Nature as a guide in the search for planning contents? Which sources of knowledge do the planning contents come from? Is it only the result of a negotiation process? Is it free of conflicts and does it reflect the consensus of the participants, the "least common denominator"?

Several sources of knowledge play a role in the planning process. These are not only scientific findings and results of evaluating cause-effect relations. They also reflect the experiences of both the technicians and the local population; they also reflect the laws of nature and biological processes. The stability of an eco-systems is guaranteed by complementary interrelation among many heterogeneous factors. E.g. the tropical natural forest owes its stability to the interconnected relationship between flora and fauna.

The content of the plan is based on models: on models of the nature, on political, cultural, scientific and technical models as well as on the actual conditions themselves. The objective of land use planning is to ensure and improve the capacity of an area to function as living and production area. Consequently, we must first of all make use of the elements and mechanisms of the nature, and complement them by technical interventions. This complementation can involve considerable costs.

In the opinion of various ecologists, the vast majority of areas which are presently settled by people were in a state of climax before the settlement started. They, too, would have changed in the course of time, even without a human intervention. The state of climax was characterised by a dense vegetation, at least by forests of differing formations. The following factors stabilised the ecosystem:

• The soil was, to a large extent protected by shade;
• The soils were not entirely heated up and dried out;
• There was higher rainfall and a better distribution;
• The rainfall infiltrated more slowly into the soil;
• The soil was well structured due to good tilt, good rooting and soil fauna;
• There was a permanent supply of nutrients;
• There was a regeneration of vegetation "by itself" (climax).

The interventions by humans, especially the clearing of the vegetation, led to a severe imbalance and to the beginning of soil degradation of varying intensity. However, by adapting land use to the present conditions, the population could avoid major imbalances and the destruction, or could keep the degradation at low level.

If in tropical and sub-tropical regions, future land use planning would be based on the conformity to the laws of a natural forest, this can lead to more stable soil conditions again. By including agro-forestry components, quasi-forest conditions can be created in fields used for agriculture.

Plan contents nevertheless do not only refer to vegetation, soil coverage and the cultivation systems adequate for the location only. It also considers the social and economic requirements, expectations and interests of the affected groups of the population. In general, agricultural use is needed to survive. In land use planning it should be promoted a conciliation of interests or areas when land use is getting restricted in some areas and land use (including intensification) is getting extended in other areas. If a considerable population growth can be expected in the planning area, additional areas for agricultural use have to be identified in the plan, but not necessarily developed at this stage.

The focus of the plan considers primarily the concertation, i.e. the conciliation of interests and the sustainable settlement of conflicts. This means not only short-term solutions to conflicts, but also the institutionalisation of negotiation mechanisms, with the participation of the responsible authorities. Settling conflicts means not only dealing with the local parties, but also dealing with authorities, with laws (e.g. forestry law), with the agricultural industry and, with the market. Especially when there is a competition between the cultivation of cash crops and subsistence products, co-operative relations with the processing or exporting private sector are appropriate as a component of the plan.

Similar co-operative relations with authorities are necessary when an area is no more suitable for agricultural use. Often the concerned land users must be resettled, or they have to migrate to areas with non-agricultural use.

Land use planning always interferes in the rights of individuals, communities or the state. Especially for this reason, the following two questions will be considered:

How can the legal security for using land resources be improved? Which basic legal instruments are needed for implementing land use planning?

Historical aspects of the legal development

Formal and informal rights and legal norms which regulate the use and the property of land resources are accompanying components of the historical and socio-cultural development of social organisations, power structures and cultural fields. First, the development of the European nations and the division of the world into three power systems as well as the colonisation phase led to a situation where:

• the law was increasingly developed and applied uniformly to the entire area of the state;
• the law primarily regulated the relations between people, and to a much lesser extent those between people and the use of land resources;
• the traditional socio-cultural and socio-legal links between land users and the land resources at local level was minimised in favour of central state categories in the various special laws such as land law, irrigation law, inheritance law, hunting law, forestry law, etc.;
• along with the specialisation of legal fields went the specialisation of the administrative structure and to split up natural resources institutionally into more and more sub-systems;
• former colonies took over the legal systems of the colonial powers;
• indigenous common law can no longer make a sufficient contribution to the legal security, even where it was tolerated or accepted as legal practice; this was due to the erosion of traditional, decentralised power structures and authorities;
• for this reason, the practice in many cases differed to a large extent from the official legal status.

On the other hand, the more recent development of the system of relations between the law and the use of land and other natural resources is characterised in many developing countries by the following tendencies:

• the realisation that in the socio-cultural context common law cannot exclude modern land and water laws, depending on the situation, but rather complement (multiple tenure systems);
• the realisation that control of the laws on local use of land and water must always come from decentralised structures;
• the realisation that granting title deeds does not automatically lead to more legal security and so an improved access to resources (credit, etc.). Above all, it also requires supplementary structures such as, for example, a functioning land administration;
• the realisation that in order to implement Agenda 21 (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), the conventions (e.g. the convention on combating desertification) or the national environmental action plans, legal instruments must be harmonised and developed in the sense of supporting sustainable development.

Exemplary principles of land law

The legal, social, ecological and technical disciplines in the structure of relations of land use are fundamentally linked and complementary. In this system, legal instruments are intended to regulate between:

• land user and land user;
• land user and land resource;
• land user and institutional structure;
• institutional structure and land resource.

In this process, the legal basis for land use is derived from various sources. The main sources may be:

• constitution: definition of the term "property", social functions of land;
• implementing national agreements which have legal status: Agenda 21, Convention on Combating Desertification (CCD);
• national land law and tenure systems (Land Act, Agrarian Law, Basic Law): legal principles for implementing national soils policies, e.g. Basic Agrarian Law (Indonesia), Basic Land Law (Tanzania);
• sectoral laws: e.g. Town and Country Planning Act (Botswana),Soil Conservation Law (Rwanda);
• common law:

1. Formal regulation within the framework of the national land law such as, for example, in Indonesia: The Agrarian Law is dualistic regarding to the validity of the ADAT (common) law, existing beside the Agrarian Law.
2. Informal regulation on the basis of local socio-cultural and socio-legal traditions.

