Forest based livelihood pattern of tribal communities in Assam, India

Journal of Hill Agriculture 8(4): 455-461, October – December, 2017 DOI 10.5958/2230-7338.2017.00089.1

RESEARCH PAPER

Forest based livelihood pattern of tribal communities in Assam, India SANJOY DAS ● AMOD SHARMA ● AK SAHU ● NK PATRA ● AK MAKAR Received: August 6, 2017, Revised: September 28, 2017, Accepted: October 10, 2017

ABSTRACT This study was conducted in Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao districts of Assam to evaluate role of forest resources including non-timber forest products (NTFP) on livelihood of people. Results revealed that dependant villagers got benefits from community resources, i.e. staple food from jhum (shifting) or other forms of cultivation, NTFP (fruits, leaves and vegetables), small timber and medicinal herbs etc. Collection of various forest products in terms of minor and major forest products from various community forest areas as well as from some reserved forest area indicates the importance of forest based livelihood in the districts. Total average annual collection per household recorded as Rs. 15,560/- from different major forest products among the beneficiaries of NERCORMP and the highest from timber. So far NTFP, annual average collection recorded at Rs. 13,252/ per household and bamboo contributed the maximum percentage (33.4%). Cultivated and value added forest products also contributed a section of their income annually among the beneficiaries. Whereas, non-beneficiaries were seen a bit reluctant to come forward for management of their resources. Thus forest resources were seen utilised in various ways for their livelihood management in the study area. KEYWORDS Forest, non-timber forest products, NERCORMP, livelihood, communities, Assam Das Sanjoy1 ● Sharma Amod1 ● Sahu AK1 ● Patra NK2 ● Makar AK3 Deptt of Agricultural Economics, 2Deptt of Agricultural Extension, 3Deptt. of Rural Development and Planning, Nagaland University, SASRD, Medziphema - 797 106, Nagaland, India

1

( )

Sanjoy Das E mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for upland areas (NERCORMP), a livelihood and rural development project funded by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and North Eastern Council, Ministry of Development of North Eastern Region (DoNER), Government of India has appeared as a big intervention for improvement of livelihood pattern in some parts of North Eastern Region during the last part of 20th century. Originally the project was operational in six districts of three North-Eastern states since its’ inception in 1999 viz. (Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao districts (old NC Hill) from Assam; West Khasi Hills and West Garo Hills districts from Meghalaya and Senapati and Ukhrul districts from Manipur). At present, the project is in its third phase and extension of the programme has already been initiated in Arunachal Pradesh and Manipur including two new districts viz. Churachandpur and Chandel from 2014. North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Society (NERCORMS) located at Shillong, Meghalaya is working as regional office as well as the head office and every implementing district has district level society in their respective districts to run the project. The project adopts a holistic development approach with two broad focus areas - social mobilization and capacity building to tap the potential of the communities by employing time-tested traditional value systems. The main thrust area is on income generating activities. Major activities include capacity building of communities, repairing and building of village roads, rural electrification, community-based bio-diversity conservation, natural resource management and communication, convergence with ongoing government schemes and marketing support. NERCORMP project areas of Assam are predominant in terms of availability of forest resources.

456

SANJOY DAS ● AMOD SHARMA ● AK SAHU ● NK PATRA ● AK MAKAR

Forest resources in terms of Community resources provide a good variety of products for livelihood sustenance in the districts. Majority of the population belong to tribal and as a result attachment is more and they live together as community mostly on the basis of community resources available. In both the districts under study, the dependant villagers were seen to get benefits from community resources such as staple food from jhum (shifting) or other forms of cultivation, NTFP like edible fruits, leaves and vegetables, small timber and medicinal herbs. The importance of community resources in Assam and its role on livelihood sustenance was greatly recognised by some studies earlier (Mahanta and Das, 2012). As NERCORMP is a livelihood improvement project through sustainable management of community resources available locally, there may be tremendous change in livelihood pattern after intervention of its activities. Keeping in view all above, the present study was designed to know forest based livelihood changes among the tribal dependent population after project interventions. MATERIAL AND METHODS Study was conducted in Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao districts of Assam, the two implementing districts of NERCORMP. Both the districts show some peculiarity so far the topography, climatic condition, socio-political structure etc. are concerned in comparison to any other district of Assam. Total 144 number of respondents as beneficiary of NERCORMP were selected for final data collection from 32 self help groups (SHGs) and 16 natural resource management groups (NaRMGs) from both the districts. At the same time, 60 non-beneficiaries were also selected from both the districts preferably from adjoining non-project villages that gave the total sample size 204. Primary data were collected through structured schedule during 2014-15 from all the sample respondents. Simple percentage analysis, frequency, mean, index, t-test etc. were calculated in order to get valid conclusions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Community forests for livelihood management The categories of community forest available are utilised for various purposes by the respondent households (Table 1). Among the beneficiary respondents in Karbi Anglong district, 97.2 % reported that they used community forest for fodder collection, 94.4 % viewed that they used for grazing purpose, 100 % respondents used community forests for both NTFP and fuel wood collection and another 55.6 % reported that they used it for other purposes. In Dima Hasao district, 87.5 % reported that they used it for fodder, 61.1 % for grazing, 100.0 % for both NTFP and fuel wood collection and 75 % for other purposes. In totality

