Читать книгу Planning from Below - Marta Harnecker - Страница 11

CHAPTER III. LEVELS OF PLANNING AND TYPE OF PLANS

1. TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS AND LEVELS OF PLANNING

1) TERRITORIAL DISTRIBUTION AND CORRESPONDING LEVELS OF GOVERNMENTS

153. After having studied Kerala’s experience of decentralization and Venezuela’s proposal for territorial decentralization, as well as examining other Latin American experiences with regard to the geographical distribution of their territories and their corresponding levels of governments, we have seen that experiences vary from one country to the next, and that the terminology used to denominate the different spaces and government levels varies widely, making it complicated to do any direct comparisons.

154. We can broadly distinguish the following territorial subdivisions and their respective government levels:

■ Nation national government (whether centralized or federated).

■ Regions regional governments.

■ States, counties, departments: states that are part of a federated state (Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Mexico…); counties within a central state (Ecuador, Chile…); departments that are in turn divided into counties (Bolivia). Each of these generally has a state or department government.

■ Districts or metropolitan areas. Municipalities that cover a capital city within a state or a group of urban municipalities that cover a capital city.

■ Rural and urban municipalities or cantons. Subdivisions of the previous level. In some countries they are known as communes.

■ Communes, parishes, villages or rural towns. Subdivisions of municipalities. We have chosen to use the term “territorial areas” to denominate this territorial level. But here it is necessary to clarify that our concept embraces both rural and urban areas. Each of these should have a communal governments.

■ Communities, enclosures, small neighborhoods, sectors. Subdivisions of communes. It is within these spaces that we propose to set up community councils (See Appendix V)

155. Each governmental level should come up with a Development Plan.

156. According to the experiences that we have studied, it seems that the best way to begin the process of decentralized participatory planning is to geographically subdivide the territory into spaces that are sufficiently small enough, in terms of size and number of inhabitants, to facilitate the process of popular protagonism as much as possible. Then should come, territorial units which can become self-government spaces; that is, spaces that can take on an important number of responsibilities that were previously carried out at higher levels and, at the same time, create conditions to generate sufficient revenue that can allow them to operate as autonomously as possible. Chavez’s idea of the Venezuelan commune was that it would be the first level of self-government, the level of self-government that was closest to the people.

157. This autonomy will always be relative, since it will be necessary to work with the other levels of government.

158. For the purposes of this book, we will limit our discussion to the three levels of planning that are closest to the people:

(a) Planning at the first level, the community that, in geographical and demographic terms, is a relatively small territorial space (150 to 400 families in urban areas, more than 20 families in rural areas, and fewer in more remote areas) within which everyone knows each other and it is relatively easy to bring together the majority of residents to discuss the common problems. We have provided a general definition of a community in paragraph 72.

(b) Planning at the second level, the territorial area: a geographical space involving several communities that share common problems, aspirations and economic conditions; that use the same services; whose inhabitants are willing to work together on a common project developed in a participatory manner; and, most importantly, that is in the position to be relatively self-sustainable and self-governing.

c) Planning at the third level, the municipality or canton: a geographical space involving several territorial areas in the following step of the participatory planning process.

159. Unfortunately the term municipality does not mean the same thing in every country. In some countries it is used as a synonym for commune; in others, it is used to refer solely to urban territories, as is the case in Kerala. In others, the term canton is used instead. Here we are using it to refer to both urban and rural territorial units.

160. It is possible that in small rural municipalities there will be no need for an intermediary territorial level, the territorial area, and that the municipality can be directly divided into communities. However, in large and medium-sized cities it is obvious that there will be a need to create assemblies at the levels intermediate level in order to ensure effective decentralization and participation.

161. It may be useful to consider a typology of municipalities, for example: rural, semi-urban, urban with low-density population, medium-sized urban, large cities. The forms of organization and the process of PP should be adapted to the conditions of each place.

162. From here on, we will limit ourselves to referring to what can be done, in a participatory manner, from the municipal level down through what we have called the territorial area to the community.

2. A PLAN FOR EACH LEVEL

163. The ideal situation would involve the central state deciding to decentralize an important part of the national resources designated for development, as has happened in Kerala, but there is no doubt that most countries are a long way from finding themselves in such a situation.²⁶ Nevertheless, we believe that this should not stop local authorities that want to kick-start DPP in their local area --namely municipal authorities -- from doing so by creating appropriate territorial subdivisions (territorial areas in our case).

164. This may require a process of struggle but such actions would facilitate training residents, through practical experience, to be able to become protagonists of the new society we want to build, one in which people’s participation with a protagonist role is a central feature.

a) Development Plan

165. The process of participatory planning at each level should be encapsulated in several documents: the (Multi-year) Development Plan, the Annual Investment Plan, and its corresponding Budget.

166. The Development Plan should have as its goal the full human development of residents, taking in consideration not only economic and social aspects but also spiritual. It should be a plan that dignifies those who live there and that promotes a harmonious and sustainable development.

167. This plan should be an instrument to guide for the actions that need to be undertaken in the municipality in order to achieve our desired goal, and should be revised and updated along the way. However in our model, this plan should not be drafted by municipal experts; instead it should be the result of the participation from all levels of the affected population who themselves should determine objectives, define priorities, select alternative proposals to achieve them and exercise social control over the plan’s implementation and its possible revision.

168. And as the development of a territory is a long and complex process, it usually requires a time frame that is longer than a year. In many cases, it could take longer than a term in government. It is therefore useful to think of a plan that at least coincides with the length of term of government for the mayor and councilors, even if, there may be projects that need more than one or two terms in government to be completed.

b) Annual Investment Plans

169. As it generally takes several years to implement the Development Plan, it will be necessary to work out what actions and projects are to be carried out during each year and what resources will be needed to make this happen.

