Labour-sharing group of Bosokha chiog, focusing on stone bunding, Phuentsholing geog, ChhukhaDzongkhag (Hans van Noord)

SLM Labour-Sharing Group (Bhutan)

Description

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

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.

Location

Location: Logchina geog, Amallay chiog, Chhukha Dzongkhag, Bhutan

Geo-reference of selected sites
  • n.a.

Initiation date: 2009

Year of termination: 2012

Type of Approach
Labour-sharing group of Bosokha chiog, focusing on stone bunding, Phuentsholing geog, ChhukhaDzongkhag (Hans van Noord (Schoutenkamp 43 Heteren The Netherlands))
Labour-sharing group of Lower Amallay chiog, Logchina geog, Chhukha Dzongkhag (Hans van Noord (Schoutenkamp 43 Heteren The Netherlands))

Approach aims and enabling environment

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.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): 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.
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
  • Social/ cultural/ religious norms and values: 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
  • Workload, availability of manpower: 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

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 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)
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
x
Participatory SLM Action Planning
planning
x
Participatory SLM Action Planning; Schedule of rotation compiled by group members
implementation
x
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
x
Participatory Monitoring & Evaluation meetings to give feedback and make adjustments / give guidance
Research
x
Flow chart

Labour-sharing group and its governance

Author: Hans van Noord (Schoutenkamp 43 Heteren The Netherlands)
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

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.

Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
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
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.
Type of support
  • financial
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment
Further details
Group formation process guidance: training and continued support by extension and geog administration staff.
Monitoring and evaluation
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.

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.
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%
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
Incentive per area converted to sustainable SLM practice and seeds/seedlings.
partly financed
fully financed
equipment: tools

x
agricultural: seeds

maize, mustard, potato, wheat, paddy, vegetables

x

Labour by land users was

Impact analysis and concluding statements

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

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.

x
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?

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.

x
Did other land users / projects adopt the Approach?

Other villages have followed the example of the initial groups.

x
Main motivation of land users to implement SLM
Sustainability of Approach activities
Can the land users sustain what hat been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

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.

Conclusions and lessons learnt

Strengths: 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: 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)
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to 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: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to 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

References

Compiler
  • Karma Dorji
Editors
Reviewer
  • Fabian Ottiger
Date of documentation: July 7, 2014
Last update: Aug. 3, 2017
Resource persons
Full description in the WOCAT database
Linked SLM data
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution Project
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareaAlike 4.0 International