Glimpse of approach 'Land Use Certificate to engage youth in Agriculture' (Tshering Yangzom)

Land Use Certificate to engage youth in Agriculture (Bhutan)

Nazhoen Sanam Na Dreltog Baeni Dhoen Lu Sa Chha Koelched Lagkher (ན་གཞོན་སོ་ནམ་ནང་འབྲེལ་གཏོགས་འབད་ནིའི་དོན་ལུ་ས་ཆ་བཀོལ་སྤྱོད་ལག་ཁྱེར།)

Description

The Land Use Certification (LUC) commenced in 2015 as the new allocation system for land and provided a new title of land tenure. Initially, LUC focused on allotting land to Government institutions and Gerab Dratshang (monastic bodies). However, LUC later focused on the unemployed youth who were interested in commercial farming.

The Land Use Certification (LUC) commenced in 2015 as the new system for the allocation of land and a new title of land tenure. Initially, LUC focused on allotting land to Government institutions and Gerab Dratshang (monastic bodies). However, LUC later focused on the unemployed youth who were interested in commercial farming. This documentation is based on the LUC group ‘Tshendung LUC Integrated Farming Association'.
The main aims of the LUC approach are 1) to help sustainably manage and enhance productive use of land, 2) to encourage next-generation farming through farm mechanization and large-scale enterprising farming, and 3) to enhance the rural economy.
The approach started as an initiative towards the realization of the noble vision of strengthening sovereignty and security and enhancing social policy of equity and the national objective of self-reliance. Unemployed youth groups are expected to help sustainably manage and enhance the productive use of land - and the approach was to encourage next-generation farming through farm mechanization and large-scale production to promote enterprise-based farming and enhance the rural economy. Initially, it started with a meeting between district officials and unemployed youth. Later, bylaws were created, and agreements were signed. This was followed by sending youth for capacity development within and outside the country. They were trained on how to operate power tillers, use grass cutters and chain saws, and on the installation of electric fencing and greenhouses. In addition, they were trained in how to grow vegetables, fruit crops, and livestock production. In parallel infrastructure development activities were taking place in the current project sites.
The Tshendung LUC Integrated Farming Association enables land users to carry out agricultural activities more effectively. In addition, the association was able to transport and market their produce more efficiently than individual households. Other co-benefits reported are the improved community sense and enhanced social cohesion because the exchange of experiences and collaboration builds mutual trust. Working in a group eases hard physical work on the 9 acres (3.6 ha) of land.
The District Office initiated the group formation upon command from higher authority. They were also involved in planning, forming groups, bylaws, and monitoring the activities of the group. The District agricultural and livestock officers provided technical guidance on crop and livestock production. They also provided them with agricultural inputs. Lichen Primary School are consumers of the agricultural and livestock goods produced by the group. Land users are involved in planning the production and marketing of agricultural and animal products.
Initially, there were 11 youths in the group. They were provided with wide-ranging training and support including the preparation of land for growing crops and the construction of their residence. In addition to agricultural inputs like seeds, and saplings, the group was also provided farm machinery and farm tools for easy implementation of farm works. The group is happy with all the initiatives the government has done, however, one thing that discouraged the group from continuing with farming activities was the location of the site. They didn't like the location - which is in the middle of the forest around 15-20km away from the town. This makes transportation of agricultural inputs like seeds and feeds and marketing of agricultural and livestock products very difficult. The government initially supported the group with everything but later this support was withdrawn, which made it very difficult for the group to survive on their own.

Location

Location: Tshendung, Lichen chiwog (village), Yangtse gewog (sub district): Trashi Yangtse Dzongkhag (District), Lichen, Trashi Yangtse: Bhutan, Bhutan

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 91.47225, 27.57153

Initiation date: 2015

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach
LUC project site, Lichen: Trashi Yangtse (Tshering Yangzom)
Poultry shed of the group (Ongpo Lepcha)

