Participatory Livelihood Vulnerability Assessment of the Forest Dwellers: A Study of Fifteen Tribes and Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups in the Eastern Indian Region

Abstract

This study aims to undertake the Participatory Livelihood Vulnerability Assessment (PLVA) of forest dwellers in the Jharkhand and Odisha states of eastern Indian region. The study covers 15 tribes that included 8 Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) and 7 other tribes from eight districts of Jharkhand and Odisha. The authors combined both participatory and survey-based approaches and used the simple indexing method for PLVA. They observed that landless families were among the most vulnerable. The forest dwellers have poor access to education and health. Both minor forest produce and social-welfare measures are important safety nets for the forest dwellers. There is, however, better access to banking, pukka houses, toilets and so on. Furthermore, attention is required to strengthen livelihood opportunities for the forest dwelling communities.

Keywords

Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Group (PVTG)Participatory Livelihood Vulnerability Assessment (PLVA)Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI)Human Development Index (HDI)Indexing

Introduction

The forest continues to be central to the livelihood system of tribal and other forest dwelling communities. It provides supplementary food, fuel, fodder, medicine, non-timber forest produce (NTFP) and helps in providing sustainable livelihood and development opportunities for tribals and nontribals alike. About half of India’s 89 million tribal people live in forest fringes and they tend to have close cultural and economic links with the forest (World Bank, 2005). The forest-based (tribal) communities have knowledge about both edible and non-edible plants, roots, shoots and tubers that are either used as substitutes for food grains or may be used as main edible items and for medicinal use. In addition, they have innumerable access to plants, tubers and roots, which can be used as a substitute to staple food at times of famines and agricultural crises. Nag (1958) noted that at times when cultivators in the plains become helpless and seek aid from outside to overcome crises, the tribal communities, on the contrary, find wonderful famine relief in the lap of nature. Roy Burman (1982, 1987) have noted that in times of distress like famine, the tribal communities and subsistence growers rely on the forest for their livelihood support. To optimize forest extraction, they reinforce more household labours. Numerous literatures are available on how the forest is used as a safety net (Oldekop and et al, 2020; Paumgarten, 2005; Shackleton and Shackleton, 2003; Wunder et al., 2014). Agro-forestry-based livelihood is also quite significant to supplement the livelihood pattern among the forest dwellers (Chilongo, 2014; Sahoo, 2018). The forest has become the basis of social and cultural institutions for tribal and other forest dwelling communities. It balances society and the environment with sustainable support to the tribal economy.

The forest has the potential to absorb the largest workforce after agriculture (Roy Burman, 1982, 1987). The forest sector alone employs globally about 13.7 million formal workers and even more number of informal workers. India is among the top 10 countries in terms of forestry sector employment in the world (ILO, 2021). The report of the Sub-Group II on NTFP and their Sustainable Management under the 12th Five Plan estimated roughly 275 million rural people in India, which accounts for 27% of the total population in the country depending on NTFPs at least for a part of their subsistence livelihood (IGNFA, n.d.). An estimate suggests that more than 40% of the poor in the country live in the forest fringes not just to collect forest products for their consumption, but also to use them on a commercial scale to generate income (Nayak et al., 2018). The forest sector has the capacity to grow rapidly to boost agricultural and industrial production and increase economic growth. Focus is required on social forestry, forest-based industry, tourism and other income generating activities for the livelihood status of the forest dwelling communities.

The forest dwellers had little insecurity about their forest rights earlier, until there was restriction on access to forest resources imposed through various acts and legislations during the colonial and post-colonial periods. The forest dwellers had reasonable access to forest resources and they used to live with utmost freedom without any insecurity of proprietary rights. Eventually, the forest became a state resource and ownership rights were vested only with the state. However, in 1976, the Constitution of India brought it under the Concurrent List. Tribal communities’ access to forest resources became mainly confined to NTFP or minor forest produce (MFP). Even then, there is over-regulation of NTFP/MFP by states, where decentralization of NTFP management is still in question despite the Panchayat Extension to the Scheduled Areas Act (PESA) in force, by which the management of NTFPs lies with the community.¹ On one hand, the traditional forest dwelling communities lack ownership access to land and forest land, and on the other hand, they lack actual control over forest produce or NTFP. Currently, tribals, the main forest dwellers are subjected to multidimensional deprivations (Bakshi et al., 2015). Sarap (2017: 27, 29) noted that the major causes of tribal poverty are lack of access to secure productive resources such as land, forest, other common property resources (CPRs) such as grazing grounds, ponds and tanks and, most importantly, lack of meaningful participation of the local communities in the decision-making process. The land tenure system in tribal areas is characterized by uncertain tenure rights. There are no clear guidelines on land property rights because of several reasons, including lack of updated land records in many areas. Even the land market institutions in tribal areas face several challenges and deter the genuine empowerment of tribals. This loss of entitlement to resources has not only affected their livelihood but has also made them poor and furthermore vulnerable. However, over the years there has been erosion of access to different types of resources from which the tribal communities derive their livelihood opportunities.

Classification of the forest dwellers

The FAO (1998) classifies three main types of forest people based on their relationships with the forests, which also cover the spectrum of livelihood benefits: (1) people who live inside the forest, such as hunter-gathers, shifting cultivators and so on, and are heavily dependent on it; (2) people who live outside but are close to the forest for supplementary income and practice subsistence economy. This group includes farmers, cattle herders, MFP gathers and others who depend on the forest directly or indirectly and (3) people engaged in forest-based commercial activities for profit through timber, minerals and so on.

Ros-Tonen and Wiersum (2005) classify forest-dependent communities into three categories: (1) undisturbed forest areas, (2) forest areas partly replaced with anthropogenic vegetation and (3) forest areas with rural–urban interface and links with the outside market.

Based on the interaction between man, technology and forest, that is, land use practice, forest areas are classified as completely natural vegetation, mixed forest, and plantation and forestation. There is hardly any forest that is virgin and untouched by human interference. Despite restriction of primitive forest dwellers’ access to forest land, both reserved forest and protected forest are prone to anthropogenic pressure. Increased mining in tribal inhabited regions, forest clearance in the name of infrastructure development and development projects have displaced forest-based communities and affected their livelihood. However, there is no up-to-date database available on it at the national as well as state level.

