Documento(s) 14 de 24

Abstract

Historically in Bhutan, research and development on natural resources was sector-specific, commodity- and discipline-focused and researcher-led, with little community involvement. The Renewable Natural Resource Research Centre (RNRRC) of the Ministry of Agriculture, located in Bajo, piloted a watershed CBNRM project. Its focus was to improve resource productivity as well as people's livelihoods through integrating NRM with the participation of local communities.

This case study relates how CBNRM and PAR in the field influenced changes in the community, at the Bajo research centre and more widely in Bhutan's agricultural research sector. In the community, the CBNRM approach led to improved resource (water, forest, soils, crops) productivity and enhanced benefits from these resources. Communities also strengthened social assets and local institutions for planning, implementing and monitoring resource management. At the RNRRC Bajo, the focus of research programmes moved towards more holistic and integrated methods that fostered team learning and responded to community needs. Two examples of water and forestry problems in the watershed illustrate this novel research process and the lessons learned. Based on the successes of this programme, CBNRM approaches have been adopted nationally in the research system and through a national CBNRM policy framework.

Context

Bhutan is a landlocked country in the eastern Himalayas between India and China. It is characterized by high mountains and deep valleys, rising from an elevation of about 100 metres to over 7,550 metres. As a result, the country has a highly varied climate, topography and biodiversity. A forest cover of over 72 per cent represents a large and valuable pool of natural resources for the country. Over 80 per cent of the population depends on mountain agriculture and livestock for their livelihood. Use of natural resources, especially forest resources, remains an essential component of Bhutan's livelihood and culture (Royal Government of Bhutan, 2002). Buddhism is the dominant religion of the country, and serves as the foundation for Bhutanese values, institutions and culture. The king is head of state, with governance devolved to an elected Council of Ministers.

Forest and water resources are under state ownership and management with little community involvement Royal Government of Bhutan, 2002). Individual households own an average of 0.8 ha (2 acres) of agricultural land planted with rice, maize, wheat, fruits and vegetables. Although food insecurity is not a widespread problem, there are instances of seasonal food shortages. Farming households augment their income through such off-farm work as afforded by construction sites or logging, and collection of NTFPs such as mushrooms, ferns, bamboo and rattan.

Over the years, an increasing population and additional demands on resources has led to relative degradation of the country's natural resources such as forest, pastures and NTFPs. The overall forest cover is good but the quality of forest in some areas is poor due to harvesting of preferred species, replanting programmes that have not worked well, firewood cutting and grazing pressure. As government and communities search for more income-generating opportunities, some of the NTFPs have recently become commercially important and existing policies are inadequate to meet the extraction pressure (Henderson, 2003).

Historically, the government has been the service provider and development has been top-down in approach, with communities expecting and depending on government interventions. Bhutan has decentralized development to dzongkhag (district) and geog (administrative block) levels since the 8th Five Year Plan (1997) so as to engage people in development planning and the management of natural resources (Royal Government of Bhutan, 1999). The government is now promoting bottom-up planning and decentralized approaches to community development, including NRM. However, with limited experience in community participation, the implementation of this goal has been challenging. In 2002, the mid-term planning exercise involved communities of all the 202 geogs in defining their development needs and aspirations for the first time in Bhutan.

Renewable natural resource administration

The Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) is responsible for managing the renewable natural resources (RNR) sectors of agriculture, livestock and forestry. Recognizing their interdependence, the government of Bhutan integrated them under one ministry in 1992. The research and extension components of the three sectoral agencies were merged for some years with the aim of more directly linking research to development implementation. However, it was felt that sector-specific technical departments were ineffective in delivering services as they did not have direct control of their extension personnel in the field (Royal Government of Bhutan, 2003). Recently, these sectors were restructured again as separate line departments, which do not always work in unison. The newly formed research council continues to integrate the three sectors, but operates separately from the line departments.

Bajo research centre and team

The RNRRC at Bajo is one of four such centres in the country under the Council of RNR Research of Bhutan (CoRRB), MoA. It has the dual mandates of coordinating national level research on field crops (for example, oil crops, grains and legumes) and catering to the research and development needs of its five districts at the regional level. Other centres located in different regions of the country have national mandates for livestock, forestry and horticulture.