• administrative actions of the specialised administrations.

The major principles of land law for supporting land use planning can be exemplary in covering the following criteria:

• legal security: common law and modern land law have the same legal status and are treated equally by the legal system;
• flexibility: land law should form a regulatory framework and not a rigid legal system which attempts to regulate every case and all details;
• social function: all rights to land are different from general economic goods and should also consider the social functions of land;
• ecological function: Agenda 21 with global and local function;
• economic function: for example, land utilisation charge to guarantee self-supply, or land tax;
• transparency: rights to land should be transparent and public. It should make an efficient administration of the land possible;
• bottom-up control: systematic involvement of those affected by the regulatory work of land law should be a keystone of land law;
• forming a consensus and balance of interests during interventions: constitutes a prerequisite for socially tolerated implementation of a land use plan.

Land law as a tool of land politics

Ideally, land law provides legal tools for implementing socially, economically and ecologically orientated land politics within the framework of political priorities. Usually, consistent land politics can, however, not develop, because they are hampered by diverse and conflicting interests, pseudo-economic and technical constraints, contradictory laws and political fluctuations.

In some countries, aspects of land politics which are relevant to land use planning are embodied in legal regulations. Some of these aspects are mentioned below:

• safeguarding areas which are highly suitable for agricultural use (priority areas) vis-a -vis other forms of land use;
• safeguarding corridors (buffer zones) for use as and linking to pasture land;
• extra charges made to protect the soil in areas with erosion risk;
• obligations on cultivation to ensure self-supply;
• emphasising the social function of rights to land;
• fixing upper limits for land tenure by individual owners (especially in irrigation areas);
• pre-emptive rights for the state.

Implementing the Convention on Combating Desertification (CCD) and carrying out environmental action plans require an improvement in the legal basis for using land resources.

Forms of land use and land tenure

Land use planning has varying economic and social effects, depending on the forms of land tenure (legal status of a piece of land) and the present land use. Restrictions on the use of arable land possibly have different effects and consequences than on pasture land or forested areas. Also, differing effects must be expected, depending on whether the land in question is privately owned, state-owned or communal land.

It is important for those participating in the planning process to recognise these dependencies and connections, and to take into account the potential effects. Land use types such as arable land, pasture, forested areas, etc. should be put in the context of land tenure categories such as privately owned, state-owned, community-village-owned, communal land, mixed forms, etc., which may all be used both privately and rented out or used informally.

• arable land as primary land use
• leguminous trees as fodder plants along the development
• use as secondary pasture area after harvesting the main crop.

• common pastoral use of private arable land after harvesting the main crop up to new sowing period; or
• common keeping of sheeps in private small-holder rubber plantations (Sumatra).

Highly developed and flexible land use-land tenure models, i.e. combination of different land use types (arable farming, keeping livestock on pastureland, forestry, etc.) on the one hand and land tenure forms (private ownership, state or communal land, etc.) on the other hand are certainly existing at local level. Which form is taken in what case depends on the availability of water and the annual cultivation calendar. However, due to their complexity, they are often not understood by outsiders, and their potential is under-estimated.

Especially in buffer zones and dense rural areas, as well as in coastal zones, land use planning depends more and more on innovative forms of land use-land tenure models. This nevertheless requires that the participants have a basic understanding of dealing with multiple land use-land tenure potentials.

The starting point for ROPP is always a defined project. This can be a project of the development co-operation or a specific assignment (e.g. the establishment of an irrigation system) of an authority or non-governmental organisation. Planning serves to identify strategies and activities to achieve the project goal with a medium to long-term prospect. In this process, however, it is not only those activities realised by the project which are taken into account. Also, those supporting measures which are appropriate and necessary in the context are to be determined, such as family planning or the creation of non-agricultural jobs in a project which actually aims at improving the management of land resources. Thus, ROPP is an extended project planning which has a longer time horizon and offers to the project planning a framework and decision-making criteria. At the same time, ROPP can be seen as reduced regional planning. In contrast to the overall planning relevant to the area, it is restricted to those sub-areas which are relevant to the project goal. The limitation of regional LUP arises from the subject of planning, since ROPP is not tied to the subject of land use.

The field of application of ROPP is not at local, but at regional level. Planning results show guidelines for the future development of a region with respect to a certain project goal. These guidelines require further details defined by the project and operation planning with respect to its implementation. Statements presented in maps only are not sufficient. Statements on financial and time requirements indicate ranges and approximate values. ROPP is a strategic planning, not implementation oriented planning.

Those participating in ROPP should be all organisations which are relevant to the project and all those groups of the population which are affected by the actions of the project. This can be achieved by group-specific workshops - such as conducted in the project ILE Los Llanos (Argentina) - or by a mixed planning team, which includes representatives of the rural population and of institutions, as done in the project LRE Ichilo-Sara.

Some of the measures are carried out by the project itself. In this case, ROPP serves to support project planning. The remaining activities are passed on to financing and implementing agencies. In this process, ROPP documents should be composed in such a way that project proposals emerge from them easily, which than are addressed to financing organisations. The participation in the planning process of as many organisations and social groups as possible makes them more aware of the planning goals. People will more easily identify themselves with the planning results and take on assignments in the programme. This is where ROPP serves public work and helps to acquire donors.

ROPP is not a regional data base: this is where excessive expenses are often involved. The aim of ROPP is not to list figures on all possible topics of regional development, but to answer important questions:

• Which processes have led to the present situation in the region?
• What is the probability that these processes will continue in future?
• Which influences come from neighbouring regions to the region or what influences does the region have on neighbouring regions?

Information should be gathered and analysed in a participatory manner. Thus problems and needs are identified on the basis of a discussion on the historical development in the region and possible scenarios for the future. In this way, the view to cause-effect relations is not shifted by momentary needs. Above all, data and information should help to develop simple statements about cause-effect relations: "Because the land users have no security of their land tenure, they are little interested in sustainable production." Or "If the citrus cultivation will be extended, marketing problems can be expected."

