Royal Government of Bhutan Ministry of Agriculture

National Soil Service Center

SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Social Assessment

Final

March 2005

Thimphu, Bhutan

32114

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms and Glossary of Bhutanese Terms ............................................................................. 3

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 10

1.1 Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Project Description...................................................................................................................... 11

1.2.1 Project Components................................................................................................................ 12

Chapter 2: Rationale and Methodology.................................................................................... 19

2.1 Scope and Objectives .................................................................................................................. 19 2.2 Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 19

2.2.1 Literature Review.................................................................................................................... 19 2.2.2 Stakeholder Consultations ...................................................................................................... 20

Chapter 3: Current Socio-economic Situation......................................................................... 23

3.1 Country Overview ....................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.1 Geo-political Setting ............................................................................................................... 23 3.1.2 Demography............................................................................................................................ 24 3.1.3 Economy.................................................................................................................................. 24 3.1.4 Income and Poverty ................................................................................................................ 25 3.1.5 Human Development............................................................................................................... 25 3.1.6 Food Security .......................................................................................................................... 25 3.1.7 Governance ............................................................................................................................. 25

3.2 Socio-economic Profiles of Pilot Sites/ Geogs............................................................................ 26 3.2.1 Radhi geog, Trashigang Dzongkhag....................................................................................... 26 3.2.2 Nangkor geog, Zhemgang Dzongkhag .................................................................................... 28 3.2.3 Phuentsholing geog, Chhukha Dzongkhag ............................................................................. 29

Chapter 4: Field Consultations.................................................................................................. 31

4.1 Consultation Methodology .......................................................................................................... 31 4.2 Summary of Key Findings .......................................................................................................... 32

4.2.1 Local Perception and Understanding of the Project............................................................... 32 4.2.2 Project Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 32 4.2.3 Local Participation in SLMP Formulation ............................................................................. 33 4.2.4 Dispute Resolution .................................................................................................................. 34 4.2.5 Role of GYT and geog RNR extension agents ......................................................................... 34 4.2.6 Vulnerable Group ................................................................................................................... 35

4.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................. 35

Chapter 5: Process Framework for Participation of Local Communitites in the Planning and Implementation of Sustainable Land Management Approaches....................................... 1

5.1 Scope and Description................................................................................................................... 1 5.2 Process Framework ....................................................................................................................... 1

5.2.1 Social Screening........................................................................................................................ 2 5.2.2 Community Orientation and Mobilization ................................................................................ 2 5.2.3 Participatory Rural Appraisal/ Community Consultation ........................................................ 2 5.2.4 Mapping of Community Resources and their Utilization .......................................................... 3 5.2.5 Intra- and Inter-community Agreements ................................................................................... 3

2

5.2.6 Strengthening Chiog Institutions and Capacity .........................Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2.7 Development of Chiog SLM strategies and mitigation measures ............................................. 4 5.2.8 Vulnerable People..................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter 6 Implementation Arrangements............................................................................. 1

6.1. Linkage with the Overall Project Planning Process ...................................................................... 1 6.2. Implementation of Chiog SLM plans ............................................................................................ 4 6.3. Monitoring and evaluation. ........................................................................................................... 4 6.4. Scaling up of SLM activities ......................................................................................................... 5 6.5. Capacity Building.......................................................................................................................... 5 6.6. Budget Estimate ............................................................................................................................ 5

Annex 1: Literature Reviewed/ Referred to ................................................................................ 7

Annex 2: List of People Consulted ............................................................................................... 9

Annex 3: Checklist of Guide Topics used for Field Consultations.......................................... 14

Annex 4: Field Consultation Notes............................................................................................. 16

Radhi geog, Trashigang Dzongkhag (25 - 27 December 2004)........................................................... 16 Nangkor geog, Zhemgang Dzongkhag (30 December 2004 - 1 January 2005) ................................... 18 Phuentsholing geog, Chukha Dzongkhag (17 - 18 January 2005)....................................................... 19

Annex 5: Social Screening Format ............................................................................................. 22

List of Figures and Tables Figure 1: Administrative Map of Bhutan....................................................................................... 23 Figure 2: Sector-wise GDP Share in 2003..................................................................................... 24

Table 1: Summary of Primary Stakeholders Consulted at the Local Level................................... 31

3

Acronyms and Glossary of Bhutanese Terms

ACRONYMS

DA Dzongkhag Administration

DANIDA Danish International Development Assistance

DoA Department of Agriculture

DoF Department of Forestry

DoL Department of Livestock

DYT Dzongkhag Yargye Tshogdu

EUSPS Environment and Urban Sector Programme Support

GEF Global Environment Facility

GSFC Geog SLMP Field Coordinator

GSPT Geog SLMP Planning Team

GYT Geog Yargye Tshogchung

ha hectare

masl meters above sea level

mm millimeters

MoA Ministry of Agriculture

MHCA Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs

MTAC Multi-disciplinary Technical Advisory Committee

NSB National Statistical Bureau (formerly Central Statistical Organization)

PF Process Framework

PMU Project Management Unit

PSC Project Steering Committee

PY Project Year

RGoB Royal Government of Bhutan

RNR Renewable Natural Resources

RNRRC Renewable Natural Resources Research Center

SA Social Assessment

SLM Sustainable Land Management

SLMP Sustainable Land Management Project

SLMP-WG Sustainable Land Management Project-Working Group

WB World Bank

4

GLOSSARY OF BHUTANESE TERMS

Chathrim Act, rules and regulations, codes of conduct

Chhuzhing Wetland cultivation

Chiog A group of households for which a tshogpa is responsible. Larger villages are usually divided into two or more chiogs while smaller villages constitute a single chiog.

Chupon Village messenger

Dungkhag Sub District

Dungpa Administrator of Sub District

Dzongdag District Administrator

Dzongkhag District

Dzongkhag Yargye Tshogdu District Development Committee

Geog Administrative block

Geog Yargye Tshogchung Block Development Committee

Gup Elected head of a geog

Kamzhing Dryland cultivation

Mangmi Elected representative of a geog, who also assumes the role of deputy Gup

Tsamdo Land over which people own customary grazing rights

Tseri Slash and burn cultivation

Tshogpa Representative of a chiog

5

Executive Summary Land degradation is emerging as a key environmental problem in the country despite environmental conservation occupying a pivotal place in the national development policies and programs. Anthropogenic factors such as increased pace of infrastructure development, unsustainable agricultural practices, overgrazing, and deforestation combine with natural factors such as the country’s inherently fragile geologic conditions, rugged topography and heavy monsoon rains to exacerbate land degradation in many areas, most particularly in the eastern and southern parts of the country, where the population density is high. Also, because usable land resource is extremely limited with much of the country characterized by steep and difficult terrain, high altitude pastures, rocky outcrops and scree, and snow and glaciers, human pressure on land is very high despite the country’s population being small. While 79 per cent of the population depends on agriculture, area available for arable agriculture is less than 8 per cent. Furthermore, ambiguities, gaps, contradictions and perverse incentives exist among existing policies, laws and regulations that have bearing on land management. This has hindered a coordinated and integrated approach to land management. To address these concerns, the Royal Government of Bhutan (RGoB) is initiating a Sustainable Land Management Project (SLMP) with technical assistance from the World Bank (WB) and grant financing from the Global Environment Facility (GEF). The Danish International Development Assistance (DANIDA) is contributing parallel funding through its Environment and Urban Sector Program Support (EUSPS), focusing on policy, planning and regulatory work at the central level. The overall goal of the Project is to help realize local, regional and global environmental benefits from sustainable land management planning, land use and improved livelihoods in Bhutan. It aims to enhance national land management planning and facilitate the adoption of sustainable local land use practices. To achieve this objective, the Project will focus on four mutually-reinforcing components: (1) sustainable land management planning, policy, legislative and regulatory framework; (2) demonstration and validation of sustainable land management approaches on the ground; (3) institutional system for sustaining multi-sectoral approach to sustainable land management; and (4) establishment of systematic project management. On the ground planning and investment in pilot sites (Component 2) will generate lessons to support the formulation of new policies and revise the planning and regulatory framework (Component 1) for inter-sectoral sustainable land management (SLM). Capacity building through bottom-up participatory planning for SLM and institutionalized monitoring will help validate and consolidate the SLM approach at all levels (Components 2 and 3). Establishment of systematic project management (Component 4) will ensure that all stakeholders from chiog to central level have access to participate and take part in decision-making and evaluation. The pilot sites for on-the-ground planning and investment are Radhi geog in Trashigang, Nangkor geog in Zhemgang, and Phuentsholing geog in Chhukha. After the second year of the project, the investments will be scaled-up to cover another six geogs based on lessons learnt and validation of best practices from these geogs.

6

Social sustainability is a keystone of World Bank and Global Environment Facility’s development assistance. The principle of socially sustainable development is also manifested in Bhutan’s vision statement Bhutan 2020: A Vision for Peace, Prosperity and Happiness. To guide the implementation of the SLMP in a socially sustainable manner, the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) has carried out a Social Assessment (SA). Specifically, the SA: (i) identifies primary stakeholders and social issues; (ii) assesses the participation of the primary stakeholders in project formulation and design, and their views on project benefits and impacts; and (iii) defines a process framework for participation of local communities in implementation and monitoring of sustainable land management at project sites. This assessment has been prepared on the basis of consultations with primary stakeholders and information derived from literature review. Various policies, laws, regulations and guidelines relevant to social management in the context of World Bank social safeguard policies pertaining to Involuntary Resettlement and Indigenous Peoples were extensively reviewed. In addition, documents pertaining to SLMP planning were reviewed. This included the report of local level stakeholder workshops conducted in the pilot sites and the Report of Project Formulation Processes and Outcomes, which is a consolidation of the processes and outcomes of local level stakeholder workshops, project design workshop and decision makers’ workshop. Stakeholder consultations were carried out at both local and central levels. Local-level consultations were carried out with primary stakeholders, specifically the local communities, Geog Yargye Tshogchung (GYT) members and geog Renewable Natural Resources (RNR) extension agents, for 2-3 days in each pilot project site. The consultations with local communities involved group discussions and household interviews. Altogether, 67 local people were consulted: 18 in Radhi geog; 26 in Nangkor geog; and 23 in Phuentsholing geog. During the field consultations, special attention was given to including women and vulnerable people. At the central level, consultative meetings were held with the SLMP-Working Group, which includes representation from all the major government agencies: Ministry of Works and Human Settlement; Ministry of Trade and Industry; National Environment Commission Secretariat; and the Ministry of Agriculture and its Departments of Agriculture, Forestry, Livestock, and Survey and Land Records. Key findings from these consultations indicate that project affected people at the identified pilot sites strongly support the idea of having a project to address land degradation problems. Local people – especially in Radhi and Phuentsholing geogs, where land degradation is severe and where people have experienced significant losses from landslides and flash floods – were able to strongly relate to SLMP’s objectives and viewed it to be extremely valuable. They identified the main positive social impacts of the project as: reduction in incidents of landslides and flash floods, improvement of forest conditions, and improvement in livelihoods and farming practices. It is highly unlikely that proposed project activities will result in any significant adverse social impacts, including the physical relocation of people or the acquisition of privately owned land. Some adverse impacts may arise from potential restriction on access by local communities to natural resources in the pilot sites. Since the project is community-

7

based where the community using the resources decides to restrict access to natural resources and identifies appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts, if any, on affected people including the more vulnerable members of the community, the provisions of the World Bank’s O.P. 4.12 are not applicable to the project. However, to ensure transparency and equity, a Process Framework (PF) for the participation of local communities in the implementation of sustainable land management activities by the project has been developed to detail the principles and processes for assisting communities to manage any potential negative impacts. Since the exact social impacts of access will only be identified during project implementation, the Process Framework will ensure that mitigation of any negative impacts deriving from any potential restriction access by communities to natural resources (e.g. grazing land) will be based on a participatory resource mapping, involving all affected stakeholders, and on their consent regarding the scale of restriction and the type of mitigation measures to compensate any loss of income. Any desired changes by the communities in the ways in which local populations exercise customary tenure rights in the project sites will not be imposed on them, but will emerge for a consultative process satisfactory to the World Bank. Annual project work plans including management arrangements for community access to resources in project sites and associated mitigation measures will require World Bank agreement. Restrictions by surrounding communities to utilize resources are possible, but such restrictions to resource access are not expected to be introduced by the government or project entities. Rather, they will be based on the consent of the community. In fact, specific forms of resource use may continue on a reduced scale or may be restricted, but these actions would evolve through an internal community decision making process, and alternative income or resource generations measures will be agreed with those who may face the loss of some income as a result of restrictions. There are no social groups present in these communities with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society that would make them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process. Since project activities are based on local demands and identified through a highly participative and inclusive process, the policy requirements of the World Bank’s OD 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples to ensure the participation of indigenous and vulnerable groups in the decision making through out the planning and implementation phase of the project, and that these groups are provided assistance in accordance to their priorities are addressed by the design of the project. To effectively monitor project impacts on the vulnerable, the socio-economic baseline established for the project will include specific data on representative vulnerable households (e.g. women and women headed households, the most poor, farmers with marginal land holdings and the landless). To assess the precise nature and magnitude of social impacts, each proposed activity under the project will be subjected to social screening. The project does not intend to undertake any activity that requires the physical relocation of people or acquisition of private or community land. Social screening will identify where the potential for such impacts is possible, and ensure that such activities are excluded from the project. In

8

addition, it will identify if the proposed activity entails restriction of access to natural resources and ensure that such have activities have gone through the consultative process. If the proposed activity entails restriction of access to tsamdo or forest resources, the tshogpa will organize a chiog meeting to discuss with the local community the rationale of the activity and seek community consensus for the activity. For each pilot project geog, a Geog SLM Planning Team (GSPT) will be constituted to provide technical and planning inputs for implementation of project supported activities. The GSPT would consist of a Geog SLM Field Coordinator (GSFC) and 2-4 social mobilizers. The GSPT’s primary responsibility will be: (i) information dissemination, social mobilizations and strengthening of the chiog role in local decision making and prioritization of local needs that would feed into the overall geog level plans; (ii) the assessment of extent of land degradation and baseline scenario and identification of underlying causes for such degradation in the respective chiogs; (iii) facilitation of a multi-sectoral approach to community decision making on options for sustainable management of vulnerable community, public and private lands to reverse or mitigate against existing or potential future land degradation in the chiogs; (iv) implementation of sustainable land management activities in conjunction with local communities, including controls/rules established by the communities on the use of these lands; (v) facilitation of implementation of community development and income generating activities to mitigate any limitations in community induced restrictions on resource access; (vi) monitoring of community sustainable land management activities; (vii) liaising with RNR and other sector staff to support the multi-sectoral approach to land management at the chiog levels; (viii) ensuring that social and environmental screening and mitigation action are planned and implemented at the chiog level; (ix) ensure that local communities have access to technical support and capacity development in the implementation of SLM activities from the project or Dzongkhag administration; and (x) evaluate regularly with geog RNR staff the lessons and experiences from multidisciplinary planning approach. All management arrangements and community investments at the chiog level will be detailed in a chiog SLM annual plan that would form a memorandum of understanding between the respective chiogs and the GSPT. To enable implementation of communally-agreed restriction of access to natural resources, the GPT will help the local community draw up an intra-community agreement if users belong to the same chiog. Where users (even if secondary) include communities from different chiogs but within the same geog, the GSPT will help the concerned communities to draw up an inter-community agreement. The GSPT will facilitate the development of these agreements in coordination with the GYT. All intra- and inter-community agreements between communities of the same geog will be reviewed and approved by the GYT with the Gup as the approving signatory. The development of the agreements will be on a case-by-case basis. Apart from defining the restrictions, it will define mechanisms or measures to prevent violation and redress grievances under the oversight of the GYT. Where restriction of access to natural resource involves communities from different geogs or dzongkhags, the GSPT will help the local communities within the geog to prepare a community proposal for submission to the DYT through the GYT.

