𝐕𝐨𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐅𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐢𝐞𝐥𝐝𝐬 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐫 𝐋𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐚𝐱 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲

…𝒓𝒖𝒓𝒂𝒍 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒎𝒖𝒏𝒊𝒕𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒑𝒖𝒔𝒉 𝒇𝒐𝒓 𝒃𝒂𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒅 𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒄𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒃𝒆𝒕𝒘𝒆𝒆𝒏 𝒘𝒆𝒕𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒅𝒓𝒚 𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒅 𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒕𝒊𝒗𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏

By Kinzang Lhamo

Farmers across the country are raising concerns over what they see as an unequal land tax concession policy that favours wetland (Chuzhing) over dry land (Kamzhing), prompting discussions across the agricultural sector and rural communities.

Currently, Chuzhing is granted a 90 percent tax concession, while Kamzhing receives only 50 percent. This difference has drawn criticism from landowners and farmers who argue that the policy does not reflect the actual challenges of farming different land types, especially in regions dominated by dry land where cultivation can be equally or more difficult.

Farmers from various dzongkhags have pointed out what they see as inequities in the tax structure, stating that the current system overlooks their role in ensuring national food security. They argue that while owners of Chuzhing face certain land-use restrictions, the day-to-day difficulties of cultivating Kamzhing are often underestimated or excluded in policy decisions.

Dechen Norbu, a landowner in Dekiling, Gelephu, expressed his frustration. “In dry land, agriculture is barely feasible, and conditions vary widely. Despite owning land, cultivating it offers little benefit because of wild animals and the lack of water,” he said.

He added that even maize, a crop suited to dry conditions, often fails to yield. “Monkeys and wild animals destroy whatever little is grown,” he said.

Lungten Norbu from Nanong, Pemagatshel shared a similar view. Although Kamzhing may appear cultivable on paper, he said actual farming is hindered by difficult terrain and poor productivity. “There is also the constant threat of wild animals destroying the crops, which makes it even harder,” he said.

Another farmer from Lhuentse proposed narrowing the gap between the two concession rates. “A 40 percent difference is too wide. A smaller gap, maybe 15 to 20 percent, would feel more reasonable,” she said. “It is unfair to have such a sharp difference when both land types face similar challenges in different forms.”

The debate has drawn broader attention to issues of equity in agricultural support and land taxation, particularly in light of the country’s efforts to achieve food self-sufficiency and strengthen rural livelihoods.

Finance Minister Lyonpo Lekey Dorji explained the reasoning behind the current policy. “Chuzhing is vital for our national food security and an important part of our cultural landscape. The 90 percent tax concession is meant to encourage owners to preserve this landscape and maintain food production,” he said.

He further noted that Chuzhing owners face restrictions that prohibit land-use changes, and that the higher concession acts as compensation for these limitations.

Lyonpo Lekey added that the initial proposal from the government did not include any concessions for Kamzhing. Parliament later amended the proposal to introduce a 50 percent concession for cultivated dry land as a way to promote agricultural productivity and rural development. “The difference in concessions reflects the different restrictions and challenges faced by Chuzhing owners. The higher concession is intended to preserve cultivation and protect cultural values,” he said.

However, dissatisfaction remains among many farmers. They argue that land-use categories do not always reflect ground realities. Some farmers point out that even Chuzhing plots can be difficult to cultivate due to poor irrigation, low soil fertility or wildlife intrusion. Others say Kamzhing, with adequate support, could contribute more significantly to food production.

“There are many places where wetlands are dry for most of the year due to poor irrigation,” said a farmer from Tsirang. “Yet they receive a much higher tax break than we do, even if our conditions are worse.”

Pemba from Haa said, “We are not asking for complete equality, but we want policies that recognise the struggles we face. It is unfair that we are taxed more even though our productivity is lower and our risks are higher.”

Jugchenla from Sershong, Gelephu, said he accepted the tax policy as a civic responsibility but called for fairness. “If the government tells us to pay that much in taxes, we have no choice but to comply. We cannot avoid our responsibilities as citizens,” he said. At the same time, he urged the government to ease the financial pressure on rural families. “I just hope the government could revise the rules, maybe reduce the tax rates and make it more like it was before. It would be more manageable for farmers like us who are already struggling,” he added.

Dorji Dem, a farmer from Zhemgang, described repeated losses despite efforts to protect her crops. “Year after year, my crops are destroyed by wild animals, no matter how many steps I take to safeguard them. It’s not always easy; some nights I sleep in the fields, some days I lose entire harvests. When I look at the efforts I have put in and compare them to the tax I still have to pay, it feels like sky and land, completely mismatched. This much concession just doesn’t make sense for what we go through,” she said.

The issue has brought attention to the gap between rural farming conditions and policies drafted in urban centres. For many Kamzhing farmers, the challenges are not just related to agriculture but stem from deeper systemic issues.

As the country continues to pursue food security and rural progress, farmers are calling for more inclusive policies that reflect practical challenges. Many believe a more balanced tax concession system would ease financial burdens and demonstrate a stronger commitment to equitable rural development.

There are growing calls for the government to conduct a comprehensive review of the land tax concession policy. Farmers argue that such a review should take into account factors like productivity, irrigation, wildlife-related crop losses and terrain. They believe this could lead to a more just and effective policy that supports farmers across different regions.

Until then, the current system remains a source of concern, with many farmers continuing to wait for a tax policy that addresses their reality while supporting national goals.