1 / 22

Crop, Livestock and Forestry Interactions Under Traditional Forms of Property Rights over Natural Resources in Western

Crop, Livestock and Forestry Interactions Under Traditional Forms of Property Rights over Natural Resources in Western Ghats Regions, South India. Dr. T.N. PRAKASH Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore – 560 065; India

ashley
Download Presentation

Crop, Livestock and Forestry Interactions Under Traditional Forms of Property Rights over Natural Resources in Western

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Crop, Livestock and Forestry Interactions Under Traditional Forms of Property Rights over Natural Resources in Western Ghats Regions, South India. Dr. T.N. PRAKASH Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore – 560 065; India Ph: 080-23637002 (O), Email: prakashtnk@yahoo.com

  2. Crop, Livestock and Forestry InteractionsAn Eco-Institutional Perspective • Crop and livestock systems in a particular region were evolved through constant interactions with the prevailing ecological factors/conditions. • Interactions were deep in eco-rich regions such as the Western Ghats in South India. • The harmony was reinforced through traditional forms of property rights over natural resources like forestry along with equally abundant traditional knowledge and technology system • This has lead to a harmony/synergy among three sectors so as to sustain crop and livestock systems in the region. • These eco-institutions were helping for conservation and sustainable use of forest resources in WG region.

  3. Western Ghats: the hot spot of biodiversity • A natural forestry with state ownership • More than 30% of all plant, bird, and mammal species • And, nearly 63% of woody evergreen taxa of India. • Total WG area (in Karnataka): 38905 sq. kms; • Arable 33 %, forestry 44 % and CPR 9% • Reserve forestry – an extreme case; access and use by ‘others’ is totally curtailed.

  4. Traditional Forestry Rights and Interactions • Soppina Betta(upland for green manures) • A private (agro) forestry in support of arecanut and paddy farming system • Usufruct rights granted during British rule; • Strict enforceability and demarcation • @ 9 acres of forestry for one acere arecanut. • Tree types: Natural like Kalmara (Hardwika binats), Multipurpose like Jack fruit

  5. Support for Arecanut (Areca Catechu) farming • Shade during seedling stage • Green leaf manure for arecanut palm during inter-cultivation • Dried leaf for litter in cattle-shed and FYM • Geomancy – protection against sunburn and wind • For fencing materials: Mullu – thorn and Balli – climbers • Bonafied rights of 100 cft timber for farm house construction • Food for laborers – jack, mango • Soil and water conservation, rest house for beneficial predators, bees and birds

  6. Benefits to paddy farming • A private (agro) forestry in support of paddy farming system • Green leaf manure and FYM through livestock • Farm implements like plough – Kasaraka(Strychnos Nuxvomica) • For fencing materials: Mullu – thorn and Balli – Climbers • Soil and water conservation, rest house for beneficial predators, bees and birds

  7. Benefits for livestock – Malanadu Gidda – an unique cattle breed • well adopted to the locality. • Low maintenance cost • Gets Space for Grazing in state forestry with in the purview of village Panchayth or in SB (private) forestry • Water bodies • Green and dried leaves for litter purpose • Herbal materials for Ethno vet. Health care

  8. Homestead Forestry • In village and Forest Dwellers households • For household and livestock needs • Fodder- Haluvana – (Erythrina varigata) • Medicine – neem, • Food – jack, jamoon (Eugenia cumini), drumstick and gooseberry

  9. Silvi-horticultural: Agro-forestry • Bund trees -boundary and fencing purpose • Windbreak and protection against sunburn • Timber- a bonafied right up to 100 cft for own use • fuel, fodder and green manure • Pest control and repellant (Michilia champaka) • Kalmara, Neem, Subbabul, Gliricidia

  10. Plantation;(Coffee and Spices) Forestry • Ago-forestry with unique land tenures like Jumma and Redeem • Shade for coffee plants • Support for pepper • Boundary and demarcation • Soil and water conservation • Food for workers • Multipurpose trees; Jack, Ponwal (Erythrina), Balangi (Acro carpus), • Exotic trees- Silver oak

  11. Devarakadu – Religious Forestry • A CPR within govt. forestry or PPR within Soppinabetta • Religious/cultural purposes – A classic example for non-use, Existence value • Conservation of bio-diversity, soil and water –a Social Fencing • Banyan (Ficus religiousa), Ashoka (Polyanthia) and Rampatre (Myristica)