9

The PMU will provide overall support at the national level for planning and implementation of the SLM approach in the pilot geogs and for their up-scaling, as well as facilitate and monitor the development and promotion of the policy, regulatory and legal reform for implementation of multi-sectoral SLM activities throughout Bhutan. The PMU will also coordinate with the line agencies for delivery of project specific activities and support to the geogs and dzongkhags as well as liaise with Danida’s EUSPS project. The PMU will be supported by a multi-sectoral Technical Advisory Committee to ensue sectoral inputs to the multi-sectoral working mode. A Project Steering Committee at the national level will help coordinate between SLM project and Danida’s EUSPS activities, including selection of new geogs for up-scaling, capacity building, information management, technical documentation of lessons and experiences and impact assessment as well a use of long and short term consultants and the conduct of joint reviews and evaluation. Training will be needed for Geog SLMP Field Coordinators, Geog SLMP Planning Teams, GYT members, and geog RNR extension agents, on the implementation of the social impact management guidelines with special attention to developing their knowledge and skills for community orientation, consultative planning, and PRA tools and techniques. This training will need to be conducted at the immediate onset of project implementation in each geog where SLMP activities are to take place.

10

CHAPTER 1: Introduction

1.1 OVERVIEW

Environmental conservation has consistently occupied a pivotal place in the national development agenda. Strong conservation ethics, underpinned by the traditional reverence for nature, have influenced the country’s approach to environment long before global concerns for environment were raised. 72.5 per cent of the country is under forest cover and national mandate exists to maintain at least 60 per cent of the country under forest cover in perpetuity. Bhutan’s natural environment is one of the most outstanding in the world. Diversity in wild flora and fauna, which includes more than 5,500 species of vascular plants, 770 species of birds and 170 mammals, is one of the highest in Asia. These include several globally threatened species such as the tiger, snow leopard, clouded leopard, Asian elephant, takin, Himalayan musk deer, red panda, golden langur, black-necked crane, and white-bellied heron. To protect its wild biodiversity, the country has established a comprehensive protected areas system made up of four national parks, four wildlife sanctuaries and a strict nature reserve, representing all major ecosystems and collectively encompassing more than 26 per cent of its territory. These protected areas are connected by biological corridors, which account for another nine per cent of the country’s area. It is, therefore, not out of place to call the country “conservation centerpiece” of the Eastern Himalayas – a region recognized as one of the ten global biodiversity hotspots. Bhutan’s natural environment is also of enormous importance for its watersheds. There are four major watersheds, namely Amo Chhu, Wang Chhu, Puna Tsang Chhu, and Manas Chhu. The protection of these watersheds from adverse land use practices is crucial to sustain hydropower development and agriculture, which are the mainstays of the Bhutanese economy. The watersheds are also of immense ecological and economic consequence to the many downstream communities in the alluvial plains of India and Bangladesh. Although the country is committed to ensuring a future where the natural environment is still well preserved, environmental problems are gradually mounting due to rapid population growth, accelerating pace of development, and socio-economic transformation. In several places, where population density is high, localized deforestation has occurred and the local populations are increasingly experiencing shortage of forest products, such as fuelwood1, house-building timber, and bamboo and cane. Land degradation and resultant landslips are becoming increasingly conspicuous in particular in the eastern and southern parts of Bhutan. Pollution is emerging as a major problem as a result of increase in industrial activities, number of motor vehicles, and generation of solid waste. Forest fires remain a recurrent phenomenon despite strict rules and regulations. Livestock population has remained high regardless of government efforts to reduce livestock population through introduction of improved breeds, artificial insemination and sterilization of unproductive stock. In 2000, cattle population was 320,509 and yak population 34,928. High livestock population combined with free-range grazing and migratory herding have led to overgrazing, exacerbating land degradation in many areas. Development of infrastructure such as roads, while necessary for public welfare and economic growth, is enormously

1 The country is known to have one of the highest per capita fuelwood consumption in the world, at 1.27 tons per annum.

11

environmentally challenging because of the fragile geologic conditions, rugged mountain terrain, and heavy monsoons. Furthermore, the country is severely constrained by the fact that usable land resource is extremely limited as much of the country is characterized by steep mountains, high altitude pastures, rocky outcrops and scree, and snow and glaciers. The main land cover is forest, which accounts for 72.5 per cent (including scrub forests) of the country. While 79 per cent of the population depend on agriculture, area available for arable agriculture is less than 8 per cent. Limited usable land resource has led to land use competition among various sectors, e.g. between agriculture and urban or industrial development. Statistically, Bhutan is among the least urbanized countries with only 21 per cent of the population living in urban areas. That fact notwithstanding, urbanization is emerging as a major problem, more so because it is concentrated in a few major townships such as Thimphu and Phuentsholing. On the whole, urban population is estimated to be growing at 6 to 7 per cent annually. Urban expansion vies with agriculture for the most productive areas, which are usually on the relatively flat and fertile valley bottoms. Infrastructure development in urban and peri-urban areas has led to increased land use conversion, triggered natural habitat fragmentation and destruction, and inadvertently contributed to slope instability and land slips. Industrial activities are also proliferating in and around urban centers, causing much of the land and water pollution. Devastating floods on the more densely-populated southern belt bordering India have been attributed to natural and anthropogenic factors such as fragile geologic conditions, infrastructural development, burgeoning population and intensive use of upstream and fringe forests for fuel wood, grazing and non-wood forest products. In addition, ambiguities, gaps, contradictions and perverse incentives exist among existing policies, laws and regulations that have bearing on land management. This has hindered a coordinated and integrated approach to land management. There is a clearly felt need to harmonize and rationalize the various policies, laws and regulations through cross-sectoral dialogue, consensus building, and interface of policies and workable land management regimes on the ground. 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

To address land degradation problems and issues – both longstanding and emerging – the Royal Government of Bhutan is initiating Sustainable Land Management Project with technical assistance from the World Bank and grant financing from the Global Environment Facility. The Danish International Development Assistance is contributing parallel funding through its Environment and Urban Sector Programme Support, focusing on policy, planning and regulatory work at the central level. The overall goal of the Project is to help realize local, regional and global environmental benefits from sustainable land management planning, land use and improved livelihoods in Bhutan. Within this goal, the project development objective is to enhance national land management planning and adoption of sustainable local land use practices. To achieve the project development objective, the Sustainable Land Management Project will focus on four complementary components: (1) SLM planning, policy, legislative and regulatory framework; (2) demonstration and validation of SLM approaches on the ground; (3)

12

institutional system for sustaining multi-sectoral approach to SLM; and (4) establishment of project management. On-the-ground investments for sustainable land management will be piloted at three sites, namely Radhi geog in Trashigang, Nangkor geog in Zhemgang, and Phuentsholing geog in Chhukha. After the second year of the project, the investments will be scaled-up to cover another six geogs based on lessons learnt and validation of best practices from the pilot geogs.

On the ground planning and investment in pilot sites (Component 2) will generate lessons to feed into the formulation of new policies and revise the planning and regulatory framework (Component 1) for inter-sectoral SLM. Capacity building through bottom-up participatory planning for SLM and institutionalised monitoring will help validate and consolidate the SLM approach at all levels (Components 2 and 3). A careful set up for project management (Component 4) will ensure that all stakeholders from chiog to central level have access to participate and take part in decision-making and evaluation. 1.2.1 Project Components Component 1: SLM Planning, Policy, Legislative, and Regulatory Framework established for management of land resources in Bhutan Output 1.1: Principles of SLM planning included in 10th 5-Year Plan by PY 2 The PMU and the MTAC will bring systematic lessons learnt back from geog level to central level and inform the preparation of 10th Five-Year Plan and subsequent annual planning. SLMP will develop planning principles on SLM that will be adopted in planning guidelines and actual planning. In parallel the EUSPS will support information management at geog level including baseline and monitoring data to establish geog profiles that will form a basis for the 10th year planning process. Output 1.2: SLM approach included in the target dzongkhags’ and geogs’ annual development planning process in PY 2 onwards The geog RNR officers and the SLM coordinator interact regularly with Dzongkhag Administration, Dzongkhag SLM Committee, RNR and Planning Officers and support the 10th Five Year Plan Planning process in topics related to SLM. The SLMP will work with the dzongkhag SLM Committee and the DEC to facilitate the adoption and learn from the EUSPS that will support overall capacity building of administration at local level. Output 1.3: SLM principles integrated into sector level policies (likely to be national watershed management policy and land use planning policy, and grazing) by PY 4 The PMU and the MTAC interact closely with the MOA PPD and the Danida EUSPS for inputs of SLM lessons to formulation of policies. EUSPS supports policy development related to NRM, environmental management and local urban planning, whereas SLMP

13

will translate experiences from field implementation into sustainable land management related policies. Several of these policies and policy analyses are expected to be common to SLMP and EUSPS. Output 1.4: SLM lessons brought into revision of key acts (likely to be Nature and Forest Conservation Act, Land Act, draft Grazing Act etc) PY 3 The PMU and the MTAC interact closely with the MOA PPD and the Danida EUSPS for inputs of SLM lessons to formulation of revised and new acts and support agreements between dzongkhag and municipalities on SLM interfaces between urban and rural areas. EUSPS supports the development and revision of key acts in environment and NRM. SLMP will add to these efforts through the development of specific provisions on grazing, land use regulations, conversion of tseri shifting cultivation lands, and sustainable farming systems. EUSPS will work in five district towns related to land zoning regulations, rural-urban interfaces, and where specific rules and regulations will be developed. Output 1.5: Local level by-laws formulated by geog and local communities for SLM outcomes in PY 2, 3, 4, and 6 The participatory planning process that underlies the formulation of chiog and geog SLM framework and action plans will support the on the ground development of local level chiog and geog rules and by-laws that build on traditional natural resources management systems and support long term sustainability of project impact. EUSPS’s support to revision of policies will build on local experiences for community based land management established through SLMP. EUSPS will support the creation of town committees for local decision-making and regulatory development Component 2: Pilot site SLM approaches demonstrated and validated Output 2.1: Local inventories, hazard mapping, soil capability resource assessment and socio-economic baselines, including tenure context and regimes, established to guide the local level planning of SLM activities by 6th Month onwards PMU makes the Department of Survey and Land Records, NSSC and possible regional RNRRC assess existing geo-informatics and develop relevant new ones for the three pilot sites together with farmers by sending teams to the field within the first months of project to prepare the inputs to the SLM Framework Plan. These encompass that land use typology, land capability and suitability, hazard zonation maps, degradation severity indices are formulated It continues the fielding of technical teams as the project is up-scaled to other geogs. PMU effectuates simultaneously the deployment of consultants to prepare socio-economic baselines and information on land and water tenure, open access areas and tenancy shareholding rights within the first months of the project to integrate these inputs with technical information into the SLM Framework Plan and continues this intervention as the project develops to other chiogs and geogs.

14

In line with SLMP the EUSPS will support the development of administrative and technical MIS for geog and dzongkhag level to promote local decision making, planning and monitoring. SLMP will complement the MIS by introducing data information and analysis related to the enabling context for SLM. Output 2.2: Chiog and geog level SLM framework and action plans under implementation from PY 1 onwards (x acres of riverine banks protected, y acres of steep erodable slopes protected, z acres of sustainable agricultural practices implemented, q acres of degraded forest regenerated, k acres of grazing lands improved and conflicts resolved, p ares of tseri converted to sustainable land use practices in PY2, PY4, and PY6 respectively. Joint management introduced for open access resources for 100 acres/geog in PY2 and Joint management and community forestry introduced at three sites in each geog by PY3. Inter-geog and inter-dzongkhag agreements on grazing right-holding regimes at high altitudes for 2- 600 acres/geog in PY3 and for double area in PY6 Geog SLM Field Coordinator, Geog SLM Planning Team and Geog RNR staff plan with chiogs a number of SLM interventions addressing private, common, open access and government lands for inter-sectoral interventions in agriculture, livestock and (community) forestry. RNR staff and technical assistance from regional and central government bodies work with farmers on implementation of defined activities. Geog SLM Field Coordinator, Geog SLM Planning Team and the Geog RNR staff provide support to local communities in setting up arrangements to solve grazing rights. Geog SLM Field Coordinator, Geog SLM Planning Team and Geog RNR staff explains the issues of inter-dzongkhag problems of grazing use rights to dzongkhag level for inter-dzongkhag negotiations where no local solutions are forthcoming. Geog and dzonkhags endorse agreements on grazing regimes in line with defined characteristics of SLM for grazing. EUSPS supports concrete development activities in selected geogs to test interventions related to key development issues in Bhutan such as shifting cultivation stabilisation, grazing conflicts, forest management, agricultural intensification, and protected area management. As EUSPS is confined to limited pilot activities it will therefore benefit highly from the results of SLMP interventions and the possibilities of up-scaling experiences to a wider geographical area. Output 2.3: SLM investment activities validated through establishment of monitoring criteria and monitoring proper for each intervention (physical SLM impact, labor, gender, tenure, poverty etc) and impact studies in PY3 Geog SLM Planning Team, geog coordinator and geog RNR staff set up monitoring criteria together with all stakeholders in the villages, prepares format for monitoring that is aligned to MOA monitoring system and include all relevant criteria for impact and long term institutional sustainability. Responsibilities for recording data assigned. Analyses conducted at geog level and recorded in computerized fashion.

