24559December 1998

Ufbam MiMM Omrf Lm MJ

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

PILOTING URBAN ENVIRONMENTALCHANGE IN SRI LANKA:

METROPOLITAN ENVIRONMENTALIMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

1990-1998

Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program (MEIP)An initiative of the World Bank, executed in Sri Lanka in partnership with the Ministry of Plan

Implementation and Parliamentary Affairs

December 1998

This publication was written by Tanvi Nagpal and Illangovan Patchamuthu, The World Bankand Ravi Pereira and Mookiah Thiruchelvam, MEIP, Colombo.

Contents

Foreword

Acronyms

Acknowledgments

Summary: MEIP in perspective

I. Brief History of MEIP-Colombo

II. Strategies and Investment Planning

III. Investment Program and Pilot Projects

IV. Moving to Secondary Cities

V. Lessons Learned

Foreword

As one of the first environmental initiatives funded by the World Bank in Sri Lanka, theMetropolitan Environmental Improvement Program or MEIP, as it is commonly called,has lived up to high expectations. MEIP played a pioneering role in the evolution of theWorld Bank's dialogue with Sri Lankan stakeholders on environmental issues. Itprovided a venue for the government, civil society including nongovernmentalorganizations, the private sector, and the media to engage in constructive dialogue.Environmental policy, legislation and institutional reform in Sri Lanka have benefitedfrom MEIP programs. MEIP has also assisted in mobilizing resources for environmentalinvestments, including the World Bank-funded Colombo Environmental ImprovementProject. Through its pilot and community demonstration projects, MEIP has not onlymade a difference in the lives of people, it has created structures that will enablecommunities to improve their own environment in the future.

This publication and a series of issue papers that will emerge from the MEIP workshop inColombo in December 1998, will highlight MEIP achievements, some of its innovationsand the general lessons that were learned. We hope that these documents will be a usefulguide for communities, nongovernmental organizations and other policy makerscommitted to solving the array of environmental problems that face urban areas everyday.

MEIP is a true team effort and we would like to extend our thanks to the Government ofSri Lanka and its officials, members of the private sector, representative ofnongovernmental organization, community members, and MEIP staff.

Roberto Bentjerodt Richard AckermannCountry Director, Sri Lanka Sector Manager, EnvironmentSouth Asia Region South Asia RegionThe World Bank The World Bank

November 20, 1998

iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CDC: Community Development CouncilCEA: Central Environment Authority .CEIP: Colombo Environmental Improvement ProgramCIEDP: Committee for the Integration of Environment into the Development ProcessCMC: Colombo Municipal CouncilCMRSP: Colombo Metropolitan Regional Structural PlanEMS: Environmental Management StrategyGOSL: Government of Sri LankaIDA: International Development AssociationIPM: Industrial Pollution ManagementKfW: Kreditanstalf fur Wiederanfban (Reconstruction Credit Agency, Germany)MEIP: Metropolitan Environmental Improvement ProgramM/HUD: Ministry of Housing and Urban DevelopmentNDB: National Development BankNESC: National Environmental Steering CommitteeNGO: Nongovernmental OrganizationNWSDB: National Water Supply and Drainage BoardPACE: Public Awareness Campaign on EnvironmentPCAF: Pollution Control and Abatement FundSMI-IV: Small and Medium Industries - IVSCOPE: Scheme for the Pollution of Control from Existing IndustriesUDA: Urban Development AuthorityUNDP: United Nations Development ProgrammeUSAID: United States Agency for International Development

Acknowledgments

In addition to the Staff, Consultants, Associates and NPCs - Past and Present of MEIP - Colombo, thestaff of the World Bank field office and the NPCs of other regional MEIPs the following persons wereclosely associated with various phases of MEIP:

Abayawardana, Dr. S. A. K. Kotagaama, Prof. S.Ailapperuma, W. D. Kuruppu, RAlgama, R. Kuruppu, Ms. S.Allahakone, Ms. N. Madugalle, Deshabandu T. B.Amarasinghe, Cecil Maliyadde, C.Amarasinghe, Patrick Marikkar, Ms. NeelaAmaratunga, G. K. Mathes, Dr. J. A. P.Ambalavanar, Dr. V. McCauley, Dr. D.Amirthalingamn, A. Mendis, Prof W.Anandagoda, A. Mohamed, AkielArudpragasam, Prof. K. D. Mohideen, FaizBaldwin, M. Mohottala, Dr. A. W.Bandarathilake, K. G. D. Mohottala, Ms. N.Basnayake, H. Mubarak, Dr. A. M.Bassnayake, Dr. B. F. A. Nanayakkara, E. A.Batuwitage, Ms. P. Nanayakkara, V. K.Bulankulame, S. W. P. Nesiah, Dr. D.Chandrasekera, D. Nilaweera, DixonChanmugam, Ms. Shenuka Obeysekera, Dr. SarathChularathna, H. M. U. Paskaralingain, R.de Mel, Sathis Peiris, Tilneyde Silva, Dr. N. R. Perera, G. L.de Silva, Lalanath Perera, G. V. S.de Tissera, C. H. Perera, M. A. V.Dias, Ms. Visakha Perera, S. S.Dissanayake, Leonard Perinpanayagam, T.Dissanayake, T. K. Premachandra, D. G.Dixon, N. D. Ramanujam, Dr. P.Ellepola, Ms. Ramnani Ranaweera, K. A. H.Femando, R. M. S. Ratwatte, CharithaFermando, Austin Samarakody, PriyanthaFemando, Tissa Sapukotana, U.Gunapala, R. D. Scott, EdGunasekara, K. A. S. Selvanathan, ManoGunashanhar, G. J. Seneviratne, AsithaGunawardena, Vas Senevirtne, S. L.Gunawardene, Prasanna Silva, Prof N.Guneratne, A. W. Silva, PrasannaHewage, Ari Sirivardana, VasanthaJayamaha, J. H. J. Sivagnansothy, V.Jayamanne, Ms. Manel Siyambalapitiya, Dr. J. T.Jayaratne, K. A. Speldewinde, Ms. K. P. M.Jayasekera, Lakshman Weerasekera, D.Jayasinghe, Roy Weerasinghe, Ms. SandhyaJayasinghe, Lionel Weragoda, N. V. K. K.Jayasundara, Shantha Wickremaratne, LJayatilake, K. A. K. Wijewantha, N. W. EJayawardena, C. D. R. A. Yasaratne, Ms. ShiraniJayawardena, A. R M.Jayawardena, A. S.Jayawardena, H. M. K. S.Jayaweera, D. S.Jinadasa, S. A.Junaid, M. N.Kanagasingam, T.Karunaratne, Ms. MalikaKeerthiratne, J. G.

vi

World Bank Staff Colombo Development CouncilDepartment of Meteorology

Abedin, Ms. E. Department of Motor TrafficAckerman, R. Development Finance Corporation of CeylonBentjerodt, R. Extemal Resources DepartmentDavis, Ms. Gloria Federation of Charnbers of Commerce and Industries of SriHafeez, Rohil LankaHulugalle, Ms. S. Galle Municipal CouncilIllangovan, P. Industrial Technology Institute (formally CISIR)Kim, Ms. K. Industrial Association of Sri LankaKitamori, Ms. K. Kandy Municipal CouncilKoch-Wesser, Ms. M. Legal Draftsmen's DepartmentNagpal, Ms. T. Marine Pollution Prevention AuthorityNangia, Rakesh Ministry of FinanceRamankutty, R. Ministry of Forestry and EnvironmentShah, J. Ministry of Housing and Urban DevelopmentStem, S. Ministry of Industrial DevelopmentVanjani, Ms. S. Ministry of Plan Implementation & Parliamentary AffairsWalton, T. E. Ministry of Provincial Council and Local GovernmentWilliams, D. Ministry of Science and TechnologyZao, N. Ministry of Transport and Highways

National Aquatic Resources and Research and Development

MEIP Staff AgencyNational Building Research Organization

de Silva, Shamali National Development BankFernando, Bernadette National Housing and Development AuthorityHiripitya, Chandana National Planning DepartmentIllangovan, Patchamuthu National Water Supply and Drainage BoardPereira, Ravi Nuwara Eliya Municipal CouncilPerera, Tamara Sri Lanka Association for Advancement of SciencePakeer, Zuhura Sri Lanka Land Reclamation and Development CorporationPilapitiya, Sumith Sri Lanka Ports AuthorityRamachandran, Easha Sri Lanka Standards InstitutionThiruchelvamn, M. Transport Study and Planning CentreVeliah, Mankesh University of MoratuwaWanniarachchi, Malrak i University of PeradeniyaWijeratne, Danny Urban Development Authority

Wijeratne, Danny Urban Program Unit

Nongovernmental Organizations Westem Provincial Council

Sevanatha Donor OrganizationsEnvironmental Foundation Ltd Asia FoundationArtEacharya Foundation Canadian Intemational Development AgencyEMACE Foundation Government of BelgiumEvergreen FoundationNuwara E1liya Tourism and Trade Services Association Government of the Netherlands

Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD)United Nations Development Program

Companies United States Agency for Intemational DevelopmentAndropogan Associates, USAAssociated Engineering Intemational Ltd, Canada

BKH Consulting Engineers, the NetherlandsEngineering Consultants Ltd, Sri LankaEnvironmental Engineering Consultants, Sri LankaEnvironmental Resources Management, UK

Grannt-McCann- Erickson, Sri LankaResource Development Consultants, Sri LankaRoche Intemational, Canada

Soil and Water Ltd, Finland

Govermment and Private Institutions

Board of InvestmentCentral Environmental Authority

Ceylon National Chamber of IndustriesCeylon Petroleum CorporationCoast Conservation Department

vii

MEIP in Perspective

In the eight years of its operation in Colombo, the Metropolitan EnvironmentalImprovement Program (MEIP) has made a lasting impression on policy makers andcommunities in the way they perceive urban environmental issues. MEIP has broughtnew ideas and innovative approaches to the table. It has partnered with localgovernments, the private sector, nongovernmental organizations (NGO) and communitiesto pilot projects, programs and approaches that have often, but not always, been successstories. Many of the ideas originated by MEIP have been adopted by the Government ofSri Lanka. Private enterprises have embraced good environmental practices; communitieshave demonstrated their ability to effectively address environmental problems; and NGOshave forged links with local governnents and authorities enabling creative problemsolving.

From its inception, MEIP was viewed as a pilot program that would introduce andtest concepts and innovative practices in urban environmental management in Sri Lanka.Its establishment coincided with the Government's own foray into environmentalprotection, and thus the program was able to play a pioneering role in the evolution ofinterventions for environmental improvement. In the policy arena, MEIP assumed aleadership role in the formulation of strategies for overall environmental management inColombo, and especially for industrial pollution and air quality management. On theinvestment front, MEIP facilitated the preparation of the Colombo EnvironmentImprovement Project (CEIP) and establishment of the Pollution Control and AbatementFund (PCAF). Through its role in community-based pilot projects, MEIP has been ableto make a direct impact on the lives of the poor, and has also demonstrated thatempowered communities can invest in and improve their living environment. MEIP hasbeen only marginally successful at reforming institutions to make them function moreeffectively. While in the initial years it played a direct role and often substituted for agovernment entity, in later years MEIP increasingly took a back seat, allowing stateagencies to carry forward the process it had begun. CEIP and PCAF are todayindependently managed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (MIHUD)and the National Development Bank (NDB), respectively.

MEIP has been successful because of strong govemment comrnitrnent. However,not unlike many donor-fimded projects, the commitment has tended to wane over a periodof time, especially after there has been internalization of the concepts and processes.Clearly, some MEIP initiatives will last long, and those elements of the MEIP approachwhich have been internalized by its partners will continue to effect the way in whichenvironmental issues are handled in metropolitan areas in Sri Lanka.

MEIP performance has been independently assessed by the Program Evaluationand Monitoring Unit of the Ministry of Plan Implementation and Parliamentary Affairs inthe Govermment of Sri Lanka (GOSL), and by the Environmental Foundation Limited, anNGO. The Government evaluation team was of the opinion that MEIP interventions had

been timely and relevant, and had positive impacts in improving the environment of themetropolitan area. However, given the worsening of the general urban environment, thereport also concluded that MEIP should have been expanded and its activities continued.The NGO evaluation was also supportive of overall MEIP contributions but addedreasons why the program's goals had not been more fully realized. These included thefollowing:

* Action plans and policies have not been implemented with sufficient speedand efficiency;

* Implementing agencies and available mechanisms are not sufficientlydeveloped or geared toward dealing with the program's requirements;

* Lack of funds or delays in obtaining funds for project implementation; and

* Lack of sustained political will and interest.

This report describes MEIP and its lessons in Sri Lanka. The first section of thispublication briefly describes the history of MEIP-Colombo; the second section discussesthe formulation of different strategies and the preparation of investment plans, as well asthe move to secondary cities; the third section discusses the investment program and pilotprojects; the fourth section explains the move to secondary cities; and the final sectioncontains the lessons learned.