What is important is that a common understanding is achieved with the participants on the basis of their experiences. A proof of the statements is not, however, necessary.

ROPP should be presented in such a way that all participants can understand and reproduce the planning statements. In this process, it is not so much the scientific penetration of the statements which is a decisive criterion but the proximity of the argument to the population's situation in life. This means, however, that the statements in the plan can be very complicated for certain situations. Problems arise when the readers, with their personal experience, cannot identify themselves in the text. This often happens due to lofty speech and the use of strongly abstractive data (average values, complex matrices). In contrast, rediscovering their own situation in life in the plan provokes positive reactions: "That's us! We experience that every day. And so that is connected to other things."

What is understood by mobile or pastoral keeping of livestock is a form of economy or a form of living as described below for mobile groups whose existence is based entirely, or at least mostly, on keeping cattle, irrespective of the degree of mobility. In this process, the terms pastoralism, nomadism and mobile livestock keeping are used synonymously. The different land use forms of mobile livestock keeping in place at present are the result of adapting over centuries to changing general conditions. These are in the process of change today, more than ever, in many arid and semi-arid regions of Africa.

Population growth and sedentarisation have led to a situation where until recently, rural regional development in arid and semi-arid regions concentrated above all on expanding and increasing arable production. This involved, above all, extending areas used for arable purposes, and developing connected, largely stationary keeping of animals, which thereby went against mobile livestock keeping. The fact that arable farming penetrates into areas of mobile livestock keeping, and given the additional changes in the socio-economic field, the result is competition for resources, right up to eviction of nomadic cattlemen. Existing tensions are increasingly being vented in bloody land use conflicts.

Keeping livestock in marginal locations which have an annually and seasonally varying biological resources requires mobility. However, as can be seen from relevant literature, traditional forms of mobile livestock keeping are being more and more reduced. This is mainly caused by:

• state sedentarisation policies;
• restrictions to the seasonal balance of fodder by competition for use and eviction from favourable locations in traditional dry and emergency pastures;
• repeal of old grazing rights due to nationalisation and re-privatisation;
• restricted mobility as a consequence of drought and security problems.

Key resources such as seasonal pasture areas in the dry season (which are often flooded lowlands in the wet season) are increasingly being used for arable purposes. The fact that arable land is penetrating into areas of mobile keeping of livestock is detrimental as a whole to the opportunities which the animals have to migrate, and thereby affects the herd management. Even the trend of restricting the timing or function of land use rights up to exclusive land law makes it difficult to integrate mobile forms of keeping of livestock in land use planning processes in arid and semi-arid areas.

Extensive pastoral land use in the form of mobile keeping of livestock is dominant in the arid and semi-arid regions of Africa. About 10 to 15 million people live and produce on about 13 million square kilometres of these regions with about 500 million head of cattle of various types. In addition to the mobility of the herd, the main characteristics of these systems consist in the fact that:

• land resources use is based on annually regenerating biomass;
• pasture lands which mostly have low production are used jointly;
• mutual access to strategic resources such as water, pastures rich in nutrients, salt licks and reserved areas is guaranteed;
• strong reciprocal relations exist between pastoral operations and households;
• there is a high degree of flexibility in management decisions.

Many national and international development organisations consider the mobile keeping of livestock to be an anachronism and therefore a symbol of backwardness. This is despite the fact that until now, no scientifically or ecologically justifiable alternative has been developed for the population living there, and migratory keeping of livestock continues to be the economic backbone in dry zones and a main source of income for the state.

Whether the mobile keeping of livestock as a form of economy and a form of living has any future depends very much on the attitude of those affected towards their own traditional strategies of survival, and on the general political conditions.

In the last few years, there has been a re-orientation process within the ecologically orientated science and in some of the development planners, a process which recognises mobile keeping of livestock as the only sustainable form of land use for the major part of these regions, and considers it to be a main long-term branch of the economy in these regions.

The present situation of land use in arid and semi-arid regions is a result of processes which were initiated in colonial times. The consequence was increasing decay of the traditional social structures and production systems, a process which was not only continued, but even intensified, by independent governments. The appearance today of degradation of vegetation and soil due to unsuitable land use forms can mostly be traced back to this process.

In many parts of arid and semi-arid zones the continuous population growth and the catastrophic consequences of various periods of drought intensified land use conflicts amongst pastoralists and between pastoralists and arable farmers. Mono-sectoral promotion can be cited as an example of a typical conflict today between arable farmers and mobile keepers of livestock, such as the increase in plant production (groundnuts, cotton, etc.). This gives rise to processes of differentiation and displacement in which the mobile keepers of livestock usually come worse off. The main reasons for marginalising pastoral groups are politically historical and ethnically cultural, and constitute the expression of a socio-economic change which has pushed these groups to the edge. This has now been described by many authors and has also been documented in UNCED Agenda 21 and in the declaration of the conference of Praia (1994) on land law and decentralisation in West African Sahel countries.

In this context it is worthwhile to mention that there are a few isolated groups of cattlemen - for example in the North West of Egypt - who have succeeded, due to an intact social system, in having their interests and needs listened to and recognised by state institutions.

Even within the sphere of mobile keeping of livestock there has been a radical change, since nowadays all groups are competing for land resources. So-called "new livestock keepers" (traders, state officials) are investing their money in cattle herds and making an appearance as users of resources in communal pasturelands. As a rule, they have no interest in determining pasture or land use rights. This creates additional conflict which, however, is seldom a burden to those who cause it, since they are influential.

In many West African countries land use conflicts are formally regulated by land law. However, this often does not correspond to reality or to customary rules of land use which include the rights of cattlemen. Following independence, land reforms were enacted which only recognised the principle of validation of arable farming. According to this process, cattlemen who do not deal with farming are excluded. Mostly, they do not have the organisational coherence and the political power to oppose such rulings.

Traditionally, the mobile keeping of livestock does not compete with arable farming, but creates competition where the environmental conditions (rainfall) no longer make any other form of cultivation possible. In the context of sensible use of land resources, arable farming and mobile livestock keeping should complement each other.

