1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

13/07/2023

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Ja

2.1 Short description of the Approach

The public-private-community partnerships (PPCP) approach is a synergistically operational model that is used to achieve sustainable development in which the three parties jointly develop a business unit/service of mutual benefit and provide maximum benefit to the wider community. This approach is designed to enable economically disabled households and community organizations to generate long-term benefits through sustainable agriculture - in this case hazelnut production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The Mountain Hazelnut Venture (MHV) is a social enterprise established as a Public-Private-Community Partnership (PPCP) between the people and the Royal Government of Bhutan and a private company. The PPCP approach involves private entity funding of a project, and it has become common countrywide, The MHV has enabled a large-scale Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) project. The MHV provides hazelnut trees, agricultural inputs, and technical assistance to smallholder farmers. At harvest, the company purchases hazelnuts from partner growers, which are then processed for international export. The primary objective of this approach is to foster collaboration between the private company and the community to generate long-term income and revitalize vulnerable communities through sustainable agriculture. Hazelnut orchards stabilize mountain slopes, reduce soil erosion, improve water retention, and help adapt to, and mitigate, climate change by improving ground cover, retaining soil moisture and sequestering carbon.
The private company looks for interested farmers who are then registered. The company propagates good quality hazelnut seedlings and distributes them. This is followed up by constant monitoring by technical staff until fruits are harvested and processed. The implementation stage includes planning, providing them with necessary agricultural inputs, and technical support through extension and monitoring. Once the fruits are harvested, payment is made to the farmers. Implementation involves the MHV engaging with community members alongside agricultural extension agents to present and convince them about the benefits of the project. Additionally, the MHV provides training, workshops, and ongoing support. They finance the project while also taking on the role of monitoring and evaluating its outcomes.
There are three key stakeholders involved in this approach. They are the community members (landowners), the Royal Government of Bhutan, and the Mountain Hazelnut company. It is reported that there are more than 8,000 smallholder land users registered with MHV from 19 of 20 districts in Bhutan. The roles of the land users are to grow hazelnuts through nurturing the seedlings, harvesting the nuts, and selling them to the Hazelnut company as per the mutual agreement. Land users are provided free seedlings, consistent technical and field support, and the guaranteed buyback of nuts by the company. They also received training and assistance. The second key stakeholder is the Royal Government, who provides clearance and facilitates the establishment of business in line with the national Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) Policy. In the field, agriculture extension agents represent the government by facilitating communication between the hazelnut company and the communities. Lastly, the MHV as a private company is committed to fostering the development of entrepreneurs in the agribusiness sector across Bhutan.
The advantages of the approach to the land users are the financial, technical and material support provided by the private company. The land users can also develop their skills and knowledge through training on hazelnut cultivation and good agricultural practices (GAP). Hazelnut is a new crop in the locality.
Finally, the company is committed to generating income and improving the livelihood of rural communities in Bhutan. However, despite the noble objectives, the company has failed to realize its intended target, and this is an increasing cause of concern. Furthermore, there are complaints that the harvests have been poor – or even zero in some cases. It is clear that there had been inadequate investigation into the viability of hazelnuts in Bhutan. While failing on the economic front so far, from the land degradation neutrality (LDN) point of view, the hazelnut plantations have improved ground cover immensely thereby generating environmental benefits through stabilization of vulnerable agricultural land, reduction in land degradation and carbon sequestration.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The primary objective of this approach is to persuade the community to embrace the Mountain Hazelnut Venture and foster collaboration between the private company and the community to advance the project, generate long-term income, revitalise vulnerable communities through sustainable agriculture, stabilising mountain slopes, reducing erosion, improving water retention, and mitigating climate change by improving soil fertility and carbon sequestration.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	interactive	The land users were sensitized on the Mountain Hazelnut Venture, in particular the long term benefits of improving income and livelihoods. Mutual agreements were signed between the company and the land users.
planning	passive	The private company (MHV) decide on the timeline of the project and how to implement it. However, the community members and the extension agents are informed about the plan.
implementation	self-mobilization	For the implementation, land users were equipped with all the skills and materials required for the projects success. They plant and cultivate the hazelnut in their fields on their own, with some assistance from the company's field coordinator.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Officials from the company (MHV) visits the land users field together with the land users, where the hazelnuts were cultivated and checks the progress of the project.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Were decisions on the selection of the Technology(ies) made:

• Private sector (MHV)

Explain:

The decision to implement the project in Domlung was done by the private company (MHV) based on their findings and agreement by the community.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

The subjects covered included the cultivation of hazelnuts, good agricultural practices, proper land and agronomic management of hazelnuts, grafting, weed control, and sustainable land management.

