CHAPTER- I

Introduction

Over 2.5 billion people across the globe depend directly or indirectly, on common property
resources such as forests and dry lands. The resources that come under the category of public
lands, are generally managed by local users, and through common property arrangements.
Fisheries, pastures and irrigation systems also come under the category of commons. In
addition to fulfilling the religious, cultural and recreational needs of the community, these
resources are of paramount importance for securing livelihoods of poor and marginalized
sections of the society. Apart from the natural resources, other resources such as internet,
knowledge, genetic resources, public health, public health, public space, electromagnetic
spectrum or atmosphere also come under the category of commons.

Whether in ‘traditional’ or modern sense, commons is a resource that is shared/ used by

multiple stakeholders. It therefore, requires a set of rules and norms to be developed for
effective and sustainable management of the resources. In India, commons play significant
role in the livelihoods of the poor. As per the study conducted in the year 1996, community
forests contribute up to 29 per cent of the income for poor households, adding up to US $ 5
billion a year- more than twice the amount of foreign direct investment or of official
development assistance in India at that point of time. In spite of their significant contribution
made towards conservation of biodiversity, improving soil moisture regime, nutrient transfer
or recharge of ground water, common lands are largely being viewed as wastelands, which
can be sites for bio fuel plantations or Special Economic Zones (SEZs) to promote industrial
development. Several farmers’ groups and livestock keepers are concerned about diverting
grazing lands as their livelihoods are at stake.

Jodha (1986:1169) defines CPRs as: “the resources accessible to the whole community of a
village and to which no individual has exclusive property rights. In the dry regions of India,
they include village pastures, community forests, wastelands, common threshing grounds,

1
 waste dumping places, watershed drainages, village ponds, tanks, rivers/rivulets, and
riverbeds, etc.” To this can be added Agarwal’s list of CPRs (1995:2a) “a wide variety of
essential items are gathered by rural households from the village commons and forests, for
personal use and sale: food, fuel, fodder, fibre, small timber, manure, bamboo, medicinal
herbs, oils, materials for house building and handicrafts, resin, gum, honey, spices, and so
on.” The very definition of sustainable development (World Commission on Environment and
Development 1987) is “the development that meets the needs and aspirations of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”, which
considers every resource as common property resource. In the context of Indian villages, the
resources falling under the common property resource (CPR) category include community
pastures, community forests and wastelands, common dumping and threshing grounds,
watershed drainages, village ponds, rivers/rivulets as well as their banks and beds.

Arnold and Stewart (1991) note three main types of CPR availability: (a) in the arid and
semi-arid regions there are about 20 ha, of CPR land per village which is typically heavily
degraded and under open access usage; (b) in the hills, CPRs can comprise 60 to 80 per cent
of the total land area, mainly in the form of forests; and (c) in the forest belt across central
India, CPRs consist of minor forest products and some timber. This geographical focus has
meant that there are some major gaps in the literature

Part of the reason for this is that many CPRs gathered outside of the three regions mentioned
by Arnold and Stewart, where there is neither extensive forest cover nor wasteland, may be
invisible from outsiders’ perspective. Cow dung, gathered fodder or fallen fruits may seem
insignificant to those who do not have to spend much of their time gathering them.

Presently the percentage of CPR/Total geographical area of the country is 15 %. If the Forest
lands are included in this definition of CPRs, then there is another 23.38 % of the country’s
geographical area. The beginning of the studies of the CPRs in India can be traced back to
early 1980’s. Studies covered a fairly large number of villages scattered over the vast area of

2
 the country but majority of those were case studies. NSSO study, 1999 (report no 452) of the
54th round is one of the first attempts to provide comprehensive state- and national- level
estimates of size, utilisation and contribution of CPRs. It says in the pre-British India, a very
large part of CPRs was freely available under the control of the local communities. Extension
of state control over these resources, resulted in decay of the community management system,
and CPRs available to the villagers declined substantially over the years. Despite this, CPRs
still play an important role in the life and economy of the rural population.

However, all these studies still fall short of suggesting measures required to improve the
administration of CPRs as well as to facilitate their development for the future generations.
There are two ways of looking at CPRs: De Jure or by legal definition - officially allocated
figures and De Facto or actual ground reality - in terms of actual usage and access which
differ significantly.

CPRs as Safety Nets or Drivers of Development

The literature on CPRs has given rise to alternative hypotheses with regard to their role in
development. Studies rooted in different regions of India have suggested that CPRs play
diverse roles in relation to rural livelihoods. In particular, two aspects of the relevance of
CPRs have received attention:

 the role of CPRs in supplementing rural livelihoods and acting as safety nets specially in
times of agricultural crises. This can be alternatively characterised as the “substitution”
between CPR based means of livelihood and the other primary source of rural livelihood,
i.e. agricultural income.

 the second aspect which has also drawn considerable attention in the literature is the
complementarily between agricultural output and the use of CPRs as inputs to agriculture.
A large part of agricultural inputs such as fodder, grazing grounds and irrigation water are

3
made available through the conservation of common property resources. By this
contention, there should exist a complementarily between development, in particular
agricultural development and the conservation of CPRs.
Working Definition of CPRs: Land Resources accessible to and collectively
owned/held/managed by an identifiable community and on which no individual has
exclusive property rights are called Common Property Resources.

Accessibility to a resource is determined either by legal status or by convention. If the

community has legal right of ownership or possession on the resource, it is clearly
accessible to the community. Besides such legal rights, resources for which customarily
accepted user rights exist are also treated as “accessible” to the community.

Collectively owned /held/managed: Both a) collectively owned/held resources and b)

collectively managed though not collectively owned/held resources are considered as
“Collectively owned/held/managed”. A resource nominally held by community is treated
as “collectively managed” only when the groups of people who have the rights to use it are
governed by a commonly accepted set of rules.

Identifiable Community: The co-users are a well-defined group of persons.

Thus the categories of CPRs in the context of Indian villages that would fit
into the working definition are:

1. Community forests and wastelands

2. Community Grazing land / Pasture land
3. Other community based land resources like Common dumping and threshing
grounds
Broadly there are three main reasons for our focuses on CPR contribution to
livelihood. They are:

1) Communities depend on CPR.

2) CPR's can sustain livelihoods in many poor communities.

4
3) Intuitively, we feel this builds upon community assets and will hopefully lead to
"participatory development". It also takes an important position of community
control/management of local resources in today's market driven economy. In some sense
we see this as a response to increasing poverty due to loss of control over natural resources
due to market forces.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN CPR, COMMON POOL AND COMMONS

The terms Common Property Resources, Common Pool Resources and Commons
need to be clearly understood for the study. All connote an economic resource / facility
which is communally or collectively held/ owned by an identifiable community or a group
of people and is de facto, if not de jure, accessible to and jointly used by all members of
community/group. The principal difference between a Common Property Resource and a
Common Pool Resource is that in the former case the right may have well-defined property
rights but in the latter case such rights may or may not exist. This distinction is as fine as
imperceptible and not meaningful with respect to our study.

Commons, as a term is used in various ways. Though often not defined at all, it is often
used to refer to public goods, our cultural heritage, our shared resources or universal public
goods such as ideas. Commons include all of these. - The air, water, i.e. Open access
resources, common property resources and common pool resources. We will strictly
restrict to the category of Common Property Resources of Commons in our study.

A Comprehensive Survey Based Approach: Evidence from the NSSO

The survey (NSSO 1999) relates to CPRs in the life and economy of the rural population.
The major contribution of the report is that it provides for the first time in India a
comprehensive State and National level database on the size, utilization and contribution of
CPRs. It also provides disaggregated information at the State level in terms of agro-
climatic zones. The study aims at an assessment of the CPRs in terms of their contribution

5
to the lives of the rural people. Thus, the role of CPRs in providing biomass fuel, irrigation
water, fodder for livestock and other forms of economic sustenance has been the main
focus. The results are based on a comprehensive survey of 78,990 rural households in
10978 villages across the country.