2

Box 1: Snapshot of MEIP achievements

Environmental Strategy

* Clean Air 2000 Action Plan* Industrial Pollution Management Policy, Strategy and Action Plan* Environmental Management Strategy for Colombo* Secondary City Profiles and Action Plans - Galle & Kandy* Hazardous Waste Management

Capacity Building

* Training Environmental Agencies, NGOs and Financial Institutions* Laboratory Equipment for CEA, CISIR and NBRO* Hazardous Waste Regulations* Model Environmental Statute for Western Provincial Council* Curriculum Development for Environmental Education* Cleaner Production Audit for over 50 industrial units* Information, Education and Communication with NGOs and Private Sector

Investment Planning and Resource Mobilization

* Colombo Environmental Improvement Project: Beira Lake Restoration,Common Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities at Ekala andRatmalana and Sanitary Landfill

. Pollution Control and Abatement Fund (PCAF)* Air Quality Monitoring Network* CleaNet - Information Clearing House

Community Empowerment

* Clean Settlements Program - Bo-Sevana and Stadiumgama* Integrated Environment Improvement Projects - Galle & Kandy* Sanitation & Water Supply Project - Galle* Solid Waste Management Project - Galle

Knowledge Exchange

* Envirolanka'92. MEIP Inter Country Workshops* International & National Workshops* Sector Specific In-country Workshops. Participation in Government Environmental Committees

Pilot Innovation

* Private-Public- University collaborated Composting Plant at Kandy* Community Based Water Supply/Drainage Schemes Galle and Kandy* Community Based Solid Waste Management Projects - Galle and Kandy* Community Based Urban Greening Project - Nuwara Eliya. Coastal Zone Monitoring - Schools Project - Galle

3

I. Brief History of MEIP-Colombo

In 1989, responding to the environmental challenges of urban growth in Asiancities, the World Bank and the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), initiatedthe Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program in five Asian cities. The definingfeature of this approach is its commitment to improving the institutional basis ofenvironmental management and devising locally anchored and sustainable solutions tothe environmental challenges of urban growth. Specific objectives include the following:

* Assist urban metropolitan areas develop environmental management strategiesand action plans in the context of urban and industrial development;

* Strengthen the institutional and legislative framework for environmentalplanning, monitoring and enforcement;

* Help identify and prepare high priority investment projects and mobilize theresources necessary to implement these;

* Promote community-led efforts to improve the living environment; and

* Initiate a process of cross country dialogue to share information and lessons.

The World Bank procured funding from European and Australian donors in 1995to continue and expand MEIP operations. Currently MEIP offices are active in MetroManila, Jakarta and Colombo. Secondary cities such as Cebu and Davao (thePhilippines), Semarang and Surabaya (Indonesia), and Kandy and Galle (Sri Lanka), havealso entered the program.' New programs are commencing in Haiphong, Vietnam andThailand.

MEIP was endorsed by GOSL in 1990, and placed under the Ministry of PolicyPlanning and Implementation which worked closely with the Ministry of Environmentand Parliamentary Affairs.2 An inter-ministerial National Environmental SteeringCommittee3 (NESC) was constituted to provide policy guidance and direction to MEIP,as well as to review progress periodically. A National Program Coordinator wasappointed to coordinate and manage MEIP in Sri Lanka. Technical Working Groups wereappointed to examine relevant issues when they emerged. In the eight years since MEIPwas first constituted many political changes have taken place in Sri Lanka. From theperspective of MEIP, however, environmental issues have continued to gain increasingrecognition. The NESC became defunct in 1994, and its place was taken by theCommittee to Integrate Environmental Concerns in Development in 1998. Thiscommittee is jointly chaired by the Secretaries to the Ministry of Finance & Planning, andthe Ministry of Forestry and Environment.

I Between 1989 and 1993, MEIP also functioned in Beijing (China), Mumbai (India), and Kathmandu (Nepal).2 These ministries have since been reorganized and MEIP is no longer under their purvey.3 National Environmental Steering Committee (1990-1994) jointly chaired by Secretaries to the Ministries of Financeand Policy Planning & Implementation, and Environment & Parliamentary Affairs, and including Secretaries of keydevelopment Ministries.

4

Environmental protection and natural resources management have been a part ofSri Lanka's constitution for two decades. The Central Environment Authority (CEA),created in 1980, has been granted increasing powers of regulation. In early 1990, acabinet-level Ministry of Environment was created, giving higher visibility toenvironmental issues. Although these mechanisms and legislation were in place, theywere unable to respond adequately to the environmental challenges that Sri Lanka wasfacing because of limited financial resources and technical manpower.

The cornerstone of the MEIP approach in Colombo was the preparation of theEnvironmental Management Strategy (EMS). The objective of the EMS was to provide acity-wide strategic framework within which public and private agencies and communitygroups could implement planned environmental improvement and investment activities.The EMS not only established environmental priorities but also the actions needed toachieve them. Equally importantly, the priorities and strategies were established througha consultative process involving local governments, nongovernmental organizations, theprivate sector, environmental experts and World Bank representatives. An environmentalsurvey highlighted the fact that, in Colombo, the greatest challenges lay in domesticwastewater and industrial and air pollution management. The initial MEIP workshopsserved as a catalyst for the formation of a broader environmental network, and laid thegroundwork for the development of an EMS for Greater Colombo.

II. Strategies and Investment Planning

Environmental Management Strategy and Action Plan

Stemming from the Government's National Environmental Action Plan, thepreparation of an EMS was the first MEIP initiative. Funded by UNDP and Dutch TrustFunds, the World Bank and GOSL jointly developed the terms of reference forconsultants and selected them. The Urban Development Authority (UDA) functioned asthe key government counterpart agency responsible for overseeing EMS and Action Plandevelopment. At each stage, the UDA took the lead in clarifying policy options, withpolicy guidance from the NESC and technical consultants' consortium. Completed in1994, the EMS now serves as the framework for the Colombo Environment ImprovementProject (CEIP) which became a major MEIP investment program. The restoration ofBeira Lake, central effluent treatment plants at Ekala/Ja-Ela and Ratrnalana/Moratuwa,municipal solid waste collection and disposal, and community environmentalmanagement and infrastructure development were all part of CEIP. The EMS has alsobeen integrated into the broader National Environmental Action Plan. The UDAestablished its own Environmental Management Unit to integrate EMS into land use andinfrastructure planning. The recently published Colombo Metropolitan Regional StructurePlan (CMRSP) embraces EMS principles such as landuse and natural resource planning.The UDA will use the CMRSP as a framework to guide Colombo's future growth.

