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)

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

National Soil Services Center, Department of Agric (National Soil Services Center, Department of Agric) - Bhutan

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

09/07/2023

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

The approach involves a group of farmers implementing an improved dairy system. The system incorporates practices and technologies that enhance animal welfare, reduce environmental impact, and increase production.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

This case describes how a group approach can facilitate and encourage improved dairy production with better sheds, more productive breeds, environmental sustainability and marketing. Upgraded dairy production is described in detail under the technology “Improved dairy sheds” (T6898).
Initially, the land users were a part of a bigger milk group established in 1993. In 2017, some detached themselves and formed “Om Nyamdel Tshogde” which is a group composed of 67 members from Rikhey and Domphu chiwogs, led by a Chairperson, Mrs. Yangzom. The group also has a treasurer, Drungchen, and a driver. The main objective of forming the milk group was to improve the livelihoods of land users through higher yields via better livestock farming. The group formation process was assisted by the livestock extension officer. The funding was mobilized from the community itself.
The group members, with some support from the government, constructed improved dairy sheds, and biogas plants, and received training on fodder plantations. The stakeholders involved were land users, livestock extension officers, and the private cooperative B-COOP. The land users' role is to coordinate and conduct activities related to livestock farming. The extension officer's role is to provide veterinary and technical services. B-COOP's role is to buy dairy products from the group, especially milk.
The group members have installed improved dairy sheds with cemented floors, feeding troughs, corrugated galvanised iron (CGI) roofing, and a continuous water supply. Also, cattle have access to timely veterinary services. Cow dung and urine are used as fertilizers and also in biogas plants. Biogas plants generate renewable energy (methane), thereby cutting down the use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) gas which is derived from fossil fuel.
Under improved dairy sheds, stall-feeding is practised which bars the cattle from going to forests to feed. This prevents the degradation of land by cattle movement through trampling. For better nutrition and feeding, grass fodder species including Super Napier (pakchung), Napier, and Guatemala are grown, cut and and fed to cattle. In addition, other feeds provided included banana stems, maize stems, maize powder, mustard cake, and processed feeds. The group delivers at least 300 litres of milk per day to B-COOP, and some milk goes to India.
Improved breeds have replaced numerous low-yielding local cattle thereby making more efficient use of cattle feed. Also, fewer, more productive animals help reduce environmental degradation and methane losses to the atmosphere. The majority of cattle reared have been bred through artificial insemination. Most cattle are 50:50 hybrids between local breeds and improved breeds such as Jersey. Improving the breeds helps to increase milk production (e.g Holstein Friesian) and or percentage butter fat (e.g. Jersey). To feed and sustain productive, improved breeds, various fodder species are cultivated in large areas. This helps in carbon sequestration and preventing soil erosion.
What the land users like about the approach is that improved livestock farming results in a continuous source of income, as milk production is not seasonal like vegetable production, it provides organic fertilizers for fields, improves livelihoods, makes use of waste such as cow dung in biogas plants which means reduced dependency on LPG gas which is quite expensive. Also access to credit is increased. Government support has increased after the milk group formation. Furthermore, the workload is shared among the land users, especially during the making of biogas plants, thus easing the workload per person.

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

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The main aims of the approach are to enhance the overall well-being of animals, optimize animal production, minimize forest grazing and promote continuous stall feeding, increase the availability of FYM and urine for application to fields, develop pasture with fodder grasses, foster efficient waste utilization, provide a comfortable working environment for land users, and improve the livelihoods of land users through higher yields and better household income.

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	external support	The livestock extension officer proposed the formation of the milk group.
planning	interactive	The livestock officer and land users planned the group management plan.
implementation	self-mobilization	The land users carried out the fieldwork of producing milk and constructing improved dairy sheds and biogas plants.
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	The land users monitor their group activities.

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:

Mainly land users supported by the livestock officer.

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

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

Both male and female.

Form of training:

• farmer-to-farmer
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Subjects covered:

-Biogas plant construction
-Fodder grass plantation

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:

The land users have access to advisory services from the livestock extension agent.

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

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

There is assured monthly income for the land users due to the sell of milk and other dairy products such as cheese and butter.

Specify type of support:

• financial

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

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

No

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:

• < 2,000

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

There is no annual budget allocated for the construction of improved dairy sheds and biogas plants. For biogas plant construction, pipes, metals, and 15 bags of cement were provided to land users by the government. For dairy shed construction, roofing material (18 CGI sheets) and 18 bags of cement were provided. These materials were provided by the government only once. There is no annual providing of materials or money to the land users.

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):

For biogas plant construction, pipes, metals, and 15 bags of cement were provided to land users by the government. For dairy shed construction, roofing material (18 CGI sheets) and 18 bags of cement were provided. Also, deep freezers were provided to the land users.

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

• equipment

• construction

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

• voluntary

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

Yes

Specify conditions (interest rate, payback, etc.):

Nu 20,000 credit

Specify credit providers:

BDBL

Specify credit receivers:

Land users

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)?

• no

If no or uncertain, specify and comment:

-Improved dairy shed and biogas plant structures if damaged would incur some amount on restoration. They have to be maintained over the years. The cost of maintenance is borne by the land users. The land users do not deliberately save money for the restoration but are well aware of the fact that they will have to spend some amount on the maintenance and restoration whenever need be.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
Government support especially to groups.
Easy access to market because of group formation.
Improved livelihood of farmers through higher farm yields and better household income.
Use of a renewable of energy like biogas instead of LPG.
Improved health and animal welfare.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Knowledge sharing (land users can share their ideas and experiences while working in a group).
Improved dairy shed made of cement, gravel, and stones is more durable than the old dairy shed made from wood.
Availability of good quality fodder and a diverse range of forage options.
Increase in organic matter due to FYM application and better soil moisture retention by increased soil organic matter.
Reduced labour due to reduced fodder collection and herding in the forest.
Efficient waste utilization.
Reduced land degradation due to reduction in forest grazing.
Increased vegetation cover due to improved pasture development and reduction in forest grazing.
Less soil compaction through decreased trampling by animals.
Comfortable working environment for land users.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view	How can they be overcome?
Sometimes working in a group can be difficult. Internal conflicts and misunderstanding are common in group ventures.	Regular group meetings and guidance by extension staff.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Thapa, L., Choden, D., & Tamang, N. B. (2019). Adoption of Improved Dairy Production Practices by Dairy and Non-Dairy Farmers’ Groups.

Available from where? Costs?

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Lokey-Thapa/publication/334507972_Adoption_of_Improved_Dairy_Production_Practices_by_Dairy_and_Non-_Dairy_Farmers'_Groups/links/5d2ec146299bf1547cbd248a/Adoption-of-Improved-Dairy-Production-Practices-by-Dairy-and-Non-Dairy-Farmers-Groups.pdf