Skip to main content

Research, Policy and Practice

Table 1 Summary of the capacity of property right regimes found in three case study sites to achieve EES goals

From: How property rights influence equity, efficiency and sustainability of high-altitude rangeland management in Bhutan

EES goals/property rights Case study site 1 Case study site 2 Case study site 3
Cheabling Sheytemi Sha Gogona Pilot leasing component Chamgang
Dominant farming system Yak and cattle herding Yak herding Yak herding Cattle farming Yak herding
Property rights regime Communal use rights Private use rights (herders, absentee landlady) Private use rights (local temple) Mixed or hybrid type (pilot leasing programme) Private use rights (herders, absentee landlords)
Equity High
Members of Cheabling community have equal access to communal tsa-drog
Low to medium
A group of 10 herders rent private tsa-drog and manages it as a de facto communal
Members have equal access
Members pay rent
High
Community members have equal access to tsa-drog belonging to the local temple
Users pay rent
High
Each member household received a 2.5-Ha plot for improved pasture development
Low
Some herders have access to less private use rights tsa-drog compared to their counterparts
Efficiency Low-medium
No management rights
Have community norms (Turkelboom, F., and T. Wangchuk. 2009) and rules such as entry-exit timing, appointment of community steward on a rotational basis, penalty system
Low-medium
No management rights
Need prior approval from the absentee landlord
Rest same as Cheabling
Low-medium
No management rights
Medium-high
Have management rights
Individual plots allotted to members
Boundary fencing
Have a group constitution and by-laws
Low-medium
No management rights
Sustainability Low
No management rights
No restriction on the number of livestock one is allowed to graze
Indiscriminate lopping of fodder trees from state forest for supplementary fodder
Land degradation issues—landslides and flash floods
Low
Same as Cheabling
Low to medium
No management rights
Less grazing pressure as there are only three herders left (one herder quit in 2012)
Medium to high
Have management rights
Members developed improved pasture
Fodder conservation (silage making) expected to reduce lopping and free-ranging in state forest
Low to medium
No management rights
Less grazing pressure due to fewer number of herders (20 households)