Enhancing Agricultural Production Through Fallow Land Reversion
(Bhutan)
Zhingtong Zhachoed Baedhi Sanam Thoenshug Yarseng Tangni (ཞིང་སྟོང་ཟ་སྤྱོད་འབད་འདི་སོ་ནམ་ཐོན་ཤུགས་ཡར་སེང་བཏང་ནི།)
Description
The approach is to enhance production of local vegetables and fruits through fallow land restoration - under a group established for the purpose.
This approach of reverting fallowed land to productivity encompasses leasing land, working in groups, promoting SLM technologies, and forging market linkages. In this example, the land belongs to the community Lhakang (temple) where the community used to grow maize and pulses to be offered to the Lhakang. However, with increased wild animal depredation, and shortages of irrigation water the land was left fallow. In 2019, with support from the government and the Commercial Agriculture and Resilient Livelihoods Enhancement Program (CARLEP), International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) Project, interested farmers from the community came together, leased the land, and started cultivating vegetables. The reverted fallow land is thus cultivated by the Chuthawoong Commercial Vegetable Farming group which is divided into three subgroups – one of women only - to increase efficiency. The group consist of seven and nine men in two male groups and seven women in one female group. There are no youths involved. The initial development involved the implementation of various SLM technologies such as stone bunding and napier grass strips to reduce soil erosion. Developing market linkages is another characteristic of the approach. The Regional Agricultural Marketing and Cooperatives (RAMCO) linked the land users with three schools to sell vegetables. Furthermore, the group signed a contract with Bhutan Agro Industries Limited (BAIL), Lingmithang (state-owned company) to supply dragon fruit and pineapple for processing.
The main aims and objectives of the approach are to become self-sufficient in vegetables and reduce imports, improve the livelihood and income of the land users and retain youth in agriculture through agricultural mechanization. The methods involved in implementing the approach were consultation among the community leaders and land users, and higher-level consultation with the Gewog Leaders and Dzongkhag Officials, consultation with the Agriculture Research and Development Center (ARDC) Wengkhar and with CARLEP project members.
Stages of implementation included conducting a feasibility study, followed by consultation meetings with the land users. Land development was carried out along with the installation of facilities including fencing, greenhouses, irrigation, and irrigation water storage tanks. After that, the group was formed and bylaws established. Seeds and seedlings were provided by the government.
Stakeholders involved include Gewog officials to develop land lease agreements. The Gewog Extension officer was involved throughout the process in providing guidance and support concerning irrigation, land development, vegetable and fruit cultivation and others. Dzongkhag officials were involved in the feasibility study and planning, and as one of the funding source. CARLEP act as the biggest funding agency to facilitate infrastructure support along with carrying out monitoring activities. ARDC-Wengkhar provided technical support and RAMCO established market linkages.
Land users benefit from increased household income and being self-sufficient in vegetables. The major challenges faced by the land users are distance, as the land is located far away from their houses, and marketing issues, as total production remains above market demand.
Location
Location: Pakaling Chiwog, Radhi Gewog,, Trashigang Dzongkhag, Bhutan
Geo-reference of selected sites
Initiation date: 2017
Year of termination: n.a.
Type of Approach
-
traditional/ indigenous
-
recent local initiative/ innovative
-
project/ programme based
Pineapple cultivation in the reverted fallow land (Ongpo Lepcha)
Image showing relevant information of the approach. (Ongpo Lepcha)
Approach aims and enabling environment
Main aims / objectives of the approach
The main aim of the approach is to reduce imports by increasing vegetable production, Improve the livelihood and living standard of the land users and retain youth in agriculture through agriculture mechanization.
Conditions enabling the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Availability/ access to financial resources and services: The approach received financial support from various organizations. Dzongkhag Administration (Royal Government of Bhutan) provided Nu. 500,000/-, followed by Nu. 850,000/- from CARLEP-IFAD project and Nu. 90,000 from BAIL.
-
Institutional setting: There is a very good collaboration between the institutions such as Schools and with the BAIL.
-
Collaboration/ coordination of actors: Although financial support was provided, the community came together to contribute labour for 300 days per household. The farm is Local Organic Assurance System (LOAS) certified and there is a common understanding to follow the organic guidelines.
-
Legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights): The land belongs to the community Lhakang of Pakaling Chiwog. Out of 100 households, only 27 households were interested and engaged in renting the land for crop production. The Local government had facilitated and the lease agreement was drawn between the Lhakhang and community. The land users have to pay a sum of Nu.7500/- to the Lhakang. The group members can cultivate the land for all time while non group members have no right to object or raise any issues. In case, If the group disintegrates in future, any outsider or member of the community can take up the farming activity with no objections from the others.
