| 4. In which ways is the initiative creative and innovative?
|
|
Community monthly gathering, known locally as kwuang pha-ya, literally meant “platform of collective thoughts and wisdom”, was considered an organizational innovation in managing complex economic and environment problems. It was effective not only for solid waste management but also in other areas related to the quality of life of the people who lived within the municipality boundary. It was a space traditionally familiar to them, and the people felt free to voice their concerns, submit their proposals, and to expect helps and cooperation from within. The municipality role was to prepare facts-and-figures of truth and occasionally bring technical experts from the outsides, particularly from regional and provincial higher research and education institution located in the province of Lampang and within the northern region. This innovative learning platform help building trust and confidence among the community people themselves and between them and the municipality personnel. We now know how to face problems, no matter how big and complicated they are, as long as we can keep “a platform of collective thoughts and wisdoms” alive.
|
|
| 5. Who implemented the initiative and what is the size of the population affected by this initiative?
|
|
Key stakeholders could be divided into 3 groups:
1. Households: There were 1,370 households inhabiting the municipality jurisdiction, all of whom produced wastes. Formerly happy with a modest collection fees, they now feel engaged and receive benefits from doing it: biologically degradable waste was turned into natural fertilizers which reduced the cost of agricultural input bought from outside markets; the recyclable items could turn into household goods: wood debris and plastic material sold to industries located nearby for energy use; and hazardous wastes could be exchanged with fertilizers and tree shoots.
2. Community leaders: They were the ones who helped organize local residents into different groups according to certain management techniques were required. They were also played a role of linking the grassroots’ needs with municipal policy makers and administration.
3. Municipality: Kohkha municipality provided funding supports for capacity building to community leaders and groups by bring external experts from networks and institutional partners.
4. Institutional Partners: central governmental agencies, such as provincial and district public health offices, were our partners who gave advices on health-related environmental knowledge. Universities located in the province, such as Lampang Rajaphat University, provided research findings and follow-up lessons learned.
5. The corporate sector: Two large companies and industries operated in the area nearby were also invited to participate in the waste management efforts. Siam Cement Group (SCG) was our customers buying wood debris and plastic material for energy-generating purposes, and the General Farm Limited provided the know-how to use soil worm farming, a technique of decomposing biologically degradable wastes from the households.
|
| 6. How was the strategy implemented and what resources were mobilized?
|
|
Three key strategies were developed for implementation of the program.
1. Raising awareness and collective learning: We provided well-researched data and information to the monthly “Kwang Pha-ya” forum, allowing participants to debate and exercise their innovative ideas as to how best to deal with the problem. This process was so successful that the people saw themselves – individual household, as part of the problem. When it was finally decided that management must start at home, the municipality authorities provided funding (Thai Baht200,000) to support training workshops and study tours, so that they learn how to work together from good practices elsewhere.
2. Building participation: A door-to-door campaign was organized by the municipality and partners (district public health office and education institutions), providing information as to how individual households could benefit from segregating wastes at home. The campaign had resulted in new initiatives, for example, “clean-and-tidy home yard”, “clean roads”, and others. Gradually more than 80 per cents of the total households had participated in the project.
3. Developing and designing systematic, community-based waste management schemes known as “gateway solution”, which involved the followings:
• For general solid wastes produced we promoted segregation, starting at home of the individual in order to reduce and re-use as much as possible. We employed technology referred to as “Refuse Derived Fuel” to turn waste into supplementary energy in exchange for natural fertilizers and household utilities made from reused wastes
• For recyclable wastes we focused on the 5Rs behavioral changes: Reject, Reduce, Recycle, Repair, and Reuse. These were used to encourage people how to deal with those composed of the thrown away papers, glasses, plastics, forms, clothes, ornaments, metal sheets, and others.
• For biologically degradable wastes we applied the use of EM (effective micro-organisms) and soil worms to speed up the decomposing process (Anaerobic Digestion). Biologically degradable wastes decomposed by EM and soil worms resulted in natural fertilizers. These are good supplement for chemical fertilizers in the markets, which in turn reduced the cost of agriculture inputs exported from outside.
• For hazardous wastes we built incentives by ways of “trade-ins” an exchange for something else more useful, namely natural fertilizers produced from wastes and young tree shoots in order for people to create more green space. Hazardous wastes collected were later managed by qualified private companies specialized in hazardous waste management in a safety manner.
• For the end-of-pipe wastes dumped and land filled in a rented area we made financial contract with an industry located nearby for supplementary energy use.
|
|
| 7. Who were the stakeholders involved in the design of the initiative and in its implementation?
|
|
There were a number multi-stakeholders involved, including:
• Municipality project team and administrative authorities: organized the monthly “Kwang Pa-ya” forum, conducted preliminary studies on health-related environmental problems, and presented findings;
• Household members who joined the project, at 80 % of the total;
• Institutional partners: district-level public health officers/specialists and researchers/experts at a university nearby, invited by the municipality authorities
• Industries located nearby: invited to join the monthly meeting to assist with technological solutions and seek new opportunity to use sustainably use of resources available locally
|
|
| 8. What were the most successful outputs and why was the initiative effective?
|
|
Outputs and impacts of the initiative are listed below:
1. A reduction of over 18 tons beginning from the last 10 years, an equivalent to 42,340 tons of Green House Gases;
2. The government had saved the operation cost up to half a million Thai Baht per year
3. Community households had available non-chemical and safety food supplies:
• Reduced expenditures on food from markets estimated at ThaiBth20/hh/day, 7,200/hh/year or a total of over 4 million per year for the whole Koh Kha municipality (629 HHs);
• Emerged new community groups to generate new income source from raising soil worms at ThaBaht8,000/kg.
|
|
| 9. What were the main obstacles encountered and how were they overcome?
|
|
How to Overcome Obstacles and Constraints:
• Fragmented and Departmentalized Policy and Implementation: There existed a number of central governmental organizations given specific mandates and budget allocation to solve health-related environmental problems at the community level. Collaboration and cooperation were well documented as an issue impeding successes.
To overcome this constraint, we managed to do the followings:
1. Building participation from the community and then seek collaborative efforts from multi-stakeholders or what we called “institutional partnership”, inviting them to the open forum, joining the community in clarifying problems and finding solutions;
2. Creating clear and strong policy guidelines to which all stakeholders could agree and make commitment for the same goal and direction;
3. Allowing every stakeholder at the meeting to voice their concerns, present data, and expectations;
4. Sharing community data so that project monitoring and evaluation could reflect desired outcomes and shared successes.
• Non-registered Residential Population: Kohkha municipality was growing as big as a twin city of Lampang, a provincial city, where economic development in the form of “logistic hub” of the Thailand’s North is underway. An increased number of governmental agencies and private businesses are moving in. With more people moving in, Kohkha has to deal with the environmental degradation as a result.
These are what we did to overcome in an increased number of unregistered population:
1. We maintained our strong belief in full and equal participation of multi-stakeholders, strengthening our existing community groups and extended wider network of learning community;
2. We shared knowledge and experiences, built institutional cooperation and in the process of securing social consensus on how to make Kohkha a peaceful and sustainable city.
|