Puginier, Oliver: Hill tribes struggling for a land deal: Participatory land use planning in northern Thailand amid controversial policies


Kapitel 2. Evolution of land use planning theory

In order to assess to what extent land use planning can deal with the complex set of problems in the highlands of northern Thailand, it is useful to give an overview of how it evolved from a technical science to gradually include social aspects and more recently the participation of local people. An overview of some planning tools gives the range of means of assessment, followed by institutional planning systems that also show how they are embedded and influenced by the respective policy framework. The chapter ends with a note of caution regarding limitations of land use planning and extracts some particular issues pertinent to this case study in Thailand.

2.1 The establishment of land use planning as a science

Land use planning has evolved in stages, starting with land valuation for purposes of yield estimates and later taxation of crop quantity as well as quality. Then aspects of soil evaluation were included, first with individual estimates and later scientific analysis of soil composition, with more recent considerations of spatial aspects and socio-economic criteria. The most recent approach has become a participatory one involving local land users with their own criteria. This latest development was particularly due to the rapid population increase last century from 1.6 billion in 1900 to now more than 6 billion, revealing the increasing necessity for mutually agreed land use to avoid conflicts over natural resources. These issues have even been formulated at policy level with a global outlook under the concept of “Sustainable Development“ in Agenda 21 or the blueprint for development in the next century. Agenda 21 aims to redress the balance between resource exploitation and environmental conservation after centuries of unlimited resource use, to which Thailand is also a signatory, expressed as (AGENDA 21,1992):

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

The lengthy document is divided into sections covering a wide range of issues, and in the “land cluster“ section, planning even received its own chapter, thus underlining the importance for coordinated and careful approaches to land management (10:1):

“Expanding human requirements and economic activities are placing ever increasing pressures on land resources, creating competition and conflicts and resulting in suboptimal use of both land and land resources. If, in the future, human requirements are to be met in a sustainable manner, it is now essential to resolve these conflicts and move towards more effective and efficient use of land and its natural resources. Integrated physical and land-use planning and management are an eminently practical way to achieve this.“

2.1.1 Origins of land valuation and spatial aspects

From the earliest days of agriculture some 10,000 years ago farmers have thought about how to use their land as well as how to maintain it for future harvests (PRETTY 1995,26). The gradual establishment of permanent structures of settlement together with population growth have modified nature, via intermediate stages of shifting cultivation and fallow systems, towards systems of permanent cultivation, and humans have slowly converted more and more of the earth's forests into permanent farmland. As groups of settlers have come into contact with others, land soon became an issue of conflict, since the availability of natural resources was inevitably linked to securing one's own survival and power over other peoples. The history of colonialism is the best example of the excesses of unlimited human subjugation. The accumulation of land became a question of social status and power, and stratified societies developed systems of land valuation as well as social ranking according to ownership of land, with labourers to work the land, particularly in feudal societies by means of taxation.


Some of the oldest written records of land valuation date back to the ancient Egyptian cultures, who developed simple forms of cadastral surveys in which property boundaries were recorded annually in books in relation to the Nile floods, and taxes were collected based on yields (AMLER 1992,19). In China, the 2000-year-old "Guanzi-Diyuanpian" book classifies land by soil types and their potential for agricultural productivity. In Greece, around 600 BC, the people were divided into four classes according to the land capability of the fields they owned. The Roman Empire had various methods to value land, all linked to taxation in the form of 10 % of the harvest, and later modifications included criteria such as topographic and agricultural aspects. Permanent crops like grape and oil fruits, as well as flat areas were taxed more than annual crops and steep land. There were also cultures that did not develop systems of individual land ownership, and according to their philosophy land was only borrowed from nature for a period of time. This was the case practised by North American Indians, even in cultures that had been farming for 1,500 years like the Anasazi and Hopi (PRETTY 1995,45).

It is difficult to pinpoint the beginning of land use planning as a scientific discipline, but early attempts of land valuation for taxation have gradually been refined and stratified according to soil colour and soil type into various categories in East Prussia and Russia in the 18th century (AMLER 1992,21). As Russia advanced to the main wheat-exporting nation, soil quality for this crop was studied and soil terminology like chernozem, podsol or gley became established in modern soil type terminology. In Germany, the first attempts to develop objective land classification criteria were undertaken at the beginning of the 19th century (THAER 1813; quoted by amler 1992,21), by dividing crop land into 10 classes based on soil characteristics like soil type, humus and lime content, as well as yields. These were further developed into scientific criteria with the understanding of soil formation processes and the explanation of soil fertility. As the understanding of physical and chemical soil formation processes evolved, there was a need to create a link with economic assessments, which were first applied by the precursors of the land suitability classification in 1899 in the USA in a national programme to map, characterise and interpret soils. The US Soil Survey established references for the main land use types and soils were classified according to their relative economic importance.

Apart from the physical aspects of land valuation, spatial aspects were also gradually included. According to AMLER (1992,25), the first important concepts of spatial planning date back to the 17th and 18th century for the areas of forest and agricultural zonation in Russia and France. In France during the Age of Absolutism, structural planning under Napoleon placed a lot of emphasis on landscape management, as land and agriculture were considered the backbone of wealth. There were similar concepts by the German Heinrich von Thünen in 1826, who introduced the economic factors of distance between production and consumption centres in concentric circles of land categories around a city centre. This implies that natural conditions such as soil and climate are uniform parameters, and that spatial differentiations are based on economic influences only, without considerations for other factors.

In the 20th century, communal administration in Western Europe led to more differentiated planning concepts between cities and the countryside, a precursor to regional planning. The first settlement planning law was enacted in England in 1909 ("Housing and Town Planning Act“), while the "Town and Country Planning Act" of 1947 included more aspects of land use (AMLER 1992,28). In 1946 in England the first monograph was published that combined land evaluation with applications to land use planning. In Eastern Europe the Soviet Union developed the GOERLO-Plan in 1920 as the first territorial plan (SCHOLZ 1980,272), though it concentrated on electrification and industrialisation. In the USA the first law on land use planning was passed in Wisconsin in 1933 (McALLISTER 1973,23), which demarcated areas for forests, recreation and agriculture as well as areas without any land use regulations. The plan was a result of severe economic recession combined with the consequences of unregulated logging and forest fires, as well as low taxation morale.

