Published by North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas (IFAD & Govt of India) Shillong 2008 ii

Transcription

1

2 Published by North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas (IFAD & Govt of India) Shillong 2008 ii

3 Foreword The study on Increasing Benefits from Forests was initiated towards the end of 2005 to know, classify and understand the various forest based interventions of the North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas (NERCORMP). The project is funded by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and Govt of India (hence popularly acronymned as NERCORMP-IFAD) for NRM based livelihoods improvement for the vulnerable groups. The Project is working since 1999 in six districts of Northeast India; however, the present study is confined only in two districts, viz. West Khasi Hills and West Garo Hills in Meghalaya. This book is a compilation of the study conducted, and the observations of how the project intervened using the bottom up approach from planning to execution. The learning through this study has also been enlisted in this book taking into account from various perspectives of the community, why forest based interventions were chosen or not chosen and what can be done to create a conservation and economic model. The book is the culmination of the partnership study programme of NERCORMP-IFAD and CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. We would like to express our appreciation to CIFOR for choosing NERCORMP for this study, as well as for the financial and technical support for this study. The study has highlighted not just the achievements of NERCORMP, but also the various limitations that a project of this nature could encounter during its short phase of project life. It has been a tremendous learning process for NERCORMP in particular. I hope the research findings as reflected in this compilation would be useful to all those who plan, promote and coordinate similar type of development interventions in the upland areas of Northeast India, as well as in other upland communities of greater Eastern Himalayas and South East Asia. I would also like to commend the team who had done the study under the overall guidance and supervision of scientists from CIFOR, particularly Dr. Brian Belcher and Mr. Chetan Kumar, to whom we express our gratitude. K. Moses Chalai, IAS Programme Coordinatory & Development Strategist NERCORMP-IFAD, Shillong iii

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We are very much indebted to a number of people who have been involved in this work. We would like to express our gratitude to Mr. K. Moses Chalai IAS, PCDS, NERCORMP-IFAD for his encouragements and support for the present study. We are also thankful to all the sector heads and staff of NERCORMP-IFAD particularly to Mr. Adrian Marbaniang, MEO for support in completing the present study. Our gratitude to the DSTs of Khawkylla Community Resource Management Society (KCRMS), Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills and West Garo Hills Community Resource Management Society (WGHCRMS), Tura for their support in providing necessary information and documents from the districts and also for their assistance during the field works. In particular we would like to thank Mr. James Kharkongor, PM; Mr. Iboyaima Meitei, PTO; Mr. Bor Saiborne, NRMO from KCRMS, and Mr. Daniel Ingty, PM; Mr. Senti Jamir, PTO; Mr. Vasant Marak, NRMO from the WGHCRMS. Members of the various partner NGOs, NaRMGs and SHGs and village elders of the communities chosen for the study have always given us support to whom we are also gratefully indebted. Our team involved in data collection have travelled widely and in difficult situations. Thank you to Neuw, Vicky, Manosha, Claystone, Dona, Romy and Akai for your support. Above all we wish to thank the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) for the financial grants for this study. The technical and research guidance provided by Dr Brian Belcher, Principal Scientist, CIFOR and Mr Chetan Kumar, Project Coordinator for this study from CIFOR throughout the study period is also gratefully acknowledged. Saihunlang Phanbuh Adrian Albano Vincent Darlong iv

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Northeastern Region Community Resource Management Programme (NERCORMP) has been widely recognized for its role in facilitating development initiatives in many poorest and remotest villages in the Northeastern Region of India. This study tried to highlight the impact on the livelihoods of the people, brought about by NERCORMP s forest-based linterventions for the purpose of drawing lessons to further improve the benefits that people derive from forests. The study aimed to know if, and how, the forest-based interventions by NERCORMP had improved the livelihoods of the people. The specific objectives of the study includes understanding the livelihood contexts of the selected villages, documenting the project interventions, identifying the changes in livelihoods and analyzing the processes of change from which lessons and recommendations are derived. The study was conducted in the two districts of Meghalaya which were included under NERCORMP - West Khasi Hills and West Garo Hills. Eighteen villages were selected in each district for focus group discussion and village survey. Households that invested in forest-based livelihoods were identified and interviewed. The study shows that economic activities in the villages are generally limited to primary production of livestock and crops for subsistence, with limited commercialization. Various and reinforcing actors are attributed to such limited economic activities such as their remoteness, the general lack of infrastructure and public services, and traditions that directly and indirectly discourage commercialization. Forest-based enterprise activities are further restricted by village forest rules that prohibit harvesting of forest products for sale and by regulatory restrictions at the higher policy level. NERCORMP intervened in these villages through a bottom-up strategy, highly based on the priorities of the villagers resulting to highly diverse although interrelated activities. Based on the list of activities supported by the project, it was observed that interventions directed at forest-based livelihoods were limited. Some of the reasons identified include the restrictions on trade of forest products by village rules or government regulations; the communal ownership and open access to forest which gives no incentives for households to plant trees or other forest products; and generally the higher profitability of, and faster returns, from other income generating activities such as livestock and annual crop production as compared to most forest-based enterprises. Despite limitations in investment in forest-based livelihoods, there was significant number of villages and households that practiced forest-based activities such as improvement in the management of forest, cultivation of forest products and value-addition of existing forest products. Most of these activities were made possible through project intervention at the organizational and external level, facilitating with line agencies, land owners, NGOs, and traders. These interventions have resulted to positive improvements in livelihoods of the households. More visible impacts include increase in income from value-added handicrafts, increased bargaining power of producers with traders and increased area cultivated to particular forest products. As for collected forest products, many villages stated the v