Comments:

The capacity building was financed by the private company and was supervised by the agricultural extension agent.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

• Private company

Describe/ comments:

Advisory services were provided by the field coordinator and other officials from the private company (MHV).

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• no

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

In accordance with the land users of Domlung, officials from the private company visits the village sporadically to check the progress of the project.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Nee

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Nee

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Indicate the annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach in US$:

30000000.00

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Mountain Hazelnut Venture (The annual budget is the total investment of the company for the entire project)

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Ja

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

The financial support was received in the form of planting materials and other materials such as fencing.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• rewarded with other material support

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Nee

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

Nee

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• no

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

The land users who agreed to grow hazelnuts were the ones who were economically disabled. They could have sustained what was implemented through the approach if everything had gone as planned. However, there has been almost zero production of the hazelnuts from almost all hazelnut growing areas which has seriously affected the income. It has been almost 12 years since the first implementation of the project. Land users mentioned that they are now looking for other alternatives so that they can uproot hazelnuts and replace them with some other productive crop.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Support from the company: Easy for the land users to implement the project due to material and technical supports from the approach. Land users received inputs like hazelnut seedlings at the beginning, which was for free. They also received support for growing the seedlings, Taking care of the seedlings, etc.,
Assured market: Land users also mentioned that the main motivation to get involved in such an approach was the market and the possibility of generating income. The company was willing to buy whatever quantity of hazelnuts they could produce from their land.
Capacity development: In addition to the support (agricultural inputs), the land users also received various training through which they were exposed to other technologies which some of them were totally unaware. They could enhance their skills and knowledge on hazelnut production like orchard cultivation, hazelnut value-chain, including processing and the provision of goods and services.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Opportunities to economically disabled land users: One of the primary objectives of Mountain Hazelnut Venture is to enable smallholder farming households to generate long-term income, revitalize vulnerable communities through sustainable agriculture. Through this approach many youths were given employment as a worker in the project sites.
Focus on sustainable land management: The approach made land uesres to grow hazelnuts sapling in their marginal or unproductive land. When hazelnuts is fully grown, hazelnut plantations stabilize mountain slopes, reduce soil erosion, improve water retention, and mitigate climate change by improving soil fertility and carbon sequestration. In brief, hazelnut plantation as a SLM intervention, contributes to the realization of the land degradation neutrality (LDN) target and adapt to and mitigate climate change.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
No transparency of the information: Land users shared that they were lured by some officals saying the approach to be very profitable. They didn't explained them very well on positive and negative long term impact of the project. They didnt know about the plant (hazelnuts), Its problem in fruiting, etc.,	This type of project is maily implemented for the welfare of the community. It should never be implemented for sole benefit of the company.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
No proper planning and research: The main reason why this hazelnut planations failed in many places in Bhutan could be due to lack of proper planning and research. Given the wide range of elevation and climatic conditions in Bhutan, more adaptability or suitability trials at different elevations could have been conducted.	Suitability trials of different varieties of hazelnuts could have been done so that the best performing varieties and management practices could have been promoted to the land users on large scale.
No risk management: It appears like the MHV initiated its business with full confidnce that the project will do well in Bhutan and as such no risk management plans were in place. For instance, land users sacrificed most of their land with the hope of generating good income, but this didn't happen in reality. Many land users were left devasted and hopeless without any compensation from the company.	Any project should account the risk and accordingly provision risk management plan in the proposal and agreement. Such provisions should also be made transparent to all the parties so that it becomes very clear about the compensation should the project fail.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Asian Development Bank. (n.d.). Public-Private Partnership Handbook. ADB.

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-document/31484/public-private-partnership.pdf

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Perez, M. C. (2015). Public-Private-Community-Partnerships for Renewable Energy Cooperatives. Wegeningen UR.

Available from where? Costs?

https://edepot.wur.nl/337095

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Mountain Hazelnut Venture

URL:

https://www.mountainhazelnuts.com/

Title/ description:

Public–Private–Community Partnership

URL:

https://penabulufoundation.org/en/public-private-community-partnership/