A A

N INDEX OF GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE IN A CITY OR MUNICIPALITY IN THE PHILIPPINES

by Ben S. Malayang III, Ph.D. October 2004

This project is implemented by Development Alternatives, Inc. with the support of its subcontractors: Orient Integrated Development Consultants, Inc. n Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc. n Winrock International n Abt Associates, Inc. n Management Systems International n Michigan State University n

Produced by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-United States Agency for International Developments (DENR-USAID) Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Project through the assistance of the USAID under USAID PCE-1-00-99-00002-00. The views expressed and opinions contained in this publication are those of the authors and are not intended as statements of policy of USAID or the authors parent organization.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms ..........................................................................................................................iii Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1 Measures of Good Environmental Governance.............................................................. 1 Approach to Indexing Good Environmental Governance .............................................. 2 Two Alternative Instruments.............................................................................................. 3
1. 2. 3. Tri-Sourced Index. ................................................................................................. 3 A Single-Sourced Index......................................................................................... 6 Selecting Between the Two Instruments. .............................................................. 7

The Vetting Process.......................................................................................................... 7 Why Do This Index?.......................................................................................................... 8 Farther Way Forward ........................................................................................................ 9

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

ii

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

ACRONYMS
DBM DENR DILG EcoGov IRA LGU USAID Department of Budget and Management Department of Environment and Natural Resources Department of the Interior and Local Government The Philippine Environmental Governance Project Internal Revenue Allotment Local Government Unit United States Agency for International Development

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

iii

iv

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

AN INDEX OF GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE IN A CITY OR MUNICIPALITY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Ben S. Malayang III

INTRODUCTION
The Philippine Environmental Governance Project implemented by the DENR under a funding grant by the USAID, has undertaken various activities to develop an Index of Good Environmental Governance of LGUs in the country. These activities have culminated in an identification of key operations of LGUs that impinge on their decisions and management of local forests, solid wastes, and coastal fisheries, and a field validation of the relevant activities of LGUs that are readily observable and verifiable to local residents. These were vetted by the Policy Group of EcoGov on July 30, 2004. What follows are suggestions on possible ways forward to eventually develop a working instrument that can serve as basis for indexing the performance of two types of LGUs (cities and municipalities) in doing good environmental governance.

MEASURES OF GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Good environmental governance can mean many things to many people. For the purpose of this index (and based on the findings of the work so far done by EcoGov on developing the index), it might be defined as the effective delivery of basic environmental services, in a manner that is transparent, accountable, and participatory. On this basis, good environmental governance may be measured by way of four (4) indicator measures: 1. Effective delivery of basic environmental services. This shall be a measure of responsiveness; this is to be indicated in this index by the degree to which the citizens of a city or municipality are satisfied with how the local government is able (a) protect local forests, (b) protect coastal fisheries, and (c) manage solid wastes (from collection to disposal). 2. Transparency. The degree to which the decisions and actions of the city or municipal government relating to the delivery of environmental services and the processes conducted to produce them are open to public observation, vetting and scrutiny; these include the decisions and actions they make relating to accountability and participation as defined below; (accountability and participation, too, need to be transparent). 3. Accountability. The degree to which the decisions and actions of the city or municipal government relating to the delivery of environmental services and the processes conducted to produce them are subject to legally mandated and prescribed checks and balances.

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

4. Participation. The degree to which the citizens of a city or municipality are regularly engaged by the local government in processes to produce decisions and actions relating to the delivery of environmental services.

APPROACH TO INDEXING GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

The indexing process involves three sets of actors. Each is different, distinct and separate from the other: 1. Rater. The entity (person[s], organization[s]) collecting the data to produce the index in a city or municipality; must be independent and autonomous; has been trained. 2. Sources of the Data. The entities (person[s], office[s]) holding information relevant to producing the index; the information may be contained in documents, indicated by artifacts (e.g., maps, physical models, infrastructure, or objects), or expressed as observations, judgements and opinion. 3. Vetters of the Index. The entities (person[s], organizations) that will examine, assess, and use the index for purposes of assisting cities and municpalities improve on their environmental governance. It would seem best that given the anticipated need to produce the index at a low cost in time, money and personnel involved, the indexing process will utilize three (3) separate sources of data. This will allow for a triangulation of the information contained in a data source, and so strengthen the accuracy and validity values of the data, even if they are procured rather quickly and sparsely than would a normal and more robust field research standard ordinarily allows. Thus, this schema of the process:

Vetting Organization
(E.g., League of Cities; League of Municipalities)

Feedback to LGU
Rater
(Entity Determining the Index)

Feedback to LGU

Data Source 1
(e.g., Documents)

Data Source 2
(e.g., Informants)

Data Source 3
(e.g., Raters Site Observations)

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

TWO ALTERNATIVE INSTRUMENTS

1. TRI-SOURCED INDEX.

The Rater conducts a simple document inventory (Source 1; see Procedure A, below) and an Ocular Survey of the LGU (Source 2; see Procedure B, below). Then the Rater will randomly pick persons in the LGU to answer a questionnaire (Source 3; see Procedure C, below). The Index will be computed accordingly (see Procedure D, below).

