Uni-sectoral planning of peatland management/use is one of the root causes of peatland degradation and so peatlands must be planned and managed in an integrated manner. In most countries there is significant conflict between different user groups or economic sectors such as forestry, agriculture, water supply, industry and also between government, private sector and local communities over the development and management priorities and strategies for peatlands. These contrasting interests lead to conflicting decisions and ad-hoc planning. This is further complicated by the fact that large peatlands are single hydrological units that may cover up to one million ha, but which may be subdivided by different administrative boundaries and land use zones. Since each part of the peatland is interconnected, drainage or vegetation clearance on one site will have an impact on other portions of the same zone. It is therefore imperative that each hydrological unit is addressed as a single entity for the purposes of development planning and management and care should be taken that activities approved for different parts of the peatland are compatible.

Peatlands across the world are managed by a number of different people and groups, each with different aims, values and goals. It is increasingly recognised that local communities are critical stakeholders within peatland management systems. Community-based approaches can be used to raise awareness about climate change and the key role that appropriate peatland management can play in terms of carbon storage and sequestration. Local involvement can also promote sustainable management and avoid conflicts, as different stakeholders familiarize themselves with the views of others (Mathews 1994). Vitally, local participation in peatland management can also achieve social goals; contributing towards poverty alleviation, increased livelihood sustainability and social empowerment (Middendorf and Busch 1997).

Communities can be included in peatland management through use of a number of different methods and mechanisms. In helping decision-makers and researchers learn about different uses and understandings of peatland areas, methods such as transect walks with land managers, livelihood analyses and the development of participatory resource maps can be useful. Local knowledge about the peatland can be used to complement more technical scientific knowledge and together, combined knowledge can contribute to more acceptable, appropriate, and ultimately more sustainable management and policy (Berkes 1999, Kelsey 2003). Communities can also be involved in monitoring and assessment exercises. These kinds of activities can provide decision-makers with important information on the rate and nature of any changes to the peatland, assisting the development of policies for more sustainable use of the resource.

Despite benefits, participatory approaches are not without their problems. Participatory approaches have certain constraints (see Cooke and Kothari 2001, Hickey and Mohan 2004, Stringer et al. 2006). For example, by involving local communities, expectations can be raised. If these expectations are then not fulfilled, it can lead to disillusionment. Participatory approaches also acknowledge diversity and complexity, rather than helping to simplify environmental management situations. Although this is one of the main strengths of the approach, and by involving local people in the analysis and interpretation of results, errors can be avoided, taking several different diverse viewpoints in account can make the results difficult to analyse and interpret. Finally, there is a danger that participatory methods can be applied mechanically, without an appreciation of underlying principles. This can prevent the benefits of participatory approaches from being realised.

Generally, a combination of top-down and bottom-up peatland management approaches is favoured, since it is sometimes necessary to increase local awareness of changes and threats to the peatland, and build local capacity for monitoring and more sustainable management.

Effective approaches to peatland management problems can be developed in regions with shared management issues or transboundary problems related to peatland management. There is a need to develop mechanisms to harmonise or integrate approaches to the management of peatlands across regional or national boundaries or within river basins. The need for transboundary cooperation is needed where the peatland physically crosses the boundary, or where there are issues of common concern on peatland management that can be shared and discussed between neighbouring countries. Examples of this include the exchanges by the Grupo Paramos on the Andean peatlands in South America or between the countries of Southeast Asia working through the ASEAN Peatland Management Initiative (APMI). There is also a need to explore the options for the transfer of resources between different stakeholder groups that play a role in the management of peatlands. For example, upstream pastoralists or farmers could moderate peatland management practices to benefit downstream users of the water supply.