Fjölrit RALA - 05.12.1999, Qupperneq 23

RALA Reportno. 200
Participatory planning processes
Rodnev Gallacher'
Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Ilaly
Tel: 396 5 05 3085: Fax: 396 5705 6275; E-mail: rodney.gallacher@fao.org
ABSTRACT
Sorting of inforniation into issues and opportunities enables plans and priorities to be formulated by
the stakeholders. Associated to these activities, the roles of implementation and evaluation are negoti-
ated. This process is particularly valuable for addressing desertification and degradation scenarios on
range and pasture lands.
Soil Conservation Group in the Land and Water Development Division of the Food and Agricul-
ture Organization has been particularly concemed with involving stakeholders to design and imple-
ment projects in a participatory manner. Successful examples are presented.
In addition to physical and production data, FAO makes case studies of success stories in eco-
nomics, social and policy issues widely available as a step towards building on lists of options which
can be adapted and adopted in joint efforts with national and international organizations.
Kev words: land use planning, participatory planning, soil conservation, WOCAT.
Setting the scene
Govemments have a poor record in conserving soils; it becomes clear that to be suc-
cessful, area-based conservation can only be achieved by many thousands of individu-
als acting in groups or through community planning and participation. The spirit of
ownership of the solutions has to be encouraged to ensure sustainability. On a smaller
scale, participatory planning has been carried out for millennia. We are only now be-
ginning to document the historically signifícant participative efforts. Community con-
servation and management of resources on a large scale has been demonstrated since
early in the 20th century. The results ffom Iceland, Tennessee Valley Authority in
USA, Italy with FAO in Syria and Eppalock in Australia (Box 1) to mention a few ex-
amples.
The highly participative Eppalock experience marked a tuming point in the way
Commonwealth and State Govemments in Australia dealt with soil conservation and
environment rehabilitation of severely degraded rangelands. The land user was no
longer seen as primary despoiler and govemment began to take responsibility for de-
fective policies that presented and led to degradation in medium and longer terms. The
entire community benefited as costs were recovered from taxes on increased produc-
tivity, extra employment created and diversity of mral activities introduced.
Soon after the Eppalock project ended, the idea which came to be known as “Land-
care” began forming in Australia and then New Zealand (Alexander 1995). Small
groups of range and crop land-users were encouraged to propose their own environ-
mental management plans, to be discussed with the relevant public authority or line
1 The author of this paper, left the Soil Conservation Authority, Victoria, Australia after almost 8 years in 1969 for
a series of FAO postings in Africa and the Near East, including Algeria, Ethiopia, Morocco, Niger, Rwanda,
Syria and Tunisia. In 1985 he joined the Soil Conservation Group in FAO Land and Water Development Divi-
sion, to work on policies, project formulation and field support to Africa, Near East and Southeast Asia.
Catarina Batello, Agricultural Officer, Pasture Improvement, AGPC, FAO, helped revise the range content
overall, but especially conceming Syria.