out of total respondents, 92.4 % expressed their views that they used community forest for fodder purpose, 77.8 % for grazing purpose, 100 % for collection of NTFP and fuel wood and 65.3 % for other uses. Again among the non-beneficiary respondents, in Karbi Anglong district only 23.3 % respondents viewed that they used community forest for fodder purpose, 16.7 % used as grazing purpose, 36.7 % for each of NTFP and fuel wood collection and 73.3 % used it for other purposes. Similar was the case of Dima Hasao district also, where maximum number of respondents reported that they used community forest for other purposes. Among the non- beneficiary as a whole, 18.3 % viewed that they used it for fodder, 20 % for grazing, 38.3 % for NTFP collection, 36.7 % for fuel wood collection and 76.7 % for other purposes. It can be concluded that because of increased level of awareness after the project, respondents were seen to be involved more in different activities through community resources for their direct and indirect benefits. Meghalaya state also reported positive improvements in livelihood through NERCORMP intervention on management and cultivation of forest products, value addition of existing forest products etc. (Phanbuh et al. 2008). Table 1 Uses of community forest by the respondents District

Karbi Anglong Dima Hasao

Block

Fodder Grazing

New Sangbar Jatinga valley

Sub total

Grand Total Percentage


112 77.8

144 100.00

144 100.00

94 65.3

Non-beneficiary respondents 7 4 6 4 7 0 1 5 7 15 7(23.3) 5(16.7) 11(36.7) 11 (36.7) 22(73.3)

Jatinga valley

Sub total

Any other

31 21 36 36 27 32 23 36 36 27 63(87.5) 44(61.1) 72(100.0) 72(100.0)54(75.0) 133 92.4

New Sangbar

Grand Total Percentage

Fuel wood

Beneficiary respondents 34 34 36 36 22 36 34 36 36 18 70(97.2) 68 (94.4) 72(100.0) 72(100.0)40(55.6)

Chinthong Amri Sub total


NTFP

1 2 8 8 12 3 5 4 3 12 4(13.3) 7(23.3) 12(40.0) 11(36.7) 24(80.0) 11 18.3

12 20.00

23 38.3

22 36.7

46 76.7

Figures in parentheses indicate per cent to total

Forest products collection In Karbi Anglong district, among the beneficiary respondents share of total value, collected from major forest products, was fuel wood (36.8 %), followed by timber (28.5 %), wild edible food (26.2 %), medicinal plants (7.7 %) and others (0.8 %). In the district, the average annual value or income per household came from major forest products altogether stands at