Forest-based economy

Anthropologists in India have classified the forest-based livelihood system as-hunter-gathers, foragers, shifting cultivators, agriculturists, casual labourers, skilled labourers and artisans, and landless agricultural labourers. Hasnain (1991) in his book, Tribal India Today has classified tribes based on their economic practices into the following six groups: hunter-food gatherers, foragers, hill cultivators/shifting cultivators, agriculturists, agricultural labourers and artisans.

Tribes and livelihood in India

India is a land of multi-ethnic communities among which the tribes have a considerable presence. Usually, the tribes are identified with lower access to education, modern health facilities and modern technology. Besides, they have a distinct culture, geographical isolation, and subsistence economy and their contact beyond their own community is limited (Malik, 2020; Misra, 2016; Radhakrishna, 2009). In India, there are more than 700 tribal communities that are identified as Scheduled Tribes (STs). Among the tribal communities, there are 75 Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), earlier called the Primitive Tribal Groups (PTGs) of India, who have their presence in 18 States and in one Union Territory (Ministry of Tribal Affairs, 2015). These PVTGs are classified on the basis of certain additional socio-economic characteristics such as the pre-agricultural level of technology, very low level of literacy and declining or stagnant population (Misra, 2016; Radhakrishna, 2009). Also, most of these communities are living in the forest fringes and hill terrains, and practice forest-based economic activities. For living in the forest and deriving main livelihood opportunities from it, these communities are also classified as forest dwellers. However, forest dwellers are not confined to PVTGs; they also include other tribal and non-tribal communities who have been traditionally living in the forest and depending on a forest-based livelihood for generations. The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006, recognizes the rights of forest dwellers on account of forest land for individual or common occupation, for habitation and for livelihood including the rights of ownership, access to collect, use and dispose of MFP, right to protect, regenerate or conserve or manage self-cultivation, occupation of forest land and so on.

Most of these forest dwelling groups, particularly PVTGs, are small in number, have not attained any significant level of social and economic progress and are generally inhabited in remote localities with poor infrastructure and public institutional support. Tribes, mainly the forest dwellers, are subjected to multidimensional deprivations (Bakshi et al., 2015). For the development of tribes in forest regions, the Government of India under the Special Central Assistance releases funds to the Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) for infrastructure work relating to basic services and facilities like approach roads, school, health facilities, drinking water, minor irrigation, rain water harvesting, sanitation, community halls and so on, for development of forest villages. Furthermore, realizing the loopholes in the Central Special Assistance and other development schemes, the Ministry of Tribal Affairs has adopted the habitat development approach. Under the scheme, each state or Union Territory having PVTG populations was asked to prepare a long-term ‘Conservation-cum-Development (CCD) Plan as to carry out a Baseline Survey (BSL) for each PVTG in order to assess the situation and recognize the tribal people’s needs and aspirations’ (Ministry of Tribal Affairs, 2015; Misra, 2016). Unfortunately, the CCD Plan also has not produced any visible benefits to address livelihood issues of the PVTGs due to large-scale variations among the states with respect to their socio-economic positions (Misra, 2016).

There are reports about malnutrition and hunger among the tribal children who are particularly living with their family in the forest fringes. A UNICEF (n.d.) study has reported that about 80% of the 5 million chronically undernourished tribal children live in just eight states of Jharkhand, Odisha, Chhatishgarh, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Rajasthan. Dungdung and Pattanaik (2020) from their study of eight tribal communities in Odisha noticed the lack of basic amenities for households in the inhabited blocks. Also, they observed that there are notable differences in terms of food security, landholding and income among the tribal communities. It is also evident that the forest dwellers are no more free to access forest resources, as there is restriction to forest resources through forest laws (Bose, 2011; Sahay, 2012; Sylvester et al., 2016) and there is no NTFP available sufficiently to meet the economic ends without effective market linkage and value addition (Tikkanen et al., 2020). Studies on poor implementation of the Forest Rights Act have been noted by scholars (Mohanty, 2014; Sarap and Sarangi, 2009). Sarap (2017: 27, 29) notes that the major causes of tribal poverty are lack of access to secure productive resources, such as land, forest and other CPRs such as grazing grounds, ponds and tanks and, most importantly, lack of meaningful participation in the decision-making process. In view of such a scenario, the livelihood of forest dwellers remains under stress.

Livelihood Vulnerability Assessment

While forest dwellers are prone to distress and vulnerability, there is no adequate scientific assessment of their vulnerability and ranking. Assessing livelihood vulnerability is the first step to develop adaptation strategies, formulate policies, and implement such policies and strategies to reduce risks and improve livelihood of communities (Ford and Smit, 2004; Huong et al., 2018). It is used as a pragmatic approach to monitor vulnerability, examine resource assistance and evaluate policy and programme effectiveness (Hahn et al., 2009; Hossen, 2016). Yan and Zhang (2011) particularly convinced that the livelihood vulnerability assessment (LVA) provides a scientific basis for poverty reduction and regional sustainable development. Sujakhu et al. (2018, 2019) studied the determinants of livelihood vulnerability of farming communities in Asian highlands and emphasized strengthening human, natural and financial capital to manage risk in these communities. They observed that livelihood vulnerability indices are mainly used by researchers to assess the changing climate vulnerability. Junquera and Grêt-Regamey (2020) have examined the effects of agricultural transitions on livelihood vulnerability of farmers in northern Laos. They have assessed livelihood vulnerability using the Bayesian network. Singh and Nair (2014) assessed the vulnerability of agro-pastoralists in Bhilwara, a district in Rajasthan State in Western India and attributed it to climate change by adopting the fuzzy cognitive mapping approach.

