Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

People and water : a resource book for applying community-based watershed management to informal settlements Harstone, Michael D. A. 2000

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2000-0418.pdf [ 16.52MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0089552.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0089552-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0089552-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0089552-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0089552-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0089552-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0089552-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0089552-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0089552.ris

Full Text

PEOPLE AND WATER: A RESOURCE BOOK FOR APPLYING COMMUNITY-BASED WATERSHED MANAGEMENT TO INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS by MICHAEL D.A. HARSTONE B.Ap.Sc, The University of British Columbia, 1987 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES (School of Community and Regional Planning) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 2000 © Michael D.A. Harstone, 2000 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) Abstract Page ii The already rapid pace of urbanization in developing countries is exacerbated in informal settlements. These unplanned areas typically have twice the growth rates o f the city region and account for the majority of organic pollutants within Third World Cities. Conditions in and around these areas are deteriorating and alarmingly unhealthy: Many observers cite these areas as the most polluted and disease ridden habitats on the planet. Planners and urban managers are struggling with finding new ways to cope with these unregulated areas, as traditional urban management approaches have failed. One of the most recent arrivals is community-based watershed management ( C B W M ) . Unfortunately, there is little guidance from the developmental field on how C B W M can be applied; the information that is available is inconsistent as there is wide disagreement in practice for the scope and nature of its activities. This thesis provides decision-makers, urban managers, planners and international agencies with ideas and resources for applying C B W M strategies to the urban environment and informal settlements. Integrating information from participatory development, integrated watershed management, and urban environmental management, this thesis has taken the form of a Resource Book to better illustrate a process, and associated principles, methods, and tools for C B W M . Beginning with an overview of the challenges and opportunities for C B W M , this document continues by developing a municipal planning framework that identifies the main concepts and potential activities for C B W M and organizes them in a logical format. This framework is supplemented with a menu (or toolbox) of specific strategies available to carryout C B W M according to the institutional, social, and environmental systems. The final section of this document concludes with three appendices which provide users with additional resources and reference points to more specific information. This Resource Book is based on meta-research: drawing from the documented experiences of other researchers and collating the information into a useful and comprehensive format. While it attempts to reach as wide an audience as possible, its current format is perhaps most appropriately targeted at the professional level. It is, therefore, considered a first step (or one component) towards a community-level resource book that is more applicable to all stakeholders. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Table of Contents Page iii Abstract ii List of Figures iv Preface viii Conceptual Drawing of Urban C B W M for Informal Settlements xi 1.0 Urban Environmental Management and C B W M 1 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Challenges of Urban Environmental Management 1.3 The Way Forward: C B W M 1.4 A Conceptual Model For This Resource Book: C B W M Applied to Informal Settlements 1.5 Key References 2.0 A Municipal Planning Framework for C B W M 36 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Developing a Planning Framework 2.3 A Planning Framework for C B W M 2.4 Key References 3.0 Urban C B W M Strategies 66 3.1 Planning and Administration Strategies 3.2 Community-Based Strategies 3.3 Environmental Strategies 3.4 Key References 4.0 A Yardstick for C B W M : An Evaluation Framework 119 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Overcoming Challenges of Evaluation: Participatory Evaluation 4.3 A Method for Developing a C B W M Evaluation Framework 4.4 A n Illustrative Evaluation Framework for C B W M 4.5 Key References 5.0 Summary and Conclusion 154 5.1 Introduction 5.2 The Appropriateness of C B W M as an Urban Management Tool for Informal Settlements 5.3 Limitations of the Research and Lessons Learnt 5.4 Future Steps Appendices A . Annotated Bibliography 165 B. Annotated Internet Websites 207 C. Case Studies Illustrating Community-Based and Environmental Strategies 219 Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements List of Figures Page iv Figures Figure 1.1 Conceptual Drawing of Urban C B W M for Informal Settlements 30 Figure 2.1 Schematic Showing the Management Process Stages for C B W M 39 Figure 2.2 Recommended Management Areas for the Policy Planning Stage 43 Figure 2.3 Recommended Management Areas for the Designing C B W M Stage 49 Figure 4.1 Schematic Showing the Management Process Stages for C B W M 127 Tables Table 1.1 Fundamental Aspects of C B W M 26 Table 2.1 Management Activities for Policy Planning 44 Table 2.2 Management Activities for Designing C B W M 52 Table 2.3 Management Activities for Implementing C B W M 58 Table 3.1 Regulatory and Economic Instruments 100 Table 4.1 Fundamental Concepts of C B W M Applied to an Analytical Framework 125 Table 4.2 Indicator Framework for the Policy Planning Stage 133 Table 4.3 Indicator Framework for the Designing C B W M Stage 137 Table 4.4 Indicator Framework for the Implementing C B W M Stage 142 Table 4.5 Indicator Framework for the O & M Stage 146 Table 4.6 Indicator Framework for the Monitoring and Evaluation Stage 151 Table 5.1 Fundamental Principles of C B W M 156 Boxes Box 1.1 Economic Benefits of Community-Based Development Projects 15 Box 3.1 Appropriate Technologies: P R O F A V E L A in Sao Paulo, Brazi l 72 Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements List of Figures Page v Box 3.2 Decentralized Management: A Potential Hierarchy of Responsibilities 73 for Water Management within Communities Box 3.3 A Typology of Public-Private Partnerships 76 Box 3.4 Community Managed Water and Sanitation Projects: Port au Prince, Hai t i . . . 78 Box 3.5 Joint Inter-Governmental Work: A National Water Policy in Sri Lanka 83 Box 3.6 A Water Strategy: Brazil's National Water Resources Management Act 88 Box 3.7 More Sustainable Training: U N C H S Community Participation Training 94 Programme (CPTP) in Bol iv ia Box 3.8 Governance Structure: Brazil's National Water Resources Management Ac t . . . 96 Box 3.9 Additional Benefits of Community Participation: Indonesia's Kampung 103 Improvement Project (KIP) Box 3.10 Government Funds for Participatory Watershed Development: The 105 Experience from India Box 3.11 Pollution Prevention Program: B C Ministry of Environment 109 Box 3.12 Building Constituencies: Municipal Government in Peru 114 Box C . l U N I C E F ' s Urban Basic Services (UBS) Programme in Guatemala Ci ty . . . . 221 Box C.2 A n N G O ' s Experience: IDRC's Natural Resources C B W M Project 222 in Nam Ngum, Laos Box C.3 Women as Community Managers: Guayaquil, Ecuador 222 Box C.4 A Word about Gender Analysis 223 Box C.5 The Empowerment Approach to Social Intermediation for C B W M . 224 Box C.6 A Menu of Methods for Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) 225 Box C.7 P R A and C B W M : Potential Key Areas to Focus on 226 Box C.8 Participatory Techniques Used to Determine Demand: A Case Study 227 in Lao P D R Box C.9 Workshop-Based Methods Used by the World Bank 227 Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Lis t of Figures Page vi Box C. 10 Community-Based Methods Used by the World Bank 228 Box C. 11 Stakeholder Consultations Used by the World Bank 228 Box C.12 Commentary on the Prerequisites Considered for Community Mobilization.. . 229 Box C.13 Pilot Projects: The Experience from the Orangi Pilot Project (OPP), Pakistan.. 229 Box C. 14 A n Illustrative Governance Structure for C B W M 230 Box C.15 A Revolving Fund: A Case Study in Rufisque, Senegal 231 Box C.16 Illustration of How A Community Revolving Fund Could Operate 231 Box C.17 Alternative Community Financing Option: Local Exchange Transfer 232 System (LETS) Box C.18 Community-Based Urban Environmental Management in Rufisque, Senegal.. 232 Box C. 19 Some Key Points to Keep in M i n d for Performing a Community 233 Watershed Assessment Box C.20 Scaling Up Successful Participatory Watershed Development Projects: 234 Case Studies from India Box C.21 A Word About Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 235 Box C.22 Planning for Precarious or Vulnerable Residential Areas 236 Box C.23 Water and Sanitation Technologies: "Beosite" ® Production Facilities 236 Box C.24 Water Pumping Technologies 237 Box C.25 Ecological Sanitation 237 Box C.26 Eco-San Vegetable Growing in Mexico City 238 Box C.27 Strategic Sanitation Approach (SSA) 238 Box C.28 Innovations in Sewerage Systems: Brazil's 'Condominial' Sewerage System... 239 Box C.29 Community Based Waste Disposal: A Case Study in Bangalore, India 240 Box C.30 Community-Based Solid Waste Management: Rufisque Senegal, Africa 240 Box C.31 Measures to Encourage More Sustainable Resource Use 241 Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Lis t of Figures Page vii Box C.32 Co-Management of Forests: Gujarat, India 241 Box C.33 Common Pool Resource (CPR) Management Groups 242 Box C.34 Common Pool Resource Management Groups: Criteria for 243 Assessing Robustness Box C.35 Community-Based Protection of Forests: Watershed Planning in 244 Pohnpei, Micronesia Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Preface Page viii This Resource Book was stimulated by two realizations relating to community-based watershed management ( C B W M ) projects in developing countries: first, that there is little in the developmental literature on how C B W M can be applied to an urban environment; and second, the information that is available is inconsistent and confusing. Reading through the C B W M literature reveals numerous competing and contradictory definitions as to what, and how, C B W M could be carried out. The purpose for this document therefore is to help clarify some of the confusion surrounding C B W M through the development of an easy to use and comprehensive Resource Book for urban managers, planners, and support agencies. This includes defining and establishing C B W M as a planning theory for urban environmental management in informal settlements—describing the principles, methods, techniques, and tools which could be used for C B W M . While this Resource Book was originally targeted towards all stakeholders in a C B W M planning process, the resulting format falls short of this goal. Since this Resource Book relies entirely on information from the developmental literature, it lacks field experience as a resource guide during the planning and management process. This weakness is expected to be greatest at the community level, where the structure and content of this document may not be the most appropriate as a community-level resource. This Resource Book is therefore considered a starting point for future work; it is envisioned that a number of different formats would better serve stakeholder needs. It must be noted that this Resource Book is not intended to develop a universal method for undertaking C B W M . If there is any silver bullet for dealing with and mitigating the impacts from informal settlements it is flexibility and innovation: these two criteria continuously emerge from the case studies as key ingredients for success. It is further recognized that any first step must analyze and understand the resources and experiences that each community has before tailoring any strategies. It is imperative to understand how a community functions: the leadership, skills, resources, and coping mechanisms that are already in place. This is the starting point to enhance and build upon systems that already work. Therefore, this Resource Book is designed as a guide and as a catalyst for ideas; creating a foundation of tools and techniques that can assist in moulding specific strategies appropriate to each community's strengths and weaknesses. The format and structure for the Resource Book was based on a review and analysis of planning-related documents and handbooks (produced for decisionmakers, planners and managers) which described participatory techniques for urban, or land and natural resource management. The resulting categorization into sections was therefore based on both the identified practical components needed for a handbook format, and the normative components used to describe a planning theory: process, principles, and tools. The final structure of the Resource Book was broken down into five main sections. 4 Section 1.0 provides an overview of urban environmental management in developing countries, and develops a potential definition for C B W M ; Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Preface Page ix 4 Section 2.0 describes a planning framework identifying the main activities, key principles, and a recommended process for carrying out C B W M ; 4 Section 3.0 uses the Planning and Administrative Strategies subsection—one of three identified strategy subsections—to illustrate a range of available strategies that may be applicable for C B W M ; 4 Section 4.0 illustrates an evaluation framework for assessing C B W M initiatives; and 4 Section 5.0 provides the author's concluding remarks about the creation and limitations of this Resource Book. The last three appendices provide additional resources related to C B W M : an annotated bibliography; an annotated Internet website listing; and a selection of illustrative case studies, which highlight potential community-based and environmental strategies. The characterization and division of topics, included within each section, is based on synthesizing and identifying the emerging trends from the developmental literature. This classification is by no means perfect. Many of the topic areas are 'fuzzy' with some strategies or techniques potentially fitting into one or more of the topic areas; other topic areas include strategies that are key components throughout the management cycle; and other highlighted strategies are inextricably linked to other topic areas and practices. Therefore, the adopted framework has led to a certain amount of repetition at times, and an over or under-emphasis of some topic areas and strategies. It needs to be emphasized that this document is not intended to be read from start to finish, it is designed as a Resource Book. Consequently, it serves as a reference source which collates, condenses, and organizes information from over 300 case studies into a dense format with numerous lists and tables (this is especially evident in Sections 2 and 4). Given this utilitarian approach, the content and frameworks within each of the four main sections have a certain degree of overlap and repetition. This redundancy has been deliberate to facilitate use and minimize cross-referencing with other sections of the document. Therefore, users may be able to search directly for specific material without necessarily familiarizing themselves with related, or earlier, sections. Another point which needs to be highlighted is how referencing is done. Typically, only key sources are referenced at the end of each section. This limited referencing technique is chosen for two reasons. First, it acknowledges that many of the principals and techniques discussed in this document are widespread and commonplace in the developmental literature for community-based strategies and development. Therefore, highlighting any one document or author seems inappropriate in many cases, particularly because an accurate reference requires lengthy multiple sources and these sources would have to repeat themselves throughout the general discussion areas (specifically in Section 1.3, and Sections 2 & 4). Second, it is also felt that listing a source(s) for every bulleted activity or practice takes away from the clarity and readability of the material (this was particularly true for Sections 1.3 and 2). Therefore, to avoid repetition of the references and improve readability only key documents are cited. However, all the sources Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Preface Page x which influenced and contributed to the general principals, techniques, and ideas generated throughout the Resource Book are included in the Annotated Bibliography in Appendix A. The developmental literature reviewed for the Resource Book included both empirical and theoretical research related to participatory development, urban environmental management, community-based watershed management, integrated watershed management, water resources management, adaptive management, and demand-responsive approaches for rural water and sanitation projects. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Conceptual Drawing of Urban CBWM for Informal Settlements Page xi Considerations from Adjacent Watersheds Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Page 1 Section 1.0 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Contents 1.0 Urban Environmental Management and C B W M 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Challenges of Urban Environmental Management 1.3 The Way Forward: Community-Based Watershed Management 1.3.1 Community-Based Watershed Management (CBWM) 1.3.2 Participatory Development 1.3.3 Integrated Watershed Management 1.3.4 Combining Participatory Development and Integrated Watershed 1.4 A Conceptual Model For This Resource Book: C B W M Applied to Informal Settlements 1.5 Key References Management Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 2 1.0 Urban Environmental Management and C B W M This section provides readers with an overview of the challenges of urban environmental management in developing countries, discusses the opportunities to address these challenges using the components of community-based watershed management ( C B W M ) , and finally proposes a definition for C B W M applied to informal settlements. 1.1 Introduction A s consumption and waste continue to rise with the rapid pace of urbanization and changing lifestyles in developing countries, policymakers, urban managers, planners and international development agencies are challenged with finding new ways to meet the escalating demands and address the increasingly unhealthy conditions within the urban environment. Within this urban mosaic, informal settlements often fall between the cracks of service provision and regulation, frequently leading to deleterious conditions for all the residents of the greater urban area. The anachronistic policies currently used to govern these uncontrolled areas are slowly giving way to community-driven models that promote a devolution of decision-making along with more integrated regional planning approaches. Over the past two decades, there has been a progression of new and creative approaches for dealing with, and minimizing the effects from, these informal settlements. Some of these new approaches have developed by trial and error, others are spin-offs from new theoretical foundations, while still others are manifestations or conglomerations cultivated from earlier practices. These new policies and programmes have had to rely on shrinking public financial resources and limited institutional capacities for support. One of the most recent arrivals on this evolutionary path is community-based watershed management ( C B W M ) — i t builds on and incorporates many of the successful aspects from these past experiences. The appearance'of C B W M on the international development scene is a relatively new phenomenon as an environmental management approach. Initially having its origins as a land resource planning tool for rural areas, the successes of C B W M strategies have found new applications: most recently as an urban management tool. From a developed country perspective, urban C B W M generally appears to be focused on the restoration and enhancement of habitat areas for wildlife. This generally contrasts with the broader application of C B W M in developing countries, where it is seen as a technique to begin to address the deteriorating environmental conditions of all inhabitants—people, plants and animals. Applied this way, C B W M offers a more holistic planning tool. A method whereby communities are empowered as stewards of their environments within the functional workings of a watershed; and thus better balancing the needs of the residents with the carrying capacity of the eco-system. B y definition, C B W M is all about people and water. It is a method of community management that combines the principles and practices of participatory development and integrated watershed management. The promotion of the watershed as the physical planning unit serves as an effective and efficient coordinating framework between competing sectors and political Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 3 jurisdictions and serves to better include science into the decision-making process. Applied to informal settlements, C B W M is a tool to integrate human activities beyond basic infrastructure requirements of water and sanitation. It is seen as a way to begin to address the underlying concerns of each community: dovetailing goals of health, income, tenancy, shelter, poverty, transportation, pollution, education, food security, and empowerment into comprehensive community plans. These plans and the C B W M process serve as a link between the formal and informal sectors of the urban environment, creating a mechanism for regularizing these uncontrolled areas. The regularization of informal settlement land use areas is perceived as a crucial step in ameliorating some of the deteriorating environmental and social conditions within the urban watershed. C B W M is, therefore, seen as a vehicle to achieve the following fundamental development goals: 4 Improving the quality of life for all watershed residents, especially those within informal settlements; 4 Rehabilitating and enhancing degraded informal settlement land use areas; and 4 Preserving environmentally sensitive areas, or protected areas, from resource extraction and unmanaged growth. Before continuing any further it is necessary to define what is meant by informal settlements. It is recognized that there are shades of informality when discussing informal settlement areas, and the relationship of these areas to the legal and regulated formal sector is fluid and ever-changing. Accordingly, this document uses two defining characteristics to identify informal settlements— tenureship and level of basic services. The following definition is therefore promoted for informal settlements. Informal settlements are residential areas in urban, or peri-urban, regions where the residents have no effective access to legal tenured land of their own and hence squat on vacant land, either private or public; and where basic social and infrastructure services are below the minimum levels required for healthy living. This definition includes landowners renting space under quasi-legal arrangements that are not valid or recognized under law. In addition, it is important to recognize that informal settlements are often characterized by land that is frequently located on marginal or environmentally precarious areas; and by residents who are generally in the lowest income groups. Informal settlements are not to be confused with slum areas, which refer to the physical or social conditions of residential areas and are generally considered as a degraded state where satisfactory normal life is impossible (Srinivas 1998). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 4 1.2 Challenges of Urban Environmental Management Huge growth rates, rapid urbanization, limited resources, and weaknesses in urban governance are some of the principal challenges that plague and frustrate urban environmental management in developing countries. The complex and inter-related dynamics between these variables can be illustrated by considering social and environmental challenges separately from the institutional and financial challenges. Institutional challenges refer to the weaknesses of government agencies and public utilities carrying out urban planning and management. Social and Environmental Challenges Today almost half of the world's population is urban. While the developed world still accounts for the majority of this metropolitan figure, the developing world is experiencing fantastic growth rates and massive urbanization. 18 out of the 23 mega-cities that have populations near or over 10 mil l ion inhabitants are in developing countries (Wright 1998). It is anticipated that by 2050 the global population wi l l double to over 10 billion people; 95% of this population growth wi l l be in developing countries, increasing from 4 bill ion to over 8.6 bill ion; and 85% of this growth wi l l be in urban areas (quoted in Rijsberman 1998). The proportion of 'urban poor' who lack access to basic amenities is estimated to be between 30%o and 60% in many Third World cities (and in some cases this figure is as high as 79%'). It is further estimated that well over 1 bill ion residents currently live in informal settlements ( U N E P 1992) , which accounts for approximately 40 to 60 percent of the population of many cities in developing countries. The growth rates within these informal areas are estimated to be 2 to 3 times higher than the formal areas of the city (Perlman 1993), and can be as high as four times the rate of the country's growth rate ( U N D P and U N C H S (Habitat) 1993). If these growth rates continue, nearly 1 out of every 3 people in the world will be living in an informal settlement by 2025. These informal settlements are characterized by systemic problems beyond their rapid growth and proliferation, including: inadequate access to basic services and shelter, increasing poverty and social alienation, poor urban infrastructure, and a deteriorating living environment (Cheema 1993) . These areas have been quoted as being the "the worst polluted and disease ridden habitats of the world" (Esrey 1998). The consequent living conditions are distinguished by "overcrowdedness, filth and squalor" which threaten the health of the entire urban area (Black 1994) . With few policies and regulations, these eroding informal landscapes are likely to be the most important environmental and social health challenges in the 21 s t century. Two of the most basic services—which are typically absent in informal settlements—need to be highlighted: access to safe water and sewerage. These basic services are recognized to be among the most serious problems facing the developing world today ( U N D P and World Bank 1999). Even though these services are considered moral pillars of the 20 t h century and have been ' In Addis Ababa ((Donohue 1982) quoted in (Black 1994)). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 5 recognized and endorsed in international law by almost every country in the world 2 , the majority of informal residents lack access to them. It has been conservatively estimated that 510 mill ion urban residents lack access to safe water, and approximately 850 mill ion are without access to sanitation (Rogers 1997). The lack of these services in informal settlements has huge ramifications. Water Informal settlements are affected by both the quality and quantity of available water. Reliable estimates for the degree and impact of diseases attributed solely to inadequate water are not available. However, it is recognized that inadequate water—quality and quantity—is a major contributor to the health burden of developing countries. Diarrhoea is the leading cause of illness and death among children under five years old in developing countries, where an estimated 4 mil l ion deaths occur each year. The leading cause of acute diarrhoea is dehydration caused from contaminated water and poor sanitation ( W H O 1999). Inadequate water also has significant economic implications, it is considered one of the leading causes of productive years lost to morbidity and mortality in the developing world (World Bank 1993). According to Pearce and Warford's book, A World Without End: Economics, Environment and Development, "in 1979 an estimated 360 billion -400 bill ion working days were lost in Africa, Asia , and Latin America because of water-related diseases that kept individuals from work." 3 (Pearce and Warford 1993). Globally, over 80 countries (comprising 40% of the world's population) suffer from water shortages at some time during the year ( U N D P 1996), and 1.5 billion people lack access to safe water (Wolfensohn 1999). In the next 25 years there wi l l be an additional 2.6 bill ion people added to the global urban population (Rijsberman 1998), and there wi l l be over 66 mega-cities with populations of over 10 million residents (Wolfensohn 1999). These urban conglomerates wi l l exert tremendous pressures for additional water resources. The additional 2.6 billion urban residents are estimated to need an additional 1365 bill ion m3 annually of water to meet their minimum water requirements ( M W R ) for urban life and food production. This figure represents approximately 30% of the total global water extraction, and amounts to almost 16 times the flow of the Nile River to quench the additional annual demand (Rijsberman 1998). This additional demand wi l l lead to increasing competition and conflict with other sectors—irrigation, aquaculture, industry, navigation, hydropower generation, and the maintenance of ecosystems—over the remaining available water resources. 2 Documents which define them include the U N Declaration of Human Rights or the Geneva Conventions (Oxfam 1995). 3 "At SO.50 a day, these continents lost some $180 bil l ion - 200 bil l ion that year. Their G N P was around $370 bi l l ion, so output was below productive potential by perhaps 35 percent [200 / (200 + 370)]" (Pearce and Warford 1993). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 6 For developing countries, it is anticipated that additional water wi l l be reallocated from agricultural sources to urban areas, leading to greater food insecurity and a greater necessity for integrated water resources management (Black 1998). A key aspect of water provision that further undermines the stability of informal settlements is cost. The urban poor suffer disproportionately when water supply is unreliable, since middle and upper class households can afford private facilities or purchase additional services. The urban poor, however, often have few options and must rely on paying private vendors upwards of 10 to 1000 times the official tariff rates (World Bank 1996). Approximately 20 to 30% of all Third World urban dwellers are thought to purchase their water from these private vendors (Cairncross 1990). This skewed spending on water takes away from household finances for other basic needs, including: food, shelter, healthcare, and sanitation. Sanitation 3.0 bill ion people in the world lack access to sanitation facilities. For the poorest 1 bill ion in the world, inadequate sanitation is the main cause for death rates (from infectious disease and maternal and perinatal conditions) that are 7 times higher than the next poorest 1 billion people ( W H O 1998). In developing countries, 90% of the sewage is discharged directly into waterways without any treatment; in Latin America this figure is 98% (Esrey 1998). According to Esrey, the lack of sanitation services is one of the main causes responsible for high disease rates, malnutrition and death in Third World cities (Esrey 1998). It is also recognized that sewage from informal settlements accounts for the majority of organic pollutants within Third World cities, contaminating rivers, lakes, and coastal areas (Wright 1998). There are many reasons why sanitation services have been ignored and not provided to informal areas. The institutional reasons wi l l be discussed in the following section. For communities, there are generally two main reasons cited for why sanitation is not adopted—cost and education. Conventional sanitation costs approximately U S $25-35 per household per month to provide, which is equivalent to the total monthly income of many households. There is also a general lack of education linking the benefits of proper sanitation to health. Without this link, few communities wi l l see the need for proper facilities (Whittington 1997). Other basic infrastructure services are typically absent, or under-serviced, in informal settlements: lack of solid waste collection, power, drainage, access roads, and public transportation are all recognized to further destabilize these communities. Accordingly, the lack of these services (and their interconnections) leads to serious health risks and a general degradation of the living environment. For example, inadequate solid waste collection and disposal is a major factor in the spreading of gastrointestinal and parasitic diseases; for informal settlements, conventional collection of waste is made even more difficult with an absence of roadways or pathways for service vehicles (Pfammatter 1996). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 7 Absence of informal settlement households having access to the city power network also has destabilizing and detrimental environmental effects. A lack of electricity results in residents resorting to wood and fossil fuels for their cooking, lighting, and heating needs. There are currently 2 bil l ion people in the world without access to power and who must undertake these practices causing serious health and breathing problems, especially among women and children (Wolfensohn 1999). The additional need for wood leads to illegal forestry and threatens outlying protected and environmentally sensitive areas. The net result is a deteriorating ecosystem where water quality diminishes with a corresponding increase in disease, and where flooding becomes more prevalent. Informal settlements are also often situated on marginal areas, which are more vulnerable to natural disasters. These areas are not only more precarious in a 'physical sense', but also in an 'institutional sense' as medical services are generally harder to access, i f present at all. Correspondingly, informal settlements have higher disease infection rates and infant mortality rates: sometimes four, or more, times higher than the greater city region (Hardoy 1992). There are also other common social infrastructure services which are noticeably absent, including schools, marketplaces, and recreational areas. It is clear, the additional challenges that informal settlements pose to urban planning are formidable. And these challenges wi l l only increase with the anticipated proliferation of these areas and put additional pressures on existing governance systems. Institutional and Financial Challenges On top of the normal urban management tasks, municipal planners and managers in many developing countries must contend with a barrage of critical environmental issues: overloaded water sources and networks, improper waste disposal, contaminated streams and waterways, exploited and depleting aquifers, suffocating air pollution, and all their corresponding health and social effects. A l l of this is set against a backdrop of shrinking institutional resources, explosive urbanization and demand for services, increasing competition and conflict with neighbouring regions, increasing unit costs for delivery of infrastructure services, inappropriate policies and pricing mechanisms and a long list of management deficiencies carried out by overstaffed government agencies. A daunting task. Perhaps the greatest challenge of all is securing adequate funding to deliver and maintain adequate basic services. Municipal governments have traditionally relied on central government funding, but these sources have dried up significantly with low agricultural revenue, increasing debt, the onset of recession, and the demands for flood or drought relief. It has been estimated that an additional US$ 106.5 billion is needed per year for conventional water and sanitation services to keep pace with urbanization rates. This implies a four-fold increase in what developing countries are currently spending (Rogers 1997). There is also minimal support from multi-lateral agencies who typically spend approximately US$ 1 billion per year on these services (Rogers 1997), and this figure is decreasing (Wolfensohn 1999). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 8 Municipalities simply do not have the funds to meet escalating demands, let alone pay for ongoing operating and maintenance costs4. According to a World Bank study of 120 projects, only 4 countries in the developing world were found with water authorities performing well (World Bank 1992). Poor operations and maintenance also lead to huge inefficiencies: in some countries, upwards of 50% of the fresh water is lost in the distribution system (Rogers 1997). A vicious cycle has therefore evolved where service provision is so bad that no one pays, and income generated is so low that services cannot be improved. In developing countries consumers only pay 35% of the recurrent costs for water and sanitation delivery, compared to 100%o in developed countries (World Bank 1992)5. There is now widespread recognition by multi-lateral agencies and the international water and sanitation community, that centralized systems based on a 'Western' model are inappropriate for the dynamic and expanding urbanization process currently underway in developing countries. Surprisingly, 80% of the investment in the water and sanitation sector is still allocated to these high cost systems (Black 1994). Furthermore, every time a water system has to be augmented with a new source, the unit costs typically double (World Bank 1992). It is no wonder cities can barely maintain existing services let alone address those already unserviced, especially those residents living in burgeoning informal areas. While conventional approaches have been able to supply adequate water supplies to those properties with household connections, there are frequently no water—or sewage or drainage—services supplied to informal settlements. There are additional dynamics at play which affect and impede service delivery to these areas. Perceptions It is recognized that informal settlements have been deliberately neglected and under-serviced. They are typically left out of the urban planning picture since the inhabitants are occupying land illegally and are therefore denied basic services. It has been assumed that i f they are ignored they wi l l leave (otherwise, i f services are supplied, more people wi l l be attracted); history has proven this incorrect. Too poor to pay for conventional housing, the residents from these areas have been left with few options. This 'blind eye' policy has consequently failed and in many instances perpetuated—or, worse, led to— deteriorating conditions and uncontrolled growth whereby informal settlements now represent the majority of urban residents in many developing countries. There is a growing realization by policymakers that urbanization is unstoppable, and perhaps it is not the evil that it is so frequently made out to be. The urbanization trend has fuelled the growth and progress of developing countries where Third World cities now account for 60%> of the output value, 4 Operations and maintenance expenses are typically the first items to be cut during financial hard times ( O E D 1994). 5 It has been estimated that an additional U S $ 123 bil l ion could be collected from users not paying for delivered services in the Developing World (Schiibeler 1996: 15). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 9 and 80% of the growth in these countries (Harris 1992). Within this urban engine, informal settlement residents are, and wi l l continue to be, catalysts supplying labour and small-scale enterprises to the urban economy 6. There is a symbiotic relationship between the formal and informal communities where "the work of the humblest and most poorly paid worker in the urban shantytowns is linked to the productivity and marketing of large corporations" (Sassen-Koob 1987). The challenge therefore for urban planners is to look for new ways to manage urban landscapes that recognize and integrate this co-dependence. Social To begin to address and include informal settlements into the urban planning Characteristics arena there must be consideration given to the unique characteristics which are associated with these social landscapes. These defining features are prevalent throughout the urban environment, but are generally more pronounced in informal settlements and therefore merit special attention. Urban managers and planners trying to craft more appropriate management approaches must contend with these parameters and challenges, taking into account these additional factors, including: 4 Communities have high social stratification; 4 Communities have uneven and disjointed settlement patterns and growth, and each informal settlement cluster is unique; 4 Reciprocal relations, agreements, or commitments with residents are hampered, and frequently threatened, by their constant search for wage work to meet basic life necessities; 4 Residents lack institutional knowledge and skills for assessing this information; 4 Residents typically require start-up financing; and additionally 4 Construction within these areas is typically non-conforming and frequently located on marginal or precarious lands. The weak institutional capacities of government agencies to deliver appropriate services and carry out urban planning and management are cited as one of the major shortfalls of urban environmental management ((Black 1998; Carney 1998; Khan 1996; Kironde 1997; Rogers 1997; Schiibeler 1996; Wright 1998)). Local authorities are neither empowered nor have the means for effective management. According to the World Bank, this is the starting point where the 'scales of governance' must better balance central government regulation with incentives for local accountability (Dillinger 1995). Institutional Capacities 6 Informal settlements account for the majority of new housing in Third Wor ld cities. Moreover it is estimated that 50% of the labour force in Third World cities is engaged in the informal sector (Hardoy 1986). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 10 A t the national or state level, inappropriate economic policies and pricing encourage consumers (and companies) to squander and misuse subsidized water, waste disposal and fuels. There is a need for more effective regulation to enforce planning and environmental legislation. Moreover, there is a need for overarching policies that direct competing sectors and agencies, as well as promote a devolution of control, decision-making and financing to local authorities. These policies should specifically address issues of tenancy and land and resource management planning in informal settlement land use areas. At the municipal level, there is a need to coordinate and collaborate with overlapping and competing planning units on an inter- and intra-regional basis. There must be a clear organizational framework that defines roles and responsibilities while integrating participation from outside interests. Urban governance is further handicapped with corruption, limited political support, resistance of bureaucrats and staff to change, poor quality o f city councillors, competition between rivalling sections of the city (inner and outer), rigid planning models and other technical and administrative limitations. A t the planning and management level, local government and public agency staff frequently lack the skills and resources to effectively manage and plan, especially when integrating community or private sector participation. They are also thwarted with time-bound management requirements and—most importantly of all—a regulation, revenue, and reward system that is still predominantly controlled by central government guidelines that ignore local city conditions and citizen accountability (Dillinger 1995). There are two realizations that can be distilled from the long list of challenges facing urban environmental management and, in particular, planning and managing for informal settlements. First, investments in the physical infrastructure have been made at the expense of investments in the social infrastructure, leading to a detrimental affect on overall management performance (Carney 1998). In many cases, failure to address informal settlement issues has greatly perpetuated and increased deteriorating conditions. Second, without addressing these social and environmental health concerns, the whole urban landscape wi l l be threatened with continued and escalating health and economic crises7—this is a certainty. 1 This point is illustrated by the 1991 cholera epidemic that occurred in Peru. Within just 3 months it was estimated that over U S $ 1 bi l l ion was lost in tourism and trade, three times the amount that the country spent on water and sanitation during the preceding decade (Wright 1998). This example shows only the tip of the economic iceberg between poor environmental management and its associated health and economic impacts. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 11 Section 1.3 The Way Forward: Community-Based Watershed Management "If governments cannot meet all the needs of the poor and i f the poor are in fact meeting most of their own needs, the conventional development equation has to be turned upside down. The question is not how people can participate in programmes organized by governments and N G O s , but rather how these agencies can support the people's efforts to meet their own needs." - W i l l i a m Cousins (1991) There is now a consensus in the international community—both Northern and Southern governments, developmental agencies, and N G O s — o n how to overcome the challenges of urban environmental management in developing countries and integrate informal settlements into the urban planning milieu. This consensus highlights a number of approaches for improving the quality of life for all residents and specifically mitigating the impacts from uncontrolled and unregulated land use. These new approaches begin by recognizing the human potential within informal settlements to manage and become stewards of their environments. Images of parasitic castaways stranded on the shores of urban poverty are being replaced by images of pioneering entrepreneurs who forge their destinies through their skills and resources. Residents from these informal areas are being seen as consumers (rather than recipients) capable of paying for services, and citizens qualified to govern and protect their communities. These widely touted approaches are the culmination of years of experiences from international, national and grass-roots organizations. The general trends and characteristics from these approaches can be summarized as follows: 4 A promotion of participatory development in the planning and management process, which typically includes the following characteristics: • A devolution of control and decision-making from central bureaucracies to the most appropriate level, therefore enabling communities to manage their environments; • A re-focus on the roles of local authorities: shifting from delivering services to fostering capacities within communities to gain access to services; • A concentration on facilitating the use of stakeholders' knowledge, energies and resources, especially residents and the private sector; and • A n integration of women into the community management cycle, recognizing their indispensable role as primary health care givers and the environmental managers in the household. A call for demand-responsive approaches where residents express their needs through their ability to pay for services; A n integrated approach that unites social, economic, environmental, and institutional considerations from different planning sectors and different political jurisdictions; Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 12 4 A promotion of sustainable development where communities are empowered with the necessary skills to sustain and improve service delivery in an environmentally safe manner; and 4 A flexible process that adapts to each community's needs and site-specific conditions. Additionally, for the environmental management of water and sanitation services, there is a unanimous call for: 4 A n integrated water resources management approach, where the watershed is the logical planning unit within which to link and collaborate activities; 4 A requirement that water must be treated as both a social and economic commodity; and 4 A promotion of appropriate technologies that are simple, cheap, sturdy, and easy to maintain. While many organizations and governments have incorporated and built many aspects of these accepted characteristics into their operations, the vast majority of policies, programs, and projects have only scratched the surface for implementing them. Unfortunately, it would appear that words have been easier than action and the operationalization of these characteristics has been slow in coming. It has been recognized that the main hurdle to their application has been a lack of models, techniques and tools for implementing them at the community level 8 . Community-based watershed management provides such a framework; it is seen as one such method that incorporates the above characteristics and provides enabling strategies for turning rhetoric into reality. 1.3.1 Community-Based Watershed Management (CBWM) In the search for a definition for C B W M a vast body of literature was reviewed. It became apparent that C B W M initiatives had different meanings and different interpretations, depending on where they were being applied, what they were being applied to, and who was applying them. Generally speaking, from a developed country perspective, urban C B W M projects were focused on the restoration and enhancement of habitat areas. In a rural setting, however, C B W M was used as a vehicle to partially include residents into the land and natural resource management decision-making process. In rural areas in developing countries, C B W M has been increasingly used as a decentralization technique to devolve more control in the management of—primarily forestry and water—resources. In Third World cities, C B W M is just beginning to be used as a method for environmental management, which integrates its influence beyond basic 8 The Global Water Partnership is a network of international partners—that formed after the 1992 Rio Conference— represented by different governments, multi-lateral agencies, support organizations, and other professionals involved in the water sector. Their purpose is to look for and promote integrated water resources management (IWR.M) programs acting as both a clearinghouse of information and a think tank for the global water sector. They have recognized the need for workable models and tools for I W R M that provide a framework for planners to work with communities in selecting and implementing systems that residents can sustain (Rijsberman 1998). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 13 environmental and infrastructure requirements to highlight socio-economic and institutional considerations. Unfortunately, even within this rather focused setting, C B W M approaches have been interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Therefore the difficulty in synthesizing a definition for C B W M that could eventually be used for informal settlements was frustrated by the following observed inconsistencies witnessed in the application of C B W M initiatives, including: the scope and nature of C B W M activities, the degree and type of involvement by the stakeholders, the amount of control and decision-making that were delegated to C B W M processes, the level of influence by international agencies and other support agencies, and the underlying mandates or purposes prescribed for the C B W M initiative. Given this difference of opinion on how C B W M was interpreted and applied, this document returns to the basic components of C B W M in search of a clearer definition and application for it. Community-based watershed management is all about people and water. It is seen as a type of community management that combines the principles and practices of participatory development and integrated watershed management. The combination of the two is what makes C B W M distinct from other management strategies. B y definition, C B W M embodies both the process and the boundaries for environmental management. The process identifies participatory development as the vehicle for carrying out C B W M , and the boundary defines the watershed as the planning and management framework. Consequently, a marriage is made where the process and boundaries are inseparable. The participatory process is carried out with stakeholders defined within geographically delineated areas. Similarly, the watershed boundaries are a product of collective decision-making using both physical and—as put forward in this document—social parameters9. The integration of both biophysical and socio-economic parameters to delineate the watershed area may be misleading for some: Therefore, replacing watershed w i t h p r o b l e m s h e d w i l l alleviate confusion in those instances where the socio-economic boundary extends the planning area beyond the physical limits of the watershed 1 0. 9 A watershed boundary defined by a social parameter may refer to how a community views itself. A community therefore may interpret their neighbourhood as extending beyond the physical boundaries o f the watershed. Accordingly, to effectively manage this area the watershed boundary should be adjusted to include this perception. (This is discussed in more detail in Section 3.0). 1 0 There are three scenarios envisioned for defining the planning and management boundaries in C B W M . • Scenario 1 The first scenario is the most common, where the community and its land use patterns fall entirely within the confines of a defined watershed. In this case, the watershed is the planning boundary. • Scenario 2 In this case the community, or its land use areas, fall outside the physical limits o f the watershed. Therefore, the problemshed should incorporate both the watershed boundary and the additional parts o f adjacent watershed lands that the community directly influences or impacts. In this case, the problemshed is the planning boundary and comprises both physical and socio-economic boundaries. • Scenario 3 B y far the most uncommon, this case deals with a community, or its land use areas, that stretch entirely beyond the watershed boundary. Therefore, the problemshed should incorporate the adjacent watersheds' lands that are directly influenced or impacted upon by the community. In this case, the problemshed is the planning boundary and is entirely defined by socio-economic boundaries. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 14 Both these defining features of C B W M have their own—and complementary—fundamental concepts. These wi l l be discussed more in the following section to gain a better understanding of what C B W M is and how it may be applied to informal settlements. 1.3.2 Participatory Development "From time immemorial, societies have organized themselves to take care of collective and individual needs. .. . [N]ever before in the history of humankind has there been such a massive experiment at inducing change through the infusion of external ideas, management, funds and technology, all controlled from places far distant from the site of development." -Deepa Narayan (1995) "Community-based partnerships enhance land and natural resource management by drawing expertise and input from a wide range of individuals and groups who live in and intimately know the resource base and the local economy. Getting more people involved in a project increases the likelihood that it wi l l be maintained over the long term, ... [and lead to more] creative and desirable projects." - A n n Moote (1995) Participatory development, or community-based development, is all about reversing conventional top-down approaches of planning and management: whereby policymakers (and planners) are involved in a dialogue to engage and enfranchise the people they represent with more control and decision-making over their affairs. It is about individuals and groups of people working collectively to solve problems and assume responsibility for their own development. A reversion to where decision-makers devolve control and facilitate an enabling environment to encourage community participation and accountability is therefore needed. Under the right conditions, participatory approaches are known to lead to better decisions and management practices as local knowledge is tapped, and as a more diverse group o f stakeholders are engaged to tailor more innovative strategies to suit their mutually-defined needs and goals. This community partnership fosters a sense of ownership and buy-in from participants leading to more support and involvement. This support increases cost recovery for services and leads to more sustainable delivery, as services are better maintained and more responsive to users. The quality of services is higher and more appropriate since participants are active earlier on in project design, and throughout the construction or implementation period. This involvement also has the advantage of tapping the skilled and unskilled labour pool that exists within communities. Additionally, the problem-solving process which ensues empowers stakeholders through capacity building, partnerships and collaboration. These formal and informal relationships strengthen understanding between participants, and build legacies. Community-based development also strengthens the local economy and provides more employment opportunities leading to income generation for lower income groups. The process begins by small businesses taking advantage of niches created as government agencies re-focus their efforts away from funding large projects and towards creating an enabling environment. As Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 15 more money is decentralized to a greater number of small businesses, a greater amount of money is recirculated in the local economy (Cotton 1998). To realize these benefits, however, participatory approaches need to be fully supported and adopted; this is rarely the case. Besides government agencies or staff sometimes lacking the necessary skills and training to implement community-based strategies, or feeling threatened by them, there are other reasons why they have not been fully embraced. One of the largest hurdles required for this participatory process to take place is the selling and subsequent adoption of community-based strategies to policymakers, planners and managers. This sales job is particularly difficult because of the persistent myths that are associated with them—costs, time, and supervision. These myths need to be dispelled at the onset. M Y T H #1: Community-Based Programs are More Expensive According to the World Bank's experience, community-based projects result in greater efficiency and cost effectiveness (See Box 1.1). A t the start of a program costs may be higher during capacity building at the local level, but these costs are "more than offset by subsequent gains" (World Bank 1996). These subsequent gains, however, are conditional on a supportive institutional setting. In an evaluation of the performance of social funds, when communities managed the implementation of projects, costs were reduced by between 30 and 50%. Further savings were observed when communities were actively involved in the contracting of services since there was an improvement in transparency and how quickly the contracts were awarded (Sara 1998). In a study carried out for the Department For International Development of the British Government, 390 micro-contracts were analyzed for infrastructure projects in urban low-income communities in India, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. A total of 151 community-based contracts were compared to 231 conventionally contracted projects; on average the community-based projects were cheaper. Moreover, completed costs for community-based contracts were an additional 11 % cheaper than the initial tendered price (due in large part to negotiating down prices during construction), this was not the case for the conventional contracts (Cotton et al. 1998). Box 1.1 Economic Benefits of Communi ty -Based Development Projects • Pakistan's Orangi Pilot Project is but one example which is representative of cost effectiveness. A n N G O worked together with community groups to provide sewage facilities to approximately one mi l l ion poor people in Karachi; costs were one-eighth o f conventional city sanitation costs (Khan 1992). • For the P R O S E N E A R project in Braz i l , urban managers and planners were able to supply sanitation services for as low as $50 per capita, well below the maximum target o f $120 per capita (Watson and Jagannathan 1995). This was achieved through creative community problem solving and partnerships. • In Cote d'lvoire, maintenance costs were reduced by two-thirds when community water groups took over the maintenance of 13,500 water points in a national water supply program (World Bank 1996). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 16 M Y T H #2: Community-Based Programs Take More Time Similar to costs, the World Bank has found that there is increasing evidence that participatory approaches are quicker to implement. Savings are realized from improved efficiency when community support is sooner in coming, and from more coordination and collaboration between stakeholders and government agencies, in many cases avoiding duplication and overlap. The Bank's experiences show that there is a typical timeline progression on initiatives: a slow build-up period during which communities are mobilized and organizational development takes place, followed by a speedy disbursement period when projects are implemented (World Bank 1996). Therefore, the overall duration from project initiation to project operation is still considered less for community-based projects. M Y T H #3: Community-Based Programs Require More Government Supervision It is recognized that in the early stages of planning and implementation of community-based approaches, government agencies have to invest more time in developing skills, providing technical support, and negotiating with the communities. Cotton, Sohail and Tayler, however, found that after these initial stages there was very little difference in supervision time between community-based and conventional approaches during the construction of infrastructure works in Sri Lanka (Cotton et al. 1998). Presumably after construction, the required supervision on the part of government agencies would be considerably less using community-based approaches, since the communities are normally responsible for (and already familiar with) the ongoing operations and maintenance of the systems. In addition, once these institutional linkages and community governance systems have been established they can be built upon and used by other government agencies—and used by the communities themselves to expand and improve services—greatly reducing the effort required to mobilize and develop organizational structures. So although there may be an initial disproportionate outlay of supervision time for community-based development in the formative stages of a project, the subsequent gains are considered to more than offset this investment. It needs to be stressed that any comparison between participatory and conventional approaches must not only consider the time and costs to implement or construct a service, but how well and to what degree those services are used, maintained, expanded, or upgraded (ideally over the life-cycle of a project). For a more meaningful analysis, therefore, two additional parameters should be considered in conjunction with costs and time—quality and service coverage. The relationship between these parameters is incestuous and separation is difficult without consideration of the others. Unfortunately, quality is a hard parameter to measure and wi l l be dependent on the goals of service provision. If the goal for quality is to have fewer disruptions and more continuous service operation, then community-based approaches are known to have higher quality" (Barker et al. 1991; Black 1998; Narayan 1995; World Bank 1996). If quality 1 1 For example, in Cote d'lvoire, after community water groups took over the operations and maintenance of 13,500 water points, breakdown rates were reduced from 50 percent to 11 percent with a consequent increase in operation time and performance (World Bank 1996). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 17 refers to the quality of construction work, then community-based approaches are perceived to have higher quality (Cotton et al. 1998). Service coverage is equally difficult to compare between approaches since a control group would ideally be required. However, international experience in the provisioning of water and sanitation services has demonstrated that i f communities play an active role in the planning, designing and implementation of services, then they wi l l be more likely to be financed, used fully, and looked after properly (Narayan 1993). Level of Participation A distinction needs to be made for the level and type of participation that is available for community involvement. In short, there is a spectrum of participation in both conventional and participatory approaches; and the line between them can be very blurry at times. Dawson identifies a typology of community participation types in local government decision-making, which are instructive to identify [quoted in (Dawson 1992)]: 4 Participation through delegation where participation is elicited through voting; 4 Subordinated participation where a municipality forms local organizations as a support mechanism to support plans and programs that have already been created; 4 Collaborative participation where participation in municipal programs are offered to existing organizations to gain support and achieve consensus; and 4 Democratic participation where community organizations are incorporated into the decision-making process. This Resource Book defines participatory development to incorporate both democratic participation and a new category referred to as empowered participation: whereby communities have control and decision-making mechanisms for their self-management, and participate as one stakeholder in a multi-stakeholder process with local authorities. Participation in this case is not seen as a step in the community management cycle, it is a process—both a means and an end. Characteristics of Participatory Development For this document, the principal characteristics associated with participatory development are defined as those approaches that have been widely regarded as the way forward in addressing the urban environmental management challenges that plague many developing countries (described at the beginning of this section). These approaches can be summarized into the following principles that should be used to guide participatory development and C B W M : 4 A devolution of control and decision-making to the most appropriate levels (e.g. decentralization and unbundling of services); Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 18 4 Transition local government's role from an implementer to a facilitator of services (creating an enabling environment); 4 Adopt collective decision-making; 4 Promote women as active participants in the community management cycle; 4 Focus on community empowerment; 4 Concentrate on incorporating local knowledge; 4 Focus on partnerships and collaboration among stakeholders; 4 Increase the role of the private sector; 4 Adopt an integrated approach; 4 Emphasize sustainable development; 4 Take a flexible and adaptive approach; and 4 Advocate demand-responsive approaches. A key aspect that is now closely tied to participatory development for the provisioning of basic services is demand-responsive approaches (DRA) . Initially defined during the 1992 International Conference on Water and the Environment in Dublin, D R A was an approach that called for water to be treated as an economic as well as a social good that should be managed at the lowest possible level of governance. The successes from D R A , and other earlier self-help models, have led to a widespread acceptance and promotion of their principles for other service sectors 1 2. The World Bank believes that D R A is more sustainable than supply dominated approaches since they lead to more innovative and creative solutions, and have led to proper financial arrangements ( U N D P and World Bank 1998). The adoption of D R A principles is now commonplace in the provisioning of almost any basic infrastructure initiative. D R A is a strategy that devolves a certain amount of control and decision-making to both the household-level where consumer demand guides investment decisions, and the community level where local committees manage and operate those services. The main components typically associated with D R A include: community initiation; community supplied with adequate information to make informed decisions on service options; community contributes to investment costs; government plays a facilitative role to create an enabling environment that encourages wider participation into the service delivery sector; community owns resulting facilities; community pays for all operating and maintenance costs; and there is a focus on community empowerment throughout the process. It should be noted that D R A is neither an economic theory nor a specific strategy for delivering services; rather it is more a bundled group of vague concepts which help customize interventions 1 2 The U N D P - W o r l d Bank Water and Sanitation Programme carried out a global study in 1996-7 to determine the effects o f D R A in action. They concluded that D R A approaches significantly increased the likelihood of system sustainability; that training o f household members and local committees played a critical role; that willingness to pay for a service dramatically drops when communities have no control over how their contributions are spent (Black 1998). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 19 according to a market model of a consumer's willingness to pay. Accordingly, DRA-related initiatives have had a wide spectrum of interpretations for their operationalization, and a corresponding amount of criticism. Critics have pointed out the difficulty in defining what is meant by demand: opinions range from demand as an expression of willingness to pay (WTP) to demand as an expectation of right. It has also been criticised for not serving the interests of the poorest of the poor, who may be wil l ing to pay for a service but may not have the ability to pay 1 3 . One of the most serious potential flaws of D R A is a lack of integrated planning for the service being delivered. In the case of water, it assumes that i f a household is wil l ing to pay more then it is able to get a larger share of the resource without regards to its sustainability. This becomes increasingly important as the demands for water and other resources escalate in burgeoning urban areas. Critics have therefore called for the need for more holistic and integrated planning when adopting D R A concepts in service provisioning. It is evident that there are many challenges to D R A s . However, many of these pitfalls are mitigated by using D R A as a method that augments participatory development practices and by dovetailing it into an integrated planning approach. D R A is, therefore, seen as a complementary set of principles for the development of urban environmental management. The following list summarizes the basic principles which should guide a demand-responsive approach: 4 Focus on community management using local committees to deliver services; 4 Focus on household demand to govern the upgrading process, this is typically measured through a household's willingness or ability to pay for services; 4 Focus on effective communication flows and information dissemination procedures; 4 Focus on a clear procedural framework and an enabling environment (defining the roles and responsibilities between participants); 4 Focus on community capacity-building; 4 Focus on appropriate technologies and providing a range of service options; 4 Focus on innovation and flexibility throughout the management cycle; and 4 Focus on water as both an economic as well as social good (for the provisioning of water and sewerage services, this is discussed in Section 3.2.2). b There have been a host of other criticisms from the developmental community commenting that D R A undermines basic social services as human rights and makes them contingent on W T P . Others see D R A as an opportunity for government agencies to skirt their responsibilities to provide basic services to all their citizens. A n d others point out that i f the poor are able to pay for a service then this w i l l rob their expenses for other necessities o f life ( D R A is discussed in more detail in Section 3.2.2). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 20 1.3.3 Integrated Watershed Management "People working together to protect public health and the environment ~ community by community, watershed by watershed." --Carol M . Browner, U S E P A (1996) Integrated watershed management ( IWM) is an ecosystem management approach where the watershed 1 4 is considered the logical planning unit. Accordingly, it is a more holistic approach for environmental management that considers the functioning of both natural and human systems as the basis for planning and management. I W M has been generally defined as: the process of planning and implementing water and other natural resources management strategies in watersheds with an emphasis on integrating the biophysical, socio-economic and institutional aspects of natural resources management (Dorcey 1991: emphasis added). Applied to the urban environment, the definition for I W M needs to be expanded to better represent the issues and considerations impacting the urban landscape. Environmental management is used as an umbrella category, to broaden the definition of I W M , by aggregating land & natural resources management and urban environmental management together. Therefore, by replacing natural resources management with environmental management in the above definition, both the 'built ' and 'social ' environments can be better highlighted and incorporated in I W M for Third World cities (as discussed in Section 1.2 Challenges of Environmental Management). Why Integrated Watershed Management? The promotion of the watershed as the physical planning unit serves as an effective and efficient coordinating framework between competing sectors and political jurisdictions; and serves to better integrate science into the decision-making process. Additionally, a watershed approach internalizes externalities and incorporates them into the planning process, better addressing some of the subtle and chronic problems that affect environmental degradation. The adoption of an integrated approach to management better deals with the uncertainty and complexity of natural and social systems and the available science to interpret them. Also the health of the watershed is better balanced with needed management strategies to achieve the desired outcomes. For the protection and restoration of the local environment, the watershed is considered the most appropriate geographic planning unit [Schueler 1995; Zandbergen 1998; Schreier 1997; U S E P A 1997]. The hydrological cycle serves as a functional starting point to understand the connections and processes between land and resources, and public health sectors; and better integrates upland activities with the cumulative impacts downstream. Accordingly, water is the planning link: linking the upstream with the downstream; linking groundwater with surface water; linking water 1 4 A watershed is generally defined as a topographically bounded catchment area of land from which all the water drains to the same location, either a stream, lake, wetland, or ocean. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 21 quality with quantity; linking water with land-based resources and human activities; and linking water with economic development and cultural integrity (Boehmer 1997). The physical landscape, therefore, serves as a logical boundary and framework for interdisciplinary work that facilitates easier data collection, modelling, analysis, and planning and management activities. I W M is also known to save time and money. Governance efficiency improves with collaborative and integrated approaches that reduce duplication of efforts and conflicting actions (especially for streamlining activities for monitoring, issuing permits and reporting) (Schreier 1997; Zandbergen 1998). Better communication and improved coordination between stakeholders lead to an increase in support and commitment with correspondingly fewer conflicts. Consequently, I W M is associated with improving the likelihood of sustaining long-term environmental improvements [ U S E P A 1997]. Characteristics of Integrated Watershed Management To provide a clearer interpretation of what is meant by I W M , the defining features have been categorized according to process, principles and methods. These characteristics of I W M have emerged from the literature as key components, and are recognized and called for by organizations and academics involved with integrated watershed management. The process of integrated watershed management contains the following basic sequential activities: 1. Performing a watershed assessment; 2. Prioritizing and targeting objectives; 3. Developing management strategies; 4. Creating a watershed management plan; 5. Implementing plan; and 6. Strategic monitoring (Zandbergen 1998). These activities are discussed in greater detail in Section 2.0 A Management Planning Framework for CB WM. The defining characteristics that are generally advocated for I W M , and derive from an ecosystem management approach, can be summarized into the following principles. 4 Recognize water as a finite and vulnerable resource; 4 Use a watershed approach (which delineates the planning and management boundary); 4 Promote participatory planning and management that includes all stakeholders in a collective decision-making process; 4 Emphasize strategic planning to optimize limited resources; Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 22 4 Use a multi-sectoral approach to integrate all natural and human considerations and lead to more sustainable environmental management; 4 Balance social, economic, and environmental values; 4 Focus on innovative institutional structures that enable collaboration and partnerships; 4 Concentrate on shared learning and capacity building for participants; and 4 Emphasize flexibility and adaptability to cope with uncertainty and complexity. Furthermore, in a developing country context the following two principles are considered critical. 4 Promote water as both an economic and social good; and 4 Emphasize the central role of women and their inclusion in the management process 1 5. These principles w i l l be expanded and commented upon in the following sections of this Resource Book (especially Section 3.0 Urban CBWM Strategies). The tools, techniques and methods that make up the strategies1 6 for I W M include a wide spectrum of options; in this document, they are not limited solely to water-related issues. Recognizing the integrated nature of environmental and human systems, the strategies discussed for I W M include all areas which are linked to the underlying causes of environmental and social degradation in the watershed periphery. This, therefore, leads to strategies to mitigate and address socio-economic, environmental, and institutional concerns. The resulting strategies can be broadly subdivided according to the following subject areas of planning and administration, community-based, or environmental. Planning and administrative strategies may range from decentralization policies to tradable water rights to geographical information systems and technical model simulators. Similarly community-based strategies may range from community mapping to interactive theatre performances. A n d finally, environmental strategies may range from composting toilets to community bike cooperatives. The point to stress is that the possibilities are endless, and wi l l depend on the skills and resources of the stakeholders involved in every I W M process. These strategies are elaborated on and form the basis of Section 3.0 Urban CBWM Strategies of this document. There is one strategy, however, which is promoted as an essential component for I W M that merits further comment. Adaptive management is a systemic approach to management that is considered complementary to I W M , and a necessary tool for better coping with the complex and 1 5 Women's participation in the earliest stages o f planning is considered crucial to increase the likelihood of successful outcomes. They are the principal water haulers and environmental managers in the household, responsible for hygiene and sanitation. Women have proved to be the most receptive and capable of managing natural resources (Black 1998; Datta 1998; Whittington 1997; Wright 1998). 1 6 The word strategy is used as an umbrella term to refer to any method, approach, technique, or tool, that may be used for C B W M in this document. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 23 uncertain nature of watersheds. When dealing with an urban watershed, the complexity and corresponding uncertainty of management practices increases with additional stakeholders and impacts. This is further complicated when focusing on informal settlements that are unregulated. A n y management strategies must therefore deal with the normal uncertainties associated with science and impact assessments, as well as the compounded unknowns involved with the dynamic and uncontrolled nature of informal communities. Hence, adaptive management is seen as a valuable management tool to try and mitigate this uncertainty. Adaptive management, also referred to as learning-by-doing, is a process which systematically learns, corrects, and adjusts itself. It explicitly deals with the uncertainty of science and nature— and potentially other factors, like the capricious nature of informal settlements—by institutionalizing a mechanism for structured learning that is built into ongoing monitoring. The main elements of adaptive management involve conducting focused management experiments, the explicit analytical treatment of uncertainty, and the development of ongoing monitoring and feedback systems (Holling 1978; Walters 1986). The main principles of adaptive management are considered to be: continuous and deliberate learning, field science and formal experimentation (experimental management), a systems approach 1 7, and the integration of management and research (Ohlson 1999). The application of adaptive management into I W M wi l l be discussed more in the following sections. Additional Considerations for IWM Typically, I W M has been used and geared towards land and natural resources management in rural areas. While many of the challenges that face environmental management are common to both rural and urban settings, there are certain considerations and effects which are magnified in the urban environment and further complicate management. A n y I W M plan wi l l need to include and highlight these additional factors. Some of the common factors which are synonymous with the urban environment include the following: 4 A greater diversity and number of stakeholders, which can overwhelm participatory processes; 4 A planning scale that is typically much smaller and with a far greater number of competing jurisdictions; A A large amount of impervious surface areas, leading to an increase of peak flows; 4 A drainage network which has been drastically altered, and further confuses management boundaries; 1 7 Rather than focusing on specific parameters, a systems approach highlights the relatedness o f outcomes to management practices. For community-based approaches, outcomes at the community level w i l l be related to initial stakeholder objectives and needs as well as the implemented management strategies (Dayal and van Wilk-Sil jbesma 1999). For more information on systems approaches see (Checkland 1981). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 24 4 A reduction or elimination of natural buffer areas like streams, wetlands and riparian areas that normally serve as filtering layers for pollutants; and 4 A greater number of chemical and biological pollutants which interact with the water and land. Additionally, informal settlements are special areas within the urban tapestry that add to the characteristics needing consideration for I W M . These considerations have a wide variety of impacts and relative significance for I W M , and wi l l depend on the specific features in each community and urban region. Having said this, however, there are characteristics which are perceived to be significant and associated more with informal settlements than the surrounding areas of the city, including: 4 Rapid urbanization; 4 Poor basic infrastructure services; 4 Poor social services; 4 Uncontrolled land use; 4 Excessive poverty; 4 Illegal dumping; and 4 Non-conforming construction. These characteristics accordingly must be dovetailed into I W M plans to properly emphasize the social, economic, environmental, and institutional constraints and considerations facing informal settlements and their remediation. Pitfalls of Watershed Management Plans Given the potential benefits of adopting a watershed management approach, it is surprising to learn why so few have been successfully implemented in the urban environment. It is therefore beneficial to review in what way these plans have failed and apply these lessons to C B W M initiatives. In developed countries there is a growing body of experience that highlights the difficulties and pitfalls of implementing urban watershed management plans. It appears that there is a huge difference between watershed planning and implementation. Therefore, a distinction needs to be made highlighting the difference between watershed assessment and watershed management plans. A watershed assessment is a study to determine the problems and issues facing a watershed and to recommend a series of management practices to remedy them. A watershed management plan, however, is a framework or process that leads to the implementation of interventions that protect the watershed. A study carried out by the Center for Watershed Protection concluded that there were nine main reasons why urban watershed management plans were never realized (Schueler 1995). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 25 1. Plan was conducted at too great a scale (>50 sq. miles). This led to a generic plan that could not isolate stream quality or development parameters. Furthermore, the interrelationships between parameters were found to be too complex: too many impacts, and too many stakeholders. 2. Plan was a one time study, rather than a long-term process and continuous management commitment. Local authorities were criticized for not fully committing resources and authority to a long-term watershed management plan. 3. Plan skirted real issues about land use change in the watershed. Plans failed to accurately measure how current and future land uses would be impacted by watershed plans. 4. Budget for watershed plan was poor or unrealistic. Plans were hampered by an unrealistic scope of work given the available resources. 5. Plan focused on the tools of watershed analysis rather than their outcomes. Planners and consultants were overly focused on watershed assessment tools like geographic information systems and modelling programs. Therefore, more emphasis was placed on demonstrating the value of these tools rather than the management outcomes. 6. Document was too long or complex. Many watershed plans were simply too complex and long for anyone to have the time or skills to use. Accordingly, any recommendations were mired in voluminous amounts of data and obfuscated language. 7. Plan failed to critically assess adequacy of existing local programs. Few plans adequately addressed the institutional process required for implementation; particular attention was lacking with regards to evaluating the capabilities of local governments and their existing programs. 8. Plan recommendations were too general. Vague watershed recommendations were made without proper regard to site specific conditions and how these recommendations could be implemented. 9. Plan had no regulatory meaning. N o one was required to use the plan as a routine land development process. For C B W M , these pitfalls wi l l be addressed by adopting community-based strategies that include multi-stakeholder processes that promote collaboration and coordination. In addition, the process of C B W M wi l l pay particular attention to both the methods of implementing plans and the institutional arrangements needed to create a supportive environment (see Section 2.0). Other challenges of implementing watershed management plans wi l l be mitigated by strategies that call for (a) small-scale community watershed assessments and strategic management plans, (b) community-driven innovative financial mechanisms, (c) integrating the use of local knowledge and appropriate technologies, (d) dovetailing plans into ongoing local environmental management programs, and (e) policy reform that supports C B W M . This management process and strategies w i l l be discussed in more detail in Sections 2.0 and 3.0. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 26 1.3.4 Combining Participatory Development and Integrated Watershed Management Par t i c ipa to ry Development Combining participatory development and integrated watershed management is a natural marriage. Many of the concepts and fundamental principles are similar and/or complementary to one another (See Table 1.1 Fundamental Aspects of CBWM). The amalgamation of these two components therefore represents an integrated whole in terms of a management approach: defining the principles, the process, and the methods available for C B W M . The principles are a cumulative product from both participatory development and integrated watershed management. The process is governed by both processive and substantive components. Generally speaking, processive components are primarily determined by the community-based approaches of participatory development, whereas the substantive aspects of the process are largely steered by those components identified (or needed) for a watershed management approach. The methods to be utilized for C B W M are a synthesis of the available strategies communicated from the participatory development and integrated watershed management literature, and as determined and expressed by the communities involved. Table 1.1 Fundamental Aspects of C B W M Participatory Development Integrated Watershed Management (IWM) • Devolution of control to the most appropriate level • Integrated and holistic approach • A n enabling environment • Watershed as the functional planning unit • Collaborative decision-making • Strategic planning • Community empowerment • Balancing social, economic and environmental • Local knowledge values • Sustainable development • Appropriate technologies • Low-cost and appropriate methods • Innovative institutional structures • Demand-responsive approaches • Adaptive management Common Aspects for Both Participatory Development and I W M : • Women play a central role in the development process • Multi-stakeholder processes • Participatory planning and management • Capacity building of stakeholders • Partnerships and collaboration • Effective communication • Flexible approach Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 27 Accordingly, the merger of participatory development with integrated watershed management forms an interwoven and symbiotic relationship where both components benefit from the other's strengths and fundamental features. Participatory development is strengthened and focused by using the watershed as the management framework and by better linking human activities with environmental processes. Similarly, integrated watershed management benefits from an increased concentration on the socio-economic and institutional parameters identified through participatory approaches and by providing a mechanism to translate watershed management plans down to the household level for implementation. The union between participatory development and I W M to form C B W M fulfils the widely touted approaches called for by the international community (discussed in Section 1.3) to meet the challenges of urban environmental management in developing countries. Furthermore, the adoption and implementation of C B W M is seen to have additional benefits. It is seen as an eco-system management approach which places a heavy emphasis on people. At the institutional level, it invests heavily in the social infrastructure needed for governance. This accordingly builds capacities and strengthens linkages between stakeholders, leading to greater understanding, cooperation, and partnerships. Moreover, C B W M saves time and money for cash-strapped government agencies. At the community level, C B W M promotes a value system that is articulated by the communities and stakeholders, integrating their social, economic, and environmental concerns. The process of development focuses on self-determination to improve the quality of life for the watershed residents. Local knowledge, skills, and resources are tapped in a collaborative problem-solving process to develop more innovative strategies which are more appropriate for local conditions. In the end, partnerships are strengthened with improved communication, accountability, and understanding. And in the development of C B W M plans, the linkages between social and natural systems are more tightly woven together to promote sustainable development and incorporate uncertainty and science into the decision-making process. This wi l l lead to better decisions and mitigative strategies as externalities and cumulative impacts are better addressed. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 28 1.4 A Conceptual Model For This Resource Book: CBWM Applied to Informal Settlements This Resource Book is primarily concerned with applying C B W M strategies to informal settlements within the urban landscape of developing countries. A s defined above, C B W M is an integrated approach that embodies the key components identified from past experiences for the remediation of the urban environment and informal settlement land use areas. Informal settlements are singled out within the confines of the watershed because: 4 They are currently uncontrolled and responsible for the majority of organic pollutants in Third World cities; 4 They are the population growth poles within urban centres responsible for absorbing the majority of new residents; 4 Their expanding nature infringes and pours upon adjacent areas in search of the basic necessities of life and therefore impacts any growth management strategies or protection measures required for environmentally sensitive areas; and 4 They are also some of the worst polluted and disease ridden habitats in the world. Perhaps, most importantly of all, the problems facing these precarious areas are increasing and as conditions deteriorate these issues wi l l threaten the health of the entire watershed even more. The impetus therefore for new tools and techniques to meet these challenges is critical. The promotion of C B W M builds on many of the past successful endeavours carried out by other participatory urban management frameworks 1 8. However, C B W M is seen as going one step further by strengthening the understanding between human activities and environmental processes. B y better integrating science and uncertainty into the decision-making process a clearer awareness is possible to identify the underlying inter-related causes of problems, and to determine the effectiveness of proposed management interventions. Also , by using the natural landscape as a planning unit, a stronger connection can be made between informal settlement land use impacts on the downstream (and the surrounding) environment; similarly, the effects of upstream (and surrounding area) activities and impacts can be more easily identified to see how they impact informal settlements (and the surrounding area); and correspondingly mitigation strategies can be more effectively and efficiently implemented. Therefore, C B W M applied to informal settlements is a tool to integrate human activities beyond basic infrastructure requirements of water and sanitation, which are often the focus of informal management programs. It is seen as a way to begin to address the underlying concerns of each community: integrating goals of health, income, tenancy, shelter, poverty, pollution, education, food security, and empowerment into comprehensive community plans. These plans and the C B W M process serve as a link between the formal and informal sectors of the urban environment, creating a mechanism for regularizing these uncontrolled areas. 