170. This means it will be necessary to come up every year with an Annual Investment Plan that takes into consideration the actions to be carried during that specific year and the resources needed.

171. It is obvious that there will be projects that require more than a year to complete. These projects should be spread out across the different annual plans.

172. This will be the case, for example, for those local governments that need to replace dozens of shacks with dignified homes. This requires large sums of state funds that the state generally grants on an annual basis to build a limited number of houses. As such, supposing that the Development Plan refers to building 40 new houses, and funds are only provided for 10 houses per year, the Annual Investment Plan should set a target of 10 houses.

173. The same can occur with large projects such as the construction of an aqueduct. This goal could perhaps take more than four years to complete and would span over two periods of government, with a new section being built each year. Sometimes the first year can be taken up solely by coming up with a technical plan for the project.

174. We have to take into consideration that, once the first Annual Investment Plan has begun to be implemented, future annual plans could modify the original the Development Plan based on the evolution of the plan itself or other changes in the situation (such as a rise or fall in the financial capacity of the local government. A Development should be a flexible tool.

c) Budget

175. Each Annual Investment Plan should be accompanied by an Annual Budget that contemplates all foreseeable income and expenditure for the relevant entity at any of the three levels we have used in our analysis (municipality, territorial area or community), including those outlined in the corresponding Annual Investment Plan. This budget should include income and running costs (that correspond to maintaining services provided by the entity as well as general costs) and capital income and expenditure, which in the main part correspond to the projects in the Annual Investment Plan.

176. The complexity of a Budget will vary depending on the level of the entity. It is not the same to have to come up with a budget for a municipality, and in some cases a territorial area, that provides numerous services to a population, as it is to come up with a budget for a small community that possibly uses up all its funds financing its investment plan with small allocations made for general maintenance costs for the office space they operate out of (rent, electricity, heating) and work materials, among other.

d) Immediate Action Plan

177. Lastly, like we recommend to prioritize the projects that the community can solve with its own resources, with this type of projects a Plan of Immediate Action should be elaborated whose execution can begin as soon as possible without needing to wait for the completion of the process of coming up with the Community Development Plan. Moreover, we propose that within the Immediate Action Plan, we group together in the first phase all the simplest projects that don't require funding and that can be carried out even before the hole Immediate Action Plan is drafted and approved. Of course, the Community Assembly should first approve these projects.

3. NATIONAL PLANNING SYSTEM

178. When coming up with a Development Plan for each respective level, it is necessary to consider the development plans that higher levels have come up as well as feed off the plans of lower levels. In Venezuela’s case, the Municipal Development Plan has to take into consideration the National Plan and the State Plan, as well as the Development Plans of the communities and communes. At the same time, the Municipal Development Plan should enrich the State Development Plan and the National Development Plan.

179. If, as we propose, we take as our starting point the plans developed by organized communities that is, the lowest and most participatory levels, and follow this up with plans developed in the territories in which the municipality is or will be sub-divided into, and so on, we can establish a National Planning System that will go “from the bottom up” and “from the top down,” in a mutually complementary relationship, where the opinions of the people will have increasing weight to the extent that they are internalizing the concepts and practices of PP.

180. The idea is, therefore, that the municipal plan should be based on the territorial plans and these, in turn, should incorporate the proposals developed by the communities. The municipal plan should only add proposals that, because of their macro nature, are not included in the territorial plans.

181. Similarly, communities should plan and implement their own actions, taking as their starting point the resources they have available, both annually and for the longer term.

182. But, we reiterate, each level should not only discuss issues that correspond to it but should take into consideration the proposals made by other levels. More over, they should discuss and take a position regarding thematic priorities and large public works that the municipal council is proposing to carry out in the municipality. For example, a municipality leader might propose to build a hospital or university, or to create an overall plan for industrialization or agricultural and agro-industrial development to generate jobs and income for the population and produce as much as possible, on the basis of local capacities and potentialities. This is an example of how the municipality should propose public works that fall within its competencies, but these should be discussed and approved both at the territorial and the community level.

183. In sum, at each level, its participatory entities should work on the basis of the priorities formulated at lower levels to come up with and present projects that fall within the responsibilities of this level. These, however, should be discussed and voted on by the corresponding lower level. That is, people participate in the municipal planning process primarily via the assemblies in their respective territorial areas and communities.

184. It is important to note that throughout the first year of DPP at the municipal level, there will be elements of the municipal plan (territorial distribution, allocation of available resources, etc.) that will, by necessity, have to be worked out from above by the municipal council, even if they are later submitted to public debate. If significant opposition emerges to these proposals, the community and territorial assemblies will have to submit alternative proposals to the Municipal Planning Assembly.

26. In Venezuela, an ample legal basis for participatory planning exists in the Constitution and in a series of laws such as the Organic Law of Public and Popular Planning, the Organic Law of Popular Power, the Organic Law of the Federal Government Council and its regulation, the Organic Law of Local Public Planning Councils, the Organic Law of Communal Councils, the Organic Law of Communes, and the Organic Law of Municipal Public Power, among others. The situation is the same in Ecuador. There we have guidelines established in the Constitution, the National Plan for Good Living, the Organic Code of Territorial Zoning, Autonomies and Decentralization, the Organic Code of Planning and Public Financing and the Organic Law of Citizens’ Participation. However, this is not the situation in the majority of countries, and even in those that have advanced a lot in this regard, it is possible that the issue of decentralization and other issues have not advanced far enough. That is why in many cases it will be necessary to move in advance of existing regulations, while ensuring we are not operating illegally. Ideally the municipalities that want to implement our proposal on participatory planning should be legally exempt by the central state from any blocking legislation so they will have full freedom to experiment with this new form of building a new society with the people.