AREA-BASED
PLANNING IN THE PACIFIC
Prepared
by:
UNDP-UNOPS
Integrated Area Development Project (IADP)
March
1993
Area-based Planning in
the Pacific Context
1.0
Current Trends in regional planning
Spatial or area-based planning suits the unique Pacific situation. It is highly adapted to countries fragmented into remote and small islands. With the relative isolation of these outer islands from the political and administrative center, a planning methodology is needed to ensure the articulation of their specific needs and to make them an integral part of the gaeneral body politic. Hence, it is not surprising that local-level planning has been given impetus during the post-colonial era. It reflects the political will of the new sovereign government to link up with the rest of the nation, and ensure that the people in rural communities do not feel neglected.
1.1 In practice, the most common link of the natinal plan to area-based planning is through the formulation of local projects and their submission to central ministries for approval and funding. As in other developing countries, project planning dominates local-level planning activities in the region. Planning is mostly seen in connection with easily visible development commodities, such as roads, bridges, seawalls, clinic, school, water pump, latrines, seeds. In most cases, what is referred to as local-level planning is merely the process of negotiating local contributions for these commodities to be delivered or constructed in the island community.
1.2 Some Pacific countries have devised procedures to enable island communities to identify local projects, prepare the funding proposals and submit them for approval to the central ministries. Island Councils are trained on these procedures. In some instances, new development bodies have been created to assist the Island Council in identifying projects and preparing project proposals.
1.3 More often, the choice of project at local level is influenced by the more active government agencies on the island. It tends to be also influenced by donor interests and the wish of political leaders, more particularly in their anxiety to model local development after the relatively modern infrastructure of the main island.
1.4 It has been a rare practice to use the national plan as basis for local-level project formulation. Information about the plan, if it reaches the remote island at all, is more often coursed through the sectors. The actual participation of rural communities in preparing national plans is virtually nil. The location of island-based projects is largely determined by each sectoral agency at natinal level without the involvement or consent of the people supposed to benefit from them.
2.0 Limitations of projects-focused spatial planning; problems encountered
The limitations of projects-focused spatial planning, as opposed to a problem-oriented methodology, are quite obvious. In the public consciousness, these projects tend to be ends in themselves, rather as means to solve specific local problems. Conceptualized without benefit of significant local knowledge, they tend to be impertinent to solving the community’s major problems. Worst, the people view the projects as government-owned; hence, they do not feel responsible over their care and maintenance.
2.1 There has been a general agreement on these limitations among those involved in promoting local-level planning in the region. Everyone also agrees on the common problems encountered in the conduct of any type of local-level planning:
- defective or lack of data base at local level
- lack of sustainability of the planning process;
- lack of overall policy framework or development strategy to define the direction of the local-level planning process;
- political interference;
- administrative constraints, i.e. lack of manpower to sustain the process, lack of logistics and resources to respond immediately community-articulated needs, impractical bureaucratic requirements, etc.
2.2 Renewed efforts to involve the community in development planning activities, linked closely to the natinal planning process, need to take these problems into account.
3.0 Lessons from IADP’s promotion of island-based planning
The UNDP-OPS Integrated Atoll Development Project has recognized the need to involve island communities in development planning as a vital measure towards assisting such communities achieve sustainable development. Through the years, it has conceptualized, field-tested and validated its Participatory Island Profiling and Development Planning (PIPDP) methodology in some 20 atolls and outer islands of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. The major lessons learned from the conduct of PIPDP are as follows:
-
Linking project formulation to the larger
development picture, the local development situation, generates enthusiasm in
the planning process and provides a concrete basis for negotiating on the
extent of external assistance.
With the involvement of the community right at the inception of the planning process, specifically the gathering and updating of data on the local situation, initial enthusiasm is enkindled on the part of the people. Planning becomes for them a living and dynamic activity which is, in fact, so much a part of everyday life that they themselves do without verbalizing the planner’s jargons and concepts. Knowing the community is as much a prerequisite to changing it in same way as planning to repair the maneaba or community center requires vital information on its state of physical deterioration.
The problems, as articulated by the community itself through the planning process, will in themselves serve as basis for negotiating with the people on the extent and kind of external assistance required which will make the most difference to island development.
-
A long-term plan will have to be complemented by an
action plan which the community can immediately implement to sustain the
initial enthusiasm generated by the participatory planning activity.
Sensitized on their own problems, as well as on the need for urgent collective action to solve them, the people take the initiative in plan implementation with minimal government assistance. Through this initial implementation experience, the community and the government refine methodologies for working together and jointly upgrade project management skills.
-
Organizing for implementation is a vital element of
the local plan.
Aware of the priority problems and adequately primed for action, the people can help identify the structure appropriate for implementation and coordination. Development roles of government entities and local institutions, including indigenous organizations, will have to be clarified in the light of tasks to be undertaken as reflected in the best way to get the community committed to pursue its own development goals.
-
Building national capability to implement the
participatory local-level planning process requires inter-agency collaboration.
Each agency will have to see the benefits of such collaboration in terms of the relevance and effectiveness of tits programmes to local needs, as articulated through the planning process. Government agencies and the NGOs themselves need preparation in establishing close partnership with the community.
-
The commitment of natinal policymakers and planners
is a precondition for initiating and eventually sustaining the participatory
local-level planning process.
Such commitment ensures programme and administrative support to the close community-government cooperation in development planning and implementation.
4.0
Brief description of the PIPDP process
The basic sequence of the planning process is as follows:
a) First, the island leaders and the community gather and update the critical data per sector i.e. agriculture, fisheries, health, education, etc. In addition to information on the island’s history, local government, indigenous social organization and available manpower skills and other resources.
b) The workshop participants next proceed to assess the data, identifying in the process interrelated problems which have plagued various attempts to attain local development. The result is that each participant holds in the mind the same basic picture of the island community, its development history, problems and potential. This island profile also reflects the common resolve to seek the attainment of local goals through adherence to cherished values and vision and to the commitment to improve the community’s situation largely through its own efforts.
c) With the profile as basic reference, the PIPDP process then becomes a self-propelled exercise to identify effective courses of action for the community to take in solving what it regards as priority problems. Each workshop is transformed into a live forum for the government and the community to deliberate, negotiate and to finally agree on how to go about solving each problem.
d) Then they jointly decide on allocation of resources, critical activities to be undertaken to ensure local support and the projects urgently needed to solve local problems. Thus the PIPDP workshop process subtly uses and reinforces the traditional (e.g. maneaba) consultative mechanism for developmental ends.
The outcome of these deliberations is an island development plan. Its format is contributed by government to conform with national requirements, but the content reflects close collaboration between the government and the community. In effect, the plan indicates a reversal of roles with the community defining its needs and determining courses of action and projects, and the government providing technical and commodity assistance to facilitate the local development process. In addition, local legends, songs, names of indigenous institutions and traditional leaders, all find their way into the written profiles and plans.
March 1993
Suva, Fiji