𝐙𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐠’𝐬 𝟒𝟏.𝟒 𝐏𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐏𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐑𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐬 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐎𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐈𝐧 𝐋𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐜𝐤

…𝒁𝒉𝒆𝒎𝒈𝒂𝒏𝒈 𝒓𝒆𝒄𝒐𝒓𝒅𝒔 41.4 𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒑𝒐𝒗𝒆𝒓𝒕𝒚 𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒂𝒔 𝒍𝒂𝒄𝒌 𝒐𝒇 𝒔𝒖𝒑𝒑𝒐𝒓𝒕, 𝒑𝒐𝒐𝒓 𝒊𝒏𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒖𝒄𝒕𝒖𝒓𝒆 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒑𝒐𝒍𝒊𝒄𝒚 𝒈𝒂𝒑𝒔 𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒍 𝒓𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒑𝒓𝒐𝒔𝒑𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒚

By Yeshey Dolma

Zhemgang, Bhutan’s poorest dzongkhag, continues to struggle with a poverty rate of 41.4 percent, followed by Samdrup Jongkhar at 24.7 percent and Samtse at 21.9 percent. These figures highlight the persistent challenge of rural poverty despite decades of targeted development programs. However, recent findings from the Integrated Agriculture and Livestock Census (IALC) 2025 bring renewed attention to an often-overlooked sector with the potential to improve rural livelihoods: livestock.

Globally, livestock has played a significant role in reducing poverty. While extreme poverty has declined in developing countries over the past 15 years, around 1.4 billion people still live on less than USD 1.25 a day, particularly in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. In these regions, diets frequently lack essential nutrients such as protein, iron, and vitamin A. Animal-source foods like milk, eggs, and meat offer these nutrients in highly bioavailable forms, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2012). In Bhutan, livestock offers the dual benefits of improving nutrition and providing one of the few viable income-generating opportunities for rural households, especially landless families and women who do not have access to cultivable land.

Livestock contributes directly to food security by converting crop residues, vegetation from non-arable areas, and food by-products into nutrient-rich foods. It also indirectly supports agricultural productivity through manure for soil fertility and offers a buffer against crop failures. Moreover, livestock helps spread income and labor needs across seasons, providing a more stable livelihood. Despite these benefits, current government policies continue to prioritize commercial aspects of livestock, often overlooking its broader contributions to rural well-being.

In agrarian economies like Bhutan’s, economic growth alone cannot address poverty unless it is inclusive. Livestock, following staple crops, has one of the strongest income multiplier effects, particularly when integrated with crop farming by smallholder farmers. With increasing demand for animal products in urban areas, rural producers have an opportunity to benefit from this growth without migrating to cities. However, challenges such as inadequate infrastructure, weak market systems, and institutional constraints prevent many rural farmers from accessing these opportunities.

Zhemgang exemplifies this underutilization. In 2024, the dzongkhag produced just 1,260 metric tonnes (MT) of milk, ranking among the lowest in the country, above only Gasa with 428 MT and Thimphu with 1,079 MT. Farmers in the region face persistent difficulties including lack of cold-chain infrastructure, limited veterinary services, and absence of collection centers. These limitations leave producers with few reliable options for marketing their goods. For landless families, livestock rearing offers a potentially transformative source of income. Small animals such as poultry, pigs, and goats require less land and investment, yet provide regular income. For many women, livestock is essential for both nutrition and household income.

The drop in milk production in 2024 is attributed mainly to the sale of local cows by many farmers between 2023 and 2024. According to Gup Singay Wangchuk from Nangkor in Zhemgang, the primary reason behind the sales was the aging population of herders. Older farmers found it difficult to continue livestock farming, while younger people were leaving for urban centers in search of employment. This has led to declining herd sizes and reduced milk output. In response, the Gewog administration has discouraged the sale of livestock and promoted sustainable livestock practices, supported by programs such as the BRECSA project. The project aims to strengthen dairy systems and improve market access over the next seven years.

Despite these efforts, financial constraints remain a serious concern. Gup Wangay from Trong Gewog explained that although a cost-sharing model exists for livestock support programs, the poorest households are unable to afford their share, resulting in declining participation. “Our proposal has been pending for over a year,” he said. According to him, the Dzongkhag Administration believes that offering full subsidies could reduce farmers’ sense of responsibility.

