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) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 6392, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'National Soil Services Centre, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock (NSSC) - Bhutan', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

11/07/2023

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

The Agricultural Landscape Approach in Sustainable Land Management is a holistic and integrated strategy that focuses on managing agricultural landscapes in a sustainable manner. The approach was successfully initiated in Namlaythang village and transformed the whole agricultural landscape covering 107 acres (43 ha) while benefitting 55 resettled households.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The Agriculture Landscape Approach in Sustainable Land Management (SLM) is a holistic and integrated strategy that focuses on managing agricultural landscapes in a sustainable manner. This approach recognizes the interrelation of various elements within a landscape, including soil, water, biodiversity, and human activities, ultimately aiming to optimize the benefits derived from these interactions while minimizing negative environmental impacts.
This approach was initiated in Namlaythang village under Tsangkha gewog (block), Dagana Dzongkhag (district). Namlaythang was chosen for this approach because it is a new settlement with 55 resettled households who were granted land ranging from 1.75 to 3 acres (0.7 to 1.2 hectares) per family by His Majesty the King as per the National Rehabilitation Program. Since the area was recently cleared and converted to settlement and farming, there was a huge risk of land degradation due to direct exposure to rain and unsustainable agriculture practices. Therefore, it was not only timely to implement SLM to prevent land degradation but also appropriate to have adopted the Agricultural Landscape Approach by engaging the whole community.
The main aim of adopting the agricultural landscape approach was to bring transformational change at a scale. Too often, we plan and implement SLM interventions supported by different projects in small, localized areas and in a scattered manner. This limits the ability to scale out success (both spatially and temporally) despite being positive initiatives. The approach was also intended to facilitate a multi-stakeholder platform by bringing relevant stakeholders together to discuss common objectives and draw synergies across different agencies.
The process started by discussing the idea with the Dzongkhag and gewog agriculture offices followed by sensitization of land users on the importance of SLM and its technologies. This was followed by Participatory SLM Action planning wherein detailed action plans were prepared based on landowners’ interest, feasibility of their land and the available technologies. The next mandatory activity carried out before implementation of SLM in the field was the conduct of field based hands-on training of the land users. The main SLM technologies planned and implemented included terracing, stone bunds, hedgerows, check dams/ gully plugs and plantations. In addition, climate resilient agriculture practices were also promoted such as greenhouses, low-cost water harvesting ponds, drip irrigation sets and fruit tree plantations.
In promoting this approach and other technologies, several stakeholders were involved including the Dzongkhag and gewog agriculture offices, National Soil Services Center (NSSC), Agriculture Research and Development Center, Bajo (ARDC-Bajo), the landowners and a Green Climate Fund (GCF) Project. The agricultural offices provided the overall coordination and the facilitation role in implementing the approach and its associated technologies. The NSSC provided sensitization and training on SLM technologies and also facilitated participatory SLM Action Planning with the landowners and other stakeholders. Similarly, the ARDC-Bajo arranged material inputs for climate resilient agriculture practices and provided technical assistance to the landowners and the gewog agriculture extension officer. The GCF Project provided financial support based on the action plan.

The implementation of SLM and climate resilient agriculture practices following agricultural landscape approach in Namlaythang have been a great success. The approach has brought a transformational change at the landscape level through various SLM interventions which collectively contributed towards reduction of soil erosion and nutrient loss, conservation of soil moisture and the improvement of overall soil health and food security. The land users also feel empowered through sensitization, capacity building and their engagement in the whole process. In brief, the land users expressed their satisfaction with the approach and the impacts it has created in the agricultural landscape which is the basis of their livelihoods.

A major weakness of the approach is that there is no institution/group/cooperative formed for efficient coordination among the land users and other stakeholders which questions its sustainability.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos 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 bring about transformational change through project intervention at the landscape level.

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	The land owners actively participate in the initial discussion on the SLM implementation following landscape approach. The process was facilitaed by the local government officials.
planning	interactive	The land onwers and the local elected leaders were involved in the participatory SLM action planning that was facilitated jointly by the Dzongkhag and the NSSC.
implementation	self-mobilization	Land owners organized themselves into informal groups to implement SLM interventions with technical assistance from the Dzongkhag, gewog and ARDC.
monitoring/ evaluation	interactive	Land owners were involved in the periodic monitoring and evaluation carried out jointly by the Dzongkhag, gewog, NSSC, ARDC and the GCF project.

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:

Following the sensitization on SLM technologies, Participatory SLM Action Planning was carried out wherein the land owners, gewog agriculture extension and the SLM Specialists from NSSC jointly select and decide on SLM technologies to be implemented in the field.

