Land Evaluation at Fao

8/16/2019 Land Evaluation at Fao

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/land-evaluation-at-fao 1/16

An overview of land evaluation and land use planning at FAO H. GeorgeLand and Plant Nutrition Management Service, AGLL, FAO

Abstract

This paper presents an overvie o! land evaluation and land use planning approaches used "#FAO, and the contri"uting role pla#ed "# spatial in!ormation s#stems. The rationale and

principles o! land evaluation and land$use planning as ell as %e# steps in the FAOapproaches are outlined. Plans !or enhancing the current land$evaluation !rame or% and&ore'isting land$use planning approaches that ould allo "etter incorporation o! a ider rangeo! goods and services in selecting land$use options are outlined.

Introduction

Land evaluation is !ormall# de!ined as (the assessment o! land per!ormance hen used !or aspeci!ied purpose, involving the e'ecution and interpretation o! surve#s and studies o! land!orms, soils, vegetation, climate and other aspects o! land in order to identi!# and ma%e acomparison o! promising %inds o! land use in terms applica"le to the o")ectives o! theevaluation( *FAO, + - /.

0onceptuall#, land evaluation re1uires matching o! the ecological and management

1 i ! l %i d ! l d i h l d 1 li i+

hil %i l l i

+



1 i t ! l t %i d ! l d ith l d 1 liti hil t t %i l l i



de!ined at this stage ?. The outcome o! these consultations determines the scope and intensit#o! surve#s that ma# later "e re1uired in order to !ill data gaps.

Step 2: etermination o! the re"uirements o! relevant land-use options

Land$use options and their corresponding re1uirements ma# "e descri"ed ith var#ing levelso! detail. 7n reconnaissance studies, the descriptions correspond to ma)or divisions o! ruralland use, e.g. rain$!ed or irrigated agriculture, grassland or !orestr#. Ho ever, !or detailedstudies, more in!ormation on the management conditions is re1uired since, in practice, thesestrongl# in!luence the attaina"le levels o! production. 7n these studies, a land use option isdescri"ed using the !ollo ing set o! management$related *or 2input2/ attri"utes *re!lectingsocio$economic setting/ that together de!ine a 2land utili6ation t#pe2 *L:T/ ,• produce, including goods and services• mar%et orientation• capital intensit#• la"our intensit#•

po er sources• technolog#• in!rastructure• si6e and con!iguration o! land holdings• income level.

A large num"er o! agricultural L:Ts is theoreticall# possi"le *as a conse1uence o! the

i"l "i i ! d d& i $$$ li % d ! #

<



commonl# re!erred to as (agro$ecological units( hen the original core data sets that are usedin the overla# process consist o! climate, soils and land!orm *terrain/ data. The set o!

parameters used !or assessing land 1ualit# o! each land mapping *or agro$ecological/ unit arethe same as those retained !or characteri6ing the re1uirements o! each L:T *see Ta"le 9/. Ane'tract !rom an FAO case stud# in Ben#a illustrating this stage o! land evaluation is presentedin Anne' 7.

Step &: Interim matchin% o! land-use re"uirements with actual land "ualities

At its simplest level, matching *i.e. suita"ilit# assessment/ !or each land$mapping unit can "emade ta%ing into consideration onl# the ph#siological re1uirements o! a speci!ic crop*s/ andthe e'isting "ioph#sical land conditions *e.g. climate, soils and land!orm/. These sets o!in!ormation allo prediction o! theoretical crop per!ormance *#ields/ ' Ho ever, suchtheoretical ma'imum levels o! per!ormance are strongl# attenuated "# a range o! landmanagement !actors *as re!lected in the list o! parameters used to de!ine L:Ts $$$ see previoussection on 2 etermination o! the re"uirements o! relevant land use options( /. Thus, estimatesare made o! production per!ormance under di!!erent operational land$management settings as

speci!ied !or the L:Ts. These (ad)usted( estimates then !orm the "asis !or assigning land$suita"ilit# ratings !or each land$mapping unit.

7n earlier non$automated C1ualitativeD approaches to matching, estimates o! crop per!ormanceere "ased on previous e'perience or scienti!ic %no ledge. 7n contrast, in more recent

automated approaches, estimates are "ased on computer modeling o! crop or animal gro th.For non$automated C1ualitativeD approaches to matching, land suita"ilit# as descri"ed usinga hierarchic classi!ication structure *ranging !rom orders, classes, su"$classes to units/ thatll h i i ! ! d il i!i l d$ li i i * T "l

>



8conomic and social anal#ses help to identi!# pro"lems *e.g. la"our shortages, adverse tenureconditions, poor access to mar%ets, etc/ in relation to potential land uses. These anal#sesconse1uentl# !ocus on government development o")ectives, macro$economic tools and data,the rural econom#, in!rastructure, demographics, land tenure, la"our availa"ilit# andeducational level, etc.

