Published by

North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for

Upland Areas
(IFAD & Govt of India)
Shillong
2008

ii

Foreword
The study on Increasing Benefits from Forests was initiated towards the end of 2005 to
know, classify and understand the various forest based interventions of the North Eastern
Region Community Resource Management Project for Upland Areas (NERCORMP). The
project is funded by International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and Govt of
India (hence popularly acronymned as NERCORMP-IFAD) for NRM based livelihoods
improvement for the vulnerable groups. The Project is working since 1999 in six districts of
Northeast India; however, the present study is confined only in two districts, viz. West Khasi
Hills and West Garo Hills in Meghalaya.
This book is a compilation of the study conducted, and the observations of how the project
intervened using the bottom up approach from planning to execution. The learning through
this study has also been enlisted in this book taking into account from various perspectives
of the community, why forest based interventions were chosen or not chosen and what can
be done to create a conservation and economic model.

The book is the culmination of the partnership study programme of NERCORMP-IFAD and
CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia. We would like to express our appreciation to CIFOR for choosing
NERCORMP for this study, as well as for the financial and technical support for this study.
The study has highlighted not just the achievements of NERCORMP, but also the various
limitations that a project of this nature could encounter during its short phase of project life.
It has been a tremendous learning process for NERCORMP in particular.

I hope the research findings as reflected in this compilation would be useful to all those who
plan, promote and coordinate similar type of development interventions in the upland areas
of Northeast India, as well as in other upland communities of greater Eastern Himalayas
and South East Asia. I would also like to commend the team who had done the study under
the overall guidance and supervision of scientists from CIFOR, particularly Dr. Brian
Belcher and Mr. Chetan Kumar, to whom we express our gratitude.

K. Moses Chalai, IAS

Programme Coordinatory &
Development Strategist
NERCORMP-IFAD, Shillong

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We are very much indebted to a number of people who have been involved in this
work. We would like to express our gratitude to Mr. K. Moses Chalai IAS, PCDS,
NERCORMP-IFAD for his encouragements and support for the present study. We
are also thankful to all the sector heads and staff of NERCORMP-IFAD particularly
to Mr. Adrian Marbaniang, MEO for support in completing the present study.

Our gratitude to the DSTs of Khawkylla Community Resource Management Society

(KCRMS), Nongstoin, West Khasi Hills and West Garo Hills Community Resource
Management Society (WGHCRMS), Tura for their support in providing necessary
information and documents from the districts and also for their assistance during the
field works. In particular we would like to thank Mr. James Kharkongor, PM; Mr.
Iboyaima Meitei, PTO; Mr. Bor Saiborne, NRMO from KCRMS, and Mr. Daniel
Ingty, PM; Mr. Senti Jamir, PTO; Mr. Vasant Marak, NRMO from the WGHCRMS.
Members of the various partner NGOs, NaRMGs and SHGs and village elders of
the communities chosen for the study have always given us support to whom we
are also gratefully indebted.
Our team involved in data collection have travelled widely and in difficult situations.
Thank you to Neuw, Vicky, Manosha, Claystone, Dona, Romy and Akai for your
support.
Above all we wish to thank the Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
for the financial grants for this study. The technical and research guidance provided
by Dr Brian Belcher, Principal Scientist, CIFOR and Mr Chetan Kumar, Project
Coordinator for this study from CIFOR throughout the study period is also gratefully
acknowledged.

Saihunlang Phanbuh
Adrian Albano
Vincent Darlong

iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Northeastern Region Community Resource Management Programme (NERCORMP)
has been widely recognized for its role in facilitating development initiatives in many poorest
and remotest villages in the Northeastern Region of India. This study tried to highlight the
impact on the livelihoods of the people, brought about by NERCORMPs forest-based
linterventions for the purpose of drawing lessons to further improve the benefits that people
derive from forests.
The study aimed to know if, and how, the forest-based interventions by NERCORMP had
improved the livelihoods of the people. The specific objectives of the study includes
understanding the livelihood contexts of the selected villages, documenting the project
interventions, identifying the changes in livelihoods and analyzing the processes of change
from which lessons and recommendations are derived. The study was conducted in the two
districts of Meghalaya which were included under NERCORMP - West Khasi Hills and West
Garo Hills. Eighteen villages were selected in each district for focus group discussion and
village survey. Households that invested in forest-based livelihoods were identified and
interviewed.
The study shows that economic activities in the villages are generally limited to primary
production of livestock and crops for subsistence, with limited commercialization. Various
and reinforcing actors are attributed to such limited economic activities such as their
remoteness, the general lack of infrastructure and public services, and traditions that
directly and indirectly discourage commercialization. Forest-based enterprise activities are
further restricted by village forest rules that prohibit harvesting of forest products for sale
and by regulatory restrictions at the higher policy level.
NERCORMP intervened in these villages through a bottom-up strategy, highly based on the
priorities of the villagers resulting to highly diverse although interrelated activities. Based on
the list of activities supported by the project, it was observed that interventions directed at
forest-based livelihoods were limited. Some of the reasons identified include the restrictions
on trade of forest products by village rules or government regulations; the communal
ownership and open access to forest which gives no incentives for households to plant
trees or other forest products; and generally the higher profitability of, and faster returns,
from other income generating activities such as livestock and annual crop production as
compared to most forest-based enterprises.
Despite limitations in investment in forest-based livelihoods, there was significant number of
villages and households that practiced forest-based activities such as improvement in the
management of forest, cultivation of forest products and value-addition of existing forest
products. Most of these activities were made possible through project intervention at the
organizational and external level, facilitating with line agencies, land owners, NGOs, and
traders. These interventions have resulted to positive improvements in livelihoods of the
households. More visible impacts include increase in income from value-added handicrafts,
increased bargaining power of producers with traders and increased area cultivated to
particular forest products. As for collected forest products, many villages stated the

increased availability of some forest products, and a decreased availability of others

particularly fuelwood and timber. This decrease, however, is mostly attributed to increase in
people collecting them.
From the above experience of NERCORMP on forest-based interventions, various lessons
were identified. Regarding the context of forest-based livelihoods, it is important to note the
diversity of forest-based livelihoods. Improving them implies targeting their specific
constraints as well as identifying which ones to be prioritized for support. In addition, it was
shown that many forest-based enterprises in particular face additional constraints, which,
partly, explains why investments into forest-based enterprises were limited. Encouraging
investment in forest-based livelihoods, particularly on products collected from the wild may
need additional incentives and support. On one hand it is important to note that village
forest institutions are strong, particularly on communal forests. Interventions need to
recognize and work along with these forest institutions. On the other hand, it was also
shown that these forest institutions are diverse; and thus, requires flexibility in the approach
or designs to cater to these diversities. The project has various important and effective
practices to improve forest-based livelihoods such the clarification of forest management
institutions and the establishment and capacity building of NaRMGs and SHGs; securing
land tenure of the people; and supporting partnership with existing organizations like banks,
private sector, and other government line agencies.
The recommendations suggest a direction for interventions at various levels from policy to
enterprise level, basically trying to replicate the effective practices of the project, with
suggestions to further improve them. Generally, interventions should be directed at
reforming the restrictive forest rules, clarifying (i.e. documenting, formalizing) village forest
institutions, organizing forest enterprises and entrepreneurs, promoting value-addition of
forest products, encouraging specialization, and diversification to other forest products and
sources of income from forests.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................................ix
ACRONYMS..........................................................................................................................ix
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1
Background .............................................................................................................. 1
1.2
Objectives................................................................................................................. 1
2. RESEARCH CONCEPTS AND METHODS ............................................................. 2
2.1
Changes in livelihood due to interventions.............................................................. 2
2.2
Research methods..................................................................................................... 2
2.2.1
Research design and data collection ......................................................... 2
2.2.2
Research analysis ......................................................................................... 3
3. LIVELIHOOD CONTEXT ............................................................................................. 5
3.1
Background of the study location ............................................................................ 5
3.1.1
State profile .................................................................................................... 5
3.1.2
District profiles ............................................................................................... 7
3.1.3
Village profiles................................................................................................ 7
3.2
Primary production activities: sources of food and income..................................... 8
3.2.1
Livestock production ..................................................................................... 8
3.2.2
Crop production ........................................................................................... 10
3.3
Forest-based livelihoods......................................................................................... 11
3.3.1
Collected forest products ........................................................................... 12
3.3.2
Cultivated forest products .......................................................................... 14
3.3.3
Processed forest products ......................................................................... 15
3.4
Other sources of food and income ......................................................................... 16
4. PROJECT INTERVENTIONS ................................................................................... 17
4.1
Overview of project interventions.......................................................................... 17
4.2
Forest-based interventions/investments ................................................................. 20
4.2.1
Description of the forest-based interventions ......................................... 22
4.2.2
Forest-based interventions of selected villages ..................................... 23
5. LIVELIHOOD CHANGES........................................................................................... 26
5.1
Changes to forest based livelihoods....................................................................... 26
5.1.1
Collected forest products ........................................................................... 26
5.1.2
Cultivated forest products .......................................................................... 28
5.1.3
Processed/value-added forest products .................................................. 29
5.2
General changes in livelihoods .............................................................................. 30
Table 16: Villagers assessment of changes in assets over the past 5 years. ......................... 31
5.3
Limiting factors to interventions/ investments in forest-based livelihoods ........... 32
5.3.1
Enterprises from forest products collected from the wild ...................... 32
5.3.2
Cultivation of forest products ..................................................................... 32
5.3.3
Processing/adding value to forest products, including marketing ....... 33
5.3.4
General limitations in investing in forest products.................................. 33

vii

6. LESSONS LEARNED: CONTEXTS AND CONSTRAINTS, AND

INTERVENTIONS ............................................................................................................... 34
6.1.1
Forest-based livelihood context ................................................................ 34
6.2
Forest-based interventions ............................................................................ 34
6.3
Emerging issues and challenges............................................................................. 36
6.3.1
Community institution building (CIB) ........................................................ 36
6.3.2
Income generating activities (IGAs) ......................................................... 38
6.3.3
Other issues ................................................................................................. 39
7. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 41
8. RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................. 42
8.1. Direction of interventions: towards forest enterprise development ....................... 42
8.2
Specific strategies and practices and specific recommendations........................... 43
8.3
Possible starting points for different stakeholders ................................................. 45
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 48

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Title
District profiles of West Khasi and West Garo Hills
Livestock production in West Khasi and West Garo
List of crops produced in the selected villages
Common annual crops produced in the selected villages
Collected forest products in the selected villages
Common perennial crops cultivated in the selected villages
Value-added forest products in selected villages
List of project interventions in the two districts, by project component
Selected villages and their forest-based interventions
Project interventions or village/household investments on forest-based
livelihoods
Changes in collected forest products, village level
Changes in major collected forest products, household level
Changes in cultivated forest products, village level
Changes in cultivated forest products, household level
Changes in major processed forest products, household level
Villagers assessment of changes in assets over the past 5 years.
Direction of interventions, replicable practices, and further
recommendations
Possible roles of different stakeholders

LIST OF FIGURES
Table #
1
2
3

Title
Analytical framework
Process of interventions
Summary of project investments, as of 2005

ACRONYMS
ADCs
CBO
CIB
CIFOR
IGA
IFAD
MEO
MLA
NABARD
NaRMG
NEC
NER
NERCORMP
NRM
NRMO

Autonomous District Councils

Community-based organization
Community institution building
Centre for International Forestry Research
Income generating activities
International Fund for Agricultural Development
Monitoring and Evaluation Officer
Meghalaya Legislative Assembly
National Bank for Rural Development
Natural resource management group
Northeastern Council
Northeast Region
North Eastern Region Community Resource Management Project for
Upland Areas
Natural resources management
Natural Resource Management Organizer

ix

NTFPs
PCDS
PM
PTO
SHG
WGH
WKH

Non-timber forest products

Programme Coordinator and Development Strategist
Project Manager
Project Technical Officer
Self-help groups
West Garo Hills
West Kasi Hills

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1
Background
The Northeastern Region of India (NER) is characterized by rich and abundant natural
resources (i.e., thick and biodiverse forests, vast land, rich mineral reserves) but
marked with high level of poverty (Saxena 2002). This contrast indicates that many of
the poor people in the region depend primarily on the exploitation of these natural
resources for their livelihood. With their increasing integration with the market economy
and their increasing need for cash income, the people have limited option but to exploit
these resources to generate income. Natural resources are, however, prone to
degradation especially given the exploitation practices without necessary mechanisms
for resources regeneration. Such is the case in the region which was considered as one
of the two areas in the Indian sub-continent to be classified as an ecological `hot spot.
Given this context, various interventions have been directed at resolving both problems
of poverty and natural resource degradation in this region.
One of these interventions is the Northeastern Region Community Resource
Management Project (NERCORMP) established with the aim to improve the livelihoods
of vulnerable groups in a sustainable manner through improved management of their
natural resource base. It is funded through an IFAD loan with counterpart funding from
the Northeastern Council (NEC) of the Government of India. Its implementation started
in 1999 covering five states of NER. Since the NERCORMP has then been widely
recognized in the region for its role in facilitating development initiatives in many of the
poorest and remotest villages. With the project drawing to a close, significant lessons
can be learned for the purpose of improving the Programme or other similar initiatives
aiming at improving the benefits that the poor get from forests.
1.2
Objectives
This study aims to draw lessons from the experiences of NERCORMP in improving the
livelihoods of the people, particularly in improving the benefits that people derive from
their forests. It is part of a larger research project funded by IFAD as a technical
assistance grant (TAG) to CIFOR to generate knowledge in supporting poverty
alleviation initiatives in forest communities where IFAD has similar initiatives including
the NER and other forest communities in Asia. It generally tries to know if, and how,
forest-based interventions by the project resulted in the improvement in the livelihoods
of the people. Its specific objectives are to:

describe the context of forest- and natural-resources-livelihoods in the study area;

document and classify the main kinds of interventions implemented by

NERCORMP, with emphasis on forest- and NRM- based approaches;

identify and analyze the changes in the forest-based livelihoods of the people
brought by the project interventions;
assess the most important/promising approaches for improving the livelihoods of
different socio-economic classes of people in the study area; and

draw lessons and recommendations for more effective forest- and NRM-based
policy- and project- interventions to improve livelihood of the poor.

