Implementing Integrated Land Use Planning: A step-by-step guide for rural areas
PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE: STEP 5
PART 7
5.2. KEY QUESTIONS
Is implementation of the proposed land use change on the biophysically suitable tracts of land likely to lead to increased economic benefits for land users?
Answering this question requires integrating the findings and recommendations from both biophysical and economic land evaluation. Principles and examples of economic land evaluation procedures are outlined in Section 5.1.3.
Is implementing the proposed land use change on the biophysically suitable tracts of land likely to have negative or positive environmental consequences?
Good practices for conducting an environmental impact assessment (EIA) are presented in Section 5.1.4, including a recommended sequence of steps and standardized terminology. It is crucial to define the spatial extent and intensity of both positive and negative environmental impacts—not only within the project area but also in surrounding regions potentially affected.
Is implementing the proposed land use change on the biophysically suitable tracts of land likely to have a negative or positive social impact on the affected community (e.g., on livelihoods or food security)?
Section 5.1.5 provides guidelines and best practices to anticipate the often underestimated and unintended social impacts of land use change. As with environmental impacts, social consequences may extend beyond the project area and must also be assessed in neighboring communities.
5.3. ACTIVITIES
Planned activities will vary depending on the objective and the level of intervention at which they are applied.
For national-level activities, including major land interventions and responses to international conventions (e.g., climate change, biodiversity, land degradation neutrality), it is critical to engage the widest possible audience. This should be done through national workshops, which serve to:
• Explain the technical methodologies applied,
• Identify relevant national institutions and organizations that can collaborate with the Technical Agency and LUP Task • Force across areas of expertise (e.g., land evaluation, economic feasibility, land degradation, EIA, social impact, legal analysis),
• Involve major stakeholders, including district or provincial agronomic extension officers, in the discussions.
An effective example of such engagement is the Participatory Expert Assessment (PEA) approach (Petri et al., 2019). PEA workshops bring together thematic experts, scientists, and land users, fostering an environment where participants can:
• Assess technical inputs,
• Express diverse viewpoints,
• Engage in deliberation and consensus-building regarding the state of land degradation and sustainable land management.
Though qualitative in nature and potentially influenced by participants’ perceptions, PEA workshops strive for consensus-based evaluations. The desired output is a shared understanding of the location and extent of land degradation, and the identification of priority areas for intervention, documented as paper or digital ‘consensus maps’.
Details on participant numbers and expertise, workshop approaches, and facilitator roles are provided in Petri et al. (2019). The optimal number of PEA workshops depends on the country’s size and the diversity of land use systems. PEA workshops have proven to be cost-effective and deliver results within a reasonable timeframe.
For local-level interventions, a comprehensive integrated local (village) assessment is required. This includes:
• Preparation and planning,
• Fieldwork and interviews with land users and households,
• Validation of findings with the local community,
• Preparation of a consolidated report.
Detailed procedures for local assessments are described in Bunning et al. (2016a; 2016b).