2.1.2 The first system: The USDA land capability classification

A big step forward in the scientific development of land use planning was based on a human induced natural disaster - the Great Dustbowl, which struck the southern and south-western states of Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, Colorado, Texas and New Mexico during the 1930s in the USA. In the early years of


the 20th century, farmers were encouraged to expand westwards by favourable homestead policies and the high price of wheat. The land was settled at an alarming speed and in 1919 alone, some 4.5 million ha of grassland were ploughed for the first time to grow wheat. The thoughtless rapid conversion of land for wheat cultivation led to 50 million ha of farmland severely affected by erosion (PRETTY1995,45). Dust and earth blanketed houses and crops, and the landscape had become a vast desert with shifting dunes of sand where there had once been crops. Farmers had caused a massive land degradation that almost led to the collapse of civilisation in the Midwest. As a reaction, the Federal Soil Conservation Service was established in 1935 to conduct a national inventory of erosion and was a precursor to modern extension services. But more important for land use planning was the fact that the limitations to production imposed by soil and climatic conditions were taken more seriously, resulting in the first Land Capability Classification (Baldwin; Kellogg; Thorp 1938,979; quoted from: EUROCONSULT 1989,111) by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), in order to avoid an overuse of land beyond its abilities to regenerate. This approach has gained international recognition and is now applied to land use planning worldwide.

The modern Land Capability Classification evolved into a categorisation primarily on the basis of its capability to produce common cultivated crops and pasture plants without causing land degradation over a long period of time. It is a hierarchic system divided into eight capability classes, with respective subunits of capability subclass, capability unit and soil mapping unit as the smallest unit of area measurement, expressed in soil series (Klingebiel and Montgomery 1961,1-4; quoted from AMLER 1992,148). The better a land unit is, the more variable is its potential for use.

2.1.3 A global system: The FAO framework for land evaluation

Based on a general dissatisfaction with land evaluation based on soil productivity alone, institutions attempted to formulate a globally applicable framework in the 1970s. A methodological approach was developed that could be refined according to specific countries, and resulted in the FAO "Framework for Land Evaluation" (FAO 1976). The main idea is the suitability assessment of different land uses for a given location. These were then subdivided into guidelines for rain-fed agriculture in 1983, forestry in 1984, irrigated agriculture in 1985, and extensive grazing in 1991 (FAO 1995,81), but not yet for mountainous areas. At this stage in the evolution of land use planning, interactions between types of land use and the technology level have been included.

The procedure for land evaluation identifies land use types, determines water, nutrient and erosion control requirements, maps land units to describe their physical properties and compares the requirements for land use types with land properties to arrive at a land suitability classification (FAO 1993,37). FAO distinguishes between three levels of detail when assessing land; namely a reconnaissance scale (1:500,000 - 1:120,000), a semi-detailed scale (1:100,000 - 1:30,000) and a detailed scale (1:25,000 - 1:10,000). In terms of spatial references, FAO uses homogenous "land mapping units" based on land or soil types. Amler (1992,165) points out that FAO leaves open the valuation of assessment factors as well contents, meaning that there are no objective differences between relative importances of suitability assessments. Land evaluation is either of qualitative or quantitative nature, where the latter is particularly important for economic surveys.

The FAO has also started to classify Agro-Ecological Zones (AEZ) in order to develop an overview of production potentials. The methodology used was innovative in that it characterised tracts of land by quantified information on climate, soils and other physical factors, which are used to predict the potential productivity for various crops according to their specific environmental and management needs. Agro-ecological zones are defined, which have similar combinations of climate and soil characteristics, and similar physical potentials for agricultural production, as part of FAO procedures (FAO 1995,10):

“Agro-ecological zoning is a subdivision of the rural lands on the basis of physical and biological characteristics (climate, soils, terrain forms, land cover, and to a degree the water resources), and is used as a tool for agricultural land use planning.“


The results of land suitability are a set of land suitability classes for crops grown on different land units with specified level of inputs (Figure 2-1). Each land suitability class for each crop under each input level reflects a range of anticipated yields, mapped on a scale of 1:5 million. Production estimates can be made for defined agro-ecological zones or by administrative units like province or district.

Figure 2-1: Methodology of the AEZ approach (after FAO 1995)

Apart from the biophysical parameters pertinent to land use planning, the FAO has also recognised the need to include people in a planning framework, thereby expanding approaches to socio-economic factors. For a successful integration of physical features and people, FAO has even proposed the inclusion in computerised databases, for which two major components are necessary (FAO 1995,26):

  1. A methodology consisting of a set of reproducible procedures undertaken in sequence, which results in the transformation of information on physical, economic and social factors into higher incomes based on sustainable land use.
  2. An institutional framework, which is structured and staffed in such a way that it is able to implement these procedures successfully.

In order to achieve this FAO propagates the development of a decision support system that is scale independent and can be used at national or farm level (Figure 2-2). It is interesting to point out that FAO propagates a purely computerised system, which in many tropical countries would not be available and could therefore not be maintained.FAO proposes a multiple goal analysis and optimisation techniques for the data, since there is usually more than one objective when negotiations take place on land resources management. They may be to a greater or lesser extent incompatible, but they can often be ranked in order of priority. Objectives must be identified before "best" or "optimum" can be defined in relation to land use, yet their relative importance can alter over time. This reduces the value of printed suitability maps as interim outputs, and enhances the value of a computerised system that can rapidly access, combine, and reclassify the basic data as required. It is possible to conduct local level land use or farm planning by ranking objectives in order of priority, but true multiple objective maximisation can only be done subjectively or through linear programming or other mathematical methods.


Figure 2-2: Decision support system for land use planning (after FAO, 1995,27)


The FAO methodological framework includes socio-economic factors, but does not specify how these are to be incorporated into planning. This shows that while there are data and procedures for the assessment of biophysical features in the left half of the diagram, the assessment in the right half is fairly empty. It also indicates that social and ecological factors are very difficult to assess objectively or integrate into a database, as important as they may be. The negotiation and decision-making process is often long drawn-out, partly because of conflicting needs and demands for land and also because land use options as well as constraints become clearer to participants. To strengthen and speed up a common understanding, the result of each successive optimisation should be available to planners and land users for their respective sets of objectives and constraints until a consensus or compromise plan is achieved. While the FAO approach is an attempt to unify all relevant factors in one database, it is unsuitable for planning at local level, as it would be impossible to include all aspects relevant to villages. Hence alternatives have to be considered to reflect the farming environment of rural communities.