-
Knowledge about SLM, access to technical support: The land users had access to technical support Gewog Extension Officer, the Dzongkhag Agriculture officer and Researchers from the ARDC-Wengkhar.
-
Markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices: The groups have a linkage to supply vegetables to the schools and signed the contract with the BAIL, Lingmithang
Conditions hindering the implementation of the Technology/ ies applied under the Approach
-
Workload, availability of manpower: The land users are engaged in rice cultivation in their own fields and weaving. Therefore, the availability of manpower in the revived land is minimal.
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 |
Land users |
Contributed labour during the establishment of the farm and involved in the cultivation of the vegetables. They are the main actors in the approach. |
SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers |
Gewog Extension officer, Dzongkhag Agriculture officer, Researchers from ARDC-Wengkhar. |
Provides technical support such as training in vegetable cultivation, and setting up irrigation systems. |
teachers/ school children/ students |
Teachers engaged in School Feeding Programme |
Purchase farm produce from the group. |
private sector |
BAIL |
Provides fund support and purchase farm produce for processing |
local government |
Gup, Tshokpa |
Involved in developing the land lease agreement. |
national government (planners, decision-makers) |
Royal Government of Bhutan |
Conduct a feasibility study, and provide financial support. |
international organization |
CARLEP-IFAD |
Provide fund sources for the establishment of the farm and conduct monitoring. |
Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
none
passive
external support
interactive
self-mobilization
initiation/ motivation
The land was fallow for 27 years and in 2007 the land users tried to restore the land by initiating Integrated Agriculture Farm where they cultivated forest trees, crops and livestock. However, with the unavailability of water, the integrated farm was not successful. People informed the government about the need for a water pump and the Gewog Gup shared it in a higher meeting. This was the initiation of the Land restoration approach.
planning
There were numerous meetings involving the land users, Gewog officials, Gewog Extension Officer, Dzongkhag officials, officials from ARDC-Wengkher and CARLEP.
implementation
Land users and all the stakeholders were involved in the implementation of the approach.
monitoring/ evaluation
External monitoring is done by Audit officers from the stakeholders involved, Audit officers from Bumthang for CARLEP, and Audit officers from Samdrup Jongkhar for RGoB.
Internal monitoring is done by the Treasurer of the group.
Flow chart
The flowchart has been developed in consultation with the land users and Gewog Agriculture Extension Officer.
Author: Nima Dolma Tamang
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
-
Advisory service
-
Institution strengthening (organizational development)
-
Monitoring and evaluation
-
Research
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
Soil nutrient management, vegetable production technique, compost making and others.
Advisory service
Advisory service was provided
-
on land users' fields
-
at permanent centres
-
On social media (WeChat)
Advisory service in the form of hands on training at site, at gewog centers and online social media forums such as WeChat.
Institution strengthening
Institutions have been strengthened / established
-
no
-
yes, a little
-
yes, moderately
-
yes, greatly
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.
The role of the group is to meet their objectives through vegetable production and motivate one another.
Type of support
-
financial
-
capacity building/ training
-
equipment
Further details
The land users benefit from the approach as the income generated is useful in sustaining their livelihoods. Land users' capacity was built as they were engaged in the training and implementation of various SLM technologies. The group received equipment such as an irrigation system, electric fencing, greenhouse and others.
Monitoring and evaluation
The monitoring and evaluation are done by the donors to evaluate the success of the approach. The monitoring includes site visits and verifying the documents on the purchase and sale of the inputs of the produce and its economic benefits to the land users.
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.
CARLEP project and Royal Government of Bhutan
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
Following are the financial support received by the group. 16 numbers of fabricated greenhouses where the land user paid 20% of the amount and 80% was funded by the donor. 100% funding was provided by the donor for the water pump, electric fencing, internal networking of irrigation, cement, grass-cutting machine, seeds and seedlings, water tank and curing shed construction. Labour input was contributed by the land users. The total of Nu. 90,00,000/- (Ninety hundred thousand) was supported for the project.
partly financed
fully financed
Water pump, grass cutting machine
Water pump and grass cutting machine 100% funded by the doner.
agricultural: seeds
By RGoB.
Land development
100% machine contribution was done by the government with labour contribution from land users.
infrastructure: roads
By government.