15

Geog SLM Planning Team, geog coordinator and geog RNR staff share experiences with dzongkhag RNR staff and the Dzongkhag SLM Committee/Dzongkhag Environment Committee to agree on approach to up-scaling to other geogs within the dzongkhag EUSPS will consolidate existing methods for NR assessment practices at its sites, while SLMP will further develop such methods into descriptive and analytical tools particularly related to local level land management and the two will be analysed for producing analytical tools (SLMP Comp.3) Output 2.4: Lessons learnt on transaction costs and benefits of new integrated SLM planning approach to RNR staff at geog and dzongkhag level in PY4 Geog RNR staff participates in study by consultant on the time they spend on regular RNR activities and the time spent on SLM activities in order to identify synergies for future incorporation of SLM approach into regular work-program. Dzongkhag RNR staff participates in study on the time they spend on regular RNR activities and the time spent on SLM activities in order to identify synergies for future incorporation of SLM approach into regular work-program. EUSPS has no direct matching output except for what is mentioned under 2.1, but will working closely with SLMP and RNR staff in pilot geogs to assess the feasibility of institutionalising innovative administrative and technical approaches. Output 2.5: Lessons learnt on how to define sustainable institutional modalities for SLM under prevailing tenurial framework in PY3 All interventions/activities are presented in MOA’s Annual Working Plan Format that will include the context relating to tenure and institutional arrangements and provide some indicators to be used to capture the appropriate sustainable systems of rights and responsibilities and institutional framework for optimal SLM of grazing lands, paddy lands, dry lands, forest, water streams. Thus, indicators addressing tenure context would form part of the monitoring system. Community participation in monitoring will enhance its capacity for SLM and for solving conflicts in natural resources management. EUSPS supports the reviewing of tenurial and legal and administrative systems that sets the framework for ownership of land and water resources in its pilot sites. The SLMP and EUSPS will bring lessons learnt to policy level for revision of acts. Output 2.6: SLM Lessons learnt adopted by dzongkhag and upscaled to other geogs in the pilot dzongkhags by PY4 Dzongkhag level SLM Committee/Dzongkhag Environment Committee conducts seminars and invites all geogs from the dzongkhag to attend presentation by pilot geog on lessons learnt. Other geog RNR staff visits pilot geog at least once a year. Dzongkhag administration participates actively in setting up criteria for up-scaling. The SLM

16

coordinator and the Geog SLM Planning Team moves to new geogs to plan and implement with geog RNR. EUSPS will cater to capacity building that reinforces inter-sectoral approaches at dzongkhag and geog level and pave the way for adoption of SLMP results. The two projects will collaborate on training activities. Component 3: Institutional system for SLM established sustaining the multi-sectoral approach Output 3.1: Analytical tools for SLM developed and adopted (land use typology, land capability and suitability, hazard zonation maps, degradation severity indices formulated) and applied in production of geog Land Use Planning Framework PY 1 onwards PMU seconds the technical agencies to analyse together with PMU and consultants the relevance and functionality of tools applied in the field under component 2 to fine tune these into more generic tools to be used in future SLM initiatives by the RGOB. In collaboration with EUSPS the SLMP will assess the possible use of NECS’ Environmental Information Management System (EIMS), concurrently being developed under Danida-assisted EUSPS. The SLMP indicators will feed into and be a subset of the EIMS system. (Who will define these on the ground indicators?) EUSPS thus supports a large range of environmental and area based information systems, which will form a resource for further use and development by SLMP. Output 3.2: Analytical tools for socio-economic profile developed and adopted to guide definition of local level institutional arrangements for SLM of various resource regimes PY 1 onwards

PMU will employ consultants to apply the SLMP’s framework to prepare socio-economic baselines at chiog level and adjust the tools into a package that will guide further work on institutional arrangements in relation to management of grazing lands, private paddy and dry lands, open access resources, forest and water. The use of the analytical tools will be repeated as more geogs are included. Thus, the SLMP will develop analytical tools for socio-economic baselines, including gender data, which will feed into and/or learn from the EUSPS funded MTI and MOA study on gender. Output 3.3: Up-scaling (technical, institutional and geographical) defined for promotion of SLM in other geogs, dzongkhags and national level and building on lessons learnt promoted through EUSPS and PSC by PY3 onwards Lessons learnt at pilot geog and dzongkhag consolidated through monitoring mechanism and presented to the PSC along with lessons from the EUSPS in order to impact on policies and regulatory framework. A total of 9 geogs or more are under SLM in PY 5

17

and all three dzongkhags have adopted a SLM approach to five-year and one-year plan development. PSC members take lessons learnt back to own ministries. A consolidated policy paper on SLM is prepared by the Policy and Planning Department of MOA for use in Bhutan. Through central level institutions both SLMP and EUSPS will document and consolidate technical and administrative innovations. Output 3.4: Monitoring framework at work that builds on information from baseline physical and socio-economic surveys and uses indictors of relevance to SLM approach and participatory monitoring PY1 onwards The Geog SLM Coordinator, the Geog SLM Planning Team and the Geog RNR staff together with the GYT will facilitate a participatory definition of SLM success criteria related both to impact and to performance and integrate these into the Forms of the MOA’s Manual for Monitoring & Evaluation Procedures. Data from the physical and socio-economic surveys and profiles that feed into the Framework Plan will guide the development of relevant time-bound indicators that are simple to collect. Monitoring data are consolidated at geog level and fed to dzongkhag and to PMU that will consolidate lessons into its progress reports to the PSC. The monitoring arrangements are detailed in the Operational Manual. The monitoring forms the basis for generation of lessons learnt informing the up-scaling as well as change of policies at central level. SLMP and EUSPS will collaborate in making the MOA Manual for M&E operational at all levels and in particular cater to decentralised NRM and inter-sectoral planning. Output 3.5: Capacity built in inter-sectoral planning for SLM mainstreaming The SLMP will carry out extensive training through learning-by-doing where RNR staff and other agencies will plan together with villagers under guidance of trainers and consultants. Also formal training programs identified by the local level as well as PMU, MTAC and dzongkhags. The capacity building will be linked to performance criteria. Together with the impact monitoring both will feed into revision of land management policies adopting a bottom-up inter-sectoral approach that guarantees attention to equity and livelihood concerns and facilitates the administrative and financial context for effectuating SLM approaches. Component 4: Project Management established Output 4.1: A national PMU and MTAC perform their role and Dzongkhag and Geog SLM Coordinating Committees appointed and at work

18

Prior to project effectiveness the RGOB will have identified project director, project manager and members of MTAC so that these bodies are ready for work when the project start. These will continue during the whole lifetime of the project. At Dzongkhag level a SLM Coordination Committee will be appointed which may coincide with the recently appointed Dzongkhag Environmental Committee in the target dzongkhags. At geog level the GYT or a smaller unit appointed by the Gup will serve as the geog SLM Committee and M&E Forum to interact with the SLM Field Coordinator, the Geog SLM Planning Team and the Geog RNR staff. Output 4.2: Financial Management system established Prior to project effectiveness the RGOB will have identified project accountant and endorsed the system of financial management proposed by the SMLP. The system will be in effect from the first project month. Output 4.3: Geog Field Coordinator seconded to Geog by MOA and at work Prior to project effectiveness the MOA will have identified 3 candidates for the position of Geog SLM field coordinator to be stationed in the three pilot geogs and later moved to other geogs within the same dzongkhags. The outcome of this component will be the establishment of a strategic policy, planning and regulatory framework at the local, regional and national levels based on improved information and analyses. This component is closely linked to Danida’s EUSPS program. Output 4.4: Geog SLM Planning Team deployed by 4th month of project effectiveness

19

CHAPTER 2: Rationale and Methodology

2.1 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

The World Bank and Global Environment Facility’s development assistance is based on the principle of (environmental and) social sustainability. They require that projects supported by them do not create adverse social impacts but enhance socio-economic benefits and local community participation. The principle of socially sustainable development is also manifested in Bhutan’s vision statement Bhutan 2020: A Vision for Peace, Prosperity and Happiness. It emphasizes the need to respond to the aspirations of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, prevent growth of inequalities, and foster good governance based on decentralization and local participation. It is in the context of the foregoing that this Social Assessment (SA) has been prepared to guide the implementation of SLMP in a socially sustainable manner. Specifically, the SA: • identifies primary stakeholders and social issues;

• assesses the perceptions and views of the primary stakeholders in project formulation and design, and their views on project benefits and impacts;

• defines a process framework for participation of local communities in implementation and monitoring of sustainable land management at project sites.

2.2 METHODOLOGY

The SA has been prepared based on consultation with primary stakeholders and information derived from literature review. 2.2.1 Literature Review Various policies, laws, regulations and guidelines relevant to social management were extensively reviewed to make a comparative assessment with WB safeguard policies. These included the Land Act of Bhutan, 1979, Forest and Nature Conservation Act, 1995, Procedure for Exhange (Swapping) of Marginal Farm Land with Forest Land, Guideline for Conversion of Chhuzhing to other Land Use Categories, 2000, and Dzongkhag Yargye Tshogdu and Geog Yargye Tshogchung Chathrims, 2002. In addition, documents pertaining to SLMP planning were reviewed. This included: (1) compiled notes of local level stakeholder workshops conducted in the pilot sites in May/June 2004 with facilitation by members of SLMP-Working Group and visiting WB/GEF consultant; and (2) Report of Project Formulation Processes and Outcomes, which is a consolidation of the processes and outcomes of local level stakeholder workshops, project design workshop and decision makers’ workshop. These reports provided an understanding of the project rationale and design, participation of

20

stakeholders in the planning process at various levels, and their perception of land degradation issues and benefits of SLMP.

2.2.2 Stakeholder Consultations Consultations with Primary Stakeholders at the Local Level Field trips were undertaken to all the three pilot sites in December 2004/ January 2005. During these trips consultations were held with primary stakeholders, namely local communities, GYT members and geog RNR extension agents for 2-3 days in each site. The field consultations were basically done in two forms: one, group discussions with a cross-section of men and women, including some who were GYT members; and, two, interviews of individual households. During the latter, attention was given to including households belonging to vulnerable group so that their views and concerns were also captured. A checklist of guide topics was used for the consultations to ensure that key information needs were captured whilst allowing the interactions to be eclectic. The checklist is appended as Annex 3.

All in all, 67 local people were consulted: 18 in Radhi geog; 26 in Nangkor geog; and 23 in Phuentsholing geog. Of the total, 27 (40.3 per cent) were women and 32 (47.8 per cent) belonged to the vulnerable group. In addition to the primary stakeholders at the geog level, some of the Dzongkhag officials were met. The full list of people consulted is provided in Annex 2.

Consultations with SLMP-Working Group or MTAC The SLMP-Working Group (SLMP-WG) or MTAC is a multi-disciplinary team formed for formulation of SLMP. The SLMP-WG basically is made up of central level agencies having major stake in sustainable land management. It includes representation from the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MTI), Ministry of Works and Human Settlement (MWHS), National Environment Commission Secretariat (NECS), and the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) and its Departments of Agriculture (DoA), Forestry (DoF), Livestock (DoL), and Survey and Land Records (DSLR). Consultative meetings were held with the SLMP-WG to enlist their inputs and consensus on adverse social impacts and mitigation measures, process framework for participation of local communities, institutional arrangement, capacity building, and monitoring framework. Progressive drafts of the SMF were also circulated to the SLMP-WG for review and comments. Process Framework for Participation of Local Communities in Implementation of Sustainable Land Management Approaches in Project Sites

21

On the basis of these consultations and proposed project interventions, it is highly unlikely that project activities will result in any significant adverse social impacts, including the physical relocation of people or the acquisition of privately owned land. Some adverse impacts may arise from potential restriction on access by local communities to natural resources in the pilot sites. Since the project is community-based where the community using the resources decides to restrict access to natural resources and identifies appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts, if any, on affected people, including the more vulnerable members of the community, the provisions of the World Bank’s O.P. 4.12 are not applicable to the project. However, to ensure transparency and equity, a Process Framework (PF) for the participation of local communities in the implementation of sustainable land management activities by the project has been developed to detail the principles and processes for assisting communities to manage any negative potential impacts. Since the exact social impacts of access will only be identified during project implementation, the Process Framework will ensure that mitigation of any negative impacts deriving from any potential restriction of access by communities to natural resources (e.g. grazing land) will be based on a participatory resource mapping, involving all affected stakeholders, and on their consent regarding the scale of restriction and the type of mitigation measures to compensate any loss of income. Any desired changes by the communities in the ways in which local populations exercise customary tenure rights in the project sites will not be imposed on them, but will emerge for a consultative process satisfactory to the World Bank. Annual project work plans including management arrangements for community access to resources in project sites and associated mitigation measures will require World Bank agreement.

Indigenous/Vulnerable Communities Site visits and field based consultations also indicated that there were no social groups present in these communities with a social and cultural identity distinct from the dominant society that would make them vulnerable to being disadvantaged in the development process. In line with the participatory nature of community planning, it was confirmed that at the local level, activities and priorities are first proposed and discussed in chiog meetings and that a member of each household in the chiog, irrespective of social or economic standing, is expected to participate. Since project activities are based on local demands and identified through a highly participative and inclusive process, the policy required of the World Bank’s OD 4.20 on Indigenous Peoples to ensure the participation of indigenous and vulnerable groups in the decision making through out the planning and implementation phase of the project, and that these groups are provided assistance in accordance to their priorities are addressed by the design of the project. To effectively monitor project impacts on the vulnerable, the socio-economic baseline established for the project will include specific data on representative vulnerable households (e.g. women and women headed households, the most poor, farmers with marginal land holdings and the landless). Monitoring indicators will include gender and

22

vulnerability specific indicators, and monitoring reports will present data disaggregated by gender and vulnerability (i.e. women headed households).