The details of the methodology used in the survey are given in Appendix 1.

The NSSO defines common property resources as resources that are accessible to and
collectively owned/held/managed by an identifiable community and on which no
individual has exclusive property rights. Two different concepts have been used to
determine the size and access to CPRs in this report. The de jure approach was used for
collection of data on the size of CPRs. In this approach only those resources were treated
as CPRs which were within the boundary of the village and were formally held (by legal
sanction or official assignment) by the village panchayat or a community of the village.
The second approach, de facto approach, was adopted for collecting information on use of
CPRs. According to this approach CPRs were extended to include all resources which were
in use by the community by convention irrespective of ownership, and even if they were
located outside the boundary of the village. The size of CPRs was therefore based on a
stricter de jure definition while the "use" data took into account the actual position with
regard to access. Government forests ( which have been classified into three categories in
India as per their legal status: reserved forests allowing restricted access, protected forests
allowing access to locals and unclassed forests (all other)) have also been treated in this
manner, thereby distinguishing between the conceptual basis for defining size and use.

Summary Findings

Table 1 provides some country level summary statistics on CPR as estimated by the NSSO.
It becomes clear from the table that CPR form a substantial part of the total geographical
are:

6
Table 1.1: All India Summary Findings of NSSO

I. Size of Common Property Land Resources (CPLR)

Percentage of CPLR in total geographical area 15 %

CPLR per household (ha) 0.31

CPLR per capita (ha) 0.06

Reduction in CPLR during last 5 years(per 1000 ha) 19 ha

II. Collections from CPR

Households reporting collection of any material from CPRs 48 %

Average value of annual collections per household (Rs) 693

Ratio of average value of collection to average value

of consumption expenditure 3.02 %

III. Nature of use of CPRs (data per household)

Share of fuelwood in value of collection from CPRs 58%

Average quantity of fuelwood collected from CPRs annually 500 kg

Average quantity of fodder collected from CPRs annually 275 kg

7
 CHAPTER-II

Literature Review

Bhim Adhikari in his working paper having heading of “Property Rights and Natural
Resource: Socio- Economics Heterogeneity and Distributional Implications of Common
Property Resource and Management” has studied the relation between CPR and poverty.
Poverty, property rights and distributive consequences of community-based resource
management are becoming a major subject of discourse in issues of local level collective
action. One maintained hypothesis is that common property resource appropriators can create
and sustain the local management institutions that ensure equitable access to, and income
from resource management. Further, CPR literature claims that since poor people are heavily
dependent on natural resources, they derive higher income from CPRs. Some scholars, on the
other hand, posit that compare to non-poor, poor people may depend more on common
resources, but in absolute term their dependency is lower. With this argument at the outset,
this study tries to examine the contested role of heterogeneity and equity of resource
distribution in community-based property rights regimes in order to understand whether
institutional change of forest management enhances the access of poorer households to
community forests.
Based on analysis of household level income from community forests, this paper suggests
that poorer stakeholders are currently benefiting less from community forestry than relatively
better off households. Econometric analyses suggest that household labour allocation
decisions and extraction of forest products from community forestry are dictated by various
socio-economic and demographic variables. In general, it appears that household land and
livestock holdings, gender, ethnicity, education of respondents, technology used in forest
product collection and transaction days spent in various forestry activities exert more
influence on household labour allocation decisions for extraction and gathering activities than
other factors. At a glance, the impact of community forestry seems to be ambiguous. While
community forestry seems to be good for the forest resource itself and local environment,
fundamental questions remain about the equity, distribution and livelihood implications of
CPR institutions. In light of persistent socio-economic inequality in communities I argue that
restricting the access of poor people through changes in property rights structure in CPRs is
likely to increase the level of poverty unless specific measures of compensatory transfer

8
schemes are in place to safeguard the interests of the most vulnerable section of the
community. One of the important implications of this study is that interventions seeking to
reduce poverty in a forest dependent rural economy need to improve both productivity of
forests and distribution systems. Since poor people do not get substantial benefits from
agricultural related forest products, forest management regimes need to be directed at
increasing alternative forest products, mainly non-timber forest products that play a
significant role in meeting livelihood needs of the poor. Another policy implication is the
need to consider household and community characteristics and respective management
regimes in order to incorporate interests of different income groups into operational plan of
community forests when handing over forests from government control to community
ownership.
The relationship between socio-economic characteristics of households and access to and
income from common property resources is becoming a growing concern in issues of local
level collective action. This study tries to address this relationship in reference to community-
based forest management with field data obtained from a survey of 309 households from the
middle hills of Nepal. The analysis of household level benefits from community forestry
suggests that poorer households are currently benefiting less from community forestry than
relatively better off households. Both annual average gross and net income from community
forestry is higher for richer and middle wealth households than that of poorer households.
Econometric results show that some socio-economic variables of the resource-using group
place stringent limits on the extent to which certain groups are able to again access to and
benefit from collective action. In another words, income from common property forestry
directly associated with household’s private endowments. I argue that clearly defined
common property rights on common-pool resources are a necessary but not sufficient
condition for sustainable and equitable resource use.
Turkelform F. et. Al in the paper presented at The Inaugural Pacific Regional Meeting for
Common Property Resources at Brisbane, September 2-4, 2001 on the topic of “ role and use
of common property resources (cprs) in bhutan himalayas: between tradition and
globalisation” that the objective of this paper is to analyse the present role of common
property resources (CPRs) in a resource rich, mountainous environment, and to identify
factors that influence their use. This study was based on an analysis of historical trends and
14 CPR case studies all over the country.

9
Bhutan is an exceptional case in South Asia. With its 72% forest cover, rich biodiversity and
plentiful water resources, it can be considered as a resource rich environment. As Bhutan was
quasi-isolated until the beginning of the 1960’s, most land-users were highly dependent on
the surrounding natural resources to meet their subsistence needs. This resulted into
numerous CPRs all over the country. The most important common property resources in rural
Bhutan are: forests, non-wood forest products (NWFP), pastures, water and agro-genetic
resources. There were many indigenous agreed arrangements about the management and use
of the CPRs, especially in areas where resources were more scarce and where some level of
resource competition occurred.
During the last decades, the role and efficiency of these local arrangements has declined, due
to increased pressure on natural resources, commercialisation of the local subsistence
economy, a strong conservation policy and government control over natural resources (by the
nationalisation of all non-privately owned land in 1969). In areas where mainstream cash
crops became popular, CPRs became less important due to the cash crop focus and
substitution of some CPR products. However, in remote and economically less developed
areas, CPRs became more important to sustain rural livelihoods due to commoditization of
certain common property natural resources. In 2001, the status of the CPRs in Bhutan is
mixed. Sustainable use or degradation of CPRs depend on a complex combination of factors.
The most important factors are: presence (or absence) of locally agreed arrangements, legal
status of the CPRs, method of commercialisation, and government regulation and facilitation.

Urvashi Narain et. Al in the paper having topic of “Poverty and the Environment: Exploring
the Relationship Between Household Incomes, Private Assets, and Natural Assets”, in the
paper develops an analytical framework to examine how rural  households in developing
countries derive income from common-pool natural resource stocks. The focus is on how
three types of private assets—land, livestock, and human capital—and one household
characteristic—its size—interact with the natural assets to form the basis of household
livelihood strategies. Predictions of the model are tested using purpose-collected data from
rural households in Jhabua, India. Implications of our results for the potential of improved
natural resource management to alleviate poverty are discussed. 