EMS development was divided into three phases. The first phase ofenvironmental assessment identified the following priorities for the Colombo urban

5

area: loss of natural resources; deterioration of groundwater and surface water quality;flooding and stagnation of water courses; solid waste pollution; deteriorating ambient airquality; environmental degradation in low income areas; and traffic congestion. In phasetwo, environmental objectives were defined and strategies to meet these objectives wereoutlined. Costs and benefits of alternative strategies were estimated in order to makejudgments regarding their financial feasibility. Six sectoral strategies were created. Theyincluded environmental structure planing, overall water management, storm watermanagement, wastewater management, infrastructure development, and the emergence ofnew growth patterns that respond to the natural ecological systems of the largermetropolitan area. Phase three included the preparation of a ten-year Action Plan forimplementing the EMS and proposing investment plans for specific sectors. The ActionPlan covered public, private and NGO activities, including economic, fiscal and legalmeasures; investment projects, spatial plans, monitoring, institutional strengthening,community awareness and education. Issue-specific plans were created for air, water andland management. Remedial and preventive actions were separated.

The original environmental survey andBox 2 - EMS Outcomes,and Priorities'.--Outcome X ' ' ; - '- ~- '~~' . ' ' - - EMS development helped to clarify. Quantified-extent of-environmental -- specific issues. MEIP-Colombo played

degradation -- - a pivotal role in policy issues involving-- EstablisbedJ a realistic set of environmental i - industrial pollution management, air-' quality goals and improvement targets p " Illt-in nq.^ pollution, and solid waste maniagement.- Form ulated a'least-cost strategy and action -

- --plan fior environmental inpro've'en't- ': Equally important, although not sectorspecific, were water-pollution issues

Priorities'. - - and the cross-cutting aims ofQg-based land use planning . ' -. .community development and upgrading.

. ~,Flooding an'd r'eclamation of wetlands ''; '=Pilot projects were identified under each~ Solid~waste management of these headings.

. Wastewater management (domesitic and' --

industrial sources)* Vehicular air pollution control

Industrial Pollution Management

MEIP-Colombo organized its first workshop on industrial pollution management(IPM) in April 1991. The event drew representatives from national government agenciesand local authorities, the private sector, NGOs, financial institutions, and the media.Stakeholders discussed the nature and extent of the problem, and the technical, legal andregulatory issues surrounding IPM. As a direct consequence of the workshop, GOSLobtained technical assistance from the World Bank through MEIP in 1992. The objectivewas to develop a strategy and action plan for IPM, including regulatory actions andincentives needed to promote compliance with the National Environmental Act andRegulations. The IPM strategy that emerged from this project was consequently endorsedby Ministers of Industry, Science and Technology and Environment, and the private

6

sector, including the Chamber of Commerce and Industry in September 1996. The mainprinciples of the strategy are articulated in Box 3.

Box 3 -Indus trial Pollution Management.Policy and Straitegy- Principles

. Pollution prevention at the.source* Central wastewa6terltreatment:-; Polluter pays for the waste gen'erated.:-, - -';--- .. -; Clustering industrial units-in estates and parks

. Providing incentives and strengthening en'forcement

.-. Three-way partnership involving'govenment communityand private sector -

Following an endorsement by the governnent, CEA assumed responsibility forthe implementation of the IPM Action Plan. The pace of implementation has been slowand the dates no longer coincide with those outlined in the original plan. This is largelydue to the weak institutional capabilities of CEA. Some of the fundamental problemsidentified by the strategy remain unresolved.

Air Quality Management/Clean Air 2000

Projected rates of economic and vehicular growth show that air pollution inColombo will become critical in the next decade unless preventive measures are adoptednow. Firewood used in homes for cooking and high sulfur and leaded fuel used by theexpanding vehicle fleet are the main culprits. In August 1991, MEIP organized an AirQuality Management workshop and invited policy makers, government officials,researchers, representatives from NGOs and academics. Participants agreed that in theabsence of reliable data it would not be possible to create strategies to control airpollution in Colombo. As a follow up, MEIP organized training on air qualitymanagement, drawing on the knowledge of experts from Beijing and Bombay who hadcreated air quality management plans. Important issues such as setting standards,monitoring techniques and instrumentation, air quality modeling, fuel pricing, pollutionabatement and control and various regulatory and other measures were discussed at thismeeting.

Based on these discussions, participants designed a draft action plan for airpollution management - the Clean Air 2000 Action Plan (see Box 4.). In 1993, the CleanAir Plan was endorsed by GOSL through a decision of the cabinet of ministers.

7

Bbxi4 - Key¢E1ements.of Clean,'Ai 2000 -i-'

Actions - - -

'. Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance L.' 'Fuel Formulation,. Pricing ?and Fleet Mix

-Emission'-nventory,and M,onitoring-Standard'Setti,

*, Instittional Fraiew6rk an'd Regulatory Compliance-EconomicJnstruments

* Transportation Planning maiid Traffic Management' -.',' ,r

Key Reduction .Targets for y`ar'2000 (from 1990 levels)PaticuWates;-. .40S,

* -Carbon monoxide- . 40%, -i

.: Oxides of nitrogen , 30S'*"'Lead- 305'4' Oxides of sulfur 7-5 -* .,Hydrcarbons 20%.

The implementation of this policy framework has been one of the greatest MEIPsuccesses. The achievements include the following:

* Introduction of unleaded gasoline;

* Elimination of engine conversion through financial disincentives;

* Establishment of an air quality monitoring network funded through the Bank'sColombo Urban Transport Project; 4

* Setting of ambient air quality standards;

* Introduction of smoke meters;

* Introduction of diesel tax for non-commercial vehicles;

* Proposed amendments to the Motor Traffic Act to incorporate inspection andmaintenance;

* Freeze on lead addition to petrol; and

* Heightened awareness of air quality issues among policy makers and thepublic.

