Ek Raj Sigdel*, Meeta Acharya** & Pushpa Koirala***
*Local Environment Specialist, Local Governance and Community
Development Program
**Environment Expert, Environment Friendly Local Governance Program
***Environment Expert, Local Climate Change Adaptive Living Facility
Environment Friendly Local Governance
Programme (EFLGP) has executed by the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development
(MoFALD), Nepal in 14 Districts, 54 Municipalities and 60 Village Development
Committees (VDCs) since December 2014. Objective of the intervention was to mainstream
environment into local bodies' annual development plan and budgets. Though a
preliminary study was carried out under PEI in 2013, no follow up study was
undertaken since then. This study was carried out based on reviewing annual
development plans of selected local bodies in June 2016. It was found that the proportion of annual
budget figure for environment friendly local development activities has increased
noticeably over the years. Further, in an average 15.03% of the total
local bodies’ budget were relevant to the pro-poor environment, climate change
and disaster related activities.
Moreover, 80 % of EFLGP implementing municipalities have adopted policy of
promoting environment friendly local governance in their annual development
plans. From the findings of present study it can be inferred that Environment
Friendly Local Governance Programme intervention in programme implementing
local bodies has positively catalyzed to increase budget allocation on
environment related activities in their Annual Development Plans. This also
implies that local bodies are giving due consideration in addressing and
adapting to climate change and disaster management to some extent. Also there
is a significant difference in proportion of budget allocation in non EFLGP
implementing local bodies and EFLGP implementing local bodies. The encouraging
results was due to the massive scale of sensitization, infrastructure support
and awareness programmes before planning period at central level and local
level for various stakeholders involved in planning and budgeting process. However
the effective implementation of the allocated budget and programmes by local
bodies remain the subject of further study and analysis.
Background
Environment Friendly Local
Governance Programme (EFLGP) has executed by the Ministry of Federal Affairs
and Local Development (MoFALD) in 14 Districts, 54 Municipalities and 60
Village Development Committees (VDCs) since December 2014 (Annex 1). The
objective of EFLGP was to enhance adaptive capacity of climate change vulnerable
community groups including women and marginalized people to cope with impacts
of climate change through adopting integrated environment, climate and disaster
resilient planning and budgeting approach. One of the specific objectives of
the EFLGP was to integrate environment, climate change and disaster risk reduction
issues into local development planning and budgeting process and to bestow ownership
of the programme to local government for its sustainability. Moreover, the
programme has supported local government to make them able to adopt EFLG
through approving it as an important program of the respective district and
municipalities.
After intervention of EFLGP from
2014, it was felt necessary to know the programme effect in EFLG programme intervention
areas. With this objective, annual development plans of all EFLGP implemented
DDC and Municipalities were reviewed. Moreover, to know to what extent the
program was effective against its stated objective, similar kind of studies were
reviewed. The study was carried out in 2016 immediately after the local bodies
completed their respective annual council meetings and approved activities for
fiscal year 2016/2017.
Literature Review
Local Self Governance Act (LSGA),
1999 and Regulation, 2000 authorize local bodies to manage natural resources of
their respective areas. Similarly, Local Bodies Resource Mobilization &
Management Guideline, 2069 states that under ‘Capital budget’ VDC as per
Section 28 of LSGA, 1999; Municipality
as per Section 96 of LSGA, 1999 & DDC as per Section 189 of LSGA, 1999 need
to formulate plan and programmes in forest management, environment
conservation, bio diversity conservation, park & open space maintenance,
establishment of greenery areas, climate change adaptation and mitigation,
renewable energy promotion, waste management, natural disaster and disaster risk
reduction, among others.
A study on to what extent local
government has considered poverty and environment in their annual development
plans was carried out in selected 15 District Development Committee (DDCs) and
5 municipalities of Nepal under Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI), - a joint
undertaking of UNDP, UNEP and MoFALD, in 2013 in Nepal (Unpublished Report of MoFALD,
2013). The study revealed that only 4% of the total annual development budget
was set aside for environment friendly development activities by local bodies.
Similarly, the total budget
figure for environment activities such as environment conservation and climate
change adaptation (IEE, Local adaptation and improved cooking stoves) was NRs.
43,25,000 (USD 40168.31) that is 4% of the total in FY 2012/13 (Dhading DDC
Plan, 2069/90). Likewise Rupandehi District had allocated around 10% of its
total budget for environment and climate change activities under separate
headings of annual development plan 2015/2016. Both Rupandehi and Dhaing
districts are being supported with capacity development by Poverty Environment
Initiative (PEI) and Local Climate Change Adaptive Living Facility (LoCAL) so
as to make them able to incorporate environment and poverty linked policies and
programs into their development plans.