From the point of view of protection and management of land resources, mobile keeping of livestock can constitute an important element for the ecological stability of a region, as in principle it only uses what regenerates annually, depending on the rainfall.

Positive examples of mutually beneficial interaction between pastoralists and arable farmers exist above all in areas of work exchange, manure economy (by using cow manure to improve the fertility of the soil) and possibilities of exchange. Traditionally, a symbiotic relation between both groups has developed in many places, even if it is already noticeably disrupted in many regions by the failure to adapt agrarian and development policies. From the point of view of optimal land use planning, it would therefore be most welcome if the advantages of integrating the different forms of land use by political consultation and measures of rural and agricultural development were to come more to the fore.

Within traditional structures, conflicts can be settled very effectively, either directly by the affected parties themselves, or by mediation between the political leaders of both groups. Measures for settling conflicts in land use planning can be carried out only by creating awareness among the local population and by fair participation of all the groups affected. This also requires active and real participation by cattlemen who, as is well-known, are difficult to reach, due to their mobility, and to include in forming a consensus.

The repeal of clan rights and the declaration of the entire pasture land in almost all regions as open and free state-owned land has contributed considerably to the degradation of pasture lands in many arid and semi-arid regions. The same applies to the weakening over decades of the legal position of local decision-makers and authorities who have precise knowledge of mobile systems of livestock keeping. The weakening process ensued in favour of a centralised administration which partly pursued its own interests (e.g. arable farming and agro-industrial irrigation economy) and has distanced itself greatly from the local problems. By an orientation towards short-term economic interests, this led to carefree use of land resources, right up to the point of its destruction in form of desertification.

Within the context of these guidelines, particular importance is given to encouraging local and regional institutions to settle existing land use conflicts in which both the mobile cattlemen, farmers and other groups are represented.

What is important for a successful implementation of adapted land use systems focused on pastoral livestock keeping is the extent to which the local or affected groups can or wish to actively participate in implementing the land use programmes. The success depends just as much on the flexibility of the bureaucracy and the will of the state to enforce the rights of the pastoral groups.

As has been shown in many examples given in these guidelines, land use planning has been until now restricted more or less to village boundaries only. The participation of all user groups in areas used for pastoral farming does, however, require greater reference in terms of the area. Here, the purely territorial approach must be supplemented by an approach which considers the social groups and the safeguarding of their rights to use the key resources. In this context, the uppermost goal must remain the flexibility of a land use system. No rigid regulations can be introduced; rather, the point is to strengthen decision-making autonomy at the various levels. What is required is not rigid land use plan, but an understanding of present land use aspects by the participating groups. The various and different claims must be negotiated on the basis of accepted principles and regulations. Land use regulation or planning must allow the necessary local flexibility, depending on rainfall and the stage of vegetation.

The pre-condition for each package of measures is the participation by mobile groups of cattlemen in rural development process. First of all, the question must be examined of where, in the view of the mobile groups of cattlemen, the bottlenecks and alternatives lie for their pasture/land use systems. Also, the possibilities and necessities of intensified integration of livestock keeping and arable farming must be examined, especially with reference to the ecological, ethnic and socio-political conditions. Furthermore, the pastoralists must be advised on their land use rights and their organisational involvement in land use planning.

To summarise the evaluation of the land use problems in a rough outline in the context of mobile livestock keeping in arid and semi-arid regions of Africa, the following aspects should be emphasised: The mobile keeping of livestock will continue to be the best-suited form of land use in arid and semi-arid regions of Africa. Nevertheless, given the existing population pressure and the increase in cattle herds, there will be additional shortages of land resources, leading to processes of eviction. In addition, the consideration of pastoral groups and their rights will initially tend rather to aggravate the existing land use conflict.

In order to achieve long-term improvements, mobile keeping of livestock must be recognised as an adequate and adapted land use system. The cattlemen must be actively involved in the approaches and the concepts of land use planning. Only in this way the needs and the ecological advantages of mobile livestock keeping can be taken into account in a sustainable way. Carrying out such measures requires the pastoralists to be sensitised and given suitable advice as to their land use rights. However, this approach is only promising if it is understood as a participatory process and implemented as such.

Problems do exist where responsibility for using land resources has not been clarified. Present use of resources is not known, nor are traditional rights recorded. The point here is not to save tradition for nostalgic reasons. It is rather the case in many regions of Africa - due to the lack of alternatives to economic development - that one simply cannot afford to disregard the economic and ecological potential of the mobile keeping of livestock.

Phase 1: Compiling land units

A well-proven method of recording the natural potential of the planning area is to work out land units, i.e. areas with homogeneous potentials in a map. Initially, this means to roughly divide the planning area into areas with:

• similar topographical features: e.g. plain, hilly, mountainous;
• similar edaphic features: e.g. sandy soils, organic soils, cohesive soils (loam/clay), rocky, stony or mixed soils;
• similar vegetation cover: e.g. denuded, open bush, degraded forest, primary forest.

Examples of identified land units are:

• plain arable land on sandy loam soils and peripheral tree vegetation;
• open, almost level flat areas of sand and shingle with sparse grass-shrub vegetation:
• wet valley terrain on predominantly organic soils and a low grass-shrub vegetation;
• slopes covered by degraded forest on stony-clay soils;
• river meadows on partly sandy, partly organic soils with medium-dense tree stand;
• dense secondary forest on loamy soils on slightly hilly terrain;
• open, level grassland on sandy soils with single high trees;
• dense primary forest on humus-loamy soils of low depth on almost level lowlands.

In general , it is not difficult to record and name (using local terms!) the local land units in discussions with the village population. The result will be documented in a descriptive table which contains the main details of the potential in the unit.

Often, there follows an extended discussion on the options for using each land unit. This discussion is the key to sensitising the land users, the technicians and advisors concerning an improved use of the local land resources to be planned at a later stage. The initial step is of general nature and does not yet refer to individual plots or operations. It allows the land users to talk about the landscape damage, and gives them the chance to think about possible causes. Landscape damage and instances of misuse are now also added to the table mentioned above. The use of aerial photographs and of terrain walks is extremely helpful and establishes a discussion on a consolidated and verifiable basis.

