombiaLIFE–Colombia decided during its national consultation to concentrate operations initially inCartagena City. The National Selection Committee reviewed thirteen projects and selectedfive. The mayor of Cartagena has now included LIFE in his 1997 budget.

Introducing the LIFE process and the concept of sustainable human development hasbeen more important than the actual projects in some instances because poverty, criminalactivity and civil unrest have created vast imbalances in communities. LIFE introduces a cul-ture of par ticipation, consultation, collaboration and trust which have been desperately lack-ing for many Colombians. LIFE projects focus on environmental education as a means forsocial participation with particular attention to involving women, the poor and marginalisedmembers of communities.

A campaign to educate the private sector about LIFE projects is also under way. The princi-pal challenge remains to strengthen local capacities for par tnership, for example, giving CBOsthe legal status necessary to receive government funds. The programme also needs additionaleducational workshops on capacity-building, database configuration and project evaluation.

LIFE initiating mission March 1995

National coordinator Ms. Zaida Salas FrancoRecruited December 1995 Background NGOLocation NGO, Cartagena

National consultation March 1996, CartagenaPar ticipants 30Priorities Water and sanitation; waste management; environmental educa-

tion; construction and rehabilitation of roads; channelsNational selection committeeComposition NGO–3; CBO–3; LA–1; private sector–1; national government–1;


Local support committees Yes. In neighbourhoods of the city.Subcommittees No.

Small-scale projectsGeographic focus Car tagena CityNumber of cities 1Selection criteria Coverage (number of people); sustainability

Proposals/Approved/Funded 13 / 10 / 4 (the non-funded are being negotiated)Ongoing/Completed/Evaluation 5 / 0 / 0

Dialogue workshopsNumber Community–48; municipal–14; national–4Par ticipants 1,000 community; 42 municipal; 8 national Subjects LIFE Programme; methodology; process; environmental problems;

SHD

PublicityMentions TV–0; radio–2; newspaper–6Videos Opinions and experiences of communities

93

Annex 1

egyptLIFE–Egypt has successfully initiated three projects: public latrines in suburban Cairo, ear th-quake refugee aid in Ein Helwan, and solid-waste recycling in Beni Suef. LIFE and MegaCitieshave collaborated to transfer from Cairo to Manila an income-generating recycling system forthe solid waste project. Another major accomplishment is the collaboration with IULA/RAEDon a newsletter that reaches 13 countries in the Arab States and North Africa and collabora-tion on a major regional workshop in the Near East called Developing EnvironmentalLeadership (DELTA). LIFE–Egypt has par ticipated in two global workshops and is looking fornew ways to coordinate with international environmental organisations.

The main challenges are lack of funds and a great need for capacity-building of the rela-tively weak NGOs and CBOs. Another key issue is that dialogue between the municipalitiesand the government has been difficult: dialogue can be used as a tool, but it does not neces-sarily lead to partnerships. Access to power is necessary in order to enter a par tnership butpar tnerships are usually temporary alliances in Egypt—and temporary arrangements hindermany projects from creating lasting institutional change.

LIFE initiating mission March/April 1993

National coordinator Dr. Emad AdlyRecruited March 1992Background NGOLocation Arab Office of Youth for Environment (NGO), Cairo

National consultation October 1993, SuezParticipants 93Priorities Waste management; environmental education; community

mobilisation; enforcing regulatory measures

National selection committeeComposition NGO–4; CBO–1; LA–3; private sector–1; national

government–3; UNDP–2; academic–2; donors–1Men–7; women–9

Local support committees Yes. For project preparation.Subcommittees Ad-hoc technical committee to review projects.