  12. Benefits for Arecanut farming from Soppinabetta Forestry • Average Arecanut farm size = 1.5 hectare • Extent of Betta land - 1.3 hectare per farm • Tree density = 550 / he; 82 % natural and 18 % planted • Farmers’ perception of benefits: • Protection, shade, soil and water conservation 68% • Timber 49 %, MFPs 43 %, Religious 18 % • Green leaf and manure 17 %, • Fuel wood 8 % Arun (1999)

  13. Benefits from Trees for Coffee Gardens • Tree Density: 300/he (Robusta), 720 (Arebica) • Type of the tree: Commercial 66 %, Traditional 34 % • Farmers’ perception of benefits: • Direct:Shade (100 %), Fuel (100 %), Timber (98 %), Support to pepper (84 %), and Food (76 %) • Indirect: Soil and water conservation (100 %), wind break (96 %) and religious (96 %) • Muthappa et al (2001)

  14. Quantification of Benefits for Arecanut Farming • Yield of arecanut = kgs 2027 /hectare • Gross Return = Rs. 2,50,154 / hectare • Cost (Operation) = Rs. 1,25,580 / hectare • Profit = Rs. 1,25,570 / hectare • B:C Rato = 1.98 Regression Result: Ecological service from one acre of Betta land enhanced arecanut yield by 232 kgs in UWG region Roopa (2001) and Arun (1999)

  15. Income, Nutritional and Food Securities Integrated Income from Homestead farming Rs. 39,548 per homestead farm/annum– WG Kerala From Trees 21%, Crops 39 % and Poultry 48 % (Deepthi 2000) Nutritional Items from Homestead Forestry – 137 Kgs/farm/year (UWG) Mango 30%, Jack 42 %, Amate 18 % , Drumstick 5 Currry leaf 9 Food (Jack fruits) for Agril. Laborers –240 Kgs/farm/year (UWG) SLH. Forestry -52 %, HM. Forestry -24 %, SB Forestry- 24 %

  16. Conservation Under PPR: Tree density • 220/acre in SB - 440 % higher than the Govt. Forestry • 236/acre in coffee gardens -40 % more than CCRI recom. • 56 per Homestead Farm in WG Kerala • Tree Diversity (Simpson) index – 0. 89 in coffee gardens, 0.99 in Homestead Farms (Kerala)

  17. Tragedy of Commons/Govt. Forestry: Decline in forest area in WG (1920-1990) – 56 % Causes: Agril / Arecanut 71%, Coffee/Tea 26 % Dams 3 % Decline in of CPR (grazing land) 11 % in last decade in WG Encroachment of CPR– 50 % at WG Encroachment of DK: 21% - 26 % in Coorg, UWG Hence, arecanut and coffee are the causes for both decline and conservation of forestry ! A Case of ‘Positive’ encroachment

  18. Impacts on Livestock • Native cows had to spend an additional 57 % area and 52 % time for grazing • Their milk yield has reduced by 29 % • Their population has shrunk by 58 % • Replaced by CB cows – 89 % increase in the last decade. A clear sign of disharmony in the interactions among crop, livestock and environment

  19. Response to Crisis • Collective Action: A common Electrical Fencing for SB lands by Hegganur Hegdes; NK, UWG (Narashihma et. al.1997) • Conflict Resolution: Eviction of encroachers of DK lands in Coorg, thorough social sanctions and collective actions (Nagaraj et. al 1997) • Change in Livestock Composition: Towards buffalos; a sturdy, resilient, stall fed livestock: 3.39 % increase in WG in last decade (Roopa 2001). • Willingness to Pay for preservation of DK by the local people in Coorg; Rupees 702 per family per year (Accavva, 2002). • Development of DK in Private lands in Kerala

  20. Policy Reforms • Strengthen traditional forms of private property rights; especially SB rights for arecanut farmers • Empower local bodies to control and manage DK under CPR • Incentives to tree planting within coffee and arecanut gardens as well as homesteads; permission for selective felling ? • Promote Multipurpose tree species through subsidies and support for their multi-functionality roles • Incorporate the spirit of Eco-institutions’ in National Forestry Policies and programs

  21. What about Positive encroachment? • Reconsider the issue of the encroachments • By forest dwellers and others • Which have equity implications as well as conservation effects. • In the backdrop of recent forest policy of GOI

  22. Thank You

More Related