In the very recent literature available, Dasgupta and Badola (2020) discussed the assessment of resilience and vulnerability of households in the Bhagirathi Basin of the Indian Western Himalayan region. Singh (2020) focused on a similar study among the small and marginal farmers of Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh. A large volume of such literature available on LVA is mainly attributed to the issue of climate change.

Scholars from economics and other social science disciplines have been largely enthusiastic in using the quantitative approach for socio-economic analysis; however, they have largely ignored the dimension of social institutions and community perspectives in the livelihood analysis. To anthropologists and sociologists, however, social institution is an important aspect of livelihood analysis. Anthropologists and sociologists are particularly interested in the discourses of social vulnerability. Thus, they focused on the multidimensionality of poverty and encouraged the use of participatory tools to understand the qualitative features of poverty rather than using mere economic methods of analysis. Such dimensions include social institutions, power relation, adaptability, resilience and access to capital (assets) (Moret, 2014). Koirala (2015) undertook LVA of the Chepang community in Nepal by using the questionnaire survey method and in-depth interviews. He assessed multiple dimensions of livelihood such as existing infrastructure, access to public services, forest-based natural resources, skills and income generating activities.

Furthermore, there are ethnographic studies by anthropologists describing socio-cultural and economic organizations and the way of life and livelihood of the tribal communities in India. The livelihood issues of the communities are very much manifested in earlier researches, but there are methodological gaps in the analyses of already existing researches that can scientifically establish the vulnerability ranking using multipronged approaches such as a combination of participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and survey methods. The LVA of forest dwellers would identify the most vulnerable among the vulnerable communities, which is assessed in terms of indexing score (the lower the index value is, the higher the vulnerability). For the use of PRA to identify factors to facilitate the household survey and developing the index, this approach is called the participatory LVA or participatory livelihood vulnerability assessment (PLVA).

Although indexing as a method is not new in LVA, yet its focus on tribes and traditional forest dwellers while using both PRA and survey-based approaches is rare. Moreover, application of the simple indexing method for easy understanding of readers from across qualitative and quantitative disciplines is noteworthy.

In view of the above, the authors’ approach to undertake the LVA of forest dwellers in eastern Indian region is associated with a combination of both the PRA and survey-based approaches. The ranking and scoring of each forest dwelling community (tribe) is based on the assessment of multiple socio-economic conditions of the forest dwellers in the eastern Indian region. PLVA, which is a participatory approach, would help in identifying the most vulnerable communities and develop new policy and strategy for their development. Moreover, the novel methodological insight (PLVA) would help other researchers to assess the livelihood vulnerability of other communities and in other regions.

Materials and methods

The states covered under the study are Jharkhand and Odisha in the Indian subcontinent. The purpose of selecting these two states in eastern India is due to the high incidence of poverty and vulnerability of the tribal communities, who constitute 26.2% in Jharkhand and 22.8% in Odisha as per the estimate of the 2011 Census. Jharkhand and Odisha include 32 and 62 STs, respectively, which together constitute 13.7% of total 700 STs in India. In addition, these two states are inhabited by 22 PVTGs (13 in Odisha and 9 in Jharkhand), who are also recognized as forest dwellers. Agriculture, which includes both settled and shifting cultivation, forest-based economy and allied activities are the main source of livelihood for these tribal communities who live in this part of India.

In the first phase, we undertook short-listing and selection of districts, followed by selection of the blocks based on review of some socio-economic factors. The factors considered for the selection of districts are forest density, tribal and PVTG population, poverty and backwardness on the socio-economic front (MPI and HDI) in the state.

Four districts from each state with one district from each region were selected randomly. One of the districts with a fairly large presence of mining or industries or with both of these two, that is, with both mining and industries, was selected for the survey. Most of the districts have a higher proportion of tribal communities and tribal population and a high incidence of poverty. Some of the villages are also covered under the TSP. Tribal Development Agencies are also active and operational in some regions. The districts selected under the study also fall under the Eastern Ghats, the Northern Plateau Central Basin and the Central Table Basin Geophysical locations. The selected blocks have distinct geographical features with prevalence of hills, forests, valleys and plains.

Selected districts in Jharkhand

The East Singhbhum district from Kolhan Division, Latehar district from Palamu Division, Simdega in South Chotanagpur Division and Pakur district from Santhal Pargana Division. East Singhbhum district has relatively better presence of both mining and industries compared with other districts in the state.

Selected districts in Odisha

Keonjhar district from North Odisha, Kandhamal district from south-central Odisha, Sundargarh district from Western Odisha and Rayagada from South Odisha are selected for the survey. Among these three districts Keonjhar and Sundargarh have a relatively better presence of both mining and other industries.

The detailed list of selected districts, blocks, gram panchayats and villages is mentioned in Table 1 for Jharkhand, and in Table 2 for Odisha. Maps showing the states in India, states with demarcation of districts and districts with demarcation of blocks are given in Figures 1 to 4, respectively.

Table 1.

List of selected districts, blocks, Gram Panchayats (GPs)^a and villages in Jharkhand.

District	Block	GPs	Villages
East Singhbhum	Chakulia	Kalapathar	Bankati
Latehar	Garu	Kotam	Domakhar, Baheratoli
Simdega	Kurdeg	Khinda	Dhodhi, Jamkona and Khinda
Simdega	Kurdeg	Kutmakachaar	Kokradera
Pakur	Litipara	Jordiha	Amarbita
Pakur	Litipara	Kunjabana	Darikuriya

Gram panchayats are the lower (village) level democratic institutions, recognized by the Constitution of India under the 73rd Amendment Act, where the elected members from villages take part in developmental initiatives of the respective villages.

Table 2.

List of selected districts, blocks, Gram Panchayats (GPs) and villages in Odisha.

District	Block	GPs	Villages
Keonjhar	Banspal	Gonasika	Guptaganga, Kadalibari and Sinkulapada
Kandhamal	Tumudibandha	Birmal	Domaska, Goranya and Mundimaska
Rayagada	Muniguda	Saibapadar	Batudi, Pajibali and Sarkapadi
Sundargarh	Lahunipara	Tal-Bahali	Badnuagaon, Sannuagaon and Kardapadar

Figure 1.