Procedure A (Raters Document Inventory)

The Rater will request LGU officials to show him/her the documents listed below and check or enter a corresponding entry in the boxes in the matrix as shown.
() if YES; (X) if NO

A
The following documents were shown to me

B
I was shown the minutes of meetings indicating that the documents were produced by their mandated bodies

C
I was shown other documents indicating that the document listed in Column A has been made available to the public

D
I was shown other documents indicating that the document listed in Column A has been made available to relevant oversight bodies (e.g., COA; DBM; DILG; others)

Note to Rater
Do all rows if the LGU has both coastal & upland areas Do only rows 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 & 9 if the LGU has only upland areas; mark rows 2, 5 & 8 as NA (Not Applicable) Do only rows 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 & 9 if the LGU has only coastal areas; mark rows 1, 4 & 7 as NA (Not Applicable) [1] A FOREST PROTECTION & DEVELOPMENT Section in the City/Municipal Development Plan [2] A COASTAL FISHERIES PROTECTION & DEVELOPMENT Section in the City/Municipal Development Plan [3] A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Section in the City/Municipal Development Plan [4] An ORDINANCE to Protect and/or Develop Local FORESTS [5] An ORDINANCE to Protect and/or Develop COASTAL FISHERIES [6] An ORDINANCE to Collect & Dsipose SOLID WASTES According to the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act [7] LGU BUDGET Items for FOREST Protection & Development [8] LGU BUDGET Items for COASTAL FISHERIES Protection & Development [9] LGU BUDGET Items for SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

E The minutes of the meetings in Column B showed that participants in the meetings included persons from the general public, other than the designated members of the bodies

F
Compute for N1 = No. of /4

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

Total N1/No. of Relevant Entries* *No. of Relevant Entries: Use 9 if the LGU has both coastal & upland areas; use 6 if it has only either coastal or upland areas.

OVER-ALL N1

Procedure B (Raters Ocular Survey)

The Rater will go around the LGU to look for the items listed below and check or enter a corresponding entry in the boxes in the matrix as shown.

A
I saw the following items

B
() if YES; (X) if NO

C
Enter N2 = 1 if ; 0 if X

Note to Rater
Do all rows if the LGU has both coastal & upland areas Do only rows 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 & 15 if the LGU has only upland areas; mark rows 2, 5, 8, 11 & 14 as NA (Not Applicable) Do only rows 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 & 15 if the LGU has only coastal areas; mark rows 1, 4, 7, 10 & 13 as NA (Not Applicable) [1] A recent (last 3 yrs) AWARD to the LGU for GOOD FOREST Protection and/or Development [2] A recent (last 3 yrs) AWARD to the LGU for GOOD COASTAL FISHERIES Protection and/or Development [3] A recent (last 3 yrs) AWARD to the LGU for GOOD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT [4] A local FOREST USE MAP [5] A local COASTAL USE MAP [6] A local SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT MAP [7] MARKERS of PROTECTED FORESTS [8] MARKERS of MARINE PROTECTED AREAS [9] MARKERS of SOLID WASTE DEPOSITION AREAS [10] Recent (last 3 yrs) POLICE BLOTTERS on FOREST CRIMES [11] Recent (last 3 yrs) POLICE BLOTTERS on FISHERIES CRIMES [12] Recent (last 3 yrs) POLICE BLOTTERS on ILLEGAL WASTE DUMPINGS [13] CASES recently (last 3 yrs) filed in local Courts for violation of FORESTRY laws/ordinances [14] CASES recently (last 3 yrs) filed in local Courts for violation of FISHERY laws/ordinance [15] CASES recently (last 3 yrs) filed in local Courts for violation of SOLID WASTE laws/ordinances Total N2/No. of Relevant Entries* *No. of Relevant Entries: Use 15 if the LGU has both coastal & upland areas; use 10 if it has only either coastal or upland areas.

OVER-ALL N2

Procedure C (Survey of Residents)

The Rater will go around the LGU and randomly select 10 individuals (found as far away from each other) and request them for a moment to answer the questions listed below and check or enter a corresponding entry in the boxes in the matrix as shown. Note to Rater: REQUEST the selected respondent if he/she is willing to answer your questions. PUT UP FRONT your objective (which is to rate the LGU for good environmental governance) and the coverage of the questions to be asked (which are on the ability of the LGU to (a) improve and protect forests and fisheries, and garbage services, (b) preventing corruption, and (c) prosecuting violators of forestry, fishery, and solid waste laws and ordinances). AFTER PRESENTING YOUR OBJECTIVE AND COVERAGE OF THE QUESTIONS, assure the selected respondent of the complete confidentiality of his/her responses (show that you will not be asking their names), then ask AGAIN if he/she will still agree to be interviewed. PROCEED WITH THE INTERVIEW only if the second consent is given.