Historically, our research approach at Bajo evolved from a focus on single commodities, to one of farming systems (RNRRC Bajo, 1995) and then to integrated NRM. Organized and systematic agricultural research began in Bhutan only in 1982 when the Centre for Agricultural Research and Development (CARD) was created. In 1984, the team at Bajo, in collaboration with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and with support from Canada's IDRC, developed a research programme to improve rice production through the introduction of new varieties and management techniques, in order to address the food security needs of the Bhutanese. Consistent with findings elsewhere in the world at that time, it became evident that constraints to increased yield had complex and interrelated causes. The next phase of research focused more on the development of farming systems technologies and strengthening the human capacity of the MoA (RNRRC Bajo, 2000d). Under the farming systems research programme, the research team emphasized cropping systems and on-farm enterprises.

In this earlier work, farmers had little involvement in setting research priorities, planning or implementing the results of research. In addition, most researchers from Bajo were trained only in natural sciences. They had not been trained to work directly with communities, to ask about their perspectives, or to consider some of the social aspects related to the livelihoods of the people. At that time, these ideas were very new to conventional research (RNRRC Bajo, 2000a).

Starting approximately a decade ago, staff at the research centres were exposed to concepts of participatory research through learning by doing and on-farm methods in trainings and workshops, as well as through interactions with donors and visitors. Recognizing the need to work directly with farmers, the Bajo team decided to integrate participatory approaches in their research programme, and was one of the first organizations in Bhutan to do so. Initially, this work was primarily on-farm, and the team soon realized that they were neglecting the linkages to other natural resources that were often managed by farmers or communities in different ways (RNRRC Bajo, 2000b). For instance, given the valley type of agriculture in Bhutan, forests provide livestock fodder and organic materials for fertility development, in addition to regulating the availability of water for farming. The research programme on farming systems primarily studied private lands and did not consider the farmers' reliance on common resources, such as forests and water, which helped them to meet their livelihood needs.

Figure 10.1 Women collecting leaf litter for use as cattle bedding
Photo: RNRRC Bajo.

The research team at Bajo realized that there was a need for greater understanding about farmers' use of and dependence on resources beyond the farm, and for comprehending the resource interactions at a watershed level. The team had been exposed to concepts in CBNRM, emphasizing community participation in planning and the integrated management of natural resource use. At the same time, during the years 1996 and 1997, the Bhutanese government was implementing changes towards decentralization and plans for local participatory RNR management processes.

In collaboration with communities which were facing problems of limited resource productivity and poverty in Lingmutey Chu, a nearby watershed, the Bajo research team planned a pilot project employing a multisectoral and integrated approach, linking crops, livestock, forests and water, and aiming to enhance overall productivity. In this work, we wanted to improve linkages between farmers, researchers and extension workers to expand the scope of research from solely on-farm to include broader resource systems, and to also include the participation of local communities (RNRRC Bajo, 2001). The team had begun to recognize the importance of community participation in any development activity, in diagnosis, planning, implementation and evaluation. This CBNRM project took place over two phases from 1997 to 2004, and was jointly funded by IDRC and the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC).

The research team consisted primarily of natural scientists: soil scientists, water engineers, horticulturists, foresters, entomologists, livestock specialists and agronomists. In the later stages of the project, one social scientist joined the team. CBNRM and participatory approaches were new, not only to the research team but also to the farmers. Members of the communities were interested in participating in the research programme because they hoped the team could help them find solutions to their natural resource problems, in addition to providing them with material and other support.

Lingmutey Chu watershed

Lingmutey Chu is a small watershed with an area of 34 km², with about 6.3 per cent under agriculture. The watershed consists of seven villages with a total of 170 households distributed between elevations of 1,300 metres and 2,170 metres. The total population in the area is about 1,000, with a nearly equal male:female ratio. Most people belong to a single ethnic group from the western part of Bhutan, except in Nabchhe village, where migrants from the eastern part of the country resettled in the 1950s (RNRRC Bajo, 1997).

Forest cover varies from poor in the lower watershed, to moderate and predominantly chir pine in the middle region, to good deciduous forest in the upper watershed. Farmers depend on forests for fuel, timber and other forest products. Agriculture is the major source of livelihood in all villages. Wetland irrigated cropping dominates, except in Nabchhe village where dryland farming is practised. The main cash income sources are potato and chilli, seasonal vegetables, beaten maize and wild mushrooms. In general, soils are slightly acidic with variable organic carbon, total nitrogen and available phosphorus (RNRRC Bajo, 2001). Farmers also gain income from wage labour on other farms in the villages or at nearby construction sites.