State maps with distribution of PVTGs with respect to the whole population of PVTGs in Jharkhand and Odisha states.

Figure 2.

PVTG population distribution district-wise in Jharkhand and Odisha.

Figure 3.

Mapping of selected blocks in Jharkhand.

Figure 4.

Mapping of selected blocks in Odisha.

We referred to the Government of Jharkhand Forest Department’s (n.d.) data on forest area (http://forest.jharkhand.gov.in/Administration/forest_area.aspx) (Alkire, Oldiges, and Kanagaratnam, 2018) study on multidimensional poverty index (MPI) and Shiv Kumar’s (2018) study on human development index (HDI) and other reports for selection of districts in Jharkhand on the basis of calculated median scores for each of indicators such as ST population, PVTG population, MPI and HDI that were collected from the secondary sources. Similarly, we considered the Census of India (2011), and Alkire et al. (2018) and Shiv Kumar (2018) on MPI and HDI and others in India for selection of districts in Odisha on the basis of calculated median scores for each indicator such as the ST population, PVTG population, MPI and HDI.

The whole sampling procedure adopted above is based on both purposive sampling and simple random sampling (SRS). The most notable target group under the survey was PVTGs and other forest dwellers settling in the same or in adjacent villages.

Unlike in the part of Jharkhand where there was a survey on PVTGs during 2002–2003, there is no exclusive survey for PVTGs in the state of Odisha. However, in Odisha, there are micro-projects launched exclusively for the development of PVTGs in 13 districts. These micro-projects are considered as reference points of the survey.

Selected tribes and sample population

We covered 15 tribes distributed across eight districts with four districts each from Jharkhand and Odisha. The purpose of selecting these 15 tribes was based on their nature of (forest based) habitation and also based on allocated budget and the time limit for completion of the research project. These 15 tribes are the Sabar and the Santhal in East Singhbhum; the Parahiya, the Oraon and the Kharwar in Latehar district; the Sauria Paharia or Sauria Pahadiya in Pakur district; and, the Korwa and the Oraon in Simdega district of Jharkhand. The tribes in Odisha are the Bhuiya and the Juang in Keonjhar district; the Pauri Bhuiya, the Bhumij and the Munda in Sundargarh district; the Kutia Kondh in Kandhamal district and the Dongria Kondh and Adivasi Kondh in Rayagada district. The PVTGs covered under the study in Jharkhand are the Sabar, the Sauria Paharia, the Parahiya and the Korwa. Similarly, in Odisha the Juang, the Pauri Bhuiya, the Kutia Kondh and the Dongria Kondh are the PVTGs covered under the study.

The Parahiya, Oraon, Santhal and Kharwar in Jharkhand and the Bhuiya, Bhumij, Munda and Adivasi Kondh of Odisha are known agriculturists (Oraon, n.d.; Sharma, 1996), whereas the Suria Paharia, Korwa, Juang, Paudi Bhuiya, Dongria Kondh and Kutia Kondh are better known shifting cultivators (Choudhury, 2015; Dash, 2006; Misra, 2016; Mohanty, 2015). In addition to shifting cultivation, these communities also involved earlier in hunting and food-gathering to support their livelihood. The Sabar practised foraging and also resorted to hunting and food gathering as their mainstay. With hunting being banned legally, this practice is particularly rare even among the forest dwellers now. All these communities are by and large subsistence growers with little surplus produce for profit and savings.

Shifting cultivation, also called slash and burn cultivation differs by nomenclature among different communities. The first year under shifting cultivation is called Toila, second year, Ekan and third and fourth years Nata among the Juang (Dash, 2006). Among Kondhs, it is popularly known as podu cultivation.

The Odisha state government has launched 17 micro-projects during the 1970s for special development initiatives of PVTGs in Odisha (Barik, 2020). Thereafter, many developmental initiatives that are compatible to specific tribal culture, traditional economic practice and specific geographical areas are taken up by the state. Jharkhand state has also undertaken several initiatives for socio-economic development of PVTGs through the TSP project and recently under the Jharkhand State Livelihood Promotion Scheme (JSLPS). Despite efforts to develop tribal livelihood with special focus on PVTGs, these communities still live in relative disadvantage and distress.

Sample size

The total sample size is 598 households with an approximate coverage of 60% PVTGs and 40% non-PVTGs such as other tribes and traditional forest dwellers. The households were selected from the same village or from other adjacent villages for the survey. The distribution of population (both male and female) for each tribe is given at Appendix Table 3 in the annexure. Selection of households is primarily based on random sampling using random table numbers.

Data collection approach

We adopted both qualitative and quantitative methods. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 20) was used for data processing and analysis on the basis of filled-in questionnaires. Steps have been taken to minimize sampling errors and increase the validity and reliability of the household data which were collected through the questionnaire survey. Secondary data collection from Census surveys were used for more comprehensive analysis.

In addition to the questionnaire survey methodology, PRA tools such as ranking and scoring technique (RST) were used during pilot and field surveys to identify 14 most important livelihood indicators that covered bio-physical, social (including social institutions) and economic factors. The identified indicators were further verified and vetted by the community members in each village under the study for PLVA. Furthermore, in order to identify the livelihood indicators that are relevant to LVA, a correlation coefficient matrix was used.

Methods of analysis

We referred to the indicators considered in the consumer expenditure survey of the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) to design our questionnaire survey method. Monthly expenditure incurred by each household for each of the items such as food, fashion, household utilities and other items was collected and gross monthly expenditure was calculated for each household.

Selection of livelihood indicators for vulnerability assessment

There are several methods in statistics as well as social sciences to select appropriate indicators for LVA. While the principal component analysis (PCA) has been widely used as a variables reduction technique, particularly on continuous variables, this traditional method alone should not be used on categorical variables. For categorical variables, an appropriate variable transformation method should be applied before using PCA. Converting categorical variables to dummy variables is one option (Nguyen and Holmes, 2019). The other methods have been the ethnographic, participatory and qualitative approaches that have been widely applied in anthropological and other qualitative sciences. The combination of both participatory and survey-based approaches is important as it would be a more refined approach based on people’s responses to choose the best variables for livelihood analysis.

Variables in analysis

The variables considered for the livelihood vulnerability analysis are household with semi-pukka or pukka houses (houses built of concrete) (HT); drinking water availability for the household for the whole year (DW); households with the electrification (EL); joint family type (JF); households with two or more adult members (AM); households with or above the secondary education (ED); households members without any chronic illness (CI); household’s food availability for throughout the year (FW); household with non-agriculture and non-forest-based primary occupation (OO); households with 0.5 acre or above agricultural landholdings (LH); households having expenditure of Rs. 2000 or above per month (EX); households having availed any banking service (BS); households with at least two or more livestock (cow, bullock, goat, sheep) (LI); and, households that availed at least any one of the central or state sponsored livelihood schemes (LS).

A table is further developed with the household performance on each of the above variables (Appendix Table 4) in the Annexure. By taking the percentage figures for each identified socio-economic variable (livelihood indicator), standardization was done using the percentile method. After standardization, the mean percentile score was obtained for each community. Thereafter, indexing (I) was developed to rank each community on the basis of the aggregate score/percentile score (Figure 5). The higher the index value is the lower the livelihood vulnerability of a tribe/forest dwelling community.

Figure 5.

LVI of tribes/forest dwellers from high to low (L to R).

The mathematical expression of participatory livelihood vulnerability index (I) calculation is

I_{t_{i}} = \frac{\sum (\frac{\frac{t_{i x}}{n_{i}}}{\frac{t_{x}}{n_{x >}}})}{X} \times 100

where $I$ is the index of $t_{i}$ a particular $i t h$ tribe and $n_{i}$ is the total number of household in $i t h$ tribes having access to $x$ livelihood indicator and $\frac{t_{x}}{n_{x >}}$ represents the community having the highest percentage of household having access to $x$ livelihood indicator obtained from $(\frac{t_{i x}}{n_{i}})$ and $X$ is the number of $x$ livelihood indicator (X = 14) .

A higher value of the index is socially desirable. The index satisfies the following axioms.

Monotonicity: a reduction in $t_{i x}$ makes the community more vulnerable with respect to $x$ livelihood indicator.

Anonymity: a reordering of different livelihood indicators in the aggregation does not change the value of the index. This means that any characteristic other than the ratios $(\frac{\frac{t_{i x}}{n_{i}}}{\frac{t_{x}}{n_{x >}}})$ is irrelevant to the measurement of vulnerability.

Minimal and maximal values: the index takes on the value zero if no household has access to any livelihood indicator. It takes on the maximum value when all the households have access to all the livelihood indicators.

Policy implication: if we divide $(\frac{\frac{t_{i x}}{n_{i}}}{\frac{t_{x}}{n_{x >}}}) / X$ by $I_{t_{i}} / 100$ , the resulting value gives us the extent of contribution made by the livelihood indicator x to the overall vulnerability value. Therefore, one can identify the indictors with low contributions. The policymakers should restrict attention to such indicators in order to ensure higher accesses of the underlying indicators.

Results

The Munda (index value 0.828)

The Munda tribe is a well-known agricultural tribe in Odisha. The tribe has diversified its occupation with agriculture, forest and daily wage-based activities. All the households had access to the banking services and a majority of them also had access to at least one of the livelihood schemes that are important to food security of the households. About 80% of the Munda households had electricity connection. Although the percentage of households with any member passed Secondary education or above was nearly 33%, yet this position was better than the other forest dwelling groups, except the Kharwar and Oraon of Jharkhand. Like the Bhumij, the Munda are traditionally good agriculturists, but the non-remunerative nature of agriculture due to lack of irrigation has forced people to depend on non-agricultural sources. Many Munda households derived their income from other sources, particularly from forest and daily wages. However, the social security through welfare schemes has also been a major support system for the community.

A majority of the households had mud or kuchha houses, only 35% households had pukka (concrete) or semi-pukka (with mixture of concrete and mud houses) houses for their living. The percentage of chronic illness is higher (15%) among the Munda households. About 55% of Munda households had a monthly consumer expenditure of Rs. 2000 or above. Thus, by assessing all the indicators, we observed that the Munda was the least vulnerable group among the other forest dwelling tribes we surveyed.

The Oraon (index value 0.811)

The Oraons mainly lived in houses built of mud walls and tile roofing. None of the forest dwelling Oraon households had a house built of concrete, but then 84% houses had electricity. The education level of the Oraon community was better compared with the other groups. About 89% of the households had a member engaged in non-agriculture and non-forest occupation, mostly in the form of daily wages. There was no household with any chronic illness in the village. The consumer expenditure of 82% Oraon households was Rs. 2000 or above per month. About 89% of Oraon households had food sufficiency for the whole year and all households had agricultural land of at least 0.5 acre or above, while 89% households possessed at least two livestock. All the households had, however, availed banking service and accessed at least one of the livelihood schemes. The average land owned by the Oraon was slightly above 5 acres, which is next to the Bhumij tribe of Odisha. Thus, the Oraon was found to be the least vulnerable among the other forest dwelling tribes in Jharkhand.

The Parahiyas (index value 0.803)

Among the PVTGs, the Parahiyas are with relatively rapid positive socio-economic transition. About 66% of the households had houses that were built of concrete, but only a few had electricity connection. This community had the highest number of joint families with strong familial bonding and cooperation. Only 30.7% of households had a member who has passed the Secondary education (matriculation) or above; however, it was still higher among the other tribes except the Kharwar and Oraon tribes. There were a few households (2%) that had chronic illness, and above 93% households had a member engaged in non-agriculture and non-forest income. Nearly 86% of households had an expenditure of Rs. 2000 or above per month. Agriculture was the mainstay of the Parahiyas, as 98% of the households had agricultural land of at least 0.5 acre each and 98% of households had food sufficiency throughout the year. About 62% of households had livestock possession of at least two numbers and most of the households had some access to the livelihood scheme, including their involvement in self-help groups (SHGs) developed under the JSLPS. In addition, the Parahiyas are also involved in honey collection by adopting beekeeping. However, the lack of access to safe drinking water by a majority of households is a livelihood challenge for this tribal group. Thus, the Parahiya was among the less vulnerable PVTGs in Jharkhand.

The Kharwar (index value 0.792)

The Kharwar had 84% of the households with electricity, but none of the households were concrete or pukka. Although only 38% households had a member in the family with Secondary education or above, yet it was the highest figure among all other forest dwelling groups in the study. There was no household who had any member suffering from a chronic illness. More than 88% of households had an occupation other than agriculture and forestry. An equal proportion of households had possession of at least two livestock. While 96% of the households had agricultural land of at least 0.5 acre each, the lands were mostly non-irrigated. As a result, the yield from it was not sufficient to meet the household food requirements throughout the year. All the households had access to banking services, and each household became a beneficiary in some of the livelihood schemes. Only 28% of households had a monthly expenditure of Rs. 2000 or above as hardly any household was associated with occupation other than subsistence agriculture.

The Bhumij (index value 0.766)

Only 29% of households had semi-pukka or pukka houses, but a majority of the households (above 71%) had electricity. None of the households had a joint family, but every household had at least two adult members in the family. All the households had a member in agriculture and/or non-forest occupation mainly in the form of daily wages as additional income support for their family. Above 85% of households had an average monthly consumer expenditure of Rs. 2000 or above. All the households had agricultural land of at least 0.5 acres, but mainly non-irrigated in nature. Furthermore, a majority of the households (71.4%) had livestock and also a majority of them had access to banking services and livelihood schemes. In fact they had the highest average landholding size (slightly above 5 acres) among the other forest dwelling tribes. The Bhumijs are relatively good agriculturists, but their level of education is low. Only 20% households among the Bhumij had any member with a Secondary education or above. Furthermore, 20% of the reported households had a member with a chronic illness.

The Bhuiya (index value 0.731)

The index value 0.731 indicates a relatively better position of the Bhuiya among several other tribes considered for the study. Most of the households had access to drinking water and electricity, and there was no chronic illness in any of the family members, and many households engaged in daily wages. Above two-thirds of the total households had agricultural land of at least a half of an acre land, which was non-irrigated in nature as they could use this land for growing horticulture crops. Only a little above 20% of households among the Bhuiyas had any members with Secondary or above Secondary education. There was no food sufficiency for the whole year reported by above 50% of Bhuiya households. However, the household consumer expenditure indicated that all the households had a minimum expenditure of Rs. 2000 or above per month.

Most of the households did not have a house that was either pukka or semi-pukka in structure. In addition, none of the households had obtained any public livelihood security scheme such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Programme (MGNREGP), food security scheme, Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana – the National Rural Livelihood Mission (NRLM) or TSP project that are operational in the state.

The Juang (index value 0.717)

About 58% of households had a pukka or semi-pukka house, which was mainly an outcome of the Government’s Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Prime Minister Housing Scheme) meant for households living below the poverty line. The community had a fairly good adult population, supplementary income earnings from daily wages, and most of the households (81.7%) had agricultural landholding of at least 0.5 acres or above. Three-fourth of the households had availed banking services due to launch of the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana (PMJDY)² and direct benefits of the government schemes meant for the poor households. All the households had been covered under the state or central livelihood security schemes.

The adverse side is that there were very few households with electricity, and the consumer expenditure was low. Only 14% of the Juang households had any member having a Secondary education or above.

The Pauri Bhuiya (index value 0.664)

The Pauri Bhuiya had above 50% households who had either pukka or semi-pukka households and above 50% households had electricity. All the households had access to drinking water. There were a few households in which some members suffered from a chronic illness. The percentage of households with at least Secondary education or above was very low (7.9%). Less number of households (34.5%) had livestock to support their livelihood. Despite having a fairly good number of households (82.8%) with agricultural landholdings of at least 0.5 acre, the nature of landholding was non-irrigated type. Therefore, food production was constrained by lack of irrigation. The Pauri Bhuiya members were involved in daily wages and engaged as contract labours in the mining belt. Also, a majority of the households were covered under the livelihood scheme and banking services due to the PMJDY scheme and direct benefit transfer system linked to the individual bank account. Food availability was for throughout the year.

The Korwas (index value 0.627)

Among all the tribes of Jharkhand and Odisha covered in the study, the Korwas and Parahiyas had the highest number of households (65.9%) with concrete houses (pukka houses, but the Korwas ranked the lowest in terms of electrification to households (only 12.9% households had electricity). About 90% of households had at least two adult members who were capable of earning. There was no household which had any member suffering from a chronic illness. About 85% of households had non-agriculture and non-forest income or occupation, and 65% households had expenditure of Rs. 2000 or above per month. Since only 15% households had agricultural land of 0.5 acres or above, the food sufficiency for throughout year was for 53% households only. Despite all households engaged in one or multiple livelihood scheme(s), not all could avail the banking services. The level of education was very low with less than 10% households having passed Secondary education or above.

The Kutia Kondhs (index value 0.598)

The Kutia Kondhs are one of the most vulnerable tribes in Odisha, mainly living in poverty in the hill or upland regions of Kandhamal district. Their houses are made of mud and thatched roofing without availing much benefit from the housing scheme. Only 18.2% of households had either a pukka or semi-pukka house. Both education and health status are very low, and so is the consumer expenditure. Only 8% of households had any member with Secondary education or above and a little above 50% of households had a consumer expenditure of Rs 2000 or above per month. Nearly 10% of households suffered from a chronic illness. The percentage of households to have availed the banking services is as low as 40%. The positive side is that at least all the households had at least one member associated with one or more livelihood schemes.