2.

RESEARCH CONCEPTS AND METHODS

2.1
Changes in livelihood due to interventions
Identifying livelihood changes due to project intervention basically involves comparing
livelihood status before and after the project intervention and identifying which changes
were brought about by particular interventions. Implementing both steps, however, is
not easy due to the complex nature of livelihoods and interventions. Livelihoods is
complex in the sense that the indicators of its status cannot be captured using a simple
set of variables or a single value system. In the same way, interventions are complex
because they are increasingly becoming integrated, aiming multiple objectives, and
involving various actors from various sectors and at different levels (e.g., international,
national, local) of intervention.
These complexities of livelihoods and interventions require interdisciplinary tools that
would try to incorporate different perspectives to better identify changes in livelihoods
and better understand the processes resulting to such changes. An increasingly popular
analytical model that enables such multiple perspectives is the use of the sustainable
livelihoods framework (SLF). The SLF conceptualizes livelihoods or the means of
gaining a living to be comprised of various factors and processes that influence the
access of people to different livelihood assets that they need to conduct their livelihood
strategies to meet their various needs (Carney 1998; DFID 1999). This
conceptualization has significant implications in tracking changes in livelihoods,
particularly in setting indicators of change. These indicators include access and
availability of different assets/capital, which could further be translated into specific
indicators for each assets varying at different levels or focus of analysis (e.g. household,
village, interest groups such as traders and landowners). The use of SLF provides an
integrated overview of the processes leading to achieving long-term livelihood
objectives; thereby, implying a continuous analysis of causality that asks whether a
change in access, income, volume of production, etc. contributed to realizing what the
people want to achieve in the long run. However, using SLF can equally be limited by its
complexity where its more integrated perspective of livelihoods can itself be a
constraint particularly in terms of data collection and analysis. In using SLF,
practitioners suggest limiting the analysis according to specific objective of the exercise
and of course the availability of data or the resources (e.g. money, time) to collect and
analyze data. The primary aim of this study is to draw lessons learned from the
experience of NERCORMP in improving the benefits that people draw from their forest
resources. Therefore, our analysis focuses forest-based livelihoods including their
status, the interventions that were directed at them, and the resulting changes.
2.2

Research methods

2.2.1 Research design and data collection

The study was conducted in the districts of West Khasi Hills (WKH) and West Garo Hills
(WGH), the two districts of Meghalaya covered by the NERCORMP. The study was

started with understanding the context of forest-based livelihoods in the State and
interventions by the project through consultation with NERCORMP staff and review of
existing literature and project documents. The literature review reveals information on
livelihood context to be very limited both at the district and village level. The
identification of forest-based interventions by the project is constrained by the limited
details of such interventions by the project. These interventions vary from one village to
another, depending on what the people selected. Given our focus on forest-based
livelihoods, we tried to select villages that had chosen to invest in forest-based
livelihoods at least based on the available consolidated community management plans
at the district offices.
Although the consolidated community management plans provide limited details on the
interventions, they were useful in identifying villages that invested in forest-based
livelihoods. We selected villages that implemented one or more of the following
interventions directed at improving the productivity of forest products: a) improving the
management of forest resources such as the adoption of community forest reserves by
the NaRMGs; b) cultivation of forest products such as fruit trees; c) value addition or
processing of forest products such as bamboo agarbatti sticks, baskets, and other
handicrafts; and any infrastructure and marketing interventions such as erection of
product collection centers or storage facilities, and contract growing of forest products1.
Based on an initial list of villages that implemented one or more of the above sets of
interventions, we randomly selected 18 villages from each district, adding up to a total of
thirty two selected villages. Village level data collection was done through a focus group
discussion, with key officers of the village NaRMGs and SHGs; a representative of the
local NGO in charge of the village and the village teacher. Households that invested or
were involved in forest-based livelihoods were identified and selected purposively for
interview using a household questionnaire. In each district, four local speaking
enumerators - two male and two female - were hired. The field work was conducted
from the late December 2006 until February 2007.
2.2.2 Research analysis
Given the complexities of livelihoods as well as the project interventions, separate
analyses of the livelihoods components and interventions were done inorder to identify
and understand the livelihood changes due to interventions. To understand the
livelihood context, we assessed the status of the livelihood components, particularly the
status of the various assets, with separate indicators at various levels (i.e., State,
district, village), and with particular emphasis on financial (economic) and natural capital
were assessed Forest based interventions were identified with the help of a diagram to
illustrate the process of these interventions that directly targeted forest based
livelihoods. The changes in livelihood components were evaluated mostly through
1

This set of forest intervention classification may not necessarily capture all the project interventions directed to
forest livelihoods but it serves our purpose of selecting different cases and lessons using available data from the
community management plan (CMP). Interventions that developed later after the preparation of the CMP such as
securing access to land, trainings, and various institutional capacity building activities were not recorded in the CMP
but were later included in the analysis.

qualitative indicators because there were hardly any available baseline data. Given
certain indicators, the villagers and households were asked whether the quality or
quantity of these assets has increased or decreased (improved or deteriorated), or has
remained the same. We then looked at the processes leading to such changes by
looking at the set of interventions that directly and indirectly lead to such changes how
particular interventions are important and at the same time, how they complement each
other. Based on the analysis of the process of change, we identified the various factors
and processes that were crucial in improving (or not improving) the benefits from
forests; thus, coming up with with recommendations to further improve forest-based
livelihoods.
The process of analysis is summarized in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Analytical framework

Direction of analysis
Study
objectives

Livelihoo
d context

Forest-based
interventions

Changes in
forestbased
livelihoods

Lessons
learned

Recommendatio
ns

Major
questions

Given the
livelihood
context in the
selected
villages, what
were the
interventions
directed at
forest-based
livelihoods?

What
were the
changes in
forest-based
livelihoods?

How have
such changes
resulted due
to the
interventions?

What are
the effective
practices of
the project ,
and the
limiting
factors in
improving
forest-based
livelihoods?

Interventions
targeting wildly
collected,
cultivated, and
processed forest
products

Change
indicators at
village,
household,
and forest
enterprise
levels

Lessons by
type and
stages of
forest
enterprises

Recommendations
at different stages
of forest-enterprise
development, at
different areas of
intervention, and
according to actors

Levels/
categories
of analysis

What
are the
major
sources of
livelihoods
in the study
areas?

What
are the
forestbased
livelihoods?
Livelihood
assets and
strategies
at state,
district,
village, and
household

How can the

effective practices
of the project be
replicated?

What else can
be done to further
improve forestbased livelihoods in
the selected
villages, and in
similar contexts?

3.

LIVELIHOOD CONTEXT

3.1

Background of the study location

3.1.1 State profile

There are around 2.3 million people in Meghalaya, most of whom belonging to the
Khasi, Garo, and Jaintia ethno-linguistic groups, which are also the basis for the political
subdivision of the State into hill districts the Garos in the western part of the state, the
Khasis in the central and northern part, and the Jaintias in the southeastern part. The
state is characterized by mountainous terrains which distinguish it from its lowland
neighbors of the State of Assam in the north and east and Bangladesh in the south and
west. Such mountainous terrain also makes the state geographically isolated. Unlike
most of the lowlands of India, Meghalaya is not linked with the countrys railway
network. It relies mostly on road networks for transportation, mostly through the State of
Assam. Within the State, isolation can still be observed in many villages given limited
road networks connecting the districts and villages, consequently resulting to limited
economic activities and employment opportunities in the State, and limited income for
the people. The per capita income in the State was estimated to be Rs 11,678 which is
much lower than the Rs 16,047 national average (Directorate of Economics & Statistics
2000-2001). Within the State, the figure could be much lower in the rural areas as the
economic activities are mostly concentrated in the urban areas particularly in the capital,
Shillong.
Map 1: Meghalaya and the selected study districts

Like its neighboring states, Meghalaya is primarily an agrarian-based economy where

around eighty percent of the labor force is engaged in natural resource-based
employment activities (i.e. agriculture, mining, forestry and fishing) but contributes only
around 25% to the Net State Domestic Product (NSDP). The industrial sector is
undeveloped as there are limited secondary industries to add value to the primary
industry outputs. Many of the State primary products (i.e. raw materials) are transported
outside the state (i.e. Assam) for processing. The highest contributor of State Domestic
Product comes from tertiary sector such as hotel and restaurant and other service
sectors but these are mostly concentrated in the selected urban areas in the State.
The State has vast grasslands for pastoralist agriculture, and has vast and geneticallyrich forest resources. Given our interest on forest resources, we focus our attention to
the status of forest resources in the State.
Meghalaya has a total area of 22,429 sq. km and according to the State Forest Report
2003, around one-third is under forest cover, although at varying forest density. The
State Government controls around 10% of the total forest (or 4.43% of the total area of
the State) which include the national parks, biosphere reserves and sanctuaries, and
incidentally are the most dense forests in the state. The rest of the forests are under the
jurisdiction of the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) which in principle represent the
traditional institutions. Forests have further classifications under traditional institutions,
based on their traditional use but for the purpose of administration under the ADCs they
are basically classified as a) private forests which are owned and managed by
families or clans; b) community forests which are under traditional governance
institutions; and c) unclassed forests which includes the forests under direct control of
the ADCs2.
According to the State Forest Report of 2003, most of the forests under the ADCs
(>75%) are unclassed forests. However, in reality an accurate measurement of these
forests is not available because of the lack or even absence of land surveys and land
titles in the State. Large tracts of forests (and/or agricultural lands) are privately owned,
although with limited availability of land records.
2

The state has three-levels of policy-making bodies: the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly (MLA) at the State level,
the Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) at the district level, and the traditional institutions which further vary in
jurisdiction and systems of governance at the more local level. This existence of three equally legitimate policymaking bodies can be attributed to its unique historical background, particularly the political autonomy it was
accorded under the British colonial government and then later by the Indian Constitution. These government eras
recognized the legitimacy of these traditional institutions in the Northeastern states through the establishment of the
Autonomous District Councils (ADCs) which were granted executive, legislative, and judicial powers. However, the
establishment of Meghalaya as a separate state in 1972 brought about the establishment of yet another policymaking body at the state level: the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly (MLA). Just like the ADCs, the 60 seats of the
MLA is reserved almost entirely for schedule tribes, making it not different from the ADCs in terms of representing
the interest of the scheduled tribes. The co-existence of these three separate policy-making bodies (with executive
and judiciary powers) in the State often results to conflict and overall weak institutional capacity in local governance
as can often be observed especially in the control and management of forests and forest resources.

3.1.2 District profiles

The NERCORMP included only West Khasi Hills and West Garo Hills among the seven
administrative districts of Meghalaya. The Project was able to reach out to 162 villages
(19.8% of the total villages) in West Khasi Hills and 192 villages (12.9%) in West Garo
Hills. West Khasi Hills has smaller population but with larger land area. Despite its
larger area, West Khasi has lesser cultivable area primarily due to its steeper terrain,
lesser irrigation facilities, and larger area of degraded land and grassland. This can be
shown in the net sown area in both districts where West Khasi only has around 4.1% of
its area cultivated compared to 18% for West Garo. Irrigated agriculture is very limited in
both districts: 1.3% of total area in West Khasi and 2.8% in West Garo. Agriculture is
still highly dependent on jhum3 cultivation. This can be demonstrated in the estimate of
areas under fallow, which are around five times larger than the irrigated areas. On the
other hand, the forested areas in both districts are still large, composing more than a
half of their total areas: 54% of total area in West Khasi, and 55% in West Garo (see
Table 1).
Table 1: District profiles of West Khasi and West Garo Hills
Particular
1) Total population

West Khasi Hills

294,115

West Garo Hills

515,800

2) Total area
a) Forested
area
b) Degraded
land and
grassland
c) Net sown
area

524,700 ha.
280,837 ha
(54% total area)
111,672 ha

371,400 ha.
205,486 ha
(55% total area)
65,630 ha

21,871 ha
(4.1% of total
area)
6,898 ha

67,813 ha.
(18% of total
area)
10,457 ha.

66,219 ha.