Seasonal food insecurity is a problem for between around two and four months before harvesting crops. Households overcome these shortages by borrowing food from their neighbours and exchanging labour for food. Sometimes grain debts accumulate when people are unable to repay their debts due to such events as a bad harvest season or misfortune in the family. Other major problems are low and unstable crop yields, declining soil fertility, shortage of irrigation water for rice cultivation, scarcity of animal fodder in the winter and losses from pests or wild life (RNRRC Bajo, 1997).

Learning to walk: implementing participatory approaches

The research team approached these challenges by combining participatory methods with more conventional science. These processes were new, so the team learned by doing, implementing tools learned while training in the field. At the outset, the team used participatory methods combined with traditional survey methods and natural science research – for example, measurements of hydrology and soil fertility – in order to understand problems as well as community needs. PRA tools such as participatory mapping, wealth categorization, transect walks and focus-group discussions were used extensively. A baseline participatory diagnosis was carried out involving all the communities at the beginning of the project. Both male and female community elders and senior household members participated in the diagnosis. Thereafter, focused and topical PRAs were undertaken to achieve more in-depth understanding and interventions.

During PRA exercises, farmers categorized themselves into different wealth groups depending on the resources they controlled, such as land, labour and livestock (RNRRC Bajo, 2000c). Formal surveys were used to understand and document issues and practices of soil fertility and nutrient management. Similar studies on participatory forest management and resource use were also done (RNRRC Bajo, 1998).

The centre collaborated with farmers in conducting on-farm research in conjunction with on-station research. On-farm research included participatory variety selection for rice, maize, wheat and vegetables; soil nutrient management using a farmer field school approach; and livestock fodder management. Farmers' capacity development was another important aspect of the project. The centre trained farmers on new varieties, technologies, agronomic practices and new crops such as asparagus and oak mushrooms. The project team also worked with community members and facilitated the development of local institutions for resource management and savings.

After an in-depth participatory analysis with local users, resource use patterns, management issues (such as access and control) and conflicts became clearer to both researchers and community members. Subsequently, interventions were developed by the communities themselves, and facilitated by the research team. On-farm technical interventions evolved from suggestions by both farmers and researchers, based on their knowledge and experience elsewhere.

Never in my life was I consulted... I was always asked to do... This is the first time that people are asking my views on our needs – Farmer Ap Wangda, 68

The team, equipped with information on the wealth categories of farmers, developed different interventions that were based on the wealth group and targeted at the poorest of the poor. Areas of interventions included soils improvement, irrigation management, fodder improvement, forestry plantations, cereals and horticulture, institution building and skill development.

Our work covered a number of resource management areas. However, only the water and forest resources are presented here as examples to illustrate the participatory research process in planning, developing and implementing interventions, and to highlight key learnings for the research team. Similar processes were also followed for other sectors.

Water management in Lingmutey Chu

In the late 1980s, the government of Bhutan developed a national irrigation policy that emphasized the infrastructure and maintenance of irrigation canals. The government provided one-time support for canal maintenance and required beneficiaries to form community-based water-user associations (WUAs) to sustain maintenance (Brand and Kamtsho, 2000). All households using canal water for irrigation and other purposes were members of a WUA. The WUA guidelines called for households to raise funds for maintenance, and to keep accounts and book-keeping practices up to date. However, these expectations were quite different from community norms and while WUAs continued to exist in principle, they did not function. In Lingmutey Chu, problems of water scarcity, conflicts over water use and demands for maintenance support by the communities opened up opportunities for the research team to initiate participatory water management research with the communities. The research aimed to understand and analyse issues concerning water use and management, and to develop sustainable options for improvement through participatory processes.

Diagnosis began in six out of seven communities in the watershed, using focus-group discussions, participant observation, interviews and PRA tools such as resource mapping, seasonal calendars and transect walks. Two water engineers spent three months camping in the upper watershed and walked the fields daily to listen, observe, learn and analyse traditional water management systems. Previously, water scientists were university graduates who had little or no grounding or knowledge in participatory methods and approaches. They had fixed ideas and technical solutions to problems without any consideration of local perspectives and needs. After staying in the communities, our team's scientists learned by observing exactly what locals were doing, how farmers expressed and defined resource constraints. Then they were able to relate local problems and terms to scientific terminology. Because they stayed in the communities, the scientists grew to understand the particular perspectives involved, which helped them to adapt their technical expertise to the reality the villagers experienced.