23

CHAPTER 3: Current Socio-economic Situation

3.1 COUNTRY OVERVIEW

3.1.1 Geo-political Setting The Kingdom of Bhutan, with a total area of 38,394 km2, is a small, landlocked, mountainous country in the Eastern Himalayan region. It is bordered by the Indian states of Arunachal Pradesh to its east, Assam and West Bengal to its south, and Sikkim to its west. The northern border is shared with the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China. Administratively, the country is divided into 20 dzongkhags (districts). The dzongkhags are further divided into several geogs. At the present, there are altogether 201 geogs in the country. Some of the dzongkhags such as Chhukha, Samdrup Jongkhar, Samtse, Sarpang, Trashigang, and Zhemgang, have sub-districts, known as dungkhags. A dzongkhag is headed by a dzongdag, a dungkhag by a dungpa, and a geog by a gup. Dzongdags and dungpas are civil service officials whereas a gup is elected by the local community every three years. At the central level, there are ten ministries and a number of non-ministerial bodies such as the National Environment Commission, Royal Civil Service Commission, Royal Audit Authority, National Statistical Bureau, and Office of Legal Affairs. The ministries are the Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Education, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs, Ministry of Information and Communications, Ministry of Labour and Human Resources, Ministry of Trade and Industry, and Ministry of Works and Human Settlement. Figure 1: Administrative Map of Bhutan

24

3.1.2 Demography The country’s population is 734,340 (2003 estimate) with a current growth rate of 2.5 per cent per annum. Male-female ratio is about 1.02:1. Majority of the population is young, with more than 51 per cent being under 20 years. Population density is higher in the eastern and southern regions. While there are several language groups and communities, the country is essentially composed of three broad ethnic groups – Ngalongs, Sharchops and Lhotshampas. The Ngalongs and Sharchops are collectively known as Drukpas and make up about 80 per cent of the population. They are of Mongoloid race and Buddhist by religion. The Lhotshampas, who live mainly in the southern parts of the country, are largely Indo-Aryans of Nepalese origin and follow the Hindu faith. 3.1.3 Economy Bhutan is a least developed country and its economy is predominantly agrarian. Seventy-nine per cent of the people live in rural areas and subsist on an integrated livelihood system based on crop agriculture, livestock rearing and use of forest products – collectively known as the RNR sector. The RNR sector is the largest contributor to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in the country. It accounted for nearly one-third of the GDP in 2003 (see Figure 1). Other major GDP contributors are construction, electricity, transport, storage and communications, community, social and personal services, and manufacturing. In terms of revenue-generation, hydropower and tourism top the list with the former having generated more than Nu 6,600 million – accounting for around 48 per cent of the total revenue – in 2000-02 and the latter hard currency of US$ 27.68 million during the same period. Figure 2: Sector-wise GDP Share in 2003

32%

2%

8%10%

20%

5%

9%

6%8%

Renewable natural resources Mining and quarrying

Manufacturing Electricity

Construction Wholesale and retail trade, restaurants and hotels

Transport, storage and communications Financing, insurance, real estate and business services

Community, social and personal services

25

3.1.4 Income and Poverty By all standards, household incomes are low in the country. Poverty Assessment and Analysis Report 2000 cite an average per capita household income of Nu. 1,200 per month, with urban households averaging Nu. 2,130 per month and rural households Nu. 990 per month. Fifty-eight per cent of the geogs and towns have household incomes around national average and around 35 per cent below national average. Only about seven per cent have household incomes above the national average. Chhukha and Punakha dzongkhags have maximum geogs and towns with household incomes above national average and none below national average. On the other spectrum, all geogs and towns in Gasa, Samdrup Jongkhar and Zhemgang dzongkhags are below national average in household incomes. The Poverty Analysis Report 2004 prepared by the NSB establishes the national poverty line at Nu. 740.36 per month. It is estimated that 31.7 per cent of the country’s population fall below this poverty line. Poverty is relatively a rural phenomenon, with 38.3 per cent of the rural population and only 4.2 per cent of the urban population falling below the national poverty line. 3.1.5 Human Development Despite a late beginning, the country has made enormous progress in improving health and education services. Human development indicators maintained by the National Statistical Bureau (NSB – previously Central Statistical Organization) show that between 1977 and 1999, crude death rate (per thousand people) had dropped from 20.5 to 9, life expectancy had increased from 46.1 to 66.1 years, adult literacy rate had grown from a meager 17.5 to 54 per cent, and school enrolment from 24.5 to 72 per cent. 3.1.6 Food Security According to the Poverty Assessment and Analysis Report 2000, nearly 44 per cent of the geogs and towns are self-sufficient in cereal production, about 14 per cent have small surpluses, and two per cent large surpluses. The remaining 40 per cent are less than self-sufficient in cereal production. Wangduephodrang, Paro, Thimphu, Dagana, Sarpang and Trashigang dzongkhags have the most number of geogs and towns with surplus in cereal production while all geogs and towns in Tsirang and Pema Gatshel dzongkhags are less than self-sufficient in cereal production. 3.1.7 Governance One of the main vehicles that the country has chosen for sustainable development is the decentralization of governance to the local authorities and communities. The re-enacted Dzongkhag Yargye Tshogdu Chathrim, 2002, and Geog Yargye Tshogchung Chathrim, 2002, enhances the powers and functions of the Dzongkhag Yargye Tshogdu (DYT) and Geog Yargye Tshogchung (GYT), to decide, plan, and manage development activities at the dzongkhag and geog levels. It is in line with the growing impetus on decentralization that the geog plans form the core of the ongoing 9th FYP.

26

3.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILES OF PILOT SITES/ GEOGS

The pilot sites/ geogs for on-the-ground investment are located in three different parts of the country: • Radhi geog, Trashigang dzongkhag, in eastern Bhutan

• Nangkor geog, Zhemgang dzongkhag, in east-central Bhutan

• Phuentsholing geog, Chhukha dzongkhag, in south-western Bhutan Figure 3 on next page is the location map of the above sites/ geogs.

3.2.1 Radhi geog, Trashigang Dzongkhag Population

There are 17 villages with altogether 560 households in the geog. At the rate of 5.53 people per household2, this translates to about 3,097 people with a population density of

2 National average household size, 2000, cited in the Statistical Yearbook of Bhutan 2003.

Figure 3: Location Map of Pilot Project Sites

27

about 107 people per km2 – one of the highest in the country. While lack of data on past population makes it difficult to specify the population growth trend, discussions with local communities suggest that the local population may have increased by 15 – 20 per cent in the last 30 years or so despite out-migration (Stakeholder Analysis, 27 May – 9 June 2004, Draft Report). The people of Radhi belong to the Sharchop group of the Bhutanese population. They follow the Buddhist faith and are extremely religious people. Livelihood Practices

The local people largely subsist on crop production and livestock rearing. The geog is one of the country’s major rice-producing areas, with annual production being about 864 metric tonnes. Together with the adjoining geogs of Phongme, Bidung and Shongphu, it is often referred to as the “rice bowl” of eastern Bhutan. Other major crops include maize and potato. Livestock population includes 1,515 cattle, 392 horses, and 36 mules. Local women are known for their skills in weaving textiles made of bhura (raw silk) and weaving constitutes a major source of income in many households. Being one of the most agriculturally productive areas in the country, the geog is one of the few rural areas with annual household income above national average according to the Poverty Assessment and Analysis Report 2000. With improved accessibility to markets, non-traditional off-farm economic activities such as wage labor, contract work, and small businesses are increasingly becoming important livelihood sources. Remittances from family members in public and private sector services complement income in some households. Land Use and Tenure

The geog has a total land area of 29 km2, making it the smallest in Trashigang dzongkhag. Agriculture is the most dominant land use, with wetland and dryland cultivation being the main forms of agricultural land use. Following are some figures cited from the RNR Statistics 2000: • 752 acres of wetland, 747 acres of dryland, and 237 acres of tseri/pangzhing are

operational; • 95.1 per cent of farm households own wetland, 95.5 per cent dryland and 45.4 per cent

tseri/ pangzhing; • 13.3 per cent of the farm households hold less than 1 acre of agricultural land, 68.2 per

cent between 1 and 5 acres, 15.3 per cent between 5 and 10 acres, and 3.2 per cent more than 10 acres;

• 540 acres of wetland are owned and operated by the owner, 71 acres leased in, 89 acres

leased out, and 123 acres left fallow;

28

• 369 acres of dryland are owned and operated by the owner, 30 acres leased in, 68 acres leased out, and 309 acres left fallow.

3.2.2 Nangkor geog, Zhemgang Dzongkhag Population The geog has 12 villages with a total of 278 households, which based on national average household size translates to a population of 1,537 and a population density of 3.1 people per km2 – one of the lowest in the country. The main villages are Dakpai, Tali, Keykhar, Buli, Goling, Duenmang, Norbugang, Nyakhar and Tshaidang. The people of Nangkor are Khengpas, an ethnic community with a distinct dialect. Khengpas occupy much of Zhemgang dzongkhag and some portion of Mongar dzongkhag. They are generally associated with the larger Sharchhop group and follow the Buddhist faith. An interesting feature is that the local community in Nangkor geog, as in most Kheng areas, is a matriarchal society. Livelihood Practices

Local people primarily subsist on crop agriculture and livestock production. Tseri (slash-and-burn cultivation) is the most dominant form of agricultural land use. The most important crops are paddy, maize, buckwheat, and millet and livestock mainly includes cattle, horses and mules, and pigs. Annual household income of the geog is below national average according to the Poverty Assessment and Analysis Report 2000. Land Tenure

Nangkor geog has an area of 494 km2 and is the largest in Zhemgang dzongkhag. Tseri is the most dominant land use for agriculture with about 1,153 acres of land operational under such cultivation. Given that tseri is the most dominant form of agricultural land use, average landholding per household is relatively large. Following are some figures cited from the RNR Statistics 2000: • 360 acres of wetland, 421 acres of dryland, and 1,153 acres of tseri are operational; • 74.1 per cent of the farm households own wetland, 92.1 per cent dryland and 82.9 per

cent tseri; • 4.2 per cent of the farm households hold less than 1 acre of agricultural land, 36.6 per

cent between 1 and 5 acres, 34.7 per cent between 5 and 10 acres, and 24.5 per cent more than 10 acres;

• 284 acres of wetland are owned and operated by the owner, 8 acres leased in, 9 acres

leased out, and 67 acres left fallow;

29

• 212 acres of dryland are owned and operated by the owner, 6 acres leased in, 5 acres leased out, and 203 acres left fallow.

3.2.3 Phuentsholing geog, Chhukha Dzongkhag Population Phuentsholing geog has 19 villages with altogether 547 households. The total population in the villages works out to about 3,025. In addition, Phuentsholing Urban Area – which is the second largest in the country – has about 21,000 people. This raises the population density of the geog up to nearly 172 people per km2.

The rural population largely belongs to the Lhotshampa group, who are Indo-Aryans of Nepalese origin and follow the Hindu faith. Rai and Ghalley sub-groups are predominant. Other sub-groups are that of Mongar and Limbu. The urban population is made up of people from all parts of Bhutan, with a large portion being transient. Livelihood Practices

Annual household income of the geog is around national average according to the Poverty Assessment and Analysis Report 2000. Rural people primarily subsist on crop agriculture and livestock production. The most important crops are paddy, maize, buckwheat, and millet. Cash crops mainly include mandarin and arecanut. Livestock population is mainly made up of cattle, sheep and goats. The urban population is mainly engaged in trade and commerce and in public and private sector services. Many of the country’s biggest industries and corporations are located in Phuentsholing Urban Area and the adjacent town of Pasakha.

Land Tenure

The geog has an area of 139.8 km2. More than 71 per cent is forest. Arable land makes up about 18.5 per cent and horticulture about 2.4 per cent. Pasture is only 1.31 per cent. Agricultural land holdings are large. Following are some figures cited from the RNR Statistics 2000: • 208 acres of wetland, 1,160 acres of dryland, and 1,651 acres of tseri/pangzhing are

operational; • 32.5 per cent of the farm households own wetland, 89.3 per cent dryland and 75.6 per

cent tseri/pangzhing; • 6.5 per cent of the farm households hold less than 1 acre of agricultural land, 34 per

cent between 1 and 5 acres, 33 per cent between 5 and 10 acres, and 26.5 per cent more than 10 acres;

30

• 202 acres of wetland are owned and operated by the owner, 1 acres leased in, 4 acres leased out, and 2 acres left fallow;

• 1,099 acres of dry land are owned and operated by the owner, 20 acres leased in, 36

acres leased out, and 25 acres left fallow.