Journal of Hill Agriculture (Volume 8, No. 4, October – December, 2017) Rs. 9126.4/-. The highest individual average annual return came from fuel wood (Rs. 3357.6/-), followed by Rs. 2602.8/- in timber, Rs. 2394.4/- in wild edible food, Rs. 701.4/- in medicinal plants and Rs. 69.4/from others. Dima Hasao district recorded a total collection of Rs. 15,83,600/- from major forest products against Rs. 6,57,100/- of Karbi Anglong district. The average annual collection in Dima Hasao district from major forest products recorded much higher than Karbi Anglong district i.e. Rs. 21,994.4/-. The highest share was contributed by timber (30.3%), followed by wild edible food (25.7 %), fuel wood (17.3 %), medicinal plants (12.9 %) and any other (13.8 %). As a whole in the state, total average annual collection recorded at Rs. 15,560.4/- from major forest products by the respondents and the highest contribution came from timber only. Although, it showed a bit low average annual collection per household in both the districts as compared to beneficiary respondents, yet it is visible that all of them were involved in collection of major forest products from community forest areas. In Karbi Anglong district, the average annual collection was recorded at Rs. 2803.3/- against Rs. 2346.7/- from Dima Hasao district. In both the districts major contribution came from fuel wood (i.e. 46.9 % and 53.3 % respectively for Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao districts) followed by wild edible food (36.3 % and 25.7 %), timber (10.5 % and 13.6 %), medicinal plants (3.9 % and 5.7 %) and others (2.4 % , 1.7 %). As a whole in the state also it showed the same trend for non – beneficiary respondents. Among the beneficiary respondents in Karbi Anglong district, a total of Rs. 10,23,750/- was collected from NTFPs with average annual value of collection of Rs. 14,218.75/- , whereas in Dima Hasao district total annual collection was recorded at Rs. 8,84,570/- with average annual collection of Rs. 12,285.69/- per household. Bamboo contributed the highest share in total value of NTFPs in both the districts (i.e. 40.1 % and 25.7 % respectively). In totality, out of total value under NTFPs, bamboo contributed the highest (33.4 %) followed by broom (15.4 %), stone (14.6 %), wild edible (14.1 %), thatch (13.1 %), honey (8.9 %), any other (0.42 %) and cane (0.03 %). Again among the non-beneficiary respondents, the average annual value of NTFP collected in a particular year recorded as Rs. 1,025.0/- per household in Karbi Anglong district against Rs. 1175/- for Dima Hasao district. Bamboo contributed the maximum share (54.6 %) even higher than the contribution in case of beneficiary respondents. Among the non- beneficiary respondents, after bamboo, honey played significant

457

role (16.1 %) towards total NTFP collection followed by wild edible (10.6 %), broom (9.1 %), thatch (7.6 %) and any other (2.1 %). In addition to various major as well as minor forest products (NTFP), some other cultivated forest products also significantly contributed towards livelihood management in project areas. Cultivated forest products include a variety of crops (agriculture, horticulture, plantation and forest trees) that are cultivated by the households in their owned/community land. In Karbi Anglong district, among the beneficiary respondents a total value of production from cultivated forest products recorded as Rs. 19,96,500/- in an area of 27.36 ha, which indicated an average value of production per household as Rs. 27,729/- with average area per household being 0.38 ha (Table 4). In Dima Hasao district, value of production from cultivated forest products recorded much higher of Rs. 55,41,600/- with an area of 61.7 ha that indicated average value of production per household of Rs. 76,967/- with average area per household being 0.86 ha. As a whole average value of production per household from cultivated forest products recorded as Rs. 52,348/- with average area per household being 0.62 ha. Among non-beneficiary respondents in Karbi Anglong district total value of production from cultivated forest products recorded as low as Rs. 1,28,700/- with average value of production per household being Rs. 4290/- only with average area per household being 0.11 ha. In Dima Hasao district, average value of production per household remained much lower than Karbi Anglong district i.e. Rs. 2577/. As a whole among the non beneficiary respondents average value of production per household from cultivated forest products remained as Rs. 3433/-. Among the beneficiary respondents in Karbi Anglong district, more than 66 % respondents worked for value addition (Table 5) with bamboo, followed by handicraft products (55.6 %). A total of Rs. 3,34,000/with an average annual value of Rs. 4638.9/- per household was collected through value added forest products against a much higher value of total value added forest products of Rs. 5,98,500/- for Dima Hasao district. The average annual value was recorded as Rs. 8312.5/- per household in Dima Hasao district from value added forest products. In totality a sum of Rs. 6475.7/- per household per year came from value added forest products. The most common value added forest products were bamboo (53.8 %) followed by handicraft (42.4 %). So far, the non-beneficiary respondents are concerned, no one was found to be involved in practising the value added forest products.