The Santhal (index value 0.571)

A very low proportion of households (6.7%) among the Santhals had a pukka or concrete house. Also a very low proportion (less than 6%) of households had any member who had obtained Secondary education or above. About 74% of all households had electricity; 80% households had at least two adult members and close to 87% of households had members engaged in non-agriculture and non-forest occupation. However, above 93% of households responded that they had food availability for the whole year. All the households had at least 2 livestock and all the households had again availed banking services. A meagre 13.3% of households had consumer expenditure of Rs 2000 or above per month. The percentage of households having agricultural land of 0.5 acres or above was only close to 7%. However, there was no household that had availed any livelihood scheme.

The Sabar (index value 0.540)

All the Sabar households had electricity and they had access to drinking water and about 25% of the Sabar households had pukka (concrete) houses. A little above 9% of households had any member who had passed the matriculation (Secondary) or above. Some households (14%) had a member who suffered from a chronic illness. Besides agriculture, which is subsistence type, these people were dependent on forests, and about 89% of households derived some income from non-agriculture and non-forest sources, mainly in the form of daily wages. Only a few households (9%) had consumer expenditure of Rs 2000 or above per month, but then most of the households (95%) had food availability throughout the year. The percentage of households having agricultural land was very low, as only 1.2% of households had average agricultural land of 0.5 acres or above. Also, only 25% households had livestock possession. All the households had access to banking services, but there was hardly any household that engaged in any of the livelihood schemes.

The Sauria Paharia (index value 0.530)

The Sauria Paharias were primarily dependent on daily wages and hill cultivation for their livelihood support. There was no household among the Sauria Paharias with a pukka house and there was no household having electricity and they also lacked access to drinking water. The percentage of households having Secondary education or above was very low (a little above 9% of households had any member who passed Secondary education or above). Only a few households had private agricultural landholdings, but then all the households had food availability throughout the year due to their active engagement in the shifting cultivation and in daily wages. About 77% of households had at least 2 number of livestock possession. All the households had availed banking services and had access to some of the livelihood schemes.

The Kondh or Adivasi Kondh (index value 0.508)

The Kondhs are agriculturists. The Kondhs who live in the forest fringes are dependent on subsistence agriculture. Among the Kondh in Rayagada district, all the reported families are of nuclear type. Only 13% households had houses that are made of concrete, but then a little above 2% households had electricity. Education was in a sorry state of affairs with close to 6% of households who had passed Secondary education or above. Only 39% of households were engaged in non-agriculture and non-forest occupation such as daily wages for livelihood support. The Kondhs had only 59% of households that had any livestock possession, but this percentage of households is even less than the Dongria Kondhs. Regardless of the above, most of the households (92.1%) had availed the banking services and all the households had access to some of the livelihood schemes.

The Dongria Kondhs (index value 0.439)

The Dongria Kondhs are the most vulnerable among all the forest dwellers due to high incidence of poverty and socio-economic disparity. None of the houses of the Dongria Kondh were pukka type and there was no electrification for the reported households. There was no household with any member having a Secondary education or above. Also, there was no household with non-agricultural and non-forest occupation. Furthermore, none of the households had private agricultural landholdings, and a little above 44% of households had consumer expenditure of Rs. 2000 or above per month. Despite all this, most of the households (96.3%) had access to banking services and all the households had access to some of the livelihood schemes.

Discussion

The overall performance of the forest dwelling tribes in Odisha was better than their counterparts in Jharkhand in the case of five socio-economic variables such as HT, DW, LH, LI and LS. Jharkhand had fared better compared with Odisha in 9 out of the total 14 socio-economic variables considered for analysis. These nine variables are EL, JF, AM, ED, CI, FA, OO, EX and BS (Appendix Table 4). The analysis of the said variables will, however, not be sufficient to justify the better performance of Jharkhand state over the state of Odisha, as three tribes each in Jharkhand and Odisha were found with a below 0.6 index value. The number of tribes with above 0.6 index value was four out of seven in Jharkhand and five out of eight in Odisha, which shows that Odisha has overall better performance over its Jharkhand counterpart. Therefore, considering the nature of methodology and analysis, we can only compare one tribe with respect to the other tribes.

PVTGs are in general the most vulnerable among all social groups and forest dwelling communities, but then PVTGs are also not homogeneous in nature, as there is further vulnerability within the vulnerable groups. The LVA of 15 forest dwelling communities indicates that PVTGs are still the most vulnerable groups. But there is relatively better progress for some groups, for instance, the Parahiyas among other PVTGs have progressed in several socio-economic fronts. The communities with some private landholdings and with some members into Secondary education are better off compared with the communities without or little landholdings and with non-literates. Except for the Parahiya and Korwa who had a few irrigated lands, the rest of the forest dwellers possessed no irrigated land, which is a significant challenge for tribal development. From the field survey it was observed that the average lands owned by tribes in Odisha are the Bhuiya, who possessed 2.4 acres, the Juang 2.81 acres, the Pauri Bhuiya 1.92 acres, the Bhumij 5.13 acres, the Munda 3.63 acres, the Kutia possessed less than 1 acre, the Adivasi Kondh 0.74 acres and the Dongria Kondh had no owned land. Similarly, the average lands owned by tribes in Jharkhand are the Kharwar owned 1.6 acres, the Parahiya 2.62 acres, the Oraon 5.08 acres, the Korwa 0.35 acres, the Sauria Paharia 0.16 acre and the Sabar had as meagre as 2 decimal (0.02 acre) non-irrigated land (landless category). Furthermore, education is an important constraint to the forest dwellers’ (tribal) livelihood. The percentage of non-literates among forest dwelling tribes in Jharkhand and Odisha is about 52%. However, this percentage of non-literacy varies across tribes in Odisha and Jharkhand. It was found that the Dongria Kondhs had slightly above 85%, the Adivasi Kandhas had 65.85% and the Kutia Kandha had 62% of non-literate population. In Jharkhand, 91.2% Santhal, 79.3% Sabar and 81.90% Sauria Paharia respondents were non-literates. The non-literates percentage among the Oraons was 16.28% only and among the Kharwar it was 17.2% only.