6 increased availability of some forest products, and a decreased availability of others particularly fuelwood and timber. This decrease, however, is mostly attributed to increase in people collecting them. From the above experience of NERCORMP on forest-based interventions, various lessons were identified. Regarding the context of forest-based livelihoods, it is important to note the diversity of forest-based livelihoods. Improving them implies targeting their specific constraints as well as identifying which ones to be prioritized for support. In addition, it was shown that many forest-based enterprises in particular face additional constraints, which, partly, explains why investments into forest-based enterprises were limited. Encouraging investment in forest-based livelihoods, particularly on products collected from the wild may need additional incentives and support. On one hand it is important to note that village forest institutions are strong, particularly on communal forests. Interventions need to recognize and work along with these forest institutions. On the other hand, it was also shown that these forest institutions are diverse; and thus, requires flexibility in the approach or designs to cater to these diversities. The project has various important and effective practices to improve forest-based livelihoods such the clarification of forest management institutions and the establishment and capacity building of NaRMGs and SHGs; securing land tenure of the people; and supporting partnership with existing organizations like banks, private sector, and other government line agencies. The recommendations suggest a direction for interventions at various levels from policy to enterprise level, basically trying to replicate the effective practices of the project, with suggestions to further improve them. Generally, interventions should be directed at reforming the restrictive forest rules, clarifying (i.e. documenting, formalizing) village forest institutions, organizing forest enterprises and entrepreneurs, promoting value-addition of forest products, encouraging specialization, and diversification to other forest products and sources of income from forests. vi

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...vii LIST OF TABLES...ix LIST OF FIGURES...ix ACRONYMS...ix 1. INTRODUCTION Background Objectives RESEARCH CONCEPTS AND METHODS Changes in livelihood due to interventions Research methods Research design and data collection Research analysis LIVELIHOOD CONTEXT Background of the study location State profile District profiles Village profiles Primary production activities: sources of food and income Livestock production Crop production Forest-based livelihoods Collected forest products Cultivated forest products Processed forest products Other sources of food and income PROJECT INTERVENTIONS Overview of project interventions Forest-based interventions/investments Description of the forest-based interventions Forest-based interventions of selected villages LIVELIHOOD CHANGES Changes to forest based livelihoods Collected forest products Cultivated forest products Processed/value-added forest products General changes in livelihoods...30 Table 16: Villagers assessment of changes in assets over the past 5 years Limiting factors to interventions/ investments in forest-based livelihoods Enterprises from forest products collected from the wild Cultivation of forest products Processing/adding value to forest products, including marketing General limitations in investing in forest products...33 vii

8 6. LESSONS LEARNED: CONTEXTS AND CONSTRAINTS, AND INTERVENTIONS Forest-based livelihood context Forest-based interventions Emerging issues and challenges Community institution building (CIB) Income generating activities (IGAs) Other issues CONCLUSION RECOMMENDATIONS Direction of interventions: towards forest enterprise development Specific strategies and practices and specific recommendations Possible starting points for different stakeholders...45 REFERENCES...48 viii

9 LIST OF TABLES Table # Title 1 District profiles of West Khasi and West Garo Hills 2 Livestock production in West Khasi and West Garo 3 List of crops produced in the selected villages 4 Common annual crops produced in the selected villages 5 Collected forest products in the selected villages 6 Common perennial crops cultivated in the selected villages 7 Value-added forest products in selected villages 8 List of project interventions in the two districts, by project component 9 Selected villages and their forest-based interventions 10 Project interventions or village/household investments on forest-based livelihoods 11 Changes in collected forest products, village level 12 Changes in major collected forest products, household level 13 Changes in cultivated forest products, village level 14 Changes in cultivated forest products, household level 15 Changes in major processed forest products, household level 16 Villagers assessment of changes in assets over the past 5 years. 17 Direction of interventions, replicable practices, and further recommendations 18 Possible roles of different stakeholders LIST OF FIGURES Table # Title 1 Analytical framework 2 Process of interventions 3 Summary of project investments, as of 2005 ACRONYMS ADCs CBO CIB CIFOR IGA IFAD MEO MLA NABARD NaRMG NEC NER NERCORMP NRM NRMO Autonomous District Councils Community-based organization Community institution building Centre for International Forestry Research Income generating activities International Fund for Agricultural Development Monitoring and Evaluation Officer Meghalaya Legislative Assembly National Bank for Rural Development Natural resource management group Northeastern Council Northeast Region North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas Natural resources management Natural Resource Management Organizer ix