2.1.4 Planning with people: Participation

After the initial successes of yield increases achieved by the Green Revolution of the 1960s, the hopes that poverty would be eradicated in the world did not materialise and scientists started to examine the causes. Step by step the target group started to be considered as an active participant in planning with the advent of Farming Systems Research (FSR) in the 1970s (see AMLER 1992,222; PRETTY 1995,41). The integration of participation in development research is based upon a democratic understanding of society, and it therefore deals with the political level that is interrelated with the theory of decision. Participation has been defined as (NAGEL et al. 1992,14):

“A process by which all participants (rural men and women, extension agents and management, as well as researchers) are involved in reaching a common goal. The participatory process focuses on mutual decision finding with regard to analysis, planning, implementation, and evaluation of the development efforts.“

A number of new approaches were developed to assess rural livelihoods, problems and ways to overcome them, known collectively as Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA). The origins of RRA, a social science approach for a quick understanding by outsiders of rural life and conditions, can be traced back to the late 1970s and was mainly developed by tropical countries. The South urged a change in perception and approaches to development, guided by these motivations (CHAMBERS 1994a,956):

As with any new development, techniques had to be tested and there was a lot of criticism from traditionalists. After some trial years with successes, the situation changed in the 1980s and RRA gained increasing acceptance, also at institutional level. One of the key institutions is the University of Khon Kaen, a world leader in developing theory and methods, which held an international conference on Rapid Rural Appraisal in 1985 (KKU 1987). This helped the spread of RRA to other countries, and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in London helped to spread RRA worldwide as a complimentary approach for rural development and research (CHAMBERS 1994a,957).

An overview of different types of participation is given below (Table 2-1):


Table 2-1: A typology of participation (after Pretty et al. 1995,61)


Characteristics of each type

Passive participation

People participate by being told what is going to happen or has already happened. It is a unilateral announcement by an administration or project management without listening to people's responses. The information being shared belongs only to external professionals.

Participation in information giving

People participate by answering questions posed by extractive researchers using questionnaire surveys or similar approaches. People do not have the opportunity to influence proceedings, as the findings of the research are neither shared nor crosschecked.

Participation by consultation

People participate by being consulted, and external people listen to views. These external professionals define both problems and solutions, and may modify these in the light of people's responses. Such a consultative process does not concede any share in decision-making, and professionals are under no obligation to take on board people's views.

Participation for material incentives

People participate by providing resources like labour in return for food, cash or other material incentives. Much on-farm research falls in this category, as farmers provide the fields but are not involved in the experimentation or the process of learning. It is common to see this called participation, yet people have no stake in prolonging activities when the incentives end.

Functional participation

People participate by forming groups to meet predetermined objectives related to the project, which can involve the promotion of externally initiated social organisation. Such involvement does not tend to be at early stages of project cycles or planning, but rather after major decisions have been made. These institutions tend to be dependent on external initiators and facilitators, but may become self-dependent.

Interactive participation

People participate in joint analysis, which leads to action plans and the formation of new local institutions or the strengthening of existing ones. It tends to involve interdisciplinary methodologies that seek multiple perspectives and make use of systematic and structured learning processes. These groups take control over local decisions, and so people have a stake in maintaining structures or practices.


People participate by taking initiatives independent of external institutions to change systems. They develop contacts with external institutions for resources and technical advice they need, but retain control over how resources are used. Such self-initiated mobilisation and collective action may or may not challenge existing inequitable distributions of wealth and power.

The goals of participation in planning are summarised as follows (PREUSS 1994,116):


As the idea of participation gradually gained more importance in rural development, it also affected rural appraisal, and “participatory RRA“ became one type besides others like exploratory RRA, topical RRA and monitoring RRA (CHAMBERS 1994a,957). The beginning of subsequent parallel developments in Kenya and India in 1988 led to the new term “Participatory Rural Appraisal“ (PRA) in 1991, and the methods usually spread South-South, meaning directly between tropical countries and without the influence of northern nations. A comparison of RRA and PRA helps to understand the evolution (Table 2-2), which is a continuum from RRA to PRA with a shift towards local people.

Table 2-2: A comparison of RRA and PRA (by CHAMBERS 1994a,958)

Key characteristics

Rapid Rural Appraisal

Participatory Rural Appraisal

Period of development

Late 1970s, 1980s

Late 1980s, 1990s

Major innovators based

In Universities


Main users at first

Aid agencies, universities

NGOs, Government field organisations

Key resource earlier undervalued

Local people‘s knowledge

Local people‘s analytical capabilities

Main innovations

Methods, team management

Behaviour, experimental training

Predominant mode

Elicitive, extractive

Facilitating, participatory

Ideal objectives

Learning by outsiders

Empowerment of local people

Longer term outcomes

Plans, project publications

Sustainable local action and institutions

2.2 The focus of land use planning

2.2.1 Land users

Land users were originally people living on the land, yet the increasing stratifications in human history led to administrations that gradually owned and/or managed the land. Land was thus used by farmers directly and indirectly, by land owners or government administrations, and recently the term „stakeholder“ was created to include all actors directly or indirectly involved, defined as follows (Grimble et al. 1995,4):

„Stakeholders include all those who affect, and/or are affected by, the policies, decisions, and actions of the system; they can be individuals, communities, social groups or institutions of any size, aggregation or level in society. The term thus includes policy-makers, planners and administrators in government and other organisations, as well as commercial and subsistence user groups.“

There is a distinction between primary stakeholders as those people whose livelihood depends directly on the use of land (farmers, individual title deed holders, landless people and migrants, original inhabitants) and secondary stakeholders who are affected by land use changes or administer the area (the community, urban communities, NGOs, district, state, provincial or national governments). FAO (1995,16) assumes that poor farmers have only short-term objectives in order to meet the needs of their families, while the wider community up to national level have more long-term goals with more complexity, yet this perception may be just the opposite. Conflicts often occur when development priorities of secondary stakeholders often overrule or ignore those of primary ones.