During this verification process, it is useful to locate the mentioned landscape damages on the map "landscapes" and thereby to compile a proper "damage map". This map will be useful for later discussions about measures to be carried out.

A few examples of the contents of such a map are mentioned below:

• severe surface erosion
• sealing of surface soil
• landslides, escarpments
• zones of severely degraded vegetation
• siltation
• salinisation
• formation of ravines (gullies, erosion ditches)
• zones with high water erosion

Immediately afterwards, a discussion must be held on the potential land use options for the land units considering also the landscape damage. In this process, it will often be necessary to subdivide the land units into sub-units for which the potential land use and certain restrictions or amendments will be laid down. The results of this discussion will be depicted in a separate map agreed with all planning partners and signed by them. This map is an expression of the "optimal" land use planned in future for the individual land units. It constitutes an initial, but provisional agreement towards future land use.

In further discussions on the land units, this map should be refined with the help of a map depicting the "present land use" according to the existing land use types (e.g. rainfed agriculture, irrigated agriculture, market gardening, plantations, pasture land, forest, orchards, uncultivated land, water bodies, residential areas, etc.). In general, the information given by the land users based on transect walks and aerial photographs is sufficient. The map "present land use" will also be supplemented by a table describing the following criteria:

• statement on landforms
• cultivated crops or type of trees
• production/yield per hectare
• significance of subsistence
• marketed crops
• major problems
• the extent to which demand is covered by the production
• crop rotation or mixed crops
• significance for local income

What is important is that this map should cover the whole area and not just individual parts within the boundaries. An indication of the land use type (using a legend of the map) for all units of the planning area must be given.

This phase is concluded by initiating a meeting with the participating population. The aim is to solve the local problems identified in the preceding steps:

• social and economic problems;
• land use potential;
• problems with present land use, i.e. the production in situ.

The problems discussed should be looked at not only from a current viewpoint, but also the conditions in the past (time horizon of 20 to 40 years previous) and the future development should also be covered.

On the basis of the maps "land units" and "present land use", the land use potential, restrictions or extensions of land use are discussed and provisionally agreed on. When at a later stage a discussion starts on measures to change the present land use, than the individual people are addressed at the level of their unit of land use, which is the plot of land.

The results of this discussion are documented (table, map etc.), agreed with all participants and signed. The documentation does not necessarily reflect the optimal land use, given the natural potential, but it does constitute the socially acceptable and sustainable version. It is the binding plan with the implementation of measures allocated to it. Wherever possible, it is also drawn up by the local administration as a document, registered and thereby rendered officially.

The entire documentation of the phase "collection and analysis of data and information" goes into a general report called "Diagnosis Village X". This report serves as retrospective verification at village level, but also as presentation of the work at administration and decision-maker levels. It would be desirable to have the presentation given by a representative of the beneficiary group. These presentations serve not only to give general information to the participating committees, but are also intended as an invitation to make critical comments, etc. In this way, a continuos and contradiction-free work in the subsequent stage of the implementation is supported. The formal starting point for this is the commonly agreed diagnosis report.

The following overview is intended to give an opportunity, in the sense of a checklist, to examine which general conditions exist in the project which are significant for LUP. It is neither complete nor generally applicable, but can hopefully provide the initiative to identify important connections in the context of a project.

Merit of Protection

The suitability of areas for a certain land use is determined by physical factors such as climate, soil, water level, topography, flora and fauna and their mutual reciprocal relationships. Areas with a particularly need for protection are those with an unstable ecosystem, e.g. forests on steep slopes. A special merit of protection can also arise from a particular rarity and diversity of plant communities.

Development Process

The present situation concerning land resources in a specific location is always a momentum within a development process in which natural processes (e.g. the vegetation adapting to climatic changes) overlap with the small and large-scale as well as short and long-term effects of past and present human interventions. It is not only the recent clearing of forests, over-use, etc. at the location which influence the natural potential there. Also, interventions which go back decades or even centuries or which are located far away (e.g. at the headwaters of a river) can have a major effect on the development of the natural resources.

Motivation

The more degraded the natural resources in an area (Sahel), the greater the motivation may be to participate in land use planning and implement appropriate measures. On the other hand, very degraded natural resources in connection with extreme poverty can also lead to total despondency and a passive behaviour. In general, possibilities for actions are very restricted in areas which are extremely degraded, and low income limits the use of labour and capital to rehabilitate such areas.

Influential Economic Factors

All decisions on land use which aims at economic objectives are orientated towards the development on local, regional, national and international markets, e.g. by the prices for agricultural products or for tools and the availability of other resources, in order to consider changes in land use. Decisions depend also on the existing economic order, e.g. to granting or withdrawing subsidies, the direction of exports, restrictions to imports, or on consequences of total barriers to the outside world. Further important factors are the access to the market, transport costs and expectations of future economic developments. Decisions are also determined by typical patterns in the behaviour of the population regarding the motivation to change, trust in the economic stability, consumer habits, etc. New forms of land use are only realised and disseminated if they offer prospects for success according to economic criteria.

Under pressure of high foreign debts, many developing countries are obliged to obtain foreign currency by exporting products. Frequently, the intention is to achieve this by extending the areas of agricultural use. Without the relevant knowledge and mechanisms of regulation, this quickly leads to the degradation of natural resources, because arable farming is practised on land which is not suitable for this purpose. Similar effects can be provoked by other economic and social causes, for example by expanding markets for certain agricultural products or state subsidy programmes.

In many countries, the forest is even today considered to be a "green hell" and an obstacle to progress. The potential of the soils to yield is thus often overestimated. The economic opportunities which are offered by sustainable use of tropical and sub-tropical natural forests are, however, often not known and therefore not taken into account. Unemployment and under-employment, together with a simultaneous lack of good arable areas, lead to an increasing pressure on the remaining forested areas and conservation areas.