458


Table 2 Status of major forest products collected by the respondent households from community forests (in Rs) Block

Karbi Anglong

Chinthong Amri Sub total Average New Sangbar Jatinga Valley Sub total Average

135750 106000 241750 (36.8) 3357.6 129000 144500 273500 (17.3) 3798.6 515300 (23.0) 3578.47

Beneficiary respondents 172200 129900 15200 42500 187400 (28.5) 172400 (26.2) 2602.8 2394.4 204100 198900 275400 208200 479500 (30.3) 407100 (25.7) 6659.7 5654.2 666900 (29.8) 579500 (25.8) 4631.25 4024.31

Chinthong Amri Sub total Average New Sangbar Jatinga Valley Sub total

20000 19500 39500 (46.9) 1316.7 17000 20500 37500 (53.3) 1250.0 77000 (49.8) 1283.33

Non-beneficiary respondents 5600 12700 3200 17800 8800 (10.5) 30500 (36.3) 293.3 1016.7 7200 9000 2400 9100 9600 18100 (13.6) (25.7) 320.0 603.3 18400 (11.9) 48600 (31.5) 306.67 810.00

Dima Hasao

Fuel wood

Grand Total Average

Karbi Anglong

Dima Hasao

Average Grand Total Average

Timber

Wild edible food Medicinal plants

District

Any other

Total value

33000 17500 50500 (7.7) 701.4 118500 86000 204500 (12.9) 2840.3 255000 (11.4) 1770.83

0 5000 5000 (0.8) 69.4 190000 29000 219000 (13.8) 3041.7 224000 (10.0) 1555.56

470900 186200 657100 (100.0) 9126.4 840500 743100 1583600 (100.0) 21994.4 2240700 (100.0) 15560.42

2800 500 3300 (3.9) 110.0 2000 2000 4000 (5.7) 133.3 7300 (4.7) 121.67

1200 800 2000 (2.4) 66.7 1200 0.00 1200 (1.7) 40.0 3200 (2.1) 53.33

42300 41800 84100 (100.0) 2803.3 36400 34000 70400 (100.0) 2346.7 154500 (100.0) 2575.00

Table 3 Status of NTFP collection by the respondent households from community forests (Values in Rs.) District

Block

Broom

Cane

Honey

Karbi Anglong


126700 37950 164650 (16.1)

0 0 0 (0.0)

New Sangbar Dima Hasao Jatinga Valley Sub total

13700 116070 129770 (14.7)

Grand Total

294420 (15.4)

Karbi Anglong

Dima Hasao

Grand Total

Bamboo

Stone

Thatch

Wild edible

Any other

Total value

Average

Beneficiary respondents 16000 309200 109000 60600 101600 12000 76600 410800 121000 (7.5) (40.1) (11.8)

151500 28000 179500 (17.6)

59700 11500 71200 (6.9)

0 0 0 (0.0)

772100 251650 1023750 (100.0)

21447.22 6990.278 14218.75

600 0 600 (0.07)

48800 44800 93600 (10.6)

104100 123100 227200 (25.7)

60000 97500 157500 (17.8)

11000 59900 70900 (8.0)

95000 4000 102000 4000 197000 8000 (22.3) (0.90)

337200 547370 884570 (100.0)

9366.667 15204.72 12285.69

600 (0.03)

170200 (8.9)

638000 (33.4)

278500 (14.6)

250400 (13.1)

268200 8000 (14.1) (0.42)

1908320 (100.0)

13252.22

0 (0.0)

Non-beneficiary respondents 3600 9200 1600 4400 5200 13600 0 (16.9) (44.2) (0.0)

1500 2000 3500 (11.4)

2700 1500 4200 (13.7)

500 400 900 (2.9)

19550 11200 30750 (100.0)

1303.33 746.67 1025.00

1450 1200 2650 (7.5)

0 (0.0)

2400 3000 5400 (15.3)

11400 11000 22400 (63.5)

0 (0.0)

500 1000 1500 (4.3)

1800 1000 2800 (4.9)

500 500 (1.4)

17550 17700 35250 (100.0)

1170.00 1180.00 1175.00

6000 (9.1)

0 (0.0)

10600 (16.1)

36000 (54.6)

0 (0.0)

5000 (7.6)

7000 (10.6)

1400 (2.1)

66000 (100.0)

1100.00


2050 1300 3350 (10.9)

New Sangbar Jatinga Valley Sub total

The change of livelihood pattern was studied more specifically by considering 6 different types assets/capital that are acquired by the respondents. The six different types of assets that were considered in the present study are human asset, physical asset, social asset, natural asset, financial asset, food security asset

and on the basis of this finally overall asset creation was studied. Human asset before project starts stood at 53.15 % that increased to 72.2 % after the project intervention with t-value of 56.59 that was significant at 1 % level (Table 6). Similarly, physical asset, natural asset, social asset, food security asset and over