56,631 ha.

d) Net irrigated
area
e) Fallow land

Remarks
Source: Census of India,
2001
Computed based on figures
from
http://meghalaya.nic.in/natu
ralres/forest.htm

Source: NABARD

3.1.3 Village profiles

NERCORMP targeted the poorest villages within the two districts and this high
incidence of poverty can be shown in the profiles of the selected villages. The villages
have limited access to road and are remotely located from the district centers and major
markets. Roads reaching villages are often upto the village center and not reaching the
houses or production areas which are mostly jhum lands. Electricity and piped water
has reached many of the villages but a large number of households still do not have
access to these services. Most villages have schools but mostly only up to the 4th grade
of primary schooling. These conditions resulted to limited economic activities as
indicated by a very few small enterprises, traders, or credit providers in the villages. The
limited economic opportunities in the villages is also shown by the relatively low daily
3

Jhum, or shifting cultivation is prevalent, if not the main farming system in the selected villages.

wage rate in the villages. The average daily rate for men in West Khasi is Rs 80 and in
West Garo Rs 60. There is even a village that charges Rs40/day. The rate in the urban
areas ranges from 100-150 a day. Wages of women are generally lower than men.
Besides the limited endowments as shown above, the limited economic activities in the
villages can also be attributed to the existing institutions, particularly the traditional rules
/regulations concerning access to land and forest resources their main source of
livelihoods. They limit economic activities either directly by prohibiting the
commercialization of forest products or indirectly by discouraging people to invest in
forest-based activities as they are mostly unwritten and diverse4.
3.2
Primary production activities: sources of food and income
As pointed out earlier, the economic activities in the rural areas in the State are largely
primary production such as agriculture and forestry which are discussed greater detail
below.
3.2.1 Livestock production
Livestock production is prevalent among the selected households - mostly hatchery,
piggery, and cattle rearing. Households raising chicken raise an average of nine while
those raising pigs have an average of two, four for cows, and three for goats.

Livestock production. Left: Pigs (Photo: NERCORMP) Right: Goats. Photo by Adrian
Albano

Although most of these rules are unwritten, the people have high awareness of and compliance to them.
Different land ownership is more prevalent in West Khasi where lands (including forests) could be privately owned
by individuals, families, or clans living within or outside the village, leasing or renting the land to the villagers.
Within these ownership regimes are further property rights arrangements. For example, the village of Tynnai is
owned by someone residing outside the village who rents the land to the villagers at Rs. 50 per household for using
the forest for renewed every three years. The same is true for the village of Phodjaud. In West Khasi, 13 villages
stated that their forests are privately owned, 5 villages state that their forests are community owned, while two
villages both have privately owned and community owned forests. In West Garo, all forests are community owned.
The Nokma - the traditional head of a clan - have custody of the Akhing land which includes the forests and he
gives access permit to the villagers for their utilization.

From these average livestock holdings, it can be seen that livestock production is
mostly small-scale. Furthermore, these livestock production have limited commercialorientation. It is interesting to take notice of the diverse range of prices of these animals
amid the villages in West Khasi. A pig could cost only Rs 1,000 in one village while
selling at Rs 5,000 in another village. The same can be observed for the other animals
(and later for crops). While the depressed prices can be highly attributed to the
remoteness of the villages, it can again also be attributed to the general subsistenceoriented production prevalent in the villages5. Some villages are involved in fishery
activities, mostly from communally owned ponds or rivers but most of which are not for
sale (see Table 2).

Jhum cultivation. Left: A jhum planted with paddy, tapioca, taro. Photo from NERCORMP Right:
A landscape in West Garo showing Jhum patches. Photo by Adrian Albano

Table 2: Livestock production in West Khasi and West Garo

Livestock

# of villages
producing
N = 18

West Khasi

(n)

Hatchery
Piggery
Cattle
Goatery
Fishery

Commerci
al
orientation
*

# of
households
producing**

(n)

16
15
13
7
2

89
83
72
39
11

2
2
2
2
1

17
17

94
94

2
2

108
69
26
35
16

Ave. # of
animals
per hh***

Min
price/
unit

Max
price/
unit

%
63%
40%
15%
20%
9%

9
2
4
3
47 kg

100
1,000
3,000
500
30/kg

250
5,000
8,000
4,000
80/kg

95%
61%

9
2

50
500

200
4000

West Garo
Hatchery
Piggery

231
147

It was learned that in some more remote villages, barter system of exchange even prevail among villagers
indicating their lack of cash. Limited commercialization is highly influenced by their remoteness to road and market
but is also attributed to the general lack of commercial activities within the villages and to some degree, a limited
interaction with outside villages.

94
Cattle
17
2
179
74%
3
1000
7500
39
Goatery
7
2
31
13%
3
300
3000
Fishery
1
15
6%
16 kg
Source: village and household survey
*
3 primarily for commercial purpose; 2 for sale and/or for consumption; 1 mostly for
household consumption
**
Out of 172 households selected in WKH and 242 households in WGH
***
Based on the number of households producing such product

3.2.2 Crop production

There are diverse crops cultivated in the villages and by the households. The diversity
in crops can be attributed to their major farming system which is Jhum or shifting
cultivation, where various plants of various uses are planted. The most common annual
crops are paddy, maize, and tapioca. Incidentally, these crops are the staple food in
these villages and in the State. Various annual crops are further cultivated but there is a
variation between both districts mostly due to their difference in agro-climatic conditions
(i.e. elevation and temperature). West Khasi produces various temperate vegetables
such as carrot, cauliflower, potato while West Garo produces more tropical crops such
as ginger, chili, and pineapple.
The same can be observed with the perennial crops. Some dominant perennial crops
are observed to be common in both the districts (i.e. bettlenut, tezpatta, broomgrass)
highly consumed products in the State and which are also suitable in a wider range of
temperature, while other perennial crops vary partly due to the variation in agro-climatic
conditions. These crops are enumerated in Table 3.
Table 3: List of crops produced in the selected villages6
West Khasi Hills
West Garo Hills
Major annual crops: paddy, maize, tapioca
Other annual crops: carrot, cauliflower, chili, ginger,
gooseberry, millet, mustard leaves, neiiong,
neilieh, pepper, pineapple, potato, pumpkin,
tomato, yam
Major perennials: broomgrass, tezpatta, banana,
bettlenut, citrus
Other perennials: agar wood, apple, bamboo, jack
fruit, guava, lemon, mango, mulberry, papaya,
passion fruit, pear, sohiong, sohphung, wild
pepper.
Source: household and village survey

Major annual crops: paddy, ginger, chili,

maize, tapioca
Other annual crops: pineapple, brinjal,
pumpkin, anam

Major perennials: bettlenut, tezpatta,

orange, elaichi, cashew, broomgrass
Other perennials: cardamom, wild pepper,
cotton, coffee, tea, bamboo, thatch,
banana, pear, teak,

Although there are diverse crops being produced, just like livestock production,
commercial crop production is very limited in terms of the number of crops cultivated for
commercial purpose, in terms of area cultivated, and production intensity. Of the annual
crops listed above, only ginger, chili, pineapple, pumpkin, and the temperate vegetables
are produced primarily for the purpose of commercialization. Compared to annual crops,
6

We distinguish the crops into annual or perennial crops for the purpose identifying crops commonly cultivated
through agroforestry, which shall be considered here as forest-based livelihoods.

10

more perennial crops are being commercialized such as various fruits, betel nut,
bamboo, tezpatta, etc7. Nevertheless, cultivation of these commercial crops is still
limited to only few villages and households, and limited in terms of area and
intensiveness in input use. There were limited plantation agriculture in the villages and
that there is very limited use of fertilizers or other commercial inputs (see Table 4).
Production expenses are mostly incurred from farm labor, and again these are observed
mostly in few relatively large farms.
Table 4: Common annual crops produced in the selected villages
Most
common
annual
crops

Villages
planting
crops
(N = 18)

(n)
Paddy
Maize
Tapioca
Pumpkin
Mustard
Turmeric
Ginger
Chili
Pineapple
Aloevera

6
4
7
4
4
1
1
1
-

West Khasi
Normal
Commercial
size of
orientation*
crop area
(acres)

%
33
22
39
22
22
6
6
6
-

Villages
planting
crops
(N = 18)

(n)
2.8
2.8
2.0
2.0
<0.25
2.0
<0.25
-

1
1
2
2
1
2
3
1
-

18
13
2
1
18
15
6
5

%
100
72
11
6
100
83
33
28

West Garo
Normal
Commercial
size of
orientation
crop
area
(acres)
2.8
1
1
2.6
1.6
2
.26
2
1.0
2
.95
3
5.1
3
0.5
3
-

Source: household and village survey

*
3 primarily for commercial purpose
2 for sale and/or for consumption
1 mostly for household consumption

3.3
Forest-based livelihoods
As was earlier stated, forests cover more than half of the total land area of both the
districts. Given the limited area of cultivation, it is assumed that the forests too are
important sources of food or income of the people. At the selected villages, however,
the village surveys indicated that forest cover could be lesser than fifty percent at least
in most of the sample villages. This is especially true in West Khasi where some villages
have just few hills of remaining forest while three villages have even indicated that they
no longer have natural forests (i.e. Rangjadong, and Phlangjaud Mawthangdiar)8. In
7

Many of these perennial crops have been being cultivated in the villages for more than a century (e.g. orange,
bettlenut, tezpatta, cotton, bayleaves, banana, passion fruit). Some of these grow wild but were recently been being
managed more intensively and cultivated (e.g. broomgrass, bamboo, thatch, cardamom, sohphung, sohiong, etc.).
Still, new perennial crops were introduced more recently that some have not yet started to bear fruit (e.g. apple,
mango, pears).

Estimate of forest areas is limited by the lack of land surveys and records those under the control of the ADCs and
villagers. Most villagers have vague idea of the village boundaries and forest areas, which they often estimate by
number of hills.

11

describing their forest-based livelihoods, we broadened the definition of forest products

to include products not just from natural forests but also from managed forests such as
land under agro-forestry production system. We made classification of forest products
based on assumed levels of productivity and value-addition which are collected,
cultivated, and processed forest products. This classification does not at all imply
exclusivity but more in aid of analysis of forest-based livelihoods, especially for
specificity in referring to the various forest enterprises later while discussing the
interventions, changes, and recommendations.
3.3.1 Collected forest products
In our definition of forests, we not only include natural forests but also managed and
plantation forests. Collected forest products then include those that are harvested from
natural or managed forests, more applicably from public or community-owned forests.
The most commonly collected forest product is fuelwood, the villagers main source for
heating, followed by various types of edible forest products. In West Khasi, there were
at least 7 edible products that people harvest from forests while in West Garo Hills a
longer list (66) of food was listed9. The villagers also specified the availability of various
species of timber, medicinal plants, and other forest products that they collect from the
wild (see Table 5).
Table 5: Collected forest products in selected villages
Gross sales(2)
Collected
# of
Commercial
orientation
forest
villages
product
collecting (1)
# of hhs Hhs that Lowest Highest
N=18
(Rs)
(Rs)
collecting sold
West Khasi
Fuelwood
Charcoal
Food
Timber
Medicinal
plants (i.e.
kynbat)
Bamboo
Mushroom
Woodpeels
Broomgrass
Honey
Cane

(n)
18
(3)
3
13
15

(n)

%
100
17
72
83

10

(n)

1
3
2

153
21
20

7
18
9

43

13

14

1
1
2
(4)
3
2
1

56
6
6
11
17
11
6

2
3
3
3
3
3

7
4

7
4
108
18
1

18
18

100
100

1
1
1

(4)

108
18
1

%
5
86
45

1,000
200
80

32,000
7,000
7,200

30

1,120

400,000

36
100
100
100
100
100

500
300
360
100
100
75

3,000
1,800
2,500
5,000
2,000
75

West Garo
Fuelwood
Charcoal
Food

212
184

1
18

0.5
10

700
400

700
4,000

The many species of forest products listed from West Garo could be due to the villagers greater awareness of
these useful species which would have been enhanced as many villages in West Garo had earlier made listings of
these species as part of the biodiversity conservation initiative with support from NERCORMP.

12

100
Timber
18
1
108
Medicinal
18
1
50
100
plants
50
Bamboo
9
2
17
6
35
500
6,000
39
Broomgrass
7
3
42
36
86
15
9,000
22
Cane
4
1
1
1 100
11
Honey
2
2
9
3
33
150
720
6
Thatch
1
3
9
5
56
3000
10,000
Wild animals
1
8
Source: village and household survey
(1)
Based on the number of households selling their collected forest products:
3 primarily for
commercial purpose; 2 for sale or for consumption; 1 mostly for consumption
(2)
Based on gross sales per year (or the latest year) irrespective of area or effort made. Including
only households that sold such forest products. Gross sales = (amount sold) X (selling price).
(3)
The village survey indicated only 3 villages producing but the household survey revealed that it is
being produced and sold from 9 villages.
(4)
3 villages indicated collecting them in the wild but overall 13 villages sells broomgrass, the rest
cultivating it.