The economic potential of small-farmer producers is usually low due to their high production costs and poor access to markets. The situation is aggravated by high prices of the inputs on the one hand and low market prices for agricultural products on the other ("price gap"), by limited perceptiveness of the local markets, a lack of price information and transparency of the markets, and by the monopoly of middlemen and transport companies. The LUP approach must take account of this situation. It is difficult for the poor rural population to direct their attention to questions of suitability of land use and the long-term sustainability of their forms of cultivation when their daily fight to survive takes up all their time and energy. Land use planning should therefore also include solutions to short-term economic problems of small farmers.

The smallholder farming population mostly does not have an opportunity to improve their weak investment capacity. They have no savings, and the existing offers of credit are neither suitable for their needs nor accessible to them. Under these circumstances there is, justifiably, very little willingness to discuss changes in land use within the framework of land use planning, in order to achieve sustainable forms of land use. Smallholder farmers cannot take even limited risks with respect to the outcome of the next harvest.

The great economic attraction of cities leads to a situation where the rural regions are becoming drained in favour of the development of urban centres. Especially the economically active age groups and people with a higher level of education as well as the courage to invest and to change are leaving the rural areas. Left behind are the children and the old people, who are not in a position to introduce the necessary innovations.

The use of areas aimed at superior overall interests of society, such as setting up national parks, are determined by political objectives.

Influential Political Factors

These depend on the political system, the existing balance of power, the capacity of certain groups to represent their interests and the status of public discussions on topics such as environmental protection or minority rights.

In authoritarian states, restrictions to the freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, to accessibility to maps and data material, and the activities of non-state organisations hamper the implementation of land use plans.

In difficult security situations, LUP is impeded or rendered quite impossible by restrictions to the freedom of movement, unwillingness of the population to enter into a dialogue, the necessity to integrate enemy parties into the planning process and possible dangers for employees.

Influential Legal Factors

If there is an overlap of different legal systems, e.g. traditional law and modern codified law, and if there is a juxtaposition of different forms of production, such as keeping livestock and arable farming, than there will be a potential conflict concerning the decisions on land use in the area. As a result, it becomes more difficult in LUP to reach agreements which are recognised equally by all participants.

An uncertainty about the use of law, such as missing title deeds, leads to unsustainable forms of land use which are promising a profit in the short term and do not require investments which will only be profitable in the long term. Similar tendencies can be observed when land is not a public asset controlled by the community, such as in some former socialist states or former military dictatorships in Latin America (e.g. Paraguay). Land use planning alone cannot lift these restrictions and change to a responsible use of natural resources.

Knowledge of land law and land order are of major significance when they affect decisions by people and groups in land use planning. In addition, it is essential when the discussion starts on which mechanisms of regulation should be created for the decision-making process.

Balance of Power

In countries with a polarised distribution of land tenure, rules and laws designed to protect the natural resources are often ignored due to the political power situation, in order to prevent an overdue reform of the land ownership. Instead of a land reform, the colonisation on protected areas or forested areas actually not suitable for agriculture is permitted or propagated. This is intended to create an outlet for releasing the social pressure exerted by landless people and to avoid revolutionary political changes.

The distribution of land tenure has a major influence on the creation of interest groups in land use planning. When the distribution of land tenure is extremely inequitable, LUP on a consensus basis can be hampered or even made impossible. Special efforts are required in order to create the willingness of large landowners to participate as equal partners in decision-making processes on future land use.

Influential Organisational Factors

Organisations dealing with issues of agriculture, forestry and environment which typically take on assignments in land use planning are often not sufficiently equipped in terms of personnel and materials. Funds are allocated at irregular intervals, and often salaries are not paid for months. The consequences are a low efficiency, corruption and taking on additional activities. There is a danger in development co-operation that demands will be made of these organisations which go far beyond their capacity. The implementation of LUP leads to additional tasks for the co-operating authorities for which they are usually not prepared. In this case, the available capacity is not sufficient for these additional tasks.

Given the financial bottlenecks, expectations in the organisations are high regarding the equipment. A typical example is the equipment of a project with a geographical information system (GIS), of which often miracles are expected. Such procurements are often out of proportion to the actual requirements. They lead to a situation where necessary improvements in other fields, such as labour organisation and further education of employees, are neglected.

In many cases, the understanding of land use planning by the employees of these organisations differ from the approach represented by the project. Consequently, there are also different opinions on the objectives and working steps, and a lack of willingness to co-operate in LUP. This activity does correspond to the conception of technicians, and they fear having to change the scope of their technical training or of their previous work.

Many organisations are set up to push the interests of certain groups. This is often contradicting to the substance and objectives of LUP. The sustainability of the promotion is endangered by frequent changes in personnel caused by a shift in the political balance of power. It is difficult to train LUP specialists who can carry out this assignment in the longer term without external support.

There is a danger that the hierarchical structures within the state authorities will paralyse the initiative and sense of responsibility of the technical staff responsible for LUP. They wait for instructions from above. In addition, the staff members avoid taking on any responsibility due to the fear of being made liable for mistakes, and thereby losing the job or any chances of promotion. In general, they do not make their own decisions.

Many sectoral organisations, regional and local authorities and NGOs often compete for responsibilities and work in the same area in an uncoordinated manner. This results in an inefficient overlapping of the activities, confusion in the population and unnecessary expenses. The reasons for this situation are a lack of regulations on implementation in existing laws, political interests or a lack of suitable committees and forms of mutual planning.

Previous or simultaneous activities of different organisations in similar assignments affect the implementation of LUP. If promises have been made but not kept in earlier programmes or projects, the confidence of the population will be low in new projects. Work by other organisations in the same area but with a different approach confuses the population and has a negative effect on their participation and performance. This is especially the case when subsidies are provided.

Under these circumstances it is often difficult to find suitable partners with whom to carry out land use planning. Attempts to build up a new organisational structure often lead to parallel structures and the sustainability cannot be ensured.

In general, it is an advantage for the implementation of LUP when indigenous and non-governmental organisations exist. They can take on the function of multiplicators, or can offer supplementary services. They are, however, not in a position to guarantee the binding character of LUP decisions. The co-operation with the responsible authorities is necessary to provide the legal guarantee for agreements on land use.

