PEN Partner (India)

1. PEN Partner (India) ‘Putting PEN to Paper’ PEN workshop, Bogor 23rd – 28th March 2009 Monika Singh University of British Columbia monikaxing@gmail.com

2. Context • Location: India, Southern Gujarat (Western India), tropical wet and dry climate with tropical dry deciduous forest • Study area is approx 100 sq km

3. Context Key sub-dimensions Number villages sampled: Initially 3, later 2 Total population sampled: Initially 200, later 125 Total households (in 2 villages): 203 Average number people per household: 5.4

4. Household income sources Main contributions for household income • Subsistence (Own use): • Agriculture - crops • Forest • other environmental (Mainly Fish) • Cash: • livestock • wage • business and services • other environmental (Fish) • Agriculture (Lesser amount) Difference in villages: • Interior village forest use is more regular (Fuel-wood) • Accessible village has higher income from livestock and agriculture

5. Key forest and environmental products Forest products: • Regular use: Fuel-wood, fodder, mud (subsistence) • Seasonally available: leaves, bamboo (both subsistence and cash) Environmental income: • Fish (seasonal; subsistence and for cash) (Found only in the interior village as there is a dam and small stream) Pricing: • As per household/respondent • Incase it is not sold, price they are willing to pay

6. Income sources and seasonality Seasonality: • Q1 (Feb-April): Higher dependence on livestock, fish and forest, medium for agriculture • Q2 (May-July): Higher dependence on business (for those who have it), Lesser on agriculture, Low on forest and livestock • Q3 (Aug-Oct): Higher dependence on Business and forest, Low on livestock, no agriculture or fish • Q4 (Nov-Jan): Higher dependence on agriculture, livestock and forest, no fish Observation: • Keeping fuel-wood and clay (mud) aside, in Q3 and Q4 other forest products are collected – it looks more crucial for Q3 when all others are low, forest dependence seems important for poor who have no employment or business. • Wages seems to be quite equally distributed in all quarters (perhaps a little more in Q3, but cannot say for sure) • Since forest use (other than fuel-wood and mud) is more in Kevdi, they have a livelihood source for Q3, which seems to be not there for Gamtalv

7. Income composition and poverty Observation: • In richer households, except for fuel-wood and fodder, they are not so concerned with forest products that fetch small income. They prefer to concentrate on agriculture, livestock and employment • Poorer households go for forest products that they can use and sell • Fruits from the forest that are sold are collected by men; fruits for consumption at home are collected by women and children

8. Other patterns Coping mechanisms included: • Did nothing in particular • Ask for help from friends and relatives • Used savings • Change in crops • Sold livestock • Sold own food Observation: • More problem/crisis were reported in interior village • No report of use of forest for coping with crisis in either village

9. Policies Projects and policies that have had a major impact in the study area: • Joint Forest Management (JFM) (a form of community forestry) • Organized collection of fodder and fuel-wood • Promised timber share • Milk cooperatives (plus rural development schemes of loan for cattle purchase) • Milk production led to an increase of cash income (esp for hh with very less land holding and BPL) • Livestock dependence does not reduce forest dependence since fodder is a forest product in most cases • An interesting observation: In the massive drought of 1996, we observed that villages having JFM (and organized fodder collection from forests) had a very low (if at all) cattle mortality as compared to villages not having JFM