2.2.2 Definition of land use planning

Since the inclusion of people and their cultural contexts in planning, perceptions changed from people as mere target groups for implementation to include them as partners, as the FAO (1993,1) definition reads:


“Land use planning means the systematic assessment of land and water potential, alternatives for land use and economic and social conditions in order to select and adopt the best land-use options. Its purpose is to select and put into practice those land uses that will best meet the needs of the people while safeguarding resources for the future. All kinds of rural land use are involved: agriculture, pastoralism, forestry, wildlife conservation and tourism. Planning also provides guidance in cases of conflict between rural land use and urban or industrial expansion, by indicating which areas of land are most valuable under rural use.“

In order to spread the concept within its own development projects, GTZ has produced guidelines specifically targeted towards technical co-operation (GTZ 1995,5):

“Land use planning in technical co-operation is an iterative process based on the dialogue between all of the actors involved. Its objectives are the commitment to decisions on the sustainable use of land in rural areas and the initiation and support of the corresponding measures for implementation.“

The FAO definition is more scientific in that it focuses on a systematic assessment of natural resources prior to the formulation of recommendations. For GTZ as a development agency this is the task of national agencies, and it sees itself as a facilitator between national institutions and local land users. Both definitions stress the need for dialogue to achieve sustainability as outlined in Agenda 21 and aim to bring together different views:

The technical approach has dominated land use planning in the past with varying degrees of success, whereas the very democratic social basis for conflict resolution has only recently been acknowledged as important in addressing social and environmental problems. An integrated approach incorporating rational and social considerations seems the most appropriate to address the driving forces in planning, i.e. the need for change, the need for improved management or the need for a different pattern of land use dictated by changing circumstances. According to the FAO (1993,1), two conditions must be met if planning is to be useful:

  1. The need for changes in land use, or action to prevent some unwanted change, must be accepted by the people involved;
  2. There must be the political will and ability to put the plan into effect.

According to FAO (1995,14), the process of land use planning and its implementation hinges on three elements: the stakeholders, the quality or limitations of each component of the land unit, and the viable land use options in the area. In a more technical sense the factors of planning are: the amount of land available and its tenure; the quality, potential productivity and suitability of the land; the level of technology used to exploit the land resources, the population density, and the needs and standards of living of the people. Each of these factors interacts with the others.

2.2.3 Goals of land use planning

FAO divides the goals of planning according to Agenda 21, namely efficiency, equity and acceptability, and sustainability, while GTZ (1995,7) summarises these into:


“Land use planning creates preconditions for the achievement of sustainable, socially and environmentally tolerable, culturally wanted and economically meaningful land use. Social processes of decision making and consensus are started for areas in private, communal or public use and their protection.“

Efficiency; Development planning considers economic viability, which can be achieved by an efficient and productive use of the land. Here it is important to distinguish between individual and government efficiency. Individual efficiency means the greatest return on capital and labour invested or seeking the greatest benefit from the area available, while government efficiency is more complex as many interests have to be considered.

Equity and Acceptability; Land use must be socially acceptable, though it is very difficult to determine criteria for that. The general goals are food security, employment and a security of income in rural areas. Land improvements and redistribution may reduce the inequality between people, yet this depends on who sets the goals, and effects of redistribution have to be considered by planners. Ideally, the target group should participate in the development of measures that are wanted, accepted, supported and implemented. Social and cultural appropriateness are key factors for the acceptance of measures, as well as technically and economically suitable approaches.

Sustainability; Generally one has to strike a balance between production and conservation, a conflict of satisfying needs of people and the preservation of the environment on which the production depends, ideally resulting in local land uses that are sustainable. FAO (1995,18) admits that the systematic assessment of sustainability of current or planned land uses is in its infancy. A community that destroys its land forfeits its future with devastating consequences (see Great Dustbowl Chapter 2.1.2).

2.2.4 Watershed management

Closely related to land use planning is the concept of watershed management, which is the larger ecological unit affected by land use and considers land use planning as a part of watershed management (klemm 1996,18). Initially, watershed management was seen purely in terms of forestry for the restoration of the Alps, not in relation to agriculture, and the emphasis was on nature conservation without a regular use of resources. Yet in situations of shifting agriculture in forest areas, watershed management and agriculture can occur simultaneously as stated by FAO (1991,1):

“In the developing countries, watersheds (and particularly those located relatively near to important downstream resources) are often inhabited by large and increasing human and animal populations. Most of the people living in these watershed areas are struggling to survive owing to limited resources.“

Watershed planning and land use planning consider the same environmental issues, but from differing viewpoints and levels of detail (FAO 1991,3). A land use planning decision for a site specific development can influence many watershed management issues. Watershed and subwatershed studies do not determine land use; instead these plans establish constraints, opportunities and approaches for input into land use planning decisions. A watershed is a coherent geographical unit covering the whole area from which water drains into a river, from its source to its mouth. There are no clear definitions yet in terms of scale or size for a watershed, so it lies between a river basin (all the land contributing water to a river system, from the headwaters to the river mouth) and a catchment (a small area contributing water to a specific stream). Watershed management has also changed from a focus on geo-physical features to the inclusion of socio-economic conditions of people in rural areas (ICIMOD 1998):

“Watershed Management is an iterative process of integrated decision-making regarding uses and modifications of lands and waters within a watershed. This process provides a chance for stakeholders to balance diverse goals and uses for environmental resources, and to consider how their cumulative actions may affect long-term sustainability of these resources.“


The effective management of watersheds as entities is essential to ensure that activities in one part do not adversely affect others downstream. Watershed management is concerned with sustainable development based on the use of the natural resources and incorporates conservation practices to maintain natural vegetative cover to help control erosion, reduce sedimentation and downstream flooding by regulating stream flow. Conflicts over land use within watersheds are growing for the same reasons in that pressing demands for land for agriculture, forestry, grazing and wildlife have degraded their natural resources. Frequently there are many agencies responsible for the management of watersheds and they are often overstretched and uncoordinated in their work, lacking information and authority to function effectively. Effective watershed management assists stakeholders to evaluate the potential and limitations of these land resources and to resolve conflicting issues that arise during their exploitation.

The experience of land use planning projects in Asian countries shows that watersheds are too large in size for planning at local level (GTZ 1996,66):

“In the past, many land use planning exercises were based on the watershed as a geographical unit. Several local communities might be affected at the same time, some more than others, and some only partly. Experience has shown that such a planning approach will rarely be adopted. The local population has to be actively involved in any land use planning process, and the entire area used by a given group needs to be considered. The area affected by the land use plans needs to be based on socio-economic units, rather than landscapes.“

This thesis therefore focuses on land use planning as the lower and more detailed level of natural resource management that can deal with issues at village level as a socio-economic unit, yet the work approaches can be aggregated at higher levels and possibly also extrapolated to watershed management.