31

CHAPTER 4: Field Consultations

4.1 CONSULTATION METHODOLOGY

Field consultations were held with primary stakeholders at the local level. This included project affected people including women and vulnerable people, GYT members and geog RNR extension agents in all the three pilot sites. The main objectives of these consultations were to: (i) identify potential social impacts and issues; (ii) assess local views and understanding of the project; (iii) review the extent of local participation in the identification of issues and activities for SLMP; (iv) review the inclusiveness of vulnerable groups in the above process; and (v) review current mechanisms for dispute resolution especially those involving land and natural resource use. Prior to visiting the project sites, a checklist of guide topics was developed for field consultations. During the field consultations, the consultant was assisted by local resource persons, namely the geog clerk in Radhi, the agriculture extension agent of Buli in Nangkor, and the tshogpas of Damdara, Toribari and Ahalley in Phuentsholing. Before conducting field consultations, meeting was held with the gup at each geog/site to explain the purpose of social (and environmental) assessment and discuss preparation for the consultations, in particular the need to include women and people belonging to the vulnerable group. The consultations were basically done in two forms: one, group discussions with a cross-section of men and women, including some who were GYT members; and, two, interviews of individual households, particularly those who were vulnerable. The vulnerable households were determined in terms of low cash income, landless or small landholding, recurrent food deficit, high proportion of dependents (young children, old parents, disabled members), and woman-headed households due to death/ illness of husband or divorce. In each geog/site, tshogpas were consulted to identify vulnerable households for interview. The checklist of guide topics was used for the consultations to ensure that key information needs were captured whilst allowing the interactions to be eclectic. The checklist is appended as Annex 3. All in all, 67 local people were consulted: 18 in Radhi geog, 26 in Nangkor geog, and 23 in Phuentsholing geog. Of these, 27 (40.3 percent) were women and 32 (47.8 percent) belonged to the vulnerable group. Owing to its matriarchal society, women representation was highest in Nangkor geog with nearly 54 per cent of the participants being women. In Radhi and Phuentsholing geogs, women representation was about 28 and 35 per cent respectively. Table 1: Summary of Primary Stakeholders Consulted at the Local Level

Sub-project Pilot Site Number of people

Male Female Belonging to Vulnerable Household

Focus Group Discussions No. % No. % No. %

Radhi 6 4 66.7 2 33.3 1 16.7

Nangkor 10 4 40 6 60 0 0

Phuentsholing 6 5 83.3 1 16.7 0 0

32

Household Interviews No. % No. % No. %

Radhi 12 9 75 3 25 10 83.3

Nangkor 16 8 50 8 50 10 62.5

Phuentsholing 17 10 58.8 7 41.2 11 64.7

The full list of people met during the field consultations is in Annex 2.

4.2 SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

4.2.1 Local Perception and Understanding of the Project Awareness about the SLMP was basically limited to people who had participated in the stakeholders’ workshops held in each pilot geog/ site for project formulation with facilitation by members of the SLMP-WG and a visiting WB/GEF consultant. Among those who participated, many could recall the issues and activities that were discussed and expressed satisfaction with the outcomes of the workshops. However, the information on discussions and outcomes of the workshops had not spread out to the wider community. To provide people who were not aware about what the project would involve, the objectives of SLMP and probable activities were outlined to enable them to give their views. The perception of the local people – especially in Radhi and Phuentsholing geogs – was that such a project was very much needed and would be immensely beneficial as many of them had incurred substantial losses (land, livestock and houses) due to landslides and floods during monsoons in the recent years. They expected that such a project would provide them with material assistance such as barbed wire for fencing and technological assistance such as training on nursery techniques for production of seedlings of fuelwood, fodder, fruit and other species including those with soil-binding properties. In Nangkor geog, although the feedback was not as strong as in Radhi and Phuentsholing geogs, the local perception about the project was positive, with many people expecting to benefit most from off-farm income-generating activities and from assistance to shift from tseri to other farming practices as tseri was increasingly becoming economically unviable due to crop depredation by wild animals and farm labor shortage to guard against crop depredation. 4.2.2 Project Impacts To the local people in Radhi and Phuentsholing geogs, it was obvious that the project will improve their natural environment and reduce economic losses that they have to incur almost every year as a result of landslides and floods. In these two geogs, several farmers reported sinking and undulation of their farmlands due to excessive water seepage and expected benefiting from training, guidance and material support for irrigation water management, rehabilitation of degraded forests and grazing areas, and social forestry activities. In Nangkor, the local people talked about the project having long-term benefits by supporting them to adopt proactive land management measures to sustain agriculture, livestock production and use of surrounding natural resources and venture into alternative livelihoods to ease the pressure on land and surrounding natural environment.

33

The main negative impacts were associated with restriction on access by local communities to natural resources in project sites, particularly closure of tsamdo from grazing in highly degraded areas and restriction to collection of timber, fuel wood, fodder and other forest products from forests which have either become severely degraded or are located in ecologically sensitive areas. There was broad consensus that these situations were acceptable to the affected communities, as the impacts involved will be only minor while the benefits will be much greater. In fact, community members pointed out that some of the scenarios are already under implementation, e.g. in Radhi a huge tract of highly degraded forest area has been fenced and is restricted from grazing and collection of forest products. In Nangkor, many respondents suggested that they have already given up or are contemplating giving up tseri because of farm labor shortage, high level of crop depredation by wildlife, and desire to transit to cash crop production in the wake of increased market accessibility created by the recently constructed Dakpai-Buli road. In areas where there is severe risk of landslides, local people said they would be more than forthcoming to allow use of private or community land for soil stabilization/ protection as such land would be lost in due course if protection measures are not taken up and, in addition, adjoining lands would also become susceptible to soil erosion. 4.2.3 Local Participation in SLMP Formulation A series of stakeholder workshops were held in all the three pilot geogs/ sites to assess the existence and impacts of land degradation, identify causes of land degradation and determine activities to address the causes of land degradation. The workshops were held at Radhi Pangthang for Radhi geog, at Kyekhar, Buli and Tshaidang for Nangkor geog, and at Phuentsholing for Phuentsholong. Altogether, about 140 people representing the local communities, GYT members, geog RNR extension centers, RNRRCs, and DAs had participated in these workshops. Local people, including GYT functionaries, made up more than 75 per cent of the participants. At the workshops, the participants were separated into three working groups and each was asked to discuss and prepare their response to the following topics: (a) existence and impacts of land degradation; (ii) causes of land degradation; and (iii) activities to address the causes of land degradation. A facilitator with knowledge of project design and development requirements facilitated each group’s discussions. After each discussion session, the working groups presented their findings to the broader workshop group for discussion and agreement. They were then asked to consider not only the findings of their group, but also those issues identified by the others. The workshop discussions were recorded and analyzed by the SLMP-WG to prepare the project design and determine probable activities. Detailed planning and determination of activities for the subsequent years are to take place as a part of the formulation of Geog SLM Strategy/ Framework Plan and detailed Action Plan in each pilot geog/ site and later in each geog/ site where the SLM approach is extended to. A fundamental principle for formulation of Geog SLM Strategy/ Framework Plan and detailed Action Plan will be to link it to the geog planning process and form the Action Plan as a part of the overall geog plan. During the consultations, it was informed that

34

local level planning first started in individual chiogs. Activities and priorities were proposed and discussed in chiog meetings and that such meetings are required to be attended by a member from each household in the chiog, irrespective of their social or economic standing. Where a household is unable to send a member to the chiog meeting, the tshogpa is required to be informed about it and the reasons in advance. After the activities and priorities have been agreed at the chiog meeting, the tshogpa submits them to the GYT for review and decision to include in the geog plan. The GYT is made up of the gup, mangmi and tshogpas. The GYT is required to meet at least once every three months, with a minimum presence of two-third of the members. Chimi, geog clerk and representatives of the various government sectors present in the geog are required to attend as observers. It can be surmised that there exists a mechanism for broad local participation and that there is no apparent discrimination between men and women or rich and poor in mobilization of local participation in planning of local level activities. However, it is recognized that the existing participatory process can be enhanced particularly to capture the views and needs of women and the vulnerable. In this context, social screening of project activities and training of GYT members (especially the tshogpas given that the have the most direct role to mobilize and facilitate local participation at the grassroots level) in participatory approaches for development planning will be valuable. 4.2.4 Dispute Resolution The first level of dispute resolution was done within the village by the tshogpa. If the dispute is not resolved at the village level, the tshogpa forwards the case to the geog level, where the gup, mangmi and chimi collectively examine the cases and provide resolution. If the dispute is not resolved at the geog level, the case is forwarded to the Dzongkhag/ Dungkhag Thrimkhang (District/ Sub-district Court). Most of the local disputes were said to be trivial and mediation at the geog level was generally adequate. Only about 10 - 20 per cent cases turn out to be complicated and these are forwarded to the Dzongkhag/ Dungkhag Thrimkhang. The local people did not expect any disputes in connection with the SLMP. 4.2.5 Role of GYT and geog RNR extension agents The opinion of the GYT members was that focusing SLMP interventions at the geog level was appropriate and that they see the project as an opportunity to build their experience and ability to implement a significant development project in line with the aspirations of the decentralization policy. The GYT members present were confident about their ability to ensure that necessary measures are taken up to prevent/ reduce potential adverse social impacts with technical guidance from the geog RNR extension agents during the course of project implementation. The geog RNR extension agents also concurred with the above view. In terms of their own role, the geog RNR extension agents outlined the following: assisting local people and the GYT in the identification of adverse social impacts and preparation of information for social screening; technical guidance to the local people and GYT for implementation of necessary mitigation measures where necessary; mobilization of external technical assistance from or through the dzongkhag administration where their know-how on a particular subject matter is

35

inadequate; and assisting the local people and GYT to prepare information for social impact monitoring. 4.2.6 Vulnerable Group Field consultations indicated that in all the three pilot geogs/ sites there were no ethnic groups which can be differentiated from the dominant society as being socially or culturally distinct and minor and, therefore, vulnerable to being discriminated in the development process. Instead, vulnerability could be determined in the form of households having low cash income, landless or small landholding, recurrent food deficit, high proportion of dependents (young children, old parents, disabled members), and woman-headed households due to death/ illness of husband or divorce. Although no systematic surveys were carried out, the tshogpas suggested that five to 20 per cent of the households in each village could be said to be vulnerable based on the above criteria. The socio-economic baseline surveys to be carried out to feed into the formulation of the geog SLMP Strategy/ Framework Plan and detailed Action Plan will among other things reveal more accurate information on vulnerable households. It is also reiterated that existing mechanism for geog planning process does not discriminate between men and women or rich and poor. 4.3 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the outcomes of these consultations, it appears that further action needs to be taken to: (i) develop clear procedures for community orientation, mobilization and mapping of community resources and their utilization; (ii) develop chiog SLM strategies as well as mitigation and monitoring measures; and (iii) develop clear procedures for disseminating information about the project to all affected communities and provide a feedback mechanism for these communities to voice their concerns and address these concerns during project implementation. The Process Framework for Participation of Local Communities in the Planning and Implementation of Sustainable Land Management Approaches (PF), discussed in chapter 5, presents mechanisms to address these issues, monitor the effectiveness of these approaches and make modifications to strengthen them as and when required during project implementation.

1

CHAPTER 5: Process framework for participation of local communitites in the planning and impmlementation of

sustainable land management approaches

5.1 SCOPE AND DESCRIPTION

It is highly unlikely that proposed project activities will result in any significant adverse social impacts, including the physical relocation of people or the acquisition of privately owned land. Some adverse impacts may arise from potential restriction on access by local communities to natural resources in the pilot sites. Since the project is community-based where the community using the resources decides to restrict access to natural resources and identifies appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts, if any, on affected people, including the more vulnerable members of the community, the provisions of the World Bank’s O.P. 4.12 are not applicable to the project. However, to ensure transparency and equity, a Process Framework (PF) for the participation of local communities in the planning and implementation of sustainable land management activities by the project has been developed to detail the principles and processes for assisting communities to manage any potential negative potential. Since the exact social impacts of access will only be identified during project implementation, the Process Framework will ensure that mitigation of any negative impacts deriving from any potential restriction access by communities to natural resources (e.g. grazing land) will be based on a participatory resource mapping, involving all affected stakeholders, and on their consent regarding the scale of restriction and the type of mitigation measures to compensate any loss of income. Any desired changes by the communities in the ways in which local populations exercise customary tenure rights in the project sites will not be imposed on them, but will emerge for a consultative process satisfactory to the World Bank. Annual project work plans including management arrangements for community access to resources in project sites and associated mitigation measures will require World Bank agreement. Restrictions by surrounding communities to utilize resources are possible, but such restrictions to resource access are not expected to be introduced by the government or project entities. Rather, they will be based on the consent of the community. In fact, specific forms of resource use may continue on a reduced scale or may be restricted, but these actions would evolve through an internal community decision making process, and alternative income or resource generations measures will be agreed with those who may face the loss of some income as a result of restrictions. 5.2 PROCESS FRAMEWORK

The key steps that constitute the process framework for participation of local communities in SLM comprise:

2

5.2.1 Social Screening Each project activity will be subjected to social screening before it is taken up for implementation. The project does not intend to undertake any activity that requires physical relocation of local people or acquisition of private or community land. Therefore, social screening will identify where there is potential for such activities and ensure that they are excluded from the project. In addition, it will identify if the proposed activity entails restriction of access to natural resources and/or ensure that such activities have gone through the consultative and participatory process in this chapter for implementation under the project. Social screening format is appended as Annex 5.

5.2.2 Community Orientation and Mobilization The project objectives and approach will be disseminated by the GPT to all the local communities in the pilot geogs. In addition to dissemination of the project objectives and approach, orientation meetings would seek to complement the consultations undertaken during project preparation, to more accurately identify the perceptions of the local communities and other stakeholders regarding existing unsustainable land management practices and options for their better management, and identify key representatives of the community for participation in subsequent resource mapping. 5.2.3 Participatory Rural Appraisal/ Community Consultation Once there is community consensus on the need for the proposed activity, the Geog SLM Planning Team will guide and assist the local community through a PRA process to identify:

• location and size of any area where restriction in access and use is necessary; • primary users, including those belonging to vulnerable group, that will be affected and

identify the types of uses they make; • secondary users (e.g. graziers from another geog/ dzongkhag) and identify the types of

uses they make; • activities/alternatives (e.g. community forestry) that will be taken up to counteract the

impacts likely to result from restriction of access to the resource.

The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) has developed Procedures for Exchange (Swapping) of Marginal Farm Lands with Forest Lands. These procedures outline the legal and geophysical criteria and process for application, field verification, decision making, demarcation and registration of land, hand/taking over and procedural monitoring for land exchange/swapping. These procedures have not yet been adopted by RGoB as a formal policy. In the event these procedures are adopted as a formal policy during project implementation. The World Bank will review the policy and define which provisions of the policy, if any, are applicable to the project.

3

For the above tasks, PRA tools may basically include community walk through the area to be restricted/ where lands are going to be swapped, village resource mapping, resource use matrix, and priority ranking of activities/ alternatives to counteract restriction of access to resource. After PRA has been carried out, the Geog SLMP Planning Team will consolidate the results of the PRA and present them to the local community in a chiog meeting, discuss their views and confirm consensus on the proposed activity. The PRA will not only create better community understanding of the conditions in which the proposed activity will take place but also reinforce community discussion and awareness of the rationale of the activity. Drawing on the discussion of the PRA results, the local community will discuss and plan, among other things, the scale, seasonality (if relevant) and timeframe of various activities that are to be restricted.