1 8 U N I C E F ' s urban basic services program; O X F A M ' s T O D R program; U N D P - W o r l d Bank's V L O M , P R O W E S S , and U E S programs; rural water and sanitation D R A projects; rural watershed management projects; and integrated water resource management initiatives. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 29 ) This regularization process builds and strengthens the symbiotic relationship between the formal and informal sectors. Dovetailing the informal management and coping mechanisms already being used in informal settlements with the regulatory mechanisms that are present in the formal sector. This process is considered as a necessary step in the amelioration process for improved sustainability and a healthier watershed environment. The figure below summarizes the main components of how this Resource Book conceptually applies C B W M to filter and focus on informal settlement issues within the urban network of management (see Figure 1.1 Conceptual Drawing of Urban CBWM for Informal Settlements). The remainder of this document w i l l concentrate on providing a process, the principles, and the strategies (methods, techniques and tools) for implementing and using C B W M . A l l these components of C B W M are connected and intertwined in a hierarchal relationship. The principles serve as a guide to largely influence both the development process and the potential methods chosen; the methods define the framework in the selection of the more specific techniques and tools; and the techniques and tools are the enabling vehicles to carryout the C B W M development process. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 30 Figure 1.1 Conceptual Drawing of Urban C B W M for Informal Settlements Considerations from Adjacent Watersheds Rapid Urbanization Poor basic infrastructure services Poor social services Uncontrolled land use Excessive poverty Illegal dumping Non-conforming construction Legislation Policies Agreements Regulation Guidelines By-Laws • Community Plans • Standards & Codes / Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 31 1.5 Key References Barker, Peter and Richard Franceys and John Pickford. 1991. "Environmental Upgrading for Low-Income Communities of the South." Science Technology and Development 9(1-2): 18-28. Black, Maggie. 1998. Learning What Works: a 20 year retrospective view on international water and sanitation cooperation. Washington, D C : U N D P - W o r l d Bank Water and Sanitation Program. Black, Maggie. 1994. Mega-Slums: the coming sanitary crisis. Last Updated: 22 March 22 1999. WaterAid Internet Website. Address: http://www.wateraid.org.uk/research/index.html. Retrieved: May 1999. Boehmer, Kevin et al. 1997. Guidelines for Integrated Watershed Management Training. Environmental Studies Centre Development in Indonesia, Technical Report. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Dalhousie University. Browner, Carol M . 1996. Foreword. Watershed Approach Framework. Last Updated: 11 February 1997. U S E P A Internet Website. Address: http://www.epa.gOv/OWOW/watershed/framework.html#6a. Retrieved: July 1999. Cairncross, Sandy. 1990. "Water Supply and the Urban Poor." The Poor Die Young: housing and health in Third World cities. London: Earthscan. Carney, Diana and John Farrington. 1998. Natural Resource Management and Institutional Change. London, U K : Routledge Publishers. Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. London: John Wiley & Sons. Cheema, Shabbir G . 1993. "The Challenge of Urban Management: some issues." Urban Management: policies and innovations in developing countries. Ed. Shabbir G . Cheema. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Cotton, A . P. et al. 1998. Community Initiatives in Urban Infrastructure. Last Updated: 8 January 1998. Water, Engineering and Development Centre ( W E D C ) Internet Website. Address: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/cv/wedc/wedcpubs_online.htm. Retrieved: June 1999. Cousins, Wil l iam. 1991. The Urban Poor and Basic Infrastructure Services in As ia and the Pacific. Manila: Asian Development Bank. Datta, S. K . and K . J. Virgo. 1998. "Towards Sustainable Watershed Development Through People's Participation: lessons from the Lesser Himalaya, Uttar Pradesh, India." Mountain Research and Development 18(3): 213-233. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 32 Dawson, Elsa. 1992. "District Planning with Community Participation in Peru: the work of the institute of local democracy - I P A D E L . " Environment and Urbanization 4(2): 90-101. Dayal, Rehka and Christine van Wilk-Siljbesma. 1999. Voice & Choice for Women: water is their business. Last Updated: 26 October 1999. U N D P / W o r l d Bank Water and Sanitation Program Internet Website. Address: http://www.wsp.org/English/index.html. Retrieved: October 1999. Dillinger, Wi l l iam. 1995. Better Urban Services: finding the right incentives. Washington, D C : World Bank. Donohue, John J. 1982. Facts and Figures on Urbanization in the Developing World. U N I C E F , Assignment Children 57/58. Dorcey, A . H . J . 1991. "Towards Agreement on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Learning From the Differences." Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin. Ed. A . H . J . Dorcey. Vancouver, B C : Westwater Research Centre, The University of British Columbia. Esrey, Steven et al. 1998. Ecological Sanitation. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Institute. Hardoy, John and D. Satterthwaite. 1986. "Shelter, Infrastructure and Services in Third World cities." Habitat International 10(3): 245-84. Hardoy, John et al. 1992. Environmental Problems In Third World Cities. London: Earthscan. Harris, Nigel . 1992. Cities in the 1990s: the challenge for developing countries. Ed. N . Harris. London: U C L Press. Holling, C S . et al. 1978. Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management. Ed. C S . Holl ing. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Khan, Akhter Hameed. 1992. Orangi Pilot Project Programs. Karachi: Orangi Pilot Project Research and Training Institute. Khan, Muhammad Aslam. 1996. "Problems and Prospects of Urban Environmental Management in Pakistan." Pakistan Development Review 35(4): 507-523. Kironde, J M and Michael Yhdego. 1997. "Governance of Waste Management in Urban Tanzania: towards a community based approach." Resources Conservation and Recycling 21(4): 213-226. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 33 Moote, Ann . 1996. Partnership Handbook: a resource and guidebook for local, community-based groups addressing natural resource, land use, or environmental issues. Last Updated: 27 August 1997. Water Resources Research Center (University of Arizona) Internet Website. Address: http://ag.arizona.edu/partners/. Retrieved: Apr i l 1999. Narayan, Deepa. 1995. Designing Community Based Development. World Bank, Environment Paper No. 007. Washington D.C . : World Bank. Narayan, Deepa. 1993. Participatory evaluation: tools for managing change in water and sanitation. World Bank, Technical Paper No. 207. Washington, D .C . : World Bank. O E D . 1994. Lessons and Practices-Managing Urban Water Supply and Sanitation: Operation and Maintenance. Last Updated: 24 August 1998. Operations Evaluation Department, World Bank Internet Website. Address: http://www.worldbank.org/html/oed/monevfrm.htm. Retrieved: May 1999. Ohlson, Daniel Ward. 1999. Exploring the Application of Adaptive Management and Decision Analysis to Integrated Watershed Management. Master of Science. Vancouver, B C : University of British Columbia. Oxfam. 1995. The Oxfam Campaign for Basic Rights: together for rights, together against poverty. Last Updated: July 1999. Oxfam U K Internet Website. Address: http://www.oxfam.org.uk/campaign/basicr/basicr.htm. Retrieved: August 1999. Pearce, David and Jeremy Warford. 1993. A World Without End: economics, environment and development. London: Oxford University Press. Perlman, Janice E . 1993. "Mega-Cities: global urbanization and innovation." Urban Management: policies and innovations in developing countries. Ed. Shabbir G . Cheema. Westport, C T : Praeger Publishers. Pfammatter, Roger and Roland Schertenleib. 1996. Non-Governmental Refuse Collection in Low-Income Areas: lessons learned from selected schemes in Asia , Africa and Latin America. S A N D E C at Swiss Federal Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, Report No. 1/96. Duebendorf, Switzerland. Rijsberman, Frank et al. 1998. Integrated Water Resources Management: needs for services and recommended actions. Discussion Paper. Last Updated: 10 December 1998. Global Water Partnership T A C Meeting in Copenhagen, 23-25 October 1997. Internet Website. Address: http://www.gwp.sida.se/. Retrieved: May 1999. Rogers, Peter. 1997. Water for B i g Cities: big problems easy solutions? Last Updated: 12 October 1998. Global Water Partnership Forum Internet Website. Address: http://www.gwp.sida.se/cgi-bin/HNref/get/brazil.html. Retrieved: January 1999. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 34 Sara, Jennifer. 1998. Giving Communities Choice is Not Enough! Community Water Supply and Sanitation Conference. Last Updated: 1 October 1998. U N D P / W o r l d Bank Water and Sanitation Programme Internet Website. Address: http://www.wsp.org/English/index.html. Retrieved: May 1999. Sassen-Koob and Portes. 1987. "Misconceptions About the Urban Poor and the Dynamics of Housing Policy Evolution." Journal of Planning, Education and Research 6(3): 187-96. Schreier, Hans et al. 1997. Integrated Watershed Management. C D - R O M . Vancouver, B C : Institute for Resources and Environment, U B C . Schubeler, Peter. 1996. Participation and Partnership in Urban Infrastructure Management. U N D P / U N C H S / W o r l d Bank-Urban Management Programme, Urban Management and Infrastructure Report No. 19. Washington, D C : World Bank. Schueler, Tom. 1995. Crafting Better Urban Watershed Protection Plans. Last Updated: Spring 1995. Center for Watershed Protection Internet Website. Address: http://www.cwp.org. Retrieved: May 1999. Srinivas, Hari. 1998. Defining Squatter Settlements. Last Updated: 8 July 1998. Urban Environmental Management Internet Website. Address: http://www.soc.titech.ac.jp/uem/. Retrieved: May 1999. U N D P . 1996. Water for Thirsty Cities. U N Conference on Human Settlements, Istanbul,Turkey. U N D P . U N D P and U N C H S (Habitat). 1993. Bangladesh Urban Shelter Sector Review. U N D P and World Bank. 1999. U N D P - World Bank Water and Sanitation Program, title page. Last Updated: 29 July 1999. U N D P - W o r l d Bank Water and Sanitation Internet Website. Address: http://www.wsp.org/English/index.html. Retrieved: August 1999. U N D P and World Bank. 1998. Community Water Supply and Sanitation Conference—Summary. Last Updated: 20 October 1998. U N D P - W o r l d Bank Water and Sanitation Internet Website. Address: http://www.wsp.org/English/index.html. Retrieved: July 1999. U N E P . 1992. The World Environment 1972-1992: two decades of challenges. Ed. Tolba, Mostafa et al. London: Chapman Hal l . U S E P A . 1997. Watershed Approach Framework. Last Updated: 11 February 1997. U S E P A Internet Website. Address: http://www.epa.g0v/OWOW/watershed/framework.html#6a. Retrieved: July 1999. Walters, C.J . 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources. New York: MacMi l l an Publishing. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 1 Urban Environmental Management and CBWM Page 35 Watson, Gabrielle andN.V . Jagannathan. 1995. Participation in Water and Sanitation. Environment Development Paper No . 2. Washington, D C : World Bank. Whittington, Dale et al. 1997. Urban Sewer Planning in Developing Countries and The Neighborhood Deal: a case study of Semarang. Indonesia. U N D P / W o r l d Bank Water and Sanitation Programme, Urban Environmental Sanitation Working Papers. Washington, D C : World Bank. W H O . 1998. 3 B i l l i on People Worldwide Lack Sanitation Facilities: W H O strategy on sanitation for high-risk communities. World Health Organization Press Release 28 January, No. WHO/18 . Geneva. W H O . 1999. The Epidemiology and Etiology of Diarrhoea. Last Updated: 31 May 1999. W H O Internet Website. Address: http://www.who.org/chd/publications/cdd/meded/medperf.htm. Retrieved: August 1999. Wolfensohn, James D . 1999. Foreword. A Proposal for a Comprehensive Development Framework (A Discussion Draft). Last Updated: 21 January 1999. World Bank Internet Website. Address: http://www.worldbank.org/cdf/cdf-text.htm. Retrieved: June 1999. World Bank. 1996. World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Last Updated: 30 June 1999. World Bank Internet Website. Address: http://vvww.worldbank.org/html/edi/sourcebook/sbhome.htm. Retrieved: June 1999. World Bank. 1993. Water Resources Management. World Bank Policy Paper. Washington, D C : World Bank. World Bank. 1992. The World Development Report 1992: development and the environment. Washington, D C : World Bank. World Bank. 1992. Water Supply and Sanitation Projects: the Bank experience 1967-1987. Operations Evaluation Department (OED) Report. Washington, D C : World Bank. Wright, Albert M . 1998. Sanitation in Large Cities: addressing the challenge. Draft Copy. Last Updated: 12 October 1998. Global Water Partnership Forum Internet Website. Address: http://www.gwp.sida.se/cgi-bin/HNref/get/brazil.html. Retrieved: January 1999. Zandbergen, Paul. 1998. Urban Watershed Assessment: linking watershed health indicators to management. PhD. Dissertation. C D R O M . Vancouver, B C : University of British Columbia. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2.0 Page 36 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Contents 2.0 A Municipal Planning Framework for C B W M 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Developing a Planning Framework 2.3 A Planning Framework for C B W M 2.3.1 Policy Planning Stage 2.3.2 Designing C B W M Stage 2.3.3 Implementing C B W M Stage 2.3.4 Operating & Maintaining Stage 2.3.5 Monitoring & Evaluation Stage 2.4 Key References Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 37 2.0 A Municipal Planning Framework for C B W M This section develops a municipal planning framework that identifies, organizes and corrals the main ideas and activities associated with C B W M . It brings together and merges the concepts from participatory development and integrated watershed management into a logical framework for understanding, assessing, and managing initiatives 1. The resulting framework serves two principal purposes: to illustrate the scope of management activities, and to provide an organizational structure that can be used as a planning tool (it has also been designed to dovetail into the evaluation framework developed in Section 4.0). Ideally, the framework is intended to serve as a checklist, or guide, to assist users in developing and carrying out C B W M initiatives. 2.1 Introduction The framework has been deliberately targeted towards the municipal planning level. Therefore, the management practices and considerations cited are geared for use by urban managers and planners whose jurisdictions and control do not extend beyond their municipal or city boundaries. Accordingly, many of the policy level management tasks place an emphasis on coordination and cooperation between other levels of government and with adjacent municipalities. This focus on municipal or city level governance is in line with the two main tenets commonly advocated for participatory development (and C B W M ) : decentralization and demand responsive approaches (DRAs) . Before either of these tenets can be institutionalized, however, an enabling environment must be created; the literature suggests that this process is most appropriately implemented at the municipal planning level. Decentralization Control and decision-making should be devolved—as much as possible— to the community level, and to the lowest level of government. For environmental management and the basic provisioning of services the facilitating government agency should accordingly be at the municipal level. This recognizes and respects the reality that municipalities are typically charged with the regulation of all land uses within their boundaries. D R A s The experience with D R A s suggest that the closer the link between the consumer and service provider, the more responsive, representative, and sustainable, the service wi l l be. Therefore, placing attention on the municipal level acknowledges that it would be the most representative and accountable executing agency for households and communities. O f course every community has its own corresponding socio-political jurisdictions and site specific context which must be taken into account. 1 Only specific reference material has been included, the majority of the reference material which has influenced this section is provided in the bibliography contained in Section 5.0. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 38 This concentration on municipal planning does not limit the framework to this level or planning perspective. On the contrary, a conceptual framework developed from a community's perspective—or from a N G O s , regional or national government's viewpoint—could still contain exactly the same management activities and organizational structure. However, there may be different emphases placed on activities, with correspondingly different strategies and institutional arrangements to implement them. 2.2 Developing a Planning Framework For urban community-based watershed management, a planning framework needs to consider all the different planning stages and their associated management practices. Accordingly, a C B W M conceptual framework consists of a broad range of topics dealing with issues of participatory development, integrated watershed management, provisioning of basic social services, growth management, and other urban social and environmental programs. The organization of a framework into logical components can take many different forms; the framework developed below therefore represents one possible slice for conceptualizing the different aspects involved in managing informal settlements. To facilitate ease of use, and simplicity, the framework was categorized according to two principal dimensions: management process and management activities. Where management process refers to the typical sequential stages involved in the management planning cycle— planning, designing, implementing, and operating and maintaining initiatives. Nested within each of these stages is a series of management activities where each activity includes a task, a method, and an institutional arrangement (these items wi l l be discussed in more detail in the following sections). The planning framework has also included a brief set of key principles that serve to guide the management planning activities considered for C B W M . These principles repeatedly emerged from the developmental literature, and were identified as critical elements for successful endeavours involving the management of community-based initiatives or integrated watershed projects. A n expanded set of principles that are not necessarily critical, but are recommended for C B W M initiatives can be found in Section 3.0 Urban CBWM Strategies (where there is a specific set of principles associated with each potential management strategy). Management Process This dimension of the framework consists of the principal management stages associated with any planning cycle. However for a C B W M framework, certain modifications have been made to better reflect the political reality of managing informal settlements. To begin with a distinction must be made between the planning process for developing government policies, and the participatory planning process for designing and managing C B W M initiatives. While these two planning processes share numerous aspects—and are inextricably linked—a separation provides an institutional segregation that is beneficial. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 39 First, this division allows for a clearer assessment and organization of government policy activities to create an enabling environment for C B W M . Second, it recognizes that low-income communities are rarely involved meaningfully in the development of policy formulation in developing countries. This is unlikely to change since government agencies, at all levels, are reticent to forfeit their decision-making power to processes that share control and are therefore more unpredictable (Narayan 1993). Third, the isolation of policy planning also recognizes that it is not necessarily a prerequisite for C B W M . In developing countries, C B W M projects are frequently successfully carried out independently of government support; this is similar for many environmental and infrastructure self-help projects in informal settlements in Third World cities. Therefore, the management process consists of the following stages: policy planning, designing C B W M , implementing C B W M , and operating and maintaining C B W M . In addition, monitoring and evaluation is considered a non-sequential stage that is intrinsically connected to every stage in the management process. It is considered a distinct stage to emphasize the importance of evaluation in the management process (even though it is a fundamental component of each stage), and to illustrate the particular management activities associated with it (this is discussed in greater detail in Section 4.0). Figure 2.1 Schematic Showing the Management Process Stages for C B W M A key aspect of C B W M (described in Section 1.0) is its adoption of an adaptive management approach, also referred to as learning-by-doing. A s mentioned earlier, it is a process which systematically learns, corrects, and adjusts itself. It explicitly deals with the uncertainty of science and nature, and the capricious nature of informal settlements, by institutionalizing a mechanism for structured learning that is built into ongoing monitoring. B y nature, therefore, C B W M adopts a learning-by-doing approach that continually evaluates itself and iterates this information into all the stages of the management process. For this reason the management process stages have been represented schematically as a closed loop (see Figure 2.1). This 'process wheel' therefore symbolizes the feedback and continual iteration of new knowledge to inform management practices: from macro-policies to micro-pilot projects. Designing CBWM Implementing CBWM Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 40 This cyclic representation also has the added benefit of not distinguishing a prescribed starting point for the management of C B W M initiatives. The chosen framework therefore serves to dampen priorities typically assumed with the stages of the management process, and places an equal emphasis on all the stages. At a conceptual level, at least, it is recognized that there should be a hierarchal relationship between the stages, starting with a favourable policy-planning environment. However, this is rarely the case with informal settlements. It is far more common for defacto community initiatives to lead to dejure government policies. A circular framework therefore is far more representative of the managing environment and incorporates the additional planning challenges of policy playing catch-up to existing conditions. It needs to be stressed that there is no one-size-fits-all model for the development process. Each situation wi l l evolve according to its specific characteristics. Therefore, any stage of the management process may lead the development cycle or be nested with other stages where multiple activities are taking place at once. So while management activities may be involved at the community level with implementing projects, there may also be efforts directed at creating a more favourable policy climate. In practice, therefore, the management stages are webbed together. Management Activities This dimension of the planning framework subdivides each management activity into a series of four elements: 1. Management Area 2. Management Tasks 3. Potential C B W M Strategies 4. Institutional Arrangements Provides a topic area categorizing the management tasks. Defines and outlines the management practices to be undertaken or considered. Illustrates potential C B W M strategies—methods, techniques and tools—used, or considered appropriate, for implementing the management tasks. Illustrates a series of potential institutional arrangements to carryout the management tasks (both within and between institutions). This division of management activities into a system of elements addresses a couple of key points considered weaknesses in typical watershed management planning: implementing plans, and politics. According to Hufschmidt—in his development of a conceptual framework for watershed management—planners focus on "things to be done", rather than on "ways of getting things done" (Hufschmidt 1986). This has also been the case with projects adopting adaptive management for coastal ecosystems: plans have rarely evolved past the planning stage into implementation (Walters 1997). Breaking down management activities into tasks and potential strategies attempts to overcome this shortfall by placing an equal emphasis on both "what needs to be done" and "how can it be done". Watershed management has also failed at times by not considering the political setting; typically, governing political structures are not adequately integrated into, or able to support, new management plans (Hufschmidt 1986). B y identifying Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 41 institutional arrangements as components within the activities of management, a greater emphasis is placed on the roles of political institutions and how they may fit into the management structure. Another advantage of considering management activities as a system of elements is that it is conducive to analyzing and regrouping management practices according to either task, method, or arrangement. It is, therefore, quite a simple task to breakout all the C B W M methods from the different stages in the management planning cycle. This provides a specific analytical slice that can assist in monitoring and evaluating management practices. 2.3 A Planning Framework for C B W M This section develops a planning framework that can be used as a management planning tool: describing specific management activities associated with each stage in the management process; and outlining a potential organizational structure, or order, to carryout these activities. The management activities included represent either a) integral components identified for a community-based watershed management strategy or plan, or b) they represent management practices that are recommended for consideration in the planning cycle but may not necessarily be required, depending on the site specific context. These management activities were selected because they either met the theoretical components needed for C B W M (briefly discussed in Section 1.0) or emerged repeatedly from the empirical case studies reviewed 2 as key ingredients for success. Indicators of success were an activity's ability to assist a project with meeting its initial objectives, promoting acceptance and adoption by local authorities and communities, proving its flexibility with use to other locations, and offering more cost effective options. The suggested C B W M methods and institutional arrangements described in the framework provide illustrative examples of how management practices can be carried out and institutionalized. It is recognized that many of the methods and arrangements presented are not new to developmental projects in developing countries, and definitely not specific to C B W M . Many of the methods were borrowed from participatory approaches used in other fields and were modified, when necessary, for a C B W M context. The management activities within each stage of the management process would ideally follow a sequential logical order. Even though this may not happen in practise, the promotion of a hierarchal structure is considered important to assist stakeholders, whether they use it or not, to optimize a planning process. Therefore this document promotes and recommends the application o f a seven-step model developed by Peter Boothroyd. While based on the classic components of rational planning models, it is particularly well suited for application to C B W M initiatives since it was developed as a participatory planning tool that focuses on the "dynamics of collective deliberation within communities" (Boothroyd 1991). It can be used as a generic sequence of 2 These case studies were from the developmental literature relating to integrated watershed management, urban environmental management, and participatory development projects (for a complete listing of case studies see bibliography in Section 5.0). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 42 steps for each stage in the management process, and in most cases for each management activity. The main steps in the model are: 1. Define your planning task; 2. Plan your goals; 3. Appraise the relevant facts; 4. Generate many action possibilities; 5. Package the possibilities; 6. Assess the pros & cons of each option; and 7. Decide on an option to adopt (Boothroyd 1991) The application of these steps to a C B W M approach is not perfect. There are times when certain steps may be out of sequence for certain planning tasks. For example, sometimes it is difficult to plan your goals without the relevant facts or knowledge that highlight a specific problem, which is typically the case in informal settlements. Few communities identify the need for toilets until they have received, or are knowledgeable about, hygiene issues. Therefore, defining a planning task or setting goals may follow the collection of data at times. There are also weaknesses in attempting to define an activity neatly into one of the model steps. Some management activities may span or include a number of the model steps, and therefore arranging the other management activities in a sequential order becomes problematic. The key point to stress is that any model needs to be flexible. Strict adherence can confine and hinder processes at times; there must be fluidity to jump between steps to suit the users' needs. Therefore, the developed framework has attempted to use the model as best possible in laying out the sequence of management activities, and at other times it has deviated from it. Flexibility is also crucial when considering each unique informal settlement. Each informal settlement may contain a series of distinct settlement areas, or clusters. Therefore, a management strategy must recognize these clusters, and be flexible enough to adapt to their site-specific conditions. For a C B W M strategy or plan, a framework should identify the key management practices, provide over-arching principles that support community-based initiatives, and create an enabling policy environment for each settlement cluster. Accordingly for any given land-use area, there may be a series of informal settlement clusters with their own specific goals, methods and arrangements. The following planning framework has attempted to integrate this required flexibility. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 43 J Policy X -Planning J 2.3.1 Policy Planning Stage This stage of the management process is predominantly concerned with planning and management—at the municipal level—to create an enabling environment supportive of C B W M initiatives. The principal output for this stage is the development of a municipal-level CBWM Policy Strategy that defines the roles of government agencies, and provides a mechanism for how communities w i l l be mobilized and empowered to manage themselves. A summary of the recommended management areas are displayed in Figure 2.2. Figure 2.2 Recommended Management Areas for the Policy Planning Stage Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 44 Two distinctions which influenced the development of this policy planning stage need to be commented on up front. 