Again, with regard to generating income from these forest products, few of them are
being collected for selling. Fuelwood, for example, is mostly collected for own use and
only few villages and households sell it (e.g., in WKH, only 5% of the total households
collecting fuelwood are selling it). On the other hand, charcoal, which is processed from
fuelwood, is mainly for sale; but still only few households make charcoal (i.e. 18 or 86%
of the 21 households that make charcoal are making them for sale). The same is true
for edible food. Most wild fruits and vegetables harvested from the forests are for
consumption. Some villagers indicated selling these only when there are outside traders
whocome to the village to buy these forest products.

Left: Charcoal making, photo by Adrian Albano. Right: Loading charcoal in a truck for sale,
photo from NERCORMP

On the other hand, regarding commercialization of forest products, it is observed that

unlike the more commonly harvested forest products, the less available or less collected

13

forest products are for sale (e.g. mushroom, woodpeels, honey, and cane). One primary
reason for this is the regulation of harvesting and selling of the commonly harvested
forest products which include fuelwood and charcoal. There were households who were
able to sell such regulated forest products (e.g., timber, fuelwood, charcoal) with
significantly high gross income but a closer look at these households shows that the
sold timber and charcoal mostly come from private forests.
3.3.2 Cultivated forest products
Cultivated forest products generally include those produced following an agro-forestry
farming system. Considering the prevalence of shifting cultivation in the villages and the
limited plantations, these cultivated forest products would include most of the perennial
crops earlier mentioned (e.g. broomgrass, bamboo, cardamom, neilieh, neiiong,
sohphung, sohiong, etc.). Some of these grow in the wild but were recently being
managed more intensively and cultivated. While many of the perennials can be
produced through a pure plantation-type of production (e.g. orange, banana), field
observation shows that these are cultivated mostly through agro-forestry system. These
cultivated forest products (i.e., perennial crops), are shown in Table 6.

Table 6: Common perennial crops cultivated in the selected villages

Perennial crops
Commercial Dominant type of
# of villages
orientation* plantation**
producing
(n)
West Khasi
1. Broomgrass
2. Orange
3. Banana
4. Bayleaves
5. Bettlenut
6. Tezpatta
7. Passion fruit
8. Guava
West Garo
1. Bettlenut
2. Tezpatta
3. Orange
4. Cardamom/elaichi
5. Cashew
6. Coffee
7. Broomgrass
8. Thatch
9. Wild pepper
10. Bamboo
11. Others: cotton,
rubber, jute, teak,

N = 18
11
7
7
4
3
3
2
1

%
61
39
39
22
17
17
11
6

3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

100
67
56
56
39
22
22
22
17
17

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2

2
1
2,3
3
2
2
2
1
1
2

N = 18
18
12
10
10
7
4
4
4
3
3
1

14

Perennial crops

# of villages
producing

Commercial
orientation*

Dominant type of
plantation**

(n)
vanilla
Source: household and village survey
Notes:
*
3 primarily for commercial purpose
2 for sale and/or for consumption
1 mostly for household consumption

**

3 Plantation (mono crop)

2 - Agroforestry (mixed with crops)
1 Managed forest (mixed with forest)

Cultivated forest products. Left: Broomgrass and bamboo, photo by Adrian Albano. Right::
Sacks of Tezpatta a cultivated forest product, photo by Manosha Synrem

3.3.3 Processed forest products

Some value addition activities to the above forest products have been observed among
the selected villages. These are, however, mostly in West Khasi Hills and are
concentrated on handicrafts made of bamboo and cane. These are also concentrated in
few villages which traditionally do these handicrafts. In West Garo, the only value
addition on forest product that was observed at least in the selected villages - was in
making bamboo agarbatti sticks. Although there were various handicrafts made out of
bamboo in the district, it happened that the selected villages and households did not
indicate making them. Some of these value-added products are shown in Table 7
below.
Table 7: Value-added forest products in selected villages
Value-added
#
of Raw materials Gross sales(2)
forest
villages
# of sample Lowest Highest
products
producing
hhs
(Rs)
(Rs)
West Khasi
Kriah
Mat /Shylliah
Rain
shield/Knup
Khoh

N=18

3
3

17
17

11

11

(n)
Bamboo, cane
Bamboo, cane

slew,thri

28

Bamboo, slew,
thri

15

50
50
250

3,600
480
24,000

150

25,000

15

Value-added
forest
products
Mula
Basket
Star
Pdung
Shang
Furniture
Prah

West Garo
Agarbatti
stick

#
of Raw materials
villages
producing
2
1
1
1

11
6
6
6

-*

1
1

6
6

Bamboo, cane
Bamboo, cane
Bamboo, cane
Bamboo, cane
Slew, cane, thri
lumber
-

Gross sales(2)
# of sample Lowest Highest
hhs
(Rs)
(Rs)
4

600

4,800

4
1

50

22,400
1,200
1,600
60,000+
360

10
1
1

120

N=18
3

17

Bamboo

-**

* Not mentioned in the village survey, but was found among the households
** Households stopped producing

Processed forest products. Left: A furniture shop. Right: Bamboo mat, photos by
Saihunlang Phanbuh

3.4
Other sources of food and income
In addition to the above primary sources of food and income, the household interviews
also revealed that the villagers have various other sources of income, and of food. Many
indicated doing off-farm labor (i.e. working on other peoples farms or forests)
throughout the year. Among skilled handicraft workers, they produce handicrafts mostly
during summer (i.e. April-September). There are also some non-farm activities such as
working on construction, and some micro-scale trading. A significant number are
employed by the government.
Although many of the villages produce staple food for subsistence purpose and with
limited commercialization, it was also observed that there are villages that rely heavily
on staple food from outside the village. In West Khasi, there were three villages that do
not produce any of the staple food. Instead, they produce other crops and livestock and
buy most of their food from outside. In many of these villages, the government provides
them with subsidized food. Some villages collect Tlai a palm-like forest product as
staple food, in addition to these cereals.

16

4.

PROJECT INTERVENTIONS

4.1
Overview of project interventions
It was with the above livelihood context and constraints that the NERCORMP was
designed and implemented in the State. The various livelihood constraints caused the
project to implement an integrated livelihoods intervention, not necessarily focusing on
natural resource for its interventions as stated in its project aim10. The Project has
standard components that include community institution building (CIB); village
development fund (VDF) with subsectors such as social sector, village infrastructure,
and income generating activities; natural resource management (NRM), and project
management. Each village is allocated a total budget based on a standard of Rs 20,000
per household11. This amount is multiplied by the number of households in a village,
therefore, villages with larger number of households have more total budget. The total
village budget is divided among each component based on their standard allocation (i.e.
7% for institution building, 5% for social sector, 20% for village infrastructure, 52% for
income generating activities, 4% for natural resource management and 11% for project
management). Although the project made some standardization with the project
components and their budget allocations, the project followed a bottom-up approach in
identifying specific activities under each component. The intervention activities were
then determined based on the priorities of the villagers as was determined through an
initial PRA exercise conducted for such purpose (Midterm review report).
Interventions at the villages start with the Community Institution Building (CIB)
component where recipient households are organized into Natural Resource
Management Groups (NaRMGs). Membership to the NaRMGs is open to every member
of the village and is voluntary. NaRMGs may function as their name states (i.e.,
resource management groups) but they are generally useful in the overall
implementation of the project activities at the village level. The NaRMGs are trained to
administer the funds for the other project components. Aside from the organization of
NaRMGs, which in principle shall includes all villagers as members, a more exclusive
CBO is organized - the self-help groups (SHGs) - mostly targeting the women in the
village12. SHGs aim to encourage business and saving activities. The SHG members
are trained on various business skills and are provided with revolving funds to be loaned
as starting capital.
Given the large number and the remoteness of the targeted villages, the project
management did not directly supervise the village organizations (i.e. NaRMGs and
SHGs) but channeled direct supervision to local NGOs working in these villages. Prior
10

The project aim directly stated that it is going to improve the livelihoods of the people by improving the
management of their natural resource base.
11
This amount was however reduced to around Rs. 19,000 after recommendation in 2004 (James,
comment on report).
12
Although SHGs targeted women, membership to SHGs were not restricted only for women, but also
included men and youth, as the members themselves may prefer.

17

then to working with the villagers, the project started with the strengthening of capacity
of the partner local NGOs. In a way, the NGOs acted as intermediaries between the
district project management office and the villagers, directly assisting the villagers
throughout the project cycle (e.g. identification of activities, monitoring and reporting).
The process of intervention by the NERCORMP is illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Process of interventions

NERCORMP

District office
NaRMG
Clusters and
SHG
federations

Other
organizations
(e.g. govt line
agencies, banks)

Capacity
building
Local NGO

Community institution
building (CIB)

NaRMG

Linkaging

SHGs

Village infrastructure,
social sector, NRM

VILLAGE

IGAs

IGAs- grants and loans, trainings

Member
Households

Member
Households

Member
Households

Member
Households

As a result of the bottom-up approach by the project where villagers had major role in
selecting project interventions, various activities were implemented among the villages
and households. These activities are shown in Table 8.
Table 8: List of project interventions in the two districts, by project component
Components Specific intervention
Capacity Building of partner NGOs or Rural specialists Cadres,
Community

18

Components Specific intervention

establishment and capacity building of NaRMGs and SHGs
Institution
Building
Social Sector Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), Community Forestry Development,
Village
infrastructure

NRM-Jhum
modification

NRMBiodiversity
conservation
IGA-Grants

IGA-Loan

Literacy and sanitation programmes

Minor irrigation system, drinking water system, information and
communication centres, village link roads and footpaths, bridges and
culvert construction, washing platforms, community hall, collection and
waiting shed, electricity, village sanitation complex, school (repairs),
playground, liquid manuring, low cost latrines, community collection and
resource centre
Homestead garden; kitchen garden; cultivation of horticultural crops (in
new fallows) such as banana, citrus, pineapple, ginger, broomgrass,
commercial MAPs, etc; cultivation/ conservation of NTFPs (in old fallows)
such as broomgrass, tezpatta, bamboo; cultivation of cash crops such as
tea, coffee, arecanut.
Elephant reserves, village reserves, JFM, social forestry, broom grass
and thatch grass reserve, bamboo reserve, water catchment reserve,
fresh water fish sanctuary, cluster forest extension and networking, buffer
zone management, community forests, herbal garden and community
healthcare
FARM: livestock, dairy farming, fishery, apiary, cotton, kitchen garden,
homestead garden, broom grass collection, terrace construction and
minor irrigation; power tiller; cultivation of tea, arecanut, bamboo,
banana, black pepper, cashew nut, coffee, elaichi, ginger, lemon,
medicinal plants nursery, orange, pineapple, squash, sugarcane, tea,
teak, turmeric.
NON-FARM: weaving and tailoring, grocery shops, carpentry, vehicle,
fishery pond
Livestock, dairy, contract farming of medicinal plants, bamboo agarbatti,
weaving and tailoring, milk co-operative, co-operative groceries, bamboo
and cane furniture unit, cultivation of: turmeric, pineapple, banana,
arecanut, black pepper, elaichi, grapes, cashew nut; processing of bay
leaf (paan distillation), coffee, cashewnut, green tea, fruit and vegetables;
ginger powder processing unit, broomgrass trading and processing,
pineapple / orange juice extraction unit, ginger wholesale trading, apiary,
nursery and plantation, grocery shops, cluster co-operative market.

Source: Project documents

19

Left:: A foot bridge. Right:: A village collection center. Both are village infrastructure
investments by NERCORMP, as selected by the villagers. Photo by Dr Vincent Darlong

4.2
Forest-based interventions/investments13
From the above list of activities, we identified the specific forest-based interventions.
With this regard, although the project identified a subcomponent on Forestry
Development (Figure 3), such component is limited to reforestation and was not much
implemented in Meghalaya14.

13

The forest-based interventions may also be referred to as forest-based investments considering the two way
process whereby the interventions are determined. The project has set of interventions through its standard project
components but the villagers decide what particular activity to do or to invest the money allocated under each
component. To illustrate, under the CIB component, the project organized villagers into NaRMGs and suggested to
the NaRMGs to adopt a community forest but it was up to the villagers to agree to do it. Regarding the income
generating activity (IGA) component, the project provides the funds but it is up to the recipient/s to decide where to
invest the money.
14

Forestry development interventions were mostly done in other states (e.g. NC Hills in the State of Assam) other
than Meghalaya because these states have more active JFM programmes which are being implemented through the
NaRMGs, with linkaging and facilitation by NERCORMP.

