Approaches

SLM Labour-Sharing Group [Bhutan]

  • Creation:
  • Update:
  • Compiler:
  • Editor:
  • Reviewer:

approaches_2491 - Bhutan

Completeness: 86%

1. معلومات عامة

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

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
MoA (MoA) - Bhutan
Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
National Soil Services Centre (National Soil Services Centre) - Bhutan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

21/03/2011

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

نعم

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Labour-sharing group at village and sub-village level to ease the labour constraint faced by many households.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Aims / objectives: A labour-sharing group is a pool of land-users, who work on rotation basis on the plots of the different group members and replaces the conventional approach of an individual land user carrying out a specific SLM intervention. An important constraint for effective implementation of SLM interventions is the lack of sufficient labour force at household level. To tackle this key issue, groups are formed at village and sub-village level to enable these households to take up the relatively labour-intensive SLM activities, such as stone bunding, bench terracing, stone check dam construction, water source protection works or grass hedgerow development.

Methods: The labour-sharing group is given an initial practical training on the basics of the SLM intervention, which start with hands-on work on the land of a group member, preferably that of a vulnerable household, which otherwise would have difficulty to provide sufficient labour to take up the activity. Labour-sharing groups therefore facilitate the inclusion of vulnerable households, especially female-headed and small families, in the implementation of labour-intensive SLM inter-ventions. In addition to the technical guidance provided by the extension staff, support is given to the group formation process, such as drafting of informal by-laws and group management.

Stages of implementation: Labour-sharing groups enable households to carry out key SLM interventions more effectively and efficiently enabling them to cover as compared to individual household approach. 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, such as carrying and breaking large boulders and is perceived to be much more enjoyable than working alone or in a small household setting.

Role of stakeholders: Groups that were formed for the implementation of a specific SLM activity often continue carrying our other planned SLM interventions in a group. In some villages communities reported that they had lost the former practice of labour-sharing, but that with reintroduction by the project their community sense has been rejuvenated. Sustainability of the labour-sharing approach has to be proven post-project. Additional costs are very limited and are restricted to group formation guidance and some additional group support, such as tool sets and more incentives as more land will be converted by the group approach.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

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

بلد:

Bhutan

Region/ State/ Province:

Chhukha Dzongkhag

Further specification of location:

Logchina geog, Amallay chiog

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

Indicate year of initiation:

2009

Year of termination (if Approach is no longer applied):

2012

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The Approach focused on SLM only

- To ease the existing labour constraint of individual households by pooling labour force into a common pool, ensuring a more time-efficient labour approach, enabling the group to convert larger areas of land.
- To facilitate the inclusion of vulnerable households in more labour-intensive long-term SLM interventions, for which they otherwise would not have the meansto participate.
- To improve community cohesion through improved trust, understanding, social fencing and “labour joy” (“it is much more fun to work in a group than to sweat individually”).


The SLM Approach addressed the following problems: - SLM interventions, as prioritized in chiog SLM action plan, are very labour-intensive, while labour is increasingly becoming a serious constraint in many rural areas of Bhutan, because of rural-urban migration, off-farm labour and other developmental activities.
- Vulnerable households, single-headed families and poorest families, have often the most difficulty providing sufficient labour for long-term SLM interventions
- Communities often face problems in achieving the targeted area of land to be converted to a more sustainable SLM practice, because of labour shortage.

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

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • hindering

Some issues with households who do not share sufficient labour / fail to show up

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Informal by-laws, penalty system, social fencing

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

The existing land ownership, land use rights / water rights greatly helped the approach implementation: Individual titled land tenure greatly facilitates motivation and commitment of households to participate in group approach as they are direct beneficiaries.

workload, availability of manpower
  • hindering

SLM interventions often require considerable hard physical labour, in a society where labour force increasingly is becoming scarcer.

Treatment through the SLM Approach: Pool individual households in a group and work on rotation basis on each other’s land

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

self initiative during planning cycle

Slight differences in participation level in the most physically challenging activities such as stone bunding, but also partly culturally determined if there is gender bias in participation. In less physically demanding activities participation is equally divided.The most vulnerable households are included in the labour-sharing group, just as the “better off” families; inclusion of vulnerable households is definite advantage of approach, and an important objective.