Journal of Hill Agriculture (Volume 8, No. 4, October – December, 2017) all asset also increased after the project, of course natural asset found to be non-significant. On the other hand, financial asset creation was found negative after the project (65.3 % before project starts to 59.72 % after project intervention). As financial asset includes two different components viz. saving and debt of the respondents together, it became negative. In one way saving increased in case of most of the respondents after intervention of project and in the other way debt decreased (positive in nature), that resulted a negative impact on financial asset. Table 4 Status of cultivated forest product by the respondents District

Block

Karbi Anglong


Average Area under Value of Average cultivated production area (ha)/ value of (in Rs.) household production/ forest products household (ha) (Rs.) Beneficiary respondents 14.6 994500 12.76 1002000 27.36 1996500

Dima Hasao New Sangbar Jatinga Valley Sub total Grand total

Karbi Anglong


34.2 27.5 61.7 89.06

2858300 2683300 5541600 7538100

Non-beneficiary respondent 1.53 78700 1.63 50000 3.17 128700

Dima Hasao New Sangbar Jatinga Valley Sub total Grand total

1.37 1.17 2.53 5.70

41500 35800 77300 206000

0.41 0.35 0.38

27625 27833 27729

0.95 0.76 0.86 0.62

79397 74536 76967 52348

0.10 0.11 0.11

5247 3333 4290

0.09 0.08 0.08 0.10

2767 2387 2577 3433

459

It can be concluded that after intervention of NERCORMP, people were more aware about extraction/utilisation of resources that led to significant increase of asset viz. human asset, physical asset, social asset and food security asset and finally a significant increase of overall asset position for respondent beneficiaries. In a similar study at Karnataka reported the increase in overall capital acquisition index in Bellary and Bijapur districts in Karnataka Watershed Development project beneficiaries that was significant at 1 % level (Biradar et al. 2011, Swain 2015). There was a report of positive impact of MGNREGA on creation of some important assets among the beneficiaries in the State of Madhya Pradesh. (Rebecca et al. 2011). It was also reported again the development of components of human capital through provision of micro finance programme in Andhra Pradesh (Sharma 2004). In Karbi Anglong district, among the beneficiary respondents maximum number of respondents (76.4 %) reported that conservation and management of forest and other natural resources (Table 7) in district was done by a group formed by village head followed by village head alone (16.7 %). On the other hand, 6.9 % reported that there was no such system for conservation and management of natural resources in the villages. Joint Forest Management Groups were also not visible as per the response of the respondents. Similarly, in Dima Hasao District also, maximum number of respondents (63.9 %) reported that it was managed by a group formed by village head followed by 26.4 % by village head alone.

Table 5 Status of value added forest product by the respondents District

Block

Karbi Anglong


Dima Hasao

New Sangbar Jatinga Valley Sub total

Total

No. of Value in Number of (Rs.) respondents respondents working working with with cane products bamboo products

Value in Number of Value Number of Value Total value Average value (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)/household respondents in(Rs.) respondents in (Rs.) working working with with handicraft preparation products of basket

Beneficiary respondents 0 1 0 0 0 (0.0) 1 (1.4)

2000 0 2000 (0.6)

15 25 40 (55.6)

59000 96000 155000 (46.4)

138000 196000 334000 (100.0)

3833.33 5444.44 4638.9

5 4

15000 13000

21 28

109000 131500

301000 297500

8361.11 8263.89

5000 (0.84)

9 (12.5)

28000 (4.7)

49 (68.1)

240500 (40.2)

598500 (100.0)

8312.5

5000 (0.54)

9 (6.3)

28000 (3.0)

89 (61.8)

395500 (42.4)

932500 (100.0)

6475.7

0

0

0

0

23 25 48 (66.7)

77000 100000 177000 (53.0)

0 0 0 (0.0)

34 32

172000 153000

3 0

5000 0

66 (91.7)

325000 (54.3)

3 (4.2)

114 (79.2)

502000 (53.8)

3 (2.1)

0

0

0

Non-beneficiary respondents 0 0

0

460


Whereas, 9.7 % respondents viewed that there was no such system for conservation and management of forest resources. As a whole, 70.2 % respondents among beneficiary respondents opined that, forest and other natural resources were managed by a group formed by village head, followed by 21.5 % as village head. Joint Forest management Group was not visible at all, against 8.3 % viewed that there was no such system for conservation and management of forest resources. Table 6 Overall livelihood pattern after NERCORMP intervention Different types of asset (index %) Human asset Physical asset Natural asset