20

Figure 3: Summary of project investments, as of 2005

Project investments in W. Khasi and W. Garo

West Khasi
West Garo

Amount (Rs)

25,000,000
20,000,000
15,000,000
10,000,000
5,000,000

C
om
m
St
un
re
ity
ng
th
In
en
st
itu
in
g
tio
ca
n
C
pa
Bu
ro
ci
ild
p
ty
H
L
in
or
iv
of
g
es
tic
p
to
ar
ul
tu
ck
tn
re
er
&
s
an
Fi
sh
d
Pe
er
ie
rre
s
ni
a
M
lC
in
Fo
ro
or
re
p
Irr
st
ry
ig
a
D
tio
ev
n
el
o
pm
Ex
te
en
ns
Ad
t
io
ap
n
t iv
T
O
N
e
T
on
R
es
-F
ar
ea
So
m
rc
ci
h
En
al
t
Se
In
er
cr
p
c
r
em
to
Pr
r A ise
en
oj
c
ec
ta
tiv
te
lC
iti
es
xp
re
en
di
tL
se
oa
s
Pr
gr
ns
an
oj
ec
t(
tM
in
fra
an
)
ag
em
en
t

Particular

Using a broader definition of forest products, forest-based interventions would not only
include the forestry development activities as classified under the Project documents,
but would also include the cultivation (through agro-forestry) or value addition of various
forest products, and the interventions that directly encouraged these. One reason why
a comprehensive list of forest-based interventions by the project could not be drawn is
the diversity of the project interventions between and within villages and households,
and the limited availability of their details at the household level. Another reason is the
interlinkage of the interventions such that in principle, a change in a forest-based
livelihood could not be attributed to only one intervention but to a set or process of
interventions. We then did not aim for a comprehensive list of forest interventions but a
list as a basis to identify villages and households that invested in forest-based
livelihoods; and therefore, a basis for focusing our analysis on forest-based
livelihoods15.
The forest-based interventions of the project were then viewed more broadly based on
our definition of forest based livelihoods but at the same time, were limited to include
activities that directly targeted any of the forest-based activities. For our purpose, we
categorized these interventions based on the forest-based livelihoods that they directly
targeted (i.e. products collected from the wild, cultivated, and processed and/or
marketed).
15

The interlinked characteristics of the interventions were considered in the analysis of livelihood changes where we
looked at the process of change; therefore including the indirect role of nonforest-based livelihoods.

21

4.2.1 Description of the forest-based interventions

Products collected from the wild could be increased either by planting more of them
such as by reforestation activities or just by allowing them to regenerate naturally. But
as was mentioned, reforestation was barely done in Meghalaya. The primary
intervention directed at forest products collected from the wild was the improvement in
the management of the forests by having them adopted and managed by the
NaRMGs16.

Left: A NaRMG forest reserve, photo by Claystone Marak. Right: A notice by a NaRMG in
West Garo Hills declaring an area an elephant reserve, photo by Dr. Vincent Darlong

Activities directed at improving the cultivation of forest products generally include those
that improved access to the important resources and inputs for cultivation of forest
products such as land, planting materials, working capital, and technical skills. In
villages where access to land is limited by insecurity of tenure (i.e. they have short-term
lease of land from the landowners), the project intervened by negotiating with the
landowners to provide longer leasehold period, which then would encourage the
villagers to cultivate forest products, which have longer pay-back period compared to
annual crops. The project, in coordination with government line agencies, also
established nursery centers to propagate seedlings and train individuals to propagate
the plants themselves. Since a working capital is needed especially for capital intensive
plants (for buying seedlings, paying labor, etc.), direct interventions here include the
projects provision of grant and loan17.
16

Again, the way the NaRMGs did it varied among the villages. Some NaRMGs were able to adopt the whole
village forest, some adopted a parcel of their forests, while some NaRMGs did not adopt any forest. The forest
adoptions may be specific to certain forest product (e.g. bamboo, thatch grass reserve), while others include all
forest products.
17

The provision of money by the project through grants and loans are generally intended as working capital for any
enterprise. Grants and loans were then provided after the household/ groups of household or individuals present an
enterprise where he/she intend to invest the money in (e.g. to buy seedlings or raw products to process). However,
whether the households really spent such money on such enterprise they have identified was difficult to know as
such was not strictly monitored. Based on some household interviews and from project staff themselves, some
households spent the money or part of the money (especially grants) on other and seemingly more important or

22

Left: A notice board for a central nursery, photo by Dr Vincent Darlong. Right: A nursery,
photo by Saihunlang Phanbuh

Interventions under processed forest products generally include activities that

encourage farmers not to sell the collected or cultivated forest products raw, but with
some value addition. Activities under this include the provision of grants and loans,
technical training on any particular processing or value-addition activity (e.g. handicraft
making), erection of a storage or other post-harvest facilities, and market linkaging
activities.
4.2.2 Forest-based interventions of selected villages
Guided by these classification and description of forest-based interventions by the
project, we have identified villages that have indicated to have implemented any of
these interventions based on their community management plan. The selected 32
villages and their forest-based interventions/investments as shown in their community
management plan are presented in Table 9.
Table 9: Selected villages and their forest-based interventions
Selected Village

Forest management (targeting

collected products)

Cultivation

Processing/
Value addition

West Khasi
1. Domtynnong
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Keniong
mawbyrkhong
Maweit
Mawksiar
Mawrang
Mawrynniaw
Mawthir
Nonglang
Nongmawlieh
Nongrait

Community Forest

Community Forest

Broomgrass,
arecanut
Tezpatta
Broomgrass
Apiary
Tezpatta
Broomgrass

Collection centre

Community Forest
Community Forest
Community Forest

Bamboo
Broomgrass, Bamboo
Tezpatta
Broomgrass

Collection centre

Collection centre

immediate expenses (e.g. food, medicine, children school fees). This is not to mention the possibility of them
investing the money on other enterprise/s and not on their intended enterprise.

23

Selected Village
12. Phlangjaud
Mawmndiar
13. Phlangkynshi
East
14. Phodjaud
15. Porksai
16. Rangjadoh
17. Rangthong
18. Tynnai

Forest management (targeting

collected products)

Cultivation

Processing/
Value addition

Tezpatta, Apiary
Community Forest

Broomgrass,
Tezpatta

Community Forest

Community Forest

Broomgrass
Tezpatta, Bamboo
Broomgrass,
Tezpatta
Tezpatta

Broomgrass
collection
Collection centre
Collection centre
Collection centre
Broomgrass
collection
Collection centre

West Garo
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Agindarenggre
Akinpara
Aminda Simsang
Chidaogre
Chokagre

6. Dura Bandha
7. Dura Kalakgre
8. Mandalgre
9. Marak
Songranggre
10. Marakapara
11. Nengja
Bolchugre
12. Pattanggre
13. Pusengre
14. Rengsanggre
15. Romba Adinggre
16. Sasatgre
Oragitok
17. Tapra Alda
18. Wategre

Village reserve, Bamboo Reserve

Village reserve
Village reserve, Bamboo Reserve
Elephant reserve
Community Forest, Bamboo
Reserve, Cluster forest extension
and networking
Village reserve, Bamboo Reserve,
Broom grass reserve
Community Forest, Elephant
reserve
Village reserve, Bamboo Reserve
Village reserve
bird sanctuary, Bamboo Reserve
Bamboo Reserve
broom grass collection & storage
Village reserve, Bamboo Reserve

Village reserve, Bamboo Reserve

Village reserve, Community Forest ,
Bamboo and broom grass reserve

Arecanut
Arecanut
Arecanut
Thatch

Agarbati stick
Broom grass
collection and
storage

Arecanut
Broomgrass Elaichi,
Arecanut , Elaichi

Arecanut

Agarbati stick

Arecanut
Arecanut
Broomgrass,
Arecanut
Arecanut
Apiary, Eaichi

Agarbati stick
Agarbati stick

Tezpatta

Not all interventions by the project (or investments by the villagers) that were directed at
forest-based livelihoods were indicated in their community management plan especially
given observed changes in actual activities implemented18, and the additional
interventions implemented later after the community management plan was prepared.
Such may result from new projects, especially those resulting from linkaging with other
supporting agencies. With regard to project grants and loans for income generating
activities (IGA), not many villages have details of the investments by the households of
18

Changes in activities written in the community management plan could be caused by delay/shortage in the
availability/release of funds to the villages, or due to the villagers (NaRMGs, SHGs, households) themselves
changing their investments as they earlier indicated in their community management plan.

24

the grants or loans they received from the project - whether they invested in forestbased livelihoods or in other enterprises. Those that have such detail showed that the
investments by the households were mostly in livestock raising, annual crop production,
or in petty trading (as partly indicated earlier in Figure 3).
Generally, the forest-based interventions in the selected villages are presented below
(Table 10).
Table 10: Project interventions or village/household investments on forest-based
livelihoods
Forest-based
Direct interventions
Project
livelihoods
component
Collected from the wild
e.g. fuelwood and
charcoal, bamboo,
thatch grass, medicinal
plants

Cultivated
e.g. broomgrass,
bamboo, arecanut, betel
leaf, bay leaf, and other
new species of
perennial crops such as
pear, passion fruit, etc.
Processed
e.g. handicrafts,
agarbatti sticks

Improvement in forest management

through the adoption of community
forests and/or reserves by
NaRMGs, and with assistance by
the project in the public awareness
for forest protection, documentation
of forest resources, rules, and
boundaries; and formal registration
with the ADCs.
Securing land tenure by facilitating
extension of lease with landowners
Provision of planting materials to
households and establishment of
nursery centers at cluster levels
Technical training in cultivation of
perennial crops (e.g. agro-forestry).
Technical skills training for old and
new processed forest products
Provision of grants and loan (to
groups or households)
Storage centers
Contract marketing

CIB- establishment

of NaRMGs and
capacity building of
NaRMGs.

CIB and linkaging

with government
line agencies.
NRM Jhum
modification
IGA grant sector
IGA- grants and

loans sector
Village

infrastructure

25

5.

LIVELIHOOD CHANGES

Based on the different categories of forest products,we looked at the changes in forestbased livelihoods, basically whether their production have increased or decreased or
have remained constant.
5.1

Changes to forest based livelihoods

5.1.1 Collected forest products

Based on the focus group discussions at the village level, the amount of collected forest
products has generally decreased or has not changed much. The degree of change
varies from different products with the highly collected products (e.g. fuelwood,
charcoal, timber) generally decreasing while the less collected forest products (e.g.
edible wild food, medicinal plants, honey) show no change or minimal decrease (see
Table 11).
Table 11: Changes in collected forest products, village level
Collected
forest
products

# of villages
collecting

West Khasi
Fuelwood
Charcoal
Wild edible
food
Timber
Medicinal
plants
Bamboo
Woodpeels
Broomgrass
Cane
Honey
West Garo
Fuelwood
Wild edible
food
Timber
Medicinal
plants
Bamboo
Broomgrass
Cane
Honey

n=18
18
3
13
15
10
1
2
3
1
2
n=18
18
18
18
18

Change in amount collected

Increas
ed

Decreas
ed

No
change

%
100
17

6%
0%

89%
100%

6%
0%

72
83

23%
0%

31%
72%

46%
11%

56
6
11
17
6
11

40%
0%
0%
0%

40%
0%
0%
33%

20%
100%
100%
67%

0%

0%

100%

100

6%

72%

22%

100
100

6%
17%

50%
72%

44%
11%

Change
direction

Improve
ment

(-)
(-)
(0)

1
1
2

(-)
(+)

1
4

(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)

3
3
2
3

(-)
(-)

1
2

(-)
(0)

2
3

100
50
39
22
11

6%
39%
56%
(0)
4
22%
0%
78%
(0)
4
29%
14%
57%
(0)
3
0%
25%
75%
(0)
3
0%
0%
100%
* Based on percentage (> 50%) number of villages with increase/improvement (+), no change (0),
decrease/deterioration (-) in livelihood assets.
** 7 very high improvement; 6 - high improvement; 5 moderate improvement; 4 low improvement;
3 relatively no change; 2 moderate decrease/deterioration; 1 visible decrease/deterioration

9
7
4
2

26

The same trends in changes to forest-based livelihoods are demonstrated by household

level data. The primarily collected forest products (e.g. fuelwood, timber, medicinal
plants) (see Table 12) have generally decreased while the less collected forest products
have no significant change or even have increased. A common reason cited for the
decreasing availability of primary collected forest products is the increase in number of
people collecting it which is further attributed to increased village population and
increase in demand for these forest products. In many cases also, the decrease in
forest products collected were attributed to more strict access rules - this applies mostly
to forest products within communal land particularly those that were adopted by the
NaRMGs. Interestingly, a significant number of households that indicated increase in
the amount of forest products due to increase in price and improved transport as some
of their main reason implying that the available stock did not necessarily improve but
only the rate of harvesting or amount of harvested products increased.
Table 12: Changes in major collected forest products, household level
Products
collected
from wild
West
Khasi

# of
villages
collecting
n= (%)
172

Fuelwood

154

89

Increased
availability and
price

49

reduced availability &

increased restriction

48

Wild
edible
food

20

Increased price
and improved
transport

30

reduced availability &

increased restriction

65

Timber

31

18

3.2

58

reduced availability &

increased restriction

38

Medicinal
plants

14

14

reduced availability

79

West
Garo

n=
242

Fuelwood

212

88

increased need
for income

85

reduced availability &

increased restriction

Wild
edible
food

184

76

15

increase in
demand

45

reduced availability &

increased restriction

41

Change in amount collected and major reasons

Incr
ease
(%)

Major
Reasons for
increase

Increased
availability and
price
Increased price
and improved
transport

Decre
ase
(%)

Major Reasons for

decrease *

no
change
(%)

reduced availability &

6
increased restriction
Medicinal
reduced availability &
50
21
0
88
12
increased restriction
plants
* Reduced availability is mostly attributed to increase in collection, which is also attributed mostly to increase in the
number of people collecting. On the other hand, increased restriction is attributed to more strict rules, particularly
to communal forests.