EFLGP Operational Guideline states
that local body should prepare project funding matrix for EFLGP following Local
Climate Change Adaptation Plan (LAPA) framework. Moreover, the EFLGP have to
follow government's 14 step planning process. As against the stated objectives,
the EFLGP has implemented various sustainable environment and climate resilient
activities in the programme sites. Further, various capacity development
training and awareness programs has been implemented so as to create demand for
environment friendly local development activities from local climate vulnerable
communities. Whether the interventions were effective or not, a study was felt
necessary. In this context, this study was intended to know whether local
bodies have adopted EFLG through their council meeting and to know the
proportion of environment related activities and budget included in their
Annual Development Plans.
Rationale of the study
In 2014, MoFALD implemented EFLGP
in the aforementioned selected local bodies with the objective of mainstreaming
environment into local bodies' annual development plan and budgets. Therefore,
it was high time to know to what extent the local bodies have considered
environment as an integral part of their development activities through
reviewing their Annual Development Plans. Also it was felt necessary to know
the programme implications in EFLG programme areas in regards to sustainability
and ownership of the programme. With this objective, the study was carried out
in 2016 immediately after when the local bodies completed their respective
annual council meetings and approved activities for fiscal year 2015/16.
Though a preliminary study was
carried out under PEI in 2013, no follow up study was undertaken since then. It
was essential to know to what extent the local bodies are aware towards
considering environment as a part and parcel of the development agenda.
Moreover there was no study on how many local bodies have adopted EFLG in their
council. Therefore, with this rationale, this study was carried out in June
2016.
Methodology
The study was carried out based
on review of secondary data in consultation with district and municipality
stakeholders, including Executive Officer, Monitoring and Evaluation
Officers (M & E) of EFLGP and Energy Officer of EFLGP implementing local
bodies. The M & E officers were provided the template regarding council
meeting decision status of their respective local bodies and asked them to
complete the form by reviewing the approved Annual Development Plan 2015/16 of their
respected District Development Committee and Municipalities. Based on reviewing
and analyzing the Annual Development Plans of all EFLGP implemented 14
districts and 54 municipalities, results were drawn. The indicators for
mainstreaming were assessed based on the budgets allocated by local bodies in
their annual development plans. Moreover, it was also assessed to know how many
EFLGP implemented local bodies have adopted EFLG in their policies. Also for
comparative analysis, a study undertaken under PEI in 2013 was reviewed and
data was analyzed for drawing conclusion. Since the study was solely dependent
on secondary information provided by M & E officers and field interactions,
some of the data are incomplete due to lack of publication of Annual Development
Plan of some local bodies.
Findings:
Based on analysis of the
available data it was found that all EFLGP implemented local bodies have organized
their respective council meetings in the stipulated time framework and have adopted
EFLGP by their Council Meetings. Except for Garuda municipality of Rautahat
district, all 53 municipalities have approved/endorsed EFLG programs for FY 2015/16.
While reviewing Annual Development plans of all EFLGP implemented local bodes,
it was revealed that in an average 15.03% of the total local bodies’ budget
were relevant to the pro-poor environment, climate change and disaster related
activities.
In an average, a DDC (EFLGP
implemented) has approved a total of Rs. 1,92,97,00,470 (USD 17940695.43) for
the fiscal year 2015/16.
The maximum around 34 % of annual
total development budget by Nawalparasi DDC and the least budget around 0.54 %
was allocated by Saptari DDC for environment friendly development activities. All
11 DDCs have adopted EFLGP in their annual development plans of 2016/17. The
database for Rautahat DDC was not available during the time of data analysis. In
case of Municipalities, Beltar Basaha & Chandrapur allocated maximum 40 %
of the total annual budget in environment and climate change related activities
and Dhulikhel municipality has allocated the least amount i.e 0. 53 %. In an
average, each municipality has endorsed the total annual budget of NRs.
87179289 (USD 810518.05) for FY 2016/17. Out of the total 54 municipalities
studied, 79.6% has adopted EFLG in their Annual Development Plan of fiscal year
2016/17. Another 18.5% municipalities did not adopt EFLGP in their annual
development plan. The other 1.8% municipalities, the data was not available. Major Environment related programmes in the
Annual Development Plans of EFLGP implementing LBs were as follows table 1.