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The main aims/objectives of the approach are to 1) foster youth entrepreneurship in the country, 2) promote, foster, encourage, and assist the efficient, convenient marketing and distribution of agricultural products, livestock, and associated by-products with the growing market within Trashi Yangtse and other districts in the country.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: Land users are generally from the same local ethnic groups called Yangtsepa. They shared the same social, cultural, religious, norms and values. Gender equality is considered and importance and priority is given equally.
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: Technical support related to agriculture and livestock is provided by the District Agriculture officer and livestock officers. Inputs like seeds are also freely provided by the district. The activities are also monitored by the officers and advices are given if land users are doing thing wrongly.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Initially, land users were provided all required support by the project including financial support, however, when the land users started implementing and working on the approach own their own. Getting financial support was difficult.
  • Institutional setting: Initially, there were 11 land users involved, however, today only two of the land users are active. Shortage of human resources hinders production and this result in low profit.
  • Collaboration/ coordination of actors: Although the land users are able to produce a certain quantity of vegetables there are not many collaborators willing to buy their produce. They also lack a farm manager who can dedicate 100% of his time in marketing and finding collaborators.
  • Markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices: The site of the approach is located very far from the market. The size of the market is very small with lots of other competitors like farmers groups i.e., Vegetable group, milk group, etc. And due to this competition, the prices the land users get are very low.
  • Workload, availability of manpower: Totally, there are about 9 acres of land and there are only two land users who are active and working in the land. The workload is too much and this affects their production.

Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles
What stakeholders / implementing bodies were involved in the Approach? Specify stakeholders Describe roles of stakeholders
local land users/ local communities Youth from local communities They are the land users on the project site.
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers District Agriculture and Livestock officers Advisors: All technical supports related to the production of crops and livestock are provided by these officers.
teachers/ school children/ students Lichen Primary School Consumers: Vegetables produced by the land users are sold to the school.
national government (planners, decision-makers) District head office Decision makers: provide technical support and financial support. involved in the planning and implementation of the activities under the approach.
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
District officer, Kidu officer directed the youths on the opportunity through this approach.
planning
The district officer, engineer, agricultural and livestock extension officer, head of the gewog/block, and land users identified the place and started the planning.
implementation
The district engineer started the land development activities by creating a terrace and farm road. This was later followed by agricultural and livestock activities.
monitoring/ evaluation
Focal person for LUC Agriculture extension officer Livestock extension officer District legal officer
Flow chart

Flow chart of the major events that took place before youth started taking care of the land. Also indicates different phase of approach and stakeholders involved.

Author: Ongpo Lepcha
Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology

Decisions were taken by

  • land users alone (self-initiative)
  • mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists
  • all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
  • SLM specialists alone
  • politicians/ leaders

Decisions were made based on

  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
  • research findings
  • personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

The following activities or services have been part of the approach
Capacity building/ training
Training was provided to the following stakeholders
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
Form of training
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
  • courses
Subjects covered

Production of fruits and vegetables, Poultry and dairy production, Power tiller operation, and record keeping.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
The agricultural extension officer and livestock officer provided advice on what crop to grow, and what livestock to rear.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
  • no
  • yes, a little
  • yes, moderately
  • yes, greatly
at the following level
  • local
  • regional
  • national
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
Institutional strengthening between the group and the Lichen Primary School was strengthened. Here the group is a producer of vegetables, butter, and cheese and the school is the buyer.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Monitoring and evaluation
Crop and livestock production were monitored through observation by the agricultural officer and livestock officer.
Research
Research treated the following topics
  • sociology
  • economics / marketing
  • ecology
  • technology

The research was conducted to study the feasibility of different vegetables in different seasons. Trials were conducted and land users found out that most vegetables don't do well except vegetables like cabbage, beans, and chilli.

Financing and external material support

Annual budget in USD for the SLM component
  • < 2,000
  • 2,000-10,000
  • 10,000-100,000
  • 100,000-1,000,000
  • > 1,000,000
Precise annual budget: n.a.
There is no budget allocated for any SLM technologies in this approach. All financial needs were met by the project.
The following services or incentives have been provided to land users
  • Financial/ material support provided to land users
  • Subsidies for specific inputs
  • Credit
  • Other incentives or instruments
Financial/ material support provided to land users
Construction support: Road constructed by project, land development done by project Constructional material support: Electric fencing, housing, Irrigation, greenhouse, power tillers, power chain, grass cutter, wheelbarrow, secateurs, spades, shovels, etc.
partly financed
fully financed
equipment: machinery

The cost for 3 power tillers, 3 power tillers, 3 grass cutters, and 1 chaffer is all provided by the project for free.

equipment: machinery: tools

Tools like spades, secateurs, shovels, spade, sickle, rake, pruning saw, wheelbarrow, knife,

agricultural: seeds

Vegetable seeds were provided free by the project

agricultural: seeds: fertilizers

Suphala were initially provided for free.

infrastructure: roads

The cost involved in road and land development was paid by the project.

House

All materials used for making house and stores were provided by the project.

