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

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Strengthening national-level institutional and professional capacities of country Parties towards enhanced UNCCD monitoring and reporting – GEF 7 EA Umbrella II (GEF 7 UNCCD Enabling Activities_Umbrella II)

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

National Soil Services Centre, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock (NSSC) - Bhutan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

20/7/2023

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

In the past, it was difficult for households to complete seasonal farming activities like ploughing, sowing, and transplanting in time. So, land users came together by adopting 'latsab' or labour sharing. This involves pooling land users, who work on a rotational basis on the plots of the different group members. Labour sharing is a very old approach but is still being practiced throughout the country.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

In the past, it was difficult for households to complete seasonal farming activities like ploughing, sowing, and transplanting in time. So, land users came together by adopting 'latsab' or labour sharing. This involves pooling land users, who work on a rotational basis on the plots of the different group members. Labour sharing is a very old approach but is still being practiced throughout the country. In addition, land users also come together for any construction work or other activities related to land management. Labour sharing aims to complete seasonal farming activities more efficiently and on time. The approach also helps economically disadvantaged land users who cannot pay wages to employ. Other co-benefits reported are the improved sense of community and enhanced social cohesion because the exchange of experiences and collaboration builds mutual trust. Working in a group eases hard physical work, such as carrying and breaking large boulders, and is perceived to be much more enjoyable than working alone or in a household setting.
Groups are formed at the village and sub-village levels to enable households to take up labour-intensive SLM activities, such as stone bunding, bench terracing, stone check dam construction, water source protection works, or grass hedgerow development. Labour-sharing involves land users coming together to discuss important agricultural activities to be implemented. They also select the land users where the work should start. When it comes to activities related to SLM intervention, the land users are given initial practical training on the SLM intervention, which starts with hands-on work on the land of a group member, preferably that of a vulnerable household. Labour-sharing groups, therefore, facilitate the inclusion of vulnerable households, especially female-headed and small families, in the implementation of labour-intensive SLM interventions. In addition to technical guidance provided by extension staff, support is given to the group formation process, such as drafting informal by-laws and group management.
Any activities through a labour-sharing approach have to undergo specific stages. Initially, the land users will come together to discuss important agricultural or SLM activities to be carried out in a season. Secondly, they identify a 'Blenpa' who is a land user who requests help on his/ her land. Once in the field before they start any activities a supervisor or 'la pon' is appointed. If work involves heavy digging, a 'Nyempa' (preferably a strong man) is appointed, and he will be assisted by four or five women. The labour-sharing group is formed through common interests among different land users in the community. The group members come together and plan and prepare by-laws. They appoint a chairman or 'Trizin', who is the overall manager of the group. The accountant/treasurer or 'Tsezin' is appointed to take care of the finances. Any conflict between land users is solved within the group.

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

• traditional/ indigenous

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The main aims/objectives of the approach are 1) Labour-sharing to complete seasonal activities faster and on time, 2) To support economically disabled land users who cannot pay for hired workers, and 3) To share resources like water which is important for carrying out farming activities.

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	self-mobilization	The labour-sharing approach was initiated by the ancestors of current land users. Current land users found this approach as an effective way to mitigate labour shortage and resource management and they continue to preserve and practice it.
planning	self-mobilization	Land users are the ones who come together, prepare their by-laws and plan all the activities related to farming or SLM intervention.
implementation	self-mobilization	The approach has an elected chairman and accountant who are responsible for the smooth running of the group and finances. Any conflicts that arise between land users are solved within the group.
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	The group is monitored by the chairman. During the time of any activities, they also appoint a supervisor who will monitor the quality of the work performed by the members.