4 The Central Environment Authority (CEA) has outsourced the operation and maintenance of this network to aresearch institution - National Building Research Organization

8

Solid and Hazardous Waste Management

The MEIP role in solid waste management has been twofold: (a) promotingcommunity-based recycling efforts, and (b) designing CEIP solid waste managementcomponent. The overall strategy included the development of a solid waste managementplan for the Colombo Metropolitan Area. The strategy indicated the need for investing ina new sanitary landfill to replace existing open dumps, assisting in the preparation of adetailed long-term waste management strategy and disposal plan, separating hospital andmunicipal waste and a program to handle hospital waste with greater care, promotingcomposting in order to reduce the quantity of waste to be disposed, and providingtechnical assistance to develop in-country waste management capabilities with particularfocus on enabling private sector participation in solid waste management. The CEIPsolid waste management component, costing around US$12.5 million, includes thefollowing:

* Construction of a sanitary landfill at Hanwela to meet the disposal needs ofthe Colombo Municipal Council (CMC) and fourteen of the thirty urban localauthorities located north and east of the metropolitan area for the period from1998 to 2004. This facility will be operated by a private sector turnkeycontractor. The landfill site will also have a 100 tons-per-day compost plant.Although the need for a landfill was identified as early as 1990, it was difficultto reach a consensus on the selection of a suitable site because communitiescould not agree on any of the options presented to them;

* Institutional strengthening of CMC and other local bodies to improve theircapacity to manage garbage collection and disposal;

* Management and operation of facilities, and technical assistance in thedisposal of hospital waste, would be provided for implementing safeprocedures for collection and storage of clinical waste.

MEIP was also instrumental in drafting the Hazardous Waste ManagementRegulations now used by the Ministry of Environment. A pre-feasibility study onhazardous waste management and disposal, funded by MEIP and Small and MediumIndustries - IV (IDA funded), proposed measures that would enable CEA to implementhazardous waste management regulations. It also included an inventory of hazardouswaste generation and current disposal practices, identification and ranking of suitabledisposal sites, and a conceptual design for an appropriate treatment facility. The Ministryof Environment and CEA are in.the process of seeking Cabinet approval to secure asuitable site for hazardous waste treatment.

9

III. Investment Program and Pilot Projects

'B,x:'5: Investment Program Initiated by-MEIP-'- The main investmentvehicle initiated by

Colombo Environmental Improvement ProjectA A. 5$ ,IP is the IDA-

,- Municipal'S,olid WasteManagement :: -125 5milli,n- funded CEIP. This~ - Wastewater Collection System' 9 million project IS financing

Beira Lake Catcbrnent4Pollution-Control - 10.0 million' some of the priority' Tec nical Assistane 7.5 millio n- environmental

Pollution - ~~~~~~~~~~interventions in*,' ollution Control and.Abatemen't Fuind/PCAF 7.5-mil1i6n (KfW): itreiosn

Control and Abatement u- n-dI f 75 mill-on - Colombo. It is now inits third year ofimplementation.

Beira Lake Restoration

Pollution in Beira Lake, a distinctive Colombo landmark, has been a source ofconcern for the Government of Sri Lanka for some time. The lake had been losingrecreational and economic value, and pollution had become a nuisance to people wholived near the shore. The lake's stagnant condition, numerous outfalls dischargingpolluted water, and disposal of sewage and garbage were some of the main reasons forthe decline of the lake. Although sporadic efforts had been undertaken to restore the lake,few proposals actually came to fruition.

In 1990, MEIP prompted relevant government authorities to take concrete actionsfor the sustainable restoration of the lake. The NESC coordinated inputs, functions, andresponsibilities of sectoral agencies that had jurisdiction over the lake and its catchment.This culminated in a study which adopted a multisectoral geographic approach to therestoration of the lake. The study reported that sewage and sullage entry into theextensive storm-water network through unauthorized connections from householdsaround the catchment was the main source of pollution in the lake, and identifiedphosphorus as the main cause of eutrophication of the lake. A ten year, two-phase,restoration strategy was proposed.

Phase one, for which US$ 10 million was earmarked, would focus on reducingpollutant loading, mainly sewage, and on monitoring and enforcement. In phase two,restoration techniques such as dredging of the lake's sediment, filtration of algae, andstocking of algae-eating fish, would be implemented. Specific interventions in the firstphase included the following:

Redirecting over seven thousand unauthorized sewer connections to thesewerage network from the storm water network which drains into the lake.This will substantially reduce the organic loading into the lake;

10

* Reducing the frequency of sanitary sewer overflows through the expansion ofthe sewerage network in the lake catchment area; and

* A comprehensive monitoring program that would quantify the improvement inwater quality and establish a time series of the lake's trophic.

The MEIP approach to Beira Lake was distinguished by the fact that it was thefirst integrated and multisectoral plan for the restoration of the lake. The interventionsthat were identified targeted not just households but also the private sector. Further, itprovided sustainable solutions such as improved waste management so that the actualamount of waste being produced and thus disposed would be reduced. Squattersettlements that previously had no sewage connections would be upgraded, and the largerpublic made aware of the consequences of continued environmental degradation of thelake.

Central Wastewater Treatment Facilities

MEIP assisted the Government of Sri Lanka in conducting feasibility studies with aview to establishing Central Wastewater Treatment Facilities as against individual treatmentplants for the industrial areas of Ekala/Ja-Ela and Moratuwa/Ratmalana, north and south ofColombo, respectively. The two facilities, once established, will treat large volumes ofindustrial wastewater currently discharged into open drains, channels and waterways.

Industrial pollution, especially in Moratuwa/Ratmalana, has long been recognized asa problem. This situation has resulted in the residents objecting vehemently to the existenceor siting of industries in the area. In response to this, a moratorium has been declared on thefuture siting of industries in the Moratuwa/Ratmalana area. However, existing industriescannot be relocated and an equitable solution needs to be worked out.

The option of a public-private partnership for establishment of the treatmentfacilities is being pursued by GOSL. IDA is providing approximately US$9.1 milliontoward the construction of a wastewater collection network in the two areas. While privatesector participation is being considered for the construction and operation of the treatmentfacilities, GOSL is in the process of evaluating the option of having a private sector tumkeyor a BOT (build, operate and transfer) contractor manage the system. It is envisioned thatthe private operator will build, operate and maintain the treatment plant, the collectionnetwork, and the ocean outfall. In the event that private investment is not forthcoming,GOSL will finance the treatment facilities.

The treatment technology itself would differ for the two locations. Moratuwa/Ratmnalana is a mixed residential and industrial suburb, with tremendous populationpressure on land availability. Here the recommendation is for preliminary treatment with a

11

final discharge into the ocean by an outfall. The recommended treatment technology forEkala/Ja-Ela is biological treatment using the activated sludge process.

Although the treatment facilities are expected to be functional by the year 2000,there are several institutional, technical, financial and regulatory issues that need to beresolved. In addition, as this is the first time a project of this nature is to be implemented inSri Lanka, many unforeseen and unexpected issues may arise during the course ofimplementation. This initiative represents an example of a project which has gone throughthe cycle of identification, preparation, packaging, funding and implementation.