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

Respondents Profile
Age Gender Years Residing in the LGU Main Livelihood Has or Have Had an Elected Position in the LGU? (Y/N)

QUESTIONS
Do all rows for LGUs with coastal & upland areas Do only rows 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 14 for only upland LGUs; mark the other rows NA Do only rows 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 & 14 for only coastal LGUs; mark the other rows NA [1] How do you rate the ability of your LGU on improving your local FORESTS? [2] How do you rate the ability of your LGU on protecting your local FORESTS? [3] How do you rate the ability of your LGU on improving your local COASTAL FISHERIES? [4] How do you rate the ability of your LGU on protecting your local COASTAL FISHERIES? [5] How do you rate the ability of your LGU on improving the collection of GARBAGE in your city/municipality? [6] How do you rate the ability of your LGU on improving the disposal of GARBAGE in your city/municipality? [7] How do you rate your LGU in its ability to prevent corruption in the city or municipality? [8] How do you rate the ability of your LGU to punish LGU employees for corruption? [9] How do you rate your LGU in how it informs the citizens in your city/municipality about its programs on FORESTRY? [10] How do you rate your LGU in how it informs the citizens in your city/municipality about its programs on FISHERIES? [11] How do you rate your LGU in how it informs the citizens in your city or municipality about its programs on controlling GARBAGE in your city or municipality? [12] How do you rate your LGU in how it involves the citizens in your city or municipality in its FORESTRY programs?

Check () Indicated Response

Very Dissatisfied (1) Dissatisfied (2) No Opinion (0) Satisfied (3) Very Satisfied (4)

Enter N3 (the Number in the Checked [] Column/4)

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

QUESTIONS
Do all rows for LGUs with coastal & upland areas Do only rows 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 & 14 for only upland LGUs; mark the other rows NA Do only rows 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 & 14 for only coastal LGUs; mark the other rows NA [13] How do you rate your LGU in how it involves the citizens in your city or municipality in its FISHERIES programs? [14] How do you rate your LGU in how it involves the citizens in your city or municipality in its programs on controlling GARBAGE? OVER-ALL N3

Check () Indicated Response

Very Dissatisfied (1) Dissatisfied (2) No Opinion (0) Satisfied (3) Very Satisfied (4)

Enter N3 (the Number in the Checked [] Column/4)

Total N3/No. of Relevant Entries* *No. of Relevant Entries: Use 13 if the LGU has both coastal & upland areas; use 10 if it has only either coastal or upland areas.

Determining the Index

The Rater shall add N1, N2 and N3, then divide by 3. The resulting number, which should range from 0 to 1, is the Index of Good Environmental Governance of the LGU, at that time of assessment.

2.

A SINGLE-SOURCED INDEX.

The Rater conducts a series of interviews among three distinct groups of respondents. The same questions (in a single survey instrument, see below) are asked, but to at least 5 carefully prequalified respondents per group. Triangulation is achieved by engaging the three groups. The three groups are: (1) local government officials; (2) local civil society leaders (NGOs, POs, Indigenous Communities, Religious, Civic Organizations), and (3) Citizens in the street (opportunistically selected, but as far from each one as possible). The Rater shall have to identify these in a random manner, from among a list submitted to him/her by contacts from among the three groups.

Good Environmental Governance Survey

Questions 1. Do you know what your LGU is doing to: 1.1 Protect your local forests 1.2 Protect your coastal fisheries 1.3 Rid your city/municipality of garbage Do you think your city/municipality is doing enough to: 1.1 Protect your local forests 2.2 Protect your coastal fisheries 2.3 Rid your city/municipality of garbage

Remarks (Volunteered Information)

2.

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

Questions 3. Do you think your LGU is doing enough to involve the citizens in this city/municipality in protecting: 1.1 Your local forests 3.2 Your coastal fisheries 3.3 The garbage situation in your city/municipality Do you think your city/municipality is doing enough to prevent corruption involving: 1. Forests 4.2 Fisheries 4.3 Garbage services Do you think your city/municipality is doing enough to arrest violators of: 5.1 Forestry laws and ordinances 5.2 Fisheries laws and ordinances 5.3 Garbage laws and ordinances

Remarks (Volunteered Information)

4.

5.