Timber

108

45

94

27

5.1.2 Cultivated forest products

In contrast to collected forest products, there is an apparent increase in the cultivated
forest products, which are mostly for commercial purpose (Table 13).
Table 13: Changes in cultivated forest products, village level
Perennial crops

West Khasi
1. Broomgrass
2. Orange
3. Banana
4. Tezpatta
5. Passion fruit
6. Arecanut
7. Mulberry
West Garo
1. Bettlenut
2. Tezpatta
3. Orange
4. Elaichi
5. Cashew
6. Coffee
7. Broomgrass
8. Thatch
9. Bamboo
10. Rubber
11. Teak
12. Jute

#
of
villages
cultivating

(n)

n = 18

13
10
7
5
1
7
1

Change in production
Increas
e (%)

Decrease
d (%)

No
change
(%)

72
55
39
27
5
38
5

84
40
100
80
100
71
100

7
30
0
0
0
14
0

7
30
0
20
0
14
0

100

94

67
56
56
39
22
22
22
17
6
6
6

17
70
50
100
100
25
25
33
100
100
100

8
0
0
0
0
25
25
3
0
0
0

75
30
50
0
0
50
50
33
0
0
0

Change
direction

Improve
ment

(+)
(+)

6
4
7
6
7
5
7

(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)

n = 18
18
12
10
10
7
4
4
4
3
1
1
1

(0)
(0)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(0)
(0)
(+)
(+)
(+)
(+)

3
3
6
5
7
7
4
4
4

7
7
7

The same trend towards increased cultivation of forest products is shown in the
household level data (Table 14). This increasing trend in production are attributed to
various reasons such as improvement in cultivation technology, in the availability of
planting materials and land for cultivation, and the increasing prices of these products.
In regard to the project interventions (i.e. training, linkaging with line agencies), the
improvement in cultivation could have more visible contribution to such increase in
production. Although it has also made planting materials available, such would not have
yet had an impact on income because most of these perennial crops take some years to
bear fruit (i.e. more than the project year of duration).

28

Table 14: Changes in major selected cultivated forest products, household level
Cultivated
forest
products

# of hhs Change in amount cultivated and major reasons

cultivating
n=
(%) Incr Major
Reasons Decr Major
no
172
ease for increase
ease Reasons for change(%)
(%)
(%)
decrease

West Khasi

Bettlenut

Tezpatta

15

25

Broomgrass 108

West Garo

Bettlenut

100

14.5

60

62.7

62

improved cultivation
technology,
availability
of
planting
material,
availability of land for
cultivation
improved cultivation
technology,
availability
of
planting
material,
increase in selling
price
increase in selling
price,
improved
cultivation
technology,
availability of land for
cultivation

23.1

pest
and
diseases, area
cleared
for
cultivation
of
other
crops,
forest fires
pest
and
diseases, area
cleared
for
cultivation
of
other
crops,
forest fires

32

8.3

n=
242

165

Broomgrass 98

68

100

40.4

31.6

increase in selling
price,
improved
cultivation
technology,
availability
of
planting material
increase in selling
price, availability of
credit, availability of
land for cultivation

2.04

forest fires

63.26

5.1.3 Processed/value-added forest products

In the village survey, most (75%) of the eight villages that produce handicrafts that are
made of bamboo and cane have indicated an increase in their production. They attribute
the increase in production mostly to the trainings they had on improving their product
and to the increased price of their handicrafts. They have indicated the lack of raw
materials and market as their main constraints to further increasing their production.
These trends in changes and problems are the same when looking at the household
that makes such handicrafts (Table 15).

29

Table 15: Changes in major processed forest products, household level

Processed
forest
products*
West Khasi

Rainshield/
Knup

Khoh

Shang

# of hhs Change in volume of production and major reasons

processing
n=
172

27

17

10

(%)

15

Incr
ease
(%)

Major
Reasons
increase

for Decre
ase
(%)

81

Introduced technology for

processing forest product,
increase in selling price ,
improved road/bridge

Major
no
Reasons for chan
decrease
ge(%)

7.4

Decrease
in
availability
of
raw materials

11.1

47

Introduced technology for

processing forest product,
increase in selling price ,
improved road/bridge

5.8

Reduced
demand/
decrease
in
price, Decrease
in availability of
raw materials

47.4

100

Introduced technology for

processing forest product,
increase in selling price,
improved bargaining power
due to higher volume (e.g.
storage room)

5.2
General changes in livelihoods
Considering the integrated nature of livelihoods as well as the interventions by the
project, we also looked at the general changes in the livelihoods of the people using
some indicators regarding their various livelihood assets (i.e. financial, physical, natural,
human, and social capital). Generally, there is a general improvement in the status of
the livelihoods assets of the people, except natural resource assets. Improvement in
financial assets is shown by an observed increase in livestock holdings of the people.
With the establishment of self-help groups, there has been an increased savings among
the households and the interest rate has reduced significantly. A more frequent
presence of buyers in the villages was also observed, indicating increased economic
activities in these villages. Physical assets also improved as indicated by a general
increase in houses with piped water, electrical service, and houses with iron sheet.
Regarding human capital, the villagers indicated high improvement in the number of
children attending school. As for social capital, the survey indicated highest increase in
the number of people regularly participating in meetings, including women and youth
participating in village activities. However, despite these improvements, there was an
observed decrease in or deterioration of natural assets as indicated by a decrease in
the productivity of jhum and in the amount of fish collected from the river. Moreover, in
West Garo, the village and household interviews revealed that there has also been a
significant increase in conflict among villagers over access to natural assets. Details of
observations are presented in Table 16.

30

Table 16: Villagers assessment of changes in assets over the past 5 years.
Livelihood assets

West Khasi

West Garo

Change
direction

Improve
ment

Change
direction*

Improve
ment **

(+)
(+)

7
6

+
+

6
5

(+)

(+)
(+)
(0)

6
7
4

+
+
0

7
6
4

(+)
(+)
(+)

6
5
6

+
+
+

7
5
5

(-)

(-)
(0)

2
3

1
2

(-)

(+)
(0)

7
3

+
0

7
3

(0)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(+)

(-)

Financial indicators
1. No. of middlemen coming to village
2. No. of shops selling consumer goods
in the village
3. No. of households having own land
for cultivation
4. No. of livestock/poultry in the village
5. Average savings of self-help groups
6. Interest rate when borrowing money
from money lenders
Physical indicators
7. No. of houses with iron sheet roofs
8. No. of houses with electrical service
9. No. of houses with piped water
Indicators of natural assets
10. Amount of harvest of crops in jhum
(average quantity)
11. Average area of jhum
12. Average incidence of forest fires in a
year
13. No. of fish collected from the river
Indicators of human capital
14. No. of children attending school
15. No. of cases of death due to disease
in the village
16. No. of cases of child malnutrition in
the village
Indicators of social capital
17. No. of people regularly participating
in meetings
18. No. of women regularly participating
in meetings
19. No. of youth involved in community
activities
20. No. of self-help groups in the
community
21. Incidence of conflicts among villagers

* Based on percentage (> 50%) number of villages with increase/improvement (+), no change (0),
decrease/deterioration (-) in livelihood assets.
** 7 very high improvement; 6 - high improvement; 5 moderate improvement; 4 low improvement;
3 relatively no change; 2 moderate decrease/deterioration; 1 visible decrease/deterioration

31

5.3
Limiting factors to interventions/ investments in forest-based livelihoods
The above list of interventions by the selected villages again confirms the diverse set of
interventions selected by the villages and households, as well as the limited
investments on them compared to other sources of livelihoods. In order to better
understand such diverse and somewhat limited investments in forest-based livelihoods,
we look at the reasons why other villages and households did or did not invest in forestbased livelihoods; or the important factors influencing the decisions of the villagers to
invest in forest-based livelihoods. In doing so, we look at the commonalities in the
assets among, or characteristics of, the villages or households that invested in forest, as
well as among the villages and households that did not invest in forest enterprises.
5.3.1 Enterprises from forest products collected from the wild
Planting trees (i.e. reforestation) can be rightly assumed to target timber- or fuelwoodbased enterprises. As was earlier mentioned, reforestation activities were mostly done
in other states that had state programme supporting such activity. In West Khasi and
West Garo, state support was comparatively lower from other NERCOMP-covered
districts. In addition to this, reforestation was simply not a priority of most of the villages
as stated in the community management plan. One reason is obvious- they may not
have felt the need for it as there may be enough supply (of timber, fuelwood). Another
reason is the fact that reforestation is not a typical investment option where one invest
and expects profit. As many of them did, instead of directly planting trees which is an
expensive activity, many still target forest products collected from the wild by adopting
them as NaRMG forest to improve the management of these forests. Nevertheless,
there were still other villages that did not adopt NaRMG forests19. A common
characteristics of these villages is that the forests are mostly privately owned. Some
were able to adopt a forest (of various area), after getting the consent and cooperation
of the forest owner/s. In West Garo, there were four villages where the NaRMGs did not
adopt any forest.
5.3.2 Cultivation of forest products
The cultivation of forest products requires various factors or resources, with some
required factors depending on the plant being cultivated. Generally, these limiting
factors include the lack of planting material, land, labour, or working capital. The lack of
planting material is especially true for high-value crops (i.e. perennial crops) such as
orange and other fruit trees whose planting material needs to be propagated
professionally such as by grafting, or other plants that are difficult to propagate such as
some wild fruits (e.g. Sohiong); and therefore, whose seedlings are a little costly. The
lack of surplus labor also limits households from cultivating some forest products,
particularly labor-intensive crops such as tea and other fruit trees. This was confirmed to
be a reason why some farmers did not cultivate such crops even if the seedlings were
provided at minimal cost, even for free. Given that these two limiting factors (i.e.
19

Some villages that have not yet adopted a forest during the field survey indicated that they were still in the process
of adopting one.

32

planting materials and labor) are inputs accessible by cash, it can be said that
cultivation of forest products is also limited by the lack of working capital. Land is
obviously another limiting factor where those who have no access to land cannot
cultivate. However, it is hardly the lack of access to land that is limiting cultivation of
forest products but the duration and security of access. In some villages in West Khasi
where villages rent or lease the land they cultivate, the duration of rent or lease need to
be long enough for them to be able to harvest and profit from a forest product, which
usually would take years.
5.3.3 Processing/adding value to forest products, including marketing
Just like any investments, engaging in an enterprise that adds value to forest products
can be limited by constraints in accessing various inputs, particularly raw products,
labor, and working capital. Moreover, and often more importantly, they could be limited
by the market as indicated by a low product price.
5.3.4 General limitations in investing in forest products
It can be observed that many of the above limitations were targeted in the project
interventions, Yet, there were still limited villages and households that engaged in
forest-based enterprises compared to other enterprises such as livestock (e.g. cattle,
pig raising, etc.) or some cash crops such as ginger, squash20. A simple reason is
because these other enterprises are more attractive investments compared to cultivable
forest products. Raising livestock or cultivation of annual and horticultural crops give
faster returns, and probably generate higher profit21. This shows that aside from the
limitations in accessing inputs and disposing output products, there are still various
other sets of constraints to enterprises. Particular to the selected villages are the
various restrictions in the trade of forest products such as timber and charcoal, which
incidentally are significantly valuable collected products. If not banned or restricted, the
harvesting and trading of various forest products are required with royalties and fees,
unlike agricultural products which in contrast are often subsidized.
With the above discussion, it is shown that there are various limiting factors to
engagement in forest-based enterprises. Aside from those specific to any enterprise
within the value chain, there are various other reasons that could discourage villagers or
farmers from investing their money in forest-based enterprises. Generally, these
constraints are classified into three levels: micro (enterprise level) which are specific to
certain enterprise; meso (institutional/organizational level) including support providers
such as line agencies, CBOs and even the landowners; and macro (structural
constraints including policies, and various endowment in assets such as state policies
and infrastructure) which are difficult or expensive to reform. The more of these
constraints are identified and targeted, the more effective would be the interventions
20

Although there were also significant investments under horticulture and perennial crops most of these crops are
plantation crops such as pineapple, banana, elaichi, etc. which we did not consider as forest products as they usually
are not cultivated through agro-forestry.
21
With regard to profit, it is shown that some households were able to generate significant amount income from
forest enterprises (even higher than other crops). However, these seem to be limited to few households (i.e.
households with private and/or large area of forests).

33

6.
LESSONS LEARNED: CONTEXTS AND CONSTRAINTS, AND
INTERVENTIONS
The following are the lessons learned and theprocess of analysis understanding the
livelihood contexts, constraints to achieving livelihood objectives and effective practices.
6.1.1 Forest-based livelihood context

Diverse forest-based livelihoods: It is important to note that the term forest-based
livelihoods involves a diverse set of forest products, used for different purposes by
different groups of people who have varying degrees of access across different villages
and locations or geographical context. Improving forest-based livelihoods needs to
consider these diversities which imply diverse and specific constraints.