Influential Socio-cultural Factors

The evaluation of different forms of land use is very much determined by traditions and values. It is very difficult to change these cultural values by LUP, even if this appears to make perfect sense as far as the sustainability of the land use is concerned. Thus, it is still a major status symbol to own heavy livestock. Conflicts can arise when different groups of the population with differing traditions meet. An example of this can be given in the form of claims to land use by settlers in "holy places "of the resident population. Migrating people and settlers bring to their new settlement areas different values which no longer correspond to the local ecological requirements.

The attitude of different groups of the population to authorities and to the national and regional elite have a profound effect on their acceptance of state LUP agencies. This can range from acceptance of the authorities to a general mistrust.

The social organisation of the participating groups is of major significance for the participation in LUP and for negotiating on and implementation of LUP measures. Are there a tradition of community work, functioning interest groups and intact supra-regional relations, or do individualistic social structures rule? The latter is often the case in new settlement areas or in regions which have a high seasonal migration rate.

In general, the support by the state, the church or representatives of the local elite as an expression of paternalistic relations influence the willingness of small-farming land users to get active.

In many societies, there are traditional mechanisms and authorities for settling questions on land use. These structures have been undermined by social change or have been lost altogether. By focussing on revitalising or the further development of such mechanisms - even if only fragments remain -there is a considerable potential for LUP. Cause-effect relationships are often understood by the local population in a different way from the project staff. This explains why long-term orientated planning can often not be arranged so easily. The reasons must be found out and analysed why the perceptions are so different .

Women, children and older people have a special interest and motivation in LUP. This is caused by their role in the family or gender and age-specific division of labour. Their legal and social position is often special, as it is expressed in differing rights of access to land. Thus, in West Africa, women and young unmarried men are often get fields allocated where they are allowed to cultivate to earn their own income. At the same time, however, they have an obligation also to do some work in the fields belonging to the head of the family. This should be taken into account in LUP. It is not enough to deal with the interests of the head of the family; but his wives or sons may have different interests, e.g. with respect to the cultivation of subsistence or cash crops. Often, the local population does not have the time required in LUP for continuous negotiation processes and implementing measures. The differing seasonal workloads, the distribution of tasks according to gender and the fact that farmers often can and wish to attend meetings only on Sundays play a major role.

The specific ways in which the institutional forms of participation function are considered in the following catalogue of key questions:

1. Who are the initiators of the process, who established the group, the organisation? Is there an "ranking" from the groups in question?
2. What is the purpose of the institution and what are its assignments, responsibilities and powers? What is the legal status of their decisions? What is the degree of continuity and how binding are its decisions?
3. What role is played in the participation process by female facilitators, mediators, female moderators, animators both men and women?
4. How is technical planning competence in the process in LUP? How is the necessary level of information on contexts specific to the locality and viewpoints of problems guaranteed?
5. How are the stakeholders who are involved in land use problems in the planning area represented, directly or indirectly?
6. How can people become a member of a group or organisation? Is the process open to all social groups and figures or does it purposefully concentrate on certain stakeholders? To what extent are groups with a socially weak position taken into account? How is the participation by these groups assured in the longer term?
7. Can the process be democratically controlled, e.g. vis-a -vis the influence of strong external interests or the development of self-interests? If there is a lack of controlling mechanisms, how can at least a partial conciliation of interests still be achieved amongst the participants?
8. How intensive are the communication and co-ordination amongst the participants and how are these structures maintained? How is this achieved in the case of participation by migrating livestock keepers?
9. Which conflict solving mechanisms (arbitration, moderation) are provided ? How are situations in which a consensus can not be reached dealt with? How do agreements become a binding character and how is this controlled?
10. Which opportunities are existing in the process of empowering the participants? To what extent are joint learning effects and changes in behaviour encouraged by an increase of the local competence for planning and action? What chances do the participants, especially the direct land users have to influence the steps of the participation process or to plan the tools and methods used?
11. Are there specific incentive mechanisms in connection with the participation processes, are there measures aimed at building up trust, compensation, etc.?
12. What is the cost-benefit-ratio? Each procurement, the establishment and development of an institution, an operation or an organisation mean investments.
13. What are the relations to the state administration? To what extent does the process lead to co-ordination or integration of sectoral agencies? Is the process already part of the existing planning and administration structures, or is it suited to be integrated at a later date? Are there activities oriented towards the formation of "parallel administration structures"?

The land use options listed below have different requirements on land and therefore restrictions concerning their suitability for an implementation In order to better allocate land use options, each individual land unit must be evaluated in terms of its land characteristics and it must be brought into context with the most important socio-economic and technical criteria.

The next paragraphs are intended to give an overview on land use options in form of a rough sequence, followed by a detailed evaluation.

The land use options "built-up areas" (settlements, industrial facilities, roads) and the options "conservation areas" and "buffer zones" will not be the subject of further consideration at this point. They are determined externally or are orientated towards biodiversity criteria, which usually are applied independently of land use requirements.

1. Natural Forest

3 Intensive Forest

This procedure leads to land use options according to their economic profitability, and is certainly a useful scheme in areas of high pressure on land resources. Of course, the sequence presented here can vary from location to location, e.g. an intensive pasture can, in individual cases, be placed higher than rainfed agriculture in terms of economic factors. Furthermore, additional land use options can be added and others neglected. If there are land reserves which should not or cannot be developed directly, an option should be implemented or maintained which is ecologically stable (e.g. natural forest). This might also be possible in a location for potential irrigated agriculture.

A land use option can always be implemented in place of an option placed lower in the scheme without having a destabilising effect. This is, however, (almost) never possible when an alternative option is going to be considered which is placed higher, at least not without considerable technical and financial inputs.

Obviously, the various mixed forms of cultivation and land use (e.g. forest pasture, shifting cultivation with long fallow rotation, plantations in partly very intensive cultivations, special cultures) are placed somewhere "between" the land use options described. Some do, however, require special local and socio-economic conditions.