Determining the Index

The Rater shall add Yes responses by each respondent, then divide by 15 if the LGU is both coastal and upland. If the LGU is only either coastal or upland, then divide by 10. Designate this number as R1 if the respondent is from Group 1, R2 if from Group 2, and R3 if from Group 3. Average the Rs of all respondents in a group (add them, then divide by the number of respondents in that group). Designate this number as M1 for Group 1, M2 for Group 2, and M3 for Group 3. Add M1, M2 and M3, then divide by 3. The resulting number, which should range from 0 to 1, is the Index of Good Environmental Governance of the LGU, at that time of assessment.

3.

SELECTING BETWEEN THE TWO INSTRUMENTS.

The second instrument will readily present itself as simpler than the first. It will also require less time and personnel to administer. But while, design-wise, they can be held to be similarly robust, the second lacks the comparative depth and comprehensiveness of the first. The choice may have to be made on how interests on depth and comprehensiveness are to be balanced against the resources available for undertaking the indexing process.

THE VETTING PROCESS

The Leagues may vet the index for (a) consistency and diligence taken to produce the index, in each LGU and across all indexed LGUs; and (b) the trend in individual LGUs across time, or across LGUs by region and time. The trends can be published for all LGUs to see and compare best practices among them, or made as basis for the Leagues to develop programs to strengthen environmental governance by LGUs, or to develop incentives for the LGUs to strengthen their environmental governance systems. They may be used as well to spot LGUs practicing good environmental governance, and promote inter-LGU learning from among them.

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

WHY DO THIS INDEX?

A key question regarding the value of indexing good environmental governance among LGUs would be on Whats in it for me?. The LGUs may ask this, as well as their Leagaues (the intended vetting body). In a larger scale, other stakeholders on LGU environmental governance practices (local residents, civil society, other government agencies) might ask the same question. The satisfactory answer to this one questionfrom the point of view of each actor and stakeholder in the processcould spell the extent to which the indexing process would play into institutionalizing and improving good environmental governance in the Philippines. Whats in it for me? There are many possible answers to this question depending on who would be asking: 1. For the Citizens of the LGU. The principal answer would that the index will facilitate citizen awareness of how much their LGU is providing them with basic and critical environmental services. To the extent that they will use the index to mobilize public pressure on the LGU to improve on the delivery of forest and fishery protection and development and on solid waste management services, they will likely reap the benefits of a healthier local environment and improved local ecological security. 2. For the the LGU being indexed. The index can be used to calibrate LGU efforts, particularly on resource allocation, to improve on their mandated task to secure their citizens from man-made and natural disasters, and to ensure that basic environmental services are provided them. LGU funds that will otherwise go toward responding to public health threats, to disasters like flooding and severe soil erosion, or to loss of primary livelihoods and food sources, could be used instead for other development projects. Also, a documented good performance in environmental governance will improve the LGUs credibility at securing more development funds for public health and food and environmental security. 3. For the LGU Leagues. The index will allow the Leagues to become more relevant to their member LGUs when they are able to use it to generate development funds, promote inter-LGU learning and capacity-building, and negotiate for incentives from the national government on relaxing certain prescriptions on the use of LGU IRAs. 4. For DENR. The index may be used to calibrate the devolution of more environmental regulatory powers to good performing LGUs. 5. For DILG. The index can be used to give a picture of good performance among LGUs, which the department might use to design, calibrate and prioritize their capacity-building assistance programs. 6. For DBM. Prescribed guidelines on the LGUs use of their IRA may be relaxed for consistently good performing LGUs. Example: They can be allowed to combine certain allocations for different purposes or given more discretion on their use. 7. For Civil Society. The index will allow for better monitoring and evaluating LGU performance in environmental governance.

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines

FARTHER WAY FORWARD

The development of this index under EcoGov has been an evolutionary process. But it did not take that long to get into this stage than similar efforts elsewhere (2-3 years, in the case of the DAP Index). The process and instruments described above came as a result of over a year of identifying, selecting and validating the elements of the index (based on the legal mandates of LGUs and the experience of the project in the field), and of prototyping data gathering instruments to measure the elements, in both cases, sans a basis for determining which elements are relevant to local environmental governance stakeholders in the country, or which once are readily available for routine use in the indexing process. What might be done now is to (1) pre-test the two alternative instruments, and (2) select which of the two will be used in EcoGov II. The first need not be as elaborate as in the previous stage, which included validating the elements that would be relevant to the index, and determining how the indicated procedure plays out in terms of facility of procuring the data. In this present case, the pre-test will be classical in nature: test the facility of doing the procedure and serving the instruments, including the clarity and precision of the questions asked. This can take no more than 1 month, to be done in preferably 3-5 LGUs. The second might be done entirely on consideration of facility of undertaking the process, and on the resources available to do it among the intended number of LGUs to be served under EcoGov II. One other important consideration could be which instrument might lend to quicker and deeper institutionalization in the country in the long run.

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines