Journal of Global Resources

Volume 4 (01)January 2018
ISSN: 2395-3160 (Print), 2455-2445 (Online)

Page 46-52

07
OCCUPATION PROSPECTS FOR TRIBALS OF SIMILIPAL BIOSPHERE RESERVE FORESTIN ODISHA: AN ASSESSMENT
Chinmaya Ranjan Kumar1 and Swadhin Shaktiprasad2
1Department of Rural Development, Ravenshaw University, Cuttack, India

2

Email: crkumar143@gmail.com
Press Information Bureau, Govt. of India, Bhubaneswar, India
Email: sshaktiprasad@gmail.com

Abstract: The present study analyzes various livelihood opportunities for forest dependent tribal,
factors affecting livelihood, changing trends and policy interventions. The study has been
conducted in four villages and hundred samples were collected from Similipal biosphere reserve,
located in the tribal dominated Mayurbhanj district of Odisha state. Tribal people depending upon
forests for their livelihood seem to be challenging from sustainability front. People practicediversified portfolios at the subsistence level. It is found that convergence of various Government
sponsored schemes at the village level will play a crucial role in facilitating their access to themainstream. Effort on increased use of technology and information on market intelligence is amust. Sustainable use of forest resources, harvesting of Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP),
imparting skill up gradation training, sensitization of the community by Government and private
agencies are other essential factors for holistic development of tribal.
Keywords: Reserve forest, Tribal, Occupation, NTFP, Similipal
Introduction
Tribal and Forests are inseparable. Since time immemorial tribal have been residing in the forestand hence forest is their primary source of livelihood. With growing population and increasing
industrialization, the modern human lifestyle is changing rapidly. The growing pace ofmodernization and decreasing forest density have changed the dimensions and perspectives of
livelihood of tribal around the globe. The situation is more critical in reserve forests andsanctuaries. Conservation of biodiversity vis-à-vis existence of tribal people in these restricted
areas has become a moot point for academia, researchers and policy makers. Odisha is major
tribal dominated state of India. Tribal constitute around 23 percent of the State population and 9.2
percent of country’s population. Around 62 categories of tribes reside in the State. 72 percent of
the Scheduled Tribes are under poverty line and in South Odisha, 87 percent of tribal population
are living under Poverty line (Economic Survey of Odisha 2014-15). The tribal economy here is bylarge based on activities around the forest. Food gathering, hunting and fishing continue to be themain source of livelihood though some of the prominent tribes such as the Santals, Mundas andGonds have become agriculturists. The Juang, Bhuyan, Bonda, Saura and Dharua tribes follow
the shifting cultivation practice. The Koya tribal are cattle breeders while the Mohali and Lohara
are simple artisans involved in basket-weaving and tool-making.
More than 1.6 billion people around the world depend on varying degrees on forests fortheir livelihoods – not just for food and fuel but for livestock grazing areas and medicine. At least
350 million people live inside or close to dense forests, largely dependent on these areas forlivelihood and income, while about 60 million indigenous people are almost wholly dependent on
forests (ISFR, 2011). People living in the forest fringe villages also depend on the forest for food,
fodder, agriculture, housing, and an array of marketable minor forest produces which canpotentially degrade forest if harvested unsustainably. They collect edible fruits, flowers, tubers,roots and leaves for food and medicines; firewood for cooking (some also sale in the market);materials for agricultural implements, house construction and fencing; fodder (grass and leaf) for
livestock and a range of marketable non-timber forest products. Thus, this increasing degradationof forest is hampering the basic human right to life and livelihood of the local communities,
especially the indigenous community whose life is closely linked with the resources and46

environment of forest. On the other hand, widespread poverty and lack of other income
generating opportunities often make these people resort to over-exploitation of forest resources
which can potentially degrade forest and affect climate change.
Forest degradation is a serious environmental, social and economic problem. FAO defines
forest degradation as: The reduction of the capacity of a forest to provide goods and services.
However, quantifying the scale of the problem is difficult, because forest degradation has manycauses, occurs in different forms and with varying intensity, and is perceived differently bydifferent stakeholders. India’s current forest and tree cover is estimated to be 78.29 million ha,
constituting 23.81 percent of the geographical area of the country. Forest cover alone amounts to69.20 million ha, against the recorded forest area of 76.95 million ha. Out of the total forest cover,
12.06 percent is very dense forest (more than 70 percent crown density), 46.35 percent ismoderately dense forest (40 percent to 70 percent crown density), and the remaining 41.59
percent is open forest (10 to 40 percent crown density). Forest cover has declined by 367 sq. km
compared to the forest cover in the preceding ISFR in 2009. Tree cover outside forest areas is
assessed to be 9.7 million ha, and is experiencing an increase over the last few assessments,
indicating a rise in green cover in non-forest land in the country (ISFR 2011).
Objective and Methodology
The objective of this study is to carry out an in-depth research and summarize baseline socioeconomic information of the forest dependent households in the villages living in and outskirts of
Simlipal Biosphere Reserve (Buffer and Fringe villages), to assess the situation and find scope of
selecting suitable livelihood opportunities so that a framework for conservation based socioeconomic development plan for the communities could be developed. The specific objectives ofthe proposed study are:
• To study the socio-economic status of tribal community of the Similipal reserve forest of
Odisha.
• To scrutinize the challenges faced by tribal in sustaining their livelihood in the study area.
• To explore suitable occupation prospects for the forest dwellers of the study area.
Similipal has been selected as study area which is located in Mayurbhanj district of Odisha. Area
wise it is the second largest district of Odisha. It is also globally recognized for its beautiful“Similipal Biosphere Reserve”. Four villages have been selected through purposive sampling.
These four villages are Tulasibani, Tingiria, Brundiposi, Chadripahadi. The unit sample i.e.
hundred (100) households have been selected on the basis of random sampling method.
Baseline data on various indicators or parameters like asset holding, use of assets,
education, forest dependence, livelihood options, availability of credit and other financial services
etc. has been collected for reference. A study to explore alternate livelihood opportunities would
contribute in designing livelihood interventions and impact on livelihoods of the target community.
The interview schedule was prepared which aimed specifically to collect the required informationfrom the forest dwellers. The structure for focused group discussions, village profiling andresource mapping were also designed for amplifying community participation and getting insights
about community problems and needs. Quantitative data was gathered by interview schedules.
The data collected in the study includes household profiles, resource ownership, standards ofliving and livelihood priorities. Qualitative research was conducted through focused group
discussions and village profiling with participation of the community. This method of gathering
qualitative data was chosen because it uses participatory and targeted research methods togather objective viewpoints of different groups within a certain society. The resource profiling of
the area was also done by community participation, which helped in locating the resources likeforests, watershed, other villages, markets etc. This helped us to establish the extent andlocations of these resources, to analyze and understand them better.
Significance of the Study
The densely forested Simlipal Biosphere and Tiger Reserve are recognized as an area of richbiodiversity and hotspot for a range of unique endemic species. Creation of a wildlife sanctuary or
national park adversely affected the local people through dislocation, cessation of their rights andsources of livelihood. The poor and women are mostly affected as shown by several studies
47

under Environmental Justice. There are reportedly 57 villages within the sanctuary and several
among those are treated as encroachments. For their livelihoods, the people are dependent on
agriculture (those who have land), forest and other daily wage work. Lack of assured subsistencefrom either of these sources makes the tribal very vulnerable. In almost all tiger reserves of India,
increasing human and cattle interference seems to be a serious issue for the park management.
Population explosion and increasing demand over resources like fodder, fuel wood, NTFP, land
etc. force them to depend on forests. Therefore, the study has been conducted to gauge thepresent status of the livelihood in the area so that the intervention that promotes conservation visà-vis providing alternate livelihood options could be designed for the communities. Moreover, thiswill greatly help in strategic planning and implementation of various development policies infuture.
Results and Discussion
Based on the specified objectives, the findings of the study have been presented and discussed
in this chapter under different sections.
Livelihood Pattern
The first objective of the study is to understand the livelihood pattern of tribal people in forest
community of the Similipal. A livelihood portfolio mapping has been conducted for the 100
households in 4 villages, situated in the fringe area of the Similipal Biosphere Reserve tounderstand the livelihood portfolio of that area. The consolidated data says that the majority
population of this area depends upon Wage labor and agricultural activities. Apart from this,people are also doing NTFP collection and animal husbandry to meet the needs of theirlivelihood. The average land holding is 1 acre. The livelihood profile of the area is highly
diversified. A detailed livelihood portfolio mapping and chart of the area are given below. Major
portion of the community (about 53 percent) earns its livelihood from daily wages that they get in
the adjoining areas due to MGNREGS and non-MGNREGS activities. Most of the families own
land but the production is largely for consumption only as we can see from the chart that in spiteof having land, agriculture is the primary occupation of only 9.7 percent of the population andtherefore agriculture does not contribute significantly to income generation or cash inflow for thefamily.
Daily wages are also very popular in the secondary occupation, because the agricultural
productivity is very less due to the use of bad seeds and primitive agricultural practices. The
people are only dependent on rain for irrigating their fields, which makes them extremely
vulnerable. Due to these reasons, people often go for daily wages. The land was categorized into
homestead, lowland, medium land, leased land and up land according to the local demarcation.
About 20 percent of the population interviewed was landless and less than 2 percent cultivating
more than 10 acres. As most of the villagers of Tulasibani, Tingiria, Chadripahadi and Brundiposi
are marginal farmers and the production is usually for consumption purpose only, there are few
major crops identified out of which paddy and maize were found to be sown by most of the
farmers. Vegetables and other cash crops are sown by people in areas where irrigation facilities
are available. Poultry is the most dominant livestock in the area. Cows and buffalos are notmilked; people keep cows to have strong bullocks and milk of cow is left for the calf only therefore
the percentage of dry cows/buffalo is much higher than milked cattle (1.6 percent). Poultry
constitutes about 65 percent of the total livestock, but the income generated from goat rearing
and bullock selling is much more than the poultry. This shows the profitability of these livestockpractices. The contribution of goat in the total animal husbandry business is about 92 percent
while it is 69 percent for bullock and only 65 percent for poultry. This shows bullock trade is themost profitable animal husbandry business in the area.
Wood is primary fuel source for household power to these communities. Kerosene is used
only for lighting the lamps at nights. Other sources like LPG, Solar Cookers etc. were not seen in
any of the 34 villages visited. Although it is illegal to cut trees in the reserve forests but there is noother option available in the forests for the villagers. Most of the wood collected or cut is for selfconsumption only. If we take the total dependency of people on forest as 100 percent, then fuelwood will be around 90 percent, for Sal leaf it will be around 8 percent and rest about 2 percent
will be for other products like Mahua flowers and seeds, etc. Sal is the dominant tree variety
found in the area and production of dona, pattal (bowls and plates) made by stitching Sal leaves48

is the common practice. Bowls and plates made are sold in the market, which is a big business inthis area and most of the Sal leaves are collected for processing and selling in the market. At
dawn, women set out for the forests and remain there until afternoon, carefully selecting leaves
that would be stitched on the next day to make plates. A day's collection usually comes to 1,0001,200 leaves, enough to make 150-200 plates. The plates are dried the next day, though thegovernment has fixed a price—a packet of 80 plates is rupees 24, there is some haggling andpeople do not generate adequate revenues by selling Sal and Siali leaf plates. Siali leaf platemaking is a common practice in the area but it is not done commercially as most of the products
after the households use primary processing only. There is very less population of Siali creepers
in the area as the dominant species present in the area is Sal. Sal seed is used for the extractionof the oil, which is used mainly in manufacturing of chocolate and other fashionable items. Sal
Seed is a nationalized product since 1973 that means its trade is directly controlled by theGovernment of Orissa but there is a lot of illegal trade going on through intermediaries and thisNTFP is generally collected for commercial purpose only. The average price of Sal seed is aboutrupees 10 per Kg for the farmers.
Mahua is the raw material used for making country liquor, which is a big source of revenue
for the tribal. The months between February and May are the peak season for collecting 'Mahua'
flowers. The average price of Mahua flower is about rupees13 per kg in that area. This is
generally used for extraction of oil. This oil (solid at ambient temperature) is used for the care of
the skin, manufacture of soap or detergents, and as a vegetable butter. It can also be used as afuel oil. The product is often used in sweets and chocolates under the name "illipe". The seed
cakes obtained after extraction of oil also constitute very good fertilizer. The average price isabout rupees 12 per Kg in the area. The average price at which the honey is sold is about Rs.65
per liter and most of the honey collected is sold in the local market or supplied to the local traders.
Apart from consumption as a sweetener, honey is a medicinal product and used in various
ayurvedic medicines and cosmetics. The valuable leaves are used for wrapping Bidis, popular
smoke especially among poor natives. It is a nationalized NTFP and most of the produce is selfconsumed for making Bidis. The overall trade happening is through the middlemen only. This isalso used for leaf plate making. This is made by stitching the leaves together. This is also anationalized NTFP and cannot be traded freely in the market but most of the trade from this area
is illegal through an intermediary.
Loans Taken and RefundedMore than 40 percent of loans taken from the formal sources are repaid in the same year, as theloan amount was very small in most of the cases. Most of the loans taken are for consumptive
use only. Commonly these people do not have access to the banking and financial facilities, sothey fall prey to local moneylenders who charge interest rate as high as 300 percent. The otherinformal sources of lending include relatives and friends who are the main source of credit formost of the people.
Figure 2: Various sources of Loan

48%
40%

44%

44%
36%

36%
28%

TULASIBANI

formal loans

BRUNDIPOSI
semi formal loans

44%

28%

20%

TINGIRIA

44%

40%

CHADRIPAHADI

Informal loans

Source: Based on field survey
Sources of Cash in-flow
Daily wages come out to be the biggest source of cash inflow as in spite being the primaryoccupation; agriculture produce is not generating substantial income for most of the households.
Sources of Cash out-flow
Food is the biggest factor for cash outflow for the communities as the tribal communities acquire
most of the other things from their natural habitat and live with minimum requirements.

49

Figure 3: Cash Inflow of Communities from various sources
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00

32.41
20.71

14.53
5.63

4.35

3.82

9.26
1.40

1.55

6.32

Source: Based on field survey
Figure 4: Cash out-flow of Communities from various sources
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00

41.09
11.71

11.76

6.06

1.82

5.73

3.82

4.49

1.10

4.48

2.36

5.58

Source: Based on field survey
Challenges in existing Livelihoods
The second objective of the study is to examine the challenges faced by the tribal people insustaining their livelihoods. The people of the study area responded to various issues on
agriculture, agro-allied services and Non-Timber Forest Produce (NTFP). The result shows that
limited source of water and irrigation facility is found mainly in Chadripahadi. 84 percent people
expressed their views in favour of this followed by 68 percent of Tulasibani, 62 percent of Tingiria
and 48 percent of Brundiposi. Very few people said they require undulated land pattern. Most of
the people said that they have no awareness about new agricultural practices. 92 percent ofrespondent from Chadripahadi, 84 percent, 76 percent and 72 percent of people from Tulasibani,
Brundiposi and Tingiria respectively had this opinion. Non-availability of better technology is alsoa challenge. 96 percent, 88 percent, 80 percent, 72 percent of household in Tulasibani, Tingiria,
Chadripahadi and Brundiposi villages respectively had this opinion. Due to the distance between
dwelling place and market people are facing difficulties to sell their product. The result shows that
100percent, 96percent, 92 percent and 80percent of households in Brundiposi, Tingiria,
Tulasibani and Chadripahadi villages respectively consider this as a major problem. Moderate
replies have been found from people of the four villages regarding Interference of Intermediaries
i.e. 60 percent, 48 percent, 40 percent and 32 percent of households in Tulasibani, Tingiria,
Brundiposi and Chadripahadi villages respectively.
In agri-allied issues, the result shows various challenges faced by the villagers of these four
villages. It is found that 92 percent people of Brundiposi, 84 percent of Chadripahadi, 60 percent
of Tingiria and 48 percent of Tulasibani village marked lack of infrastructure facility as a major
hindrance. It is found that there is lack of water facility for irrigation as well as other requirement
i.e. 92 percent, 84 percent, 84 percent and 76 percent of households in Chadripahadi, Brundiposi,
Tingiria and Tulasibani villages respectively favoured this opinion. Some people replied that there
is fighting of livestock and wild life during grazing. The result also shows that there is noawareness about animal diseases and feed fodder management. Most of the people have repliedthat there is no reach of veterinary doctors at the remote villages. Most of the people rear nonmilked livestock. Most of the people don’t have adequate knowledge on Market price of different
commodities.
In Service sector, all the four villages are not getting local jobs easily. If at all they get any
manual labour work but it is not provided regularly. Also, people are facing problems of very low
wage rate. As they don’t have technical skills, they are unable switch their job. They are unawareof various employment opportunities found in urban areas. In the Non-Timber Forest Produce(NTFP) sector, most of villages like Tingiria villagers are not getting sufficient availability of NTFP.
50

Other villagers also replied the same. People have replied that they have threat of wild animals in
the Similipal reserve forest. Production of NTFP is more time consuming and most of them areseasonal. There is also restriction through different forest laws by the Forest department.
Table 01: Challenges faced by villagers (in percent of Household)
Agriculture
Tulasibani Tingiria
Brundiposi Chadripahadi
Limited source of water and irrigation
68
62
48
84
Undulated land pattern
40
44
36
44
No awareness about new practices
84
72
76
92
Non-availability of better technology
96
88
72
80
Distance from the market
92
96
100
80
More Interference of Intermediaries
60
48
40
32
Agri-allied
Tulasibani Tingiria
Brundiposi Chadripahadi
Lack of infrastructure
48
60
92
84
Lack of water facility
76
84
84
92
Fighting of Livestock and wild life
during free grazing land
36
44
52
28
No awareness about animal Diseases
and feed fodder management
52
60
48
44
Veterinary Doctor services do notreach at the remote villages
92
88
88
84
Lack of Knowledge on Market Price
92
84
76
80
Rearing of non-milked cattle
84
76
68
80
Services
Tulasibani Tingiria
Brundiposi Chadripahadi
Lack of local job
84
92
84
80
Irregularity of job
80
96
88
84
Low wage rate
92
88
96
92
Lack of technical skills
76
68
84
80
Unaware about the market
94
84
84
88
Non-Timber Forest Produce (NTFP) Tulasibani Tingiria
Brundiposi Chadripahadi
Not available sufficiently
84
92
84
80
Threat of wild animals
92
88
82
92
More time consuming
80
76
88
80
Seasonal opportunity
72
72
84
84
Restrictions by Forest department
92
88
94
92
Source: Based on field survey
Livelihood Opportunity
The third objective of the study is to explore suitable livelihood opportunities for forest dependenttribal people at Similipal. Mostly they depend upon forest to earn their livelihood, but they don’t
get sufficient money from it. They also depend upon agricultural activity, poultry, daily wage laboretc. In order to improve the livelihood patterns of the forest dependents some suitable livelihood
opportunities should be provided to them. Various suggestions are given by people withsignificant frequency. The people were asked about their problems and the solution to those
problems according to their own understanding. Most of the people suggested that they need
irrigation facility on priority basis followed by infrastructure facilities like transport orcommunication facility, electricity, school and health facility, local based employment opportunityand loan facilities. They also require training and capacity building in the field of agriculture,
poultry, animal husbandry etc. which will help them to enhance their income. As it’s a forest
based area people are interested in the provision of Press Khali Machine through which they can
produce better and more leaf-plates. Very few people showed their interest on MGNREGS work.
If these opportunities would be created for the forest dependents, their wellbeing will attainsustainability from the socio-economic front.
Conclusion and Recommendation
As the situation at the Similipal Biosphere Reserve on which the tribal people depend upon for
their livelihood seems to be challenging from sustainability front, people practice diversified
51