Repeatedly, demands have been made for mapping and planning the covered the area belonging to the village. It will happen that, after covering the village areas, some additional areas will be "left over", which are located far from the village. Most of them have hardly been used labour-intensively, e.g. these are eroded bushlands or hilly landscapes, often destroyed by fire. In the understanding of the village inhabitants, these areas are of " little use". Often this is state or communal land, or private land which has been left open.

Also this land must be considered if not only the immediate demands will be focused on but also an ecological impact is expected. It is obvious, that in the course of time, this land has developed to its present, degraded appearance from an originally intact state (natural forest). This has happened due to unsustainable land use in the long term. The reason for this may lie in the fact that title deeds or land use rights either were not given to the individual farmers, or there was enough land available to clear and cultivate plots elsewhere. Thus in the past, the degraded land fulfilled an economic function. It is therefore an obligation to stabilise these areas to such an extent that a further degradation is not possible. Generally, it is sufficient for this purpose to reforest these areas using simple means (e.g. direct forest seeding). The results must then be protected from grazing animals.

Akademie für Raumforschung und Raumplanung 1995.

Accompanying Documents of Drawing up Plans

Aerial Photographs of Collection and Analysis of Data and Information

Analysis and Consequences of Controlling the Implementation of the Plan by Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

Arrange Details Locally of Drawing up Plans

Balance of Power of Appendix 6: Examples of Linkages between Land Use Planning and General Conditions

Budget Planning (of Evaluation and Actualisation of Plans - Chapter 3, of Personnel Requirements and Financial Needs for Land Use Planning - Chapter 6)

Collection of Additional Data and Information of Controlling the Implementation of the Plan by Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

Community Level of Controlling the Implementation of the Plan by Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

Concerted Action of Implementation Strategies

Conflicts (p. 96) of Understanding Co-operation

Conscious Restriction of Controlling the Implementation of the Plan by Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

Consequences of Possibilities of Dealing with the General Conditions

Conviction and Voluntary Action of Implementation Strategies

Creative Use of Methods of Collection and Analysis of Data and Information

Crisis Management of From the Land Use Plan to its Implementation

Decentralised Implementation of Implementation Strategies

Deficiencies of State Agencies of Capacity Building for Land Use Planning

Delegation of Stakehoders in the Land Use Planning Process and their Interests

Demand for High Quality of Personnel Requirements and Financial Needs for Land Use Planning

Determining the Planning Area According to the Situation of Planning Area

Development Process of Appendix 6: Examples of Linkages between Land Use Planning and General Conditions

Direct Implementation of Implementation Strategies

District Level of Controlling the Implementation of the Plan by Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

Division into Land Unit of Collection and Analysis of Data and Information

Documentation Centre of Land Use Planning it the Project Planning and Conception Process

Drawing up and Negotiating Plans of Land Use Planning at Different Planning Levels and the Vertical and Horizontal Linkages

Example (multiple land tenure models) of Appendix 2: Legal Aspects in Land Use Planning

Exclusion of Stakehoders in the Land Use Planning Process and their Interests

Flexibility and Creativity of From the Land Use Plan to its Implementation

Geographical Information Systems (GIS) of Collection and Analysis of Data and Information

Identifying Agro-ecological Zones (AEZ) of Collection and Analysis of Data and Information

Implementation Management of Implementation Strategies

In the Technical Co-operation of Limits in Practising Land Use Planning

Indirect Implementation of Implementation Strategies

Influential Economic Factors of Appendix 6: Examples of Linkages between Land Use Planning and General Conditions

Influential  Legal Factors of Appendix 6: Examples of Linkages between Land Use Planning and General Conditions

Influential  Organisational Factors of Appendix 6: Examples of Linkages between Land Use Planning and General Conditions

Informal Mechanisms of Regulation of Possibilities of Dealing with the General Conditions

Informal Source of Information of Possibilities of Dealing with the General Conditions

Internal Village Organisation of Stakehoders in the Land Use Planning Process and their Interests

Key Questions of Gender Approach in Land Use Planning

Know-how of the Participants Involved in the Implementation of Implementation Strategies

Lack of Clear Structures of Capacity Building for Land Use Planning

Land Law of Collection and Analysis of Data and Information

Lead Agency of Organising and Financing the Implementation of the Plan

Leaving Room for Adjustment of Land Use Planning it the Project Planning and Conception Process

Linkages of Capacity Building for Land Use Planning

Local Controlling Mechanisms of Implementation Strategies

M&E of Land Use Planning and Other Project Activities

Medium-term of Planning as an Iterative Process

Merit of Protection of Appendix 6: Examples of Linkages between Land Use Planning and General Conditions

Minimum Legal Framework of Implementation Strategies

Mixing Measures of Implementation Strategies

Motivation of Appendix 6: Examples of Linkages between Land Use Planning and General Conditions

National Specialists of Personnel Requirements and Financial Needs for Land Use Planning

Non-identification of Stakeholders of Stakehoders in the Land Use Planning Process and their Interests

On-farm Trials and Demonstrations of Land Use Planning and Other Project Activities

Open Dispute/Discussions of Stakehoders in the Land Use Planning Process and their Interests

'Overused' Areas of Drawing up Plans

Partial Implementation Plans of From the Land Use Plan to its Implementation

Participatory Implementation of Implementation Strategies

Pilot Villages of Planning Area

Preparation and Analysis of Collection and Analysis of Data and Information

Preparation for the Implementation of From the Land Use Plan to its Implementation

Project Phases of Land Use Planning it the Project Planning and Conception Process

Project Level of Controlling the Implementation of the Plan by Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)

ROPP ( of Collection and Analysis of Data and Information - chapter 3, of Land Use Planning and Other Project Activities - chapter 6)

Sectoral Implementation of Implementation Strategies

Selecting the Pilot Villages of Planning Area

Short-term Specialists of Personnel Requirements and Financial Needs for Land Use Planning

Sources of Financing of Organising and Financing the Implementation of the Plan

Technical Equipment Instruments and Planning Aids of Collection and Analysis of Data and Information

Topographical Sets of Maps of Collection and Analysis of Data and Information

Training of Land Use Planning and Other Project Activities

Understanding Co-operation of Understanding Co-operation

Use of Existing Organisations of Organising and Financing the Implementation of the Plan