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers
  • local government

Local government (geog staff, chiog representatives) and local community

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)
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 Participatory SLM Action Planning
planning interactive Participatory SLM Action Planning; Schedule of rotation compiled by group members
implementation interactive Training / capacity building at kick-off of group formation process; stone bunding, hedgerow establishment, bench terracing, stone check dam construction, bamboo and tree plantation, water source protection works and grass strip establishment
monitoring/ evaluation interactive Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation meetings to give feedback and make adjustments / give guidance
Research none

3.3 Flow chart (if available)

Description:

Labour-sharing group and its governance

Author:

Hans van Noord (Schoutenkamp 43 Heteren The Netherlands)

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:

Decisions on the method of implementing the SLM Technology were made by mainly by land users supported by SLM specialists

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

نعم

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
Subjects covered:

Training programme for specific SLM interventions, carried out by the labour-sharing group after initial capacity building and hands-on practice sessions; additional group formation support and guidance by the municipality administration staff and extension staff.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

نعم

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Describe/ comments:

Name of method used for advisory service: Group formation process guidance; Key elements: by-law formulation, demo trainings, exchange visit; By extension staff and geog administration staff in group formation process and during ad hoc visits and regular participatory M & E meetings.

Advisory service is quite adequate to ensure the continuation of land conservation activities; Some need for refreshing/additional training of SLM techniques

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
Specify type of support:
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Give further details:

Group formation process guidance: training and continued support by extension and geog administration staff.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

نعم

Comments:

bio-physical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements by project staff and group members: area converted, of dams built etc.

technical aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations by project staff and group members: implementation according to technical guidelines (distances between bunds/hedges, survival rate of seedlings etc.

socio-cultural aspects were regular monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Regular observations by project and geog administration staff and group members regarding group functioning and possible conflicts (drafting of by-laws, rules etc.)

economic / production aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements by project staff and group members: crop yield, production area increase

area treated aspects were regular monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements by project staff and group members: area treated

no. of land users involved aspects were None monitored by project staff, land users through measurements; indicators: Regular measurements by project staff and group members: # of households

management of Approach aspects were None monitored by project staff, government, land users through observations; indicators: Regular M & E meetings with project and geog administration staff and group members

There were few changes in the Approach as a result of monitoring and evaluation: Drafting and adoption of group by-laws to regulate agreements and as enforcement of “social fencing”

There were few changes in the Technology as a result of monitoring and evaluation: slight changes in technical guidelines after group feedback.

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:
  • < 2,000
Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Approach costs were met by the following donors: government (SLMP project support: tools, training, incentives): 5.0%; local community / land user(s) (labour contribution): 95.0%

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

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

نعم

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

Incentive per area converted to sustainable SLM practice and seeds/seedlings.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
tools fully financed
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds partly financed maize, mustard, potato, wheat, paddy, vegetables
Comments:

Incentives cover mainly labour contribution as provided by the group members and is mostly only a minor fraction of the actual labour costs.

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

لا

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Labour-sharing has resulted in the possibility to convert/treat larger areas per working day and has made the work much easier (lifting of heavy stones etc.). More land has now become cultivated through labour-sharing group involvement as could have been done through individual households.

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Targeted inclusion of vulnerable households in group, even if they have not sufficient labour to contribute to labour pool; hands-on training starts on land of most vulnerable/poor households to give them first benefit.

Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Other villages have followed the example of the initial groups.

Did the Approach lead to improved livelihoods / human well-being?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Group members express satisfaction over improved social cohesion and interaction because of built trust and understanding and social bonding; group work has contributed to enhanced food self-sufficiency.

Did the Approach help to alleviate poverty?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Through improved food self-sufficiency, increased production area/improved cropland area and targeted inclusion of most vulnerable households that otherwise could not have participated in specific labour-intensive SLM activity

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production
  • reduced workload
  • payments/ subsidies
  • affiliation to movement/ project/ group/ networks
  • environmental consciousness

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

Existing group approach seems well suited to continue post-project, also as it partly is a rejuvenated traditional practice to share labour in a community group.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Eases work (breaking stones, carrying etc.). A-frame running helps to have better lines.
Continuous smooth work wit many
Social cohesion / experience sharing (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continuation of group work

Continuation of group work
Continued group monitoring and guidance)
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Tackles main issue of labour shortage and eases hard physical work (breaking stones, carrying/lifting boulders etc.)
Enhances social cohesion and group spirit / community sense; promotes exchange of experiences
Facilitates conversion of larger areas of slope segments treated with SLM practices
Preferred approach to enhance inclusion of most vulnerable households in labour-intensive SLM practices (How to sustain/ enhance this strength: Continued group monitoring and guidance

Continued group monitoring and guidance

Continued group monitoring and guidance

Start hands-on training work on land of these vulnerable households to give them first benefit)

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?
Some conflicts in labour-sharing (after completion on their land they abscond). Attendance register, social control, labour compensation, fines, by-laws.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
Sustainability has yet to be proven post-project; certain dependency on incentives
Loose group structure without formal leadership might threaten sustainability
Continued group monitoring and guidance by extension and geog administration staff
By-laws to formalize some agreements and enforce some penalties

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules