ILUP02: Land use planning. Part 1

In its 1993 guidelines for land use planning, the FAO defined “land use planning” as “the systematic assessment of land and water potential, alternatives for land use, and economic and social conditions to select and adopt the best land-use options.” While this definition is rooted in biophysical and economic land evaluation, it is somewhat limited. In many countries, land use planning is primarily understood as “regulated spatial planning“—the process of creating plans and regulations for organizing physical space. This includes decisions on where to allow housing, allocate land for agricultural use, designate forests or nature reserves, and establish regulations governing access, use, and ownership.

Regulated spatial planning serves several key functions in the governance of natural resources:
• Developmental function: It outlines the spatial distribution of infrastructure projects, natural resource use, landscape regeneration, and public service provision.
• Regulatory function: It results in rules and regulations that determine land, fisheries, and forest use, while also protecting ownership and ensuring the sustainability of these resources.
• Coordinating function: It aligns the efforts of various actors and institutions representing the interests of people, communities, and others working toward common goals (FAO, 2020).

A major characteristic of this type of land use planning, inherited from urban planning approaches, is the strong degree of centralized decision-making. While this can ensure clarity regarding the chain of command and technical expertise, it also has significant drawbacks.

First, many instances of top-down land use planning have been ineffective due to governments and development agencies failing to consider the role and interests of local communities. National and regional planners often had priorities and perceptions of problems that differed from those of local communities. This mismatch frequently resulted in the exclusion of key issues and a lack of cooperation in plan implementation.

Second, the complexity of land use programs often required technical expertise, experience, and significant financial and material resources for design and implementation. Even when consultation with stakeholders occurred, the solutions proposed sometimes gave the impression that the government “owned” the project, which made local stakeholders feel that the responsibility for successful implementation rested with the government rather than with them.

A third challenge of top-down land use planning is the lack of a holistic, integrated approach among the sectoral institutions leading the project. In environments where funds are scarce, there is often a tendency for individual ministries to prioritize their own interests. For example, if the Ministry of Agriculture is funding a land use project, non-agricultural land use alternatives may face resistance. Similarly, if other ministries—such as those for forestry, environment, or urban planning—are involved, their priorities and problem-solving approaches may take precedence over broader land use concerns (Verheye, 2004)

The poor results of top-down land use planning in rural settings have thus prompted governments and development agencies to explore alternative approaches.