• The decision was made based on the sensitization and the feasibility of the farming landscape.

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users

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

Gender equity is generally maintained by inviting equal number of male and female participants and of different age groups.

Form of training:

• demonstration areas

Subjects covered:

SLM Technologies (Terracing, hedgerows, stone bunds, plantations and check dams)

Comments:

The training was field based and practical oriented.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields

Describe/ comments:

Advisory services were provided by the agriculture advisers from the Dzongkhag and Gewog Agriculture offices.

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
• regional
• national

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

There is no new institution established within the approach. However, various institutions were involved in promoting the technologies under the approach. At the local level, Dzongkhag and Gewog agriculture offices were involved in overall coordination and provided technical guidance. The Dzongkhag agriculture offices were also involved in sourcing funds for the implementation of the approach. Regional Agriculture Research and Development Center, Bajo (ARDC-Bajo) arranged material inputs for climate-resilient agriculture practices and provided technical assistance to the gewog agriculture extension officer and land owners. National Soil Service Center (NSSC) provided sensitization and training on SLM technologies and also facilitated participatory SLM Action Planning with the land owners and other stakeholders. The Green Climate Fund (GCF) Project was the main funding agency providing financial support based on the action plan.

Specify type of support:

• financial
• capacity building/ training
• equipment

Give further details:

The major financial support was provided by the GCF project and minor fund support was provided by the government for the implementation of the approach. Various stakeholders including NSSC, ARDC-Bajo, Dzongkhag and gewog offices were involved in the capacity building of the land owners. However, gewog offices were involved constantly due to the proximity and direct contact with the land owners. Equipment for the construction of greenhouses, low-cost water harvesting ponds, drip irrigation, terracing, stone bunds, hedgerows and check dams were provided during the implementation of technologies under the approach.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

The monitoring and evaluation are periodically done by the Dzongkhag Agriculture Office, NSSC and the Project Management Unit of the GCF Project.

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

Yes

Comments:

The documentation is intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation and also for knowledge sharing.

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):

The main funding source is GCF project

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):

The implementation of all the SLM technologies was funded by the GCF project. Besides, land owners also received material supports such as greenhouses, low cost water harvesting ponds, drip irrigation sets, seeds and seedlings with financial support from the project and government.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• agricultural

• construction

• infrastructure

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

• voluntary

Comments:

Land owners usually arrange their own family labour or through labour exchange to implement SLM technologies in the field.

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?

Yes

If yes, specify:

The SLM Technologies and Climate Resilient Agriculture practices were provided in line with the SLM Guidelines and Best Practices 2021 and the Cost Sharing Mechanisms of the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock.

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:

Based on the experience that land users have gained over the past 5 years, the land owners can sustain the technology implemented through this approach without external support as the maintenance cost is very minimal. The land owners feel that they can carry out maintenance on their own.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The community has not experienced any reported problems related to landslides, indicating the positive impact of terracing and check dams that have ensured the overall stability and sustainability of the area.
The land users can make a living from increased agricultural production and cash income.
Since the land was granted by His Majesty the King, the community receives so much of attention and technical support from different agencies. This has enabled the land users to avail much needed SLM interventions through the landscape approach.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The land users are exposed to new knowledge and skills to implement SLM technologies, which could serve as a model for further replication in other areas.
There is a transformational change at the landscape level, which otherwise becomes difficult if landscape approach was not adopted.

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?
No institution/group/cooperative has been formed for efficient coordination among the land users.	By forming a permanent or formal group to continue the implementation and management of the SLM technologies.
Limited integration of livestock and forest related technologies due to limited fund.	Explore additional funding source from other sources such as Bhutan Trust Fund for Environmental Conservation (BTFEC) and UNDP Small Grant Project (SGP) to support implementation of livestock and forestry activities.

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
No lead agency or personnel to initiate group formation.	The Gewog Agriculture Extension Officer could lead the group formation if they feel the need.
Lack of frequent monitoring of the implemented SLM technologies leading to reduced performance in terms of agriculture production and maintenance of the SLM technologies.	Ensure timely monotiring from the Gewog and Dzongkhag Agriculture offices

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Sustainable Land Management (SLM) Guidelines and Best Practices 2021, The National Soil Services Center, Department of Agriculture, Ministry of Agricultue and Livestock

Available from where? Costs?

The National Soil Services Center, Semtokha, Thimphu, Bhutan

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Zhesar namleythang

URL:

https://www.facebook.com/people/Zhesar-namleythang/100063962648613/?paipv=0&eav=AfZtqSeoJRJKQqV2pCQNI-Il9HsLY_XP-7nuLPGmeGHxTe7zq2FNEBbJReJwVuGjErk&_rdr