1. A distinction needs to be made to distinguish the shades of policy reform. Existing policies may or may not guide management interventions in informal settlements. New policy formulation may be something that happens incrementally; or it can be blurred and integrated into the activities of other management stages; or lastly, it can be done as a distinct step to promote the right conditions for C B W M , as it is illustrated here. 2. Another distinction needs to address the spectrum of options for the type and timing of community involvement in policy formulation. There are two points to consider. First, one of the principal conclusions from participatory development projects is that the earlier participation is solicited, the more likely there wi l l be community ownership and buy-in— two key elements for success (Narayan 1993). The second point recognizes the political reality in developing countries, discussed previously, that government agencies are unlikely to share decision-making given the perceived unpredictability of public processes. Therefore bureaucrats must balance the tradeoffs between the benefits of early community participation and the management of uncertainty. The policy planning framework developed below has placed particular emphasis on activities that manage uncertainty; while still illustrating potential C B W M methods that promote early stakeholder involvement. The following table provides a summary of the management activities identified for the policy planning stage. One management activity that may seem out of place is the development of a typology for informal settlement land use areas. This activity was included early on for a number of reasons: to assist in defining potential stakeholders who may be focused outside the delineated watershed boundary but who are essential to the upgrading process; to harmonize a consistent typology for informal settlements between municipalities; to begin the collaboration and coordination between planning units on a relatively straightforward activity; and finally, to highlight specific considerations that influence the next management activity of developing a municipal policy strategy. Table 2.1. Management Activities for Policy Planning Kev Principles for Guiding C B W M Management Activities Process-Related • Coordination, collaboration, and harmonization between government agencies • Collective decision-making • Clear management responsibilities and a common vision • Learning-by-doing approach Policy-Related • Policies should promote decentralization, privatization and deregulation • Policies should promote demand responsive approaches • Policies should focus on gender issues, promoting the role of women • Policies should integrate sustainable environmental, economic, and social goals Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 45 Management Area Management Tasks Potential CBWM Strategies (see Section 3) Institutional Arrangements Munic ipa l Pre-Planning Define the need and purpose for specifically developing a policy strategy that addresses the issues in informal settlements, including: • Outline the political and policy context • Provide a rationale • Identify preliminary goals • Identify which municipal agencies have a stake in the process • Identify a lead agency, i f possible. • Development o f a task group/ committee • Consultation with communities • Citizen's advisory committee • Cit izen panels or juries • Informal arrangements • Organizational changes • Formal arrangements (e.g. bylaw and policy changes, or alterations to community plans) • Education on informal settlements and C B W M Delineate watershed boundary, and identify all water bodies. • GIS • Community mapping • Zoning and land-use maps (Using physical and social parameters) • Informal arrangements • Internal work order with the planning or engineering department • Subcontract to outside consultant Coordination and Collaboration (Outside and Inside the Municipali ty) Develop a strategy for joint work with other planning units involved with, or providing services to, informal settlements including: • Intra-municipal depts. • Service providers • Public utilities • Adjacent municipalities • Other levels o f government, the private sector, and N G O s This coordination includes joint goal setting, the streamlining o f data collection and other activities • National Water Coordn Board • Watershed Planning Councils • Watershed Working Groups • Multisectoral processes • Information sharing and integration o f databases • Technology transfer • Technical committees • Organizational changes • Informal arrangements • Intermunicipal agreements ( M O U s ) • Contracts • Monetize joint work functions • Education on C B W M concepts Develop a typology for informal settlement land-use areas. For example: 1. Residential & commercial areas 2. Resource appropriation areas 3. Environmentally sensitive areas (riparian, wetlands, drinking watershed) 4. Hazardous or precarious areas (flood plain, hillside, industrial, refuse dumps) 5. Other areas impacted by informal settlements • Resource utilization assessment • Ownership analysis • Impact assessments • Basic services evaluation • Current zoning and land-use • Consultation with residents and users' • Informal arrangements • Internal work order with the planning or engineering department • Subcontract to outside consultant Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 46 Munic ipa l Develop a municipal-level CBWM Policy • Task group • Informal Planning Strategy, including for example: • Interdepartmental sub- arrangements Pol icy for • Choose guiding principles committees • Formal policy C B W M • Define a common vision • Intra-municipal and procedures • Identify goals roundtable process • Intermunicipal • Define management and planning (government agencies, agreements responsibilities and objectives service providers, and (e.g. M O U s ) (including, for example, an adoption international agencies) • Regulation and of adaptive management and strategic • Community advisory by-laws planning) committee • Planning and • Identify regulatory and economic • Multistakeholder administrative instruments which w i l l facilitate process changes C B W M • Organizational • Identify potentially needed changes institutional reforms to better carryout • Educational C B W M programs • Develop an institutional monitoring • Subcontract to mechanism outside parties • Define legitimacy o f community (e.g.consultant groups (legal or not) or working group) Munic ipa l Develop a planning process for enabling • Task group • Planning and Planning the CBWM Policy Strategy, this may • Interdepartmental sub- administrative Process include: committees changes • Identify participants • Intra-municipal • Informal • Define necessary work committees roundtable process arrangements • Define codes of conduct, and a (government agencies, • Formal policy procedural framework service providers, and and procedures • Clarify tasks and responsibilities, international agencies) • Intermunicipal integrating management issues to • Community advisory agreements avoid overlap and fragmentation committee ( M O U s ) • Develop timeframes • Multistakeholder • Regulation and • Define the decision-making process process by-laws • Develop a conflict resolution process • Information and for all stages of the planning cycle education • Develop a financial strategy for the • Subcontract to policy process outside parties • Develop an information-sharing/ communication protocol • Develop a strategy for mitigating the likelihood of corruption Human Identify and define new jobs, or • Task group • Informal Resource management functions, needed for • Interdepartmental sub- arrangements Development implementing the CBWM Policy Strategy committees • Financial inc luding: • Intra-municipal incentives • Provide an adequate incentive roundtable process • Formal policy program for managers to adopt new (government agencies, and procedures policies and procedures service providers, • Regulation and • Provide necessary skills and training N G O s , etc.) by-laws for process and programs • Community advisory • Planning and • Develop advocacy literature and committee administrative operational guidelines • Multistakeholder changes ~ • Develop forums to share experiences process Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 47 Pol icy & Identify and lobby for reform measures Legislative needed for C B W M planning processes to Reform begin. This w i l l l ikely involve policy reforms at the local, regional and national levels. Two aspects should be considered: 1. Harmonizing competing and contradictory legislation and policies 2. Creating new policies and legislation where there are gaps which need to be filled to better support C B W M . These new policies would address policy issues related to decentralization, deregulation, privatization, and may also include specific reforms for: • Land Tenure and/or Informal Settlement Pol icy • Community Watershed Management or Water Resources Pol icy • Gender Pol icy Decentralized Financial Policy Task group Interdepartmental sub-committees Intra-municipal roundtable process Community committees Community advisory boards Multistakeholder process Informal arrangements (e.g. M O U s ) Formal agreements (e.g. working contracts, monetized agreements) Statutes Governance policies Regulatory or economic instruments Planning, administrative, and organizational changes Financing | Develop a financial strategy to mobilize necessary funding for C B W M initiatives. This strategy should identity funding sources locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. A financial strategy should mirror the need of a decentralization of financial authority, i f there has been a decentralization in responsibilities. Potential C B W M funding sources may include an emphasis on: Locally— user fees; micro-credit schemes; water stamps; etc. Regionally~property taxes; land banking; land consolidation; land sharing; credit foundations; social funds; private lenders; municipal credit funds; etc. Nationally—inter-government transfers; loan financing system; cross-subsidies for watershed protection; taxes; water pricing; pollution prevention schemes; etc. Internationally—low interest loans; grants; co-financing options; etc. Informal and formal contracts Financial incentives Formal policy and procedures Regulation and by-laws Planning and administrative changes N e w institutional arrangements Subcontract to outside parties (e.g. consultant or working groups) Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 48 Political Support Develop a strategy to build political support for C B W M both internally (city or municipal departments, agencies and councils) and externally (other levels o f government, municipalities, and the public). A strategy may involve: • l inking monitoring and evaluation to better inform policy reform; • defining a plan for public participation; • mitigating procedures to limit the influence of party politics; • cultivating reformers within resisting agencies; • instituting accountability mechanisms; • promoting research to highlight the benefits o f C B W M ; • etc. Potential methods may involve a greater reliance on one or more of the following components: • Networking • Collaborative research • Public participation techniques • Marketing • Advertising • Information dissemination • Informal and formal contracts • Financial incentives • Formal policy and procedures • Regulation and by-laws • Planning and administrative changes • N e w institutional arrangements • Subcontract to outside parties (e.g. consultant or working groups) • Etc. Community selection Develop a strategy for engaging and choosing communities eligible for support, including an information plan to disseminate the applicable programs and policies to the public; and clearly defined selection procedures • Task group • Community advisory groups • Planning committees • Multistakeholder process Same as above Monitoring and Evaluation Institutionalize a monitoring and evaluation strategy to assess ongoing activities and performance throughout the management process • • Task group • Community advisory groups • Planning committees • Multistakeholder process Same as above Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 49 2.3.2 Designing < This stage of the mi multi stakeholder pi plan of action. It t l Designing C B W M ning and supporting a Is, and then develops a irograms, which is considered under the Implementing CBWM Stage. There are three main management areas considered for this stage in the management process: Community Management, Community Watershed Assessment, and Strategic Management Plan. Community Management is considered as both a goal and a process necessary for C B W M ; accordingly, it is intrinsically connected to— and encompasses—the other management areas for this stage (see Figure 2.3). Community Watershed Assessments and Strategic Management Plans have been specifically created for dealing with informal settlements in urban watersheds. Figure 2.3 Recommended Management Areas for the Designing C B W M Stage Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 50 Community Management Community management refers to activities which facilitate the devolution of control and decision-making and empower communities to manage themselves. There are two constituent parts for this management area: capacity building of the stakeholders, and developing a community-based process. One of the fundamental first activities that the literature identifies for this area is the implementation of an environmental and health education program to raise the awareness of stakeholders. This awareness raising leads to a stronger understanding of the connections between actions and impacts, especially related to environmental practices and health issues. Once established, an education program may evolve and serve as a procedural catalyst to begin the capacity building process. This process includes training, organizational development, and creating mechanisms that improve the delivery of more sustainable services. Community Watershed Assessment The Community Watershed Assessment is a new concept which has been specifically crafted for assessing individual communities. It differs from a typical watershed assessment3 by paying closer attention to the integration of biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional issues that affect each community. It is a mechanism that feeds the scientific research collected and analyzed into the Strategic Management Plan and the community management cycle. It also differs from a watershed assessment by having its level of inquiry defined by the informal settlement land use areas, rather than the entire watershed. Negative impacts or problem areas identified during the assessment are then traced back to their source, within the watershed boundary. It is anticipated that the Community Watershed Assessment could be a component piece of a larger watershed assessment for the region. However, it would be customized to—and highlight the watershed issues facing—each specific community. The purpose of the Community Watershed Assessment is to assess the health of the natural, the social, and the built environment. The main functions identified for the assessment are: 4 To define the role of assessment and how it fits into the management planning process; 4 To define informal settlement land use boundaries; 4 To develop a set of indicators; 4 To collate existing information and prioritize new information to be collected; 4 To analyze the data, define the problem areas, and summarize it in an understandable and useable format; and 4 To develop a series of recommended guidelines and management practices to mitigate problem areas. 3 Zandbergen defines a watershed assessment as "the systemic collection, analysis and integration of information on the biophysical elements o f a watershed, using scientific methods, in support of watershed management" (Zandbergen 1998). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 51 The Community Watershed Assessment's ( C W A ) management activities have been accordingly categorized into three component parts: biophysical, socio-economic, and institutional. This division into components is helpful for planning and managing C B W M initiatives. It provides a logical division which assists with information collection, understanding the legal and regulatory contexts, integrating science, understanding the connections between land-use and impacts, evaluating and monitoring, developing common goals, planning according to the hydrologic cycle, and in developing mitigative strategies. It is noted that while this breakdown into three components provides an analytical device for a clearer identification of the issues and needs, the development of an integrated plan for C B W M must consider all these components together. The identified management activities for the C W A , illustrated in Table 2.2, are quite extensive and potentially far too complicated and time consuming for any group to undertake. The activities chosen are provided as a guide for groups to use, alter, and to design an assessment that better fits with their needs and resources. Strategic Management Plan The Strategic Management Plan is an action plan developed through a participatory process for each community. It defines 'what to do' and 'how to do it'. It is also the substantive output from the Designing CBWM stage, and follows from the Community Watershed Assessment. The generic components of the strategic plan follow the seven step model discussed previously and include the following: 4 To clarify the role and function of the strategic plan; 4 To define a clear set of prioritized goals (integrating environmental, economic, social, and institutional concerns); 4 To summarize the assets and liabilities of each community; 4 To develop strategies/plans to actualize the prioritized goals (incorporate the appropriate C W A s identified guidelines and management practices); 4 To integrate and package the plans and strategies across different sectors; 4 To assess, agree, and coordinate action plans (including pilot projects); and 4 To develop a timeframe and procedural framework (including outlining the roles and responsibilities for the stakeholders). The management activities mentioned below involving community management, C W A s , and Strategic Management Plans can occur more or less simultaneously. The development of a participatory process can evolve at the same time as specific management activities are being carried out. Therefore, a hierarchal sequence to the activities is not necessarily warranted, except that the C W A should precede the strategic plan. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 52 Assuming that a typology for informal settlement land use areas has already been developed during the Policy Planning stage, the management activities for the Designing CBWM stage have been simplified by only focusing on residential land use areas. Accordingly, management activities may have to be added or tailored for other land use areas. For example, a resource appropriation land use area (e.g. timber or fish resources) may include management activities for developing a common property resource management regime 4. Therefore, while the management areas are consistent for all the land use areas, the management activities identified in Table 2.2 may have to be augmented depending on the land use being considered. Table 2.2 Management Activities for Designing C B W M Key Principles for Guiding C B W M Management Activities Process-Related: • Devolution of decision-making and control to the community level • Focus on community empowerment and involvement during all management activities • Focus on encouraging and promoting women's participation • Improving process sustainability5 Management and Planning-Related: • Integration of local knowledge • Holistic integrated watershed approach that also integrates multiple goals • Promotion of partnerships and collaboration Management Area Management Tasks Potential C B W M Strategies (see Sec. 3) Institutional Arrangements Community Management Education Develop an environmental and health education programme Management Structure Develop a community-based governance system for use on C B W M initiatives General Administration Develop guidelines for administrative procedures, which may include: a membership list, a governance system with subcommittees, establish a society or organization, organize financial procedures (bank account), put a budget together, develop a note keeping system, etc. These management tasks can be implemented through stakeholder groups facilitated by N G O s , C B O s , or government agencies using: • Participatory research • Participatory action research ( P A R ) • Feminist participatory action research • Z O P P workshops Institutional organizational changes Planning and administrative changes Informal arrangements Intermunicipal or service provider agreements Formal policy and procedures Regulation/by-laws 4 Discussed in more detail in Section 3.0. 5 At the simplest level, process sustainability is defined as a program's or process's ability to continue to work over time while improving the welfare of the participants. This implies that communities and stakeholders have the necessary skills and training to maintain activities at the same time as securing stable financing. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 53 Community Management (Cont'd) Skil ls and Training Develop a training programme for community capacity building—both hard and soft s k i l l s -including organizational development, negotiation, facilitation, mediation, technical skills, etc, Partnerships and Collaboration Develop a strategy to encourage and facilitate partnerships, participation, and collaboration between and within stakeholder groups Structured Learning Develop procedures to institutionalize a 'learning by doing philosophy' Process Sustainabilitv o f Programs and Services Develop mechanisms that make stakeholders more self-reliant, including areas for resources (stable financing, training and skills) and political support (skills related to networking, lobbying, and the use of the media to advertise success stories, or advocate issues) Same as above Cont'd from above: • Community Contracts • Subcontract to outside parties (e.g. N G O s , private consultants, working groups, government agencies) • Education on C B W M concepts Biophysical Component of the Community Watershed Assessment Environmental Assessments Assess or perform the following: 1. Biophysical conditions: including physical, chemical, and biological evaluations for the water (including groundwater), land (including soil surveys), and air resources (including depositional characteristics) 2. Identity location, magnitude and complexity of land-use impacts and their cumulative nature. This assessment may locate all waterbodies within a community—or watershed—and highlight the visible signs of point and N P S pollution; locate aquifers and recharge zones; and indicate the critical areas of concern, including: seasonal flood areas, erosion and landslide areas, drainage network patterns and problems, etc. 3. Aquatic and terrestrial habitat inventory and assessment, including wildlife and marine animal (e.g. fish) populations and health 4. Resource utilization analysis 5. Land-use capability analysis 6. Water balance assessment 7. Pollution loading assessment 8. Environmental risk assessment, including identification of natural hazardous areas like: • Flood prone areas • land slide areas • fire prone areas, etc. Stakeholder group • Institutional using: organizational • Archiva l records changes • Case studies • Planning and • Model l ing exercises administrative • Rapid assessment changes techniques • Informal • Environmental arrangements impact assessment • Intermunicipal • Cumulative effects or service assessment provider • Ecological risk agreements assessment • Formal policy • Participatory action and procedures research: transect • Regulation and walks, modelling, by-laws seasonal calendars, • Community daily time analysis, contracts group interviews, • Subcontract to timelines and trend outside parties analysis, V E N N • Education on diagrams, linkage C B W M diagrams, matrix concepts scoring, etc. • Time sequence of change analysis • Critical facilities maps or multiple hazard maps, GIS • Natural hazard assessments/vulnera bility assessments Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 54 Biophysical Infrastructure Evaluation Stakeholder group Same as above Component Evaluate basic infrastructure services, for using: (Cont'd) o f example: Water, sanitation, electricity, solid • Archival records the C W A waste, drainage, roads, paths. • Rapid assessment techniques • Participatory action research Socio- Socio-Economic Assessments Stakeholder group • Institutional Economic Perform a needs assessment to identify the key using: Organizational Component issues and problems, including: changes of the 1. Define community land-use boundaries • Community or social • Planning and 2. Collect basic demographic information, for mapping (Adjust administrative C o m m u n i t y example: land use boundaries changes Watershed • Population distribution, income level, according to • Informal Assessment health, housing types, age o f community's arrangements settlement, ethnicity, education, etc. perceptions and • Intermunicipal 3. Gender analysis uses) or service 4. Health impact assessments from agriculture, • Social impact provider industry, transportation, housing, waste assessments agreements dumps, hydropower, forestry, road • Gender analysis or • Formal policy construction, drainage, animal husbandry, feminist and procedures commercial services, aquaculture, and participatory action • Regulation and recreational research techniques by-laws 5. Social infrastructure evaluation, for (e.g. gender resource • Community example: maps) Contracts • Health centres, schools, transportation, • Beneficiary • Subcontract to market places, assessments (World outside parties • Education on 6. Social capital evaluation, including: Bank 1996) • Organizational development, • Rapid assessment C B W M information networks, leadership, procedures: concepts formal sector relationships, etc. secondary data, 7. Community/environmental risk assessment, resource inventory, including the identification of areas where seasonal calendars, there are higher risks from: daily activity • Fire, lack or absence of emergency or profiles, local medical treatment facilities, disease histories, V E N N prevalence areas, crime, etc. diagrams, wealth 8. Income generation analysis for both the and status rankings, informal and formal economies etc. 9. A n economic assessment comparing • Participatory Urban healthcare and other medical costs (of Appraisal: residents within and adjacent to the workshops using informal settlement) that are directly related mapping, line to environmental effects within the drawings, critical community incident, sorting 10. A socio-economic analysis determining cards, Z O P P , A I C , residents' willingness or ability to pay for etc. services, especially water and sanitation 11. Assess breadth and range of capacities o f the private sector and identify weaknesses that may require strengthening Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 55 Institutional Component of the C o m m u n i t y Watershed Assessment Define the legal characteristics o f the land-use areas, including: • Type of tenureship, use, and impacts Review o f historical land use changes and issues Assessment o f regulatory and legal governance frameworks outlining the roles and responsibilities o f the different levels o f government, public utilities, and support organizations Basic infrastructure service delivery evaluation: formal and informal mechanisms Identify institutional shortfalls and concerns, including issues dealing with: • Corruption, information management, communication, accountability, and representation Assess socio-political and socio-economic relations, including: cooperation & conflict resolution mechanisms; information dissemination and communication; and information on markets o f exchange Stakeholder group using: • Rapid assessment procedures: secondary data, resource inventory, daily activity profiles, local histories, chronologies, V E N N diagrams, wealth and status rankings • Internal audit • Institutional mapping Same as above Strategic Management P l a n Basic Components o f a Plan • Clarify the role and function of the plan • Develop a clear set o f prioritized goals • Summarize community assets and liabilities • Develop strategies/plans • Integrate and package the plans and strategies (including the consideration of a wide range of technical options to better fit in with a demand responsive approach) • Assess, agree, and coordinate action plans (choose specific pilot projects to implement) • Develop or outline an implementation strategy for 'how' the plan is to be realized: a timeframe, a procedural framework, an outline of the roles and responsibilities o f the stakeholders, including strategies to mitigate identified institutional or other contrainsts, etc. Stakeholder group employs community-based methods, this can take numerous forms including: Community consultations • Beneficiary Assessments • Systematic Client Consultations, etc. Workshops • Appreciation Influence Control • Z O P P • TeamUp, etc. Community-Based Methods • Participatory Act ion Research techniques • S A R A R • Gender analyses, etc. Institutional Organizational changes Planning and administrative changes Informal arrangements Intermunicipal or service provider agreements Formal policy and procedures Regulation and by-laws Community Contracts Subcontract to outside parties Education on C B W M concepts Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 56 Strategic Management P lan (Cont'd) Specific Components o f a Plan • Develop a financial strategy to fund C B W M initiatives • Develop a conflict resolution or pre-emption mechanism • Develop a community economic development plan: integrate income generating aspects into the plan • Develop a capacity building program that identifies and provides stakeholders with necessary skills and training; including a program to educate and train urban managers and planners to better support the strategic plan (see also Policy Planning Stage) • Develop a growth management plan for informal settlements • Develop an enforcement mechanism • Integrate ongoing monitoring and evaluation into activities (see Section 4.5) Same as above Same as above Potential Components o f a Plan • Develop a legal strategy for dealing with property ownership issues Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 57 — — — ^ '"l/ Implementing \r-C B W M ) 2.3.3 Implementing C B W M Stage This stage of the management process is primarily concerned with taking the policies, programs and projects identified in the Strategic Management Plan and implementing them in on-site programs and services. The main management activities for this stage are therefore dependent on the specific goals and resources already articulated by the stakeholders during the Designing CBWM stage of the management process. For the purposes of illustration, however, this stage has assumed management activities to fall almost entirely within the scope of 'community contracting and management', which encompasses three stages: engineering the identified initiatives in community plans, constructing or implementing the plans, and finally commissioning the plans into active service. The sequence of management activities closely follows the seven-step model for each project or planning activity identified. Many of the cited activities appear to mirror the activities already described in the Strategic Management Plan, however the activities discussed here are more specific and are concerned with taking the identified priority items in the plan (which are largely process related) and operationalizing them in projects at the community level. Therefore, the Strategic Management Plan serves as a planning framework for the management activities during this stage, where the activities are more concerned with specific service-related strategies and developing the necessary skills required for more effective implementation by the stakeholders at the community level. Built within this stage of the management process, stakeholder goals like community empowerment, income generation, and capacity building among the participants are further addressed (beyond specific training or skills activities) through their participation and involvement in a participatory planning process. While generally not explicitly taken into account in the designing of programmes and processes, the participation by the stakeholders in a multi-stakeholder process leads to a greater understanding between participants and organizations. This increased understanding is known to improve collaboration, partnerships, and the efficacy of joint planning initiatives. Moreover, it strengthens both government agencies and other support organization's facilitative roles to support C B W M development, strengthening more community control and management. The term 'community contracting and management' is intended to incorporate the underlying goals for C B W M : community empowerment, demand responsive approaches, collaborative decision-making, and improving the quality of life for watershed residents. Within this management area, the community is considered the principal stakeholder delegated with the Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 58 authority to choose, design, procure, construct or implement, supervise and manage the delivery of services that affect them and wi l l meet their needs. It is beneficial to distinguish between the different forms of service delivery. The delivery of services refers to the provisioning of social services: either 'hard' social services or 'soft' social services. 