7t is orth noting that a preliminar# selection o! accepta"le land$use options to considerduring land evaluation *see Section on (Initial consultation on the objectives( / is o!ten madeas part o! the land$use planning process. This helps to reduce the num"er o! land$use optionsthat ma# have signi!icant adverse environmental and&or socio$economic impacts.

Automated land evaluation tools and databases

Since the FAO Land 8valuation Frame or% as pu"lished in + - , a num"er o!technological developments have !acilitated the implementation o! its principles. One o! themost signi!icant developments has "een the advent o! a!!orda"le P0$"ased *vs. main!rames/geographic in!ormation s#stems *G7S/. G7S !acilitate the storage and anal#sis o! a ide range

o! spatial data. 0omputeri6ed data"ases and modeling programs are no inter$!aced ith G7Sin order to !acilitate the computational intensive aspects o! land evaluation *e.g the stage o!matching potential L:T re1uirements ith land 1ualities/. 7n particular, rather than 1ualitativematching, comple' computer models o! crop gro th and development can no "e used to

provide estimates o! #ields corresponding to the soil, climate and land!orm characteristics o!each land mapping *agro$ecological/ unit under the three di!!erent land$managementscenarios o! lo , intermediate and high input levels. Moreover, the !easi"ilit# and the impacto! di!!erent cropping patterns on productivit# can "e anal#6ed.

?



FAO has also developed a so!t are& data"ase pac%age, 80O0 OP ++, that allo s users toidenti!# plant species hose most important climate and soil re1uirements match thein!ormation on climate and soil entered "# the user.

Since + ; , FAO in colla"oration ith e'ternal partners has also "een spearheading aninternational e!!ort aimed at creating, using a standardi6ed methodolog#, national to regionaldata"ases on soil and terrain *SOT8 / +9. These data"ases contain in!ormation, among others,on land!orm, morpholog#, slope, parent material and soils. The# are thus use!ul !or the

purposes o! land evaluation.

The AL8S +< *the Automated Land 8valuation S#stem/ developed at 0ornell :niversit# !ollothe principles o! the + - Frame or%. 7n AL8S, e'pert users can descri"e proposed land usesas ell as the geographical areas to "e evaluated, using their o n set o! criteria "ased on theirlocal %no ledge, and su"se1uentl# allo the program to automaticall# do the matching.

Land use planning

Land$use planning has "een de!ined as 2the s#stematic assessment o! land and ater potential,alternative patterns o! land use and other ph#sical, social and economic conditions, !or the

purpose o! selecting and adopting land$use options hich are most "ene!icial to land usersithout degrading the resources or the environment, together ith the selection o! measures

most li%el# to encourage such land uses2 *FAO, + $"/.

This su")ect that has "een addressed in several recent FAO pu"lications *e.g. FAO, + <$a, $"=+ ?= + -, FAO&:N8P, + ?= + -= + $a/. These pu"lications emphasi6e the appraisal

! l i h i i "l l d$ ! h



o! !actors related to sustaina"ilit# *vi6. social acceptance, economic via"ilit#, ph#sicalsuita"ilit# and environmental sustaina"ilit#/, as ell as social impact *access to landresources, nutritional status, health status, and education/ in the appraisal o! land use options.

Seven %e# !actors are associated ith success!ul integrated planning !or sustaina"lemanagement o! land resources *FAO&:N8P, + $a/.• clear !ormulation o! the o")ective and pro"lem to "e solved *i.e. it should "e a demand$

driven process/• the recognition o! sta%eholders and their di!!ering o")ectives *e.g. competition !or

resources and land uses/• an ena"ling environment and regulator# polic# *e.g. consistent policies and plans at all

levels o! decision ma%ing/• e!!ective institutions at local, su"$national, and national level hich are lin%ed *i.e. the

devolution o! decision ma%ing to the lo est possi"le level that is consistent ith thea"ilit# o! implementation,/

• a plat!orm !or negotiation *i.e. !air representation and e!!ective participation o!

sta%eholders in negotiations/.• an accessi"le and e!!icient %no ledge "ase, and• a set o! planning procedures that are applica"le at di!!erent scales *e.g. land evaluation,

participator# techni1ues, anal#sis o! sta%eholder o")ectives, monitoring and evaluation./

Follo ing land evaluation, sta%eholders usuall# have to select one or more land$use options!rom those that meet the minimum recommended selection criteria, namel#, ph#sicalsuita"ilit#, economic via"ilit#, sociall# accepta"ilit#, !reedom !rom signi!icant adverse

i l i "l i l i i / A l i i ! i hi h

-



agricultural production, minimising costs o! production and environmental damages !romerosion + .

