7/25/2019 AMuchena

1/6

ITC Journal 1997-3/4

Planning sustainable land management: finding a balancebetween user needs and possibilities

Fredrick N M uchena1

and Julie van der B liek2

229

AB S TRACT

Land use planning aims at improved sustainable use and management ofresources. This would imply that those who use and manage theresources are the key players in the planning process. Thus planning forsustainable land management can only be relevant and successful whenall stakeholders are involvedhence the development and/or use of moreparticipatory approaches to land use planning. The cross-fertilizationbetween participatory methodologies, which have been developed rapidly

since the 1980s, and more technical natural resource surveys is startingto form a basis for participatory land use planning. Improved use andmanagement of resources implies identifying land use problems, con-flicts over use, exploitation and underutilization. Better managementthrough solving conflicts and reaching agreements between different usergroups is one possible solution to resource use problems. This paperdraws on experiences gained in Kenya in land use planning in arid andsemi-arid Lands (ASAL), where different approaches to resource useplanning are used at district level and local level. In these areas, onecrucial issue remains the balance between internal knowledge and deci-sion making and external information and motivating changes through

policies, programmes, subsidies, etc. In other words: where do top-downand bottom-up meetif they meet at all? Many recent changes inresource use in these areas are much faster than the internal system ofchange can cope with. Many external factors, such as changing landpolicies (from communal to individual ownership), in-migration frommore densely populated areas, the establishment of national parks, etc,have also contributed to these changes. Increasing population, the indi-vidualization of land and the sale of land also contribute tremendously tothe existing resource use problems. New directions for resource useneed to be developed in close consultation with resource users, but these

require external expertise at times. However, the two crucial concernsare: How can a planning process be developed in which resource usersplay a key role? and how can new strategies for sustainable resource usebe developed and promoted?

Most developing countries in sub-Saharan Africa arefaced with a dilemma of limited essential physicalresources, such as land, water, nutrients and energy, andthe lack of appropriate technologies necessary for

increasing food production. This situation is exacerbat-ed by high population growth rates, poverty and landdegradation. Agriculture is the mainstay of the economyof these countries and only sustainable agriculture islikely to provide the long-term benefits required toachieve development and poverty alleviation. Properplanning and management of the available resources isnecessary to ensure maintenance of their productionpotential, quality and diversity.

Land use planning aims at improved sustainable useand management of resources. This would imply thatthose who use and manage the resources are the keyplayers in the planning process. Thus planning for sus-tainable land management can only be relevant and suc-

cessful if all stakeholders are involvedhence the

development and/or use of more participatory approach-es to land use planning.

Sustainability of land management has to be seen inthe context of what is socially, culturally, economicallyand politically acceptable, and ecologically viable.While considering user needs for planning sustainableland management, it is important to bear in mind that

land users have varied and personal reasons for choosinga particular land use. The land management and tech-nology levels also vary widely among land users,depending on their perceptions of what is profitable andmost suitable for them.

Different planning methods for sustainable land usehave been applied, but methodologies are still in theprocess of development. This paper draws on experi-ences gained in Kenya in land use planning in the aridand semi-arid land (ASAL) areas, where differentapproaches to resource use planning are used at districtand local levels. It focuses on the need to find a balancebetween individual user needs and those of the commu-nity, taking into consideration the prevailing biophysical,

socio-economic and socio-cultural conditions of theareas concerned.

WHAT DO WE UNDERS TAND B Y S US TAINAB LE

LAND MANAGEMENT?

Smyth and Dumanski [13] defined sustainable landmanagement as follows:

Sustainable land management combines technologies,policies and activities aimed at integrating socioeconom-ic principles with environmental concerns so as to simul-taneously:- maintain or enhance production/services

- reduce the level of production risk- protect the potential of natural resources and preventdegradation of soil and water quality- be economically viable- be socially acceptable.