5.2.4 Mapping of Community Resources and their Utilization The participatory resource mapping will draw upon the PRA exercise and constitute an input to the planning of SLM activities at the chiog level and will establish the baseline for subsequent monitoring. Based on the PRA exercise, the mapping will focus on hazard maps, site inspections and will provide precise information on (a) scale of resource utilization (pasture, fuel wood, agriculture, animal husbandry, etc); (b) extent of land degradation and condition of lands and potential erosion threat areas; (c) existing unsustainable resource uses, the type, nature and extent of such uses; (d) customary rights and overlapping or conflicts in resource use within and from outside the chiog and/or geog; (e) condition of village infrastructure, in particular irrigation, water supply and erosion structures. In terms of customary rights to use of common lands (pasture, forests, etc) the mapping would provide information on: (i) location and size of the area and condition of resource; (ii) primary users, including those belonging to vulnerable group, that currently use or depend on these common lands; (iii) secondary users (e.g. graziers from another geog/ dzongkhag) and identify the types of uses they make. 5.2.5 Intra- and Inter-community Agreements To enable implementation of communally-agreed restriction of access to natural resource, the Geog SLMP Planning Team will help the local community draw up an intra-community agreement if users belong to the same chiog. Where users (even if secondary) include communities from different chiogs but within the same geog, the Geog SLMP Planning Team will help the concerned communities to draw up an inter-community agreement. The Geog SLMP Planning Team will facilitate the development of these agreements in coordination with the Geog Yargye Tshogchung (GYT). All intra- and inter-community agreements between communities of the same geog will be reviewed and approved by the GYT with the Gup as the approving signatory.

4

The development of the agreements will be on a case-by-case basis. Apart from defining the restrictions, it will define mechanisms or measures to prevent violation and redress grievances under the oversight of the GYT. Where restriction of access to natural resource involves communities from different geogs or dzongkhags, the Geog SLMP Planning Team will help the local communities within the geog to prepare a community proposal for submission to the Dzongkhag Yargye Tshogdu (DYT) through the GYT. 5.2.6 Development of Chiog SLM strategies and mitigation measures Meetings will be held with individual chiogs to review the results of the community resource utilization mapping undertaken as a second step of this process framework and to agree on its implications regarding SLM strategies, resource access restrictions, mitigation and/or compensatory measures and community participation arrangements for mitigation and SLM activities. Activities that are selected for project support must comply with the following pre-requisites:

All project supported investments must be based on some minimum level of cost sharing involving local communities Preferably, a clear and transparent linkage must exist between improving land management and the proposed investment, so that the village project agreements help reduce land degradation by creating adequate incentives for local communities to take measurable actions that supports land conservation and sustainable use All project investments, including restrictions on resource access must evolve through a common understanding and consensus amongst the local communities.

To be eligible for inclusion in the chiog SLM plans for funding under the project, activities should comply with the following criteria:

Conserve and sustainably use land and other natural resources either directly or indirectly by creating sufficient incentives to commit local people to specific, measurable actions that improve the management of land. Provide equitable share of benefits to local communities and mitigate any negative impacts to women, poor and disadvantaged groups who are currently most dependent on the land Be socially sound and institutionally feasible ensuring that associated activities are culturally acceptable and do not impose an unnecessary heavy burden on individuals and that local institutional capacity is adequate to organize resource management, distribute benefits from common resources, provide physical maintenance, meet community agreements to resource use and access restrictions,

5

ensure alternative livelihood benefits to affected members and monitor project impacts Be low cost and financially feasible so that costs are within norms or approved by the GYT (or GPT), returns are sufficient to compensate for resource restrictions, and, for all investments intended to produce cash revenue or benefits that can be monetized, market linkages are adequate, cash flow requirements are viable, and returns compare favorably with alternative investment options. Be technically feasible so that inputs and technical advice are adequate, physical conditions are suitable and the activity is technically sound. Be environmentally sustainable and avoid detrimental environmental impacts and those activities that cannot be mitigated or managed effectively Be selected and owned by local communities as ensured by a budgetary constraint mechanism, community contribution or co-financing requirement, and a commitment by the community to bear maintenance costs of any infrastructure component Be supported by training and capacity development for strengthening community organization and other inherent capacity building. Be supplemental or incremental in nature to ensure that activities supported under the project are not a substitution for what should be supported by the government as part of their development responsibilities or not of global benefit.

The project will establish procedures to screen requested SLM or income generating investments to ensure that they are technically feasible, likely to generate supplementary income, comply with sound social and environmental principles and are sustainable. The CPT will be primarily responsible for such screening. Decisions regarding the priority investments will be made by mutual consent of the GSPT, tshogpa and community, with subsequent endorsement by the GYT. If required by budgetary or implementation capacity constraints, proposed activities will be prioritized based on their expected positive impact on the conservation and sustainable utilization of the land and livelihood restoration related to restrictions in resource access. Examples of appropriate land management and livelihood activities might include: improved agricultural practices, improved livestock and pasture management, forest management and rehabilitation, bioengineering erosion control, environmentally friendly minor infrastructure rehabilitation (village irrigation and drinking water supply systems, minor erosion control structures, etc), alternative livelihood options (handicrafts/handlooms, agricultural product processing and development, mushroom cultivation, marketing support, skills development, etc) and natural resource conflict management.

5.3 Vulnerable People

6

A separate vulnerable communities’ development plan is not felt necessary as the project by design is required to include all groups of local community in the planning and implementation of project activities. While planning of project activities at the local level, special attention will be given to address the needs and circumstances of households belonging to vulnerable groups and to ensure that benefits to such households are maximized whilst adverse impacts are eliminated or minimized. Therefore, the social screening information is required to specifically mention expected benefits and potential adverse impacts to households belonging to vulnerable group. If the screening shows that the proposed activity will have little benefit to households belonging to the vulnerable group or that there are potential adverse impacts to them but the mitigation measures are inadequate, the activity will need to be redesigned and re-screened. Furthermore, benefits and adverse impacts to households belonging to vulnerable groups will be monitored to ensure that project benefits to such households are maximized while adverse impacts to them are minimized or eliminated.

1

Chapter 6 Implementation Arrangements

6.1. LINKAGE WITH THE OVERALL PROJECT PLANNING PROCESS

The overall project planning will start from the chiog level with the local communities making decisions on their needs and priorities with facilitation and technical guidance from Geog SLMP Planning Team. In taking decisions on their needs and priorities for funding under the project, the local community will need to take the following criteria into account: • Reduction of land degradation either directly or indirectly by adopting specific,

tangible actions that demonstrate sustainable use and management of land resources and link with improved local livelihoods;

• Social sustainability ensuring that local livelihoods and way of life are not adversely

impacted but rather improved, that there is equitable share of benefits to vulnerable people, including women, and that measures to mitigate or eliminate adverse impacts, if any, on such people are adequate;

• Environmental sustainability ensuring that detrimental environmental impacts such as

pollution of land, water and air, or depletion of biodiversity are avoided or mitigated; • Low cost and financial feasibility ensuring that the proposed activity can be sustained

with domestic financial resources and system after the completion of donor assistance;

• Technically feasibility ensuring that the proposed activity is technically sound,

physical conditions under which it is to take place are suitable, and technical capacity for its implementation is adequate; and

• Consistency with national policy objectives as enshrined in the country’s vision

document Bhutan 2020 and five-year plan documents, i.e. for 9th Five Year Plan (2002-2007) and 10th Five Year Plan (2007-2012).

Social, environmental, technical and financial screening will be done in concert and form the basis for the overall project planning process in relation to project objectives. The consultations for social assessment of proposed activities will feed into the broader local community planning and decision-making of project activities. Social assessment will aid the broader project planning process to: (a) screen out activities that may involve significant adverse social impacts; (b) ensure that a consultative and participatory process has been undertaken in deciding and preparing the proposed activity; and (c) ensure that there is equitable share of benefits to vulnerable people, including women, and that measures to mitigate or eliminate adverse impacts, if any, on such people are adequate.

2

Solutions to address land degradation issues, including any changes in land use patterns, will be decided by the community themselves in a fully participative, consultative manner and reflect their needs and priorities. All community members, essentially including those who may be adversely impacted by any proposed changes in land use patterns, will participate in this needs assessment/ planning exercise. In the event that there are some minor impacts from loss of livelihoods due to closure of tsamdo from grazing or restriction to collect forest products, the community will mitigate these impacts by allowing affected people to use other areas for the same purposes or participate in alternate income generating project-supported activities, such as community forestry and backyard farming. Institutional set-up for integration of local communities in SLM activities For each pilot project geog, a Geog SLM Planning Team (GSPT) will be constituted to provide technical and planning inputs for implementation of project supported activities. The GSPT would consist of a Geog SLM Field Coordinator (GSFC) and 2-4 social mobilizers. The GSFC will be incremental staff seconded by the MOA to the geog level in support of the project, while the social mobilizers would be hired by the project. The GSPT’s primary responsibility will be: (i) information dissemination, social mobilizations and strengthening of the chiog role in local decision making and prioritization of local needs that would feed into the overall geog level plans; (ii) the assessment of extent of land degradation and baseline scenario and identification of underlying causes for such degradation in the respective chiogs; (iii) facilitation of a multi-sectoral approach to community decision making on options for sustainable management of vulnerable community, public and private lands to reverse or mitigate against existing or potential future land degradation in the chiogs; (iv) implementation of sustainable land management activities in conjunction with local communities, including controls/rules established by the communities on the use of these lands; (v) implementation of community development and income generating activities to mitigate any limitations in community induced restrictions on resource access; (vi) monitoring of community sustainable land management activities; (vii) liaising with RNR and other sector staff to support the multi-sectoral approach to land management at the chiog levels; (viii) ensuring that social and environmental screening and mitigation action are planned and implemented at the chiog level; (ix) ensure that local communities have access to technical support and capacity development in the implementation of SLM activities from the project or Dzongkhag administration; and (x) evaluate regularly with geog RNR staff the lessons and experiences from multidisciplinary planning approach. All management arrangements and community investments at the chiog level will be detailed in a chiog SLM annual plan that would form a memorandum of understanding between the respective chiogs and the GSPT. In order to facilitate participation of local villages, the tshogpa will organize chiog meetings and mobilize local community participation, disseminate project information and mobilize community feedback, prepare social and environmental screening with guidance of the GSPT and assist the GSPT in the socio-economic and ecological baseline surveys. The local community will participate in chiog meetings, with a minimum

3

representation of one member from each household, participate in PRA exercises, discuss and reach consensus on intra- and inter- community agreements and decision making with facilitation of the GSPT and discuss and develop community SLM proposals relating to management and regulation of use of specific resources, including such regulations/restrictions with neighboring geogs and dzongkhags, as appropriate with guidance and assistance of the GSPT. Once there is community consensus on the need for the proposed activity, the GSPT will guide and assist the local community through a PRA process. After PRA has been carried out, the GSPT will consolidate the results of the PRA and present them to the local community in a chiog meeting, discuss their views and confirm consensus on the proposed activity. The PRA will not only create better community understanding of the conditions in which the proposed activity will take place but also reinforce community discussion and awareness of the rationale of the activity. Drawing on the discussion of the PRA results, the local community will discuss and plan, among other things, the scale, seasonality (if relevant) and timeframe of various activities that are to be restricted. To enable implementation of communally-agreed restriction of access to natural resource, the GSPT will help the local community draw up an intra-community agreement if users belong to the same chiog. Where users (even if secondary) include communities from different chiogs but within the same geog, the GSPT will help the concerned communities to draw up an inter-community agreement. The GSPT will facilitate the development of these agreements in coordination with the GYT. All intra- and inter-community agreements between communities of the same geog will be reviewed and approved by the GYT with the Gup as the approving signatory. The development of the agreements will be on a case-by-case basis. Apart from defining the restrictions, it will define mechanisms or measures to prevent violation and redress grievances under the oversight of the GYT. Where restriction of access to natural resource involves communities from different geogs or dzongkhags, the GSPT will help the local communities within the geog to prepare a community proposal for submission to the DYT through the GYT. The GYT will review and approve intra-community agreements and inter-community agreements related to the regulation and management of access to resource use. This committee would also review community SLM proposals and facilitate their incorporation into the overall geog level plans. The GYT’s role would be to ensure integration of SLM activities in the overall development agenda and activities at the geog level. GYT’s will liaise with other governmental agencies active in the respective geogs to where possible coordinate project implementation and access resources from other programs and projects. The GYT will also ensure that appropriate technical guidance and support is provided through the geog RNR extension agents or dzongkhag staff to the GSPT and chiogs to implement and monitor alternative livelihood investments for villagers who might lose some income due to resource restrictions. The role of the Dzongkhag SLM Committee/Dzongkhag Environment Committee consisting of the three RNR sector heads, finance officer, planning officer, Engineer,

4

Regional Trade and Industries Office Representative and representatives of other relevant agencies would be to oversee and guide the implementation of SLM activities in the geogs, facilitate agreements with communities from different geogs and adjoining dzongkhags on resource restrictions and use. This committee will also be responsible for facilitating learning and awareness of SLM initiatives and extension of such learning to other geogs to enable up-scaling of the SLM approach. The PMU will provide overall support at the national level for planning and implementation of the SLM approach in the pilot geogs and for their up-scaling, as well as facilitate and monitor the development and promotion of the policy, regulatory and legal reform for implementation of multi-sectoral SLM activities throughout Bhutan. The PMU will also coordinate with the line agencies for delivery of project specific activities and support to the geogs and dzongkhags as well as liaise with Danida’s EUSPS project. The PMU will be supported by a multi-sectoral Technical Advisory Committee to ensue sectoral inputs to the multi-sectoral working mode. A Project Steering Committee at the national level will help coordinate between SLM project and Danida’s EUSPS activities, including selection of new geogs for up-scaling, capacity building, information management, technical documentation of lessons and experiences and impact assessment as well a use of long and short term consultants and the conduct of joint reviews and evaluation.