Greenhouse, electric fencing, internal networking irrigation system, curing shed
For greenhouses, 80% was funded by the doner, 20% by land users. For electric fencing, internal networking irrigation system, cement, pipes, curing shed and water storage tank materials were funded 100% by the doner with labour contribution made by land users
Labour by land users was
-
voluntary
-
food-for-work
-
paid in cash
-
rewarded with other material support
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 approach improved farm income and their livelihood. It improved stakeholders participation such as schools, Extension officials, and BAIL.
Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
The approach enabled land users and the stakeholders involved to make decisions based on the findings. For example, the land users learned that potato cultivation was not profitable due to insect infestation, so they opted for chili cultivation in the next season.
Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
Land users implemented stone bunding and napier grass plantation to reduce soil erosion which they have maintained very well as it was very efficient in controlling soil erosion. The Napier grass was also sold creating income opportunities.
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
The land users were involved in the SLM technologies establishment under the supervision of the SLM specialist leading to improved knowledge.
Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
The stakeholders' knowledge was improved greatly as the challenges faced by the land users were forwarded to the stakeholders (SLM specialist/RAMCO). The stakeholders were to address the challenge and in the process, the stakeholder had to develop new techniques and test them on the field which led to improved knowledge of both the parties.
Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
All the stakeholders and land users worked together to achieve a common goal i.e. increased income for land users and use of fallow land for agriculture production, reduce import.
Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
If the land users are interested, irrespective of their wealth and status, all the land users in the community are allowed to participate in the approach. Therefore, economically disadvantaged groups involved in farming activity have improved livelihood and increased household income.
Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
The approach has two subgroups with heterogenous members (male and female) and one subgroup has only female members encouraging women's participation in decision-making.
Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
The approach was initiated to encourage youths to participate in agricultural activities. However, there is no interest shown by the youths. This could be due to low-income generation, poor market access and less or no recreation facility in the approach site.
Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
The approach enabled land users to be self-sufficient in vegetables during winter and also generate income by selling the produce. Thus, making the community self-sufficient in vegetables and certain fruits.
Did the Approach improve access to markets?
The approach linked the land users to the market such as schools and processing units (BAIL).
Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
The approach improved the income of the land users as they were able to buy school necessities for their children from the income generated by selling vegetables from the approach site.
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)?
The approach is sustainable. Even though the market for large quantities of produce is not available. There is a market linkage created with local consumers. Further, the land users can link with the relevant stakeholders to export the produce. Moreover, the land users were well trained in vegetable production to sustain without external support.
Conclusions and lessons learnt
Strengths: land user's view
-
Improved production and increased cultivable land is major strength of the approach. With the fallow land reversion and sufficient irrigation water, the land is is able to produce large amount of crop.
-
The approach contributed to improved household income. By selling the crops grown in the revived area, the land users get additional income to support their livelihood.
Strengths: compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
-
Improved nutrition to the school children as the quality of organic vegetables supplied by the group is better than the imported produce grown in a conventional system with the use of pesticides especially from India.
-
Reduces import as the group sell their produce to the schools and nearby community. The demand for vegetable is met by domestic production, therefore there are fewer commodities imported.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: land user's viewhow to overcome
-
The land is far from the houses of the land users making it difficult for the land users to give constant management and care.
-
Radhi is known as the "Rice bowl of eastern Bhutan" and it is also famous for the Bhuray (type of fabric) gho and kira (National dress). Therefore the reverted land is neglected during peak rice production season and labour demanded by the weaving of the Buray gho and kira high.
-
Due to less market and surplus production. Land users are challenged with marketing of their crops.
Encourage middlemen to purchase their produce and sell it to other parts of the country.
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks: compiler’s or other key resource person’s viewhow to overcome
References
Reviewer
-
William Critchley
-
Rima Mekdaschi Studer
-
Joana Eichenberger
Date of documentation: Aug. 19, 2023
Last update: May 30, 2024
Resource persons
-
Kinzang Yeshey - land user
-
Ten Jamtsho - land user
-
Pema Dendup - land user
-
Tshering Pelden - land user
-
Choni Zangmo - land user
-
Pema Wangchen (pemawangchen2010@gmail.com) - Agriculture Extension Officer
Full description in the WOCAT database
Documentation was faciliated by
Institution
- National Soil Services Centre, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock (NSSC) - Bhutan
Project
- 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)
Key references
-
Lhamo C. (2021). Agricultural production through fallow land reversion with numerous interventions. CARLEP. Retrieved from https://carlep.gov.bt/agricultural-production-through-fallow-land-reversion-with-numerous-interventions/: https://carlep.gov.bt/agricultural-production-through-fallow-land-reversion-with-numerous-interventions/