Pathania MS et. Al in the paper published in jouranal of rural development having topic
“livelihood dependence on common property land resources– a field study in himachal
Pradesh” stated that The grazing of animals on CPR lands was maximum during winter

10
followed by rainy season. The dependence on CPR products was noticed higher on marginal
farms than small farms indicating that dependence on CPR lands decreased with increase in
landholding size. The quantity of stones and sand collected from common lands (nallah and
small river) was higher than the quantity collected from own lands. On all farms, the different
CPR products contributed Rs 17,425 per farm per year to the total income. The maximum
contribution (30.76 per cent) was made by grazing followed by material extracted from
mining (29.33 per cent) and fodder (19.80 per cent). Fuelwood, timber, farm implements,
stacking sticks, fencing, NTFP, leaves for compost contributed from 0.02 to 7.17 per cent to
the total income generated from the CPRs by the households. Keeping in view the importance
of CPRs, there is an urgent need to increase productivity of CPR lands and to ensure the
involvement of local people in the management of these resources.

11
 CHAPTER-II

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 METHODOLOGY ADOPTED

For this research, first district of dry and arid region (rainfall less than 450 mm) of India are
selected according to availability of CPLR, people residing there are downtrodden mostly
tribal and dalit. Villages are selected according to NGO’s intervention as in my case we have
collected data from two villages. One village Hamlets of Kerwas named Hammakhora and
Mahadev has intervention of NGOs, which is more than five years. Other one is Nayakhedi
has no intervention. According to this process, villages were selected.

This methodology is adopted because the dalit and tribal mostly dependent on the common
property, as they have no lands or they are small and marginal farmers. District from dry and
arid region is selected, they have more dependence on common property. For seeing actual
picture of common villages are selected which having no intervention of any NGOs. If there
is no any institution then, how the common leads to ‘Tragedy Of Common’.

2.2 RESEARCH DESISGN

OBJECTIVE VARIABLES TOOLS

Are the CPLRs critical for 1.Quantity of fuelwood PRA, Interview and FGDs
subsistence livelihoods of the collected from CPLR per
poor or not? year
2.Quantity of fodder
collected from CPLR per
year
4.Percentage of fodder
requirement fulfilled by
grazing from CPLR
5.Income through NTFP
collection and other products
collected from CPLR

2.3 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

12
This particular section provides information on how the sample was taken and what are the
criteria for it. 20% of the households had surveyed in selected villages. Households had
proportionally selected from the different land holding classes. The villagers are divided into
four different class according to their landholding named landless those villagers which have
no land, marginal farmers having land of 5 acre of land, small farmers having landholding of
10 acre and the large farmers having landholding of more than 10 acres. It is also considered
the family which having large no. of animals.

2.4 OBJECTIVE

Are the common property land resources critical for subsistence livelihoods of the poor or
not?

These widely observed rural livelihood patterns shed light on the dynamics of rural
vulnerability. The poorest and most vulnerable are those most heavily reliant on agriculture,
and most strongly locked into subsistence within agriculture. The same category of the rural
poor also tends to be dependent on work on other farms in order to cover the deficit in their
household food balance. This exacerbates rather than diminishes their vulnerability for two
reasons: first, labour on other farms can mean neglect of good cultivation practices on own
farms; and, second, work on other farms proves an unreliable buffer when adverse natural
events occur that affect all farms in a geographical zone

Often the landless rural poor are found to constitute the most vulnerable group. This group, as
well as relying on wage labour, may also depend on natural resource use through access to
common property resources (CPR) due to lack of land or insufficient land to support
subsistence needs (Beck & Nesmith, 2001). Their livelihood activities include collecting
fuelwood, fodder and NTFP collection etc. Their vulnerability may be high due to insecurity
of resource access and ownership, but their income and asset status can exhibit wide
variations, with some households within such groups, being wealthy compared to resident
land-owning households in the same locations.

2.5 SOURCES OF DATA COLLECTION

13
All data were primary data, which were collecting through the village level resource and
community mapping, household interviews and focused group discussions.

2.6 TOOLS OF DATA COLLECTION

The primary data collection process included village level resource and community mapping,
household interview and focused group discussions.

 Village resource and community mapping: Depending on the boundary and interface of
the CPLRs in a project, with the villages around it, a mapping of resources and people
were the starting point of engagement. This exercise helped situate the CPLRs in the
context of the land resources and also in relation to all the biomass requirements(food,
fodder, fuelwood, NTFPs, etc.) in the village and also in the context to the block and
district. FGDs will be undertaken to get the understanding of the level of food and fodder
security in a village, how much comes from within and how much from outside, in order
to sustain a local economy based on subsistence livelihoods. Contribution of the CPLRs,
in the agrarian context was studied to assess its significance.

 Household interviews: Household interviews had constitute the major tool to map out the
dependence across different social-economic groups on CPRs. Using a one-year recall
method the good and services derived from CPRs had quantified. Income of the
households from various sources had calculated to apportion the contribution of CPRs. To
further get a dynamic picture of livelihoods and the household strategies of adaptation to
changes in CPRs and other factors (drought) specific questions to enquire about the
changes in asset base, distance covered for collection of various products, time spent
thereof etc., had incorporated in the schedule. It is envisaged that 20% of the households
would be surveyed in selected villages. Households would be proportionally selected from
the different land holding classes and social groups.

 Focus group discussions: The aim of FGDs and participatory exercises is to enable to gain
an understanding of the state of CPRs over a longer time frame. Participatory exercises
would help us understand the institutional aspects surrounding CPRs and the trends
witnessed with regards to the same. However, well-planned participatory exercises would
help to gain insights into the changing trends in the ecological facets—biomass, flora and

14
 fauna, etc. The aim of conducting participatory exercises was to derive objective
information at the village/community level that can be used for quantitative analysis.

2.7 LOCALE AND TIME FRAME OF THE STUDY

2.8 LIMITATIONS
i. Few villagers are not giving right information, so the triangulation had be done.
ii. Houses are distant from one another and in the day time, people go their work, so it is
very difficult to get information from that family.
iii. Sometimes language problem also occurs, specially interviewing the women.

15
 CHAPTER-III
ORGANISATION PROFILE AND PLACE OF STUDY

3.1 ORGANISATION PROFILE

Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) is a non-governmental body primarily engaged

in restoration of ecological security in eco-fragile areas through the medium of community
participation. It follows an integrated approach which incorporates multiple aspects of
natural resource use (biophysical, socio-political, or economic) into a system of sustainable
management to meet production goals of producers and other direct users (e.g., food
security, profitability, risk aversion) as well as goals of the wider community (e.g., poverty
alleviation, welfare of future generations) besides the broader objective of environmental
conservation.

The government of India established the National Wasteland Development Board (NWDB)
in 1985 under the Ministry of Environment and Forests to promote and finance the greening
of wastelands. Impressed by the capabilities of NDDB, which has successfully organized
cooperatives at village level under Operation Flood, NWDB requested NDDB in 1986 to
initiate a pilot project to re-vegetate revenue wastelands. Eventually, National Tree
Growers’ Cooperatives’ Federation (NTGCF) was registered in 1988 as an apex level multi
state cooperative society with a mandate to work with the institutional form of tree growers’
cooperatives.

To address the issue of commons, to be able to work in geographically compact and

coherent units and to work with different long-standing institutional arrangements, there was
a need for an organization with wider mandate and one which can work with different
aspects relating to policy, legislation and liasoning with key players in the varied and
complex milieu. Thus, The Foundation for Ecological Security (FES) was formed in March
2001 and the implementation of the project was transferred from the NTGCF. The following
issues necessitated the formation of FES, which can also be seen as strategies adopted to
scale-up their activities and to make their interventions reach more people.
The mandate of the organisation is as follows:
 To work towards the ecological restoration and conservation of land and water
resources in the uplands and in other eco-fragile, degraded and marginalized zones of

16
 the country, and to set in place the processes of coordinated human effort and
governance to this end.
 To work for and promote stability of the ecosystems through the protections and
restoration of biological diversity, including the diversity of species, age diversity,
genetic variability as well as that of structural composition.
 To work with and through a range of democratic village institutions, their federal
bodies, and civil society organizations to promote initiatives that are ecologically
sustainable, socially and economically equitable; and to provide technical and
financial assistance to them.
 To help in the creation of a conducive legal and regulatory environment and a
coherent perspective on forest and water related land-use policy, through the
dissemination of knowledge and information.
 To collaborate with government agencies, research institutions and other agencies, and
to undertake, encourage and sponsor studies and research related to the ecological
security of the country.