Pollution Control and Abatement Fund (PCAF)

One of the outcomes of the 1991 MEIP workshop on industrial pollution was theformulation of a time-bound program called the Scheme for the Control of Pollution fromExisting Industries (SCOPE). This scheme provided the framework for industries to meetnational standards for pollutants in a phased manner over five years. A Pollution Controland Abatement Fund (PCAF) was also set up with the aim of helping industries complywith the national standards. Initial funding in the amount of US$5 million was providedby Kreditanstalf fur Wiederanfban (KfW) of Germany. PCAF was extended tofinancially viable industries, existing as of January 1, 1994, for waste minimization,resource recovery and pollution control and abatement.

The existence of stringent guidelines, and the government's willingness to enforcethem, contribute to the success of PCAF. In addition, industries have themselves realizedthat they must adhere to environmental protection techniques in order to stay competitivein international markets. Almost the entire amount of US$5 million has been committedand KfW has expressed an interest in providing additional funds. The Government ofJapan is also interested in supporting this initiative because of its early success.

Pilot Projects

Clean Settlements Program

MEIP-Colombo launched its first community-based environmental project, theClean Settlements project, in 1992, in partnership with Sevanatha, a local NGO.Gajabapura-Bo-Sevana was the first site. The selection was made in consultation with theColombo Municipal Authority which had already earmarked this 135-family settlementfor upgrading. As a first step, Sevanatha organized a community workshop that broughttogether selected members, health officials from the municipality, and housing officersfrom the National Housing Development Authority. The workshop's objective was toallow the community and the local authorities to jointly identify problems and develop anaction plan that would contain strategies to solve these problems.

12

The project area was divided into three Community Development Council (CDC)areas, and each CDC had the responsibility for implementation in its area. Sevanathaserved as the facilitator in organizing activities and linking local government and otheragencies with the CDCs. The Action Plan developed in the workshop contained bothlong- and short-term solutions. The former would be executed by the community withoutexternal assistance. Examples of these activities included repair of damaged commontoilets, water taps and drains. Long term solutions included actions taken by thecommunities in partnership with external actors and using external assistance. Thesesolutions were more permanent remedies to environmental problems. In addition to MEIPsupport, communities were also able to get small-scale grants from the Dutch andJapanese embassies.

A savings and credit scheme was established for women. A community centerequipped with a reading room, and sanitary toilets were built for the community. Manyfamilies also improved their homes, a process that was facilitated through the availabilityof information and frequent contact with representatives of Sevanatha and local and stateagencies. MEIP also undertook a public awareness-raising campaign using meetings,simple newsletters and music and drama classes for children. The newsletter (ThorathuruMal-la "Basket of Information") now reaches about 400 organizations throughout thecountry.

Both the process and the partnerships that were forged under this first communityproject have made a substantial impact by changing a government-controlledenvironmental service delivery process into a community-managed process. The CleanSettlements project provided a platform for a low income settlement to plan and manageits own environment and act on issues that it perceived as priorities. Because of itssuccess, the Clean Settlements Project has evolved into a freestanding project, funded bythe World Bank. It has been scaled up and is run by the Ministry of Housing Constructionand Public Utilities.

Pilot Composting Project

In 1993, MEIP launched a composting project in Wellampitiya to complement itssolid waste management project. The plant was set up with financial assistance from theUnited States Agency for International Development (USAID). Initial studies had shownthat the municipal waste was high in organic and moisture content and composting wouldbe a technically feasible option. In addition, given the high demand for compost fromhome gardens and from the plantation sector, which alone required approximately 9,000tons of compost per year, this would also be an economically viable operation.

While compost production had started, mechanical failures, inadequate labor andsupervision, and interruptions by rainfall hampered the ability of the plant to produce on aregular basis. With the closure of the Wellampitiya landfill which had served as an opendump for the Colombo Municipal Council, the production of compost was alsoabandoned. Despite this setback, the pilot established that local municipal solid waste

13

was ideal for composting using basic technology. In the future, composting will beincluded as a component in the proposed sanitary landfill to be developed under CEIP.

Pollution Prevention and Cleaner Production

The 1991 IPM workshop recommended that cleaner production efforts in theprivate sector should be encouraged. Through assistance provided by USAID, MEIPfacilitated a cleaner production assessment in 25 private sector manufacturing unitscovering four sectors. This assessment/audit was undertaken by the US-based MinnesotaOffice of Waste Management. For the first time it afforded an opportunity for the privatesector to learn and practice cleaner production efforts at the plant level. During these audits,industrial units were instructed on how they could benefit from waste minimizationopportunities through improved practices at minimum cost. Similar assessment was alsoundertaken for forty industrial units in Ratmalana and Ja-Ela.

Results of the IPM workshop and subsequent assessments became a corner-stone ofthe government-endorsed National IPM policy statement of 1996. The assessment alsoinfluenced the design of PCAF, which requires applicants to examine pollution preventionopportunities before embarking on end-of-pipe treatment. This necessitated the creation ofa clearing house for information sharing on pollution prevention, and thus CleaNet wasborn. After early difficulties in finding an institutional home in the private sector, CleaNetis now housed in the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce while the technical expertise isprovided by the Industrial Technical Institute (formerly CISIR). The World Bank isassisting CleaNet through the IDA-financed Private Finance and Development Project.CleaNet functions as an on-line clearinghouse, brokering information, networking andtraining, facilitating pollution prevention audits and, eventually, promoting waste exchangeamong industrial units on a fee levying basis.

Pilots on Public Awareness

MEIP has always functioned on the premise that sustainable environmentalmanagement requires a widespread knowledge of environmental issues, both problems andsolutions, within communities. Effective stewardship of the environment is only possible ifthe community is proactive and accepts its responsibility in controlling pollution andprotecting the environment on an individual and collective basis. This is needed not only toensure the development of an adequate political basis for necessary government leadershipand action, but also to facilitate meaningful input by industry, NGOs and individuals to thedevelopment and implementation of solutions. MEIP has therefore actively sought topromote public awareness through the media, environmental campaigns, posters, stickers,exhibitions and street dramas.

Targeted campaigns were focused on air pollution and declining environmentalquality in Colombo. They began with the Vehicular Emission Control Campaign (VECC)in June 1992 to promote awareness of the impacts of vehicular air pollution. With theinstallation of the Air Quality Monitoring Stations, MEIP has printed and distributed air

14

quality data in the three national languages to schools, through the Ministry of Education.Another initiative was the vehicular smoke testing program in collaboration with the privatesector and the Sri Lanka Traffic Police Division. Colombo's environmental problems werehighlighted in the first national environmental exhibition - Envirolanka 92 - initiated byMEIP. This brought together approximately 70 local and international organizations withthe theme of initiating public-private partnership for environmental protection in Sri Lanka.