We would, however, like to add the following:- it may not always be possible to maintain or enhance

production; in some cases there may be a need to chooseoptions that have a lower productivity- degradation of vegetation resources and biodiversity

in flora and fauna should also be prevented.Sustainable land management, improved technologies

and improved economic performance are central toachieving the goals of sustainable agriculture. The

objective of sustainable land management is to harmo-nize the complementary goals of providing environmen-tal, economic and social opportunities for the benefit ofpresent and future generations, while maintaining and

1 ETC East Africa bv, PO Box 76378, Nairobi, Kenya

2 ETC Lanka, 129/3 Model Farm Road, Colombo 8, Sri Lanka

7/25/2019 AMuchena

2/6

enhancing the quality of the land resources [2, 13].There is need to combine gains in productivity with sta-bility over time. However, productivity and stability areoften seen as irreconcilable goals, involving a conflictbetween short- and long-term interests. Sustainableagriculture demands that consideration be given toachieving both goals simultaneously. Hence the need

for planning for sustainable land management.

DEVELOP MENT OF P LANNING AP P ROAC HES FOR

S US TAINAB LE LAND MANAG EMENT

Planning is considered as an attempt, on the basis ofavailable knowledge and insight, to lead the course ofevents in some desired direction. In this process, dataare systematically collected and analyzed, alternativeproposals for action are discussed, and those alternativesmost likely to achieve the specified objectives areworked out [12, 5, 9]. Planning is carried out at variouslevels and has both spatial and time aspects.

Over the past several decades, different approacheshave been used in an attempt to tackle the problems ofincreasing production needs, poverty and environmentaldegradation in developing countries. In the 60s, a pro-duction-centered approach was used, where advancedtechnologies were applied and farmers were used asagents of economic production. This was graduallyreplaced by the rural development strategies of the 70s,which aimed at meeting the basic needs of the rural pop-ulation. This approach, however, neglected the institu-tional dimensions for development, and there was littleor no participation by the people. This culminated inunsustainable programmes.

The failures and successes of past development pro-

grammes have shown that the participation of beneficia-ries in project design, implementation, operation, main-tenance and monitoring is essential to reach the targetgroup and respond appropriately to their needs. Thesplit between planners and users had often led totheoretical planning exercises that bore no relationshipto what was actually happening on the ground. As aresult, during the 80s people-centered approaches todevelopment were created, which called for peoples ini-tiatives and was based on the social, physical and eco-nomic resources under their control. In the 90s,approaches that create opportunities for the people todecide their own destiny and make their own choices

have been, and are still being emphasized.If we look at the planning of natural resource use inparticular, several trends can be identified. From thebeginning of this century, natural resource inventories(eg, soil surveys, forest inventories, vegetation mapping,wildlife resources, agroclimatic mapping, present landuse surveys) have provided the basic information forland use planning,. According to a review of the use ofnatural resource surveys in developing countries, theinformation gathered is often not used because:- it is not understood by non-technical staff, or even

by local technical staff who are unfamiliar with the clas-sification systems used- the information is not particularly relevant for local

decision makers [1].In the 1930s, land capability classification was intro-

duced to classify land according to the degree of its lim-itations for sustained use and the soil conservation mea-

sures necessary [11]. In the 1970s, FAO developed landevaluation as a method to evaluate land for a specificland use type (LUT) that was relevant to local conditionsin terms of the physical environment and social accept-ability [3, 4]. It is, however, important to bear in mindthat land users have varied and personal reasons forchoosing a particular land use. The land management

and technology levels also vary widely among users,depending on their perceptions of what is profitable andmost suitable for them. Physical suitability is usuallyjust one of the many aspects taken into account.Another weakness is that land evaluation considers theland as a blank drawing sheet, whereas in almost allcases there is already present land use.

Land use planning places more emphasis on theprocess than on the outcome of a blueprint plan.Methodologies of land use planning have not yet beenwell developed, despite FAOs attempt to issue guide-lines for land use planning [6, 7, 8]. It is recognizedthat land users as well as policy makers need to be suf-

ficiently motivated for change. As a result, the need fora more participatory approach to land use planning,based on the premise that the land users will be the finaldecision makers and implementers of land use changes,is now generally accepted. The cross-fertilizationbetween participatory methodologies, which have beenrapidly developed since the 1980s, and more technicalnatural resource surveys is starting to form a basis forparticipatory land use planning. However, experienceswith participatory approaches in land use planning andexamples of successful land use planning are still veryscarce.

