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

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

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

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

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

Yes

1.4 Declaration on sustainability of the described Technology

Is the Technology described here problematic with regard to land degradation, so that it cannot be declared a sustainable land management technology?

No

Comments:

While this practice may be criticised on the basis of reducing biodiversity and leading to some GHG losses, it is an important land management practice that has certain specific benefits including making the land more productive.

2.1 Short description of the Technology

Definition of the Technology:

Burning of rangeland (“tsamdro”) is a traditional management practice adopted by highlanders to control unpalatable grass and shrub species. This helps them produce adequate fodder for their yaks, cattle, horses, and sheep by creating a favorable environment for palatable grasses.

2.2 Detailed description of the Technology

Description:

The practice of burning rangeland (“tsamdro”) is a longstanding tradition among highlanders, whose livelihoods depend on livestock including yaks, cattle, horses and sheep. It is mainly practiced by transhumant communities or individuals who rely on livestock for their livelihoods. They follow a migratory livestock husbandry system that takes them from the highlands to the lowlands dependent on the availability of fodder resources, while simultaneously avoiding the extremes of climate. In the past, rangeland was allocated to individuals, communities, or religious bodies through payment for a minimal annual grazing permit, granting grazing rights. When pasture was scarce, controlled fires were intentionally set in specific areas to rejuvenate the rangeland with fresh grass and control unpalatable grasses and shrubs. For instance, the transhumant nomadic communities of Dhur village, Choekhor Gewog, in Bumthang have adopted the practice of burning rangeland. This practice is implemented during the winter months, dependent on weather, vegetation status, and wind patterns. Rooted in traditional knowledge and cultural practices, the practice is slowly diminishing nowadays due to environmental concerns and labour shortages as young nomads migrate - seeking better employment in towns.
The technique serves multiple purposes. These include promoting the growth of fresh and palatable pasture rich in protein, increasing plant diversity, adding nutrients to the soil through ash, and reducing dead plant material that inhibits new plant growth. Additionally, rangeland burning contributes to the control of livestock pests, especially ticks and flies. While rangeland burning is a straightforward process, it requires careful planning of time and location, creation of fire breaks to prevent uncontrollable spread, and leaving the land fallow for 2 to 3 years after burning to encourage grass growth.
Land users appreciate the technology for reducing their workload in collecting wild fodder grasses, enhancing visibility by removing trees and shrubs, and reducing the risk of predators. However, risks include the potential for uncontrolled fires if not properly managed and harm to the ecosystem and biodiversity in and around the pastureland. Burning also contributes to the loss of carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas) to the atmosphere.

2.3 Photos of the Technology

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Technology has been applied and which are covered by this assessment

Country:

Bhutan

Region/ State/ Province:

Bumthang Dzongkhag (District)

Further specification of location:

Dhur village, Choekhor Gewog (Block)

Specify the spread of the Technology:

• evenly spread over an area

If precise area is not known, indicate approximate area covered:

• 0.1-1 km2

Is/are the technology site(s) located in a permanently protected area?

No

Comments:

The total area of rangeland owned was 70 acres (from the two individual who the enumerators interviewed)

Map

×

2.6 Date of implementation

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date:

• more than 50 years ago (traditional)

2.7 Introduction of the Technology

Specify how the Technology was introduced:

• as part of a traditional system (> 50 years)

Comments (type of project, etc.):

Traditional practice of burning rangeland was adopted by the transhumant nomadic community of Dhur village called the Bjobs since time immemorial.

3.1 Main purpose(s) of the Technology

• improve production

3.2 Current land use type(s) where the Technology is applied

Land use mixed within the same land unit:

Yes

Specify mixed land use (crops/ grazing/ trees):

• Silvo-pastoralism

Grazing land

Extensive grazing:

• Nomadism

• Pasture grass is natural grown and livestock are allowed to graze on it

• Yak

Is integrated crop-livestock management practiced?

No

Products and services:

• meat
• milk
• skins/ hides

Species:

cattle - dairy

Count:

50

Species:

cattle - dairy

Count:

55

Forest/ woodlands

• (Semi-)natural forests/ woodlands

(Semi-)natural forests/ woodlands: Specify management type:

• Dead wood/ prunings removal

Type of (semi-)natural forest:

• temperate mountain systems natural vegetation

• Pine, Chirpine, Fir and Cypress

Are the trees specified above deciduous or evergreen?

• evergreen

Products and services:

• Nature conservation/ protection

3.3 Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

Has land use changed due to the implementation of the Technology?

• No (Continue with question 3.4)

3.4 Water supply

Water supply for the land on which the Technology is applied:

• rainfed

Comments:

There are water sources in their summer pasture lands; however, for the growth of the pasture grass, water supply is mostly dependent on rain.

3.5 SLM group to which the Technology belongs

• pastoralism and grazing land management

3.6 SLM measures comprising the Technology

management measures

• M5: Control/ change of species composition

Comments:

The main SLM measure includes the burning of rangeland to regenerate palatable grass species. In the process of burning invasive species are killed, and the desired clearing of weeds is achieved finally resulting in an environment with fresh grasses for livestock.