However, Gup Wangay argued that in places like Zhemgang, where poverty is severe, free assistance, if paired with proper training and market access, could be crucial in improving livelihoods. He pointed out that farmers could begin processing products like butter and cheese and market them in places like Thimphu, now just a day’s bus ride away.
Gup Tashi of Phangkhar Gewog in Zhemgang stated that the cost-sharing model offers no benefit to poorer farmers, as many cannot afford the required 30 percent contribution. He explained that even with 70 percent covered by the government, farmers are still expected to pay around Nu 15,000 to Nu 20,000, which is beyond the means of households already struggling to meet their daily expenses.

While Zhemgang struggles with low production and limited infrastructure, Samtse and Samdrup Jongkhar face different but related challenges. Samtse, for example, produced 3,893 MT of milk and contributed 18 percent of Bhutan’s pork, 22 percent of its beef, 15 percent of its eggs, 21 percent of its honey, and 30 percent of its wool. Yet it still reports a poverty rate of 21.9 percent. The issue lies not in production volume, but in value retention. Smallholders often receive low farm-gate prices, face delayed payments, and have poor access to organized markets.

Samdrup Jongkhar, with a poverty rate of 24.7 percent, faces both economic and environmental challenges. A lack of diversification in the livestock sector and risks from cross-border animal diseases pose serious threats to productivity and income stability. Gup Yenten Dorji from Martshala Gewog stated that although the MPOL milk processing unit is functioning, it lacks adequate refrigeration. He added that poultry and piggery farms in the area remain underdeveloped. According to him, religious beliefs discourage livestock farming, even though meat consumption remains high. Without efforts to diversify production and invest in infrastructure, the sector’s potential remains underexploited.

Nationwide data shows Bhutan produced 44,038 MT of milk, 1,695 MT of butter, 2,584 MT of cheese, 194 MT of chugo, 3 MT of phelu, and 208 MT of zetey in 2024. Trashigang led in milk production with 6,677 MT, followed by Samtse with 3,893 MT and Monggar with 3,433 MT. Meat production was concentrated in beef, pork, and chicken, with Samtse, Tsirang, and Dagana leading in various categories. Egg production reached 98.2 million, and both honey and wool production followed clear regional patterns. However, these figures reveal a disconnect. Despite high national output, many farmers continue to struggle due to weak value chains and thin profit margins.

Gup Tashi Jamtsho from Yoesheltse Gewog in Samtse highlighted another practical concern. He said livestock requires more daily attention compared to seasonal crop farming. “Agriculture work is seasonal, but livestock needs daily attention,” he said, adding that alcohol consumption among some farmers reduces their capacity to manage livestock effectively. These social factors, along with economic limitations, hinder the sector’s growth.

Although livestock contributes less to the overall agricultural output than staple crops, its potential as a poverty-reduction strategy is considerable due to its ability to multiply income. Livestock-based interventions also support broader national goals, including nutrition, employment, and reducing rural-to-urban migration. For livestock farming to become more resilient and profitable, policies should include guaranteed minimum prices for milk and eggs, microcredit schemes for landless families, feed banks, and disease surveillance systems.

In the national budget for fiscal year 2025–26, the government allocated Nu 12,909.83 million for health, Nu 27,993.45 million for education, Nu 6,938.46 million for renewable natural resources, and Nu 2,815.72 million for mining and manufacturing. Transport received Nu 10,084.35 million, while housing and community amenities received Nu 11,665.88 million. Zhemgang, although the poorest dzongkhag, was allocated Nu 1,378.25 million, which is not significantly different from allocations for Trashigang (Nu 1,629.32 million) and Samtse (Nu 1,683.96 million). This raises the question of whether such funding will support targeted, high-impact interventions like livestock-based poverty alleviation, or continue to finance broader programs with limited effect.

Zhemgang’s persistent poverty cannot be attributed to geography or culture. Rather, it reflects long-standing gaps in planning and implementation. Livestock is already a part of rural life in Bhutan, contributing to household nutrition, generating income, and offering resilience against economic shocks. What remains absent is a coordinated, well-supported strategy that leverages its full potential. To address poverty, malnutrition, and rural migration, livestock must be treated not as a secondary sector but as a core element of rural development.