10 NTFPs PCDS PM PTO SHG WGH WKH Non-timber forest products Programme Coordinator and Development Strategist Project Manager Project Technical Officer Self-help groups West Garo Hills West Kasi Hills x

11 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background The Northeastern Region of India (NER) is characterized by rich and abundant natural resources (i.e., thick and biodiverse forests, vast land, rich mineral reserves) but marked with high level of poverty (Saxena 2002). This contrast indicates that many of the poor people in the region depend primarily on the exploitation of these natural resources for their livelihood. With their increasing integration with the market economy and their increasing need for cash income, the people have limited option but to exploit these resources to generate income. Natural resources are, however, prone to degradation especially given the exploitation practices without necessary mechanisms for resources regeneration. Such is the case in the region which was considered as one of the two areas in the Indian sub-continent to be classified as an ecological `hot spot. Given this context, various interventions have been directed at resolving both problems of poverty and natural resource degradation in this region. One of these interventions is the Northeastern Region Community Resource Management Project (NERCORMP) established with the aim to improve the livelihoods of vulnerable groups in a sustainable manner through improved management of their natural resource base. It is funded through an IFAD loan with counterpart funding from the Northeastern Council (NEC) of the Government of India. Its implementation started in 1999 covering five states of NER. Since the NERCORMP has then been widely recognized in the region for its role in facilitating development initiatives in many of the poorest and remotest villages. With the project drawing to a close, significant lessons can be learned for the purpose of improving the Programme or other similar initiatives aiming at improving the benefits that the poor get from forests. 1.2 Objectives This study aims to draw lessons from the experiences of NERCORMP in improving the livelihoods of the people, particularly in improving the benefits that people derive from their forests. It is part of a larger research project funded by IFAD as a technical assistance grant (TAG) to CIFOR to generate knowledge in supporting poverty alleviation initiatives in forest communities where IFAD has similar initiatives including the NER and other forest communities in Asia. It generally tries to know if, and how, forest-based interventions by the project resulted in the improvement in the livelihoods of the people. Its specific objectives are to: describe the context of forest- and natural-resources-livelihoods in the study area; document and classify the main kinds of interventions implemented by NERCORMP, with emphasis on forest- and NRM- based approaches; identify and analyze the changes in the forest-based livelihoods of the people brought by the project interventions; assess the most important/promising approaches for improving the livelihoods of different socio-economic classes of people in the study area; and draw lessons and recommendations for more effective forest- and NRM-based policy- and project- interventions to improve livelihood of the poor.

12 2. RESEARCH CONCEPTS AND METHODS 2.1 Changes in livelihood due to interventions Identifying livelihood changes due to project intervention basically involves comparing livelihood status before and after the project intervention and identifying which changes were brought about by particular interventions. Implementing both steps, however, is not easy due to the complex nature of livelihoods and interventions. Livelihoods is complex in the sense that the indicators of its status cannot be captured using a simple set of variables or a single value system. In the same way, interventions are complex because they are increasingly becoming integrated, aiming multiple objectives, and involving various actors from various sectors and at different levels (e.g., international, national, local) of intervention. These complexities of livelihoods and interventions require interdisciplinary tools that would try to incorporate different perspectives to better identify changes in livelihoods and better understand the processes resulting to such changes. An increasingly popular analytical model that enables such multiple perspectives is the use of the sustainable livelihoods framework (SLF). The SLF conceptualizes livelihoods or the means of gaining a living to be comprised of various factors and processes that influence the access of people to different livelihood assets that they need to conduct their livelihood strategies to meet their various needs (Carney 1998; DFID 1999). This conceptualization has significant implications in tracking changes in livelihoods, particularly in setting indicators of change. These indicators include access and availability of different assets/capital, which could further be translated into specific indicators for each assets varying at different levels or focus of analysis (e.g. household, village, interest groups such as traders and landowners). The use of SLF provides an integrated overview of the processes leading to achieving long-term livelihood objectives; thereby, implying a continuous analysis of causality that asks whether a change in access, income, volume of production, etc. contributed to realizing what the people want to achieve in the long run. However, using SLF can equally be limited by its complexity where its more integrated perspective of livelihoods can itself be a constraint particularly in terms of data collection and analysis. In using SLF, practitioners suggest limiting the analysis according to specific objective of the exercise and of course the availability of data or the resources (e.g. money, time) to collect and analyze data. The primary aim of this study is to draw lessons learned from the experience of NERCORMP in improving the benefits that people draw from their forest resources. Therefore, our analysis focuses forest-based livelihoods including their status, the interventions that were directed at them, and the resulting changes. 2.2 Research methods Research design and data collection The study was conducted in the districts of West Khasi Hills (WKH) and West Garo Hills (WGH), the two districts of Meghalaya covered by the NERCORMP. The study was 2