2.3 Tools for land use planning and means of survey

2.3.1 Geo-physical features and remote sensing

Aerial photographs

Aerial photographs are used in geodesy for their quantitative, topographic information and as photo-interpretation for more qualitative information. When projecting three-dimensional objects onto two-dimensional planes, it is important to perform photogrammetric restitution in order to restore points distorted on a photo to their correct map positions (EUROCONSULT 1989,188-206). For this purpose a second photograph is taken of the same area from a different position, and both photos are placed under a stereoscope in order to obtain a three-dimensional effect. Thereby series of pictures are taken consisting of parallel strips, giving an overlap in two consecutive photographs (60-65 %) and a side lap between adjacent strips (20-25 %). Photographs can range from a scale of 1:1,000 to 1:5,000 for detailed surveys (crop studies, game counts) to 1:35,000 to 1:70,000 for reconnaissance surveys (roads, land classification). The more detailed the pictures, the more are necessary to cover an area.

Aerial photographs are increasingly employed in land use planning to resolve conflicts over boundaries between villages, and according to GROTEN (1997,12) it is possible to:

Yet at the same time aerial photography entails several problems. Photographs are often difficult to obtain, for instance on account of military secrecy, poor cartographic infrastructure or inadequate budgets. Local


people tend to mistrust cartography as they suspect taxation or land reform, so their successful use depends on the political framework conditions. Particularly in Thailand only very old photographs are available and new flights would be very expensive.

Satellite imagery

Satellite photographs are hardly practical for participatory village planning as they are on a large scale of 1:100,000 to 1:200,000, are quite expensive (GROTEN 1997,13) and in the case of Thailand difficult to obtain for border areas. An overview of this tool is provided in GTZ (1991) with further comments on the high level of expertise and equipment necessary to work with them.

Geographic Positioning System (GPS)

Closely linked to satellite images is the Global Positioning System (GPS), which sends regular radio waves to fixed satellites in orbit and uses these to compute the exact co-ordinates of the position of the instrument. By walking along an area, it is possible to record the co-ordinates and thus determine the boundary as well as the size of a field. More advanced equipment has an interface with a computer so that the data can be transferred for further processing into maps. In combination with remote sensing, maps can therefore reflect the real situation fairly accurately. There are, however, some disadvantages when using GPS according to BORSY and van ECKERT (1995,10):

Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

Whereas the above three tools are purely extractive in the kind of information they gather, a Geographic Information System (GIS) may come closest to suitability for an integrated approach with local people. Over the past decade, the technology of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has developed so rapidly that it is increasingly used in development planning (GTZ 1996,52). A GIS consists of various components, starting with the incorporation of geographical data from remote sensing sources or maps and is then converted into a computer-readable form. This data can be manipulated and different data themes such as land cover and soil types can be overlaid for analytical operations. The results can then be disseminated to relevant stakeholders, mostly in the form of maps. The various computer programmes that have been developed can more easily be linked with satellite images and GPS for data acquisition and presentation. The data are available in the form of maps, statistics and tables, though these have often been compiled at different formats and scales. Such spatial inconsistencies have made their integration for the decision-making process of resource management difficult and time-consuming in the past, but here too there are improvements (FAO 1995,30):

“The development of Land Information Systems (LIS) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software has enabled the available georeferenced databases to be harnessed with relative ease into multiple-layer digital form. Each thematic layer is analogous to a map, but it can be both displayed and printed separately, and overlaid to produce a multi-theme map at any scale or orientation.“

According to FAO, multidisciplinary natural resources teams composed of geographers, agronomists, geostatisticians, computer programmers, economists and social scientists are required to make GIS/LIS systems an effective tool in support of land use planning. Data extensionists are also needed to ensure that the system is transparent to users such as policy-makers and stakeholders at every level. In a modern computerised GIS, each separate piece of data or information stored in a database is


georeferenced. This means that its exact geographical location is also entered into the database, either as a point reference or as a polygon or mapping unit. The GIS system has the capability to retrieve all the information and a given subject to display it, or hold it as a separate thematic layer, which can be overlaid, viewed or printed out.

Yet FAO also points out some limitations to the use of GIS technology (FAO 1995,31):

  1. “The inadequate analysis of real-life problems as they occur in complex land management and sustainability issues at the household level, and as they involve the integration of biophysical, socio-economic and political considerations in a truly holistic manner;
  2. The limitation in data availability and data quality at all scales, especially those that require substantial ground truthing;
  3. The lack of common data exchange formats and protocol;
  4. The inadequate communication means between computer systems, data suppliers and users due, for instance, to poor local telephone networks.“

So far the access to GIS has been limited to few high-level decision makers, but in future it will give local people more access to quantitative and qualitative data, and enable them to influence policy decisions more. As was found by an interdisciplinary group of researchers, a common ground between GIS and participatory diagramming is that both provide visual information relevant to the people who created it (ABBOT et al. 1998,30). The advantage of a GIS is that information can be presented to policy-makers in a form and at a scale that is usable, and may therefore seem more objective than participatory surveys or diagrams. Additionally, an immense volume of data including local information can be processed, which can serve to integrate isolated information sources, aid in conflict resolution over land, and can thus help in the consolidation and sharing of ideas. In terms of participation and local interests, a GIS can become even more important when scaling up local concerns and priorities in relation to regional goals and plans. By opening up an exclusive product, community involvement in planning can be enhanced.

On the other hand, shared and accessible information is only as good as local politics, meaning that there are also drawbacks to a participatory GIS as summarised from ABBOTT et al. (1998,32) and project experience by GTZ (1996,55) in Asia:

2.3.2 Participatory assessment tools

Participatory assessments and means of survey have been influenced by a whole range of rural research and include activist participatory research, agroecosystem analysis (developed by Chiang Mai University),


applied anthropology and farming systems field research (preuss 1994). The key concepts shared by Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) and Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) have been summarised (Table 2-3). The rapid spread of RRA and PRA methods, behaviour and attitudes, and sharing has had a great impact on development research and work, thus elevating the role of local people to a more collaborative partner. The spread of PRA, in contrast to most government programmes that are spread vertically and from the top-down (e.g. the Training and Visit system for agricultural extension), has spread more laterally, personally and experiential. According to Chambers (1994c,1440), the four modes of spread have been through field learning experience (village experiences), a light touch (brief workshops), by villagers (within and to neighbouring villages), and through dissemination materials. The information and insights gained from PRA have often been diverse, detailed, complex, accurate, interesting and shared in a short time.