Small-scale projectsGeographic focus Four governorates: Cairo, Alexandria, Beni Seuf, SuezNumber of cities 2 (Cairo & Beni Seuf)Selection criteria Capabilities of the organisation; project framework; inputs;

implementation mechanisms; outputs


Dialogue workshopsNumber Community–91; municipal–2; provincial–42; national–4Participants 800 community; 40 municipal; 389 provincial; 224 nationalSubjects LIFE Programme, process; project preparation; technical

assistance; par ticipatory experience

PublicityMentions TV–2; radio–0; newspaper–6Videos “The Egyptian Partnership in Urban Development” (Brochure)

94


jamaicaLIFE–Jamaica has funded 19 projects located in 10 of its 14 parishes. Projects focus onpotable water, sanitation, recycling and playground construction. Five LIFE seminars havebeen held to educate the government and the general public on the value and use of double-vented pit latrines, sanitation, recycling and other environmental issues. LIFE is currentlyworking with 15 community groups to facilitate dialogue, promote partnerships and addressthe legal and fiscal status of CBOs. Through local-local dialogue, wary and doubtful partici-pants have become strong advocates and partners in solving problems and accomplishingobjectives.

The principal challenge is sustaining the gains made through project accomplishments.Tension between participants arises in disputes over the legal system and how it helps sus-tain the projects. Communities have major concerns about land tenure and access to ser-vices. Another big challenge is using the methodology in new areas with new institutions. Atthe moment, most Jamaican institutions are not used to meeting the needs of the poor, letalone taking them into their confidence and listening to them. A strategy is needed to facili-tate cooperation with local government without threatening the existing power structures.

LIFE initiating mission November 1992

National coordinator Ms. Marcia HextalRecruited March 1994Background NGOLocation United Way of Jamaica (NGO), Kingston

National consultation April 1993Participants 80Priorities Waste management; hazard-prone areas; environment in urban

planning


UNDP–1; academic–0; donors–3Men–9; women–10

Local support committees No.Subcommittees Yes. Project review (same as executive committee).

Small-scale projectsGeographic focus Falmouth, St. Ann’s Bay, May Pen, Spanish Town, KingstonNumber of cities 9Selection criteria Sustainability; organisational support; financial contribution;

participation

Proposals/Approved/Funded 60/ 19 / 19Ongoing/Completed/Evaluation 16 / 0 / 0

Dialogue workshopsNumber Community–18; municipal–2; national–2; + parishParticipants 980 combined (not including parish workshops)Subjects Community development; information on LIFE; double-vented pit

latrinesPublicityMentions TV–3; radio–4; newspaper–3Videos Spring cleaning; Water is LIFE; St. Mary environmental seminar—

A Cleaner Port Maria

95

Annex 1

kyrgyzstanLIFE–Kyrgyzstan began in 1995 and is currently working in two cities—Bishkek and Osh. Themayor of Osh has been involved in LIFE and two National Selection Committee members areon the Kyrgyzstan Official Commission for Sustainable Human Development. LIFE receivedover 50 proposals for projects. Six projects have been funded. Many letters have been sent tostate officials to make them aware of the LIFE Programme and to focus their attention onenvironmental and SHD issues. It is difficult to involve the private sector because it is toosmall and undeveloped, having just emerged from a highly centralised state-controlled econ-omy.

There is a startling absence of dialogue at the community level among NGOs, CBOs andlocal authorities. Support for the projects is often weak because many NGOs are reluctant towork with municipalities. Also, there is no clear understanding of the concept of urban environ-mental protection. The national coordinator is networking to promote LIFE methods and makethem part of Kyrgyzstan’s long-term objectives. This programme needs funds to publicizesuccessful project examples based on local-local dialogue and the partnership approach.Such publicity would motivate the NSC and stimulate public interest and commitment to theprojects.

LIFE initiating mission August 1995

National coordinator Mr. Bakyt BesimovRecruited September 1995Background University DeanLocation Osh State University, Osh

National consultation October 1995Participants 80Priorities Water and sanitation; waste management—air, water, pollution;

hazard-prone areas; environmental health; income generation;environmental education; environment in urban planning

National selection committeeComposition NGO–4; CBO–2; LA–4; private-sector–0; national government–1;

UNDP–1; academic–1; donors–0Men–8; women–3

Local support committees No.Subcommittees Yes. Project selection.