KEY ROLE OF RESOURCE USERSImproved sustainable use and management of

resources implies that those who use and manage theresources should take part in the planning process. Thusland use planning can only be relevant and successfulwhen all crucial stakeholders are involved. Thisrequires a thorough understanding of the land/resourceusers (stakeholders) and an understanding of the deci-sion-making processes in resource use. This focus onusers implies that user needs, user priorities, their con-straints and possibilities need to be considered in plan-ning.

It is often possible to identify two distinctly different

groups of stakeholders: insiders (the resource users) andoutsiders (eg, governmental and non-governmental orga-nizations and the private sector). Resource users caninclude agriculturists, settlers, pastoralists, mixed farm-ers, pastoralists coming from elsewhere to graze theirlivestock, etc. These two groups have different roles,mandates and resources. In short, the resource users ofthe area plan for, manage and use the natural resourcesin the area. They are the main decision makers. Theoutside agencies advise, facilitate and assist the resourceusers, ideally resulting in improved use and manage-ment. It will also be their task to safeguard the needs ofthe wider community and future generations.

Communication and negotiation between inside and

outside stakeholders often takes place through represen-tatives of resource users and other stakeholders. In iden-tifying suitable discussion/negotiation partners, it will beimportant to consider the following:

Finding a balance between user needs and possibilities ITC Journal 1997-3/4

230

7/25/2019 AMuchena

3/6

- which institution is most likely to be able to repre-sent the resource users, and does this institution repre-sent all users or are certain groups excluded- what kind of forum will be most suitable for decision

making in this particular area, and what are the localdecision-making, control and management processes inrespect to natural resources

- whether the same institution will be involved inplanning, implementing and monitoring land useimprovements- what is the present situation with regard to control

over and access to the different natural resources- what are the present strengths and roles of tradition-

al institutions.In summary, suitable discussion/negotiation partners

(local institutions) should preferably have an adequatelevel of authority, and need to represent and ensure com-mitment from different groups of resource users.

C ONS IDER ING S US TAINAB ILITY: TAKING INTO

AC C OUNT FUTURE G ENERATIONS AND THE

WIDER C OMMUNITY

The generally accepted definition of sustainability wasgiven by the Bruntland Commission [15]: Sustainabledevelopment is development that meets the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of future gen-erations to meet their needs.

Sustainable agriculture is defined as the successfulmanagement of resources for agriculture to satisfychanging human needs while managing or enhancing thequality of the environment and conserving naturalresources [14].

Sustainability implies that the longer-term and wider-

reaching impact of activities is taken into account. Thussustainable land management needs to deal with this.This implies that the needs of particular users cannotalways be the sole basis for deciding on appropriatesolutions; future generations and society in general needto be considered as well.

Sustainability can be achieved through:- the collective efforts of those immediately responsi-

ble for managing resources. This requires a policy envi-ronment where local decision makers, including farmers,reap the benefits of good land use decisions but are heldresponsible for inappropriate land uses.- good land management in balance with accepted eco-

logic and economic principles which ensure that agricul-ture is part of the environmental solution.- integrating environmental and economic interests.- agricultural intensification, ie, the use of new tech-

nologies such as improved high-yielding crop varieties.- creating opportunities for off-farm income to supple-

ment cash flow on the farm and generate an investmentenvironment for improved land development.

FINDING A B ALANC E B ETWEEN INDIVIDUAL

US ER AND WIDER C OMMUNITY NEEDS AND

P OS S IBILITIES

The focus on participatory methodologies harbours

the risk that solutions to resource use problems aresought only from within, through looking at indigenousknowledge and internal management systems. This rais-es the question: Is external intervention really neces-

sary? Yes, many recent changes in resource use haveoccurred much faster than the internal system of changeand adaptation can cope with. Also the number of exter-nal influences has increased and an increasing number ofstakeholders are using particular resources (complicatingthe management of common resources).

For example, many external factors have contributed

to the changes in the ASAL areas of Kenya, eg, chang-ing land policies (from communal to individual landownership), the sale of land, increasing population (par-ticularly through in-migration from more densely popu-lated areas), the establishment of national parks, etc.

Improved use and management of resources involvesidentifying land/resource use issues; conflicts over use,exploitation and underutilization; and finding appropri-ate solutions. Possible solutions include:- better management through solving conflicts and

reaching agreement with different user groups- introducing new technologies to achieve the required

change.

