Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

decline during 1993-94 to 2004-05 is more or less the same i.e. about 8-9%. (Press release Planning
Commission 2011). There are also other assessments such as by the N.C. Saxena Committee which
reports 50 % of rural population below the poverty line and Arjun Sengupta Report of National Commission
for Enterprises in the Un-organized Sector (NCEUS) which considers more than 77 % below the
poverty line.
iv Table IV.6. Summary statistics on common property resources
Highlights
Common Property Land Resources(CPLR)
Percentages
Percentage of CPLR (land) 15 %
CPLR per household (ha)
Collections from CPLRs
0.31
Household reporting collection of any materials from CPRs 48 %
Average Value of annual collections per household Rs 693
Ratio of Average value of collection to average value of consumption expenditure
Nature of Use of CPRs
3.02 %
Households reporting grazing of livestock on CPRs 20 %
Livestock rearing 30 %
Household Enterprise 2.8 %
Share of fuel wood in value of collection from CPRs 58 %
Average quantity of fuel wood collected from CPRs during 365 days 500 kg
Households possessing livestock 56 %
Households Collecting fodder from CPRs 13 %
Households Cultivating fodder from CPRs 2 %
Average Quantity of Fodder collected from CPRs during 365 days
Source: NSSO 1999
275 kg
v There are 7887 JFMCs in Jharkhand state with 2.76 million members of which more than 70% is from SC
and ST communities. During the last 10 years JFMCs received about Rs.1070 million as share from bamboo
and thinning (15% of the value of produce). Although this amount is generated from only about 350
JFMCs in dense forest areas, it is used in all JFMCs for income-generating activities and development.
The benefits include establishing 331 NWFP enterprises; bringing 25000 ha under irrigation; introducing
more than 113700 improved biomass cooking stoves, solar lighting devices in 2152 villages and 34
bio-briquette machines; forming 120 artisan SHGs; establishing handicraft emporiums in cities; pasture
and diary development; producing about 10000 tonnes of lac; raising clonal pulp wood plantations with
major pulp and paper companies etc. (Dr. V K Bahuguna and Dr. Anup Bhalla, personal communication,
May 2011).
vi In the 1970s, agricultural land degradation led villagers in Sukhomajri village to practice indiscriminate
free-grazing, land-clearing and tree-felling – perpetuating a cycle of land degradation and poverty.
These actions affected the water supply for communities downstream. Sukhna Lake in Chandigarh city
was being silted due to degradation of forests in the mountain land near Sukhomajri village. The city
administration decided to compensate the villagers for giving up grazing and tree felling in the hills. Two
earthen dams for water harvesting were built which provided enormous irrigation benefits as immediate
incentive to initiate watershed protection work by the villagers. The villagers also introduced a marketbased
mechanism for equitable sharing of benefits. All the households in the village, including the
landless, were assigned an equal share of the water collected in the dam in return for their participation
in watershed protection activities. Hence, the landless and those with very small landholdings were able
to sell their water rights to larger landowners who needed more water. The de-linking of water rights
from land rights compensated the landless and the small landowners for the loss of access to traditional
grazing lands and allowed them to gain an equal share of the watershed benefits. This PES scheme has,
in the past 40 years, generated high economic returns for the once-poor community.
vii The case of Mawphlang Lyngdohship in Meghalaya state is an example of how resource management
partnerships help local communities and environment. Large tracts of upland forests were getting
degraded due to swidden or Jhum, deforestation, quarrying etc. The local villagers stand to lose income
if they end commercial fuel wood collection and small scale quarrying, restrict grazing, and allow
marginal farmlands to return to natural forests. The indigenous leadership of the communities signed
138