3.2 PLACE OF STUDY

Pratapgarh is situated in the southeastern part of Rajasthan in Chittorgarh district. The area
adjoins Udaipur and Bhilwara districts of Rajasthan and Mandsaur district of Madhya
Pradesh. It is situated in the junction of the Aravali mountain ranges and the Malwa Plateau;
hence the characteristics of both prominently feature in the area.

The main river systems of the area are the Jakham and Aeraw that flow to the west and into
the Mahi, and the Retam and Siwna that flow east into the Chambal River. Three macro-
watersheds that fall in the catchment area of the Aeraw and the Siwna have been identified.
The topography of the area is highly undulating; agriculture is practiced both in the valleys
and on the tableland on the hilltop. Common lands account for 40% of the total geographical
area; nearly 30% of the common lands fall in the forestland category. Revenue wastelands and
pasturelands are more degraded than the forestlands and a portion of these has been
encroached upon by the local communities for agriculture and for fodder.   

The area is a Schedule V area predominantly inhabited by the tribal community, amongst the
tribal communities the Meena are the most numerous comprising over 55% of the populace.

17
 Agriculture is mostly rainfed and subsistence in nature. The per capita income is a measly Rs.
5805/- and the region ranks low on most of the development indicators.

The landholding patterns vary between the tribal and non-tribal communities with the average
landholding among the former being 1-1.5 hectare and it being between 2 - 2.5 amongst the
latter. Besides farming the tribal communities depend upon the forests for their food, fodder
and fuelwood requirements. They also migrate each season to nearby towns and villages and
find work as farm labourers and construction workers.

Table 4.1 PHYSICAL DATA OF PRATAPGARH

18
 CHAPTER – IV

FINDING AND ANALYSIS

4.1 BASIC INFORMATION REGARDING THE FARMERS

18

16

14

12

10
Nayakhedi
8 Hammakhora/ Mahadev

0
Landless Marginal Farmer Small Farmer Large Farmer

Table 4.1 NO. OF FAMILIES OF DIFFERENT LAND HOLDING

This is the profile of the villages. The villagers are divided into four different class according
to their landholding named landless those villagers which have no land, marginal farmers
having land of 5 acre of land, small farmers having landholding of 10 acre and the large
farmers having landholding of more than 10 acres. As it is seen in the graph that in
Hammakhora/ Mahadev village there are no landless family it is due to the social condition ot

19
the village that this villagers of this village are of Meena tribal community so that every
farmer have some land. It is also seen that the most of the villagers are the marginal farmers
and small farmers so the common property resources are more important for them.

16

14

12

10

8 Nayakhedi
Hammakhora/Mahadev

0
Landless Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Large Farmers

Table No. 4.2 AV. CATTLE UNIT OF ANIMALS

As the farmers of both the villages have the animals like cow, bullocks, buffalo and the goat.
All of them converted into the Av. Cattle Unit (ACU) and it is shown in the graph. For the
cow and bullock have ACU is 1, for buffalo it is 1.2, for calf it is taken 0.6 and for the goat it
is taken 0.1 and all of them converted into the ACU.

As it is seen from the graph that marginal farmers in both village have ACU and the landless
have lesser amount of ACU in all the categories. In the Nayakhedi village, large farmers have
more ACU, the reason behind this is that the large farmers keep animal for selling milk in
pratapgarh city, which is very near to them.

20
4.2 FUELWOOD COLLECTED PER YEAR

3500

3000

2500

2000
Nayakhedi
Hammakhora/ Mahadev
1500

1000

500

0
Landless Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Large Farmers

Table No. 5.3 AV. QUANTITY (KG.) OF FUELWOOD COLLECTED PER YEAR

A survey in 2004-5 showed that firewood and wood chips were used by 75% of rural
households in India, followed by liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) which was used by 9% and
dung (9%). Only 1% of rural households had moved to other fuels from firewood and chips
since the previous survey in 1999-2000 and even since previous surveys in 1983 (79%),
1987-88 (78%) and 1993-94 (78%), possibly due to slow economic development and/or the
unavailability of alternative energy sources. The use of firewood in rural areas seemed to be
unrelated to household income, suggesting that few people buy fuel, mostly collecting it
themselves
This is the table, which show the criticality of common for the poor in the terms of fuelwood.
The average daily fuel consumption per household/ family in the area is around 8.5 kg that
means 3102.5 kg per year is needed. It can be depicts from the graph that landless families
get the whole quantity of fuelwood from the common property resources. Also the marginal
and small farmers of Nayakhedi are getting 2112.35 kg and 1865 kg of fuelwood from the

21
common propert resources repectively. The marginal and small farmer of the
Hammakhora/Mahadev collects 1870 kg and 1455 kg of fuelwood from commons. For
remaining of the needed fuel, they get from the cow dung. The large farmers of Nayakhedi
and Hammakhora/ Mahadev village collect 1380 kg and 2450 kg of fuelwood respectively.
The large farmers of Hammakhora village collects more fuelwood because they are nearer to
the forest and the large farmers of nayakhedi village keep more cattle so they get lots of
fuelwood and the status of the CPR of the Nayakhedi is not as good as the CPR of
Hammakhora/ village.

If the cost of fuelwood is taken as the 2.5rs/kg is taken, then the lanldless family saves around
7800 rs per year, which is quite big amount for them. Marginal and small farmers of
nayakhedi villages save 5280.85 rs and 4662.5 rs respectively. Also the marginal and small
farmers of hammakhora/ mahadev saves 4675 rs and 3637.50 rs respectively. Large farmers
of nayakhedi and hammakhora save rs. 3450 and rs. 6125 respectively.

The assumption that fuelwood and fodder extraction leads to deforestation has so far been the
dominant mainstream view in deforestation discourses accepted by researchers, state agencies
and conservationists. These mainstream views on deforestation ignore the local-specific
strategies, which include substitution of crop residues and animal dung for fuelwood,
changing livestock composition that reduces dependency on natural forest and local informal
institutions that regulate the resource exploitation.

Communities adjacent to forests mostly use dry wood as fuelwood and grasses for fodder that
normally does not involve cutting of trees. Certain household characteristics and distance to
the source of fuelwood and fodder point to the role of opportunity cost as a determinant of
biomass extraction.

Fuelwood and fodder extraction may not be the major reason for deforestation. However, it
convenient to use the mainstream views related to deforestation, exclude local communities
from forests, and protected areas. Local people would prefer that their access rights to
resources should continue. Co-management of forests involving local people and institutions,
and restoration of their rights may help to resolve conflicts related to resource use and lead to
a better management of natural resources.

22
4.3 FODDER COLLECTED PER YEAR

1600

1400

1200

1000

800 Nayakhedi
Hammakhora/ Mahadev
600

400

200

0
Landless Marginal Farmer Small Farmer Large Farmer

Table No. 5.4 AV. QUANTITY (KG.) OF FODDER COLLECTED PER YEAR

This Table No. 5.4 depicts the average quantity of fodder collected from the common
property resources. It is clearly depicted that the farmers of the nayakhedi villages collect
more fodder from the CPR. The reason behind this is that the CPR of the Hammakhora/
Mahadev is regulated. JFM intervention is present there so people have controlled over
fodder collection whereas the CPR of the Nayakhedi is open and not regulated.