Water shortages

One important issue that emerged was the problem of water shortages during the June–July rice transplanting season. Discussions took place regarding the probable causes. The Lingmutey Chu River starts in the upper watershed and runs through to downstream villages and fields, providing irrigation to all the communities. River flow depends on the monsoon season in July and August. However, farmers usually transplant rice in early June, before the onset of monsoon rains. Farmers downstream are faced with a water shortage during transplanting, a task that cannot be delayed without threatening flowering and seed maturation.

The team worked with the WUAs to develop potential interventions. These included supporting community members to improve existing irrigation structures, using less water-intensive irrigation practices for rice cultivation and trying rapidly maturing rice varieties that could be planted late in the season when more water is available. To improve canal structures, the research team provided hardware, such as concrete pipes, cement and other materials, to improve lining and conveyance efficiency. Meanwhile, the communities provided labour for maintenance work. Since canals often run through steep and unstable terrain, it is common for frequent landslides to wash away parts of the canal. The team assisted one community to select grass and tree species and plant them in the eroded areas. Melia, dodonia, poplar and two local species were planted (RNRRC Bajo, 1995–2001). There were several positive results to this. Slide-prone areas were stabilized and the flow of irrigation water to the fields improved, resulting in a saving on labour while the productivity of the land was maintained. As well, fallow lands that had become idle due to over-sedimentation problems were returned to cultivation, and farmers in the lower watershed adopted rapidly maturing rice varieties. As a result, the WUA has been greatly strengthened. It conducts regular meetings, and members attend training programmes and lead monitoring of water canals.

However, not all trial interventions were successful. For example, farmers and research team staff conducted on-station and on-farm trials of intermittent irrigation for rice cultivation, as a water-saving technique. While this technique improved water-use efficiency by 30 per cent, it did not address the issue of shortages during the transplanting season. The trials did result in suppressing the aquatic weed, shochum (Potamogeton distinctus), which is otherwise difficult to control. Although research both at the station and on-farm trials was technically successful, farmers did not adopt the technology. One reason was the difficulty of water control for intermittent irrigation in a rotational water-sharing system. Water was not available at the precise time it was needed for effective intermittent irrigation. The research team realized that although an experiment may be technically successful, it may not be applicable or appropriate in the context of the farmers' own management systems.

Water conflicts

A study of farmers' water rights and the sharing system between communities and within farms was undertaken concurrently with an analysis of the farmers' water management practices. A crucial issue that emerged unexpectedly was water-use conflicts between upstream and downstream communities, even though within each community there was relatively equitable access to water (Brand and Jamtsho, 2000).

Water-balance studies confirmed that the water supply is inadequate during transplanting throughout the watershed. But studies also revealed that the water consumption of many farmers was higher than what is technically required for rice cultivation. Traditional water-sharing rights were not based on equity and efficiency, but on two principles: first come first served; and upstream users can divert all the flow into their irrigation canal regardless of the need of downstream users. This forces downstream users to use seepage or tail waters from the canal. The right to use as much water as they like does not give upstream users any incentive to improve the efficiency of their water supply system. As a result, over half the water was lost in the water supply canals. Water rights within the village were defined by several factors including a household's contribution to religious ceremonies, their ancestors' participation in constructing the canal, the size of their landholding and participation in canal maintenance. These factors are interdependent and their relative importance varies from village to village (Brand and Jamtsho, 2000).

In the past, these communities took this long-standing dispute to the local courts, which always ruled in favour of the traditional arrangements.

The team first held separate discussions with both upstream and downstream communities about the inequity associated with access to water resources. Based in part on exposure to various participatory approaches and conflict resolution mechanisms, the research team conceived of a role-playing game as a tool to prompt dialogue between two of the communities and also to enrich researchers' and farmers' knowledge of the situation (Gurung, 2003). Initially, we encountered many challenges in facilitating this process because community members were highly sensitive about the issue. This was particularly true with the upstream community, who did not wish to change the status quo. The team was aware of the inequity in the water rights systems and was uncertain how to transform this unequal power relationship for the benefit of the disadvantaged communities. Role-playing exercises helped break the barriers of communication and facilitated the different communities – and the researchers – to understand and appreciate the issues and perceptions related to shared resources. In the end, the upper community did release water to downstream farmers, and permanent mechanisms for resolving water allocation disputes are being put in place at the time of writing.

