an index of good envl governance

8/2/2019 An Index of Good Envl Governance

1/15

AAAN INDEXOF GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL

GOVERNANCEINA CITYOR

MUNICIPALITYINTHE 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. nResources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies, Inc. n

Winrock International nAbt Associates, Inc. n

Management Systems International nMichigan State University n


2/15

Produced by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources-United States Agency for InternationalDevelopments (DENR-USAID) Philippine Environmental Governance (EcoGov) Project through the assistanceof 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 parentorganization.


3/15

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. Tri-Sourced Index.................................................................................................. 3

2. A Single-Sourced Index......................................................................................... 6

3. Selecting Between the Two Instruments............................................................... 7

The Vetting Process..........................................................................................................7

Why Do This Index?.......................................................................................................... 8Farther Way Forward ........................................................................................................9

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


4/15

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


5/15

ACRONYMS

DBM - Department of Budget and ManagementDENR - Department of Environment and Natural ResourcesDILG - Department of the Interior and Local GovernmentEcoGov - The Philippine Environmental Governance Project

IRA - Internal Revenue AllotmentLGU - Local Government UnitUSAID - United States Agency for International Development

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


6/15

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


7/15

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 fundinggrant by the USAID, has undertaken various activities to develop an Index of Good EnvironmentalGovernance of LGUs in the country.

These activities have culminated in an identification of key operations of LGUs that impinge ontheir decisions and management of local forests, solid wastes, and coastal fisheries, and a fieldvalidation of the relevant activities of LGUs that are readily observable and verifiable to localresidents. 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 workinginstrument that can serve as basis for indexing the performance of two types of LGUs (cities andmunicipalities) in doing good environmental governance.

MEASURES OF GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

Good environmental governance can mean many things to many people. For the purpose of thisindex (and based on the findings of the work so far done by EcoGov on developing the index), itmight 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) indicatormeasures:

1. Effective delivery of basic environmental services. This shall be a measure ofresponsiveness; this is to be indicated in this index by the degree to which the citizens ofa city or municipality are satisfied with how the local government is able (a) protect localforests, (b) protect coastal fisheries, and (c) manage solid wastes (from collection todisposal).

2. Transparency. The degree to which the decisions and actions of the city or municipalgovernment relating to the delivery of environmental services and the processes

conducted to produce them are open to public observation, vetting and scrutiny; theseinclude the decisions and actions they make relating to accountabilityand participationasdefined below; (accountability and participation, too, need to be transparent).

3. Accountability. The degree to which the decisions and actions of the city or municipalgovernment relating to the delivery of environmental services and the processesconducted to produce them are subject to legally mandated and prescribed checks andbalances.

An Index of Good Environmental Governance in a City or Municipality in the Philippines 1


8/15

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

APPROACH TO INDEXINGGOOD ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE

The indexing process involves three sets of actors. Each is different, distinct and separate fromthe other:

1. Rater. The entity (person[s], organization[s]) collecting the data to produce the index in acity or municipality; must be independent and autonomous; has been trained.

2. Sources of the Data. The entities (person[s], office[s]) holding information relevant toproducing the index; the information may be contained in documents, indicated byartifacts (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, anduse the index for purposes of assisting cities and municpalities improve on theirenvironmental 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 ofdata. This will allow for a triangulation of the information contained in a data source, and sostrengthen the accuracy and validity values of the data, even if they are procured rather quicklyand sparsely than would a normal and more robust field research standard ordinarily allows.

Thus, this schemaof the process:

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

Feedback to LGU Feedback to LGURater

(Entity Determining the Index)

Data Source 1 Data Source 2 Data Source 3

(e.g., Documents) (e.g., Informants) (e.g., Raters Site Observations)

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


9/15

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 pickpersons in the LGU to answer a questionnaire(Source 3; see Procedure C, below). The Index willbe 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 orenter a corresponding entry in the boxes in the matrix as shown.

() if YES; (X) if NO

AThe following documents were

shown to me

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 uplandareas; mark rows 2, 5 & 8 as

NA (Not Applicable)

Do only rows 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 & 9if the LGU has only coastalareas; mark rows 1, 4 & 7 as

NA (Not Applicable)

BI was shown

the minutes of

meetings

indicating

that the

documents

were

produced by

their

mandated

bodies

CI was shown

other

documents

indicating

that the

document

listed in

Column A has

been made

available to

the public

DI was shown

other

documents

indicating

that thedocument

listed in

Column A

has been

madeavailable to

relevant

oversight

bodies(e.g., COA;

DBM; DILG;

others)

E

The minutes

of the

meetings in

Column Bshowed that

participants

in the

meetings

included

persons from

the general

public, other

than the

designated

members of

the bodies

FCompute for

N1 = No. of/4

[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 theCity/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



10/15

OVER-ALL N1 Total N1/No. ofRelevant 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.