A special type of mechanism is present in both the village for the protection of the forest is
called “Nazari Kabja”. It is a case privatisation of the common property. In the “Nazri
Kabja”, the forestland, which comes in front of the home, is the property of that farmer. He
has the duty of take care of those trees and also the right to cut the forest tree. Other people
are excluded from this benefit.

But other villagers can collect from fodder and can also graze on that patch of land. Thus they
have some rights but they are excluded from the duties. Thus by the partly privatising the
common they have get the solution for the tragedy of the commons. Also cultural and
traditional practices is present there that that the every gotra has a tree which they worship
and do not cut that tree and also not allow other person to cut that tree. Thus those particular
trees grow easily in that village.

23
The marginal, small and large farmers of hammakhora/ mahadev collect 320 kg, 616.67 kg
and 667.67 kg of fodder respectively. The marginal, small and large farmers of Nayakhedi
collect 1504 kg, 500 kg and 600 kg respectively. The landless family collects 600kg of fodder
from the CPR. If it is converted in monetary terms, the average price is rs. 3 per kg is taken
then rs. 960 is saved by marginal farmers, rs. 1850 by the small farmers and rs. 2003 is saved
by large farmers of the Hammakhora/ Mahadev.

Whereas the landless family of Nayakhedi collects average of 600kg whose monetary value
is rs.1800 and marginal farmers collect 1503.5 kg whose market price is rs. 4510.50. The
small farmers collect 500 kg whose monetary value is rs.1500 and the large farmers collect
600 kg whose market value is rs.1800. This money not seems much but for their subsistence
livelihood it is very important as it is helps to cater their need of fodder which may not
available in the season of summer or available at costly price which cannot afford by these
poor farmers. Thus, the common property land resources are very much important for the
subsistence livelihood of the landless, small and marginal farmers. They are mostly
vulnerable to different climatic situations like drought, famine etc.

4.4 FODDER REQUIREMENT FULLFILLED BY GRAZING

100

90

80

70

60
Landless
50 Marginal Farmer
Small Farmer
40 Large Farmer
30

20

10

0
Bullocks Cow Buffalo Goat

Table No. 5.5 PERCENTAGE OF FODDER REQUIREMENT FULFILLED BY

GRAZING IN NAYAKHEDI VILLAGE

24
The Table No. 5.5 shows the fulfilment of the fodder by the grazing. The livestock of the
sample households and then the animal units during different seasons grazing in the forests of
villages of the study area has been used to calculate the grazing intensity during various
seasons and forest types.

As on an average, 4.18 tones* of fodder per year per animal cattle unit is required (*-
Reported average fodder requirement per year per live stock (Govt. of karnataka 1996). Cow
and bullock have ACU is 1, for buffalo it is 1.2, for calf it is taken 0.6 and for the goat it is
taken 0.1, so the fodder requirement for cow and bullock is 4.18 tonnes per year, the fodder
requirement for the buffalo is 5.016 tonnes per year and the fodder requirement for the goat is
0.418 tonnes per year.

As it is seen from the Table No. 5.5 that the landless family keeps only bullock and cow, 95
% of the fodder requirement is fulfilled by the grazing on CPR that means they get
3.971tonnes of fodder required fulfilled by the grazing. Marginal farmers of nayakhedi
village kept cow, bullocks, buffalo and goat and the requirement of fodder is 92 % means
3.8456 tonnes, 81.28% means 3.3975 tonnes,63.5 % means 3.185 tonnes and 98.33 % means
0.411 tonnes respectively. The small farmers have cow, bullocks and goats and the
requirement fulfilled by 69.44 % means 2.9 tonnes of fodder, 67.8% means 2.83 tonnes and
100 % means 0.418 tonnes of fodder requirement is fulfilled.

Large farmers kept cow, bullocks and goats in the Nayakhedi village. The requirement
fulfilled by 67.5 % means 2.82 tonnes, 67.5 % means 2.82 tonnes and 40% means 0.167
tonnes respectively.
The total 7.94 tonnes fodder requirement of landless, 15.7116 tonnes of fodder requirement
of marginal farmers, 6.148 tonnes fodder requirement of small farmers and 5.64 tonnes
fodder requirement of large farmers is fulfilled.
Using the average price of fodder in the market of Rs. 600 per ton, average rs. 4764
saved of landless family per year. For the marginal farmers, average saving is rs. 9426.96 and
for the small farmers is rs.3688.8 and the large farmers saved average rs.3384 per year. So
this small amount of amount which they save is very essential as it enabled them to keep cow,
buffalo and goat for milk which gives their family nutrition food.

25
 100

90

80

70

60
Landless
50 Marginal Farmer
Small Farmer
40 Large Farmer

30

20

10

0
Bullock Cow Buffalo Goat

Table No. 5.6 4PERCENTAGE OF FODDER REQUIREMENT FULFILLED BY

GRAZING IN HAMMAKHORA/MAHADEV VILLAGE

From the Table No. 5.6, it can be depicted that Marginal farmers of Hammakhora/ Mahadev
village kept cow, bullocks, buffalo and goat and the requirement of fodder is 51.21% means
2.14 tonnes, 58.1% means 2.43 tonnes,21.9 % means 1.098 tonnes and 86.67 % means 0.362
tonnes respectively. The small farmers have cow, bullocks, buffaloes and goats and the
requirement fulfilled by 52.5 % means 2.195 tonnes of fodder, 30 % means 1.254 tonnes,
52.5 % means 2.6334 tonnes and 90 % means 0.3762 tonnes of fodder requirement is
fulfilled.
Large farmers kept cow, bullocks, buffaloes and goats in the Hammakhora/ Mahadev village.
The requirement fulfilled by 66.67 % means 2.786 tonnes, 63.33 % means 2.6471 tonnes, 70
% means 3.511 and 100 % means 0.418 tonnes respectively.
Using the average price of fodder in the market of Rs. 600 per ton, average rs.3606 saved of
marginal farmers per year. For the small farmers, average saving is rs. 3875.16 and for the
large farmers is rs.5617.2 saved per year.

26
 4.5

3.5

2.5
Nayakhedi
2 Hammakhora/ Mahadev

1.5

0.5

0
Landless Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Large Farmers

Table No. 5.7 FODDER REQUIREMENTS PER ACU FULFILLED BY GRAZING

This graph depicts the fodder requirement per ACU fulfilled by the grazing. The requirement
of the villagers of the Nayakhedi is fulfilled more. The landless villagers requirement per acu
is fulfilled by 3.97 tonnes per acu, marginal farmers requirement by 4.081 tonnes per acu and
1.17 tonnes per acu requirement of small farmers is fulfilled and 0.413 tonnes per acu
requirement of large farmers is fulfilled.
The requirement per acu of marginal farmers of Hammakhora/ Mahadev is fulfilled by 1.736
tonnes per acu, small farmers’ requirement by 1.8667 tonnes per acu and 2.021 tonnes per
acu requirement of large farmers is fulfilled.
As the large farmers of the Nayakhedi generally go stall feeding than the grazing, this is
because they keep cow and buffaloes for the milk production so they go for stall feeding. But
the landless and marginal go for open grazing as the CPR is unregulated in the village.
Whereas the farmers of the Hammakhora/ Mahadev village, have almost same amount of
fodder requirement fulfilled of all the land classes. This is because the CPR (forest) is
regulated here.