Before Mean SEM 53.15 0.166 51.74 0.253 0.256 52.82

Mean After Mean SEM 72.22 0.384 56.59** 56.7 0.91 5.18** NS 53.47 0.663 0.889 72.74 0.399 41.11** 59.72 0.332 -9.61** 59.29 0.494 11.95**

Social asset 52.98 0.235 Financial asset 65.3 0.647 Food security 52.29 0.278 asset Overall asset 54.71 0.157 62.36 0.242 29.75** ** - significant at 1 % level, NS – non significant

Table 7 Conservation and management of forest and other natural resources by the respondents District

Karbi Anglong

Block


By village By a group By JFMG No head formed by system village head Beneficiary respondents 5 29 7 26 12(16.7) 55(76.4)

0 0 0 (0.0)

2 3 5(6.9)

0 0 0(0.0) 0(0.0)

4 3 7(9.7) 12(8.3)

Non- Beneficiary respondents Chinthong 2 1 Amri 3 1 Sub total 5(16.7) 2(6.7)

0 0 0(0.0)

12 11 23(76.6)

New Sangbar Jatinga valley Sub total

New Sangbar Jatinga valley Sub total Grand Total Dima Hasao


Grand Total

11 8 19(26.4) 31(21.5)

21 25 46(63.9) 101(70.2)

1 2 3(10.0)

2 0 2(6.7)

0 0 0(0.0)

12 13 25(83.3)

8(13.3)

4(6.7)

0(0.0)

48(80.0)

Figures in parentheses indicate per cent to total

Whereas among the non-beneficiary respondents, 76.6 % and 83.3 % of the respondents respectively for Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao districts reported that there was no system for conservation and management of natural resources in their villages. Among the non-beneficiary respondents, 16.7 % and 10.0 % respectively for Karbi Anglong and Dima Hasao districts reported that the management of forest and other natural resources was done by village head against 6.7 % as a group formed by village head

for both the districts. As a whole, 80 % reported no system for management and conservation of forest and other natural resources against 13.3 % (by village head) and 6.7 % (by a group formed by village head) among the non-beneficiary respondents. It can be stated that after intervention of NERCORMP, people were more aware about the importance of conservation and management of community resources. As a result people came out and under the leadership of village head groups were formed for proper conservation and management of these resources. CONCLUSION Forest resources are being utilised in various ways for livelihood management in the study areas. It can be concluded that because of increased level of awareness after the project, respondents were seen to be involved more in different activities through community resources for their direct and indirect benefits. It can also be stated that because of intervention of NERCORMP, forest dwelling population from both the districts had increased their income from community/reserved forest areas in terms of collection as major forest products, minor forest products, cultivated forest products and value added forest products. Not only that, after intervention of NERCORMP, people were more aware about extraction/utilisation of resources that led to significant increase of asset level viz. human asset, physical asset, social asset and food security asset and finally a significant increase of overall asset position for respondent beneficiaries. At the same time the management and conservation of community/forest resources was done through mostly by a group formed by the village head. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Authors are thankful to the institute for providing all kinds of support for the study. REFERENCES Baruah A, Hazarika A 2011. Sustainable Development in the North East India – A Case of NERCORMP Documentation of Best Practice. OneWorld Foundation India, New Delhi, pp 7-8. http://indiagovernance.gov.in/files/NERCORMP_ Final.pdf. Biradar BN, Manjunath L, Yadav VS 2011. Impact of income generating activities on rural livelihoods of KAWAD project beneficiaries. Agriculture Update 6(3,4): 182-184. Mahanta R, Das D 2012. Common property resources degradation and migration - a case study of

Journal of Hill Agriculture (Volume 8, No. 4, October – December, 2017) Assam. Journal of Human Ecology 38(3): 223230. Phanbuh S, Albano A, Darlong V 2008. Forest – Based Interventions of NERCORMP in Meghalaya, India, NERCORMP, IFAD, Shillong. pp1-2. Rebecca Holmes, Nidhi Sadana, Saswatee Rath 2011. An opportunity for change? Gender analysis of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. http://indiagovernance.gov.

461

in/files/ gender-analysis-MGNREGA.pdf. Accessed on 12.06.17. Sharma EAS 2004. Is rural economy breaking down? – Farmer’s suicides in Andhra Pradesh, Economic and Political Weekly. July 10, 2004, pp 30873089. Swain SK 2015. Impact of poverty alleviation programmes on socio-economic development of rural poor of Odisha – a statistical analysis. Journal of Rural Development 34(2): 187 – 213.