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

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. 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. 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. Selected inland valleys
Sambouali: NTFP collection/
nature reserve
Diamanga/ Tanyelle:
agricultural production
Bounou: abandoned
agricultural lands

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Step 2: Identify alternative land use options
Building upon joint problem
analysis in step 1:
Tools:
Group discussion/ all workshop
participants

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Step 4: Results (land use options of village elders)

19. Step 4: Results (land use options of mixed group)

20. Step 4: Results (conflict/synergy map of village elders
and mixed group)

21. Feedback meeting
Aim:
To discuss the outcomes of
the village workshop with
governmental officials and
organizations working in the
area.

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. 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. 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. Future research
Scaling up different participatory land use support
methods:
Influence on decision making
Diversification: e.g. biodiversity monitoring, delivery of
environmental services

26. Thank you!
© Wageningen UR