27
4.4 INCOME EARNED THROUGH NTFP COLLECTION

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000
Nayakhedi
800 Hammakhora/Mahadev

600

400

200

0
Landless Marginal Farmers Small Farmers Large Farmers

Table No. 5.8 AV. MONEY EARNED THROUGH NTFP COLLECTION PER YEAR

NTFP income is from mainly from the Tendu leaves collection which is one of the income
source for poor people in this reason. Especially women and children collects the Tendu
leaves from the forest. Previously they collect more Tendu leaves but now-a-days there is not
enough tree of tendu and also the collection shorten due to unavailability of tendu leaves.
Also they collect poles for making home from the forest which is also taken into
consideration.
As it is easily depict from the graph that the NTFP production is more in the Nayakhedi
Village than Hammakhora/Mahadev.
This is due to two reason:
i) The forest of the Hammakhora/Mahadev is regulated so everyone not collect the
tendu leaves of own will and cut the tree for their house making as in Nayakhedi
ii) The availability of tendu tree is also less in Hammakhora/ Mahadev village
The cost of tendu leaves is rs 45 per 100 bundles in both the villages. It is easily depicted
from the graph that the most income generated from NTFP collection by the landless
families. They earned rs.1630 per year from tendu leaves collection and using the tree poles.

28
The marginal, small and large farmers of nayakhedi earned rs.978.75, rs.1157.50 and rs.810
respectively. Also the marginal, small and large farmers of Hammakhora/Mahadev earns less
than their counterparts, they earned rs.346.50, rs.450 and rs.157.50 respectively. Here also
this income helps them for their subsistence livelihood. Since most of the NTFP collection is
done by the women and children so this gives them additional income for these families

25

20

15
Nayakhedi
Hammakhora/Mahadev
10

0
Landless Marginal Farmer Small Farmer Large Farmer

Graph 5.9 OTHER FOOD PRODUCTS COLLECTED FROM COMMONS

Other food products from commons also collect from the CPR other than the NTFP.
Generally fruits like Karonda, Mango and blackberry etc are collected from the CPR. These
fruits are generally collected by the children and bought home by them. These fruits give
them nutrients which are essential for them. Also they get some plants which have medicinal
value for them.
Here also it seen that the villagers from the nayakhedi collect more from the Hammakhora/
Mahadev because the CPR of the Nayakhedi is unregulated. Due to this reason and over
exploitation of the CPR has severely affected the condition of CPR.
Here it is seen that landless family collects 10kgs of such product, the marginal, small and
large farmers of nayakhedi collects 7kg, 23 kg and 15 kg of fruits respectively. The marginal,
small and large farmers of Hammakhora/ Mahadev collect 13 kg, 8kg and 16 kg respectively.

29
 CHAPTER- V
LIMITATIONS

There are few shortcomings:

1) It does not talk about the benefit from carbon sequestration.

2) It does not talk about the water conservation due to commons like forests..
3) It does not talk about the soil conservation due to these commons like forests.
4) It does not talk about protection of the farmland and livestock from the weather.
5) It does not talk about the watershed control.
6) It does not talk about the affect of common on the bio-diversity of that area.
7) It does not talk about the equity of fair distribution of the benefits from the commons.
8) It does not talk about the socio-cultural benefits of the commons.

SUGGESTIONS

There are few suggestions

1) Include the NTFP collection by the different samitis like charagah samiti or joint
forest committee.
2) Include the intangible benefits like soil and water conservation from the CPR like
forests.
3) It should include watershed control measure.
4) It should include bio-diversity of the area.
5) It should include the equity of fair distribution of benefits from the commons.
6) It should include the socio-cultural benefits of the commons.

30
 CHAPTER- VI
CONCLUSION

CPRs are the important for the rural poor especially who are marginal and small farmers.
Commons provides immediate returns in terms of increased availability of biomass, improved
soil and moisture regime and where geo-hydrology supports recharge, an increase in the
water table and associated increase in area under cropping. Commons contribute to the
improvement of the livelihoods, especially of the poor livestock keepers, with increased
access over water and fodder. Commons also provide a strong collective and ecological
foundation to further assist the poor livestock keepers in being the drivers of the livestock
growth.
With more than 70 million rural Indians dependent on agriculture, livestock inventories, and
forests for subsistence, an essential element of any future efforts to reduce rural poverty will
be effective common property resource management. Over the past decade, illegal and
unsustainable harvests of timber and pasture land by local peoples, and a growing rural
population have resulted in high rates of forest loss and degradation and a reduction in the
productive value of many pasture lands. Meanwhile, greater competition for land has led to
an increase in the landless population. Rapid population growth and continuing pressures on
land, forest, and pasture land suggest that maintenance of rural subsistence may be a serious
challenge in the coming decade.
Policies directed at reducing poverty and improving rural livelihoods need to carefully
consider the close linkages between rural livelihoods and natural resources, especially the
important role of forest and pasture land resources held in common. These resources often
serve as the livelihood “safety net” for the poorest of the poor – those with few assets and no
land. Policies that contribute to common property resource loss and degradation should
generally be expected to increase poverty problems in rural areas. Likewise, concession
management strategies that restrict access to natural resource wealth previously held in
common will tend to exacerbate rural poverty and may result in conflict. Poverty alleviation
policies are more likely to be effective if they focus on integrated development approaches
that seek to enhance rural livelihood strategies and mitigate cross-sector impacts (such as
potential agricultural development impacts on livestock).

31
Sound policymaking depends on up-to-date data, meaningful indicators on key issues, and
useful analysis. Current information on common property resources and rural livelihoods
could be improved in several ways:

Update and improve data on forest cover and fish catch and composition.
Common property resource data is not updated after NSSO survey 1999, making it difficult
to evaluate progress toward common property resource management reform. Total pasture
land figures have not been updated.
Include secondary and tertiary employment categories in national census and
socio-economic surveys. The practice of collecting data on primary employment alone tends
to focus attention on agriculture while understating the importance of livestock and forest
product collection in rural livelihoods. The inclusion of secondary and tertiary employment
would improve the accuracy of national survey findings, making them a better reflection of
rural livelihood realities.
Revise the national accounting system so macro-economic indicators provide a
more accurate basis for assessing progress toward sustainable economic development.
GDP and national income measures currently fail to capture the depletion of common
property resource assets such as forest stands and pasture lands. Such exploitation has an
exclusively beneficial effect on economic indicators such as GDP, even if rates of exploitation
are unsustainable. Natural resource accounting adjustments would help the national
accounting system better reflect realities of common property resource exploitation and asset
depletion, thereby improving key economic indicators and strengthening the basis for
policymaking on sustainable development. Much still needs to be better understood about the
linkages among rural livelihoods, common property resource management, and sustainable
development. In developing this baseline assessment, several potential areas for socio-
economic research on common property resources and rural livelihoods have been identified
related to community management, production and trade issues, and conflict resolution. The
critical questions about common property and rural livelihoods:
 Political- Is the community ownership over CPR is distinct from jurisdiction
i.e. is the community in a feudal relationship with the community? How is the
institutional reform linked to land reform in the wider sense? Do political
conditions favour tenure reform? How effective is the administration of
common property resources at local level?

32
  Economic- How does common property resources affect agrarian and other
sources of production and income? What economic use is made of common
property resources? Does lack of clarity about institutional rights on common
property resource discourage investment?
 Social and cultural- How are institutional rights over common property
resources embedded within wider social and cultural relationships? What is
the impact of common property resources on gender inequality? Are common
property resources have any impact on class and caste inequality? Are rights
to CPR an important source of asset based security for the poor? How the local
institutions on CPR do are affected by external environment?
 Legal- Do constitutional and legal frameworks affect common property
resources? What is the legal basis of common property arrangements?