Small-scale projectsGeographic focus Bishkek and OshNumber of cities 2Selection criteria Sustainability; organisational support; financial contribution;

par ticipation


Dialogue workshopsNumber Community–5; municipal–7; provincial–6; national–1Participants 60 community; 100 municipal; 43 provincial; 80 nationalSubjects LIFE objectives, process, project criteria

PublicityMentions TV; radio; newspaper

96


lebanonSince LIFE–Lebanon began in October 1995, there has been a national workshop and 15project proposals submitted to the National Selection Committee. Two were chosen—oneeach in Becharre and Hammana. The two projects have been successful beyond all expecta-tions, and scaling-up and replication have begun ahead of schedule. Both projects deal withsolid waste management through a process that starts with the sor ting of household wasteand ends with the sale of recycled materials. The sales generate income for the community.

Solid waste management has reached crisis proportions in Lebanon and is one of thegovernment’s top priorities. The National Selection Committee meets biweekly and is veryactive in all phases of project implementation. Each project has a committee to mobilisefunds for sustaining and maintaining the project. LIFE has been particularly welcomed by localauthorities who have little means of delivering services or meeting the needs of their commu-nities after years of invasion, war and devastation.

There is an interest in direct donor funding for LIFE overhead costs, but no mechanismexits for this under the current Lebanese legal structure. There are also many communities ingreat need that would like to utilise the LIFE Programme, but cannot find matching funds.LIFE–Lebanon must explore institutional forms for long-term commitments that circumvent theproblem of securing funds for overhead costs; it must also start to receive project proposalsat the rate of five per month and become more productive in the project selection process.

LIFE initiating mission 1995

National coordinator Ms. Brigitte Kheir KeirouzRecruited September 1995 Background NGOLocation UNDP Office, Beirut

National consultation November 1995Participants 110Priorities Water and sanitation; waste management—air, water pollution;

environmental education; city greeningNational selection committeeComposition NGO–2; CBO–0; LA–2; private sector–2; national government–2;


Local support committees Yes. To design and run each project.Subcommittees No.

Small-scale projectsGeographic focus Whole countryNumber of cities 2Selection criteria Matching funds; inclusion of local authority; committee of actors


Dialogue workshopsNumber Only national consultationParticipants 110Subjects LIFE priorities

PublicityMentions TV–7; radio–1; newspaper–5Videos LIFE in Lebanon

97

Annex 1

pakistanLIFE is well established in Pakistan with 21 small-scale projects funded and under way.Projects address urban sanitation, recycling, solid waste management and environmentaleducation issues and include innovative initiatives such as giving a grant to an Urdu newslet-ter to publicise LIFE’s activities and leaders. LIFE–Pakistan is being scaled up as a result of aUS$3.25 million commitment for the Programme for Livelihood Improvement in UrbanSettlements (PLUS), which will expand the mandate beyond the environment to include manyproblems confronting the urban poor. PLUS will comprise three medium-sized cities (up to 3million population). The LIFE–PLUS partnership raises mainstreaming issues of whether LIFEshould be absorbed by or independent from emerging programmes. NGOs play a significantrole in managing projects: although they do not conduct project evaluations, NGO’s areresponsible for overseeing documentation and evaluation costs (by line-item expense).Concerns have arisen over how to coordinate activities between LIFE, PLUS and GEF, a smallgrants programme.

LIFE initiating mission May 1993

National coordinator Mr. Fayyaz BaquirRecruited August 1993Background NGOLocation UNDP Islamabad

National consultation September 1993Participants 43Priorities Not discussed



Local support committees No.Subcommittees No.

Small-scale projectsGeographic focus Not discussed at national consultationNumber of cities 10Selection criteria Track record; community trust; professional capacity; well-defined

objectives; target group; community involvement; monitoring and evaluation


Dialogue workshopsNumber 10 provincial; 2 national Participants 295 provincial; 113 nationalSubjects Environmental Who’s Who; introduce LIFE; identify project

proposals; areas for future collaboration

PublicityMentions TV; radio–11; newspaper–variousVideos “Effective Urban Waste Management”; “Social Waste

Management”

98


senegalLIFE–Senegal has six projects underway and is moblilising resources for project support. TheNational Selection Committee approved sanitation, aqueduct, potable water and waste man-agement projects. The Programme also provides courses on horse medical care for the waste-cart horses. LIFE–Senegal learned that CBOs are the more motivated partners in LIFEactivities—compared with NGOs—because they are directly impacted by the projects. Othersignificant lessons learned are that community financial participation is possible, even in thepoorest communities, and that the suspicion and mistrust that community members heldtowards local authorities was assuaged through local-local dialogue and the partnershipapproach.