Ade1uate in!ormation on present land uses, including management aspects, is a necessar# pre$re1uisite !or ela"orating policies and plans that ould help "ring a"out speci!ic desira"lechanges in the environment *e.g. alleviation o! land degradation/. A so!t are pac%age, theL:5J *Land :se 5ata Jase/ +- that allo s the structured storage and retrieval o! in!ormationon actual land use data *including land management/ as developed several #ear ago "# FAOin colla"oration ith e'ternal partners. 3or% is currentl# in progress at FAO on thedevelopment o! a simpli!ied, more user$!riendl#, update to L:5J. This update, provisionall#termed Agri$L:0S *Agricultural Land :se 0orrelation S#stem/ allo s description o! landuses using a parametric, hierarchic approach using com"inations o! selected land$use

parameters that are amena"le to G7S processing. The parameters selected !or characteri6ingagricultural land use are the nature o! the product*s/ !rom the land use under consideration,and the nature o! the inputs, including land management actions. Parametric description2strings2 can "e interactivel# reclassi!ied allo ing one to map *and hence, correlate/ areas o!similar products and land management.

As outlined earlier, land evaluation assesses the suita"ilit# o! land !or one or more speci!ied(sustaina"le( land uses, ta%ing into account, among others, aspects o! the associated landmanagement *see parameters used in de!ining L:Ts $ ($ains steps in land evaluation( / that

ould prevent land degradation. :se!ul insights could there!ore "e gained i! data on actualland use management could "e compared to the results !rom land evaluation +; . 7n particular,di!!erences in land management practices could help pinpoint areas here such practices ma#

"e considered inappropriate i! the# lead to land degradation. 7n order to !acilitate suchl# FAO i ll " i i h 7FP 7 *7 i l F d P li # h 7 i / d

;



agreements 9 . Mismanagement o! agricultural land resources, o!ten lin%ed to increasingdemographic pressure, contri"utes signi!icantl# to environmental degradation 9+. 7t has

there!ore "ecome increasingl# appropriate that decisions concerning the potential uses o! landinclude e'plicit consideration o! environmental impacts and o! sustaina"ilit# 99.

Nota"l#, ho ever, hile the latest FAO guidelines on integrated planning !or sustaina"lemanagement o! land resources *FAO&:N8P, + / cite the importance o! includingenvironmental and social consideration in !inal land use choices, operational details o! there1uired approaches& methodologies are largel# missing. Several internal meetings held in9 at FAO on this su")ect indicate that revised land evaluation and land$use planning toolsand approaches should include methodologies that e'plicitl# allo consideration o! the!ollo ing issues in screening land$use options@• 8nvironmental impacts, including goods and services, in relation to "oth land and ater

*e.g. soil and ater degradation= "io$diversit#= car"on se1uestration= greenhouse gases=sustaina"le development/

• 8!!ective participation "# multiple sta%eholders 9< and the incorporation o! genderconsiderations 9>

• Mar%et and other driving !orces *e.g. !ood, population, income, ur"an e'pansion/• 8conomic and polic# issues *e.g. glo"ali6ation, li"erali6ation, polic# harmoni6ation,../

8'plicit consideration o! some o! these issues is alread# possi"le using the M05A anal#ticaltool mentioned a"ove in hich plausi"le comple' alternate scenarios o! land use can "e!ormulated. Not ithstanding, a commissioned stud# is currentl# under a# *Octo"er, 9 9/ toe'amine the !easi"ilit# o! having the !ull range o! issues "etter (integrated( into the land$

l i & l d



'eferences

Land evaluationFAO, + - . A !rame or% !or land evaluation. FAO Soils Julletin <9FAO, + -;$;+. eport on the Agro$ecological Iones pro)ect. ol. +. Methodolog# and results!or A!rica. ol.9. esults !or south est Asia= ol.<. Methodolog# and results !or South and0entral America= ol. >, esults !or Southeast Asia. FAO 3orld Soil esources eport, >;&+,>FAO, + ;<. Guidelines@ Land evaluation !or rain!ed agriculture, FAO Soils Julletin ?9FAO, + ;>. Land evaluation !or !orestr#. FAO Forestr# Paper >;FAO, + ;?. Guidelines@ Land evaluation !or irrigated agriculture, FAO Soils Julletin ??FAO, + +. Guidelines@ land evaluation !or e'tensive gra6ing. FAO Soils Julletin ?;FAO&:N8P, + <. Agro$ecological assessments !or national planning@ the e'ample o! Ben#a.FAO Soils Julletin, -, +?>p.FAO, + . Agro$ecological 6oning guidelines. FAO Soils Julletin -<