In the preparation of CEIP, a comprehensive Public Awareness Campaign onEnvironment (PACE) was undertaken to inform the population living in Colombo on theenvironmental neglect that has taken place and the consequences of inaction. Thiscampaign was coordinated by an advertising agency through the press, television and radio.

The experience of MEIP has demonstrated that public awareness is not a one-timeevent but a continuing process. Information, education and communication efforts shouldbe an integral part of all environmentally-oriented initiatives.

IV. Moving to Secondary Cities

Since 1996, MEIP-Colombo has turned its attention to secondary cities, mainlyconcentrating on demonstration projects based on community participation. The citiesthat were chosen for this exercise were Galle, an important southern city (110 km fromColombo), Kandy, the hill capital (115 km from Colombo), and Nuwara Eliya, a popularholiday resort, 2000 m above sea level in the central hills (180 km from Colombo).

Demonstration projects in Galle included integrated environmental improvementprojects aimed at developing micro-enterprises, composting, improvement of sanitation,environmental education and savings schemes. During the execution of the programs, andresponding to the communities needs, a water supply scheme was developed for the semi-urban community of Danduwana and a sewer network developed for the urban low incomesettlement of Mohideenwatta. Another positive outcome of these projects was that theGalle Municipal Council recognized the value of the role played by NGOs, and requestedthat similar initiatives be replicated in other wards. A collection unit for recyclable materialwas also set up by the Galle Municipal Council in association with the NGO as an income-generating enterprise, and is the first of its kind in Sri Lanka.

In Kandy, demonstration projects included a community-based project to increaseenvironmental awareness and encourage solid waste management. This was done throughthe production of compost in home gardens, recycling plastic, and improving sanitation. Inaddition, the public (UDA) and private sectors were involved in developing a pilot all-weather composting system, utilizing expertise from the University of Peradeniya. This isthe first time that the private and public sectors have come together and used in-countryexpertise for an environmental investment.

15

In Nuwara Eliya, MEIP undertook an urban greening project to demonstrate theneed to conserve urban wetlands that act as water purifiers through bio-filtration. Theproject also includes the setting up of an environmental visitors center and a nursery thatwill be maintained by the community, under UDA administration.

One of the heartening outcomes of the secondary cities program is the fact thatMEIP has been able to raise environmental consciousness among local authorities, andstimulated the willingness for the public sector to partner with NGOs in addressingenvironmental problems of the ultimate beneficiaries at the grassroots level.

Despite these successes it was observed that, in many cases, local authorities insecondary cities are not geared to implement environmental infrastructure projects. Oneexample of this is the lack of success MEIP encountered in trying to construct a septagetreatment facility for the Galle Municipality.

V. Lessons Learned

Home to nearly two million Sri Lankans, Colombo district is the country's largestand most important urban area. While the environment has not been under attack here inthe same way that it has in larger Asian metropolitan areas, there is clear evidence thatgrowth and economic development are creating new and larger stresses. Increasedvehicular traffic, flooding, unplanned urban sprawl, the growth of low-incomesettlements, industrial and water pollution are some of Colombo's critical problems.MEIP environmental management activities in Colombo may be useful examples forcities that are steadily growing and beginning to encounter the environmental problemsthat megacities face each day.

The MEIP record in Colombo can be judged not only by a review of its pilotingactivities but also by the extent to which ideas and actions championed by it have becomemainstreamed in Sri Lanka. MEIP also expanded its work and partnered with twosecondary cities, Galle and Kandy, to replicate the lessons learned in Colombo. Fourmajor lessons that emerge from a consideration of MEIP experiences in Sri Lanka are theimportance of building partnerships, strengthening local governments, empoweringcommunities, and creating and fostering networks.

Building Partnerships

MEIP Program Coordinators unanimously agree that one of the program's mostimportant lessons is that all stakeholders should be involved and consulted in a problem-solving process as early on as possible. Whether in the policy realm or in communityengagement, involvement of stakeholders has contributed to the success of many MEIPactivities. The IPM policy statement and Clean Air 2000 exercises are good examples ofactive stakeholder participation in formulating policies that are generally acceptable to allparties.

16

* Policy Making

Given the existence of a multitude of institutions in Sri Lanka it is not alwayseasy to arrive at a consensus in a short period of time. Each agency has its owndevelopment priorities and often wants to accelerate its pace of achievement. In manycases officials from both the energy and industry sectors in the governnent and in theprivate sector saw environment as a delaying factor. Many months of often painstakingconsultation were required in order to develop strategies that could be embraced by themajority of the stakeholders. Endorsements from cabinet ministers, industry chambersand leading environmental activists, and a quick pace of implementation, are partly theresult of this coalition building.

However, despite the consensus building efforts in early years, MEIP has neededto continuously seek the active support of the government in the implementation phase.Absence of this support has sometimes lowered enthusiasm and created a situation inwhich other stakeholders have withdrawn their own support. In order to sustain the earlierconsensus building efforts, in the future, the MEIP facilitator role will have to be taken onby the Ministry of Environment and Central Environmental Authority.

Community-Based Activities

In the case of community-based efforts it was observed that beneficiaries had tobe involved at all stages in the design and execution of the initiation project in order for itto be sustainable. Consultations are crucial for many reasons. The community'sperception of an issue, and whether it is seen as a problem, is critical in designingsolutions. If an environmental problem is not perceived as being critical there may beneed for some education and awareness raising before a solution is designed. In the end ablueprint solution that does not involve those who will be impacted is not likely to besustainable. Further, consultations not only provide knowledge but also build trust. Whenprograms are designed requiring local authorities to work with communities, both sidesmust be aware of the other's priorities and limitations. Consultations and consensus-building were critical to the success of MEIP in Sri Lanka. No activity, whether a pilotproject or a policy reform, however large or small, went through without consultationswith all parties that would be affected by the project.

Strengthening Local Governments

In the program's experience, successful environmental management requires atwo-pronged approach that combines top-down and bottom-up approaches. Thus,communities must be empowered but at the same time the abilities of local governmentsto engage communities and provide solutions should also be strengthened.

17

Initial MEIP activities focused largely on national-level agencies, as thegovernment was highly centralized and local governments had very little autonomy.While this approach was beneficial in the formative years of developing strategies, localgovernments had to be involved in implementation. Communities often turn to theimmediate political authority, local government, for direction and solutions inenvironmental management. In Colombo, national agencies continue to have a largeimpact on the manner in which environmental issues are handled, but the same cannot besaid for secondary cities such as Kandy and Galle. In the second phase of MEIP, itshifted its focus to work with the two local governments.