Where there is a strong focus on internal knowledge,solutions to resource use problems are often determinedby what people know or have heard of. One of the tasksof external agencies is to provide new information/solu-tions and insight into the long-term consequences ofresource use changes. Resource users should also bemade aware of the consequences of the proposed solu-tions, and preferably be given a choice of options.

While planning for sustainable land management, it isimportant to find a balance between internal knowledgeand decision making and external information and moti-vating changes through policies, programmes, subsidies,etc. Where do top-down and bottom-up meetif theymeet at all? From past experiences, it is clear that new

directions for resource use need to be developed in closeconsultation with resource users, but this also requiresexternal expertise at times. The two crucial concernsthat still need to be resolved are: How can a planningprocess be developed in such a way that resource usersplay a key role? How can new strategies for sustainableresource use be developed and promoted?

EXAMP LES FROM AS AL AREAS KENYA

RES OUR C E US E AS A C ENTRAL THEME IN THE ASAL PR O-

G RAMMES

The Netherlands government has been financing sev-

eral rural development programmes in the arid and semi-arid land (ASAL) areas in Kenya. During an evaluationof these programmes in 1993, it was concluded that landuse planningor rather resource managementshouldreceive greater priority in these areas and that the pro-grammes should start actively developing methods forresource use planning. As a result, several approachesto resource use planning have been developed, with dif-ferent entry points. Resource use is considered themain source of income for the majority of the inhabi-tants in these areas, while resource degradation is con-sidered the major threat, with often irreversible conse-quences for these fragile areas.

SP ECIFIC RESOURCES AND RESOURC E USES

In the ASAL areas, the resource uses are quite differ-ent from what most planning methodologies havefocused on until now, ie, sustainable agricultural pro-

ITC Journal 1997-3/4Finding a balance between user needs and possibilities

231

7/25/2019 AMuchena

4/6

duction. In these areas, (semi-)nomadic pastoralism andwildlife conservation are the main resource uses.

In the semi-humid areas that border the actual ASALareas, mixed agriculture and livestock farming areprominent. Crop productionespecially the productionof maize, beans and more recently horticultural cropsis the major income-earner. Sedentary livestock produc-

tion is also increasing, with zero grazing becoming com-mon. Traditionally, most of these areas, being intricate-ly linked with the ASAL areas, were dry-season grazingareas for nomadic pastoralists. Population growth inthese areas is high because of in-migration from the bor-dering high potential areas. The general picture is thatthe cultivated area has expanded and the total livestockpopulation has decreased.

In the semi-arid areas, livestock enterprise develop-ment is relatively more important than in the semi-humidareas, but crop production has still increased consider-ably. Maize is the dominant crop with high crop failurerates. Although drought-escaping crops such as sorghum

and millet are more suitable for these areas, these cropsare hardly growna consequence of market forces andfood preferences.

The bulk of the area, with the lowest population den-sities, consist of the actual arid areas. Semi-nomadiclivestock keeping is the main enterprise here. Wildlifeis important in these areas, with such associated resourceuses as parks, tourism and some forms of wildlife uti-lization. The latter is a relatively new form of resourceuse and there is scope for expansion. Small-scale agri-cultural production takes place in pockets of high-poten-tial areas (eg, along rivers (irrigation) and around waterpans (bucket irrigation)). This is an important source ofincome in some areas.

MAIN RES OURC E US E ISS UES /TRENDS AND CHANG ES

In the semi-humid and semi-arid areas, shortage ofland is the major issue threatening both crop productionand livestock production. The result is a reduced culti-vation cycle and a reduction in communal grazing areas.

With the loss of pasture lands to agriculture, settle-ment and wildlife reserves, livestock production isdeclining in the arid areas. A particularly important bot-tleneck is the loss of key production areas that serve asdry-season grazing areas. As a result, pastoralists areincreasingly dependent on sources outside the livestocksector and sedentarization of pastoralists is on the

increase. Degradation of vegetation is particularly seri-ous in the dry-season grazing areas around settlementsand water points.