6.2. IMPLEMENTATION OF CHIOG SLM PLANS

Activities discussed and agreed with the community would form the basis of the chiog level plans that would then be incorporated into the overall geog plans and be funded either by the project or other sources. Once chiog level plans are approved, a tripartite Memorandum of Understanding would be signed between the relevant tshogpa, GSFC and gup for carrying out the proposed activities. With technical support from the YPT and geog RNR extension staff, and Dzongkhag level staff (the latter particularly for engineering/infrastructure development support), the chiogs will implement the activities in their individual villages. The tshogpa and GSPT will convene periodic meetings (quarterly) to review implementation progress (including social and environmental compliance and action) and resolve any specific issues arising from project implementation and monitor implementation outcomes and impacts. 6.3. MONITORING AND EVALUATION.

A monitoring system designed to provide for continuous learning and adjustment, and will involve participatory monitoring based on self-defined indicators (by community), input and output monitoring data from the GSPT and PMU, impact/outcome monitoring by an independent monitoring agency (for mid-term and project end), and Bank supervision. A framework of monitoring will be developed before project start-up, which will include description of institutional arrangements and processes incorporating participatory monitoring and learning systems, selection of indicators, interval of

5

sampling and mechanism for feedback and adjustment. Four areas of significance for monitoring achievements of project objectives will be: (i) the ecological (relating to land management and conservation) aspects; (ii) community participation in SLM, mitigation planning and implementation, community compliance with resource use agreements and restrictions, and outcome of livelihood activities; (iii) institutional aspects, such as those relating to conflict resolution and grievance address arrangements, etc; and (iv) validation of each SLM intervention to identify and capture the appropriate sustainable systems of rights and responsibilities and institutional framework for optimal SLM of grazing lands, paddy lands, dry land agriculture, forest and streams, etc. 6.4. SCALING UP OF SLM ACTIVITIES

On the basis of the monitoring and evaluation and validation of the SLM interventions, the Dzongkhag Environment Committee will conduct seminars and workshops in other non-pilot geogs on lessons learned and support site visits. Criteria for scaling-up will be established by the Dzongkhag administration in collaboration with the respective GYT’s and PMU. One a decision has been made to scale up to a new geog, the GSFC moves to the new geogs to plan and implement project activities with the geog RNR staff.

6.5. CAPACITY BUILDING

During the orientation meetings and community mobilization process, the interest, capacity and skills of the chiog institutions for SLM, including social and environmental screening would be accessed. The project would provide training in resource mapping, natural resource management evaluation, planning, construction supervision, maintaining of minutes of community meetings and basic account keeping and monitoring of resource access restriction agreements will be provided. In addition, for social impact management, training will be needed for Geog SLMP Field Coordinators, Geog SLMP Planning Teams, GYT members, and geog RNR extension agents on the implementation of the social impact management with special attention to developing their knowledge and skills for community orientation, consultative planning, and PRA tools and techniques. This training will be conducted at the onset of project implementation in each geog where SLMP activities are to take place. Specifically, this will mean 3 geogs in project year 1 and 6 geogs in project year 3. Possible resource institutions for such training include the Natural Resource Training Institute and the Department of Agriculture’s extension services. 6.6. BUDGET ESTIMATE

It is estimated that a total of US$ 19,500 will be required for implementation of the SMF over the project period as per the following break-up: Activity PY 1 PY2 PY3 PY4 PY5 PY6 Total

Training on social impact management

4,800 - 10,500 - - - 15,300

6

Biennial social impact monitoring

- 1,200 - 1,400 - 1,600 4,200

Total 4,800 1,200 10,500 1,400 - 1,600 19,500

Costs for socio-economic baseline survey and implementation monitoring have not been reflected as it is envisaged that these activities will be carried out as a part of the overall project planning and monitoring and, therefore, their costs will be covered in the overall project budget.

7

ANNEX 1: LITERATURE REVIEWED/ REFERRED TO

Documents

NSB (2004) Statistical Year Book of Bhutan 2003. Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu.

MoA (1995) Forest and Nature Conservation Act of Bhutan, 1995. Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu.

MoA (2000) Forest and Nature Conservation Rules of Bhutan, 2000. Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu.

MoA (2000) Renewable Natural Resources Statistics 2000: Eastern Region. Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu.

MoA (2000) Renewable Natural Resources Statistics 2000: East Central Region. Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu.

MoA (2000) Renewable Natural Resources Statistics 2000: Western Region. Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu.

MoA (2000) Guideline for Conversion of Chhuzhing to other Land Use Categories. Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu.

MoA (2002) Renewable Natural Resources Sector Ninth Plan (2002-2007). Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu.

MoA (2003) Facts and Figures of RNR Sector 2003. Policy and Planning Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu.

MoA (2004) Selected RNR Statistics 2003. Policy and Planning Division, Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu

MoA (___) Procedure for Exchange (Swapping) of Marginal Farm Lands with Forest Land. Ministry of Agriculture, Thimphu.

MHCA (2002) Dzongkhag Yargay Tshogdu Chathrim 2002. Ministry of Home Affairs, Thimphu.

MHCA (2002) Geog Yargay Tshogchhung Chathrim 2002. Ministry of Home Affairs, Thimphu.

MTI (1995) Mines and Minerals Management Act 1995. Ministry of Trade and Industry, Thimphu

NEC (2000) Environmental Assessment Act 2000. National Environment Commission, Thimphu.

8

NEC (2002) Regulations for the Environmental Clearance of Projects and the Strategic Environmental Assessment 2002. National Environment Commission, Thimphu.

Planning Commission Secretariat (2002) Nangkor Geog (Zhemgang Dzongkhag) Ninth Five Year Plan (2002-2007)

Planning Commission Secretariat (2002) Phuentsholing Geog (Chhukha Dzongkhag) Ninth Five Year Plan (2002-2007)

Planning Commission Secretariat (2002) Radhi Geog (Trashigang Dzongkhag) Ninth Five Year Plan (2002-2007)

RGoB (1998) Land Act of Bhutan 1979. Second Edition, Survey of Bhutan, Thimphu

RGoB (2000) Bhutan 2020: A vision for peace, prosperity and happiness. Bhutan’s Vision Document, Planning Commission, Thimphu.

RGoB (2002) Ninth Plan Main Document (2002-2007). Planning Commission, Royal Government of Bhutan, Thimphu.

SLMP-WG (2004) Stakeholder Analysis of Radhi and Nangkor Geogs for Bhutan Sustainable Land Management Project. Draft, June 2004.

SLMP-WG (2004) Stakeholder Analysis of Phuentsholing Geog for Bhutan Sustainable Land Management Project. Draft, June 2004.

World Bank/ SLMP-WG (2004) Bhutan Sustainable Land Management Project: Project Formulation Process and Outcomes (A Team Approach). Thimphu.

Websites

www.moa.gov.bt – website of the Ministry Agriculture, RGoB

www.nec.gov.bt - website of the National Environment Commission Secretariat, RGoB

www.pcs.gov.bt - website of the Department of Planning (formerly Planning Commission Secretariat), RGoB

www.worldbank.org – website of the World Bank

9

ANNEX 2: LIST OF PEOPLE CONSULTED

During Field Consultations

Radhi Geog, Trashigang (25 – 27 December 2004)

Sl. No.

Name Gender Village From vulnerable household

Group Discussion

1. Dechen Dema Female Tangthrang No

2. Jigme Male Dekiling Yes

3. Kulung (Gup) Male Tangthrang No

4. Langmo Female Tongling No

5. Rinchen Wangdi (Geog clerk)

Male Langten No

6. Tshewang Rinzin Male Khatey No

Household Interviews

1. Lepo Male Khatey Yes

2. Ugen Male Khatey Yes

3. Yeshey Male Khatey Yes

4. Sonam Ongmo Female Khatey Yes

5. Karma Male Tongling Yes

6. Tshering Male Tongling Yes

7. Kunzang Female Langten Yes

8. Wangdi Male Langten Yes

9. Langmo Female Langten Yes

10. Yeshey Chewa Male Langten Yes

11. Karma Male Radhi Pangthang No

12. Tshajey Male Radhi Pangthang No

Other People Met

1. Leki Dorji, Livestock Extension Agent, Radhi geog RNR Extension Center

2. Deki Wangmo, Agriculture Extension Agent, Radhi geog RNR Extension Center

3. Tashi, Forestry Extension Agent, Radhi geog RNR Extension Center

4. Gonpo Tenzin, Dzongkhag Planning Officer, Trashigang Dzongkhag

10

Nangkor Geog, Zhemgang (30 December 2004 – 1 January 2005)

Sl. No.

Name Gender Village From vulnerable household

Group Discussion

1. Kinley Wangchuk (Gup) Male Buli No

2. Jimba Dema Female Buli No

3. Tshutim Lhamo Female Buli No

4. Kenchom Female Buli No

5. Nim Tshomo Female Buli No

6. Choki Female Buli No

7. Yeshi Lhamo Female Buli No

8. Sunde Gyethse (Buli tshogpa)

Male Buli No

9. Rin Dorji Male Buli No

10. Sangay Dorji Male Buli No

Household Interviews

1. Yeshi Choden Female Buli Yes

2. Dechen Female Buli Yes

3. Ugyen Lhazom Female Buli Yes

4. Lham Gyeltshen Male Buli Yes

5. Karma Ongmo Female Buli Yes

6. Tashi Chophel Male Tali No

7. Yeshi Yangzom Female Tali Yes

8. Tshering Lhamo Female Tali Yes

9. Lham Tshering Male Tali No

10. Lhendup Dorji Male Kyekhar No

11. Dorjila Male Kyekhar No

12. Chogay Gyeltshen Male Kyekhar Yes

13. Tshewang Dorji Male Kyekhar Yes

14. Tandin Tshewang Male Kyekhar Yes

11

Sl. No.

Name Gender Village From vulnerable household

15. Dorjimo Female Kyekhar No

16. Sonam Choden Female Kyekhar No

Other People Met

1. Tara Pradhan, Livestock Extension Agent, Buli RNR Extension Center

2. Sangay Khandu, Agriculture Extension Agent, Buli RNR Extension Center

3. Pem Tshewang, Forestry Extension Agent, Buli RNR Extension Center

4. Dzongkhag Agriculture Officer and Planning Officer, Zhemgang Dzongkhag Phuentsholing geog, Chhukha (17-18 January 2005)

Sl. No.

Name Gender Village From vulnerable household

Group Discussion

1. Kul Bahadur Rai Male Ahalley No

2. Nar Bahadur Ghalley Male Toribari No

3. Chandra Man Rai Male Damdara No

4. Sumitra Rai Female Damdara No

5. Chandra Man Ghalley Male Chilauney No

6. Lal Bahadur Rai Male Ahalley No

Household Interviews

1. Dhan Bahadur Rai Male Damdara No

2. Purnimaya Rai Female Damdara Yes

3. Santa Bahadur Rai Male Damdara Yes

4. Meena Kumari Rai Female Damdara Yes

5. Gaumaya Rai Female Damdara Yes

6. Damber Bahadur Ghalley Male Toribari No

7. Indra Maya Ghalley Female Toribari Yes

8. Dilmaya Sharma Female Toribari Yes

9. Ganga Bahadur Ghalley Male Toribari No

10. Arjun Kumar Ghalley Male Toribari No

11. Bagimaya Rai Female Ahalley Yes

12. Lokmaya Limbu Female Ahalley Yes

13. Karna Bahadur Rai Male Ahalley Yes

12

14. Hasta Bahadur Rai Male Ahalley Yes

15. Ram Bahadur Rai Male Ahalley Yes

16. Prem Bahadur Ghalley Male Ahalley No

17 Harka Bahadur Rai Male Ahalley No

Other People Met

1. Rinchen Wangdi, Dungkhag Forestry Extension Officer

2. Om Prakash Ghalley, Dungkhag Agriculture Extension Officer

3. Dechen Wangmo, Dungkhag Agriculture Extension Officer

13

SLMP-Working Group/MTAC Members Sl. No.

Name Organization

1. Chencho Norbu, Team Leader National Soil Service Center, MoA

2. Nidup Peljor Policy and Planning Division, MoA

3. Kado Tshering (left on transfer in December 2004)

Department of Forestry Services, MoA

4. Karma Thinley (new member in place of above)

Department of Forestry Services, MoA

5. Dr. Karma Tenzin Department of Livestock Services, MoA

6. B.N. Bhattarai Department of Agriculture Services, MoA

7. Dorji Tshering Department of Survey and Land Records, MoA

8. Thinley Namgyal (left on studies in January 2005)

National Environment Commission Secretariat

9. Karma L. Rapten (new member in place of above)

National Environment Commission Secretariat

10. Sangay Dorji Ministry of Trade and Industry

11. S.N. Rai Ministry of Works and Human Settlement

12. Peter Hansen RGoB/ Danida - Environment and Urban Sector Programme Support

14

ANNEX 3: CHECKLIST OF GUIDE TOPICS USED FOR FIELD CONSULTATIONS

Note: Field consultations for environmental and social assessments were combined

The following primary stakeholders will be consulted: � Local communities, with particular attention to vulnerable households. Vulnerable

households will be determined in terms of income, land holding, food security, number of dependents (e.g. young children, old parents, etc in a household), and woman-headed households due to death/ illness of husband or divorce.

� GYTs, who have direct authority and responsibility for planning and administration

of development programs at the geog level. � Geog RNR extension agents, who have responsibility for providing extension

service related to crop production, livestock production/ pasture management, and social forestry/ afforestation activities at the geog level.

The field consultations will focus on: � Determination of vulnerable groups in the pilot project sites � Perception and understanding of the project

− Awareness about the project − Extent of support to the project − Extent of opposition to the project − Expected positive impacts (environmental, social) from the project − Potential negative impacts (environmental, social) from the project − Existing practices/ new ideas to mitigate the potentially negative impacts − Willingness and capacity to implement the mitigation measures

� Process of participation

− General description of participatory planning process followed by the geog − Procedures and mechanisms followed for SLMP formulation − Key players involved in SLMP formulation − Inclusion of vulnerable groups, including any special measures employed to

enhance participation of such groups � Dispute resolution

− Existing mechanisms (informal, formal) of dispute resolution, including redressal of grievances, as they relate to land acquisition, relocation, permanent/

15

temporary closure of certain resources (e.g. tsamdo from grazing or forest from fuelwood and fodder collection) impacting local livelihoods, etc

− Effectiveness of the above mechanisms

� Role of GYT in ensuring and facilitating the implementation of the environmental and social management measures and of geog RNR extension agents in providing necessary technical support. Also, views on how environmental and social screening of SLMP sub-project activities can be carried out at the geog level will be elicited.

