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

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:

Yes

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

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

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

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	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)

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

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

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?

Yes

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?

Yes

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.

5.1 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?

Yes

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

• agricultural

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?

No

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)?

• 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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information