Nomadic pastoralismwith the characteristic mobilityfor optimal use of water and pasture resourcesis rec-ognized as an efficient use of resources in arid areas.New opportunities such as wildlife utilization andtourism are emerging but it is not yet clear if these willprovide sufficient sustainable alternatives. Game ranch-es and ostrich farms are found in some areas, andnational parks provide some income through revenuesharing and some employment.

Land degradation is serious in some areas.Degradation of vegetation can be noticed in terms of

decreased biodiversity, decreased woody biomass, loss ofuseful (grazing) species and increased presence of(unpalatable) invader species. The main reasons fordegradation are overgrazing and increased population,

leading to increased use of woody biomass for cooking,fencing, building materials, etc. Water resources are lim-ited in these areas and the needs/demands are increasing.There is a danger of overutilization and degradation ofwater resources, in particular through irrigation. Soildegradation is also a serious problem in specific areas.

P LANNING METHODOLOG IES IN DIFFERENT P ROG RAMMES

Laikipia

At the start of the district programme in Laikipia, thedistrict was zoned. Specific land use systems of the sub-divided ranches in the district were then selected forcloser scrutiny. A scenario analysis [10], with predic-tions for the future, led to strategies for these differentland use systems. In general, the programme in Laikipiahas focused on a top-down technologic analysis ofresource use problems and tries to provide technologicsolutions to these problems.

Using on-farm testing, the Applied Research Unit,together with extension staff and land users, develops

technologic innovations. Some attention is paid to localinstitutions, eg, through working with womens groups.The programme also links up with higher-level institu-tions (district and national levels) to bring to the foremajor land use issues in the district. Methodologydevelopment in land use planning, particularly at locallevel, is very limited.

Keiyo-Marakwet

In Keiyo-Marakwet, much attention has been paid tomethodology development, particularly at local level.This has now, after several years of intensive guidance,resulted in a sound methodology (the transect areaapproach), an institutional framework at local level

(transect area committees) and capacity building at thatlevel. The system at local level is operational. Theemphasis on technologic solutions, especially new exter-nal options, has been limited until now.

The transect area approach (TAA) addresses interre-lated land use issues of the highlands, the escarpmentand the valley in a physical and organizational frame-work of a transect. The planning steps are:- setting up a basic organization to identify partners- elaborating the TAA concept- selecting a transect area- training divisional staff, local leaders and committees- collecting data through participatory rural appraisals

(PRAs)- establishing the organizational framework within theTAs- planning and design (area plans);- endorsement of workplans- implementation- monitoring and evaluation.

The output of the planning process is transect areaaction plans. These are implemented through the tran-sect area committees.

Kajiado

Land use planning has been introduced at two levels,district and local, each with distinctive goals and activi-

ties:- district level planning: synthesizing information and

policies, and prioritizing areas and activities on the basisof this information.

Finding a balance between user needs and possibilities ITC Journal 1997-3/4

232

7/25/2019 AMuchena

5/6

- pilot areas (selected for local level land use plan-ning): participatory planning of land use improvementsand enhancing planning capacities of the actual landusers.

Initially, much emphasis was placed on getting theparticipatory land use planning started. Participatoryplanning processes were developed in three selected

pilot areas to achieve the following:- a better understanding of the needs of the local pop-

ulation, and the potentials and constraints of the areathey live in. This information should be fed into the dis-trict-level database and can then be extrapolated to sim-ilar areas.- the establishment of an institution (committee or

informal group) at the local level, which can respond tothe challenges of a changing resource base- the development of activities leading to improved

sustainable land use- management agreements, whenever required, between

competing resource users.

A district-level planning framework is being devel-oped by dividing the district into resource managementareas. These are relatively homogeneous areas from anatural resource management perspective, and aredescribed in terms of natural resources and their use, andconstraints, opportunities and main strategies. Thisshould provide the external planning framework, consid-ering broader and long-term issues and impacts over alarger area for the wider community.

The two levels (district and local) of planning shouldcomplement each other in analysis and action. Throughthe local-level planning process, user needs are signalledand solutions are sought at that level; an understandingof the resource management areas (district level) leads to

a broader understanding of the issues and of the impacton the wider community in the longer term. Local-levelplanning has focused much on methodology develop-ment and capacity building. New technologic optionswere supposed to be introduced, but as yet this has nothappened to any great extent. To date, local-level plan-ning has been too focused on user needs.