13 started with understanding the context of forest-based livelihoods in the State and interventions by the project through consultation with NERCORMP staff and review of existing literature and project documents. The literature review reveals information on livelihood context to be very limited both at the district and village level. The identification of forest-based interventions by the project is constrained by the limited details of such interventions by the project. These interventions vary from one village to another, depending on what the people selected. Given our focus on forest-based livelihoods, we tried to select villages that had chosen to invest in forest-based livelihoods at least based on the available consolidated community management plans at the district offices. Although the consolidated community management plans provide limited details on the interventions, they were useful in identifying villages that invested in forest-based livelihoods. We selected villages that implemented one or more of the following interventions directed at improving the productivity of forest products: a) improving the management of forest resources such as the adoption of community forest reserves by the NaRMGs; b) cultivation of forest products such as fruit trees; c) value addition or processing of forest products such as bamboo agarbatti sticks, baskets, and other handicrafts; and any infrastructure and marketing interventions such as erection of product collection centers or storage facilities, and contract growing of forest products 1. Based on an initial list of villages that implemented one or more of the above sets of interventions, we randomly selected 18 villages from each district, adding up to a total of thirty two selected villages. Village level data collection was done through a focus group discussion, with key officers of the village NaRMGs and SHGs; a representative of the local NGO in charge of the village and the village teacher. Households that invested or were involved in forest-based livelihoods were identified and selected purposively for interview using a household questionnaire. In each district, four local speaking enumerators - two male and two female - were hired. The field work was conducted from the late December 2006 until February Research analysis Given the complexities of livelihoods as well as the project interventions, separate analyses of the livelihoods components and interventions were done inorder to identify and understand the livelihood changes due to interventions. To understand the livelihood context, we assessed the status of the livelihood components, particularly the status of the various assets, with separate indicators at various levels (i.e., State, district, village), and with particular emphasis on financial (economic) and natural capital were assessed Forest based interventions were identified with the help of a diagram to illustrate the process of these interventions that directly targeted forest based livelihoods. The changes in livelihood components were evaluated mostly through 1 This set of forest intervention classification may not necessarily capture all the project interventions directed to forest livelihoods but it serves our purpose of selecting different cases and lessons using available data from the community management plan (CMP). Interventions that developed later after the preparation of the CMP such as securing access to land, trainings, and various institutional capacity building activities were not recorded in the CMP but were later included in the analysis. 3

14 qualitative indicators because there were hardly any available baseline data. Given certain indicators, the villagers and households were asked whether the quality or quantity of these assets has increased or decreased (improved or deteriorated), or has remained the same. We then looked at the processes leading to such changes by looking at the set of interventions that directly and indirectly lead to such changes how particular interventions are important and at the same time, how they complement each other. Based on the analysis of the process of change, we identified the various factors and processes that were crucial in improving (or not improving) the benefits from forests; thus, coming up with with recommendations to further improve forest-based livelihoods. The process of analysis is summarized in Figure 1. Figure 1: Analytical framework Direction of analysis Study objectives Major questions Levels/ categories of analysis Livelihoo d context What are the major sources of livelihoods in the study areas? What are the forestbased livelihoods? Livelihood assets and strategies at state, district, village, and household Forest-based interventions Given the livelihood context in the selected villages, what were the interventions directed at forest-based livelihoods? Interventions targeting wildly collected, cultivated, and processed forest products Changes in forestbased livelihoods What were the changes in forest-based livelihoods? How have such changes resulted due to the interventions? Change indicators at village, household, and forest enterprise levels Lessons learned What are the effective practices of the project, and the limiting factors in improving forest-based livelihoods? Lessons by type and stages of forest enterprises Recommendatio ns How can the effective practices of the project be replicated? What else can be done to further improve forestbased livelihoods in the selected villages, and in similar contexts? Recommendations at different stages of forest-enterprise development, at different areas of intervention, and according to actors 4