CBOs need increased technical assistance, especially in project formulation. Efforts tostrengthen CBO capacity are constrained by lack of funds and the relative absence of NGOsthat can work with CBOs out of Dakar. For the future a national strategy must be developed toguide local authorities involved in LIFE projects and to ensure successful implementation ofthe projects already funded.

LIFE initiating mission January 1993

National coordinator Mr. Bachir GayeRecruited July 1994Background Central governmentLocation CONGAD (NGO) in Dakar

National consultation November 1994Participants 100Priorities Water and sanitation; water management—air, water, pollution;

hazard-prone areas; environmental health; income generation; environmental education; environment in urban planning

National selection committeeComposition NGO–3; CBO–3; LA–3; private sector; national government–6;

UNDP–2; academic–1; association of engineers–1Men–19; women–3

Local support committees No.Subcommittees No.

Small-scale projectsGeographic focus All citiesNumber of cities 7Selection criteria Sustainability; organisational support; financial contribution;

participation


Dialogue workshopsNumber Community–9; municipal–11; provincial–5; national–5Participants 270 community; 220 municipal; 75 provincial; 150 nationalSubjects LIFE objectives and process; identification of environmental

problems and priorities; roles of actors

PublicityMentions TV; radio; newspaper–4Videos LIFE projects (under preparation)

99

Annex 1

south africaLIFE–South Africa is in its initial stage: it is organising its National Selection Committee follow-ing its first national workshop. Due to a long gap between the first initiating mission and therecruitment of the national coordinator, the programme was delayed. A national consultationinvolving representatives from all the provinces was held in February 1997 as a means toestablish connections.

The issue of the programme’s legal status under South Africa’s laws must be resolved, asbanks will only open accounts for legally constituted organisations. LIFE–South Africa will haveto do some institutionalising before it can put its methodologies to practice.

LIFE initiating mission November 1995

National coordinator Mr. Solomon Gumbi Recruited August 1996 Background NGO Location Mvula Trust, Pretoria

National consultation February 1997

100


tanzaniaLIFE–Tanzania has funded 16 projects, 7 of which have been completed. Projects are locatedin Dar es Salaam, Mwanza and Zanzibar. In working with on-going projects, LIFE–Tanzanialearned that it is important to monitor project progress, train groups in management andparticipatory skills and help groups to continuously reassess their strategies and priorities tofocus on programme objectives. It is critical to mobilise resources by getting local authoritiesto contribute expertise and to encourage donor visits to project sites. The programme is refin-ing its process for project selection and its methods of project evaluation to ensure that pro-jects meet community needs.

LIFE–Tanzania’s main challenges are resource mobilisation and the low capacity of localactors. The urban poor need to build skills and be trained in management The next phase ofLIFE must empower local civic groups to keep their environmental development plans as localinitiatives when they form par tnerships with local authorities.

LIFE initiating mission January 1993

National coordinator Ms. Mary KibogoyaRecruited 1994Background Central governmentLocation Office with Africa 2000, Dar es Salaam

National consultation May 1993Participants 80Priorities Water and sanitation; waste management; hazard-prone areas;

income generation; environment in urban planning


UNDP–1; academic–2; Africa 2000–1Men–10; women–4

Local support committees No.Subcommittees Yes, in Mwanza and Zanzibar.

Small-scale projectsGeographic focus 3 municipalities—Dar es Salaam, Zanzibar, Mwanza.Number of cities 3Selection criteria Focus on unplanned settlements and informal sector; LIFE

priorities; self-help and multi-actor


Dialogue workshopsNumber Community-10; municipal-3; national-2Participants 10–50 community; 20–40 municipal; 30–80 nationalSubjects Briefing on LIFE; community par ticipation; partnerships; project

formulation; group dynamics.

