Conditions of land use planning
The methods for making inventories of land and human resources
and for evaluating the suitability of land for specific uses, are rather well
known.
Physical conditions: like climate, topography, soils, vegetation, pests and diseases
etc. vary on the macro-scale and with subtler differences on the micro-scale.
Social conditions which affect land use include such factors as whether the land
is owned by government or privately, the population density, the income distribution,
land tenure, credit availability, attitudes to development. Obviously, reliable
inventory and evaluation of these conditions are essential if planned changes
are to be relevant and successful. However, it is by no means clear that the methods
developed for land use planning in one set of circumstances will be valid if applied
in another environment.
Sectoral planning is another feature which may be important. Land use planning
is best carried out by a multidisciplinary team, to make possible a holistic approach
to use of the land. Such a team may include specialists in agriculture, irrigation,
forestry, pastoral production, soil conservation. Each of these sectors will continue
to make their own inventories (forest inventories, erosion, hazards etc.) and
evaluations, and will make sectoral plans for developments in their own speciality.
Techniques of land use planning
Land use planning requires the application of the basic
principles of management. The components of management can be summed up as follows.
1. Have clear objectives.
2. Define the problems and opportunities and alternatives for action.
3. Use a systematic way to reach decisions.
4. Good communications: instructing, influencing and training; a two way participatory
process.
5. Organize resources necessary to carry out the plan: physical resources and
the institutional structures.
6. Implementation: by the land users with guidance by the planners.
7. Monitoring and evaluation of the results.
4.2.2 Applicability of the existing system in mining areas of India
The NBSS-LUP system assesses the land's capability and suitability
for supporting different uses as well as different crops from all scientific view
points, yet there is a ground of doubt whether, in formulating LUMP for EMPs for
mining areas of India (MAs) this system is followed or not. Further the limitation
of its use for MAs arises mainly from the fact detailed next. It does not have
any special consideration for MAs, specially to consider the serious damages to
land quality caused by mining. In this reference it is worthy to mention that
with respect to land quality the MAs are very special in certain points as these
suffer from
* loss of topsoil, biolife in soil and greenery.
* damage to topography and water resources
* change in number and quality of life (QoL) of the users of land, and
* some alteration of local climate.
If these lands are subjected to normal land capability classification of ICAR,
may be, rarely any land will qualify as suitable for growing greenery. While it
is known that mining damages greenery, and regeneration of the green cover is
very much required to maintain the ecologic balance. On the other land, the fact
is that, in the system being followed by NBSS-LUP, there is limited provision
for assessing the lands suitability for any LULC other than growing greenery.
NBSS-LUP follows a system which analyses land capability (ICAR), and suitability
(Sys. et.al. 1991) based mainly upon land characteristics, or land resources,
i.e., climate, vegetation, hydrological conditions, land-form characteristics,
soil characteristics, availability and ability of farmers, fund, etc. Based upon
several such features they also find-out the limitations (if any) or land requirements
for a successful operation. The total process finally aims to decide the use of
land and also attempts to find out crop suitability (if the land is suitable for
cropping).
b) While defining land the NBSS-LUP system excludes socio-economic attributes
of the environment (section 4.2.1).
The NBSS-LUP process is justified from technical point of view, but experiences
in MAs indicate that the process may face difficulty in implementation due to
the facts listed below.
* It may be practically impossible to put a land into a specific use unless it
is agreed by the local people i.e., the users of the land after development, i.e.
for whom the land-use planning is being done.
* A land by its qualities and characteristics, may be suitable for a specific
use but that specific use may be "misfit" (aesthetically) in the regional context.
* A land through detailed analysis as above may appear to be suitable for a specific
use but the region (i.e. its surroundings) may not actually require that use,
technically or considering the aspirations of the users of land.
* The requirement of the region (considering its land-use setup and quality of
life of the people around) may even change over years. Further the aspirations
of the users of land and the quality (characteristics) of any land changes through
time. Thus no LU should be considered as final LU. In any LUPg system there should
be an inbuilt provision for examining this fact, changing the land-use plan, and
re-allocating the LUP.
* There may be certain land-use like mining which takes a long period (say 50
years or even more). For such cases there should be some provision for intermediate
use of the land.
* Hence arises the importance of certain LUPg considerations.