APPENDICES

33
Appendix 1: Methodology for the NSSO Survey of CPRs in India

A stratified multi-stage sampling design was adopted for the survey. The first stage units for
the sampling were census villages while the ultimate stage units were the households that
were to be surveyed. The survey period was January – June 1998. In all 10,978 villages were
planned to be surveyed of which, 5242 were allocated to the Central sample and the rest to
the State sample. The former was surveyed mainly by the NSSO field staff while the latter
was surveyed by State agencies. For purposes of the present discussion, the focus is only on
rural areas and is therefore based on the data collected from villages in the Central sample
th
only. The main schedules used in the 54 round were schedule 1 on consumer expenditure,
schedule 3.3 on village facilities and common property resources, and schedule 31 which
related to Cultivation Practices and Common Property Resources apart from other heads. For
schedule 31, 16 households were planned to be surveyed in each village and in all 78,990
rural households were surveyed for the study.

The list of census villages of the 1991 population census for each state formed the sampling
frame. From these list of villages, three strata were initially identified by identifying villages
with no population, very small population (range 1 – 50) and very high population (more than
15000). The remaining villages were subsequently considered for the formation of the
general strata. The total All India sample of 5242 villages for the Central sample was
allocated to the different states in proportion to their investigator strength. Whereas for
villages with a very small or no population the sample size allocated ranged between 2 to 6
villages, the number of villages for stratum 3 with high population was either 2 or 4,
depending on whether the number of such villages in the stratum was less than 20 or more.
The remaining sample was allocated to the general strata in each state in proportion to their
population.
For selecting households, all the households of a sample village were first classified into
three strata. These were households engaged in free collection (other than fuelwood and
marine fishing), households possessing land less than 0.40 ha and all the rest formed strata 3.
As mentioned earlier, for schedule 31 a sample of 16 households from each selected village
was surveyed. The 16 households selected from such a sample village, were allocated among
these three household strata in proportion to the number of households in each sampling
frame subject to a minimum allocation of 4,2 and 2 households respectively in strata 1, 2 and
3. The sampled households were selected by circular systematic sampling with random starts
in each stratum.
It becomes fairly obvious from the above brief description of the sampling procedure that the
sampling was done in a comprehensive and unbiased manner, keeping in view the need to
develop a dataset that would accurately reflect the state-level macro picture. It is of interest to
see how far these overall state and all India level estimates on contribution of Common
Property Resources compare with the evidence gathered by micro studies conducted in
different states of India.

Appendix 2: Questionnaire for the survey

34
Foundation of Ecological Security, Anand
Dependence on Common Property Resources
June 2009-May 2010

Location Code: Survey Format Number:

Date of Survey: Name of Investigator:

1. General Information

i. State: ii. District:

iii.Tehsil/Block: iv. Village:
v. Hamlet: vi. Name of the informant
vii.Name of the head of the HH: viii. Name of the Caste:
ix. Social category:
(scheduled tribe-1, scheduled caste-2, other
backward class-3, others-9)
i. Household Details
Household size (No.): Male (No.): Female (No.):
Type of house: Pucca 1, Katcha 2, Semi-pucca 3, Hut 4
BPL family (Yes 1, No 2): Head of HH (Male 1, Female 2):
Physically Challenged (No.): Principal Occupation:
Codes for Principal Occupation--(Agriculture and allied activities 1, agricultural labour 2, Other labour
3, Service 4, Self employed in non agriculture 5, Other 6 Animal Husbandry)
ii. Age, Sex and Working member distribution of HH

Sex Age Group No. Working Members

Male <15
15-60
>60
Female <15
15-60
>60
2. Agriculture
Does the HH own any land (Yes 1, No 2): If yes, type of land (Homestead and agricultural
land: 1, Only homestead: 2) :

Number of parcels:

i. Landholdings Details ( in local units)—

35
 Permanent
Particulars Total area Rainfed Irrigable
fallow
Own land        
Leased/shared in        
Land Without Title        
Leased/shared out        
Operated area (own land+
leased/shared in –        
leased/shared out area)

ii. Cropping Pattern (List out the detail for only 5 major crops)

Quantity
Total Total
sold Price
Area Source of Production income
Crop Crop Irrigated (quintals)- per
(local irrigation (Quintals)- from
Name (code) area if any Unit
units) (Code) if any other the
other init (Rs/Kg)
unit specify crop
specify

  Kharif
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
  Rabi
                 
                 
                 
                 
                 
  Summer
                 
                 
                 

iii. Other Income from Agriculture

Items Annual Income (Rs)

36
Renting of farm equipments

Sale of tree/pods/leaves from own lands

Sale of water

iv. Input Costs

Particulars Kharif (Rs) Rabi (Rs) Summer (rs)

Seeds      
Fertilizers      
Manure purchased      
Irrigation
Hired Labor      
Farm preparations      
Others      
Total expenditure

v. Food Security
a. Do all members of your HH get enough food every day? Yes, every month of
the year-1, Some months of the year-2, No month of the year-3)
b. Which are the months when you and other members of the HH do not get
enough food ? ( Jan-1, Feb-2, Mar-3, Apr-4, May-5, Jun-6, Jul-7, Aug-8, Sep-
9, Oct-10, Nov-11, Dec-12)
c. Has there been an increase or decrease in the number of days that you go
hungry, between 2000 and 2010? Increase-1, Decrease-2, No change-3

d. Reasons for increase/decrease in the no.of days without food?

Reasons for Increase Please Tick Reasons for decrease Please Tick
in No.of Days without in No.of Days without

37
 food food

Improved PDS
Increased crop failures
functioning

Improper functioning More days of

of PDS employment

Rising prices of food Improved production

items on own land

Less money available Availability of more

to meet food edible species in
requirements forest/common lands

Denial of access to
Others
forests/common lands

Decline in edible
produce available in
forest/common lands

Any Others

e. What are the sources of food, in terms of number of months? What is the
status of food availability in 2010, in comparison with 2000? Increased-1,
decreased-2, remained the same-3

38
 Number of months of Increase -1, Decreased-2,
Source of Food
Dependence Remained same-3

Own Sources

Food against work

PDS outlets

Market

Others

f. What are the sources from where different food items are mainly
procured? (please Rank sources in order of priority from 1 to 5)

Common/Forest Others
Types of Food Own Sources PDS Market
Lands

Cereals

Pulses

Fruits

Vegetables

Spices and
Condiments

g. In Comparison with 2000, has there been a change in availability of food

from different sources? (Please Mark Increase -1, Decrease-2, No Change-
3)

Types of Food Own Sources PDS Market Common/Forest Lands Others

Cereals

Pulses

Fruits

Vegetables

Spices and
Condiments

3.LIVESTOCK REARING

39
i. Did the HH own livestock in the previous year (Yes-1; No-2)
ii. If no, did the HH own livestock in the last 10 years? (Yes-1, No-2)
iii. If 1, What are the reasons for giving up keeping of livestock (please rank)?
a. Mass Mortality
b. Lack of HH labor
c. Fodder shortage
d. Water shortage
e. Enclosure and restricted access to CPRs
f. Any Other (please describe)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
iv. For households keeping livestock: Has the number of livestock kept by the household
increased, decreased or remained constant in last ten years? (Increased 1, Decreased
2, Remained constant 3, Highly variable-numbers have fluctuated over the last 10
years- 4)
v. What are the reasons for not keeping any
livestock?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

40
 vi. Livestock Profile

Particulars Number

Total Young Adult In milk Not in

stock (<3 milk
years)
1. Bullocks      
         
2. He buffaloes        

3. She buffaloes        

 Indigenous Cows        
4. Hybred cows        
         

5. Goats        
6.Indigenous Sheep        
7. Hybred sheep
8. Camel        
9. Pigs (scavenging/feeding)
10. Poultry (scavenging/grain-fed      
system)
11. Others (Specify        

vii. Shift in Species of Livestock between 2000 and 2010

Increased-1; Decreased-2, No Change-3

Indigenous Cows
Crossbreed cows
Buffaloes
Sheep
Goats
Camels

41
 viii. Feeding System

a. Grazing details

Number of days Who takes the If 2, who in the % req of total

sent for grazing animal for household takes demand met
grazing (hired them for from Commons
labor 1, HH grazing? (male 1,
M W S M W S
member 2, no female 2,
one 3) children 3)