PublicityMentions TV–3; radio–4; newspaper–2 Videos “LIFE–supported Activities”; brochures on activities and case

studies

101

Annex 1

thailandLIFE–Thailand has 29 projects in 21 cities. The LIFE methodology has been accepted by com-munities and local authorities and is used extensively in municipalities. Phase II used theoutstanding successful projects from phase I as models to disseminate throughout the coun-try. At the end of phase II, the replication of these successes generated a demand for politicalreform to support an extensive scaling up and expansion process. The new governor ofBangkok was the former chairman of the LIFE National Selection Committee and he plans totransfer LIFE methodologies to every community in Bangkok. In addition, the UN CollaborativeAction Plan for Thailand (UNCAP) is in place and represents the major component of main-streaming LIFE methodologies in the development community.

The rapid adoption of the LIFE process by actors in major urban centres and in the UNdevelopment community makes its future somewhat unclear. Questions of the future role ofLIFE and its institutionalisation are currently being discussed and debated. One significantproblem has been that LIFE has gone beyond its original mandate, taken on new responsibili-ties and created a work overload. Regionalising its operations may ease LIFE’s overburdenedprogramme.

LIFE initiating mission April 1993

National coordinator Mr. Sompong PatpuiRecruited 1993Background NGOLocation The Grassroots Development Institute (NGO), Bangkok

National consultation May 1993Participants 45Priorities Water and sanitation; waste management—air, water pollution;

environmental health and education; environment in urban plan-ning; conservation


UNDP–1; academic–1; DANCED–1Men–11; women–6

Local support committees Yes. In regions.Subcommittees No.

Small-scale projectsGeographic focus Country-wideNumber of cities 21Selection criteria Seriousness; water resources; project impact; sustainability


Dialogue workshopsNumber Community–2 per month; municipal–3 per month; provincial–2 per

year; national–3 per yearParticipants 20 community; 10 municipal; 30 provincial; 12 nationalSubjects Work solutions; facilitate support; coordination; policy

PublicityMentions TV; radio; newspaper

102


africa

103

Annex 2

104


africa

105

Annex 2

arabstates

106


asia

107

Annex 2

108


asia

109

Annex 2

110


asia

111

Annex 2

112


asia

113

Annex 2

easterneurope

and the cis

and thecaribbean

114


latinamerica

115

Annex 2

and thecaribbean

116


latinamerica

117

Annex 2

and thecaribbean

118


latinamerica

119

Annex 2

120


LIFELocal Initiative Facility for Urban Environent

INT/92/017/A/01/31

Country:

Project Proposal and Summary

Project No.:(To be assigned by UNDP)

Project Summary

Name of organisation seeking award:Mailing address:Street address:

Telephone number:Fax number:Principal officer(s):Contact for this application:

(Name and position)

Previous awards received under the LIFE Programme (if any):Project no.:Name or title of project:Amount received:

(Local currency) (US$ equivalent)

DescriptionName or title of proposed project:

Location of project:

Starting date: Duration:

Project goals or objectives:

Activities to be carried out under project:

Project participants and/or beneficiaries:

Anticipated results of project:

Sample grant application

121

Annex 3

FinancesEstimated total project cost:

(Local currency) (US$ equivalent)

Amount requested from the LIFE Programme:(Local currency) (US$ equivalent)

Recipient contribution (in cash or in kind):

Amount(s) expected from other sources:(Local currency) (US$ equivalent)

Other forms of support requested from the LIFE Programme:■ Consultants (specify):

■ Other techical assistance (specify):

■ Training (specify):

Approximate cost of other support (if known):

Proposed payment schedule for the award:

Date Amount Date Amount

Details of bank account in which the LIFE Programme award would be deposited:Account title:Account number:Bank name and address:

Submitted by: Date:(Name and position)

122


LIFE’s National and GlobalCoordinators and UNDPResident Representatives

BANGLADESHMs. Tanzina Haque HossainLIFE National CoordinatorUNDP–Dhaka, House No. 60 Road No. 11ADhanmaondi Residential AreaDhaka, BangladeshPhone: (880-2) 818600-6/818632-39Fax: (880-2) 813196/817811/811180

Resident RepresentativeDavid LockwoodCountry Office Fax: same as above

BRAZILMr. Ricardo NevesLIFE National CoordinatorITC, Rua Dois de Dezembro, 78 sala 80922220-040 Rio de Janeiro, BrazilPhone: (55-21) 205 4178/205 4297Fax: (55-21) 205 3114