Land use planning

FAO, + <$a. Guidelines !or land use planning. FAO 5evelopment Series +.FAO, + <$". F8SLM@ An international !rame or% !or evaluating sustaina"le landmanagement. 3orld Soil esources eport -<, ->p.FAO, + ?. Planning !or sustaina"le use o! land resources. To ards a ne approach. FAOLand and 3ater Julletin 9, p.FAO&:N8P, + ?. Our land our !uture $ A ne approach to land use planning andmanagement.FAO, + -. Land 1ualit# indicators and their use in sustaina"le agriculture and rurald l d d ll

+



&able ( 0lassi!ication o! attri"utes o! land utili6ation t#pes *L:Ts/ !or crop production $ Ben#a. *a!ter FAO, + </

Attri"uteLevel o! input

Lo 7ntermediate HighProduce production ain!ed cultivation o! "arle#, mai6e, oat, pearl millet, dr#land rice, etland rice, sorghum, heat, ....

Sole and multiple cropping o! crops in appropriate cropping patterns and rotations.Mar%et orientation Su"sistence production Su"sistence production plus

commercial sale o! surplus0ommercial production

0apital intensit# Lo 7ntermediate ith credit onaccessi"le terms

High

La"our intensit# High, including uncosted !amil#la"our

Medium, including uncosted!amil# la"our

Lo , !amil# la"our costed i! used

Po er source Manual la"our ith hand tools Manual la"our ith hand toolsand&or animal traction ithimproved implements= somemechani6ation

0omplete mechani6ationincluding harvesting.

Technolog# Traditional cultivars= no !ertili6eror chemical pest, disease and

eed control. Fallo periods.Minimum conservation measures

7mproved cultivars as availa"le.Appropriate e'tension pac%agesincluding some !ertili6erapplication and some chemical

pest, disease and eed control.Some !allo periods and someconservation measures

High #ielding cultivars includingh#"rids. Optimum !ertili6erapplication. 0hemical pest,disease and eed control. Fullconservation measures.

7n!rastructure mar%et accessi"ilit# not necessar#=inade1uate advisor# services

some mar%et accessi"ilit#necessar# ith access to

demonstration plots services

Mar%et accessi"ilit# essential.High level o! advisor# services

and application o! research!indings.Land holding small, !ragmented small, sometimes !ragmented large, consolidated7ncome level lo moderate high

++



&able * List o! parameters used !or assessing the *+/ re1uirements !or L:Ts !or rain!ed crop production, and *9/ land 1ualities o! land mapping*agro$ecological/ units *a!ter FAO, + ;</

0rop e1uirements Management e1uirements 0onservation e1uirements8nerg# Soil or%a"ilit# 8rosion ha6ard

Temperature Potential !or mechani6ation Soil degradation ha6ardMoisture 0onditions !or land preparation and clearanceO'#gen*soil drainage/ 0onditions a!!ecting storage and clearance

Nutrient availa"ilit# 0onditions a!!ecting timing o! productionooting conditions Access ithin the production unit

0onditions a!!ecting germination or esta"lishment Si6e o! potential management unitsAir humidit# as a!!ecting gro th Location@ e'isting& potential accessi"ilit#0onditions !or ripeningFlood ha6ard0limatic ha6ards8'cess o! saltsSoil to'icit#Pest and diseases

!O&#

(+ Not all parameters listed a"ove are re1uired !or ever# land$evaluation stud#. The parameters that ould "e considered signi!icant !or agiven land$evaluation stud# are *a/ those that have a %no n e!!ect upon the various %inds o! land use under consideration, !or hichcritical values *adverse& !avoura"le/ occur ithin the stud# area, and *"/ those !or hich practical means o! data collection e'ist.

*+ 7n later automated approached to land evaluation, computer modelling o! crop gro th and development has replaced 1ualitative matchingo! re1uirements. Nevertheless, the a"ove ta"le includes parameters that need to "e considered in such models.