3.7 Main types of land degradation addressed by the Technology

other

Specify:

Revitalise and regenerate growth of palatable grass species to be used for livestock grazing

Comments:

This technology do not address land degradation issue .

3.8 Prevention, reduction, or restoration of land degradation

Specify the goal of the Technology with regard to land degradation:

• not applicable

Comments:

It is used to regenerate and revitalise growth of palatable grass species.

4.1 Technical drawing of the Technology

Technical specifications (related to technical drawing):

Firebreak of 5 m are kept to control the burning

Author:

Ongpo Lepcha

Date:

16/02/2024

4.2 General information regarding the calculation of inputs and costs

Specify how costs and inputs were calculated:

• per Technology area

other/ national currency (specify):

Bhutanese Ngultrum

If relevant, indicate exchange rate from USD to local currency (e.g. 1 USD = 79.9 Brazilian Real): 1 USD =:

82.08

4.3 Establishment activities

4.4 Costs and inputs needed for establishment

Comments:

The cost for the pasture burning is very minimal and even the labours normally are from their own household.

4.5 Maintenance/ recurrent activities

Comments:

The rangeland after burning is left fallow for the next 2 to 3 years. During that time, the land user would graze their yaks in other pasture land.

4.6 Costs and inputs needed for maintenance/ recurrent activities (per year)

Comments:

Expenditure not incurred for the maintenance of the technology.

4.7 Most important factors affecting the costs

Describe the most determinate factors affecting the costs:

Labour cost

5.1 Climate

5.2 Topography

Indicate if the Technology is specifically applied in:

• not relevant

5.3 Soils

5.4 Water availability and quality

Is water salinity a problem?

No

Is flooding of the area occurring?

No

5.5 Biodiversity

Comments and further specifications on biodiversity:

Since, only grasses are grown in the land, the species and habitat diversity is very low. Other factors that determine low diversity could be due to low temperature.

5.6 Characteristics of land users applying the Technology

Indicate other relevant characteristics of the land users:

The land users were currently retired and had their sons and daughters to take care of their yaks.

5.7 Average area of land used by land users applying the Technology

5.8 Land ownership, land use rights, and water use rights

Land ownership:

• individual, titled

Land use rights:

• individual

Water use rights:

• open access (unorganized)

Are land use rights based on a traditional legal system?

Yes

Specify:

The traditional legal system in our country is as per the land act and rules and regulations which dictate the land use in the country.

5.9 Access to services and infrastructure

Comments:

Access to these services and infrastructure were based on their winter home, during the summer they would travel to the more higher altitudes where none of these services are available except for drinking water.

6.1 On-site impacts the Technology has shown

Socio-economic impacts

Production

Income and costs

Socio-cultural impacts

Ecological impacts

Biodiversity: vegetation, animals

6.2 Off-site impacts the Technology has shown

6.3 Exposure and sensitivity of the Technology to gradual climate change and climate-related extremes/ disasters (as perceived by land users)

Gradual climate change

Gradual climate change

Climate-related extremes (disasters)

Meteorological disasters

Climatological disasters

Hydrological disasters

6.4 Cost-benefit analysis

How do the benefits compare with the establishment costs (from land users’ perspective)?

How do the benefits compare with the maintenance/ recurrent costs (from land users' perspective)?

Comments:

Since minimal cost goes into implementing the technology, the income earned from it is high. Further, the land users also earn income from cordyceps, therefore, off farm income is very high than from dairy produced from the cattles.

6.5 Adoption of the Technology

• 11-50%

If available, quantify (no. of households and/ or area covered):

17 households from a total of 105 household in the village are land users and practice rangeland burning.

Of all those who have adopted the Technology, how many did so spontaneously, i.e. without receiving any material incentives/ payments?

• 91-100%

Comments:

Burning of the rangeland has been practiced by all the land users for a very long period of time.

6.6 Adaptation

Has the Technology been modified recently to adapt to changing conditions?

No

6.7 Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities of the Technology

6.8 Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks of the Technology and ways of overcoming them

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Mapiye, C., Mwale, M., Chikumba, N. & Chimonyo, M. (2008). Fire as a Rangeland Management Tool in the Savannas of Southern Africa. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems, 8, 115-124.

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/939/93980201.pdf

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Sabiiti, E. N., Wamara, J. B., Ogen-Odoi, A. A. & Wein, R. W. (1992). The Role of Fire in Pasture and Rangeland Management. Nomadic Peoples, 21, 107-110.

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.jstor.org/stable/43123378

7.3 Links to relevant online information

Title/ description:

Management Strategies for Rangeland and Introduced Pastures

URL:

https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/management-strategies-for-rangeland-and-introduced-pastures.html

Title/ description:

Fire as a Tool in Land Management

URL:

https://rangelandsgateway.org/topics/rangeland-ecology/fire-tool-land-management

7.4 General comments

Some questions in the questionnaire were not related to Bhutanese context. So we left out those question without any response.