Procedure B (Raters Ocular Survey)

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

AI saw the following items

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)

B() if YES;(X) if NO

CEnter N2 = 1 if;

0 if X

[1] A recent (last 3 yrs) AWARD to the LGU for GOOD FOREST Protectionand/or Development

[2] A recent (last 3 yrs) AWARD to the LGU for GOOD COASTAL FISHERIESProtection 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

OVER-ALL N2 Total N2/No. ofRelevant Entries*


Procedure C (Survey of Residents)

The Rater will go around the LGU and randomly select 10 individuals (found as far away fromeach other) and request them for a moment to answer the questions listed below and check orenter 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 questionsto be asked (which are on the abilityof the LGU to (a) improveand protect forests and fisheries, and garbage services, (b) preventing corruption, and (c)prosecuting violators of forestry, fishery, and solid waste laws and ordinances). AFTERPRESENTING YOUR OBJECTIVE AND COVERAGE OF THE QUESTIONS, assure the selectedrespondent of the complete confidentiality of his/her responses (show that you will not be askingtheir names), then ask AGAIN if he/she will still agree to be interviewed. PROCEED WITH THEINTERVIEW only if the second consent is given.



11/15

Respondents ProfileAge Gender Years Residing in the

LGU

Main Livelihood Has or Have Had an

Elected Position in the

LGU? (Y/N)

Check () Indicated ResponseQUESTIONS

Do all rows for LGUs withcoastal & upland areas

Do only rows 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 11, 12 & 14 for onlyupland LGUs; mark the

other rows NA

Do only rows 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,10, 11, 13 & 14 for onlycoastal LGUs; mark the

other rows NA

VeryDissatisfied

(1)

Dissatisfied

(2)

NoOpinion

(0)

Satisfied

(3)

VerySatisfied

(4)

Enter N3

(the

Number in the

Checked []Column/4)

[1] How do you rate the abilityof your LGU on improving

your local FORESTS?

[2] How do you rate the ability

of your LGU onprotectingyour local FORESTS?


of your LGU on improvingyour local COASTAL

FISHERIES?


of your LGU onprotectingyour local COASTAL

FISHERIES?


of your LGU on improving the

collection of GARBAGE in

your city/municipality?

[6] How do you rate the abilityof your LGU on improving the

disposal of GARBAGE in yourcity/municipality?

[7] How do you rate your LGU

in its ability to preventcorruption in the city ormunicipality?


of your LGU to punish LGUemployees for corruption?

[9] How do you rate your LGU

in how it informs the citizens in

your city/municipality about itsprograms on FORESTRY?

[10] How do you rate your

LGU in how it informs thecitizens in your

city/municipality about its

programs on FISHERIES?


LGU in how it informs thecitizens in your city or

municipality about its

programs on controllingGARBAGE in your city or

municipality?

[12] How do you rate yourLGU in how it involves the

citizens in your city or

municipality in its FORESTRY

programs?



12/15

Check () Indicated ResponseQUESTIONSVery

Dissatisfied

(1)

Dissatisfied

(2)

No

Opinion

(0)

Satisfied

(3)

Very

Satisfied

(4)

Enter N3 (the

Number in the

Checked []Column/4)

Do all rows for LGUs withcoastal & 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 onlycoastal LGUs; mark the

other rows NA


LGU in how it involves the

citizens in your city or

municipality in its FISHERIES

programs?


LGU in how it involves the

citizens in your city ormunicipality in its programs on

controlling GARBAGE?

OVER-ALL N3 Total N3/No. of

RelevantEntries*


Determining the Index

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

2. ASINGLE-SOURCED INDEX.

The Rater conducts a series of interviews among three distinct groups of respondents. The samequestions (in a single survey instrument, see below) are asked, but to at least 5 carefully pre-

qualified 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 identifythese in a random manner, from among a list submitted to him/her by contacts from among thethree groups.

