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

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
Key sub-dimensions
Village
Forest area
Distance from road
Management Initiated by
Kevdi
Proximity to large forest
Far from road head
FD initiated (earlier it was a non-JFM village)
Gamtalav
Medium forest
Near the road
FD initiated
Sakwa
Little distance to main road; connected with motor-able road
NGO initiated

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
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