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

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

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)

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

07/07/2023

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

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Participatory SLM action planning is an approach that identifies community-based and land-based issues and challenges, establishes the root causes, and finds out mitigation measures to address the issues for enhancing rural livelihoods.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

Participatory SLM Action Planning (SLM AP) is a methodology intended to assess potential SLM interventions in order to address the most severe problems of land degradation. Priorities are determined by identifying the main local issues and their root causes, as well as land-based livelihoods and resources. All community households are included in SLM AP, which is conducted at the chiwog (village) levels. It incorporates Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) & Participatory Learning Action (PLA) tools such as natural resource mapping, problem censuses, cropping calendars, history lines, prioritization, ranking and ultimately drawing up a realistic SLM action plan. An external resource person facilitates the discussion while the community decides the final action plan. The process is very interactive and focus group discussions are organized specially for facilitating women’s active participation.
Prior to the SLM action planning exercise, sensitization to available SLM technologies is a must. The sensitization program includes pictorial presentations, relevant SLM audio visuals and displaying of SLM posters. After community sensitization on the first day, the actual SLM action planning exercise is conducted the next day. The participants can discuss with their family members and identify which interventions to incorporate in the plan. The stakeholders involved in the planning exercise consists of community members, local leaders, community civil servants and resource persons. The role of the local leader is to identify interventions that benefits the whole community such as community plantations, landslide stabilization along farm roads, community water source protection and a capacity building program for rural livelihood improvements.
Though this is a holistic bottom-up approach, some of the activities may not qualify for endorsement in the final action plan due to a limited budget and high-cost investments with few beneficiaries. The other drawback is that for every action plan, travel of 3 to 4 days is needed in in every chiwog. In general, the SLM action plan consists of individual household plans and a community SLM plan. Therefore, since every household is included and action plans drawn, land users are satisfied with the 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

To assess potential SLM interventions in order to address the most severe problems with land degradation. Priorities are determined by identifying the main local issues and their root causes, as well as land-based livelihoods and resources.

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	Land users for participation and NSSC for technical support,
planning	interactive	Land users, Green climate fund, NSSC, local government
implementation	interactive	Land users, Green climate fund, NSSC, local government
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Local government, NSSC, Project Management Unit

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:

• all relevant actors, as part of a participatory approach

Explain:

After the sensitization on SLM technologies by the NSSC, the land users along with local government decides which technology to adopt considering the local conditions.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

If relevant, specify gender, age, status, ethnicity, etc.

Both female and male,

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

The training consists of in house sensitization and practical demonstration in field. The training topics covers wide range including SLM technologies, Climate resilient practices, group formation for water user association and improved livestock management techniques

Comments:

Each person from every household was involved in the training including local government officials.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

• Extension office

Describe/ comments:

Technical services were provided in the field as well as in meetings.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, a little

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

Informal labor sharing group were instituted facilitated by gewog extension officers to speed up the implementation of activities especially benefitting whole community such as water user group.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

Funds were provided by the project office on annual workplan basis. Technical assistance provided by NSSC/ARDC/Dzongkhag

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Periodic monitoring was conducted by Project management Unit, NSSC, Dzongkhag while evaluation were carried out by private consultancy firms deputed by GCF project head office

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Yes

Comments:

The monitoring reports were submitted annually and presented in the workshops for follow ups.

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 10,000-100,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

This budget is for Punakha, Nabchey, Lingmukha funded by Green climate fund

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):

Financial support by Green climate fund on SLM technologies 1) Contour stone bunds construction : USD 61.00/per acre 2) Hedgerows: USD 85/acre, 3) Machine terracing: USD 854/acre, 4) Small (1-2 meter wide and depth) Check-dams construction: USD 18/dam .

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• agricultural

• construction

• infrastructure

If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:

• food-for-work

Comments:

When materials were freely provided by the project, labor were contributed by beneficiaries, For attending training, working lunch and refreshment were provided by the project

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

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:

Most of the SLM interventions were of one time investment and maintenance cost were very minimum. The land users will be able to take care and incase of major issues, the funds will be supported by the local government for maintenance such as irrigation channel renovation.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The Participatory SLM planning approach is basically putting the farmers first and farmers last. Since the plan is developed by land users, they take full ownership which ensures sustainability of the program.
Improved social interaction and cohesion
Opportunity for mass sensitization on SLM and climate change to the land users

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Best approach in empowering rural land users.
Experts needed to facilitate only
Ensures sustainability and successful program implementation

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?
Expertise and knowledge gap	consult SLM specialist
Elite land users dominating the decision making power	Give equal opportunity to all actors in decision making.
Poor participation or un-responsive participants during meetings	Meeting to be attended by head of the household or one who can decide and have decision making power.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Difficult to fulfill all demands enlisted in the action plan ( ambitious plan). Some interventions are outside project scope while its of utmost importance to the community such as farm road construction, human wildlife conflicts and new irrigation channel construction requiring high investment.	Sensitization on Project scope, its intended supports and forward the outside project activities to the local government for sourcing funds.
Taking program at chiwog level is time consuming and its resource intensive.	Systematic planning and proper budget from initial phase
Some land users takes opportunity of the project support though its not much important to them ( free inputs).	Periodic monitoring to ensure the proper utilization.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

NSSC Bhutan catalogue of soil and water conservation approaches and technologies, 2012

Available from where? Costs?

National Soil Service Center, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, RGOB.

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Agriculture land development guidelines (17th June 2017)

Available from where? Costs?

National Soil Service Center, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock, RGOB.

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Agriculture Land Development Guideline

URL:

www.nssc.gov.bt