Various constraints to forest-based enterprises: Apart from the common and various
constraints to engagement in enterprise activities in the selected villages, it was shown
that many forest-based enterprises in particular face additional constraints, which partly
explains why investments into forest-based enterprises were limited compared to other
enterprise options such as livestock and annual crops.
6.2
Forest-based interventions
As demonstrated by the project, interventions start with arrangements with the
necessary stakeholders for the design and implementation of activities. In forest
interventions, this means working along with village institutions and getting the village
leaders cooperation.
Forest institutions
Village forest institutions are strong, particularly on communal forest resources (or
generally, to communally-owned natural assets such as forest land). Interventions on
forests need to recognize and work along with these institutions. On the other hand, it
was also shown that these forest institutions are diverse; and thus, requires flexibility in
approach or designs to cater to these diversities.

Stakeholder participation: As demonstrated by project interventions, one way of
working with the traditional institutions is to make sure that the recognized village
leaders who have authority over forest resources are involved (e.g. Nokma in West
Garo; Sordar and landowners in West Khasi).

Flexibility in design of NaRMGs (and SHGs): In regard to improving the
management of forest resources through NaRMGs, such variance in village forest
institutions then needs to be considered. As was done by the project, this requires
flexibility in the design of NaRMGs such as in their purpose, membership, and forest
being managed. Such need for flexibility in the design of community organizations is
also demonstrated in the case of SHGs (although they may not be involved in forestry)

34

where SHGs composed of youth and men were also promoted beside from an allwomen members as previously intended.

Improving forest products collected from the wild

Reforestation: As shown in the reasons for the limitations of forest interventions,
reforestation in communal forests can not be left out for the villagers to initiate, unless
they are given support specific to reforestation or given appropriate incentive for them
do it at their initiative.

Improving forest management: Given a bottom-up strategy of intervention such as
what the project did, it is shown that interventions to improve forest products collected
from the wild would be more on their management. However, its positive impacts can
not be shown clearly as these may have been countered by increased collection among
the villagers.

Establishment of NaRMGs: The improvement of forest management was done
through the establishment of NaRMGs and their various capacity building activities.
However, there are still various issues that need to be clarified regarding NaRMGs (e.g.
their role in relation with other village institutions, their composition, and their
sustainability) especially given the diversity of forest institutions in the villages. These
issues will be discussed in the section on emerging issues.
Cultivating and adding value to forest products
Unlike the earlier interventions, the decision to cultivate or process forest products lies
at an individual or an enterprise level. As such, the constraints and therefore the needed
interventions include the basic input constraints that a production enterprise need such
as land, working capital and labor.

Securing land tenure: In principle, land is not much of a problem since the people
could access communal land or rent or lease them at minimal price. A particular
constraint in land, is the insecurity of land tenure, which may vary in nature given the
different land ownership or tenurial arrangements in the villages. In communal land,
particularly open access forests which do not have clear rules over tenurial rights over
trees, it was shown that intervention needs to clarify or define such rules by trying to
write and document such forest rules. In cases where villages rent or lease the land,
intervention could be to extend the lease.

Provision of working capital: As for the other inputs, the project may not necessarily
provide them but enable the households to access them through the provision of a
working capital, which it did. Working capital could be used to buy inputs such as
planting materials, labour, or fertilizers. However, cash could be used for some other
purposes especially if the cultivation of forest products is generally not profitable or if the
cash is just not enough to engage fully into a forest-enterprise.

35


Provision of planting materials: Planting materials is a constraint for high-value

perennial crops such as fruit trees. The project initiated the establishment of central
nurseries, and this should be further replicated.

Establishment of SHGs: the establishment of SHGs enabled the villagers to access
credit to finance a number of enterprises. The various capacity building that the villagers
received has also proved helpful not just in dealing with the new requirements of being
a formal organization but most especially in improving their productivity, particularly in
group enterprises which include all types of forest-enterprises, but most especially in
marketing these products.
Linkaging with banks, other government line agencies and private sector: For
greater sustainability, the project has initiated linking NaRMGs and SHGs with
appropriate government agencies. This enables villagers to access government
services particularly afforestation funds and other poverty alleviation schemes.
6.3
Emerging issues and challenges
This study shows the various changes that the project brought as a result of its
innovative interventions given the complex nature of livelihoods in the selected villages.
Obviously, a way forward is to replicate these lessons learned from the experience of
the project. At the same time, however, this study also reveals emerging challenges that
may need more attention or rethinking when replicating or building on the strategies of
NERCORMP.
6.3.1 Community institution building (CIB)
Natural resources management groups (NaRMGs)
The role of NaRMGs: NaRMGs were obviously needed for the project to channelize
its interventions to the village, but as their name indicates they are envisioned to
manage the natural resources in the villages. Given the fact that traditional natural
resource management already exist in the villages, NaRMGs could be seen as a
starting point to formalize the traditional forest management institutions a repeatedly
cited constraint in linking the villages with formal organizations and which had drawn
suggestions on whether to adopt JFM- or CBFM type of resource management
arrangements in the State (See Saxena 2002; Poffenberger and Barik 2005). Given
this direction, one emerging issue would be the organizational structure of the
NaRMGs. This issue emerges with the fact that many NaRMGs were not engaged in
resource management and in some cases, NaRMGs manage only a portion of the
village forests. On the other hand, most NaRMGs are engaged in non-resource
management activities. Determining the ultimate direction for NaRMGs would have
implication to their organizational structure.

Structure of NaRMGs: NaRMGs have organizational structure that promotes

democratic decision-making. Household NaRMG members are represented by a man

36

and a woman from that household. This democratic structure may be suitable in
community-owned forests but it may not suit the cases of privately owned forest land
(e.g. forests are owned by individual households or village land is owned by large land
owners). In such cases, there is a need for flexibility in designing NaRMGs to reflect
the different land ownership arrangements in the villages.
A related issue would be the inclusion of all the villagers in the NaRMG because not all
village households are members of NaRMGs. If it is going to be a formalization of
traditional institutions, measures should be promoted for NaRMGs to be more
inclusive in their membership.
With NaRMGs being a formal version of traditional institutions, their role may also
evolve to address any weaknesses in local governance structures, especially at the
village level. Given the democratic design of NaRMGs, it is compatible with the
governance structure of ADCs and MLA a council of tribal representatives. At the
same time, their roles and possible structure should reflect the existing capacity of the
villagers or should be matched with parallel initiatives targeting their technical capacity
particularly in transacting with formal organizations.

Financial capacity of NaRMGs: Another emerging issue is their source of funding.

This is a fundamental problem with ADCs and will be true for NaRMGs or any of the
emerging organizations (i.e. NaRMG clusters, SHGs and their federations, partner
NGOs). These organizations were established and continue to be in operation
because of financial assistance from IFAD. To continue their operation even after the
project has ended, these organizations should be able to generate fund for
themselves. However, with the exception of SHGs which are designed for income
generation, this may be difficult for the NaRMGs and their federations to sustain their
operations or assume new roles without subsidy. They would need to be subsidized
but gradually they should be able to raise funds from their operations inorder to wean
them away from being dependent to subsidies. For the purpose of financial
administration, NaRMGs could adopt the CFUG fund model in Nepal.

NaRMG clusters and other associations: Some NaRMGs have started forming larger
organizations such as cluster groups. Various forms of associations may evolve out of
NaRMGs, and similar issues would be applicable to these emerging larger
organization. The more the NaRMGs are clustered, the more powerful and effective
they could be in participating in resource governance or beyond NRM. With this trend,
appropriate arrangements within the ADCs or State Forest Department are needed to
be compatible with these emerging organizations and be able to service their needs.
For example, a mechanism could be arranged for the participation and representation
of NaRMGs in ADCs or State forestry policy making.

Self-help groups (SHGs)

The project showed great success in organizing SHGs and promoting savings and
loans services. Two possibilities in further promoting SHGs is first, to intensify their

37

specialization in provision of credit services; second is to promote diverse SHGs in

terms of enterprise activities and therefore, membership. The project has already
started initiatives towards both. In the first direction, through the federation of SHGs and
linking these SHGs to banks and the other direction through the encouragement of nonexclusive SHGs and linkaging with other government service providers. Despite the
initial initiatives towards these directions, much is yet to be done in terms of better
linkaging not just with banks but particularly providers of technical capacity specific to
group enterprises such as the District Industries Centers (DIC) and Industrial Training
Centers and the various government agencies in the State mandated as service
providers for particular products and sectors.
This shift towards other enterprises and specialization within the context of SHGs would
have implication to the membership of SHGs, based primarily on enterprise
engagement and may not necessarily based on gender or other commonalities. While
the earlier SHGs put emphasis on targeting women and tried to promote a common
enterprise among them, future directions may try directly targeting individuals involved
in common enterprise/s (e.g. product, process in market chain). For example, in the
case of forest products, SHGs may be formed out of individuals engaged in one or more
of the forest (or agricultural) products and either or all aspect of value chain (i.e.
production, transportation, processing, packaging, marketing, etc.) of these products.
6.3.2 Income generating activities (IGAs)
The establishment of SHGs is just one initiative aiming to encourage the establishment
of enterprises and ultimately increase the income of the people. There are various
interventions that should or could be reformed to encourage enterprise development
and economic growth in these areas. However, there are various issues that need to be
clarified.

Subsistence- oriented production and policy: subsistence -oriented production can

be observed especially with forest products (e.g. timber, fuelwood, and charcoal)
where many villages have the policy of not selling them but are allocated for village
use only. While such policy has its reasons (e.g. to prevent overharvesting), it
outrightly cancels the potential to earn income from these forest products. This partly
explains the absence of investments made in timber plantation in the study villages or
plantations in the larger landscape of Meghalaya. There is a need to take pro-active
measures to shift this subsistence-oriented forestry in many of the villages towards a
market-oriented forest management and production. Interventions, however, should be
sensitive to such aversiveness of the people with commercialization (e.g.
individualization) through gradual changes, learning from pilot projects or lead farmers.
A strategy could be promoting a village-owned enterprise, where the villagers could
have an equitable distribution of the benefits from such enterprises. As earlier shown,
these implications are already being implemented by NERCORMP and succeeding or
similar initiatives should build on these lessons.
To some extent, subsistence-oriented production can also be observed in the
production of major crops such as paddy, maize. Subsistence-orientation in this case,

38

however, is due to the increasingly less productive jhum, with limited or no application
of inputs. A strategy being promoted is terracing but this is known to be expensive and
is more to encourage permanent cultivation, away from jhum rather than increasing
production. Another strategy that is being promoted is agroforestry. As demonstrated
in this study, agroforestry can offer a better alternative to jhumming.

Diversified vs. specialized production: It was shown that there are diverse crops
being planted by households and by villages, which was then followed by a diverse set
of activities that the project promoted as it followed a bottom-up approach. While a
diversified sources of income has its advantages of reducing risks to households or to
the whole village, it could also have its disadvantages of lacking economies of scale.
Certain specialization is needed in order to reach a competitive volume and scale of
operation that could enable the producers to attract traders to come to their village, to
enable them to hire transport and sell the produce themselves at a higher price, as
well as to attract related enterprises such as transport, processing, and ultimately
create an industry. This implies a greater coordination and cooperation among
intervening agencies and at various levels such as with the project, State and district
government, and banks such as NABARD. A possible way to forward is to identify
priority crops or products according to geographic location and suitability which shall
be the focus of support such as infrastructure development, credit, training, etc.

6.3.3 Other issues

Dealing with the poorest, interventions and expected livelihood changes: The
situation of livelihoods in Meghalaya points to fundamental issues on dealing with the
poorest and relatively subsistent economies. On one hand, they need to generate
income from their own resources given their increasingly cash needs but on the other
hand, their integration to the market could make their livelihoods more vulnerable.
Their very low access and ownership of livelihood assets suggests more investments
in increasing their assets particularly their human capital (i.e. capacity building) and
larger investments in infrastructure. The need for larger and longer investments for the
poorest as well as the limited intervention budgets point to the issue of whether
interventions should aim for short-term or long term interventions, and for larger or
more limited outreach. The project is relatively short-term but with wide outreach. It
also was implemented gradually only starting few years in some villages. This points
the need for continued support after the project. A project has initiative for these is the
linkaging of SHGs to Banks and of NaRMGs to ADCs.

Inclusion of all villagers: The exclusion of some village households is demonstrated

in the discrepancy between the total number of households and the number of
NaRMG households. There were also cases where initially identified villages
completely rejected project intervention.

Landlessness: The increasing privatization of land ownership in Meghalaya has

resulted to landlessness. Land acquisition programs as well as land reforms should be
supported for landless to have lands (e.g. improved land occupation arrangements

39

with landowners, allocation of private, village or ADC-controlled land to landless), and

programs and measures to minimize further landlessness.

Other macro politico-economic policy issues: There are various issues at the macrolevel which highly influence growth potentials in Meghalaya. This includes: a) the
restrictive policy of the State in drawing external investments especially regarding land
ownership; b) the restricted border trade with Bangladesh.