Table 2-3: Key concepts shared by RRA and PRA (from Chambers 1994b,1254-1255; Schönhuth and Kievelitz 1994,7-12):

Idea or concept


Reversal of learning

Researchers learn from and with the local community on the site and thus gain an insight into local physical, technical and social knowledge. This involves staying in the homes of local residents and taking part in daily activities.


A form of “cross-checking“ by varying the team composition, the sources of information and the techniques applied. Each phenomenon should be illuminated from various points of view, and often diversity is considered as more important than standardisation.

Optimal ignorance and appropriate imprecision

A balance between the necessary precision, quantity of data and timeliness in relation to what can be left out or what need not be measured, with the idea that it is better to be approximately right than precisely wrong.


A combination of instruments in a step-wise manner. For land use planning this could be aerial photographs of the project region to sketch simple maps showing land units. Followed by field observations to verify information, and in a third step residents are questioned to supplement local place names and other relevant information. This is followed by joint transect walks through the area to discuss the distribution of important resources with residents.

Visual sharing

In contrast to extractive questionnaires where the information becomes the "property" of the interviewer, a joint mapping or modelling project allows everyone to contribute and follow the process. The use of three-dimensional topographic models is an ideal tool for resource mapping, and villagers can easily explain their environment to outsiders such as government officials.

Follow-up meetings

Models and maps made jointly on-site are well suited for documentation and reflection, as well as for the implementation of proposals. It is important to have regular follow-up meetings to include modifications, particularly during difficult negotiations with government agencies.

The myriad of methods can be grouped into three headings of visualised analyses, interviewing and sampling methods, as well as group and team dynamics methods as done by Pretty et al. (1995,72) or simply listed like in Chambers (1994a,959-961) or Schönhuth and Kievelitz (1994, 75-106), as they overlap anyway:

Handing over the stick: this should encourage researchers to get to know people, let them teach you, use their own criteria to look at issues, learn from errors and give them confidence. Basically it means: sit down, listen do not interrupt.

Secondary data review: these include files, reports, maps, aerial photographs, satellite imagery, and books as well as unofficial or "grey literature". These should be reviewed and summarised with copies of


maps at the beginning of surveys prior to village visits for background information.

Key informants: these people are identified through discussions or participatory social mapping and can give outsiders an entry point into the village world. Key critical areas in villages can also be found this way in terms of livelihood or erosion.

Semi-structured interviews: these constitute the single most important instrument in RRA and to a lesser extent in PRA, and include a mental or written checklist, yet at the same time being open-ended and following the unexpected. They can be community, group, key informant, individual and chains of interviews depending on their purpose.

Direct observation: involves the intensive and systematic capturing of observable phenomena and processes in their natural surrounding. Results should be crosschecked with key informants to verify their correctness (triangulation). Tape recordings, notebooks and cameras should only be used with the consent of the local people. The data is systematically ordered and presented in transects and seasonal calendars.

Do-it-yourself: asking to be taught includes trying things like transplanting, ploughing, weeding and wood collection. Apart from the fact that one learns to appreciate the difficulty of these tasks, the laughter due to mistakes and clumsiness of researchers ploughing with an ox can break barriers and establish closer contact.

Participatory diagramming and modelling: in RRA this is the most important technique after semi-structured interviews, and is also used in PRA. Local people use the ground, floor or paper to make social, demographic, health and natural resources maps or topographic models to display their environment. Diagrams include transects (cross-sectional maps of village areas from e.g. north to south), seasonal calendars showing for e.g. peak rainfall and labour periods, timelines to note important events like founding of a village or extensive droughts, social mapping to illustrate the structure of a village, Venn diagrams showing links between key institutions and their relative importance by circle size, and topographic scale models to enable the community to take part in decision-making processes as well as for conflict resolution.

Ranking and scoring techniques: these are analytical instruments for the study of important problems and preferences, and can even capture hard data such as incomes of wealthy villagers. Preference rankings can be used to quickly identify problem areas or favourite foods. Matrix scoring can be used to assess different qualities of crops by giving values ranging from 1 (well-suited) to 5 (poorly suited). Wealth can be ranked the same way and is one of the most successful types of ranking.

Indigenous knowledge: local classifications are often more precise than terms used by outsiders. The use of local categories facilitates a dialogue and joint elaboration of appropriate solutions. Closely linked are local beliefs and ethnobiographies that strongly influence the daily activities of rural people. Here the ability to communicate in the local language becomes particularly important, as ideas are lost in translation.

Analysis of difference: differences of gender, social group, occupation and age are important for an understanding of the range of issues. The most important area has become gender analysis for different social roles, yet different perceptions according to age are particularly crucial in rapidly changing societies.

Joint evaluation and presentation of results: results are presented in writing, orally or visually. The most commonly used mode is graphical depiction using symbols or pictures. Public meetings present, analyse and correct the results of the PRA and can lead to jointly elaborated recommendations for future activities. A more modern variation includes theatre, songs or videos, where case histories can be portrayed.

Yet a rapid spread has also brought some dangers, for at first PRA was rejected by academics and higher-level government decision makers, though gradual changes have made it a more acceptable approach to development. The remaining concerns now do not stem from rejection but from rapid or rigid adoption (Chambers 1994c,1441):

  1. "Instant fashion": RRA and PRA are vulnerable to discreditation by an over rapid promotion, followed by misuse and sticking to labels without substance. Development professionals may use them merely as a façade. Another misperception is that PRAs are simple and easy quick fixes, which they are not.
  2. 52Rushing: during early stages, quick alternatives to long learning and large-scale questionnaire surveys were sought, so the word "rapid" was included in the new term. This has been used to justify brash and biased rural development tourism (brief visits), which combined with an insensitivity to social context and a lack of commitment led to the same situation as before: the poorest are not seen, listened to nor learnt from. To avoid this danger, care, patience and plenty of time are crucial, so the word "relaxed" may seem more appropriate.
  3. Formalism: this may prove to be the most difficult problem, as innovations are standardised and manuals tend to become longer with time. Manuals can inhibit and classroom training can become very long, thereby losing spontaneity. Instead one should learn in the field through experience and allow mistakes.
  4. Routinisation: with scaling up and spread, repetition develops regular habits. There are many ways of carrying out RRAs and PRAs, yet practitioners have tended to slip into standard practices, thereby overlooking other options. Some routinisation is inevitable, but innovation and creativity are needed.