Strengthening local governments is crucial, since they play a central role inmanaging the urban environment, from provision of city services and land use planningto local economic development and pollution control. When services break down orenvironmental conditions, deteriorate, they are often the first to be blamed. If localgovernments are to be effective environmental managers, strong institutional capacity -adequate funding, efficient organization, clear lines of authority, and qualified personnel- are necessary. However, local governments are under pressure from rapid urbanchanges, budgetary shortfalls, growing demands for services, and increasing pollution. Inmost cases, local governments cannot provide basic urban services, let alone regulate andenforce environmnental legislation. This lesson relates to a criticism leveled againstMEIP, and especially the Action Plan, that it concentrated on capital investments whileorganizational and operational investments were not given significant attention. In theabsence of such changes, capital investments are often unsustainable.

The disconnect between the formal role of local authorities, and their ability toperform this role satisfactorily, stems partly from the fact that even where localgovernments have been burdened with additional responsibilities for environmentalmanagement in the name of decentralization, these often come without necessaryautonomy. Decentralization has not always resulted in a real devolution of power to localmunicipalities, nor has it necessarily increased the electoral accountability or fiscalautonomy of local authorities. In many cities, local capacity to generate revenues islimited. This inability to raise funds contributes to the failure of local authorities toproperly operate and maintain environmental infrastructure, such as wastewater treatmentplants and land fills.

Capacity building for urban planning and governance at the local level mustinclude enhancing local revenue resources, such as property taxes, business or motorvehicle registration taxes, and user fees and service charges for water, sewerage and solidwaste collection. It is also important that local bodies have the authority to determine therates of these taxes and fees according to local conditions, without interference fromcentral governments. Attention to urban finance is crucial if cities are to adequatelyfunction as urban environmental managers with less reliance on fiscal transfers fromcentral governments. This aspect of capacity building was not specifically addressed byMEIP.

18

Another important aspect of building local government capacity is enhancing thetechnical and professional competence of officials. Commitment to training andtechnical assistance programs is necessary in order to foster capacities of environmentalprofessionals in local and central governments, and to build appropriate managerial,financial and technical skills in general. Several environmental training programs wereinitiated by MEIP for professionals from environmental authorities as well as localgovernments, but general managerial and financial skills were not addressed.

With the increasing responsibilities and needs for investment, it has also becomeimportant for local authorities to forge partnerships with other actors, including theprivate sector, communities, NGOs and other counterparts. MEIP has successfullydemonstrated that limited government coffers and manpower can be supplemented byfinancial and other resources contributed by businesses and community members forlocal environmental initiatives, once they understand that they benefit directly from theseactivities. Governments must work with them not as beneficiaries, but as partners inachieving common environmental goals in order to ensure sustainability of localenvironmental initiatives.

Empowering Communities

Community mobilization can greatly enhance judicious government intervention.Selected MEIP initiatives have shown how communities themselves can be agents ofchange, once their potential to help themselves is recognized and cultivated. The abilityof communities, especially low-income settlements, to contribute to the solution of theirparticular environmental problems is often underestimated. The common misconceptionis that they lack the organizational capacity or financial resources to either constructcommunity infrastructure or manage environmental services such as water pumps orpublic toilets. Experience has demonstrated the contrary: neighborhoods andcommunities can organize to manage drainage and waste collection systems, undersupportive conditions.

Some key points to guide the efforts of NGOs and the donor community to bestaugment grassroots environmental management efforts are summarized below.

* The community must understand the problem and be willing to act on it. Thisusually begins with an awareness of a specific problem that directly impactstheir lives, not a problem perceived by an outsider;

* There is a "champion" behind every successful community-based program. Astrong leader can serve as a focal point for discussion and decision-making,for mediating conflicts among community members, and for pooling andreallocating resources within the community. Where strong communityleadership is lacking, NGOs can help mobilize residents or strengthen existingleadership functions;

19

* It is possible to build on community networks as a means of mobilizing labor,and as a mechanism to improve the efficiency of service delivery;

* Community organizations can link up with local governments to manage themicro-end of urban services (e.g. the former manages neighborhood garbagecollection while the latter handles subsequent collection and disposal);

* One of the best ways to improve household environmental management lies incombining it with income-generating activities. This can be done throughactivities based directly on environmental management such as recycling, orthrough programs that create community-based enterprises that enablehousehold members simultaneously to earn income and to obtain essentialssuch as food, clean water and building materials;

* Combining neighborhood environmental improvement programs withcommunity credit schemes serves as an added incentive and also addresses thelack of financial resources faced by residents;

* Relationships between environmental pollution and human health are oftenpoorly understood by low-income community residents. Thus environmentaleducation and awareness campaigns are important elements to be incorporatedinto local environmental improvement programs;

* If residents do not feel a sense of security and stability in their households oras members of a community, they are not likely to devote their time andenergy to improving environmental conditions, and thus land and housingtenure are critical issues;

* Partnering with NGOs in community development is key where localgovernments have failed to represent their constituencies or deliver basicservices; and

* Local govemments and communities should work as partners.

Creating and Fostering Networking

Networking among all the relevant government agencies and generalgovenmmental support of MEIP have also been key to the success of programs in SriLanka. GOSL demonstrated a high level of commitment by including enviromnentalconcems in its national agenda. Environmental management is now seen as much morethan pollution control, and enforcement agencies are correctly viewed as only a part ofthe picture. Strategic location of MEIP within the government hierarchy has also beencritical, as it allowed access to senior decision-makers. On the negative side, it has beenhard to sustain government interest at the same level over the years. Although MEIP wasinstrumental in the formulation of CEIP, its involvement in the implementation of CEIPwas very limited.

20

MEIP has also served as a focal point for groups and individuals in search ofsustainable and affordable solutions to environmental problems. Interaction betweengovernment agencies, private businesses and nongovernmental organizations has beencritical to forging partnerships for environment. Although such partnerships haveemerged between the government and private sector, much remains to be done inengendering greater financial support from the business community.

Because many environmental initiatives are long term processes, it is premature tojudge their effectiveness in two to five years. This is especially true of education andtraining where it is difficult to assess immediate impact. Research and informationdissemination have always been a strong point of the Colombo MEIP. It should bepointed out that while continual assessment is central to refining and updating projects,many MEIP achievements may only become visible in the next five to ten years.

21

Metropolitan Environmental Improvement Program (MEIP)Environment Sector Unit - East Asia and Pacific Region

The World Bank1818 H Street, NW

Washington, DC 20433

Contact: P Illangovan