15 3. LIVELIHOOD CONTEXT 3.1 Background of the study location State profile There are around 2.3 million people in Meghalaya, most of whom belonging to the Khasi, Garo, and Jaintia ethno-linguistic groups, which are also the basis for the political subdivision of the State into hill districts the Garos in the western part of the state, the Khasis in the central and northern part, and the Jaintias in the southeastern part. The state is characterized by mountainous terrains which distinguish it from its lowland neighbors of the State of Assam in the north and east and Bangladesh in the south and west. Such mountainous terrain also makes the state geographically isolated. Unlike most of the lowlands of India, Meghalaya is not linked with the country s railway network. It relies mostly on road networks for transportation, mostly through the State of Assam. Within the State, isolation can still be observed in many villages given limited road networks connecting the districts and villages, consequently resulting to limited economic activities and employment opportunities in the State, and limited income for the people. The per capita income in the State was estimated to be Rs 11,678 which is much lower than the Rs 16,047 national average (Directorate of Economics & Statistics ). Within the State, the figure could be much lower in the rural areas as the economic activities are mostly concentrated in the urban areas particularly in the capital, Shillong. Map 1: Meghalaya and the selected study districts 5

16 Like its neighboring states, Meghalaya is primarily an agrarian-based economy where around eighty percent of the labor force is engaged in natural resource-based employment activities (i.e. agriculture, mining, forestry and fishing) but contributes only around 25% to the Net State Domestic Product (NSDP). The industrial sector is undeveloped as there are limited secondary industries to add value to the primary industry outputs. Many of the State primary products (i.e. raw materials) are transported outside the state (i.e. Assam) for processing. The highest contributor of State Domestic Product comes from tertiary sector such as hotel and restaurant and other service sectors but these are mostly concentrated in the selected urban areas in the State. The State has vast grasslands for pastoralist agriculture, and has vast and geneticallyrich forest resources. Given our interest on forest resources, we focus our attention to the status of forest resources in the State. Meghalaya has a total area of 22,429 sq. km and according to the State Forest Report 2003, around one-third is under forest cover, although at varying forest density. The State Government controls around 10% of the total forest (or 4.43% of the total area of the State) which include the national parks, biosphere reserves and sanctuaries, and incidentally are the most dense forests in the state. The rest of the forests are under the jurisdiction of the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) which in principle represent the traditional institutions. Forests have further classifications under traditional institutions, based on their traditional use but for the purpose of administration under the ADCs they are basically classified as a) private forests which are owned and managed by families or clans; b) community forests which are under traditional governance institutions; and c) unclassed forests which includes the forests under direct control of the ADCs 2. According to the State Forest Report of 2003, most of the forests under the ADCs (>75%) are unclassed forests. However, in reality an accurate measurement of these forests is not available because of the lack or even absence of land surveys and land titles in the State. Large tracts of forests (and/or agricultural lands) are privately owned, although with limited availability of land records. 2 The state has three-levels of policy-making bodies: the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly (MLA) at the State level, the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) at the district level, and the traditional institutions which further vary in jurisdiction and systems of governance at the more local level. This existence of three equally legitimate policymaking bodies can be attributed to its unique historical background, particularly the political autonomy it was accorded under the British colonial government and then later by the Indian Constitution. These government eras recognized the legitimacy of these traditional institutions in the Northeastern states through the establishment of the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) which were granted executive, legislative, and judicial powers. However, the establishment of Meghalaya as a separate state in 1972 brought about the establishment of yet another policymaking body at the state level: the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly (MLA). Just like the ADCs, the 60 seats of the MLA is reserved almost entirely for schedule tribes, making it not different from the ADCs in terms of representing the interest of the scheduled tribes. The co-existence of these three separate policy-making bodies (with executive and judiciary powers) in the State often results to conflict and overall weak institutional capacity in local governance as can often be observed especially in the control and management of forests and forest resources. 6