C ONCLUSIONS

G AP B ETWEEN METHODO LOG IES

New options for resource use are required. Not allsolutions can be found from within, and circumstances

are rapidly changing. But how will appropriate solutionsbe developed? There is still a gap betweenexternal/research-oriented methodologies and internal/-participatory planning methodologies. Researchers needto take a more user-focused analysis into account. Localadaptation of solutions will always be required, giventhat users have such varied needs and possibilities. Site-specific solutions can only be found if developmentplanners, researchers and extension workers strive tocollaborate with resource users and assist them in theirefforts to develop the most appropriate technologies andpractices for their particular conditions, rather than try-ing to implement preconceived ideas and methods thathave been successful in another context but are ill-adapt-

ed to local circumstances.Circumstances are rapidly changing. One-time solu-

tions are often not sufficient. Users need to be able tobuild up a capacity to analyze new problems and find

solutions. This is the role which participatory planningis adopting, by building capacity among users to ana-lyze, evaluate, decide and implement. However, thedanger with participatory planning, and especially withrelatively quick methodologies such as PRA, has beenthat only limited space was available for external analy-sis and new ideas.

B ALANCE B ETWEEN INDIVIDUAL US ER NEEDS AND WIDER

COMMUNITY NEED S

Experience has shown that there is a need to considerdifferent spatial and temporal dimensions, while analyz-ing resource use issues and searching for solutions.Individual user needs cannot be considered in isolation,especially in more fragile areas or with types of resourceuses that have impacts on larger areas. For example,where resource use depends on resources (livestock andwildlife) moving over larger distances, the impact willbe felt in a wider area. There will be a need for a high-er-level authority (eg, district authorities) to develop

ground rules or a framework focusing on major issuesand how these should be dealt with. Local-level experi-ences need to feed into this framework. Two aspects areimportant here:- analysis at different levels (individual user/user

group and larger area; eg, in Kajiado, group of irrigationfarmers = user group and the whole group ranch = larg-er area) and recommendations derived from this analy-sis.- decision making (who makes decisions, and what

type of forum is needed for decision making?).

EXPERIENC ES IN NON-AGRIC ULTURAL AREAS

Much methodology development for land manage-

ment/land use planning has focused on agricultural pro-duction. Less static forms of land use, eg, pastoralismand wildlife utilization, which appear to be more suit-able for fragile ecosystems such as the ASAL areas inKenya, require a somewhat different approach. Forexample, more attention needs to be paid to vegetationresources because differences occur over time-spanslonger than seasons.

REFERENCES

1 Dalal-Clayton, B and D Dent. 1993. Surveys, Plans and People: AReview of Land Resource Information and its Use in DevelopingCountries. Environmental Planning Issues 2, IIED.

2 Dumanski, J. 1997. Planning for sustainability in agricultural devel-opment projects. Agriculture and Rural Development 4, 1/1997.

3 FAO. 1972. Background document. Expert Consultation on LandEvaluation for Rural Purposes. AGL:LEHP 72/1, FAO, Rome.

4 FAO. 1976. A Framework for Land Evaluation. Soils Bull 32,FAO, Rome.

5 FAO. 1989. Community forestry, participatory assessment, monitor-ing and evaluation. Community Forestry Note 2. FAO, Rome.

6 FAO. 1993. Guidelines for Land-Use Planning. FAO DevelopmentSeries 1, FAO, Rome.

7 FAO. 1995. Planning for sustainable use of land resources. Towardsa new approach. FAO Land and Water Bulletin 2, FAO, Rome.

8 FAO. 1996. Negotiating a Sustainable Future for Land. A Structuraland Institutional Basis for Land Resources Management in the 21stCentury. FAO, Rome.

9 Fresco, L, H Huizing, H van Keulen, H Luning and R Schipper.1990. Land evaluation and farming system analysis for land useplanning. FAO Guidelines: Working Document. Rome.

10 Huber, M and C J Opondo (eds). 1995. Land Use Change Scenarios

ITC Journal 1997-3/4Finding a balance between user needs and possibilities

233

7/25/2019 AMuchena

6/6