Participatory means of assessment and survey should not be seen as a new approach to replace established methods, but instead as complimentary to better understand the rural environment and to develop solutions appropriate to farmers‘ problems. As villagers are not removed from a wider environment, planning processes need to link up with the policy framework and institutional environment.

2.4 Policy framework and institutional set-up

2.4.1 Centralised top-down and participatory bottom-up planning

The various technical and participatory elements of land use planning are of course not removed from the political framework conditions and administrative set-up prevalent in countries, and these can be great stumbling blocks if the political will for planning is missing or there is no legalisation or security of user rights. A generalised land use planning approach has to be adapted to and integrated into a prevalent political and administrative system, alternatively also known as framework conditions. The issue of planning approaches has become more and more important and has been examined under seemingly opposed centralised top-down planning and participatory bottom-up planning, influenced by the increasing orientation to local needs and people that began in the 1980s (Chambers 1994a,953). Particularly in the Asian context this has generated a rethinking process among foreign funded development programmes that led to a workshop in 1993 in Sri Lanka to exchange experiences (betke 1994,131). The discussion focused on framework conditions, administrative levels, political systems and to what extent participation is a concept pushed by western countries as "good governance".

Top-down planning

The classic or traditional model of top-down planning places the state as the administrator of the environment, and the state makes all decisions about resource utilisation. This makes land use planning an instrument of governmental guidance and control, closely linked to national development plans. Development potentials are assessed for all regions and goals set for all administrative levels, while monitoring is purely an assessment of goal achievement. This approach was particularly widespread in Indonesia in the National Land Agency and Sri Lanka in the Land Use Planning Division (Betke 1994,133).

Bottom-up planning

The opposite term is bottom-up planning initiated at the local level and involves the active participation by


the local community. It is a reaction to the inability of the government to have the role of a public administrator of natural resources at the local level. The aim of the community at village or one level higher is the development of local (communal and private) planning and implementing capacities in natural resource management (Betke 1994,133). The experience and knowledge of land users and technical staff are mobilised to select development priorities and to formulate implementation plans. In terms of actors at the local level and responsible administrators, there are a great variety of institutions. Reference is made to now defunct Community Based Land Use Planning and Local Watershed Management Committees in Thailand within the context of the TG-HDP (Betke 1994,134), which shows that this idea was important, but perhaps not realistic under a contradictory policy framework. At a higher district level, reference is also made to District Land Use Planning Teams with the aim to conduct planning in the form of a participatory dialogue. At the local level, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) are recommended as faster acting, less bureaucratic and more flexible actors, who are often given the role of neutral negotiators between the government and local people.

Through the integration of local land users in the planning and decision making process, it is attempted to improve the quality of planning results by upgrading villagers to resource persons with valuable local knowledge. Additionally, it is expected that participation increases the acceptance of planning measures. This implies responsibility or local ownership of decisions, by which villagers consider issues as their own and will be more interested in resolving them. In the long term this process leads to a better understanding of administrative structures and the presentation of local problems to outsiders. Yet it also implies a democratic process, for villagers will demand their rights too. A summary of advantages and disadvantages of "bottom-up" planning is given by FAO (Table 2-4).

Table 2-4: Advantage and disadvantage of bottom-up planning (after FAO 1993,7)



Local targets are set where the benefits and management are seen as the peoples‘ own, enhancing implementation

Limited technical knowledge at the local level means that agencies need to make big investments in time and labour

More popular awareness of land use problems and opportunities

Local interests are not always the same as regional or national ones

Pays attention to local constraints, both for natural resources and socio-economics

Difficulties of integrating local plans within a wider framework

Better information is fed upwards for higher levels of planning

Local efforts may collapse due to a lack of higher-level support or even obstruction

2.4.2 Planning systems and administrative levels

Parts of a planning system

The competition for natural resources leads to conflicts, whereby farmers usually lose to companies and administrations, there is thus a need to co-ordinate between stakeholders. Government agencies and development projects often intervene to overcome these problems, leading to formulations within certain framework of planning level with respective goals. Several considerations regarding the parts and social contexts of planning systems according to GTZ (1995,19-26) are given below:

Given these general considerations, GTZ then identifies the social context of systems. Central systems are characterised by clear command lines from top to bottom, where lower levels implement orders from above, though a problem here is the lack of flexibility. Decentralised systems have certain responsibilities and partial budget autonomy at lower levels, where regional or local particulars are considered, yet complexity lowers efficiency. Heterogeneous systems have modern techniques at higher levels of planning, while lower levels have different and sometimes contradictory mechanisms, often resulting in a lack of co-ordination between levels.

Administrative levels

According to FAO (1993,6), land-use planning can be applied at three broad levels: national, district and local. Different kinds of decisions are made at each level, yet each one has a land-use strategy, policies for planning priorities, projects that tackle priorities and operational planning for implementation. The greater the interaction between levels, the better, so that the information flow is bi-directional (Figure 2-3).

Figure 2-3: Two-way links between planning levels (after FAO 1993,6)

At national level the allocation of resources for the whole country are at stake, which often involves priority setting for district-level projects covering land use policy (competing demands on land for food production, export crops, tourism, housing etc.). Other aspects include national development plans and budgets for development projects, coordination between the various agencies involved in land use and


finally, legislation of land tenure issues, forest clearance and water rights. National goals are a complex matter, as the policy decisions affect many people and decision makers are not specialists in all fields, which is why FAO points out various institutions to enhance planning (FAO 1995,34):

The district level includes all land areas that fall between national and local projects (FAO 1993,7), yet natural units such as watersheds are not mentioned. This is an intermediate stage between national and local levels in the assessment of the diversity of the land. Issues to be resolved include the siting of developments like settlements and forest plantations, improved infrastructure like water supply, roads etc., and the development of management guidelines for improved land use. At regional or district level FAO (1995,34) identified provincial or district land use planning with the aim of priority setting, resource allocation, approval and monitoring of sub-national plans including implementation monitoring, with a mixed membership of community and government.

The local level may be the village, group or small catchment. At this level it is easiest to fit plans to the needs of local people using their knowledge and contributions. Looking at it from another perspective, this may be the first level of planning that includes priorities drawn up by the local people such as the layout of irrigation and soil conservation, the design of infrastructure like village roads, and the location of specific crops on suitable land. Here FAO avoids a definition of a body that would be imposed on existing community groups FAO 1995,34), since the freedom to debate is considered essential. This indicates that till recently the local level was not considered important in planning structures, yet with increasing decentralisation this is changing. This is particularly relevant for Thailand after the legislation for decentralisation was passed in 1995 that declared the sub-district the lowest level of government representation. New committees with elected village leaders are gradually set up throughout the country and will increasingly have the role of an interface between the government and local communities.