'Hard' social services refers to those services needing engineered physical plans and result in a change to the built environment (normally infrastructure related). Whereas, 'soft' services is concerned with designing policies or programs which affect the social or political environments (normally health or economic related). Both these types of social service plans require unique skills and knowledge for their development. Assuming that a typology for informal settlement land use areas has already been developed during the Policy Planning stage, the management activities for the Implementing CBWM stage have been simplified by only focusing on residential land use areas. Accordingly, management activities may have to be added or tailored for other land use areas. For example, a resource appropriation land use areas (e.g. timber or fish resources) may include management activities to develop and implement agreed upon enforcement regulations. Therefore, while the management areas are consistent for all the land use areas, the management activities identified in Table 2.3 may have to be augmented depending on the land use being considered. Table 2.3 Management Activities for Implementing C B W M Key Principles for Guiding C B W M Management Activities Process-Related: • Community control • Collective decision-making • Accountability and representation • Focus on community empowerment and involvement during all management activities • Focus on encouraging and promoting women's participation Design-Related: • Low-cost, appropriate technologies • Integration of local knowledge and multiple goals into plans • Build flexibility into designs to aniticipate the changing nature of interests and involvement of users • Range of technical options Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 59 Management Area Management Tasks Potential C B W M Strategies (See Section 3 also) Institutional Arrangements Social Develop a specific strategy for mobil iz ing Mobilization (solidifying) participation and building support from community residents and stakeholders. Including the promotion of partnerships and collaboration within and outside communities (other communities, C B O s , service providers, micro-entrepreneurs, commercial businesses, N G O s , and government agencies) Community Contracting and Management Clarify the role and responsibilities o f the stakeholders and in particular the community Organizational & Management Development • Develop a management and procedural structure to carryout planning • Conflict resolution protocol • Enforcement mechanism for non-compliance {See items in Designing CBWM Stage} Stakeholder group employs community-based methods, this can take numerous forms including: Community consultations • Beneficiary Assessments • Systematic Client Consultations, etc. Workshops • Appreciation Influence Control • Z O P P • TeamUp, etc. Community-Based Methods • Participatory Act ion Research techniques • S A R A R • Gender analyses, etc. Resources Identify and secure adequate resources for designing, implementing, and managing services: • Adequate and stable financing • Necessary skills and training Skil ls and Training Methods for capacity building can be achieved through workshops, joint partnerships, specific skills and training programs, or other participatory techniques mentioned above. Secure Financial Resources A t the community level this may involve one or more of the following: • User fees • Mic ro credit/borrower groups • "Sweat" equity • Revolving or social funds • Innovative savings and credit systems: R O S C A , A S C R A , S A V A , L E T S systems, low interest loans • Cross subsidies • Etc. Institutional organizational changes Planning and administrative changes Informal arrangements Formal policy and procedures Regulation and by-laws Institutional Organizational changes Planning and administrative changes Informal arrangements Intermunicipal or service provider agreements Formal policy and procedures Regulation and by-laws Community Contracts Subcontract to outside parties (e.g. N G O s , working groups, private consultants, government agencies) Public-private partnerships Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 60 C o m m u n i t y Con t r ac t i ng and Management (Cont'd) Design Planning • Define project and program to undertake • Identity specific goals for project or program • Appraise relevant facts • Generate potential design concepts • Integrate and package concepts together • Identity and enhance income generating and gender aspects o f options • Assess and choose a design package • Develop plans and specifications for construction or implementation Same as above Note Community can take many different roles during the design & implementation: • Community as client • Community as contractor • Community as manager • Community as co-manager • Community as stakeholder • Etc. Same as above Construction or Implementation • Secure adequate financing • Tender work • Assess tenders • Award contract or agreement • Supervision • Acceptance Same as above Same as above Income Generation Integrate secondary income generating activities throughout the implementation and construction cycle Coordination Develop procedures to coordinate activities within and between stakeholders Monitoring and Evaluation Integrate ongoing monitoring and evaluation into activities (see Section 4.5) Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 61 -y'J Operating & ' ' ' ' v. Maintaining J 2.3.4 Operating & Maintaining Stage This stage of the management process is concerned with the operations and maintenance of the implemented programs and projects. In line with demand responsive approaches, it is assumed that these activities are managed, financed, and carried out exclusively by the communities themselves. A l l the management activities can be considered to fall within the scope of community management, and can be broken down according into either procedural or substantive components6. Procedural activities relate to the capabilities of the participants and the process of the community management system; ensuring that the community has the adequate skills, training, and resources to maintain and improve the services. The management activities (and guiding principles) are similar to those identified in the Designing and Implementing CBWM Stages— included under education, skills & training, organizational development, resources, partnerships and collaboration, structured learning, and income generation—and wi l l not be repeated here. Substantive activities relate directly to those management activities required to operate and maintain the services provided. The activities are more directly tied into ongoing monitoring and evaluations to make sure that user needs are being met, and that the services are sustained. These activities generally include the following aspects: 1. Perform Detailed Inventory This includes an inventory of all the assets: human, material, and financial. This also includes a condition assessment to define general and specific data for the maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation of the services. 2. Define Maintenance Standards This includes quality standards to define the quality of the maintenance service. In addition, it includes quantity standards to define the resources required to implement each task. 3. Develop an Overall Maintenance Budget 4. Develop a Precise Schedule of Activities to Monitor 6 Other activities which parallel the activities for this stage would include many of those mentioned in the Implementing CBWM Stage; specifically those activities which build upon community capacities and their abilities to manage effectively. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 62 There are no specific C B W M strategies provided for this stage, since they wi l l be dependent on what service is being provided and how the community (or subcommittee) decides to set up a O & M system. There are, however, specific tools which are typically associated with O & M activities (e.g. a work-order system, record-keeping techniques, materials management procedures, etc.), but these wi l l not be discussed in this document. The institutional arrangements can take one of many forms, but i f a demand-reponsive approach is desired the control and finances required for O & M should reside in the community. If the community does not directly do the O & M , they should be directly involved as managers in sub-contracting out this work to others. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 63 M o n i t o r i n g \ & E v a l u a t i o n / 2.3.5 Monitoring & Evaluation Stage This stage of the management process is concerned with monitoring and evaluating all stages and activities involved with C B W M initiatives. A n evaluation framework has been developed for this stage and is presented in Section 4.0 A Yardstick for CBWM: An Illustrative Evaluation Framework. This section wi l l therefore concentrate on illustrating both a process and the activities required to implement this evaluation framework into every stage of the management process. Continuing to use the seven-step model as a guide, a participatory process to evaluate either a management stage or an entire project could contain the following generic management tasks: 4 Set up a participatory process and define a working group; 4 Define the role and scope for monitoring and evaluation ( M & E ) ; 4 Define the goals and the priority areas for the M & E process and outputs; 4 Develop a set of indicators (using existing or newly developed indicators); 4 Prioritize and integrate indicators according to priority areas and available resources to collect the information; 4 Assess, choose, and adopt an indicator framework; 4 Institutionalize a monitoring program; 4 Adapt new tools and methods for managing indicator data, including analysis and synthesis7 of the information; and 4 Develop a feedback mechanism. For C B W M , there are two key concepts, or methods, identified and advocated for use in the monitoring and evaluation stage: participatory evaluation and strategic monitoring. Participatory Evaluation is a collaborative process whereby communities play an active and central role in crafting an evaluation framework, collecting and analyzing data, and planning the follow-up activities. It is based on the premise that i f the benefits of community-based 7 Synthesis refers to the presentation of the information in an understandable and useable form. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 64 development are to be realized, then communities and stakeholders must be devolved with the control to carryout shared decision-making. The benefits and characteristics are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.0. One of the main weaknesses of monitoring and evaluation is trying to collect too much information (Narayan 1993). Strategic monitoring is a method for optimizing the collection and use of information for evaluation. It is characterized by the following: 4 Defining priority areas and goals; 4 Identifying key variables according to priority areas; 4 Integrating variables into other aspects of the management cycle; 4 Assessing indicators according to 'pros' (usefulness of information) and 'cons' (time, money and available resources); 4 Selecting key indicators; and 4 Developing clear guidelines for measuring indicators. Strategic monitoring therefore balances community resources against the generation of useful information to inform judgement. The institutional arrangements can take one of many forms, but i f a demand-reponsive approach is desired the control and finances required for M & E should reside in the community. If the community does not directly do the M & E , they should be directly involved as managers in sub-contracting out this work to others. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies. To summarize then, the management activities for monitoring and evaluating projects consist of three components: developing a process to carryout participatory evaluation, implementing a strategic monitoring program, analyzing and synthesizing the data into useful information, and institutionalizing a feedback mechanism that informs ongoing management decisions. These three components set the basis for the 'structured learning' process and wi l l inform continuing formal management experiments in an adaptive management approach. This is discussed in greater detail in Section 3.0 Urban CBWM Strategies. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 2 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM Page 65 2.4 Key References Boothroyd, Peter. 1991. Developing Community Planning Skills: applications of a seven-step model. C H S Research Bulletin (February). Vancouver, B C : U B C Centre for Human Settlements (CHS). Hufschmidt, Maynard. 1986. " A Conceptual Framework for Watershed Management." Water Resources Management: an integrated framework with studies from As ia and the Pacific. Ed. Wi l l i am Easter. Boulder, C O . : Westview Press. Narayan, Deepa. 1993. Participatory evaluation: tools for managing change in water and sanitation. World Bank, Technical Paper No. 207. Washington, D . C . : World Bank. Walters, C.J . 1997. "Challenges in Adaptive Management of Riparian and Coastal Ecosystems." Conservation Ecology 1(2). World Bank. 1996. World Bank Participation Sourcebook. Last Updated: 30 June 1999. World Bank Internet Website. Address: http://www.worldbank.org/html/edi/sourcebook/sbhome.htm. Retrieved: June 1999. Zandbergen, Paul. 1998. Urban Watershed Assessment: linking watershed health indicators to management. PhD. Dissertation. C D R O M . Vancouver, B C : University of British Columbia. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Page 66 Urban CBWM Strategies Contents 3.0 Urban C B W M Strategies 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Planning and Administrative Strategies 3.2.1 Role of the Government 3.2.2 General Trends in Legislative and Policy Reforms 3.2.3 Specific Legislative and Policy Reforms 3.2.4 Monitoring and Enforcement of Policies 3.2.5 Institutional Strengthening 3.2.6 Human Resources Development 3.2.7 Planning and Management 3.2.8 Community Engagement 3.2.9 Financing and Cost Recovery 3.2.10 Technical Assistance 3.2.11 Building Constituencies for Political Support 3.3 Community-Based Strategies 3.4 Environmental Strategies 3.5 Key References Section 3.0 Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 67 3.0 Urban C B W M Strategies This section of the Resource Book presents policymakers, planners, managers, and community groups with strategies—methods, techniques and tools—for facilitating and carrying out community-based watershed management ( C B W M ) 1 . It is intended to complement and elaborate on some of the potential C B W M methods mentioned in Section 2.0 A Municipal Planning Framework for CBWM. Ideally, this section is intended to represent a toolbox; a resource to help users generate ideas and make informed decisions as to which strategy best suits their needs. Rather than attempting to provide a definitive listing of all the available strategies, this section has concentrated on (1) providing a cursory overview of strategy areas, and (2) highlighting some of the more progressive and promising strategies that have emerged from the developmental literature for Planning and Administrative Strategies identified for C B W M . 3.1 Introduction The format to identify and describe C B W M strategies has been arranged according to three subsections: planning and administrative strategies, community-based strategies, and environmental strategies. Planning and administrative strategies are primarily concerned with governance issues to assist government agencies wanting to support C B W M ; these strategies are generally concentrated during the policy planning stage of the management process. Community-based strategies discuss community management methods for designing, implementing and operating C B W M initiatives. Environmental strategies are more technical in nature and focus on specific techniques and appropriate technologies to address environmental issues facing the health of the watershed and its residents. This section of the Resource Book wi l l use the Planning and Administrative Strategies subsection to illustrate the full range of available strategies for one subsection, and to illustrate how a subsection may be further classified to identify key ingredients for C B W M . For more detailed information on the highlighted strategies, and related ones, the reader is encouraged to refer to the source documents included in the Annotated Bibliographies in Appendix A and B. In addition, a number of case studies—illustrating some of the innovative strategies—have been included for the remaining two strategy subsections in Appendix C: Case Studies Illustrating Community-Based and Environmental Strategies for CBWM. This classification into three subsections and related categories is by no means perfect. Many of the cited strategies could be used for numerous categories and subsections. At times, the classification understates or de-emphasizes certain attributes of community-based development. For example, the planning and administrative subsection is predominantly concerned with the role of government agencies and correspondingly little emphasis is placed with the role of community groups and support organizations. This is not meant to imply that communities should not play a significant component in the participation and crafting of strategies during the 1 It needs to be emphasized that there is no one-size-fits-all strategy or model for community development and watershed management. The nature and range of activities that are ultimately chosen wi l l depend on each site specific environment. Therefore, the strategies w i l l not only be representative of the biophysical, socio-economic and institutional conditions affecting each area or community, but also representative o f the needs, responsibilities and capabilities of the various stakeholders. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 68 policy planning stage, the opposite is true. Given these weaknesses of classification, however, the classification was selected to (1) better highlight the institutional, socio-economic, and biophysical factors associated with C B W M ; (2) to avoid duplication of strategies and activities between the stages of the management process; (3) to more clearly distinguish the different roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders; and (4) to more easily organize strategies according to their use and functions, from specific on-site strategies to overarching political strategies. The organization within each subsection heading follows a similar pattern: a description of the category being considered, a discussion of the range of strategies, and—when available—an illustration of how the strategies could be used. The C B W M strategies included in this section were derived from both empirical and theoretical research. A s mentioned previously, there is a real void in the developmental literature on how C B W M can be applied, particularly in the urban environment. Therefore, strategies have been taken from other developmental fields and, where appropriate, applied to a C B W M context. The selection of strategies and illustrative case studies offers examples of novel initiatives which achieved a certain degree of success. Two of the main factors which influenced the selection of strategies were innovation, and flexibility (and replication). Therefore, the principal questions that strategies had to answer were 2: Innovation Did the strategies employ non-conventional methods and i f so were they more effective at delivering more with less? Flexibility and Replication Was the strategy, or a characteristic of it, easily adaptable to different settings and therefore frequently replicated to other programs? 2 Other criteria which influenced the inclusion of strategies and examples (in no particular order): Quality o f Life D id the strategies increase the standard of life o f the participants, primarily with regards to primary health care? Participatory D id the strategies enfranchise communities with a shift in power to enable more self-governance and were partnerships formed? Equity D i d the strategies specifically target inequities associated with gender, age, religion, ethnicity, and income levels. Gender Did the strategies target or encourage women to play a central role in community decision-making and in the planning and management of initiatives? Affordability Were the strategies cheaper than conventional methods, cheaper to maintain, and affordable to the poorest residents? Protect the Environment D i d the strategies minimize pollution and conserve water resources? Acceptability Were the strategies aesthetically inoffensive and consistent with cultural and social values? Simplicity D id the strategies promote technologies and tools that were robust, easily operated and maintained by local knowledge and expertise, and easily replicated to allow scaling-up? Sustainability D id the strategies show more sustainable delivery of services in terms o f operating and maintenance costs, reliability, and acceptance? Integrated Approach D id the strategies employ an integrated approach that addressed a range of issues? Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 69 3.2 Planning and Administrative Strategies The planning and administrative strategies discussed here are predominantly concerned with creating an enabling environment that is supportive of C B W M . As well , these strategies have been targeted at the institutional level of government agencies and public utilities during the policy planning stage of development and during the ongoing operations of C B W M initiatives. This subsection, therefore, looks at the roles and responsibilities of these institutions and outlines strategies that strengthen them: making them more effective and responsive to both watershed management and community-based approaches. 3.2.1 Role of the Government Defining the role of government agencies3 when it comes to the governance of informal settlements is a contentious issue; there is a spectrum of opinion on the subject. On the one side, state, regional and local governments have (or been delegated with) the power to regulate land use and provide basic services to their citizens and therefore many believe that it is the government's duty and responsibility to invest in and manage these areas like any other area under their authority. The problem and reality with this viewpoint, however, is that these institutions have proven themselves incapable (through a lack of resources, abilities, or political wil l) of meeting the challenges from these areas and, in many cases, providing even the most basic services. On the other side of the opinion spectrum, there are those who have pointed to the failure, incompetence, and corruption of government agencies and the recognition that these informal settlements are currently coping without outside support. And , therefore, government institutions should concentrate on finding mechanisms to support these grass-roots efforts. The problem and reality with this viewpoint, however, is that it can too often lead to government agencies absolving themselves from any responsibility for the social and environmental ills that affect and/or derive from informal settlements and relieve them of their fiduciary duties. It is clear that in this debate there is no right answer as to what a government's role should be other than falling somewhere between the two extremes of full responsibility and no responsibility 4. It is also clear that in many developing countries government agencies are failing to meet the needs of their urban population and a restructuring in the way these institutions operate is critical before conditions worsen. A s discussed in Section 1.0, one of the main tenets called for by the international community, and supported in the reviewed case studies, is the promotion of community-based management as the basis for the urban environmental upgrading process. However, before the benefits from 3 This Resource Book uses the term government—or government agencies^rather generically to refer to the different government actors and institutions—at all levels o f government—involved with managing land and natural resources and providing social services to urban residents. Where possible, a distinction wi l l be attempted to differentiate between national, provincial or state, and regional or local institutions. 4 The "no responsibility" viewpoint does not advocate that the government's responsibility should not fundamentally address issues of equity; access and distribution to natural resources; threats to the environment; and poverty reduction. This viewpoint just recognizes that when it comes to informal settlements, government agencies efforts would be better spent on facilitating and building upon others work rather than trying to do it themselves. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 70 community-based development can be realized there is a need for restructuring the roles and responsibilities of government agencies. A restructuring that encourages a devolution of control to enable community management, allowing government agencies to refocus their resources to support this process. This is not an abdication for government agencies to reduce their financial and/or professional resources away from informal settlements. On the contrary, it is a call for government agencies to use their limited resources more wisely by building upon mechanisms that are already working and in place. This re-shifting of the role of government agencies turns the conventional development process upside down: rather than government agencies organizing, managing, and delivering programs for the residents of informal settlements, these agencies must find ways to support residents in meeting their own needs. Therefore, the role of the government moves away from being an implementor of programs to one of being a facilitator and partner of programs. This new role leads to government agencies working collaboratively with N G O s , the private sector, and people's organizations and to better take advantage of the skills and resources of each stakeholder. If this transition is well planned and executed, it has a number of beneficial implications. Beyond the benefits already discussed for community-based development (see Section 1.3.2 Participatory Development), this public sector reformation can create incentives for new suppliers, providing more opportunities for the private sector and a greater sharing of the benefits from economic growth. Also since government resources are focused on a narrower range of activities, it follows, that costs wi l l be reduced as performance improves under the right conditions (Carney 1998). As simple as this transition to community-based management sounds, there are few road maps to guide government agencies along this path and many speed bumps which attempt to undermine the process. The remainder of this subsection wi l l highlight some of the observed pitfalls in the governance of the public sector while illustrating strategies and principles that have been used to overcome them. These strategies have been arranged according to government responsibilities that need to be considered in the transformation towards creating an enabling environment for community-based development and watershed management. 3.2.2 General Trends in Legislative and Policy Reforms In the bureaucratic transition towards community-based management, there are typically three processes which need to occur simultaneously: reforming the legislation and policies governing the planning and management of government agencies; reforming the internal structure and organization of how government agencies operate; and reforming the incentive system for how government employees are rewarded and encouraged to participate and develop the needed skills for community-based development. The administrative reforms, in many cases, are needed to institutionalize changes to ensure the effective implementation of new legislation and policies (these wi l l be discussed in greater detail in the following sections, specifically under institutional strengthening and human resources development). The rest of this subsection wi l l address the legislation and policy strategies needed to better support C B W M . Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 71 In general, the basis of reform is to improve governance, making government agencies more capable of achieving their goals in an efficient, equitable, and accountable manner. In developing countries this reformation seems both fashionable and prolific: at last count all but 12 out of 75 developing, or transitional, countries with populations greater than 5 mil l ion were embarked on a reform process (Dillinger 1995). This process, which is frequently motivated by foreign aid and debt repayment, is paralleled by three general trends: a scaling down, or down-sizing, of public agencies5; a decentralization of decision-making to the most appropriate level; and a concentration on involving the private sector. The research from the developmental literature indicates the trends which are most often used for urban environmental management of informal settlements are decentralization, privatization, and deregulation. In addition, demand-oriented service delivery is now inseparable from any urban governance reform process. These identified trends of deregulation, decentralization, privatization, and demand-side management serve as guiding principles in the formulation of new policies and legislation for community-based development. If not directly forming the basis of new policies, these principles w i l l need to be integrated into policies and legislation as mechanisms to support and enable the transition to C B W M . To better illustrate how these mechanisms could be operationalized for C B W M , it is instructive to describe them in more detail. Deregulation Deregulation is a generic term implying a loosening of a government's (or agency's) rules, regulations, by-laws, building or planning codes, etc., allowing for a greater variety of designs that w i l l still adequately meet the desired performance standards. From a policy perspective, therefore, strategies should be encouraged to support technologies and designs that may not meet code, but would function adequately providing an acceptably safe and low cost alternative. The research indicates that it is important for communities to have an active role in this deregulation process since, in many instances, they wi l l become the contractors, purchasers, regulators, maintainers, and upgraders of the resulting systems. Moreover, earlier involvement from communities allows a shared learning process to take place, where technical experts can be educated on the site specific environmental, social, and cultural issues needing consideration before any solution is prescribed; and community residents can be educated on the benefits of alternative technologies, mitigating the frequent perception that these technologies are inferior. Furthermore, the integration of local knowledge and skills into the problem solving process leads to more innovative and appropriate technologies. The dialogue that is created between community residents, planners and engineers is also known to quicken the time needed for support and adoption of new technologies and has direct ramifications for demand-side service delivery. It seems that individuals are much more will ing to pay for services that they have had an active hand in designing. For C B W M , the following general deregulation strategies were identified and considered appropriate (more specific alternative technologies are illustrated in Section 3.4 Environmental Strategies). 