The water research team leader brought the issues of inequitable sharing in traditional water systems to the national Agriculture Policy and Planning Division. A policy was developed to promote the principles of equitable access to water resources because this is a common problem in other watersheds. The draft was presented to the communities for feedback. After seeing the emerging policy support for entitlements by the community in the lower watershed, the community in the upper watershed relented and became more willing to negotiate. The communities continue to negotiate water allocation through a new consultation forum at the watershed level, a mechanism introduced by the research project team.

The experiences in Lingmutey Chu have been vital in formulating the national water policy and the Water Act. Bhutan now also has initiated a national and interministerial water forum or partnership approach to its water resources and management. In the future, upper watershed users and managers of water resources may be compensated by downstream users. For example, hydro­developers and other users may need to compensate upstream communities for their role in protecting and managing watershed resources.

In this case, the role of the researchers changed from that of scientific and technical experts to facilitators and coordinators, who aimed to link different institutes, organizations and individuals in order to solve problems and meet community needs. The team also came to recognize the importance of and potential for policy to address these issues. The team realized that adding local perspectives increases the complexity of the problems, which sometimes defy solution. For example, water shortages still exist, as do community tensions on sharing this crucial resource. However, the efforts made during the project have had positive impacts towards resolution, and have raised community awareness of the underlying issues.

Community forestry in Lingmutey Chu

The Bhutan Forest Act of 1969 nationalized forest management with the objective of protecting natural resources from illegal loggers and enabling the government to generate needed revenues through the sale of timber products. Local communities only had limited rights through permit systems for the collection of fodder and fuel wood. In 1979, King Jigme Singye Wangchuk initiated community forestry in principle when he commanded the Department of Forestry (DoF) to prepare a programme on social forestry to involve local people in planting trees on their own private or village land. In 1993, the DoF decentralized participation in forest conservation and management along with the private and community forestry programmes to dzongkhag (district) authorities for implementation. The Forest and Nature Conservation Act of 1995 replaced the earlier act, and a full chapter was devoted to social forestry, which provides a legal basis for community participation in forest resources planning and management. However, although the policy and frameworks have been put in place, community forests have not been widely implemented.

In part, the DoF embarked on implementation slowly because it was unconvinced that communities had the capacity to manage the resources and feared that over-exploitation would result. There were no examples of official community forestry practice in Bhutan aside from customary management regimes. In addition, most forestry officials were trained to operate under conventional centralized management practices, and had not been exposed to participatory community forest management practices. At the time that the research work in community forestry began in Lingmutey Chu in 1997, it was among the very first community forestry schemes in the country.

A participatory diagnosis was conducted in the watershed to understand people's perceptions of forest resources management and assess their interest in community forestry programmes. This process also offered an opportunity for the research team to clarify forest rules and regulations that were unclear to the community. To begin to understand forest degradation, the research team and community representatives assessed the quality of the forest in terms of resource availability, general health and potential to supply various products. Through a forest-function mapping exercise, community representatives identified various functions and zones in the watershed forest. Locally important sites such as streams, religious sites, areas of steep erosion and other areas of interest were mapped and identified as zones requiring protection, while potential areas for exploitation were mapped as local-use areas. This enabled the preparation of a management plan to incorporate local concerns for forest protection, conservation and use. The communities also conducted a forest-demand assessment to estimate the demand for various forest products in the next 10 years. Conclusions were discussed during presentations to the whole community and enabled the development of a forest management plan for local use.

The resource assessment revealed several common problems faced by communities in the lower watershed. These included degradation of forests close to the village, shortages of fuelwood and timber, long-distance travel for women to collect preferred fuel species, scarcity of preferred timber species, shortage of feed and fodder, and diminishing access to forest resources. The upper communities, which are closer to forest resources, only expressed concerns regarding shortages of winter fodder. Access to major forest products was equitable among households in each of these communities.

Every village was very interested in establishing their surrounding forest as a community forest, provided that their benefits and rights would be guaranteed. But all communities expressed reservations about managing the entire watershed forest as a collective community forest. They were concerned about the labour and time demands of additional management responsibility, and they doubted that benefits would be equitably shared. Some communities also worried that a new community forest management regime would limit existing access and tenure rights. For example, lower communities consisting of relatively new settlers feared they would lose their access rights to nearby forests that were claimed by the upper community as ancestral lands. However, in the interest of protecting their forests from exploitation by outsiders, all villages agreed to designate their surrounding forest as a local community forest and to gradually work towards a watershed level management regime.