17 3.1.2 District profiles The NERCORMP included only West Khasi Hills and West Garo Hills among the seven administrative districts of Meghalaya. The Project was able to reach out to 162 villages (19.8% of the total villages) in West Khasi Hills and 192 villages (12.9%) in West Garo Hills. West Khasi Hills has smaller population but with larger land area. Despite its larger area, West Khasi has lesser cultivable area primarily due to its steeper terrain, lesser irrigation facilities, and larger area of degraded land and grassland. This can be shown in the net sown area in both districts where West Khasi only has around 4.1% of its area cultivated compared to 18% for West Garo. Irrigated agriculture is very limited in both districts: 1.3% of total area in West Khasi and 2.8% in West Garo. Agriculture is still highly dependent on jhum 3 cultivation. This can be demonstrated in the estimate of areas under fallow, which are around five times larger than the irrigated areas. On the other hand, the forested areas in both districts are still large, composing more than a half of their total areas: 54% of total area in West Khasi, and 55% in West Garo (see Table 1). Table 1: District profiles of West Khasi and West Garo Hills Particular West Khasi Hills West Garo Hills Remarks 1) Total population 294, ,800 Source: Census of India, ) Total area 524,700 ha. 371,400 ha. a) Forested area b) Degraded land and grassland c) Net sown area 280,837 ha 205,486 ha (54% total area) (55% total area) 111,672 ha 65,630 ha 21,871 ha (4.1% of total area) 67,813 ha. (18% of total area) d) Net irrigated 6,898 ha 10,457 ha. area e) Fallow land 66,219 ha. 56,631 ha. Computed based on figures from ralres/forest.htm Source: NABARD Village profiles NERCORMP targeted the poorest villages within the two districts and this high incidence of poverty can be shown in the profiles of the selected villages. The villages have limited access to road and are remotely located from the district centers and major markets. Roads reaching villages are often upto the village center and not reaching the houses or production areas which are mostly jhum lands. Electricity and piped water has reached many of the villages but a large number of households still do not have access to these services. Most villages have schools but mostly only up to the 4 th grade of primary schooling. These conditions resulted to limited economic activities as indicated by a very few small enterprises, traders, or credit providers in the villages. The limited economic opportunities in the villages is also shown by the relatively low daily 3 Jhum, or shifting cultivation is prevalent, if not the main farming system in the selected villages. 7

18 wage rate in the villages. The average daily rate for men in West Khasi is Rs 80 and in West Garo Rs 60. There is even a village that charges Rs40/day. The rate in the urban areas ranges from a day. Wages of women are generally lower than men. Besides the limited endowments as shown above, the limited economic activities in the villages can also be attributed to the existing institutions, particularly the traditional rules /regulations concerning access to land and forest resources their main source of livelihoods. They limit economic activities either directly by prohibiting the commercialization of forest products or indirectly by discouraging people to invest in forest-based activities as they are mostly unwritten and diverse Primary production activities: sources of food and income As pointed out earlier, the economic activities in the rural areas in the State are largely primary production such as agriculture and forestry which are discussed greater detail below Livestock production Livestock production is prevalent among the selected households - mostly hatchery, piggery, and cattle rearing. Households raising chicken raise an average of nine while those raising pigs have an average of two, four for cows, and three for goats. Livestock production. Left: Pigs (Photo: NERCORMP) Right: Goats. Photo by Adrian Albano 4 Although most of these rules are unwritten, the people have high awareness of and compliance to them. Different land ownership is more prevalent in West Khasi where lands (including forests) could be privately owned by individuals, families, or clans living within or outside the village, leasing or renting the land to the villagers. Within these ownership regimes are further property rights arrangements. For example, the village of Tynnai is owned by someone residing outside the village who rents the land to the villagers at Rs. 50 per household for using the forest for renewed every three years. The same is true for the village of Phodjaud. In West Khasi, 13 villages stated that their forests are privately owned, 5 villages state that their forests are community owned, while two villages both have privately owned and community owned forests. In West Garo, all forests are community owned. The Nokma - the traditional head of a clan - have custody of the A khing land which includes the forests and he gives access permit to the villagers for their utilization. 8

19 From these average livestock holdings, it can be seen that livestock production is mostly small-scale. Furthermore, these livestock production have limited commercialorientation. It is interesting to take notice of the diverse range of prices of these animals amid the villages in West Khasi. A pig could cost only Rs 1,000 in one village while selling at Rs 5,000 in another village. The same can be observed for the other animals (and later for crops). While the depressed prices can be highly attributed to the remoteness of the villages, it can again also be attributed to the general subsistenceoriented production prevalent in the villages 5. Some villages are involved in fishery activities, mostly from communally owned ponds or rivers but most of which are not for sale (see Table 2). Jhum cultivation. Left: A jhum planted with paddy, tapioca, taro. Photo from NERCORMP Right: A landscape in West Garo showing Jhum patches. Photo by Adrian Albano Table 2: Livestock production in West Khasi and West Garo Livestock # of villages producing N = 18 Commerci al orientation # of households producing** Ave. # of animals per hh*** Min price/ unit Max price/ unit * West Khasi (n) % (n) % Hatchery % Piggery % 2 1,000 5,000 Cattle % 4 3,000 8,000 Goatery % ,000 Fishery % 47 kg 30/kg 80/kg West Garo Hatchery % Piggery % It was learned that in some more remote villages, barter system of exchange even prevail among villagers indicating their lack of cash. Limited commercialization is highly influenced by their remoteness to road and market but is also attributed to the general lack of commercial activities within the villages and to some degree, a limited interaction with outside villages. 9

