Community members engaged in SLM implementation (Sonam Wangchuk)

Community Mobilization for SLM Interventions (Bhutan)

Yuenten Sazhi Zinchong Laglen Thab Niyi Dhoen lu Midhey Dreltog (ཡུན་བརྟན་ས་གཞི་འཛིན་སྐྱོང་ལག་ལེན་འཐབ་ནིའི་དོན་ལུ་མི་སྡེ་འབྲེལ་གཏོགས།)

Description

Community mobilization in implementing sustainable land management technologies is indispensable in engaging the community to identify their priorities, resources, needs and solutions. It ultimately promotes bottom-up participation and fosters accountability.

Community mobilization in implementing sustainable land management technologies involves active engagement of local communities in the planning, decision-making, implementation, and monitoring of land management. This approach recognizes the vital role of local communities in managing and conserving natural resources. By actively involving community members, SLM initiatives can be more effective and sustainable in the long-run.
With the objective of promoting a sense of unity and shared responsibility, SLM implementation in Pangserpo Chiwog of Drujeygang Gewog under Dagana Dzongkhag, has been executed through mobilization of a community group called ‘Thuenpa Puenzhi Sonam Detshen’. This group, consisting of 13 members, was initially instituted as a vegetable progressive group in 2018.
The need for SLM came to light when one of the members adopted stone bunds, inspiring the rest of the members. Subsequently, the community group members collectively initiated an SLM programme to address land degradation issues and enhance agriculture productivity. The proven SLM technologies implemented includes stone bunds, terracing, and hedgerows.
The community mobilization approach has built capacity within the community for effective land use and conservation, fostering ownership and securing the longevity of the SLM programme. The bylaws - for instance mandatory active participation of every member in community work - have been successful in upholding the integrity of the initiative, thereby ensuring effective implementation of SLM related activities.
This group mainly consists of women headed households who support each other through a self-help approach. When labour shortage is the major challenge, the self-mobilized group plays a vital role in scaling up SLM interventions and improving their own livelihoods. In most cases of SLM grouping, the groups remain intact until project support is withdrawn, but for the Thuenpa Puenzhi Sonam Detshen, the group is still functional.

Location

Location: Pangserpo Chiwog, Drujeygang Gewog, Dagana Dzongkhag, Bhutan

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • 90.01408, 26.97879

Initiation date: 2019

Year of termination: n.a.

Type of Approach
Hedge establishment by the land users (Haka Drukpa)

Approach aims and enabling environment

Main aims / objectives of the approach
The central goal of this approach is to foster community interaction and collaboration towards better outreach and implementation of SLM practices
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: The socio-cultural norms enable the implementation of SLM activities in the community, due to its effectiveness in mitigating land degradation issues, with no negative side impact.
  • Availability/ access to financial resources and services: Initially the the government funded Nu. 200,000/- to execute the SLM technologies (stone bunds), later the group became financially stable by collecting fees (Nu.500 per member) from the group members and selling their agricultural products.
  • Institutional setting: The community have better access to gewog Renewable Natural Resources, Agriculture Research and Development Centre, and National Soil Services Centre for any kind of technical supports related to SLM
  • Collaboration/ coordination of actors: The land users collaborated with the Royal Government of Bhutan and Green Climate Fund project members for the execution of the community SLM interventions.
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The land ownerships for instance are either family or individual, posing no hindrances to adopt any kind of SLM technologies.
  • Policies: There is no policies that hinders the SLM intervention in the community
  • Land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement): The community holds meetings every month to discuss their issues and plans. By-laws were formulated during the initiation of the approach to enable efficient decision-making and implementation of the activities. Additionally, regardless of gender, land users actively participate in the activities that were done as part of the approach.
  • Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: The members were well sensitized and trained on SLM and its best technologies by the National Soil Services Centre
  • Markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices: The market for the community is assured through school feeding program linkage (Drujeygang Central School and Pangna Primary Schools).
  • Workload, availability of manpower: The SLM practices such as the construction of stone bunds are laborious. However, the involvement of the community and their labour contribution aids in achieving the implementation of the SLM practices.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach

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 Chairman and community members (land users) The chairman was involved in initial group formulation by gathering like-minded members, and exploring for input subsidies. Land users are involved in forming a group and cooperating to address the issues, vegetable cultivation, and marketing.
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers Gewog/Block and Dzongkhag agriculture offices In accepting and reviewing the group formation proposal, developing by-laws , sourcing funds, exploring markets, and monitoring.
teachers/ school children/ students School Administrations For community group and school feeding program linkages
local government Gewog/Block Administration In accepting and reviewing the group formation proposal, developing by-laws , sourcing funds, exploring markets, taking the concerns of land degradation to the higher authorities
national government (planners, decision-makers) Dzongkhag Adminstration Final approval of the group formation and fund sourcing
international organization Green Climate Fund (GCF) project Provision of funds
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
One of the community members who is currently the chairperson adopted a SLM technology, and inspired other members. Subsequently, they further explored to implement SLM technologies in larger scales in the community.
planning
Both the government and the land users were involved during the planning process. The government provided technical inputs whereas the land users contributed traditional knowledge.
implementation
Both the government and the land users were involved during the implementation of the technologies. Where the government provided technical and financial support along with machineries. The land users contributed labour and farm tools.
monitoring/ evaluation
The community meets every month to engage in self-monitoring and evaluation of the technologies. It is followed by addressing the issues and concerns raised. The Gewog, Dzongkhag, and NSSC also conducts periodic monitoring and evaluation.
Flow chart

Flow chart of how any SLM activities are carried out based on the approach.