5 Generally a down-sizing of public agencies is called for with the management of natural resources of state institutions. It is most often emphasized by international lenders who call for a reduction in the absolute numbers of public sector staff (Carney 1998). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 72 Promote an unbundling of services Encourage a widening of technological options and a loosening of conventional standards New technologies should be based on demand-side supply Unbundling of services refers to the splitting of projects into smaller-scale and lower cost options that can be incrementally upgraded at a pace that is consistent with the financial and managerial capacity of the community (adapted from (Wright 1998)). Therefore, for water provision in an informal community a project may begin with a single communal standpipe that may eventually grow into a network of pipes to each household and connect to the city's water supply grid. The benefit for communities is that it reduces the scale, complexity, technology, and cost of beginning the upgrading process; and it also facilitates management by the communities themselves. A n alternative form of unbundling is called vertical disintegration which allows for the breaking up of monopolies into smaller pieces according to functions. For example, a water supply utility could be broken down according to water collection, storage, delivery, maintenance, collection of fees, etc. A key tenet of deregulation involves the transition away from conventional standards and towards cheaper alternative technologies. Strict codes and standards have proven themselves prohibitory for low-income groups to begin to participate in the upgrading process. Evidence supports the benefit for regulatory agencies who loosen their standards and encourage innovative, alternative technologies within informal settlements. These technologies should be robust, simple, and amenable to user maintenance. In addition, they must be low cost, be easily upgradeable, and must have a flexible enough design to adapt to a multitude of physical constraints and conditions (see Box 3.1). According to the growing experiences with demand-responsive approaches in the provisioning of rural water and sanitation in developing countries, there should be a host of technological options which consumers are presented with to better meet their demands. Therefore, conventional standards and associated costs should be offered with alternative technologies and their associated costs. In the final decision, the consumer is informed as to the merits and disadvantages of all the options before making a final decision based on their willingness, or ability, to pay. Ideally, i f a non-standard technology is chosen in the short-term it should be upgradeable in the future. Box 3.1 Appropriate Technologies: P R O F A V E L A in Sao Paulo, Brazil In the late 1970s community groups l iving in informal settlements were lobbying the water and sewage authority for services in Sao Paulo. This eventually led to a community-centred project called P R O F A V E L A — a pilot project whose aim was to improve services to the favelas (squatter communities). The backbone of this new delivery system entailed appropriate technologies using a new, low-cost technology consisting of small bore high density P V C piping for the water distribution network. The community groups played a crucial function in this alternative delivery system: including surveying, planning, negotiating right o f ways, supervising construction, and the important role o f acting as mediator between service provider and individual service users. After project completion, these neighbourhood groups remained active and focused on other community issues including sanitation, health services, schooling and erosion dangers. After the successes of the pilot project were shown, the water and sanitation agency gradually adopted this new approach which promoted alternative technical standards and procedures. By 1985, three years after P R O F A V E L A formed, there were more than 70,000 favela water connections. Source: Watson quoted in (Schubeler 1996) Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 73 Decentralization "Decentralization is a process, a shift in the locus ofpower from the centre towards the periphery. ..The centre [however] still sets broad policy guidelines and goals and is responsible for coordination between decentralized units in addition to supplying certain key goods and services (Carney 1998)." The underlying premise of decentralization is that physical proximity leads to better decisions. If decision-makers are more closely connected to the issues and concerns of an area, it follows that decisions w i l l be more sensitive and appropriate to those residents' needs. Moreover, as decision making is deconcentrated from central government authority, there should be more accountability and transparency as the people making decisions are closer to their constituents and more accessible to the impactees of any policy changes. Accordingly, there is a direct correlation between level of decision-making and readiness to accept and embrace policy changes. Therefore, the decentralization of responsibility is credited with facilitating more demand-responsive and participatory approaches (Schiibeler 1996). Not surprisingly, decentralization can take many different forms at all levels of the governance system: (1) from the central government deconcentrating power to their local administrative offices, or (2) from the government delegating new powers to parastatals, or (3) from government agencies devolving power to more local authorities, and finally (4) from governments transferring power to private entities (Rondinelli 1990). For C B W M , the shift in the locus of power refers to decentralizing structures to promote and allow more community involvement and control. A shift from macro-management to micro-management of initiatives where decision-making is devolved to the most appropriate level: from state to province, from the province to municipality, from municipalities and service agencies down to neighbourhood levels, and in some cases from neighbourhoods down to household levels (see Box 3.2 for an example of what a devolved decision-making hierarchy of responsibilities may look like using water resources management)6. Box 3.2 Decentral ized Management : A Potential H ie ra rchy of Responsibil it ies for Wa te r Management wi th in Communi t ies When dealing with issues of water resource management, Briscoe proposes a hierarchy o f responsibilities and involvements based on geographical and jurisdictional boundaries. For example, an applied urban C B W M system for an informal settlement may have the fol lowing hierarchy: regional o r prov inc ia l governments (or river basin authorities): would focus on managing pollution externalities mun ic ipa l agencies: would administer and manage the macro-services involved in the watershed (e.g. primary and secondary infrastructure pipelines, treatment plants, etc..) communi ty groups: would administer and manage the micro-services within their neighbourhoods (e.g. secondary infrastructure pipelines) households: would administer and manage services within their properties (e.g. tertiary infrastructure pipelines) Source: (Briscoe 1996) 6 The number o f government agencies and departments involved in this transition may well involve public sectors beyond water and environmental management to include: public works departments, health departments, municipal affairs departments, national and urban housing departments, community and business development councils, etc. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 74 Whatever the decentralization strategies adopted, they wi l l be reliant on the institutional capacity of government agencies to be able to increase responsibility and authority to local bodies and develop their capacities. The developmental literature identifies two general aspects which are critical in the decentralization process for local authorities to successfully assume new responsibilities. Clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and mandate Decentralization of Decision-Making Must be Followed by a Decentralization of Financial Authority It seems that many of the problems associated with the current trend of decentralization arise from the failure of the public sector to match the pace of political change with the needed regulatory and organizational reforms. Therefore, central governments who are prompted to undergo structural reforms have been bogged-down with implementing new regulatory relationships between themselves and local governments (Dillinger 1995: 7). From the beginning, the roles, responsibilities, and relationship between each government agency and/or organization involved in the decentralization transition must be clearly defined. There must also be a clearly stated mandate to guide any organization which has been delegated, or devolved, new responsibilities. In most countries, governments have been quicker to decentralize functional responsibilities than to devolve control of funds, leaving lower levels of government in a more difficult predicament (Carney 1998; Dillinger 1995; Dillinger 1994; Schubeler 1996). It is not sufficient to reform policies and legislation which promote decentralization without providing the financial means to allow delegated agencies a means to operate. It is too often the case that local governments or organizations have been delegated with responsibilities without the necessary financial mechanisms to manage or implement new initiatives; without the appropriate finances any decentralized scheme wi l l be condemned before it begins. This does not mean that central government agencies have to fully fund or support organizations which wi l l be delegated with more control, but there must be a mechanism for them to cover operational costs and become financially autonomous (e.g. through the use of property taxes, surcharges, levies, user fees, pollution charges, etc., see Section 3.2.9 Financing & Cost Recovery). Returning to the decentralized management example in Box 3.2, the financial tools which may be employed to implement this system of governance may include more market-like instruments. For example, at the household level their may be a reliance on user fees, at the municipal level there may be a focus on the private sector in the provisioning of services, and at the regional level there may be a focus on abstraction and pollution charges. More specific strategies to encourage and carryout the decentralizing of responsibility are discussed in the following sections. One of the most important of these decentralization strategies is privatization. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 75 Privatization (Public-Private Partnerships) "Privatization can be broadly defined as the process of change which involves the private sector taking responsibility for activities which were formerly controlled exclusively by the public sector. This may include the transfer of ownership ofproductive assets from the public sector to the private sector or may simply imply that 'space' is created in which the private sector can operate." (Carney 1998) Privatization is now almost synonymous with public sector reform because it is seen as the most cost effective, efficient, and demand-oriented way of delivering some services. The argument is made that services are delivered in a more cost effective manner since fewer staff and resources are required. Services are delivered more efficiently since corporations are removed from political interferences and can therefore react more quickly to market conditions. And , services have a better demand orientation because performance is directly linked to customer satisfaction; the more responsive a service is, the greater potential there is to broaden service coverage and thus generate more revenues7. There are other advantages for encouraging private sector involvement. In some cases, it can relieve the need for large public capital investment programs: government agencies can provide an environment of incentives encouraging commercial enterprises to invest and reclaim their expenditures through user fees. There are numerous examples demonstrating the greater efficiency of these infrastructure partnerships, especially in the maintenance and collection of fees. In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, a privatized garbage collection agency was able to collect twice as much solid waste with fewer vehicles, and under half the workforce as compared to the city (Kironde 1997). Critics of privatization schemes point out that involving the private sector sets a dangerous precedent because of their for-profit orientation. Therefore, there is concern that left unregulated, companies wi l l delivery the lowest quality service for the highest possible price, often ignoring lower income groups. However, this viewpoint should be tempered with the realization that the government and related public utilities (and sometimes N G O s ) have performed so poorly in some cases that questions arise whether they should even be directly involved with service delivery. In these instances, they should focus solely on policy setting, regulation, social mobilization and capacity building. It seems obvious that there is a greater role for the private sector to play and that their participation wi l l depend on the relative strengths and resources of both sectors. It must be stressed that promoting more privatization initiatives is not a call for a shirking of all government agency responsibilities. The onus for equity, quality and a fair price for services, must still reside within government departments. Privatization, therefore, is an admission that certain services can be greatly improved through public-private partnerships. Many governments are starting to realize that demand-orientation, competition, and accountability can be more easily achieved by involving commercial enterprises rather than attempting to do them internally. Moreover, there is increasing evidence to suggest that when competitive conditions are 7 Other potential benefits o f private sector participation include (Franceys 1997): • they have a better source of capital because they can be trusted to pay it back; • they have better managers because they can afford to pay more (and not be restricted by pay scales like government agencies are); • they are better motivators of staff because they can hire and fire freely and provide performance incentives; • they have better management through limited objectives; and • they are continually forced to improve and adapt or they wi l l loose out to competitors. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 76 introduced that private industries have a tendency to transform an entire service system (Schubeler 1996). The relationship between public-private partnerships can take many different forms, involving a number of different stakeholders (see Box 3.3). Box 3.3 A Typology of Publ ic-Pr ivate Partnerships One type o f system that identifies a spectrum of agreements between public and private partners is referred to as the "French model" and consists o f the following potential partnerships: • C o m m u n i t y contractors-refers to residents coming together to form a C B O which then carries out a particular task or contract. • Mini-contractors-refers to small scale contractors or individual artisans. • N G O partners/contractors-refers to private voluntary N G O s which can act as a contractor. • Suppliers-are a crucial element o f the privatization process and refers to any organization supplying materials and parts. • Contract ing-out, service contracts-refers to contracting-out for aspects o f the operation or management of the constructed services (bill ing, metering, operating, maintaining, enforcing, etc.). • Management contracts- is similar to service contracts only at a larger scale. Therefore, responsibility generally includes managing the operations and maintenance of existing assets. • Lease-refers to the taking over o f operations and management; in addition to collecting tariffs from which the lessor makes a profit and covers expenses. The government or community would remain the owner of any fixed assets. • Concessions -s imilar to a lease, but also includes new investments to upgrade a system when it is required. • Bu i ld operate and transfer (BOT ) -s imi lar to a concession only it generally refers to a whole new segment of a system. In addition, the tariff that they w i l l be allowed to pay should cover their financing and construction risks. • Divestiture-refers to the selling of (a) the assets of a system or service; (b) the rights to operate and maintain them; (c) the ability to charge tariffs or sell shares for those services. This sale can either be through a private company, a selling o f shares, or a buy-out to the existing management. • Mul t imode - i s a hybrid option that refers to any public private agreement involving a combination of the approaches described above. Source: (Franceys 1997) It is evident that there are a multitude of scenarios or programs which may be considered as a privatization scheme; each with a potentially unique role and responsibility for community residents and other stakeholders. The emphasis for C B W M initiatives involving informal settlements (and community development in general) is to create an environment that stimulates opportunities for the private sector and which encourages as much participation by community members as their ability and desire allow. The research highlights that the most common privatization schemes involving low-income communities are the smaller scale initiatives, which are able to focus on the household level. Therefore, an emphasis on community contracts, micro-enterprises, local artisan suppliers, N G O partnerships, and service contracts, is desired for communities applying C B W M . Other public-private partnerships are better geared for larger scales typically involving an entire municipality or metropolitan area; and these agreements consistently under service low-income areas because they are seen as a poor revenue generator, this is especially true for squatter communities. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 77 Given a concentration on smaller scale privatization schemes, a key aspect to private-public partnerships is their relationship to their clients, or with C B W M , the community. This relationship can interestingly take many different forms depending on the service, conditions and resources within a community. For example, a community may serve in one or more of the following roles: 4 4 The community as client; The community as both entrepreneur and client; 4 The community as manager; 4 The community as contractor; 4 The community as joint manager (with government or an N G O ) ; 4 The community as one stakeholder in the selection and ongoing operation of the service; 4 The community as recipient of services, etc. It seems intuitive that the more direct control communities have over the management and financing of private service delivery, the more likely those services wi l l be responsive and accountable to their needs (see Box 3.4 for an example of a community managed development project). This leads to the first strategy for better harnessing the capacities of the private sector for community development of informal settlements. Facilitate as much community control over public-private agreements as possible If a privatization scheme has private entrepreneurs entering contracts with government agencies, another layer of bureaucracy is created which may be more susceptible to political interference. In addition, there wi l l be fewer incentives for contractors to answer to community demands. If however communities enter contracts directly or are given financial and/or administrative control over work, contractors wi l l be encouraged to develop stronger ties and be more responsive. Therefore, communities should be devolved with as much control as their interests, resources, and skills wi l l allow for any community-based privatization scheme. The remainder of this section wi l l highlight other general privatization strategies that have been used and called for in the provisioning of services at the community level (more specific measures can be found in Section 3.2.3 Specific Legislative and Policy Reforms). Assess the capacity of the private sector Governments must commit to process One of the first steps in the move towards involving and facilitating more private sector participation is assessing exactly what their capacities are and their availability: therefore, determining their ability to meet additional or greater participation. There is no point going down a road towards privatization only to find out at the ninth hour that there is not sufficient capacity to handle the new policies or shift in management arrangements. If it is determined that capacities of the private sector are inadequate, there wi l l likely be a need to provide incentives to build up the sector. These incentives may extend beyond skills and training programs to include financial motivation to encourage entrepreneurs to get involved. Equally important to an enabling environment and potential subsidies, is the perception for how stable and committed government agencies are to new Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 78 privatization policies. Therefore, a government's commitment to new strategies is directly related to how will ing the private sector w i l l be to get involved. Companies w i l l not be wil l ing to risk investments i f attractive profit projections are based on weak or uncertain conditions; particularly when potential subsidies may be easily cancelled (Carney 1998: 67). Box 3.4 C o m m u n i t y Managed Wa te r and Sanitat ion Project : Por t au Pr ince , Ha i t i Over the past few years political instability, repression and embargoes have led to a huge rural-urban migration in the city o f Port au Prince, Hait i : the population went from 1 mil l ion in 1990 to approximately 1.6 mil l ion in 1998. Many o f these new residents swelled the already crowded informal settlements; the environmental conditions within these areas were appalling. This health condition is worsened with a city that is completely without any sanitary sewer system. This project was carried out in one informal settlement o f 200,000 residents with no safe water or solid waste collection and only 30-40% of the residents had access to a latrine. U S A I D and a Haitian N G O ( C D S ) established an autonomous community-managed service district (basically an N G O ) that was responsible for the supply of potable water and sanitary services. C D S signed a 3 year contract with the municipal water authority to manage the water supply system and provide sanitation services. The methodology used for the project placed significant responsibility for managing water and sanitation with the communities, creating a sense of ownership and protecting against illegal connections. Organizational structure is broken into zonal committees, each zone oversees a number of communities, each community has a fountain committee that enters a concessionary agreement with the N G O . Key principles: (1) N G O wi l l have autonomy over key aspects of its operation (2) N G O w i l l be run with substantial community involvement (3) N G O wi l l involve private sector and N G O s as much as possible (4) N G O wi l l be entirely self-financing Highl ights : The hierarchal organizational structure—from the N G O down through community-led zonal committees, down to the neighbourhood-level fountain committees—greatly facilitated community buy-in and responsibility. The structure was an effective tool for mobil iz ing community support, with built-in mechanisms for self-control, income generation and self-policing. Conclus ions: After 6 months the N G O was covering administrative, operation and maintenance costs with the retail sale o f water; scaling up o f operations was anticipated to cover expenses for the start-up of the solid waste system. Source: (McGahey 1998) Generate demand and interest in the private sector Governments need to adequately regulate the private sector There is a misconception by policymakers that i f they create a favourable policy climate for privatization that businesses wi l l necessarily answer and meet the opportunity. This failure to advertise and market policy changes and conditions is often cited as a principal failure of privatization initiatives. It is ironic that the principal tool employed by the private sector for success, is often ignored by government agencies when they are trying to generate interest and encourage private sector participation (Rijsberman 1998). It is clear that as government agencies attempt to make "space" for more private sector participation they must also adequately regulate and provide safeguards against profiteering. Otherwise, contractors may be tempted to 'asset strip' where maintenance is not carried out and reinvestment in assets is required after the contract ends. Alternatively, contractors may be motivated to force tariffs too high and too early without proper controls. Therefore, government agencies Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 79 Governments need to concentrate on smaller businesses Demand-side management and demand-responsive approaches do not only need good regulations to mitigate these risks, but more importantly they need good contracts which are enforceable and better monitoring procedures to ensure that conditions are being followed. These conditions must be specific about service and product standards. In general, public-private partnerships which focus on smaller businesses generate higher economic benefits for a given area (Franceys 1997). This is particularly true in the provisioning of basic services to low-income areas, where a concentration on micro-entrepreneurs and local artisans wi l l likely lead to more local currency being recycled into other income generating opportunities for that community. Demand-side management is now ubiquitous through the developmental literature relating to the delivery of basic services to low income communities. It is a mechanism that is called for in most upgrading initiatives and is normally built into every policy reform, especially privatization strategies. The main premise of demand-side management is that demand leads supply, rather than the conventional approach of supply governing demand. Demand-side management is seen as a more effective and less wasteful approach, matching consumers' needs with service supply. Accordingly, both the quality and quantity of services can be more easily gauged and provided for according to a person's requirements, and presumably their willingness to pay for a service. Therefore, commercial principles motivate service providers' actions. Demand-responsive approaches (DRAs) are one such demand-side management strategy which is becoming widely used in the delivery of basic water and sanitation services. Generally associated with supplying rural water and sanitation services to poor communities in the developing world, D R A s are continuing to be touted for community development projects in the urban environment. D R A approaches are considered—by the World Bank—to be more sustainable than supply dominated approaches; more flexible and innovative; and more financially secure, since water is considered an economic good rather than a free commodity (Katz 1999). D R A s are a market-driven framework where communities play a more active role in the community development process—they take initiative, collect money, make contributions, choose the levels of service; and inherit the constructed works. The process begins by a community expressing a demand for improved water and sanitation services and their willingness to pay (WTP) for a minimum of project costs and pay fully for operating and maintenance costs. The local government subsidizes the remaining portion, sometimes with the aid of external funding agencies. The government plays a facilitative role to create a more favourable climate, encouraging wider participation, and typically N G O s and C B O s act as support agencies by disseminating information, and providing consulting and other training services. The two concepts most commonly associated with D R A s are that a community's preference is based on their W T P for a service, and that each Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 80 community is offered a menu of service options to choose from. There are also four general rules which form the basis of D R A s : (1) not every community is eligible for services; (2) decisions are made on the affordability of options; (3) cost sharing among community members and stakeholders must be spelled out; and (4) there is an emphasis on sustainability in terms of who manages and maintains the resulting works. A s mentioned in Section 1.3.2 Participatory Development, D R A is not without its criticisms 8. Nevertheless, even with its weaknesses, D R A represents a shift that almost all practitioners and international aid agencies see as a positive step towards more sustainable delivery of services to low-income communities. Recent experience, however, identifies a number of strategies that would strengthen the D R A upgrading process for water and sanitation projects, including: 4 Women must be central in the decision-making and development process; 4 An integrated approach is needed beyond water management; 4 Institutional rules need to be explicit and should create incentives for each organization or stakeholder; 4 Communities must play a central role throughout the process including: selection of contractors, making contracts, conflict resolution, acceptance of completed works, etc.: 4 All those who provide services to the community should be made accountable to the community; 4 The community organization charged with managing the service must be legally recognized; 4 Clear and full communication is important to outline levels of service; investment and recurrent costs; service delivery and management options and their complexities; availability of spares; technical assistance; etc.; and 4 The poorest members of the community must have the ability to pay by informal means (e.g. alternative credit schemes, or sweat equity where labour is used rather than money). Some of the typical criticisms that have been used against D R A s include: • That it is not an approach, but rather a series o f vague concepts which have been appropriated from established community-based practices; • Some critics argue it further marginalizes the poorest o f the poor, who may be wi l l ing to pay but not able to and therefore are left out o f the developmental process; • The basis o f D R A is in the determination of demand, most academics and practitioners however cannot agree on a definition for it so its operationalization becomes problematic (economists see demand as W T P , engineers see demand as amount o f water needed, social scientists see demand as a basic human need which must be met); • Demand is not static: there w i l l be a change in demand over the life o f project which is potentially o f more significance to the design than estimating initial demand; • D R A assumes that demand is already present, which is seldom the case (few communities ask for toilets, they first must be informed as to the link between health and hygiene); • One of the harshest criticisms is that D R A does not support sustainable or integrated development because it assumes that i f a household is wi l l ing to pay more for a higher level o f service then they wi l l be able to get a larger share of a resource without consideration o f that resource's sustainability; and • The promotion of D R A strategies presupposes that water and sanitation services are not fundamental human rights which should be supplied to all citizens, they are conditional on an individual's ability to pay. Supporters of D R A s counter that although water and sanitation should be basic rights that does not necessarily mean that they should be free. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 81 3.2.3 Specific Legislative and Policy Reforms This sub-section is concerned with illustrating specific legislative and policy changes that may be directly applicable to the governance of informal settlements and watershed areas. These potential changes or strategies serve as a reference point to facilitate and guide the reformation process: creating an enabling environment that provides the freedom and incentives for people to more actively participate in the environmental management of their communities. It is recognized that there is no shortage of existing legislation and/or policies which exist or could be enhanced to better support and enable a community-based watershed management approach. For example, 4 A t the national level, policy and legislative reforms could deal with everything from constitutional issues recognizing tenurial rights, or address changes to environmental laws (EIAs, SIAs, endangered species, etc.) or resource laws (related to water, forestry, agriculture, fish, etc.), or social laws (poverty alleviation programs, indigenous rights, etc.) or delegate more jurisdictions to regional bodies, or develop new intergovernmental agreements, or revising municipal affairs legislation, etc. 4 A t the provincial or regional level, this could entail changing environmental management policies and legislation (industrial wastes, pesticides, surface water, etc.) or municipal acts, resource management acts, acts which affect industries (mining, oi l & natural gas, etc.) new approaches for departments or crown companies, etc. 4 A t the municipal or city level this may entail new land use zoning, by-laws, financial allocations, growth management strategies, new participatory approaches, official community plans, etc. The options are unlimited. Each reform strategy or intervention wi l l first have to carryout a assessment to determine what policies or legislation may be appropriate, or may be strategically applied, to support C B W M initiatives. Experience shows, however, that it is far easier to amend and change existing legislation or policies rather than trying to start from fresh. Therefore, an emphasis should be placed on harmonizing competing and contradictory legislation and policies to begin the C B W M reform process. A n alternative to amending or re-interpreting existing legislation and polices is to create new ones. The remainder of this subsection wi l l provide examples of legislative and policy reforms which other cities have employed or ones deemed directly applicable for achieving the principles associated with C B W M . Obviously, any legislation or policy changes wi l l be dependent on each specific physical, social, economic, and institutional context. However, it is hoped that a listing of potential reform measures wi l l serve policymakers to better craft their own strategies. Basically any new legislative reform that is targeted towards supporting community-based development should address the following issues (Narayan 1995: 31): 4 redefining the role of government agencies as facilitators and regulators; 4 c iv i l service reform; 4 new funding mechanisms; Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 82 4 new systems of accountability for performance; 4 legal status of community groups; 4 simplification of legal registration requirements for individual, group or community ownership; and 4 use and tenure rights over assets. While seldom the case, these legislative components can greatly facilitate community-based initiatives by clarifying the roles of the different stakeholders; recognizing the roles, rights, and responsibilities of each stakeholder; providing flexibility in how projects are implemented; and institutionalizing better communication and accountability networks into the design and management processes. These items can greatly improve the potential for success in community-based development. Clear functional responsibilities between levels of government One of the critical components of legislative and policy reform which is ubiquitous throughout the development literature is the need for clarity in defining responsibilities and roles between government agencies. According to Dillinger in his reviews of the World Bank's decentralization experience: clarity in the division of functional responsibilities between levels of government is an essential condition of any reform... A clear linkage between a particular unit of the government and a specific service is crucial if constituents are to hold that unit of government accountable for providing that service well (Dillinger 1995: 4). Therefore, one of the main goals of any policy or legislative reform should be on clearly defining and articulating the roles and responsibilities of the different government agencies and the stakeholders. Furthermore it is imperative to encapsulate a clear vision and direction to be followed, which can be used as a guide by the participating organizations. This includes having clear instructions setting guidelines and rules from the state level down through parastatals. For C B W M , four legislative or policy reform areas have been identified. These areas are considered key to addressing many of the pitfalls which have derailed integrated watershed management and community-based development projects in the past. These potential reform measures are therefore considered important for creating a more supportive environment for C B W M . These policy reform areas are: 4 Land Tenure and/or Informal Settlement Policy; 4 Community Watershed Management or Water Resources Policy; 4 Gender policy; and 4 Decentralized Financial Policy. Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 83 Land Tenure and/or Informal Settlement Policy There are basically four schools-of-thought for contending with land tenure issues and informal settlements in Third World cities. The first school-of-thought is the 'do nothing' approach and everyone agrees that this is unacceptable and wi l l only perpetuate worsening conditions. The second school-of-thought is relatively outdated now, it involved draconian measures to forceably remove residents from their homes and neighbourhoods. Governments soon realized, however, that they could not simply bulldoze the problem away and almost without exception these actions proved counter-productive (Molnar 1990). With few options, squatter's had little choice between obeying the law and surviving. The third and fourth schools-of-thought relate to either de jure recognition of squatter's rights, which attempt to directly formalize squatter's access or right to land; or de facto recognition of squatter's rights, which focus on management—rather than ownership—issues and allow the regularization process to begin. These last two schools-of-thought w i l l be discussed in more detail below. De Jure Recognition of Squatter's Rights Lack of secure tenure has a profound affect on the poor's ability to acquire safe land for housing. Without secure tenure, residents have little incentive to invest in improvements when they could be evicted at any moment. Even i f there is a willingness, informal residents are challenged with gaining access to formal credit systems to help finance the upgrading process9. Therefore, defining property rights can be an incredibly effective environmental management strategy. The outcome can mean clarifying water rights to promote water conservation, allocating emission rights to control pollution, and providing secure tenure to encourage investment in housing and services. It also has the added benefits of improving land development; regularizing construction and improving quality; and allowing residents to gain access to formal credit and help pay upfront costs for improvements. Securing tenureship is known to improve environmental conditions in and around informal settlements through improved water and sanitation services, better drainage and solid waste management (Bartone 1994: 60). The act of defining property rights however is a political process and is therefore dependent on how supportive the political climate is to address these issues. Trade-offs wi l l have to be made between the type and use of tenure rights granted, the need to address deteriorating environment conditions, and the likely changes in political support that may take place. A n information and education campaign could parallel the land tenure rights process to mitigate misinformation and highlight the benefits of secure land tenure for informal settlements. 9 Poor titling and land registration systems make it even difficult for landowners: since they frequently cannot use their properties as collateral and thus cannot borrow money needed for infrastructure or housing upgrades (Bernstein 1996: 3). Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 84 If the political w i l l is there to undergo land tenure reform, research shows that safeguards must be in place to protect residents from opportunists who wi l l want to profit from new policies. The World Bank's experience indicates that there are often unanticipated negative impacts associated with land tenure changes. Therefore, precaution should attempt to predict and mitigate negative impacts, especially when dealing with informal or customary rights to access different kinds of land. At the same time, care must be taken to understand the existing tenureship relationships and better capitalize on opportunities (Molnar 1990). Tenurial rights governing access and use of land can be addressed at any of five distinct levels: 1) customary or traditional rights; 2) administrative orders regarding use of land; 3) court rulings regarding existing legislation; 4) state and national legislation regarding the rights over land; and 5) constitutional law regarding citizen's rights in land. The most common for informal settlements is through state and national legislation which directly deal with tenureship arrangements involving state-owned or privately owned lands. Reforming land tenure policies does not exclusively involve the transfer of titles. For state-owned land tenure agreements there are a variety of forms that can address use and access to land (Boehmer 1997): 4 a transferring of title holdings; 4 agreements authorizing limited use of government lands (traditional use, or subsistence uses); 4 agreements allowing community management of government lands; 4 redefining boundaries of government lands; 4 recognition of customary land rights; 4 provision of secure tenure to occupants of illegal settlements; and 4 review of land acquisition, compensation and resettlement schemes. Similarly for privately owned lands, securing tenureship may involve more than one form of agreement with informal settlements. One of the most contentious issues involved with attempting to secure tenure rights on private properties deals with the matter of compensation. Some methods that have been successfully used or proposed for governments to assist in financing potential compensation claims include the following strategies: L a n d Consolidation (or land redistribution) where land is pooled together and owners are compensated with either upzoned smaller parcels of land, or parcels of land that have had infrastructure provided or other public Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 85 investments made to them to increase their property values. These compensation measures may include density bonusing, or negotiating more favourable by-law regulations with comprehensive development zoned areas, or land exchanges are purchased by selling development rights for other properties, etc. where the government buys and keeps land out of the public market for future uses. Then it uses or trades the land with developers for land elsewhere in the city. where informal settlement communities are allowed to purchase their land for below market rates; in exchange, developers are allowed to commercially develop the remainder of the property (sometimes this may entail 'upzoning' or 'density bonusing' to allow a higher density rating therefore increasing property values). Credit Foundations where non-profit foundations are set up by government agencies to provide low-cost housing, access to property, or to act as an alternative credit source for financing. Another alternative to full compensation schemes which give clear title to informal settlement residents is to look into granting some form of limited property rights, like leases or certificates or formalizing customary land rights. In this case, residents would have more secure tenure and owners would be compensated on the basis of rent or the loss of development rights. De Facto Recognition of Squatter's Rights Even when tenureship is addressed it has been known to turn into a litigious time-consuming process that stalemates any progress on a development scheme. Therefore there are those who advocate focusing on management issues rather than ownership ones, this begins a process that can address tenureship issues at a later date. The benefit of this approach is that property owners have already been consulted and/or negotiated with as a part of the upgrading process. Accordingly, many of their concerns may already be resolved without necessarily having to resolve the conflict-laden property ownership issues upfront. One of the main deterrents, mentioned previously, for communities not wanting to participate and buy into the development process relates to their perceived notion of security. In other words, residents won't invest in their properties unless they feel relatively secure in their either formal or informal tenure. While security can be achieved through formal land titling, service provisioning programs can lead to informal or a de facto form of tenureship. Government-led projects which improve services (and reverses conventional policies of avoiding service delivery to informal settlements) send a positive and reassuring signal to communities who feel threatened by possible eviction. This wi l l likely result in residents being more will ing to invest and undertake improvements in Land Banking Land Sharing Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 86 their homes and environment and provide more encouragement for them to actively participate (Schiibeler 1996). Community Watershed Management or Water Resources Policy A specific watershed policy may have many different aspects to it, potentially on many different levels as well . A t the micro-level, policies would be focused at the community level to facilitate local groups in their mobilization and assist in the design, implementation and management of their watershed plans. One of the key aspects to this local level Clear legal enfranchisement is recognizing the right of communities to not only be recognition of involved in this process, but to guide it and become the principal stewards in community m e U p g r a c j i n g process. For this process to begin, however, the research groups indicates that there must be a clear legal recognition of community watershed groups and their responsibilities. At the macro-level, there must be legislation and policies which favour and are consistent with the micro-level policies as well as focusing on larger regional/watershed issues. Therefore, macro policies would link and integrate individual community watershed plans into an overall coordinated plan that would not only consider the social and environmental aspects of each neighbourhood in the watershed area, but also integrate larger socio-environmental issues like flood control and erosion control; water quality maintenance; groundwater recharge; biological productivity and diversity; fish and wildlife habitats; historical and archaeological values; environmental and outdoor education; agricultural productivity; recreational and tourism opportunities, etc. The macro policy would therefore also serve as a link to coordinate and collaborate activities between adjoining jurisdictions and sectors of the government. This work may take the form of informal or formal agreements—like memorandums of understandings (MOUs)—between agencies and institutions to share information, coordinate actions and research through joint committees or over-arching watershed councils or boards (see Box 3.5 for how inter-governmental work was institutionalized in Sri Lanka). More specifically, joint work may involve some of the following actions: 4 Defining roles and responsibilities between competing agencies; 4 Developing an over-arching water resources/watershed management plan that specifically deals with watershed issues, especially mitigating the impacts from and within informal settlements; 4 Harmonizing conflicting or lacking policies and regulations; 4 Defining a process or procedural framework for co-management or planning operations (may include the adoption of an adaptive management approach, monitoring and assessment procedures, etc); 4 Setting out M O U s which define coordination and collaboration; Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 87 4 Establishing an independent conflict resolution panel to negotiate, mediate and i f necessary arbitrate disputes between sectors and regions; 4 Amalgamating data collection services; 4 Sharing and optimizing resources; 4 Promoting joint research activities; and 4 Enforcing and monitoring progress. One of the key methods to enable macro-level policies is the establishment of both a National Water Policy and/or a Water Basin/Watershed Board or steering committee. A National Water Policy can be used to both provide a mandate and a process to help guide other related policy and legislative reforms. Box 3.5 Jo int Inter-Governmental W o r k : A Nat iona l Wate r Pol icy in S r i L a n k a One method that was used in Sri Lanka to facilitate collaboration between government agencies was to develop an inter-departmental steering committee. The purpose of the committee was to create an integrated water resources management framework and action plan. The committee consisted of eight ministries with water sector responsibilities; and seven chairpersons or directors o f government boards with water sector responsibilities. The result o f the committee's work consisted of the following: • Developing a national water policy; • Establishing a permanent institutional arrangement for water sector coordination; • Preparing and enacting a national Water Act ; • Amending other water-related legislation; • Reorganizing and strengthening the management of water sector institutions; • Establishing the systems needed to provide the data and information needed by decision makers; and • Carrying out comprehensive planning in selected watersheds. Source: (Mosley 1996) A National Water Policy may include a diverse array of factors affecting the governance of water resources including: groundwater, water pricing, managing activities in and around streams, water management planning, water allocation, flood plain management, water quality management, and water conservation. It can address competing and contrasting interests and jurisdictions by providing a regulatory framework that harmonizes water management issues between different levels of government and sectors. It could be used to develop and ratify a process which institutionalizes a multi-sectoral, participatory approach to managing land and water resources and recognize community-based watershed management as a process for upgrading informal settlement land use areas (see Box 3.6 for Brazil's National Water Resources Management Act). A National Water Policy may also include specific water or participatory development legislation which provide executing agencies with more control and discretion to decentralize governance systems, or provide them with a means to better operate and manage water and land resources. For example, a Water Act may clearly define a framework for utility regulators to Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 88 exercise control, including the standards of service and a framework for setting tariffs and monitoring performance, together with the rights and obligations of the utility. Alternatively, a Water Quality Ac t may focus on pollution control measures to restore and enhance the physical, chemical and biological integrity of the water. Similarly, a Watershed Act may provide a means to better link upstream effects with downstream cumulative impacts; thereby, better integrating science into the decision-making arena. For C B W M , a National Water Policy may be a vehicle for institutionalizing and promoting participatory multistakeholder processes and adaptive management into urban environmental management governance systems. And , integrate water resources and land use planning through micro-level policies that better coordinate land development of informal settlements and surrounding areas. Box 3.6 A Wate r Strategy: Braz i l ' s Nat ional Wate r Resources Management Ac t In 1997, the President o f Braz i l signed the National Water Management Resources Act , which defined both the principles and management process for how water resources would be governed for Braz i l . The National Policy was based on the following six principles: 1. Water is a public good; 2. Water is a finite resource and it has an economic value; 3. When scarce, drinking water supply is the uppermost priority; 4. Management must encompass multiple uses; 5. The watershed is the territorial unit for management purposes; and 6. Water management shall be based on a participatory approach involving government, users and citizens. The last point creates a legal text for a management framework which facilitates a more decentralized management system. A Federal Water Counci l was created to help harmonize and resolve conflicts between competing levels o f government. The national policy also lays the foundations for a more integrated approach where water and environmental management are considered together and better integrated with land-use policies and practices. Source: (Porto 1998) More specific regulatory, environmental, and economic policies are discussed in Section 3.2.7 Planning and Management. Gender Policy The need for a gender policy merits special attention because the active participation of women is such a crucial ingredient for successful community-based endeavours (discussed more in Appendix CI. 2 Gender and Development: Role of Women). Accordingly, the need for a specific gender policy wi l l ultimately be based on each specific socio-economic, socio-cultural, and socio-political context. A n analysis wi l l therefore have to identify any constraints that inhibit Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 89 women from participating in the development process—either for socio-cultural, mobility, legal, regulatory or other reasons. Only then can a determination be made as to the merits of either a specific gender policy or an inclusion of gender components into existing policies and legislation. In some cases there may be a need for special legislation to ensure equal access to participate in a process or to equalize rights which may affect development. For example, on a World Bank project in Honduras it was found that there was a law which forbade women from owning agricultural land, this greatly affected participation by women and therefore had to be rescinded to allow women to hold title (World Bank 1996). Decentralized Financial Policy As mentioned before, decentralization of decision-making must be followed by a decentralization of financial authority. Therefore, i f there is an emphasis on decentralizing authority and decision-making down to the community level, there must also be a means to funnel money to that level. Unfortunately this is rarely the case. While central governments are quick to devolve more responsibilities down to line agencies or local governments, there is a general reticence to adequately fund these initiatives. Accordingly, local revenue sources are typically limited and heavily regulated by the central government; accordingly, there is a need for local governments to be given more financial autonomy over the affairs they have been assigned (Dillinger 1995). It seems that local governments not only have limited control and discretion over their principal tax base, but also limited authority to collect assessments even when they have the ability to impose additional taxes. This all gets more complicated when much of their municipal operating budget is collected, administered and transferred from the central government. For example in the city of Budapest, 95% of their operating revenues are generated from national income taxes; and in Jakarta, 72% o f their budget comes from automobile taxes. Central governments use this control to keep the rates of local taxes very low: in Jakarta the government limits property taxes to 0.1%) of the assessed value (Dillinger 1995: 41). This lack of financial control and autonomy restricts the ability of municipalities to effectively take on new decentralized responsibilities and transfer needed resources to the community level. One of the most common ways to get resources to the local level is through providing for municipal funds, matching grants, and community development funds that decentralize functions and money to existing agencies and local governments (World Bank 1996). Under such arrangements, central governments allocate resources to municipalities or other institutions, which in turn fund many smaller projects. Though they are effective at removing some of the constraints associated with transferring funds to the community level, they are not without their problems. Clearly The main problems with these central government granting systems are that defined rules they are arbitrary and inconsistent. Typically, they do not follow any allocation for inter- rules and entail bargaining and negotiating which is based more on politics than governmental policies. Therefore, there is a need to reduce the uncertainty of these adhoc transfers Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 90 granting systems and replace them with inter-governmental transfers which are based on clearly defined rules (Dillinger 1995: 51). Ideally, i f a local government or agency has been delegated new responsibilities they wi l l be given the revenue authority to raise funds and perform those duties without having to appeal for direct expenditure from the central government. Therefore, there may be a need to reform how municipalities gain access to financing, especially when it comes to capital investments of new works. One alternative is to replace the grant financing system with a loan financing one. In other words, the central government becomes more like a bank than a rationer of free goods. This is known to better target finances since it is motivated by a beneficiaries willingness to incur debt, it is also known to help depolitisize the allocation process. However, loan inconsistencies still occur as central governments can still give preferential rates and pay back periods to favoured jurisdictions. Therefore, there are calls for privatizing this role where the private sector mobilizes and finances municipal works. However, in developing countries the private sector has not responded to potential financing opportunities: basically, municipalities are considered too high risk since they lack marketable capital and have weak financial discipline (Dillinger 1995: 59). Another alternative that combines the commercial incentives of private lenders with the financial backing of the central government is Municipal Credit Institutions (MCIs). They attempt to put an arm's length between the central government and the lending process. There are a large variety of ways for how these institutions are established, operate, and govern the lending process. Recent documented experiences suggest that the effectiveness of M C I s can be increased by (Dillinger 1995: 61): 4 Enacting legislation should clearly define the financial role that the institution is intended to perform from other government developmental interests, allowing the M C I to base lending decisions solely on financial criteria and forcing it to be financially accountable; 4 Funding for the M C I should be provided in a lump sum, rather than on a project by project basis; 4 The composition of any M C I board should reflect a balance between interests—both at the federal and municipal levels; 4 There should be internal administrative rules which reduce the potential for political pressure on technical staff; 4 Appraisal regulations should clearly define the terms and conditions under which loans wi l l be granted; 4 Other government agencies should not operate grant or soft loan programs which may undermine the market for M C I lending; and 4 The development of a M C I system should parallel other central government actions to strengthen the ability of municipalities to take out loans. This may entail improving the Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 91 revenue sources available to municipalities and carry out their functional responsibilities; therefore, greater autonomy over tax rates and expenditure decisions. Specific financial mechanisms which can be adopted and used by local governments and community groups are discussed in Section 3.2.9 Financing and Cost Recovery and Section 3.3.6 Community Management. 3.2.4 Monitoring and Enforcement of Policies This section only touches on monitoring and evaluation because there are very few strategies documented in the available developmental literature that extend beyond biophysical components. B y earmarking it as a separate category it is hoped that its importance wi l l be highlighted, since it is arguably one of the most important factors needed to inform and improve policy reforms and also an intrinsic part of adaptive management. Implementation of internal or external enforcement procedures to deter non-conformance or provide disincentives to poor performance are rarely applied and seldom documented within the public sector reform process. While seemingly evident, the culture of monitoring and evaluation is rarely done on development projects in the developing world. Fear of public criticism and political fallout are identified as the two main deterrents to evaluation. Some other common problems with monitoring and evaluation include poor quality and access to information, weak feedback mechanisms into the decision-making process, lack of qualified staff, and high costs associated with carrying out evaluation research (World Bank 1994). Given these challenges it is not entirely surprising that monitoring and evaluation is only at its incipient stages. The benefit of monitoring and evaluation is learning how to do something better. A process to improve decisions by institutionalizing a mechanism that learns, corrects, and adjusts, engendering a learning culture. Accordingly, better decisions lead to improved performance and a greater potential to achieve goals. For public sector planning and management, evaluation is a necessary yardstick to measure the improvements in the welfare of society: linking political processes to social actions and outcomes. Strengthen Many cities in the world are suffering from an information crisis which is central seriously undermining their capacity to develop and analyze effective urban monitoring policy. They have neither a sustained nor systematic appraisal of urban and problems and little appreciation of what their own remedial policies and evaluation programs are in fact achieving [(Habitat), 1999 #108]. This underlines the need capacity to strengthen the central monitoring and evaluation capacity inside the public sector, especially for new strategies and technologies which advocate innovative decentralization approaches. The benefits associated with building these capacities include: 1. Informing policy analysis and influencing policy formulation; 2. Improving resource allocation and budgetary processes: how efficiently are government revenues being spent?; Applying Community-Based Watershed Management Strategies to Informal Settlements Section 3 Urban CBWM Strategies Page 92 3. Improving investment programs and projects—this provides feedback about management performance and can be instrumental in engendering a performance culture within government agencies; and 4. Examining funda