H. Hurni Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 2000 83–92 85
Fig. 1. Century-old soil degradation can have disastrous consequences on traditional land use systems particularly if the processes are too slow to be perceived as dangerous. An example from subsistence highland agriculture in the Simen Mountains, Ethiopia: the village area
of Denkolako at 3450 m asl. Photograph by Andreas Hurni, October 1976.
2. A framework approach to sustainable land management
Sustainable land management can be defined as “a system of technologies andor planning that aims to
integrate ecological with socio-economic and political principles in the management of land for agricultural
and other purposes to achieve intra- and intergener- ational equity” Hurni et al. 1996, modified from
Eswaran 1996, personal communication. SLM is thus composed of the three development components
‘technology’, ‘policy’, and in particular, ‘land use planning’ Bouma, 1997.
A central element of the approach proposed in this paper for the appraisal of sustainable land manage-
ment SLM is its multi-actor perspective. In the past, most concepts and proposed technologies that were
intended to further SLM related to land users as the only actor category. Examples are soil and water con-
servation, land husbandry, and technologies that aim to reduce negative impacts on the land, such as salin-
ity, physical impacts, or other chemical processes. In response to these one-dimensional approaches, a
‘multi-level stakeholder approach to sustainable land management’ has been developed for finding feasible,
acceptable, viable and ecologically sound solutions at the local scale Fig. 4.
According to Hurni 1997 ‘management’ in this approach is defined as activity on the ground, using
appropriate technologies in the respective land use sys- tems. Following the sustainability paradigm, ‘appro-
priate’ would require that a technology conforms to the five major pillars of sustainability, namely, it should
be 1 ecologically protective, 2 socially acceptable, 3 economically productive, 4 economically viable,
and 5 effective in reducing risk Dumanski, 1994. Selection of appropriate indicators that produce rele-
vant results of the expected quality and accuracy will have to be made in accordance with particular criteria,
as proposed by Becker 1997, including: scientific quality, ecosystem relevance, data management suit-
ability, and sustainability. A technology would also have to respond to particular, i.e. ‘respective’ land
use systems, as it would probably not be applicable everywhere. Other selection criteria for indicators
have been developed by Mueller 1996, Bellows 1996, Dumanski et al. 1998 and Herweg et al.
1998.
86 H. Hurni Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 2000 83–92
Fig. 2. Sustainable use of land and soil resources is impossible as long as immense gullies, called ‘Lavaka’, threaten rice fields with sedimentation problems: an example from Madagascar, near the village of Ambatofozy. Photograph by Hans Hurni, March 1988.
The term ‘land’ is a central element in the defini- tion of SLM. In this paper, ‘land’ refers to natural
resources, such as soils, water, and living organisms, which are available in a pre-defined spatial unit ‘land
units’. Particular characteristics, such as ownership, resource availability, boundary conditions, and the pol-
icy and economic environments, play an important role for the assessment of ‘land use types’ and ‘land use
systems’ Bouma, 1997. ‘Sustainable’ has to be seen in all its dimensions, particularly the economic, social,
institutional, political, and above all, the ecological dimension. The latter dimension forms, and will con-
tinue to form, the central part of the concept Driessen, 1997. ‘Approach’ is defined as the ways and means
used to realise SLM. The main questions are: on whose behalf will SLM be realised, for what, with what
means, and with what impact? ‘Stakeholders’ are in- terest groups or dependent groups, i.e. categories of
people or institutions who share a common interest in a piece of land, be it an individual plot, the terri-
tory of a community, or a national conservation area. ‘Multi-level’, finally, indicates that not all stakehold-
ers are farmers, or villagers, but that off-site categories such as administrators, researchers, and international
organisations should be included as well. Herweg et al. 1998 give a comprehensive overview of poten-
tial stakeholders who play an important role in impact monitoring for SLM. Dumanski 1997 developed par-
ticular criteria and indicators for land quality assess- ment and SLM.
Another basis of the approach is the acknow- ledgement that every society has its own view of
resources CDE, 1995. As already noted in the in- troduction, there are at least two different views.
One is the perspective of the local land users, a view which is based on the ways in which nature and soil
have traditionally been perceived, and which varies from place to place and region to region. This view
has been called the ‘internal perspective’ on natural resources. The other perspective, which is found
H. Hurni Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 2000 83–92 87
Fig. 3. Sustainability of land management is highly dependent on institutional frame conditions such as land ownership. Large-scale farms side by side with newly subdivided small-scale farms on the slopes of Mt. Kenya will have totally different effects on the ways and means
how to realise SLM. Photograph by Hans-Peter Liniger.
Fig. 4. Intervention levels in a multi-level stakeholder approach to sustainable land management Hurni, 1997.
88 H. Hurni Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 81 2000 83–92
throughout the world and is represented by researchers and scientists, environment and development special-
ists, politicians, and administrators, usually reflects an economic world-view and is characterised by its
scientific approach. It has been called the ‘external perspective’ on natural resources. Tools for assess-
ing SLM will have to include both the internal and the external perspective and find ways to reconcile
differing views.
When adopting the ‘multi-level stakeholder ap- proach to SLM’, the various views and dimensions of
sustainability have to be weighed against each other in a negotiated, i.e. participatory approach which
does not discriminate against, or favour, particular actor categories. For example, scientific information
must be coupled with indigenous knowledge to offer a better basis for decision-making in the negotia-
tion processes. Experience world-wide has already demonstrated the multi-level dimensions which have
to be considered to attain long-lasting solutions. The real power of this element of the approach is that it
does not provide a pre-determined concept, but offers a procedure for a process of working towards devel-
oping a common point of view and defining the next steps to take. The scientific approach which com-
bines the internal and external knowledge systems is ‘transdisciplinary’, and goes beyond traditional
interdisciplinary methodology. Science, technology, and society are the three pillars of this innovative
approach, which is used for problem-solving research and in practical application.
3. Some tools for assessing and improving SLM at the local level