Establishing community forestry institutions

The establishment of a community forest user group (CFUG) is a prerequisite to formalizing a community plantation or forest under the Forest and Nature Conservation Act of 1995. As a pilot initiative, the research team worked with communities to facilitate the formation of two CFUGs in the lower watershed in the Matalumchu and Omtekha communities. These initially included all households in the communities, and each group appointed six community leaders, at least one of whom had to be female, to form the CFUG committee (CFUGC).

As a starting point, the CFUGCs decided to establish a multispecies and multiple-use type of community forest on degraded areas close to the villages. Degradation of areas near the homestead and surrounding fields is a major concern among local communities in the lower part of the watershed. Soil erosion was already a big problem because extremely large gullies had formed near the villages and community lands. Initially, communities doubted whether they would be granted ownership of their forest plantations. The team discussed the issue with higher authorities and was assured by the divisional forest office that collective ownership and user rights would be given to them.

The communities selected species for firewood, timber and livestock fodder. The research team provided information and resources on additional fast-growing leguminous species that could be useful for community needs. The community established a community forest nursery to generate planting materials for successive years. Each household contributed an equal share of work for fencing, digging pits, planting and watering the plants. To date, a total of 37 ha of community plantation has been established on degraded areas surrounding Omtekha and Matalumchu villages. Over 27 species are growing, and grasses are being collected for livestock feeding. There are now two active CFUGs in the watershed. In collaboration with the research team, the communities developed by-laws based on national social forestry guidelines. The CFUG regularly meets and monitors the plantation. Farmers were happy with the plantation because they did not have to travel far to collect grasses for livestock. The research team, however, feels the growth rate of species like cypress and other broadleaved species could be higher and they are working with farmers to augment productivity. As tree growth continues over coming years, the farmers will benefit more substantially.

The CFUGs and CFUGCs initially appeared enthusiastic and cooperative. The Omtekha CFUGC in particular was dynamic and well organized. However, tensions arose between members, in part because of inequities in power and social relations in the community where prestigious, influential, and better-off community members influenced the function of the groups and implementation of community forest activities. Some households dropped out and female members of the CFUGC left.

Some critics have argued that CBNRM processes mirror social hierarchies in communities and exacerbate inequity in access to resources (Beck and Nesmith, 2001). Although it is intended that all households have equitable access to forest resources under CFUG management and existing guidelines, poor households were not able to contribute the required inputs such as labour. Negotiating for more equitable processes within the CFUGs in the context of these broader power relations within the community is very difficult. The team is still faced with the challenge of how to support more equitable processes given the strong social structure and hierarchies in communities. Occasional but repeated visits by research-team members were found to be helpful in mediating and diffusing tensions among the members. However, the CFUGs have not yet developed rules to strengthen engagement and resource access for the poor, and to sustain women's participation. These issues are still being discussed and will become more critical as these forests begin to reach maturity and as use levels intensify.

Figure 10.2 CFUG monitoring community plantations
Source: CBNRM Project RNRRC Bajo, 2001.

Farmer groups and forestry officers from other parts of the country have visited the watershed to share the experiences, successes and concerns of these forest user groups. This has helped support community forestry and user group formation processes in other parts of the country.

There are now 23 CFUGs established in Bhutan and others are in the process of being established. These are important beginnings to a new approach to forestry management in the country. With shared responsibilities and benefits between communities and the DoF, we are hopeful that the community forestry movement will result in better forest management practices and that communities will be also be able to share benefits in a more equitable manner.

Project impacts in the community and beyond: changes in doing research

Overall, the project led to a number of positive changes in the community, as evidenced in the above cases. Aside from resource productivity improvements, communities strengthened their social assets and local institutions for planning, implementing and monitoring resource management. Several institutions such as the water and forest user groups were formalized to enhance resource-use efficiency and collective action. These groups have strengthened social cohesion more broadly. Groups are now uniting, identifying resources and working together towards common community goals. For instance, the Matalumchu group constructed a road for their village through loans acquired while using their own collateral. In Dompola, a savings group was established, the first of its kind in the country. Communities have a stronger and more active voice in seeking advice from the Bajo research centre and support from local government. They have gained a better understanding of water and forest policies and their local significance.

The impacts of the project go beyond positive livelihood changes at the watershed level, and have transformed the way that the research centre at Bajo operates. As the two case examples in water management and forestry illustrate, the RNRRC reoriented its research agenda to reflect community priorities, rather than the interests of the researchers. This responsive approach and close collaboration with communities was a new experience for the research team. During implementation, the team attended numerous training and capacity-building activities, both inside and outside the country, on social and institutional aspects of NRM, thus improving their capacity to integrate social aspects into the research programme. The researchers began to investigate problems in a new way, using a more flexible approach to address resource problems, respond to community needs and work closely with community members.