� Status of implementation of various RGoB policies, laws, regulations and

procedures at the geog/ dzongkhag level as they relate to WB safeguard policies triggered/ likely to be triggered by the project.

16

ANNEX 4: FIELD CONSULTATION NOTES

Radhi geog, Trashigang Dzongkhag (25 - 27 December 2004) Perception and Understanding of the Project Awareness about the SLMP was limited to people who had participated in the SLMP formulation stakeholders workshop. Nonetheless, it was clear that the local people in general were fully aware about land degradation issues and strongly felt the need to deal with them more effectively. They informed that they have been carrying out a number of activities – some with government assistance and some on their own initiative – but there was the need to reinforce ongoing efforts and introduce additional interventions to address land degradation more comprehensively. The support for a sustainable land management project was therefore palpable among the people consulted. Social Impacts The people consulted were unable to directly associate any significant negative social impacts to the project. They felt that the project would rather improve their livelihood conditions through introduction of more sustainable land management interventions. One negative social impact that the gup mentioned was that if diversion of irrigation water is required to prevent land degradation in certain vulnerable areas, a few farmers may lose out if it involves diverting irrigation water from their paddy fields. He suggested compensation to such farmers, especially those who have limited land for rice production. In terms of land acquisition, the local people could not envisage any as a result of project intervention. To stimulate discussion on potential adverse social impacts, a number of possible scenarios under the SLMP were cited. These included use of private or community land for soil stabilization/ protection in areas where there is high risk of erosion and closure of highly degraded forest areas from grazing and restriction to collection of fuelwood, fodder and other forest products from such areas. Those consulted unanimously expressed that they would be happy to allow use of their land for soil stabilization/protection in areas where there is risk of erosion as they would in due course lose such land if protection measures are not taken up. With respect to closure of highly degraded forest areas from use, the local people informed that they have already fenced a huge tract of degraded forest with a periphery of over 20 km with material and financial support from the RNR-RC East in Wengkhar, Mongar. If necessary, they are ready to close more such areas and restrain from grazing and cutting of vegetation as they relate excessive use of forest areas as one of the major causes of land degradation. Process and Inclusiveness of Local Participation Thirty-five people from 14 different villages participated at the SLMP formulation stakeholders workshop. The participants were mainly GYT members and other village functionaries, such as reesoop (village forest guard), chhusoop (water guard), and

17

members of water users association. In addition, three village elders who had a good historical knowledge of land degradation in the area, were invited to the workshop. The gup, who chaired the workshop, informed that invitation of the participants was based on the ability of the people to actively participate since the workshop required extensive discussion of various land degradation issues and activities to address them. From amongst the participants, two were said to belong to vulnerable households. Dispute Resolution It was informed that the first level of dispute resolution was done within the village by the tshogpa. If the dispute is not resolved at the village level, the tshogpa forwards the case to the geog level, where the gup, mangmi and chimi have the collective responsibility to resolve disputes. If the dispute is not resolved at the geog level, the case is forwarded to the Dzongkhag Thrimkhang (District Court). At the village level, dispute resolution has not been very effective. Only about 10 per cent of the cases get resolved at the village level. However, dispute resolution at the geog level has been very successful with about 90 per cent of the cases being resolved. The local people expect very few, if any, disputes in connection with the SLMP. Role of GYT and geog RNR extension agents

At the group discussion, the gup, geog clerk, two village tshogpas and a chupon were present. Their opinion was that focusing SLMP interventions at the geog level was appropriate and that the project would be an opportunity to test and prove their ability to implement a significant development project in line with the aspirations of the national decentralization policy. The GYT members present were confident about their ability to ensure that necessary measures are taken up to prevent/ reduce potential adverse social impacts with technical guidance from the geog RNR extension agents during the course of project implementation. The geog RNR extension agents also concurred with the above view. In terms of their own role, the geog RNR extension agents outlined the following: assisting local people and the GYT in the identification of adverse social impacts and preparation of information for social screening; technical guidance to the local people and GYT for implementation of necessary mitigation measures where necessary; mobilization of external technical assistance from or through the Dzongkhag Administration where their own know-how on a particular subject matter is inadequate; and assisting the local people and GYT in monitoring social impacts. Vulnerable Group There were no ethnic groups that could be differentiated from the dominant local society as being socially or culturally distinct and minor and, therefore, vulnerable to being discriminated in the development process. Instead, vulnerability could be determined in the form of households having low cash income, small or no landholding, recurrent food deficit, high proportion of dependents (young children, old parents, disabled members), and woman-headed households due to death/ illness of husband or divorce. The tshogpas

18

guesstimated that five to 15 per cent of the households in each village could be said to be vulnerable based on the above criteria. Nangkor geog, Zhemgang Dzongkhag (30 December 2004 - 1 January 2005) Awareness and Understanding of the Project and its Impacts

As in the case of Radhi, local awareness and understanding of the SLMP was limited. Many of the people who participated at the stakeholders’ workshop were able to recall the activities that were discussed and perceived that the project was about improving their livelihoods through improved agriculture, livestock management and rural enterprises and at the same time about conservation of their natural environment. Among those who had not participated at the stakeholders’ workshop, only few were aware about the project but did not know the details. While they attached great importance to environmental protection and prevention of land degradation for long-term benefit, their consciousness about land degradation issues in the present context was subdued given that local land degradation problems are currently not visible. Social Impacts As far as the local people were concerned, they did not expect any adverse social impacts. Repeating the approach applied in Radhi, examples of closure of degraded/ vulnerable areas from grazing and cutting of vegetation and use of land for soil stabilization in areas with risk of erosion were cited to stimulate discussion. In addition, the possibility of having to give up tseri (slash-and-burn cultivation) especially in situations where it is leading to land degradation in exchange of alternative land was also suggested. To these examples, the local people consulted gave positive response for the following reasons. Closure of degraded/ vulnerable areas from grazing had only very minor implication as local people in general had only few livestock and their forage needs can be met from homesteads and agricultural fields. They informed that it was the large migratory herds from Bumthang dzongkhag that were causing much of the forest degradation. As for use of land for soil stabilization in erosion-prone areas, people will welcome such intervention since this will only protect their land from erosion. With respect to giving up of tseri in exchange of alternative land, many households said they were contemplating such a move because they are finding tseri increasingly onerous due to crop depredation by wildlife and far-off location from villages. Process and Inclusiveness of Local Participation In Nangkor geog, stakeholder workshops had been held at Kyekhar, Buli and Tshaidang. At the workshop in Kyekhar, all the 42 households of Kyekhar village and 15 of the 23 households of Tali had participated. At the workshop in Buli, 20 household representatives participated and at the workshop in Tshaidang, 24 household representatives participated. Women participation was understandably high because of the local people being a matriarchal society. A broad list of project activities was drawn up based on analysis of the discussions of the above workshops.

19

It was confirmed that the geog level planning process begins at the chiog level. The tshogpa convenes chiog level meetings to discuss local development needs and priorities. Each household is required to send a member to these meetings. If a household is unable to send a member, it has to inform the tshogpa in advance and also let him know the reasons. The tshogpa announces the absentees and the reasons for their absence at the chiog meeting. After the local development activities and priorities have been discussed and agreed at the chiog meetings, the tshogpa submits them to the GYT. Dispute Resolution Dispute resolution at the local level was first done by the tshogpa. Disputes are few and generally trivial and, therefore, are mostly resolvable by the tshogpa. When the tshogpa is unable to resolve the dispute, he/ she refers it to the gup and mangmi for mediation. Only very few cases which are complicated are forwarded to the Dzongkhag Thrimkhang. About 80 per cent of the cases get resolved at the local level either by the tshogpa on his/her own or with the mediation of the gup. Role of GYT and geog RNR extension agents

The GYT members were not sure as to who will have the direct responsibility for management and implementation of the project at the geog level. Irrespective of who will be directly responsible for project management and implementation at the geog level, they felt that they will have to be actively involved in terms of collaboration and coordination in planning and implementation so that the project activities fit into overall geog plan and also in keeping with the mandate given by the GYT Chathrim 2002. The geog RNR extension agents informed that the project will enhance their regular programme and that they see their role as that of providing immediate technical assistance to the local people. Where their expertise is inadequate, they will inform the dzongkhag officials and seek their assistance. In terms of implementation of social impact management measures, they said they would assist the GYT in preparing the social screening information and contribute to monitoring of social impacts. Vulnerable Groups The tshogpas guesstimated that in each village there might be 10 to 20 per cent households belonging to vulnerable group based on low cash income, small or no landholding, recurrent food deficit, high proportion of dependents (young children, old parents, disabled members), and woman-headed households due to death/ illness of husband or divorce. In terms of ethnicity, the local communities are all Khengpa and cannot be differentiated as being socially and culturally distinct from one another. Phuentsholing geog, Chukha Dzongkhag (17 - 18 January 2005) Awareness and Understanding of the Project

Although awareness and understanding of the project specifically was limited to the people who had participated in the stakeholders workshop held for project formulation,

20

all the people who were consulted were fully conscious of the land degradation issues and felt strongly positive about the project when its objectives and probable activities were outlined to them. As was the case in Radhi and Nangkor, the local people in Phuentsholing geog too were unable to associate any possible negative social impacts to the project. Various possible scenarios of social impacts under the SLMP were explained. The responses were not different from what the local people in the other two pilot geogs/ sites had to say. They suggested that closure of certain degraded forest areas from grazing and cutting of fuelwood, fodder and other forest products was not a concern for them as most of the households had only few livestock for which forage needs can be met from agricultural fields and homesteads with planting of fodder species. They also mentioned that the collection of fuelwood has also become very less now that many households have switched over to using liquid petroleum gas (LPG) for cooking because of increasing difficulty in collection of fuelwood and improved access to LPG. Use of private land in erosion-prone areas for soil stabilization was also not a problem as the local people felt that will only prevent further loss of their land. Some households showed their land that have suffered sinkage and undulation due to heavy monsoon rains and felt that construction of soil stabilization will be helpful as on their own they do not have the financial or material resources to go for such intervention. Process and Inclusiveness of Local Participation At the stakeholder workshop held in Phuentsholing on 15 and 16 June 2004, a wide range of participants, representing the farming community, GYT members, private sector, and various government agencies, were involved in identification of land degradation issues, causes and broad list of activities to curb land degradation. There were a total of 39 participants. Subsequently, a smaller workshop was convened and field visits were made to villages in areas with land degradation from 3 to 5 November 2005 to confirm and prioritize activities for the first year. During the consultations with the GYT members and local people, it was confirmed that the geog level planning starts at the chiog level and that every household was required to attend the chiog level meetings. The tshogpas usually exempted households with disabled or old members from chiog meetings but they visited such households after the meeting to explain to them what was discussed and agreed at the meeting. Dispute Resolution It was confirmed that local disputes were mediated in a similar manner as in Radhi and Nangkor geogs. The tshogpas served as the first line of mediation. When he/she is unable to resolve the dispute, mediation of the gup and mangmi is sought. Role of GYT and RNR extension agents

As in the case of Nangkor geog, the GYT members were not clear as to who would be responsible for management and implementation of the project activities at the geog level. Their anticipation was that this would be discussed and management lines would be

21

communicated to them in due course. Nevertheless, they anticipated an active role in project planning and implementation given that the project is to be geog-based. They also felt confident about their ability to implement the project with technical guidance and backstopping from the local RNR officials and from relevant central line agencies. The RNR extension agents felt that the project activities will fit in with their regular programmes and that they have the basic experience and knowledge to provide regular technical assistance required for most of the project activities. Where they lack expertise, they will coordinate with the dzongkhag officials to mobilize technical assistance from them or from relevant central line agencies. Vulnerable Groups

The local people are predominantly Lhotshampa, i.e. Bhutanese people of Nepalese. In terms of numbers, Rai and Ghalley sub-groups are dominant. Other sub-groups include Mongar and Limbu. Despite presence of a mixture of Nepalese sub-groups, no one group is secondary to the others in terms of participation in the development process and access to development programmes. The tshogpas guesstimated that in each village there might be 10 to 15 per cent households belonging to vulnerable group in terms of low cash income, small or no landholding, recurrent food deficit, high proportion of dependents (young children, old parents, disabled members), and woman-headed households due to death/ illness of husband or divorce.

22

ANNEX 5: SOCIAL SCREENING FORMAT

A. Background Information

A1. Type/ Description of the Proposed Activity and Justification for Proposed Activity

A2. Location of the Activity

A3. Name and Designation of the Focal Point for the Activity

B. Expected Benefits

C1. List the main benefits to the local people

C2. Total number of people that will benefit

C3. Number of beneficiaries belonging to vulnerable group

C. Potential Adverse Social Impacts

C1. Will the activity involve physical relocation of the local community or any household?

� Yes � No (If yes, exclude from the project)

C2. Will the activity involve any acquisition of private or community land?

� Yes � No (If yes, exclude from the project)

C3. Restriction to Community used Natural Resources

(i) Will the activity entail restriction of access to certain common property resources, e.g. grazing area or forests, from where local people have traditionally collected timber, fuelwood or other forest products?

� Yes � No

23

(ii) If yes, how many households will be affected? ………………………….. (iii) How many of these households belong to the vulnerable group?

……………………. (iv) What is the total area that is going to be restricted? ……………………. (v) For how many years, will the restriction be applied? …………………… (vi) List the impacts to the affected people

……………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………

(vii) List alternatives/ assistance that will be provided to the affected households to minimize that impacts of the restriction

…………………………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………………………..

(viii) Has community orientation been carried? � Yes � No (ix) Has PRA been carried out? � Yes � No (x) Has intra- or inter-community agreement been established? � Yes � No

Prepared by:

Chiog (signed by the tshogpa on behalf of the chiog):

Date:

Reviewed and verified by:

Geog SLMP Field Coordinator:

Date:

Note: Attach sketch map, PRA results, intra- or inter-community agreement, approval for land exchange or conversion.

24