Labour by land users was

Other incentives or instruments

Land development was carried out under the supervision of the District Agricultural and livestock officers, who are SLM experts at the district level. Greenhouses with simi automated irrigation, terraces with bunds, and electric fencing were promoted as incentives through the project.

Impact analysis and concluding statements

Impacts of the Approach
No
Yes, little
Yes, moderately
Yes, greatly
Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?

Land users received various training which helped them equip with knowledge and skills related to the use of agricultural machinery like power tillers, grass cutters, and chaffer machines. In addition, they also learned how to grow vegetables and fruits scientifically.

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?

Land users initially practiced growing crops based on the local communities, however, later they learned to do off-season vegetables using a greenhouse, and the vegetables they grew were all based on the evidence that some vegetables are not doing good in the location.

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?

The site of the approach is located away from local communities. Using technologies like electric fencing became very important. The land user also shared their view on aspects and slopes of the land and their activities like maintaining the slope and fertility of the land. Land user also added that they were taught how to grow Napier grass to reduce land degradation.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?

Land users received various training which helped them equip with knowledge and skills related to the use of agricultural machinery like power tillers, grass cutters, and chaffer machines. In addition, they also learned how to grow vegetables and fruits scientifically. This knowledge and skills indirectly helped them to maintain soil fertility and increase production.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

Land users were mostly unemployed youths from nearby villages. They were sons and daughters of socially and economically disadvantaged groups. Some of them had an educational background and some never went to school. The approach have empower this youth very much in term of knowledge and skills.

Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?

Land users were mostly youth between the age group of 20 to 30. This indicates that the approach has encouraged young people to engage in SLM.

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?

It was learned that initially when this approach first started there were around 20 youths involved. Many youths have left the group after they have improved their skills and knowledge through the approach. Today many of them have their own farm and business.

Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
  • increased production
  • increased profit(ability), improved cost-benefit-ratio
  • reduced land degradation
  • reduced risk of disasters
  • reduced workload
  • payments/ subsidies
  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement
  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • environmental consciousness
  • customs and beliefs, morals
  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills
  • aesthetic improvement
  • conflict mitigation
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • no
  • yes
  • uncertain

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • Employment: The approach provided employment opportunities to more than 20 youth who were from socially and economically disabled groups.
  • Income: The approach also became the source of income for 20 youths who were involved in the approach.
  • Diversified source of income: With support from the project many technologies were incorporated into the site, like a poultry farm, fruit trees, vegetables, and a greenhouse. These technologies acted as a source of income for the land users.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • Capacity building and opportunities: Through the approach, land users were trained in different aspects like how to use power tillers, power chains, and grass cutters. livestock rearing, vegetables, and fruit cultivation. Through this training, their knowledge and skills were developed which was plus point as it provided an opportunity to look for better options.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • Labor shortage: Initially 20 land users were involved however as time passed by, many left the group and this created a labor shortage. If the government can penalize those who leave the group.
  • Crop failure: Since the site is located in a high altitude area (2300 masl) many crops do not grow well. This discourages land users and many left the group. Greenhouses are provided with drip irrigation facilities only. If Automation is added in the greenhouse it could solve the problem.
  • Marketing: Local markets are captured by local producers. Land users shared their views on exploring market opportunities in another district. They also added that even if they find a good market it will be difficult since they don't have their own marketing van. Providing marketing van.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • A penalty for breach of contract: The land users were free to leave the group even after receiving capacity development training. If this was the case a time will come when everyone will leave. Therefore, we felt the government should make strict rules on those who leave the group after getting training.
  • Wrong site selection: The current site is located 15-20Km away from the main town. The site is also located in the middle of the forest. When sites are very far from the market, it will be difficult for transporting agricultural inputs/products to and from the market. Providing a marketing van or changing the site.
  • Loan: Government should arrange loan facilities for land users. This is because initially they were huge in number and the government supported them with everything. Now there are very less number of active land users and they require financial support to hire laborers and to buy agricultural inputs like seeds and feed for animals. If loan facilities are arranged for active land users it would solve the problem.

References

Compiler
  • ONGPO LEPCHA
Editors
  • chenga Tshering
Reviewer
  • William Critchley
  • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
  • Joana Eichenberger
Date of documentation: Aug. 10, 2023
Last update: Mei 30, 2024
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Tshendung LUC Integrated Farming Association By-laws, Trashi Yangtse, 2020: Copy of the agreement provided by the land users (free)
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International