J van den Berg: Linking participatory and GIS-based land use planning methods: experiences from Burkina Faso


Published on

Session presentation by Jolanda van den Berg, Rudi Hessel, Oumar Kaboré, Arie van Kekem, Simone Verzandvoort, Jean-Marie Dipama & Binta Diallo,

Published in: Travel, Business
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

J van den Berg: Linking participatory and GIS-based land use planning methods: experiences from Burkina Faso

  1. 1. Linking participatory and GIS based land use planning methods: experiences from Burkina Faso Jolanda van den Berg, Rudi Hessel, Oumar Kaboré, Arie van Kekem, Simone Verzandvoort, Jean Marie Dipama & Binta Diallo
  2. 2. Introduction EU funded VINVAL project: Impact of changing land cover on the production and ecological functions of vegetation in inland valleys in West Africa Participatory Learning and Action: approach for joint learning and planning with communities. It entails a set of participatory tools and visual methods such as mapping, time lines, transect walks, problem trees, ranking and Venn diagrams Focus next 15 minutes: Combining PLA and GIS methods for land use planning in eastern region of Burkina Faso
  3. 3. Research area Sudanian climate zone < 100 mm rain/year Single rainy season Open savannas with forest Gourmantché, Yamaa, Mossi and Fulbe Agriculture and agro pastoralism NTFP harvesting
  4. 4. Selected inland valleys Sambouali: NTFP collection/ nature reserve Diamanga/ Tanyelle: agricultural production Bounou: abandoned agricultural lands
  5. 5. Deforestation and soil degradation Irregular and lack of rainfall Population increase (lack of arable lands) Unsustainable agricultural techniques (bush fires, cotton growing) Uncontrolled/ overexploitation of wood Uncontrolled grazing
  6. 6. Method for land use planning: three phases 1. Diagnosis: Series of two rapid participatory diagnostic appraisals Collection of relevant physical data (land use, soils, vegetation and hydrology) 2. Village participatory land use planning: Sensitization of community members Training of field staff Village workshop Feedback meeting 3. Return visit
  7. 7. Village participatory land use planning workshop General aim: To support the four research villages to enhance their discussions about alternative land use options Specific objective: To develop alternative land use options to address priority land use problems as perceived by the local people
  8. 8. Village workshop: four steps 1. Assess existing situation 2. Identify alternative land use options 3. Identify synergy/conflict between land use options 4. Map alternative land use options
  9. 9. Step 1: Assess existing situation To learn about: Priority land use problems of different community members People’s understanding of causes and effects of their land use problems Local coping strategies Tools: Pair wise ranking (focus groups) Flow diagram (focus groups) Problem analysis chart (plenary session)
  10. 10. Step 2: Identify alternative land use options Building upon joint problem analysis in step 1: Tools: Group discussion/ all workshop participants
  11. 11. Step 2: Results (1) Priority Causes Coping strategies Land use options problem Soil •Non-respect of rain •Individual ceremonies •Agricultural degradation making ceremonies for rain making intensification •Population increase •Individual training •Agricultural activities in •Lack of of fertilizers (agricultural extension the low season •Unsustainable officers) •Stone bunds agricultural techniques •Local fire brigades •Manure pits •Bush fires •Creation of livestock •Sensitisation in relation •Overexploitation of paths to suitable agricultural (grazing) lands •Discussions between techniques •Uncontrolled/ farmers and pastoralists •Increased crop rotation overexploitation of wood •Crop rotation •Agro-forestry activities, •Irregular and lack of •Tree planting such as planting fertilizer rainfall •Stone bunds species •Lack of arable lands • Ridging •Enforcement customary •Water erosion •Decrease of total area land use rules •Increase of parasite of individual fallow lands •Cultivation of smaller plant species (Striga a.o.) •Protection of certain tree fields •Uncontrolled grazing species when clearing •Increased control of •Disappearance of land transhumance by fertilizer plant species governmental authorities