20 Cattle % Goatery % Fishery % 16 kg - - Source: village and household survey * 3 primarily for commercial purpose; 2 for sale and/or for consumption; 1 mostly for household consumption ** Out of 172 households selected in WKH and 242 households in WGH *** Based on the number of households producing such product Crop production There are diverse crops cultivated in the villages and by the households. The diversity in crops can be attributed to their major farming system which is Jhum or shifting cultivation, where various plants of various uses are planted. The most common annual crops are paddy, maize, and tapioca. Incidentally, these crops are the staple food in these villages and in the State. Various annual crops are further cultivated but there is a variation between both districts mostly due to their difference in agro-climatic conditions (i.e. elevation and temperature). West Khasi produces various temperate vegetables such as carrot, cauliflower, potato while West Garo produces more tropical crops such as ginger, chili, and pineapple. The same can be observed with the perennial crops. Some dominant perennial crops are observed to be common in both the districts (i.e. bettlenut, tezpatta, broomgrass) highly consumed products in the State and which are also suitable in a wider range of temperature, while other perennial crops vary partly due to the variation in agro-climatic conditions. These crops are enumerated in Table 3. Table 3: List of crops produced in the selected villages 6 West Khasi Hills West Garo Hills Major annual crops: paddy, maize, tapioca Other annual crops: carrot, cauliflower, chili, ginger, gooseberry, millet, mustard leaves, neiiong, neilieh, pepper, pineapple, potato, pumpkin, tomato, yam Major perennials: broomgrass, tezpatta, banana, bettlenut, citrus Other perennials: agar wood, apple, bamboo, jack fruit, guava, lemon, mango, mulberry, papaya, passion fruit, pear, sohiong, sohphung, wild pepper. Source: household and village survey Major annual crops: paddy, ginger, chili, maize, tapioca Other annual crops: pineapple, brinjal, pumpkin, anam Major perennials: bettlenut, tezpatta, orange, elaichi, cashew, broomgrass Other perennials: cardamom, wild pepper, cotton, coffee, tea, bamboo, thatch, banana, pear, teak, Although there are diverse crops being produced, just like livestock production, commercial crop production is very limited in terms of the number of crops cultivated for commercial purpose, in terms of area cultivated, and production intensity. Of the annual crops listed above, only ginger, chili, pineapple, pumpkin, and the temperate vegetables are produced primarily for the purpose of commercialization. Compared to annual crops, 6 We distinguish the crops into annual or perennial crops for the purpose identifying crops commonly cultivated through agroforestry, which shall be considered here as forest-based livelihoods. 10

21 more perennial crops are being commercialized such as various fruits, betel nut, bamboo, tezpatta, etc 7. Nevertheless, cultivation of these commercial crops is still limited to only few villages and households, and limited in terms of area and intensiveness in input use. There were limited plantation agriculture in the villages and that there is very limited use of fertilizers or other commercial inputs (see Table 4). Production expenses are mostly incurred from farm labor, and again these are observed mostly in few relatively large farms. Table 4: Common annual crops produced in the selected villages Most West Khasi West Garo common annual Villages planting Normal size of Commercial orientation* Villages planting Normal size of Commercial orientation crops crops (N = 18) crop area (acres) crops (N = 18) crop area (n) % (n) % (acres) Paddy Maize Tapioca Pumpkin Mustard 4 22 < Turmeric Ginger Chili 1 6 < Pineapple Aloevera Source: household and village survey * 3 primarily for commercial purpose 2 for sale and/or for consumption 1 mostly for household consumption 3.3 Forest-based livelihoods As was earlier stated, forests cover more than half of the total land area of both the districts. Given the limited area of cultivation, it is assumed that the forests too are important sources of food or income of the people. At the selected villages, however, the village surveys indicated that forest cover could be lesser than fifty percent at least in most of the sample villages. This is especially true in West Khasi where some villages have just few hills of remaining forest while three villages have even indicated that they no longer have natural forests (i.e. Rangjadong, and Phlangjaud Mawthangdiar) 8. In 7 Many of these perennial crops have been being cultivated in the villages for more than a century (e.g. orange, bettlenut, tezpatta, cotton, bayleaves, banana, passion fruit). Some of these grow wild but were recently been being managed more intensively and cultivated (e.g. broomgrass, bamboo, thatch, cardamom, sohphung, sohiong, etc.). Still, new perennial crops were introduced more recently that some have not yet started to bear fruit (e.g. apple, mango, pears). 8 Estimate of forest areas is limited by the lack of land surveys and records those under the control of the ADCs and villagers. Most villagers have vague idea of the village boundaries and forest areas, which they often estimate by number of hills. 11