Source: Review of Annual Development Plans of Local
Bodies of FY 2016/17Source: Review of Annual Development Plans of Local
Bodies of FY 2016/17
Table 1: local bodies that have included environment related activities
in their respective annual development plans of 2016/17
|
Major Programs
|
Activities
|
Number of LBs
|
Percentage of local bodies
|
|
Water Source Conservation
|
Lake maintenance,
pond maintenance and rehabilitation construction, well maintenance and
conservation, drinking water source conservation, drinking water supply and
water pumping system management
|
55
|
86
|
|
Plantation
|
Afforestation, road side plantation,
nursery management, public land conservation and protection
|
50
|
78
|
|
Renewable Energy
|
Solar charged
vehicles, solar light at CAC, solar street lamp, solar tuki,
ICS promotion,
installation and training, biogas installation and Bio Briquette
|
42
|
66
|
|
Park Construction and Maintenance
|
Park construction and maintenance,
botanical garden, children and greenery park, memorial park, picnic spot
|
38
|
59
|
|
Environment Awareness Programs
|
Climate change,
child and women focused environment awareness, cleanup campaign, awareness on
EFLG, world environment day celebration, environment friendly building,
environment friendly home, environment friendly school, excursion for
observation of solid waste management, orientation behavioral change
|
36
|
56
|
|
Waste Management
|
Compost plant installation, feasibility
study for landfill site, landfill site construction, training, environment
friendly bag promotion and production
|
29
|
45
|
|
Health and sanitation
|
Bus terminal
management (public toilet and sanitation), public toilet construction, toilet
support program, ODF related programs
|
27
|
42
|
|
River Bank Protection
|
Bio-engineering, dam construction, drainage
management, embankment construction, river bank management and river training
program,
|
25
|
39
|
|
Disaster Risk Management
|
Disaster risk
management and disaster management fund
|
10
|
16
|
|
Tourism Development
|
Tourism, ecotourism, home stay tourism
planning and promotion,
|
6
|
9
|
|
Cattle shed Management
|
Cattle shed
improvement
|
6
|
9
|
|
Agriculture Production
|
Irrigation, production collection center,
IPM programme, organic farming, roof top vegetable farming, awareness program
|
6
|
9
|
|
Landslide Control
|
Landslide protection
program
|
2
|
3
|
|
Climate Change
|
Climate change adaptation and mitigation
program
|
2
|
3
|
|
Total
|
|
334
|
|
From the
available data, it is found that the proportion of annual budget figure for
environment friendly local development activities has increased noticeably over
the years. This might be due to increased awareness of concerned stakeholders
and local bodies in poverty environment link issues and impact of Environment
Friendly Local Governance Programme.
Also, it was
found that proportion of budget allocation in EFLGP implementing local bodies
is significantly higher in comparison to local bodies without the EFLGP intervention
areas. This could be due to the raised sensitization on environmental awareness
and capacity development through massive programme orientations, program
support and workshops at central and field level. Also it implies that EFLGP is
successful in mainstreaming pro-poor environment, climate change and disaster issues
into local bodies annual development plans which indicates that programme.
Moreover, 80 %
of EFLGP implementing municipalities have adopted policy of promoting
environment friendly local governance in their annual development plans. Also
analysis of proportion of different environment related programmes in Annual
Development Plans revealed that 86% of EFLGP implementing local bodies
allocated programme on’ Water conservation’ followed by plantation by 78% of
local bodies. However only 3% of local bodies allocated programmes for Climate
Change and Disaster Management Activities. This might be despite the raised
awareness on environmental issues, local bodies still lack adequate
sensitization on importance of considering climate change and disaster
management issues as an integral part of development. However, the other
programmes like water source conservation, plantation, renewable energy, park
construction, public land conservation and management also directly and
indirectly contribute to climate change adaptation, mitigation and disaster
management which are given priority in most of the local bodies.
Also increased
proportion of budget and programme on environment, climate change and disaster
management sectors might be due to massive orientation campaigning at central
and local level before the programme planning period in comparison to other
local bodies without programme interventions. Also there have been different ministry
level directives to local bodies (Greenery Promotion, Renewable Energy/ Solar) from
time to time that have also guided the local bodies in giving priority to
environment, climate change and disaster management issues in their annual
plans. It implies that EFLGP is well owned by local bodies and therefore it
demands upscaling all across the country.
Through PEI
support in Dhading District, stakeholders including political parties, local
bodies, government line agencies and civil society organizations were sensitized
for prioritizing environment and climate change issues into their annual
development plans to address poverty issues through organizing workshop just
before annual plan preparation. Accordingly, the total budget figure for
environment activities such as environment conservation and climate change and
adaptation (IEE, Local adaptation and improved cooking stoves) was reached to NRs.