The project's integrated approach also altered the research planning process at the centre. Staff from all sectors and subsectors (crops, livestock, forest, integrated pest management (IPM), socio-economics and water) now discuss their plans together and explore opportunities for synergy. Hence, a more integrated planning and implementation of research occurs. More emphasis is placed on participatory technology development, participatory plant breeding and variety selection and the need to build on farmers' knowledge and practices.

Overall, the Bajo research team learned some key lessons.

Learning by doing means walking the talk. When the government of Bhutan's Minister of Agriculture was appointed recently, one of the first things he did was to walk to remote villages in the country because he wanted to learn from them and officials in their own settings. Many people talk about the importance of participatory approaches in NRM, to the extent that it has become common rhetoric in universities, research institutions and among donors or extension agents. However, very few put these concepts into practice. The team learned that it was only through practical implementation that they could start to understand what participatory approaches and integrated CBNRM were all about. There is a need to readjust both research and implementation priorities in a cycle of reflection, learning and action.

The researcher must take on a role as facilitator. This is very challenging and difficult, even more so if one's background is in the natural sciences. Also, some aspects of the project such as community forestry involved a larger number of stakeholders, including government agencies, local government and perhaps neighbouring communities. Working with such diverse groups is time­consuming and complex, requiring constant negotiation and adjustments to keep everyone comfortable and on board.

Participatory research is essential for relevant research. Through participatory methodologies, the research team realized that research priorities should address community needs and concerns if they were to be relevant and actually improve farmers' lives. Local needs were identified early, which improved the research process. Interventions addressed community priorities and were more relevant in their social and physical contexts. This led to increased adoption of technological and institutional interventions among farmers. The process also enabled community members to have a better understanding of, and a stronger say in, resource policies.

Building rapport with communities is crucial for meaningful work. CBNRM approaches require time to build meaningful participation and partnership between researchers and communities. No matter what tools are used, farmers will only express their feelings gradually. Commitment, sincerity, trust and professionalism on the part of the research team are key factors in building rapport. The team learned that time and patience is required to implement participatory approaches because of the intensive nature of work that requires frequent visits and interactions. Research programmes should be willing to support this and allocate additional resources if the approach is to be followed nationally. This can involve trade-offs for time spent on other work.

Linking both participatory and conventional research approaches is necessary. It is important to complement participatory research in communities with conventional research in order to explore new technologies and options. After working on the station, the project team was able to introduce technical knowledge and research results related to crops, soil fertility, soil erosion control, water, feed and fodder. This knowledge was subsequently integrated into the design of interventions to address the community's needs and resource problems. While it is important to understand and build on local knowledge and institutions, scientific knowledge is also crucial to enhancing productivity and improving management. It is an ongoing challenge for the research centre to balance time and resources for participatory research in the watershed and conventional research on-station.

Understanding traditional resource management systems, practices and local institutions is critical. Intervention strategies that improve efficiency, equity and sustainability need to build upon existing institutions, arrangements and systems. At the same time, it is also often appropriate to introduce new ideas, concepts and technologies to these traditional systems to encourage adaptive management. New institutional mechanisms that address resource management issues are essential both within and between communities, such as the watershed-level forum where water-related conflicts were discussed and resolved. Scientific information can be used and presented to aid in discussions and facilitate dialogue. An example of its application was the hydrological validation conducted to assess whether there was enough water available in the watershed for all the communities. External interventions are sometimes appropriate, such as developing clear policies on resource use to help increase the bargaining power of disadvantaged communities. Addressing inequities and working in the context of complex social relations can be challenging, however, as evidenced by the experience with internal conflict in the CFUGs.

Implementing integrated approaches to resource management is challenging in practice. Research team members continue to feel more comfortable working in their own sector. It is very messy to go beyond one's primary area of expertise and try to understand the complex interactions between resource sectors and the social institutions that are involved. The team discovered that training within and outside Bhutan, exposure to other projects and resource persons such as consultants and donors, and also gaining the support of superiors were all important to build their confidence. Training in participatory methods, conflict resolution and facilitation skills were especially useful for the team.