portfolios at the subsistence level to complete the cycle. The above issues associated with theexisting livelihood as discussed above clearly reflect that there is a necessity to adopt acomprehensive strategy while selecting a livelihood to sustain as mentioned below;• Filling the gaps in the existing livelihood- through extending technical services, value addition
to the forest products and market led approach with collective action.
• Explore new livelihood opportunity which will complement to the existing one like; bee keeping,
designing of handicraft products, production of medicinal products etc.
• Select completely new livelihood opportunity that has enough potential and low risk like;business led backyard poultry by introducing high yielding varieties.
• Skill development through vocational trainings to the local youths in selected trades who canbe engaged in various industries or self-employed.
Following recommendations are drawn from the overall observations and analysis:• Convergence of various Government sponsored schemes at the village level will play a crucialrole in facilitating access of forest dependent tribal to the mainstream.
• The role of civil societies is crucial to empower the community and capacitate them in various
livelihood activities in adopting better Package of Practices (PoP) to ensure increase inproduction.
• Effort should be made to popularize use of technology and enabling their access to
information on market intelligence is a must.
• Optimum use of available resources and adoption of innovative value addition method arevery essential.
• Sustainable use of forest resources and harvesting of NTFPs.
• Sensitization of the community by Government and private agencies to take the lead forholistic development of the household vis-à-vis villages.
References
Bahuguna, V.K. (2000). Forests in the Economy of the Rural Poor: An Estimation of the
Dependency Level. Ambio, 29(3):126-129.
Bharath, K. L.B., Patil, B.L., Basavaraja, H., Mundinamani, S.M., Mahajanashetty, S.B., & Megeri,
S.N. (2011). Participation Behavior of Indigenous People in Non-Timber Forest Products
Extraction in Western Ghats Forests. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Science (2):170–172.
FAO (2005). Global Forest Resource Assessment. FAO Forestry.
Forest Survey of India (2011). India State of Forest Report. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment
and Forests, Government of India. 286.
Forest Survey of India (2011). India State of Forest Report. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment
and Forests, Government of India. 286.
IPCC (2007). Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE, Eds.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Mahapatra, K. &Kant. S. (2005). Tropical deforestation: a multinomial logistic model and somecountry-specific policy prescriptions, Forest Policy and Economics, 7 (1): pp.1-24.
MoEF (2006). Report of the National Forest Commission. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment andForests, Government of India P. 421.
MoEF (2009). State of Environment Report. New Delhi: Ministry of Environment and Forest.
Government of India.
Sadashivappa P, Suryaprakash S, & Vijaya Krishna, V. (2006). Participation Behavior ofIndigenous People in Non-Timber Forest Products Extraction and Marketing in the Dry
Deciduous Forests of South India. Conference on International Agricultural Research forDevelopment, Tropentag University of Bonn, October 11–13.
Saha A. & Guru, B (2003). Poverty in Remote Rural Areas in India: A Review of Evidence andIssues, GIDR Working, Ahmedabad: Gujarat Institute of Development Research. 139:69.
Saha, D. & Sundriyal R.C. (2012). Utilization of Non-Timber Forest Products in Humid Tropics:
Implications for Management and Livelihood. Forest Policy. Econ. 14:28-40.

52