43, 25,000 (USD
40168.31) (4%) in
FY 2012/13 from NRs. 43, 00,000 (USD 39936.12 )(3.6%) in FY 2068/69 in Dhading
(DDC Dhading, Annual District Development Plan 2067 & 2068). With PEI and
LoCAL support on raising awareness of district development committees on
importance of mainstreaming environment, climate change into local development
plans, Rupandehi has allocated around 10% of its total budget for pro-poor environment
and climate change activities under separate headings of annual development
plan 201/16. While Kapilvastu a neighboring district of Rupandehi where
intensive support has not extended for capacity development to incorporate
environment and climate change issues into their annual development plans, has
allocated less than 2% budgets for environment friendly pro-poor development
activities in 2015/16.
Conclusion
From the
findings of present study it can be inferred that Environment Friendly Local
Governance Programme intervention in programme implementing local bodies has
positively catalyzed to increase budget allocation on environment related
activities in their Annual Development Plans. This also implies that local
bodies are giving due consideration in addressing and adapting to climate
change and disaster management to some extent. Also there is a significant
difference in proportion of budget allocation in non EFLGP implementing local
bodies and EFLGP implementing local bodies. This is due to the massive scale of
sensitization, infrastructure support and awareness programmes before planning
period at central level and local level for various stakeholders involved in
planning and budgeting process. However the effective implementation of the
allocated budget and programmes by local bodies remain the subject of further
study and analysis.
Road Ahead
For effective environment related
programme implementation, there should be regular monitoring and follow. Also
the performance of the local bodies should be evaluated by the implementation
status in specific sector not merely from the allocation of budget. In
addition, necessary guidelines and circulars need to be provided by the
Ministry from time and again to local bodies to mainstream sector specific
budget/programme in their development plans. Awareness and sensitization
programmes on environment, climate change and disaster management to concerned
stakeholders are also vital to create demand on environmental issues from local
vulnerable community and mainstream them in development plans for their own
benefits. As the EFLGP is going to phase out in July 2017, its successful
initiatives should be replicated and up scaled by allocating and finding
resources from government level. This will ultimately contribute in mainstreaming
environment as major agenda in development plans of all local bodies across the
country. Also this study can be taken as baseline for further research in this
sector.
Acknowledgement
We would like
to cordially acknowledge the Environment Friendly Local Governance Programme,
Programme Manager, Project Management Unit, Local Development Officers,
Executive Officers, field level Monitoring and Evaluation Officers, Energy
Officer for their kind support and favor. Without their generous support and
encouragement this study would not have been successful. Thanks also go to the DFiD,
UNDP/UNEP and UNCDF for their generous support to implement EFLGP, PEI and
LoCAL respectively under MoFALD.
References
·
Local Self Governance Act, 1999
·
Local Bodies Resource Mobilization & Management
Methodology, 2012
·
MoFALD, 2013 Assessing policies, programs and Budgets in
the local development plans, a study report (unpublished report)
·
Environment Friendly Local Governance Programme (EFLGP):
Operational Guidelines (FY 2014/015-2016/017)
Annex 1. Following 14 districts and 54
municipalities were selected for the programme intervention
S.No
|
Districts
|
Municipality
|
1.
|
Gorkha
|
1. Gorkha, 2. Palungtar
|
2.
|
Lamjung
|
3. Beshisahar, 4. Sundarbazar
|
3.
|
Kaski
|
5. Pokhara (Sub
Metro), 6. Lekhnath
|
4.
|
Chitwan
|
7. Bharatpur, 8.Ratna Nagar,
9.
Khairahani, 10. Chitrawan, 11. Narayani, 12. Madi
|
5.
|
Nawalparasi
|
13. Ramgram, 14.
Kawasoti, 15. Devchuli, 16. Bardaghat, 17. Gaidakot, 18. Sunawal
|
6.
|
Saptari
|
19. Shambhunath, 20. Kanchanpur,
21. Rajbiraj, 22. Saptakoshi
|
7.
|
Siraha
|
23. Siraha, 24.
Mirchaiya, 25. Lahan, 26. Golbazar
|
8.
|
Sarlahi
|
27. Hariban, 28. Malangawa, 29. Lalbandi,
30. Ishworpur
|
9.
|
Dhanusha
|
31. Janakpur, 32.
Dhanusadham, 33. Chhireshwornath, 34. Mithila, 35. Sabaila 36.
GaneshmanCharnath
|
Udayapur
|
37. Triyuga, 38. Katar, 39. Beltar-Basaha
|
|
11.
|
Rautahat
|
40. Gaur, 41.
Chandrapur, 42.Garuda
|
12.
|
Sindhuli
|
43. Kamalamai, 44.Dudhauli
|
13.
|
Tanahun
|
45. Shuklagandaki, 46.Vyas, 47.Bhanu, 48. Bandipur,
49. Aanbu Khaireni
|
14.
|
Kabhrepalanchowk
|
50. Banepa, 51.Dhulikhel, 52.Dapcha kasikhanda, 53.
Panchkhal, and 54.Panauti
|