Actors in land use planning

Land use planning is done by many actors working together (FAO 1993,9) with advice, mediation and conflict resolution as key challenges for the planning team (Figure 2-4). The composition of the planning team is left open to individual situations, and in the case of the TG-HDP it was intended to consist of project staff, village leaders and representatives of key government agencies like forestry and land development (borsy and v. eckert 1995,10), based on the assumption by FAO that there was the political will to put the plan into effect (fao 1993,1). Land users are people either living in the planned area or whose livelihood depends on wholly or partly on the land, such as farmers, foresters or indirectly sawmills and crop processing. The involvement of all land users in planning is essential and yet their experience is often neglected, yet there is no success without the support of local leaders. Decision makers are responsible for putting the plans into effect and operate at different levels. The planning team provides information and expert advice, while the decision-makers guide the planning team on different issues and select the best options, which are ideally exposed in a transparent manner.


Figure 2-4: Various actors in the planning process (after FAO 1993,9)

2.4.3 The planning process

Given the importance of participation by local people as a concept, it then needs to be linked to land use planning in a practicable form for implementation. It is important to find out the local knowledge of land management in order to make planning positive, as mere regulations to prevent people doing what they do now are bound to fail. Local acceptability of changes is best achieved by local participation. GTZ has formulated 11 principles of participatory land use planning (GTZ 1995,8):

  1. Orientation to local conditions, methods and contents. A lot of planning fails due to uncritical applications of global models, contents have to focus on local conditions;
  2. Cultural conditions are considered and local knowledge is used. Rural societies have a complex local knowledge that needs to be part of appropriate resource use;
  3. Traditional problem and conflict resolution strategies are considered;
  4. A concept of development as a process carried from „the bottom“ and based on self-help and self-responsibility. Popular participation in planning can only be sustainable if one plans with the people, not besides or against them;
  5. A dialogue that creates conditions for co-operation of actors. All stakeholders have to voice their interests and goals to lead to co-ordinated decisions. It is important to identify participant groups and to differentiate according to their role in resource use;


  6. A process that improves the planning and action competence of participants. A participatory approach at all steps promotes technical and organisational abilities;
  7. Transparency and free access to information for all participants. Transparency increases the willingness and ability to plan and decide, and raises the motivation. Decisions in consensus can thus be reached more easily;
  8. Target group differentiation and gender approach. Interests are assessed with locals in a decision process, where men and women have different resource access;
  9. Interdisciplinary co-operation. Ecology, economics, technical, financial and socio-cultural dimensions of land use require an interdisciplinary approach;
  10. An iterative process with flexible reaction to changed conditions. There is no one-time planning document, iteration is rather a basic principle and method;
  11. Implementation oriented. Consideration on how decisions are to be implemented.

Although GTZ (1995 and 1996) and FAO (1995) both emphasise the need to include local needs in planning, there are few indications on how this is done in practice. A few key issues are pointed out by betke (1994,137) as follows:

The following sequence in the planning process is a summary of how FAO (1993,11) suggests it in 10 steps. The first three steps are organisation, then steps 4-6 seek alternatives, followed by decision-making and implementation:

  1. Establish the terms of reference; This starts with the present situation, finding out the needs of various stakeholders, deciding the area to be covered;
  2. Work Organisation; At the second stage it is decided what needs to be done, the planning team is selected and a schedule drawn up;
  3. Problem analysis; The existing land use is assessed and problems of various stakeholders identified, including constraints to change;
  4. Identification of opportunities for change; A range of land use options is identified and presented to the public for discussion;
  5. Evaluation of land suitability; Land use requirements are established for each land use type and matched with the physical properties of the land;
  6. Appraisal of environmental, economic and social alternatives; Assessed for the community as a whole in terms of positive and negative consequences;


  7. Selection of the best option; public and executive discussions are held on viable options and consequences to reach decisions acceptable to all parties;
  8. Preparation of a land use plan; this includes appropriate land management, selected improvements, budgets and how everything will be implemented;
  9. Plan implementation; FAO propagates a separate project for the plan implementation, whereby the planning team should work in conjunction with implementing agencies;
  10. Monitoring and revision; The plan is modified according to progress.

2.4.4 Limitations and key controversial issues

Controversial issues often preclude a willingness for a dialogue between the majority of participants. The effects of framework conditions are not directly part of land use planning, but have a major influence on its success or failure. The insecurity of land and user rights reduces the decision potential of land users, usually in a situation where there is not a willingness to make a high investment in land and labour. If the natural resource situation is intact, there are usually few thoughts on its protection. If on the other hand the resources are badly degraded, then the means to improve them are usually missing. The division of labour by gender and age is also important, for groups have different priorities. Furthermore, the daily chores do not allow the people to carry out long-term improvements if they are not accompanied by short-term economic benefits. In conflict resolution, traditional organisations or authorities are important, sometimes more so than government bodies, yet external support is important if traditional mechanisms fail.

A number of key conditions for the success of land use planning have been identified by Sombroek and Eger (1997,6). Successful land development is characterised by simplicity, accessibility for the resource poor and low risks, resulting in an increased demand on land that should lead to a coordinated planning effort. Guaranteed security of land rights are important for a link between the extension of land rights and land-use concessions to good land care. A commitment by local politicians is important for the clear identification of issues and their credibility. Implementation is part of planning, which necessitates good institutional linkages for an effective integration of sectoral interests. Traditional knowledge of the local environmental and land classification are useful to enhance acceptability. Given the controversies over shifting cultivation and an unclear policy framework for the highlands of Thailand, the limitations of land use planning as well as key problem areas at community level will be assessed.

© Die inhaltliche Zusammenstellung und Aufmachung dieser Publikation sowie die elektronische Verarbeitung sind urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung, die nicht ausdrücklich vom Urheberrechtsgesetz zugelassen ist, bedarf der vorherigen Zustimmung. Das gilt insbesondere für die Vervielfältigung, die Bearbeitung und Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronische Systeme.

DiML DTD Version 2.0
Zertifizierter Dokumentenserver
der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
HTML - Version erstellt am:
Wed Aug 28 15:14:57 2002