Impact of NTFP ban on the lives and livelihood of the ... - Vasundhara

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1 Harida 2.50-3 1.502 Bahada 1-1.5 0.503 Amala 10 6-74 Chhar 20-25 10-125 Mahul 7.00 3-3.5(Source: Interaction with the community members from Bhuasil Village)Significance <strong>of</strong> income from Kendu leaves in the livelihood <strong>of</strong> peopleThe following table highlights the importance <strong>of</strong> KL income in the livelihood <strong>of</strong> poorer householdsin four villages namely, Kermeli, Pethipali, Gola<strong>ban</strong>dha and Tileimal located within the Sanctuary. Asignificant percentage <strong>of</strong> population residing in these villages constitutes tribals for whom KLincome is extremely important. Around 90% <strong>of</strong> the KL pluckers are the tribals.Looking into the availability <strong>of</strong> large quantity <strong>of</strong> Kendu leaves the government had set up 22Phadies for collection <strong>of</strong> Kendu leaf within the sanctuary area. On an average, one family earnedbetween Rupees 500-800 from KL in one season. Problems relating to KL aroused after 2000when KL Phadies within the sanctuary were closed down by the government. This action wasundertaken following the issuance <strong>of</strong> the government circular [No. F(L)12/2000 - 12732 F&E] on19th August in the same year stating . This policy decision was protested hard and strong by thepeople from the protected areas in response to which an informal arrangement was worked out thatallowed the pluckers to deposit their collections in the Phadies located outside the sanctuaryboundary. Under the new informal arrangement this brought in severe hardship to the pluckers asthy now had to traverse long distance i.e., minimum 15 kms and in some cases even longer distancesto sell leaves to the Phadies.In the year 2003, 134 households in the above mentioned four villages undertook KL pluckingactivity and a total <strong>of</strong> 3,05,750 Kerries <strong>of</strong> leaves (1 Kerry consists <strong>of</strong> 20 leaves) worth <strong>of</strong> Rs. 64,203(calculated at the existing price @ 21 paisa per 20 leaves) were collected. However, the pluckers inthese villages are yet to receive their payment since all the leaves from these villages were seized byDFO even though the department had created an informal arrangement for collection <strong>of</strong> leaves tohelp thee poor pluckers residing inside the sanctuary to continue with their livelihood option. Thishas resulted in loss <strong>of</strong> average Rs. 500 to a tribal household, which forms one <strong>of</strong> the most importantcash incomes particularly during the lean season when other livelihood earning avenues are scarceand the block where 87% <strong>of</strong> the total population is below poverty line.36
Loss <strong>of</strong> KL Income during the period 2003 (after the closure <strong>of</strong> KL phadies)Collect TotalAvg.HHName <strong>of</strong> theTotalHHs engaged in -ion Total Income incomeVillage GP Block HHs Population KL pluckingdays Kerry (in Rs.) (in Rs.)ST SC Others ST SC Others TotalKermeli Kermeli Nuapada 133 83% 7% 10% 90% 6% 4% 52 17 127825 26843 516Pethiapali Kermeli Nuapada 50 84% 12.30% 3.30% 96% 4% 23 15 45725 9600 417Gola<strong>ban</strong>dha Kermeli Nuapada 88 71% 20.70% 7.90% 83% 13% 3% 30 15 65050 13660 455Tileimal Kermeli Nuapada 145 51% 7% 42% 79% 21% 29 17 67150 14100 486Total 134 305750 64203Closed Kendu Leaf Phaddis in Kermeli GP, Sunabeda37
Page 1 and 2: IMPACT OF CONSERVATION POLICIES (SP
Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACTThe word Conservation is on
Page 5 and 6: MethodologyMethodology for the stud
Page 7 and 8: Issues in Protected Areasacross the
Page 9 and 10: non-timber forest produce, fish and
Page 11 and 12: those people who have been cultivat
Page 13 and 14: face lot of diffic
Page 15 and 16: The Order of Supre
Page 17 and 18: Forest DivisionsBoudh Forest Divisi
Page 19 and 20: item especially after monsoons. Lea
Page 21 and 22: CASE STUDY - 2SUNABEDA WILDLIFE SAN
Page 23 and 24: Manikgarh hill range extends in a s
Page 25 and 26: History of Protect
Page 27 and 28: The opinion of the
Page 29 and 30: sanctuary area. Dhaniram majhi, who
Page 31 and 32: surveyed villages but due to the pr
Page 33 and 34: In the year 2003, 134 households fr
Page 35: Village: KatingpaniKatingpani came
Page 39 and 40: 9%Growing Food Insecurity10%14%32%
Page 41 and 42: Village: GadgadaTotal Household- 18
Page 43 and 44: CASE STUDY-3SIMILIPAL WILDLIFE SANC
Page 45 and 46: diet of the people
Page 47 and 48: THE ONLY OPTION OF LIVELIHOOD SNATC
Page 49 and 50: is no bus service or any other mean
Page 51 and 52: Annexure-1BAN ON NTFP</stro
Page 53: 1. Sal/SialiLeaves2. Tenduleaves3.

Impact of NTFP ban on the lives and livelihood of the ... - Vasundhara

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?