Draught animals

Cow

Buffalo

Sheep and goats

Camel

b. Quantity of fodder collected from commons? _________(in local units),

____________(in kgs)

Type of Fodder Monsoon (Quantity in Winter (Qty in local Summer (Qty in local
local units) units) units)

Dry Fodder

Green Fodder

42
 ix. Income from Livestock Rearing

Total Quantity and Value of Output From Livestock

Output Milk Eggs Wool Animals Sold By-products Others
Quantit Valu Quantit Valu Quantit Valu Quantit Valu Quantit Valu Quantit Valu
 
y e y e y e y e y e y e
IndigenousCo
                       
ws
Cross-bred
cows
Buffaloes
Cross-bred
buffaloes
Sheep and
                       
Goats
Piggery                        
Poultry and
                       
Duckery
Fishery                        
Other
                       
Livestock
Camels
Total                        

x. Other income from Livestock

Amount (Rs)

Income earned from renting of draught animals

43
 xi. Expenses on Livestock Rearing

Draught
animals Cows and Sheep and Other
  Total
Buffaloes Goats Livestock

Hired Labor Cost        

Veterinary and medical
       
expenses
Dry Fodder purchase        
Quantity        
Value        

Green fodder purchase        

Quantity        
Value        

Concentrates

Quantity

Value

Levies and fees paid for

       
grazing
Lease of grazing land        
Penalties
Others

xii. Migration with Livestock

44
 a. Did you migrate with livestock in the last 10 years? ((Yes 1, No 2)

b. If 1, How many times did you migrate in the last 10 years?

c. What are the type of migration and the location of migration?

Type of Migration Niche

Inter village Forest Agri-stubble
CPRs
Year Long-distance Local
2009
2008
2007
2006

d. Has migration increased or decreased over the last decade? Increased 1,

Decreased 2

e. Why has migration increased/decreased in the last 10 years?

Reasons for Increase in Rank Top 3 Reasons Reasons for Decrease in Rank Top 3 Reasons
Migration of livestock (1,2,3) Migration of Livestock (1,2,3)
Shortage of fodder Hostility from communities
in the destination
Enclosure of CPRs Shortage of fodder in the
other areas
Drought Punitive levies in order to
access grazing areas in
other villages
Reduced availability of Decreased livestock
stubble grazing population
Availability of stubble Better resource condition
grazing in own village
Payment for penning Better institutional
arrangements in own
village
Pasturing in forest lands Alternative sources of
employment
Markets offering better Others 
prices for animals
Others

4.Other economic activities

i. Labour and migration

  Men Women Children

45
Agricultural and other labor
within the village

No.of Members

No.of Days of Work

Average Wage

Remittances in a year (Rs)

NREGA
No.of Members
No.of Days of Work
Average Wage

Migration

No.of Members      

Duration of Migration      
Average wage per day (Rs)

5.Produce from Commons

i. Rank the importance of different sources of domestic fuel (1 to 7)

Fuel Type Fuel Wood Cow Dung LPG Kerosene Bio Gas Crop Others

46
 Residue

Rank

# Source not used to be coded ‘0’

ii. Types and quantity of Fuel

Total
Proportion
Quantit
Type of Fuel of total fuel Monsoons Winter Summer
y (Kgs)
used (%)
in a year
Qty Qty Qty
    (Kgs/day Days (Kgs/day Days (Kgs/day Days  
) ) )
Fuel wood                
Crop Residue                
Dung                

iii. If the HH depends on fuel wood, what are sources of the same?

Fuel wood Cow Dung

Sources of Rank the HH dependence Crop Residue
(proportion from (proportion from
Domestic on Fuel sources 1 – high (proportion from
different sources different sources
Fuel 2- medium 3 - low different sources %)
%) %)

Own farm
lands

Commons

Purchased
from
market

iv. Does the household also sell fuel wood collected from Commons? (Yes 1, No 2):
v. Income earned from the sale of fuel wood in the last year? (in rupees)

vi. NTFPs, MFPs and Other Forest Produce

Products (Codes) No.of Days Who Collects? Quantity Use of Quantity Income
CPR visited (Male 1, Collected Produce (self Sold Earned
for Product Female2, consumption through
collection children 3, -1, for sale-2, sale (Rs)

47
 both males
and females4, Both-3)
All 5)
Bamboo (No.of Poles)        

Tendu (No.of Bundles)        

Mahua      

Other leaves, pods and seeds      

Timber for poles      
Medicinal Plants      
Fruits and Tubers      
Lac
Fencing/Thatching material
Fish
Honey
Others (Please specify)

vii. Common Water Resources

  Monsoon Winter Summer

CPRs (Tanks, Private/Publ CPRs (Tanks, Private/Publ CPRs (Tanks, Private/Publ
Cattle ponds, ic sources Cattle ponds, ic sources Cattle ponds, ic sources
Use
Community (Private Community (Private Community (Private
Wells, wells, tube Wells, wells, tube Wells, wells, tube

48
 wells, Hand wells, Hand wells, Hand
Rivers/Stream Rivers/Stream Rivers/Stream
Pumps, Pumps, Pumps,
s, Springs) s, Springs) s, Springs)
Taps) Taps) Taps)
Domesti
           
c use
Drinking
and            
cooking
Other
domesti            
c uses
Livestoc
           
k
Drinking            
Bathing            

viii. Benefits from CPRs

Traditionally
Managed Unmanaged
managed
Commons Commons
  commons
Fodder availability      
Period of grazing      
Fuel wood availability      
Timber availability      
Water for household consumption      
Water for livestock drinking      
Water for irrigation      
NTFPs Availability      
Others      
       
       
Benefits from CPRs--Improved-1, declined-2, No Difference-3, Can't Say-4

6.Institutional Aspects

i. What are the institutional forums that you are a part of and in what capacity?

In What Capacity?

49
 Institution General Body Executive Body

Gram Panchayat

Van Suraksha Samiti

Village Watershed Committee

Charagah Vikas Samiti

TGCS

Local Traditional Institutions

NGO networks
Political parties
Others

ii. Access to CPRs and its Impact

Type of CPRs Impact on

Impact on
(Codes) Ecological
Livelihoods
Status of
(Improved-
CPRs
Type of CPR Access to Resources 1, Declined-
(Improved-1,
2, No
Declined-2,
Difference-
No
3)
Difference-3)
All Close
Seasona
  Yea d all
l
r Year    
Managed
Commons          
Unmanaged
Commons          
Traditionally
managed
commons          

iii. What is the contribution of your HH to the management and governance of

CPRs?

If Yes, High-1, Medium-2,

Role Yes/No
Low-3
Physical activities on CPRs    

50
Maintenance and repair work    
Protection    
Framing and revising rules    
Monitoring    
Conflict resolution within village    

Conflict resolution with other village    

Deciding on penalties and enforcing them    

Representation in CPR forums at block and district    

levels

Discussions/negotiations with Govt bodies, Forest

Dept, NGOs, etc
   

iv. Participation
a. Are meeting held in village to discuss management and protection of
CPRs? Yes-1, No-2

b. If yes, Do you or any member of the HH attend the meetings?

Regularly 1, Sometimes 2,
Never 3

c. Are the rules and regulations set in place for usage of CPRs followed?
Yes-1, No-2

d. Have you broken any rules and regulations? (Yes 1, No 2)

e. Were you penalized for doing so? (Yes 1, No 2):

f. What was the form of the penalty?

i. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
g. Who enforced the penalties?

51
h. What was the impact on your HH economy and the social status , of
the sanctions and penalties? Please describe

i. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------

i. Were the sanctions imposed when someone else (from the dominant
group) broke the same rules and regulations? (Yes 1, No 2)

52