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

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

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

The technologies implemented by land users have been decided by land users and upon their request to the government the SLM specialist are sent and technology related training and materials are provided to the group.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Ja

Specify who was trained:

• land users

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

Improved ways to dry Chilli, Nursery bed preparation, electric fencing, Growing Napier grass, Chainlink fencing, Greenhouse construction, etc.,

Comments:

The training was provided by extension agents

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Ja

Describe/ comments:

Whenever there is an outbreak of crops or livestock diseases, advisory services are provided by agricultural and livestock officers on do and don't of the issues.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Within the labour-sharing group, land users also have formed other groups like the Chilli group (focusing on cultivating and marketing chilli), Vegetable group (involved in growing and marketing vegetables other than chilli)

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

The financial institution provides loans to those land users who are members of the group. Support from the government and external projects targeted to the groups. As a result, members of the group have received training in Chilli drying through the Tarayana Foundation. Members also shared that when they work in groups they also share tools, equipments, machinary, etc., which indirectly reduces the cost.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Ja

Comments:

Labour sharing involves working on a rotation basis. The group has a chairman who monitors the overall activities of the group. When it comes to agricultural or SLM intervention activities carried out at individual land user's fields. The supervisor is appointed who monitors and supervises the work.

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

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

The group is mainly formed by those land users who are economically disabled. They work on a rotation basis so that they don't have to pay for human resources involved in carrying out any agricultural or SLM intervention activities.

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):

Electric fencing: The materials were supported by the government.
Chilli dryer:

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• construction

• infrastructure

• other

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

• rewarded with other material support

Comments:

All materials required were supplied by the government for free. Land users were involved in construction/installation.

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?

Ja

If yes, specify:

The group also received a cake-making machine. However, this was shared among different groups from other places.

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)?

• uncertain

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

The approach was there in the past when external support was not there. It is continuing today, but it is uncertain whether this approach will survive in the future with changing climate and improving the lifestyle of every farmer.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The approach allows members to enhance social cohesion and community sense. They come together for any kind of work, thus tackling the main issue of labour shortage and easing hard physical work.
Agricultural activities like ploughing, tilling, sowing, transplanting, weeding, watering, and harvesting, have to be completed on time. The approach allows every member to complete these activities on time avoiding crop failure and enhancing crop production.
The approach includes all vulnerable groups giving them opportunities to share their problems and supporting them through labour-sharing to carry out important agricultural activities for crop production.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach demands equal participation from all household members. Thus giving training on any SLM intervention activities by SLM experts becomes very easy. It is also easy to communicate to the group for dissemination of any information.
The approach helps the economically disabled members to sustain their livelihood. This is because labour-sharing cut many of the costs involved in crop production or SLM intervention activities increasing the cost-benefit ratio.

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?
Marketing of agricultural produce: There are many other groups at the village and sub-district level. They compete to capture the local market which is always saturated with supply. Exploring the market at the domestic and international levels is very expensive for the majority of the group.	The government takes some initiative to explore the market for these groups or give them some incentives to do marketing like marketing van.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
The sustainability of the group: Most of the members are between the age group of 40-70. The young generation is not interested in agriculture and in the future, there are chances that this kind of group may die.	The government must take some initiative to make our young generation like Agriculture by bringing new technologies that will ease hard human labour.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

BHUCAT (Bhutan catalogue of soil and water conservation approaches and technologies):Best practices and guidelines from Bhutan for sustainable land managements on steep to very steep slopes, National Soil Service Center, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Forest 2012,

Available from where? Costs?

A copy of a book was provided by National Soil Service Center, Simtokha: Bhutan for Free.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

2021 Labour force survey report Bhutan, National statistics Bureau, 2021, ISBN 978-99936-28-93-4

Available from where? Costs?

available online for free. https://www.nsb.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2022/04/LFS-2021-web.pdf

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

SLM Labour-sharing group Bhutan

URL:

https://qcat.wocat.net/wocat/approaches/view/approaches_2491/

Title/ description:

Sharing labour to implement contour bunding in Nepal

URL:

https://qcat.wocat.net/wocat/approaches/view/approaches_2604/

Title/ description:

Organic agriculture, Labour exchange, and social networks: a case study of smallholder farming in Bhutan

URL:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13165-022-00416-z