Sharing CBNRM experience is important. Sharing project experiences with other agencies and farmers, either through cross-visits or farmer-to-farmer extension, created an awareness and further understanding of CBNRM, both vertically and horizontally. This took place at all stages of the project, even while the team and communities were in the process of learning. We involved interested institutions and individuals in visiting and cooperating in our work, and during the training and capacity-building activities organized by the centre. These actions all helped the team expand and share experiences which could later be adapted to other parts of the country. Developing a critical mass of people with CBNRM background has also helped change mindsets, which has contributed to the development of the national CBNRM framework.

Scaling up the CBNRM approach

RNRRC Bajo was the first institution in the country to pilot a watershed CBNRM project. The Lingmutey Chu case had profound impacts on research and development in the RNR sector in Bhutan, well beyond the Bajo case. Interested visitors from around and outside the country were impressed by the lessons and experience gained from this project. Senior ministry officials visited the project and gave political support for the CBNRM effort. Project staff who had gained experience working in Lingmutey Chu later moved to other RNR research centres and championed the CBNRM approach in their activities. Other CBNRM learning projects were developed and implemented in other parts of the country.

As Bajo project staff moved to other government offices, they continued their work on CBNRM, creating a pool of CBNRM advocates in various places. A national-level workshop on CBNRM in Thimphu brought together resource management policy-makers, managers, researchers and extension staff from different departments and agencies. The workshop unified research and field experiences on participatory, integrated NRM. To better understand the experiences of CBNRM in different contexts in Bhutan, the group commissioned a synthesis of field experiences which emphasized the need to draft a CBNRM framework as a key strategy for sustainable resource management. Additional case studies on CBNRM and common property resources (forests, NTFPs and water) were also commissioned. Based on these experiences, a national CBNRM policy framework was drafted and discussed at various levels, with the support of several international donor agencies.

The framework provides guiding principles and suggestions for community action to improve the management of common pool natural resources in Bhutan. It also provides guidelines to operationalize CBNRM programming in research and in policy adjustments which may be needed in the future. The framework advocates CBNRM approaches and programmes that are deeply rooted in the field lessons of the Lingmutey Chu watershed project, including:

• recognizing the importance of full community participation in the planning and management of resources for effective improvements in farmer livelihoods;
  
  
• strengthening social assets in communities;
  
  
• conducting field-based action research; and
  
  
• networking and sharing experiences.

The policy framework incorporates an action plan for CBNRM, emphasizing institutional arrangements, action research, networking, policy and programme integration and capacity-building aspects, among other factors. The MoA has implemented a number of these recommendations, including the establishment of a national-level coordination unit, where the Bajo research centre continues to play a leading advisory role. The ministry initiated a set of 10 action research projects on CBNRM in forest, water and watershed resources at sites across the country. A regional CBNRM workshop was organized in November 2003, involving over 80 participants from Bhutan and eight Asian countries. The meeting was highly successful in terms of sharing experiences and improving understanding about CBNRM of policy-makers, researchers, extensionists and lecturers in Bhutan and other countries. The action plan is ongoing and we are working towards the institutionalization of CBNRM approaches throughout the ministry and the sectoral departments in research and development.

Conclusion

The CBNRM research by the RNRRC Bajo team has dramatically changed the way that the centre approaches the whole process of research, including problem definition, methods, programming, and links to policy and extension. This work has enabled the research team to tune programmes to community realities so that research processes lead more directly to improvements in resource productivity, livelihoods and social assets in communities. The team has recognized the value of participatory methods to address resource management issues, but believes that CBNRM can be most successful when used in conjunction with conventional research and technological know-how in NRM. As CBNRM is more widely incorporated in the research system in Bhutan, emphasis must be placed on ensuring that young scientists gain skills in participatory research and build commitment to shared learning.

Experiences such as Lingmutey Chu provide concrete examples of how communities can participate directly in decisions about the sustainability and productivity of their own resource base. These experiences guide the implementation of decentralized NRM policies. Bhutan's National Framework on CBNRM provides the basis for a participatory approach to resource management, which helps identify clear strategies. However, this is an ongoing process. Challenges still exist in the realm of institutional support and implementation. These will continue until we all 'walk the extra mile' to bring about a reality in which communities can fully participate and be entrusted with responsibility in managing their own natural resources.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge with appreciation the other members of the project team: Doley Tshering, Thinlay Gyamtsho, Gyambo Tshering, Yeshey, Aita Bhujel, Yonten Gyamtsho, Rinzin Dorji, Dawa L. Sherpa and M.P. Timsina. This research was supported in part by grants from the IDRC and SDC.

Documento(s) 14 de 24