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

What actually SLM is, why SLM is important and required, and the best proven SLM technologies that are being implemented in Bhutan.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
The advisory services on the technology and management were provided to farmers on land users' fields by Agriculture Extension Officers.
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.
The institution is known by the name "Thuenpa Puenzhi Sanam Detshen" in the surrounding community. There are 13 members including the chairperson of the group. The chairperson's responsibility is to coordinate and address all community-related activities and concerns. He also oversees the institution's financial planning. The member's job is to cooperate with the chairperson and encourage one another in difficult times.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
  • labour-sharing (Local name: Lagtshab)
Further details
The institution provides financial aid. Additionally, they engage in labour-sharing (lagtshab) where the land users rotate working on each other's fields to complete the work faster.
Monitoring and evaluation
The monitoring and evaluation are part of the approach. The land users get together once a month to review the activities conducted and plan future activities preventing recurring issues to strengthen the effectiveness of the approach.

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.
The government funded one time during the initial implementation of the technology. However, there is no annual budget allocated for the group now.
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
They were provided with Nu. 200,000/- to implement the technology through GCF project.
partly financed
fully financed
equipment: machinery

Power tiller was partly financed by the government. (Farmers and the government split the cost by 50%)

agricultural: seeds

Initially all the seeds were provided by the government later it was stopped as the land users became financially stable to afford the seeds.

Greenhouse

The government paid 80% of the greenhouse's cost, and farmers paid 20%.

Labour by land users was

Credit

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?

The land users are now empowered and are able to implement SLM technologies on their own, because of capacity built through SLM sensitization and hand-on-training.

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?

The approach enabled land users to make evidence-based decisions. For example, the land users grew certain crops to be sold to the local market. However, the members of other communities started growing the same types of crops. Therefore, to reduce market competition the land users opted for different crops that are not grown by other groups. Also, linking with school feeding program was also a best evident decision.

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

The group members collectively could source funds for SLM. The technology implementation through labour sharing was possible only due to the group members cohesiveness.

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?

The labour sharing strategy proved best in effective cost management (cost sharing).

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?

The group sourced Nu. 200,000/- for the implementation of SLM technologies. Currently, the group makes Nu. 30,00,000/- a year, which they divide among themselves and save a certain amount to be used to maintain the technologies and as an emergency fund.

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

Capacity built through SLM sensitization, hand-on-training, and implementation.

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?

The capacities of local government officials were developed, while making their presence during the program.

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?

Based on the community's interest and motivation to improve agricultural productivity, other stakeholders are convinced to support and collaborate with them.

Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?

The labour sharing mechanism through this approach has mitigated social conflicts especially due to labour shortage.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

The group members mainly consists of women headed households.

Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?

Both male and female have equal rights to be part of the group. Initially, the group started with an equal number of male and female.

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

Majority of the children are in schools/colleges. But, they somehow get to engage in SLM program during their vacations representing their parents and relatives. Few youth living in the community are also engaged. Hence, the next generation land users are encouraged.

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?

The land ownerships are either family or individual. So, there was no prior issues in land tenure or user rights.

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?

Before the community mobilization approach, agricultural activity was mainly for self-consumption. The implementation of SLM with this approach has seen increased agricultural productivity even at this initial stage, leading to market-oriented farming, improved household income, improved food and nutrition security.

Did the Approach improve access to markets?

The approach improved land users' access to the market through school feeding program linkage.

Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?

The water harvesting technology implemented through the approach provides irrigation water to the land users' fields.

Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?

The SLM technologies implemented by the land users in this community is not very related to the sustainable energy uses.

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?

Adverse effects of climate change such as erratic rainfall reduced through SLM, especially due to sloping of agricultural lands.

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?

The approach has significantly improved the land users' income as the technologies increased cultivable area, improved irrigation and eased farming. All these lead to an increase in agricultural productivity and household income.

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

The group is financially stable and has strong cooperation and interaction among the members

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: land user's view
  • The land users are self-sufficient in vegetables, and improved health and well-being of their families.
  • The cooperation and interaction among the group members have been enhanced as the approach involves working in a group where they help each other to achieve a common goal.
  • The approach has made the land users financially stable due to the income generated from selling vegetables.
  • Due to bulk production in a community, the land users are able to access markets having demand for more quantities of vegetables such as school feeding programmes.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
  • The community has a capable leader, which is important to guide the group in terms of difficulties and prevent failure of the approach.
  • The agricultural production has drastically increased, especially winter crops leading to reduced import.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
  • The potato production is higher than the market demand Exploring markets beyond the community and local markets
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
  • Limited market (Only two schools and few local markets) Explore markets beyond local markets

References

Compiler
  • Nima Dolma Tamang
Editors
Reviewer
  • William Critchley
  • Rima Mekdaschi Studer
  • Joana Eichenberger
Date of documentation: Julie 8, 2023
Last update: Junie 4, 2024
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
Key references
  • Wangdi, K. (2022). Promoting local farm produce in schools. BBS. Retrieved from http://www.bbs.bt/news/?p=165872: http://www.bbs.bt/news/?p=165872
  • National Soil Service Center. (2011). Bhutan Catalogue of Soil and Water Conservation Approaches and Technologies: Best Practices and Guidelines from Bhutan for Sustainable Land Management on Steep to Very Steep Slopes. National Soil Services Centre (NSSC), Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu.: https://www.wocat.net/documents/140/Bhutan_catalogue_of_SLM_Technologies_and_Approaches.pdf
Links to relevant information which is available online
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International