  12. 12. Step 2: Results (2) Bush fires •Hunting •Local fire brigades •Awareness building in •Land clearing •Discussions between relation to bush fires •Protection of farmers and pastoralists homesteads •Production of energy sources and blacksmith’ activities Uncontrolled •Clearing trees and •Protection of fruit trees •Awareness building in / over- shrubs for agricultural •Discussions between relation to uncontrolled exploitation aims farmers and pastoralists wood exploitation of wood •Activities of pastoralists •Fire wood collection •Production of medicines Insecurity of •Conflicts between •Negotiations between •Increased acceptance of land rights farmers and pastoralists farmers and pastoralists customary land tenure •Lack of arable lands •Search for other/ new among local people •Decrease of total area of arable lands •Delimitation and fallow lands •Sedentarisation of management of grazing •Transhumance pastoralists areas •Security of land rights
  13. 13. Step 2: Results (3) Uncontrolled •Lack of grazing and •Periodically other •Search for other/new / over- arable lands locations for grazing grazing lands exploitation •Lack of fodder livestock •Awareness building of grazing •Food needs of humans •No bush fires among pastoralists lands •Search for other/new •Security of land rights grazing lands Increase of •Decreasing soil fertility •Cutting parasite plant •Increased use of parasite plant •Livestock dung species fertilizers species •Time and labour •Organic fertilizers (Striga a.o.) constraints for cutting •Intercropping with parasite plant species. groundnuts
  14. 14. Step 3: Synergy and conflict between options To learn about: Interactions between alternative land use options Tool: Synergy and conflict matrix (Focus groups: village elders, Fulbe and mixed ethnic background) Different groups might want different options / have different wishes: If such options can be combined, there is synergy If such options cannot be combined, there is potential conflict
  15. 15. Step 3: Results (Interactions between options ) Mixed ethnic group cultivation food cultivation cash collection fuel Fulbe herding livestock sacred place crops crop wood Cultivation of Collection of Sacred place No security food crop is fuel wood Risk to can only be cultivation in land More and mainly C C C damage N C preserved if food crops use right more outside area crops not for Fulbe abandoned used for food cultivated for cash crop crops No relation Sacred place Collaboratio between Risk to Risk to can only be herding n in collection fuel C damage C damage S N C preserved if livestock livestock wood and crops crops not activities herding cultivated livestock Agroforestr Agroforestry Agro Risk to use Sacred place y can be can be forestry is trees in can only be realized in agroforestry S S realized in S not C agroforestry C preserved if fields used fields used for threatened area as fuel not for cultivation by livestock wood cultivated cultivation
  16. 16. Step 4: Map alternative land use options (1) To learn about: Spatial implications of alternative land use options Tools: Focus group discussion ArcView to digitize locations of land use options Materials: Large print of topographic map Pictograms of land use options
  17. 17. Step 4: Map alternative land use options (2) Each option was assumed to take place at a certain position (a point), and in the surrounding area. The radius of a circle was used to define the extent of the surrounding area radius
  18. 18. Step 4: Results (land use options of village elders)
  19. 19. Step 4: Results (land use options of mixed group)
  20. 20. Step 4: Results (conflict/synergy map of village elders and mixed group)
  21. 21. Feedback meeting Aim: To discuss the outcomes of the village workshop with governmental officials and organizations working in the area.
  22. 22. Return visit Aim: To assess what had happened around two priority problems (soil degradation & uncontrolled grazing) since the village workshop, why and with what impact. Observations: Increased agricultural intensification (use of larger range of farm equipments & more fertilizers) Positive land use changes (increase in agro forestry, establishment of grazing zone)
  23. 23. Strengths Method is simple compared to other land use planning support tools and outcomes directly available Mapping process generates detailed information on resource use and problems and future land use aspirations for both local people, researchers and other stakeholders Maps are a powerful tool to facilitate discussions between local people and researchers, and between them and other stakeholders in the area
  24. 24. Weaknesses Time interval between diagnostic and land use planning phases too long No effort to create an enabling environment for the participatory land use planning process No effort to enhance the community’s capacity to use the maps for its own benefit
  25. 25. Future research Scaling up different participatory land use support methods: Influence on decision making Diversification: e.g. biodiversity monitoring, delivery of environmental services
  26. 26. Thank you! © Wageningen UR