+9



&able , @ Land suita"ilit# classi!ication !or rain$!ed agriculture *a!ter FAO, + - = $+ ;</

Order@ Suita"leS+ class High no or non$signi!icant limitationsS9 class S9e

su"$class

S9e$+ unit Moderate moderatel# severe limitations hich reduce productivit# or "ene!its

or increase re1uired inputsS9e$9etc..

S< class Marginal overall severe limitations= given land use is onl# marginall# )usti!ia"le

Order@ Not Suita"le N+ class 0urrentl# not suita"le limitations not currentl# overcome ith e'isting %no ledge ithin

accepta"le cost limits N9 class Permanentl# not

suita"lelimitations so severe that the# preclude all possi"ilities o! the givenuse

Note@ Su"$class re!lect di!!erent %inds o! limitations. Letter s#m"ols !or some commonl# encountered limitations are+. Temperature regime c9. Moisture availa"ilit# m<. O'#gen availa"ilit# to roots *drainage/>. Nutrient availa"ilit# n?. ooting conditions r

. Flood Ha6ard ! -. 8'cess o! salts 6-. To'icities ';. Potential !or mechanisation 1

. 8rosion ha6ard e

5i!!erent units o! a su"$class re!lect minor di!!erences in production characteristics or management re1uirements.

+<



A!!# I @

8'tracts !rom selected stages o! land evaluation in Ben#a *!rom FAO, + </

Step 2: etermination o! the re"uirements o! relevant land-use options

L:Ts ere di!!erentiated on the "asis o! level o! inputs& management, into three "road input categories, namel#, lo , intermediate and high. Landevaluation !ocussed on crop, livestoc% as ell as !uel ood production. 0onsideration o! crop production alone, #ielded a total o! +-> L:Ts dueto ?; di!!erent crop t#pes *di!!erent cultivars, crop phenolog# and gro th c#cles/ at the < di!!erent input levels. The ecological re1uirements o!the various crop L:TS related speci!icall# to climate, soils and land!orm@• The temperature and radiation *needed !or plant gro th/• The length o! the gro th c#cle, *related to plant phenological development/, and• Soil and land!orm 1ualities *e.g. moisture availa"ilit#= nutrient availa"ilit#= o'#gen availa"ilit#= !oothold !or roots= salinit#= to'icit#=

accessi"ilit# or%a"ilit#= tilth= micro&macro relie!= soil erosion resistance/.

Step #: $appin% land "ualities

A ma)or o")ective o! land evaluation as to identi!# areas that, under rain$!ed conditions, ould produce the largest or most desired 1uantitiesand 1ualities o! edi"le calories and protein. The (suita"ilit# assessment( procedure consisted !irst o! comparing the land 1ualities o! each agro$ecological unit ith the ecological re1uirements o! all relevant L:Ts. Suita"ilit# as assessed se1uentiall# on the "asis o! climate suita"ilit#,soil$t#pe suita"ilit# and erosion ha6ard. The output o! this assessment as a ran%ing given to each L:T "ased on the estimated percentage o!ma'imum crop #ield. All L:Ts !or hich the e'pected crop #ields ere greater than a pre$selected threshold o! 9 percent ere considered as

possi"le options and retained !or !urther consideration. Finall#, the potential #ields !or di!!erent crop com"inations ere calculated, ta%ing intoaccount the !easi"ilit# o! cropping patterns as ell as associated !allo re1uirements. The in!ormation as su"se1uentl# used to estimate the

present and !uture potential supporting capacit#, ta%ing actual and predicted population levels into account *see Figure 7$+/.

+>



A!!# I @ *cont(d/

Agro$ecological units

Agro$ecological units Qtemperature

QLGP, LGP pattern

0limate suita"ilit#

Qsoil t#pe

Qte'tureQphasesQstoniness

Soil suita"ilit#

Qtopsoil lossQ#ield loss

8rosion ha6ard

elevantL:TselevantL:Ts

S ; E

S E

MS > E

mS 9 E

mS ?E

NS R?E

class

Ma'imumrain$!ed #ields $odellin% o! crop %rowth * development

S

SMS

mS

mS

NS

class

0ropoptions

Other uses

QGro th c#cleQTurnaround

0rop com"ination

re1uirements

0ropping patternoptionsFallore1uirements

Potential

production

.opulationsupportingcapacity

Figure I-( Schematic outline o! steps involved in the application o! the A8I methodolog# in Ben#a *a!ter FAO, + </

+?



A!!# II @ 0ase stud# o! application o! A8I in Jangladesh

+

Land Evaluation at Fao

Documents

Transcript of Land Evaluation at Fao