40

7.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we tried to understand the impact of NERCORMP on the livelihoods of the
people, with particular focus on their forest-based livelihoods. In doing so, we presented
the livelihood context of the villages that selected to invest in forest-based livelihoods,
the priorities of the people and the interventions they chose, the changes brought about
by the interventions/ investments made, and some lessons drawn from such project
experiences.
The study revealed that economic activities in the villages were generally subsistent: the
villagers sources of food and income are mostly from primary production of livestock
and crops which are produced with limited commercialization. The study revealed
various and reinforcing constraints to encouraging economic activities in the villages
such as remoteness and the general lack of infrastructure, public services and village
rules and traditions that directly and indirectly discourage commercialization. Despite
their widespread lack of the said livelihood assets, the study also have shown that the
village have rich natural resources, such as forest and that they depend on these
forests for various needs such as fuel, food, building materials, medicinal plants, and
income.
The presentation of interventions showed that given such various limitations in assets
and varying livelihood context among the villages, the NERCORMP intervened in these
villages through a bottom-up strategy where its interventions were highly based on the
priorities of the villagers. With this strategy, it was shown that interventions directed at
forest-based livelihoods were limited in terms of amount of investments and in the
number of villages and households that invested in them. Various and interrelated
factors were identified for such limited investment in forest-based livelihoods such as: a)
restrictions on trade of forest products by government or by village traditional
institutions; b) the communal ownership and open access to forest; and generally c)
the greater profitability of or faster returns from other income generating activities such
as livestock and annual crop production compared to most forest-based enterprises.
Despite these limitations to direct investment in forest-based livelihoods, there were
significant numbers of villages and households that invested in forest-based livelihoods
which have resulted to some improvements in forest institutions and to valuable forest
products, increased cultivation in forest products, and increased income from
handicrafts.
From the above experience of NERCORMP on forest-based interventions, various
lessons were identified such as formalization of village forest management institutions,
stakeholder participation, linkaging with other government line agencies, securing land
tenure, and flexibility in design of NaRMGs and SHGs.
Given these lessons, various suggestions were identified in improving benefits derived
from forests, for the same or similar project, and in the same or similar locations. These
include strengthening the capacity of the existing NaRMGs and SHGs and replicating
them, reforming market-restrictive forest rules, organizing forest enterprises and
entrepreneurs, and intervening towards specialization in production and value addition
of forest products.

41

8.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations basically replicate the strategy of NERCORMP by

building on its effective practices while suggesting further possible enhancement. The
recommendations follow a general direction of interventions, followed by more specific
action points at different levels and by different actors.
8.1. Direction of interventions: towards forest enterprise development
Interventions can be categorized into three levels following how constraints are also
categorized: policy, organizational support, and enterprise level. At the policy level,
intervention should involve reforming the restrictive rules regarding harvesting and
trading of forest products. This not only applies to state or district policy but also village
rules. At the village level, policy reform also means clarifying forest rules such as putting
these into writing or formalizing organizations by meeting legal requirements of
registration. Enhancing support services for forest enterprise development needs
organizing these enterprises and entrepreneurs to create greater coordination and
economies of scale. At the enterprise level, intervention basically involves increasing
the volume and value of the forest product.
a. Reform market-restrictive forest rules. Although forest rules may be documented and
registered, it would not encourage enterprise development if the rules just do not
allow selling. On the other hand, reality shows flexibility in the traditional rules.
Documentation of rules should include reforming village rules to reflect the reality
where commercialization of forest products may be restricted but not totally banned.
This does not only refer to restrictive traditional institutions but also to the rules and
policies at the higher policy level (i.e. ADCs, State Forest Department).
b. Clarify (e.g. document, formalize) village forest institutions. The lack of clarity or
documentation of village forest institutions (e.g. forest and forest resources
ownership, usage, and other rights; boundaries within and between villages) prevent
villagers from transacting with formal organizations especially banks, which is where
most government support are channeled. They also cause uncertainty to villagers
themselves, causing conflict and greater vulnerability. Forest rules in the villages
should be documented, forests and other private land surveyed and boundaries
delineated and registered with a formal government agency (i.e. ADCs).
c. Organize forest enterprises and entrepreneurs. Specialization does not come quick
to poor households and would hardly take place without coordination among the
individuals involved. Producers can reach the scale of viability or competitiveness
through coordinated and cooperative production.
d. Increase production (generally, resource productivity). Adopt improved production
technologies such as on seed/seedling production, cultivation (or management) to
intensify production. Allocate land and use machineries to extensify production.
Promote (manage/cultivate) commercially significant forest products.

42

e. Add value to forest products. After reaching a significant level of volume of

production, production should be followed by various types of value addition
following the products value chain (e.g. transport to market, sorting, processing,
packaging).
f. Specialize in production of forest products. The shift from subsistence-oriented
production towards market-oriented production should be directed towards
specialization in certain (forest) products and processes to achieve certain scale to
be viable and to be competitive. This not only implies some specialization at the
household level but also at the village and higher levels (i.e. cluster, blocks, district,
etc.). In addition, specialization in production should imply specializing in an
economically valuable forest product.
g. Diversify into other sources of forest income: The project has initiated necessary
institutional preparations to tap opportunities for payments for environmental
services. It should study the potential of tapping payments for environmental
services, particularly biodiversity conservation which significant number of villagers
have already started doing, and carbon sequestration opportunities for additional
incentive to plant trees.
8.2
Specific strategies and practices and specific recommendations
Various initiatives of the project are towards the above directions. The following
recommendations therefore try to replicate the good practices of the project and build
on the project initiatives.
Table 17: Direction of interventions, replicable practices, and further
recommendations
Direction of Replicable practices Further specific recommendations on
intervention
strategies and practices
1. Reform
No direct strategy IFAD to directly influence policy changes at
targeting policy reforms the State level.
marketbut promotion of group Formation of larger NaRMG (or forestrestrictive
(i.e. NaRMG and SHG)
enterprise) association to lobby for policy
forest rules

2. Clarify
(document,
formalize)
traditional
forest
institutions.

production (plantation)
moves towards opening
up to market-oriented
production.
Establishment
of
NaRMGs
Assistance
in
documentation
of
village forest rules and
registration with ADCs
Mapping of villages
and using GPS and
digitizing technologies

changes at the district and state level.

Encouragement
of
community-owned
enterprises and pilot projects on partnerships
with external investors.
Expansion of the role and membership of
NaRMGs, or both.
Clarification of the role of NaRMGs in relation
with traditional institutions (as discussed in the
emerging issues).
Greater project coordination with ADCs
regarding legitimacy and relationship of
NaRMGs and their clusters with ADCs.

43

3. Organize
forest
enterprises
and
entrepreneurs
4. Increase
volume and
value
of
products

SHG formation and

their federation
Identification
of
farmers with common
crops/enterprises.

Support establishment of SHGs exclusively

based on a common (forest) enterprise they are
engaged in.

Capacity
building
through trainings
Linkaging
with
government agencies
Credit
provision,
processing, etc.

5. Specialize
in production
of
forest
products

Relatively
diverse
crops promoted but
with some initiatives on
plantations (although of
annual crops)
Nursery
establishment
and
related trainings

6. Diversify
into
other
sources
of
forest income

The
project
has
initiated
necessary
institutional
preparations to tap
opportunities
for
payments
for
environmental services

Further improve coordination with government

line agencies providing specific training and
other support.
Improve processing, packaging, marketing,
etc.
by establishing for-profit
business
development services organization/s in the
State.
More focus on perennials (crops and products
in general) to be promoted in particular villages
based on their existing production performance,
crop suitability, and infrastructure (i.e. production
or economic zones).
Greater coordination among producers for
collective production (processing, marketing,
etc.) of such selected crops.
Greater
coordination
of
project
with
government line agencies and NGOs for more
focused support.
Study potential of tapping payments for
environmental services, particularly biodiversity
conservation which significant number of
villagers have already started doing, and carbon
sequestration opportunities for additional
incentive to plant trees.

44

8.3

Possible starting points for different stakeholders

Table 18: Possible roles of different stakeholders

Action
Actors and their possible roles
points
Project management
ADCs
Reform
marketrestrictive
forest rules

Clarify
(document,
formalize)
traditional
forest
institutions.

State
government

Other actors

Encouragement
of
community- Reduce taxes on forest Simplify process Village: Formation of
larger NaRMG (or forestof selling timber.
owned enterprises and pilot projects products
enterprise) association to
on
partnerships
with
external Lobby
for
more Public
investors.
on lobby for policy changes
permanent
budget awareness
Influence policy changes at the allocation so as not to policy incentives at the district and state
rely on forest resources on
forest level.
State level.
products
Support the formation of larger for revenue.
on
NaRMG
(or
forest-enterprise) Support study to define especially
association to lobby for policy changes role and organizational timber.
relationship
with Reclassify
at the district and state level.
traditional
institutions cultivated forest
and
State
Forest products
into
agricultural
Department.
products inorder
to exempt them
from tax
ADCs NGOs. Build capacity,
the
possible Assist
Study existing forest management Study
particularly
technical
(capacity
arrangement (ownership) and design organizational
regarding
with building in the capacity,
NaRMG arrangement that is flexible relationship
in
of processes
and
their process
enough to capture the variations in NaRMGs
formalizing forest documenting forest rules
clusters.
forest land ownership
and land ownership, to
for
budget management
Replicate project initiatives (e.g. Lobby
match with requirements
to
build institutions)
documentation of rules, registration, assistance
capacity to serve new Allocate budget of the project regarding.
mapping, etc.)
ADCs
to They could also do an
Continue
building
capacity
of and possibly increasing for
and active role in encouraging
demand from villagers conduct
NaRMGs.
(pilot village and households to
on registrations and support

projects on) land

Expand role and membership of land surveys.
up
with survey,
NaRMGs. Promote a more village Come
inclusive
and
more
democratic incentives (e.g. legal, registration, and
tax, limited time of free titling.
NaRMG.
service)
for
Greater project coordination with survey
and
ADCs regarding legitimacy and villagers
landowners to initiate
relationship of NaRMGs with ADCs.
land survey and land
registration.
Organize
Replicate SHGs composed of women Build capacity to be Build capacity to
forest
as well as the project flexibility of able to monitor and be
able
to
enterprises
including men or youth in the SHGs.
regulate SHGs and their monitor
and
and
Support establishment of SHGs transactions especially regulate SHGs,
entrepreneurs exclusively based on a common those
engaged
in especially those
engaged
in
(forest) enterprise they are engaged in. savings and loans.
savings
and
loans.
Increase
Improve
processing,
packaging, Reduce taxes on forest Allocate budget
volume and marketing, etc. by establishing for- products
for ADCs
value
of profit business development services To
reduce
taking Simplify
products
organization/s in the State.
on
income from farmers, processes
Further improve coordination with diversify sources of timber harvesting
and
government line agencies and other income (e.g. increase permits
providers of specific training and other productivity of ADC- export of forest
controlled land through products outside
support services.
Contract for-profit NGO for market joint venture schemes the State (e.g.
research, product development, market with private investors designate more
authorized office
linkaging, and other BDS delivery and villagers.
to
issue
based on industry and commodity
harvesting
value chain studies.
permits).
Specialize in Build on lessons from earlier pilot Coordinate with the Support
production of projects
State Government in research
on
forest
More focus on perennials (crops and identifying and planning technologies to

document
their
land
tenure,
demonstrating
incentives or advantages
for it.

Village: establish SHGs

and federate them. Given
the limited outreach of
banks, SHGs federations
may build their capacity
to act as an alternative
channel for grants from
the central government.
NABARD:
Support
forestry loans
Banks:
help
build
capacity of SHGs and
their federations. Provide
BDS along with credit
Private sector: engage in
contract production with
buyback agreement with
SHG federations
Research organizations:
Improve the cultivation
techniques of important
forest products.
Private
sector:
Coordinate
with
the
project (or government

46

products

products in general) to be promoted in

particular villages based on existing
production
performance,
crop
suitability, and infrastructure (i.e.
production or economic zones).
Greater
coordination
among
producers for collective production
(processing, marketing, etc.) of such
selected crops.
Greater coordination of project with
government line agencies and NGOs
for more focused support.

of agencies) in identifying
for
rural
economic cultivation
agroforestry
zones where particular important forest potential
(forest) products and products such as crops.
(forest-based) industry in propagation, Research organizations:
shall be identified and cultivation, and Identify suitable species
where infrastructure and post-harvest
for
commercial
support
shall
be practices.
production in the various
focused.
Coordinate with agro-ecological zones in
State
and
ADCs
in the
identifying
and disseminate
planning for rural
economic zones

47

REFERENCES
Belcher, B., M. Ruiz-Prez, and R. Achdiawan. 2005. Global patterns and trends in the use
and management of commercial NTFPs: Implications for livelihoods and conservation.
World Development 33 (9): 1435-1452.
DFID, 1999, Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets,
(http://www.livelihoods.org/info/guidance_sheets_pdfs/section4_2.pdf: date accessed: 0304-2005).
Kumar, N., N.C. Saxena, Y. Alagh and K. Mitra. 2000. Poverty Alleviation through Forest
Development, Country Case Study, Operations Evaluation Department, The World Bank.
Washington DC.
Poffenberger, M. and S.K. Barik. 2005. Community Forestry Systems under Pressure in
Northeast India, in Poffenberger, M. (editor) Community Forestry in Northeast India, pp11.
(http://www.communityforestryinternational.org/publications/research_reports/Community%2
0Forestry%20in%20NE%20India.pdf)
Saxena, N.C. 2002. Rural poverty in Meghalaya: its nature, dimensions and possible options,
(http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/articles/ncsxna/ncsax3.htm)
Scoones, I., 1998, Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis, Institute of
Development Studies (IDS), Brighton.

48