Good Environmental Governance Survey

Questions Y N

Remarks

(VolunteeredInformation)

1. Do you know what your LGU is doingto:

1.1 Protect your local forests

1.2 Protect your coastal fisheries

1.3 Rid your city/municipality of garbage

2. Do you think your city/municipality is doing enoughto:

1.1 Protect your local forests

2.2 Protect your coastal fisheries

2.3 Rid your city/municipality of garbage



13/15

Questions Y N

Remarks

(VolunteeredInformation)

3. Do you think your LGU is doing enoughto involve the citizensin this city/municipality in protecting:

1.1 Your local forests3.2 Your coastal fisheries

3.3 The garbage situation in your city/municipality

4. Do you think your city/municipality is doing enoughto preventcorruption involving:

1. Forests

4.2 Fisheries

4.3 Garbage services

5. Do you think your city/municipality is doing enoughto arrestviolators of:

5.1 Forestry laws and ordinances5.2 Fisheries laws and ordinances

5.3 Garbage laws and ordinances

Determining the Index

The Rater shall add Yes responses by each respondent, then divide by 15 if the LGU is bothcoastal and upland. If the LGU is only either coastal or upland, then divide by 10. Designate thisnumber 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 ofrespondents in that group). Designate this number as M1 for Group 1, M2 for Group 2, and M3 forGroup 3. Add M1, M2 and M3, then divide by 3. The resulting number, which should range from 0to 1, is the Index of Good Environmental Governanceof 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 lesstime 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 mayhave to be made on how interests on depth and comprehensiveness are to be balanced againstthe 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, ineach LGU and across all indexed LGUs; and (b) the trend in individual LGUs across time, oracross LGUs by region and time.

The trends can be published for all LGUs to see and compare best practices among them, ormade as basis for the Leagues to develop programs to strengthen environmental governance byLGUs, or to develop incentives for the LGUs to strengthen their environmental governancesystems. They may be used as well to spot LGUs practicing good environmental governance,and promote inter-LGU learning from among them.



14/15

WHY DO THIS INDEX?

A key question regarding the value of indexing good environmental governance among LGUswould be on Whats in it for me?. The LGUs may ask this, as well as their Leagaues (theintended 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 andstakeholder in the processcould spell the extent to which the indexing process would play intoinstitutionalizing and improving good environmental governance in the Philippines.

Whats in it for me? There are many possible answers to this question depending on who wouldbe asking:

1. For the Citizens of the LGU. The principal answer would that the index will facilitatecitizen awareness of how much their LGU is providing them with basic and criticalenvironmental services. To the extent that they will use the index to mobilize publicpressure on the LGU to improve on the delivery of forest and fishery protection anddevelopment and on solid waste management services, they will likely reap the benefitsof 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 theircitizens from man-made and natural disasters, and to ensure that basic environmentalservices are provided them. LGU funds that will otherwise go toward responding to publichealth threats, to disasters like flooding and severe soil erosion, or to loss of primarylivelihoods and food sources, could be used instead for other development projects. Also,a documented good performance in environmental governance will improve the LGUscredibility at securing more development funds for public health and food andenvironmental 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, promoteinter-LGU learning and capacity-building, and negotiate for incentives from the nationalgovernment on relaxing certain prescriptions on the use of LGU IRAs.

4. For DENR. The index may be used to calibrate the devolution of more environmentalregulatory 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-buildingassistance programs.

6. For DBM. Prescribed guidelines on the LGUs use of their IRA may be relaxed forconsistently 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 LGUperformance in environmental governance.



15/15

FARTHER WAY FORWARD

The development of this index under EcoGov has been an evolutionary process. But it did nottake that long to get into this stage than similar efforts elsewhere (2-3 years, in the case of theDAP 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 ofLGUs and the experience of the project in the field), and of prototyping data gatheringinstruments to measure the elements, in both cases, sansa basis for determining which elementsare relevant to local environmental governance stakeholders in the country, or which once arereadily 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 ofthe two will be used in EcoGov II.

The first need not be as elaborate as in the previous stage, which included validating theelements that would be relevant to the index, and determining how the indicated procedure playsout in terms of facility of procuring the data. In this present case, the pre-test will be classical innature: test the facility of doing the procedure and serving the instruments, including the clarityand precision of the questions asked. This can take no more than 1 month, to be done inpreferably 3-5 LGUs.

The second might be done entirely on consideration of facility of undertaking the process, and onthe resources available to do it among the intended number of LGUs to be served under EcoGovII. One other important consideration could be which instrument might lend to quicker and deeperinstitutionalization in the country in the long run.