Resident RepresentativeMr. Cesar A. MiquelCountry Office Fax: 5561-329-2099

COLOMBIAMs. Zaida Salas FrancoLIFE National CoordinatorCRESPO, Avenida 7a No. 67-13Cartagena, ColombiaPhone: (57-5) 6647344Fax: (57-5) 66 001 67

Resident RepresentativeMr. Carlos Del CastilloCountry Office Fax: 57-1-214-0110

EGYPTDr. Emad AdlyLIFE National CoordinatorAOYE14 Abou El Mahassen El ShazlyMohandessinCairo, EgyptPhone: (20-2) 302 8391-5Fax: (20-2) 304 1635

Resident RepresentativeMr. Costante MuzioCountry Office Fax: 202-578-4847

JAMAICAMs. Marcia HextallLIFE National CoordinatorUnited Way of Jamaica32 1/2 Duke Street Kingston, JamaicaPhone: 876-967-4112Fax: 876-922-1033

Resident RepresentativeJoachim Von BraunmuhlCountry Office Fax: 809-926-8654

KYRGYZSTANMr. Bakyt BeshimovLIFE National CoordinatorPresident, Osh State UniversityLenin Street 331Osh 714000, KyrgyzstanPhone: (7-33222) 22273/26741Fax: (7-33222) 24605/22273

Resident RepresentativeErcan MuratCountry Office Fax: 7-3272-642608

123

Annex 4

LEBANONMs. Brigitte Kheir KeirouzLife National Coordinatorc/o UNDP–Beirut, U.N. HouseCapt. Ali Ahmed BuildingBir Hassan (Near Kuwait Embassy)Beirut, LebanonPhone: (961-1) 822145/603463Fax: (961-1) 603 460/1

Resident RepresentativeRoss MountainCountry Office Fax: 961-1-603-460/1

PAKISTANMr. Fayyaz BaqirLIFE National Coordinatorc/o UNDP–IslamabadUN Common PremisesSaudi-Pak Tower Building61-A Junnah AvenueIslamabad, PakistanPhone: 92-51-822-071 to 9Fax: 92-51-279 080/279 083

Resident RepresentativeRobert EnglandCountry Office Fax: same as above

SENEGALMr. M. Bachir GayeLIFE National CoordinatorCONGADB.P. 4109KM1, Ave Chekh Ante KiopDakar, SenegalPhone: (221) 25 5707Fax: (221) 25 5707

Resident RepresentativeMs. Odile Sorgho MoulinierCountry Office Fax: 221-23-55-00

SOUTH AFRICAMr. Solomon M. GumbiNational LIFE Coordinator-SACare of Mvula Trust12th Floor, Braamfontein Centre23 Jorissen St.Braamfontein, JohannesburgSouth AfricaPhone: (27-11) 403-3425Fax: (27-11) 403 9522/1260

Resident RepresentativeDavid WhaleyCountry Office Fax: 27-12-320-4353/54

TANZANIAMs. Mary KibogoyaLIFE National CoordinatorUNDP Dar-es-SalaamMatasalamat Mansion, 2nd FloorZanaki StreetDar-es-Salaam, TanzaniaPhone: (255-51) 36853Fax: (255-51) 46718/113272 (thru RR)

Resident RepresentativeJose V. Da Silva AngeloCountry Office Fax: 255-51-113-272

THAILANDMr. Sompong PatpuiLIFE National CoordinatorDirectorGrassroots Development Institute100/22 Loc 6, Art-Narong RoadKlongtoey, Bangkok 10110ThailandPhone: (66-2) 671 6911Fax: (66-2) 671 6910

Resident RepresentativeMichael HeynCountry Office Fax: 66-2-280-0556

GLOBAL COORDINATIONMDGD/BPPSUNDP304 East 45th Street, 12th FloorNew York, NY 10017Phone: 212 906 5058Fax: 212 906 6471

Participatory Local Governance - IRC · International workshop on participatory local governance 45...

Documents

Transcript of Participatory Local Governance - IRC · International workshop on participatory local governance 45...