22 describing their forest-based livelihoods, we broadened the definition of forest products to include products not just from natural forests but also from managed forests such as land under agro-forestry production system. We made classification of forest products based on assumed levels of productivity and value-addition which are collected, cultivated, and processed forest products. This classification does not at all imply exclusivity but more in aid of analysis of forest-based livelihoods, especially for specificity in referring to the various forest enterprises later while discussing the interventions, changes, and recommendations Collected forest products In our definition of forests, we not only include natural forests but also managed and plantation forests. Collected forest products then include those that are harvested from natural or managed forests, more applicably from public or community-owned forests. The most commonly collected forest product is fuelwood, the villagers main source for heating, followed by various types of edible forest products. In West Khasi, there were at least 7 edible products that people harvest from forests while in West Garo Hills a longer list (66) of food was listed 9. The villagers also specified the availability of various species of timber, medicinal plants, and other forest products that they collect from the wild (see Table 5). Table 5: Collected forest products in selected villages Collected forest product # of villages collecting Commercial orientation (1) # of hhs Gross sales (2) Hhs that Lowest (Rs) Highest (Rs) N=18 collecting sold West Khasi (n) % (n) (n) % Fuelwood ,000 32,000 Charcoal 3 (3) ,000 Food ,200 Timber , ,000 Medicinal plants (i.e kynbat) ,000 Bamboo Mushroom ,800 Woodpeels ,500 Broomgrass 3 (4) (4) ,000 Honey ,000 Cane West Garo Fuelwood Charcoal Food ,000 9 The many species of forest products listed from West Garo could be due to the villagers greater awareness of these useful species which would have been enhanced as many villages in West Garo had earlier made listings of these species as part of the biodiversity conservation initiative with support from NERCORMP. 12

23 Timber Medicinal plants 100 Bamboo ,000 Broomgrass ,000 Cane Honey Thatch ,000 Wild animals Source: village and household survey (1) Based on the number of households selling their collected forest products: 3 primarily for commercial purpose; 2 for sale or for consumption; 1 mostly for consumption (2) Based on gross sales per year (or the latest year) irrespective of area or effort made. Including only households that sold such forest products. Gross sales = (amount sold) X (selling price). (3) The village survey indicated only 3 villages producing but the household survey revealed that it is being produced and sold from 9 villages. (4) 3 villages indicated collecting them in the wild but overall 13 villages sells broomgrass, the rest cultivating it. Again, with regard to generating income from these forest products, few of them are being collected for selling. Fuelwood, for example, is mostly collected for own use and only few villages and households sell it (e.g., in WKH, only 5% of the total households collecting fuelwood are selling it). On the other hand, charcoal, which is processed from fuelwood, is mainly for sale; but still only few households make charcoal (i.e. 18 or 86% of the 21 households that make charcoal are making them for sale). The same is true for edible food. Most wild fruits and vegetables harvested from the forests are for consumption. Some villagers indicated selling these only when there are outside traders whocome to the village to buy these forest products. Left: Charcoal making, photo by Adrian Albano. Right: Loading charcoal in a truck for sale, photo from NERCORMP On the other hand, regarding commercialization of forest products, it is observed that unlike the more commonly harvested forest products, the less available or less collected 13

24 forest products are for sale (e.g. mushroom, woodpeels, honey, and cane). One primary reason for this is the regulation of harvesting and selling of the commonly harvested forest products which include fuelwood and charcoal. There were households who were able to sell such regulated forest products (e.g., timber, fuelwood, charcoal) with significantly high gross income but a closer look at these households shows that the sold timber and charcoal mostly come from private forests Cultivated forest products Cultivated forest products generally include those produced following an agro-forestry farming system. Considering the prevalence of shifting cultivation in the villages and the limited plantations, these cultivated forest products would include most of the perennial crops earlier mentioned (e.g. broomgrass, bamboo, cardamom, neilieh, neiiong, sohphung, sohiong, etc.). Some of these grow in the wild but were recently being managed more intensively and cultivated. While many of the perennials can be produced through a pure plantation-type of production (e.g. orange, banana), field observation shows that these are cultivated mostly through agro-forestry system. These cultivated forest products (i.e., perennial crops), are shown in Table 6. Table 6: Common perennial crops cultivated in the selected villages Perennial crops # of villages producing (n) Commercial orientation* Dominant type of plantation** West Khasi N = 18 % 1. Broomgrass Orange Banana Bayleaves Bettlenut Tezpatta Passion fruit Guava West Garo N = Bettlenut Tezpatta Orange ,3 4. Cardamom/elaichi Cashew Coffee Broomgrass Thatch Wild pepper Bamboo Others: cotton, rubber, jute, teak,