Among the selected tribal groups in our study, we identified the most vulnerable groups. These are the Dongria Kondh, Adivasi Kondh and Kutia Kondh of Odisha, and the Sabar, Sauria Paharia and Santhal of East Singhbhum in Jharkhand. The Dongria Kondh, Kondh and Sauria Paharia are the three most vulnerable communities due to higher number of landless families, lower literacy rate and little progress in education and limited exposure to outside communities when compared with the other groups. These three communities are also among the shifting cultivators without any additional income sources. The Mundas, Parahiyas and Oraons are the better-off communities among the forest dwellers, as they have relatively better landholdings, better education access and better social network beyond kinship, and they have close contacts with the non-tribal communities. Furthermore, the communities with close vicinity to mining, industry or urban areas have relatively better income earning opportunity through daily wages. Poor landholding size, marketing, lack of quality landholdings, irrigation, quality education and alternative income opportunities are major livelihood constraints of the forest dwelling communities. The level of education, which is miserably low among the forest dwellers, is the root cause of their distress and it is due to this low level of education that they are found unemployable and many of them are forced to contribute merely as casual labourers. The current approach of the education system has failed to attract the vulnerable communities. The communities have not been adequately persuaded nor introspected through the prism of an insider’s view. As a result, school dropouts are frequent among the forest dwellers of Jharkhand and Odisha.

The positive side, however, is the extent to which they are covered in the livelihood scheme, banking services and housing schemes. In Odisha, about 84% households among all the tribes and 76.5% among the PVTGs, and in Jharkhand 86.7% of households among all the tribes and 85% among the PVTGs had access to banking services. The forest dwellers are neglected mostly due to their scattered and small populations and they have limited bargaining power as they are living in disadvantaged geographical locations. All the forest dwellers, including a large section of the Sabar and Sauria Paharia depend on middlemen for their immediate cash and credit requirements. There are issues of indebtedness noticed among PVTGs, particularly among the Sauria Paharias.

The forest dwelling communities still rely heavily on pre-modern technology and there is a lack of farm mechanization. Traditional forest-based economy is not enough to meet the household requirement. Thus, many households, particularly in the mining and industrial belts, are found engaged in daily wages. Due to lack of opportunities in the tribal areas, the tribal youth are compelled to migrate to cities for their livelihood. Agricultural production is subsistence type without irrigation and lack of modern technology intervention. The production from agriculture is not sufficient for the whole year for many forest-based tribes. Therefore, they depend on other means of livelihood such as daily wages and livelihood security schemes.

The forest is an important means of livelihood for the forest dwellers. It as an important safety net for the forest-based communities, particularly in the case of crop loss and food scarcity. Traditionally, the tribal communities used forest plants, tubers and roots as a substitute for staple food at times of famines. Unfortunately, the forest density, particularly in Jharkhand, has reduced rapidly compared with the level of forest density in Odisha. But it was also observed that the forest density in the mining and industrial regions is furthermore low. The forest dwellers are forced to depend on daily wages due to lack of forest resource and low agricultural production. Adult members are preferred by employers for their engagement in daily wages in mining, industry or other sectors.

Forest-based cultivation or shifting cultivation remains a key practice among the Juangs, the Dongria Kondhs and the Sauria pahadias, due to their dietary habits and other cultural values associated with the practice. Agriculture in forest dwelling areas is practised predominantly in the traditional form which is organic in nature by default. The forest dwellers find it difficult to get a reasonable market for their meagre produce. As a result, they are still compelled to sell their produce to middlemen and private traders, who approach the communities during the harvesting seasons.

The households are directly involved in some of the food security schemes such as the Antyodaya or any other livelihood scheme of the state or central government. Both the TSP and MGNREGP have additional livelihood support system for the forest dwelling communities. Except for the Sabar, Santhal and Bhuiya tribes, the other forest tribal groups had access to some of the schemes. A majority of the households who belonged to PVTGs had access to some of the livelihood schemes. Moreover, there is a national effort to recognize their forest rights since the introduction of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (recognition of forest rights) Act, 2006, also called the Forest Rights Act 2006 in India. The forest rights include recognition of property rights by the tribes and traditional forest dwellers. The FRA has a direct bearing on the livelihoods of forest-based tribes in Jharkhand and Odisha. However, studies indicate that there is no clarity on NTFP management at the policy level. Both the PESA and FRA have not been able to resolve conflicts due to overlapping stakes between the Forest Department and local communities in NTFP management (Report of the Sub-Group II on NTFP and their Sustainable Management in the 12th 5-Year Plan, 2011).

Due to the lack of education, lack of exposure, non-comfort in approaching public officials and people in towns and cities, and lack of communication skill in the non-local language, the forest dwellers are not able to take advantage of the schemes available for them. These communities therefore require a special integrated livelihood enhancement programme, which needs to be governed in the participatory mode.

Conclusion

The simple indexing method was instrumental to assess the livelihood vulnerability of the forest dwelling groups in Jharkhand and Odisha. However, before using the indexing method, data collection through household surveys and PRA was important. All the forest dwellers are predominantly poor and vulnerable, but then, there are furthermore vulnerable groups among the PVTGs who do not have bare minimum access to livelihood means. The livelihood support system operates through food security schemes of the central or state governments, especially for the poor and tribal communities that are better projected as a quick relief measure than uplifting the standard of living. There is substantial increase in the number of households with banking services compared with their position a decade back. This is due to the launch of several schemes, including the Prime Minister’s Jan Dhan Yojana. In spite of there being higher dependency on private moneylenders by PVTGs, particularly among the shifting cultivators, there is better access to pukka houses and electricity now; however, there is need for uninterrupted power supply. There is also improvement in access to toilets and drinking water facilities for the forest dwelling communities. Livestock is an important means of livelihood for the forest dwellers. All the tribes had some possession of livestock which is significant to meet urgent expenses and also to be used as a safety net in the case of contingency.

Still, a majority of the communities lack access to basic or elementary education, modern health service and also lack control over forest and community agricultural land (e.g. podu land). Most of the forest dwellers, particularly PVTGs, do not have access to modern technology and lack access to irrigation and farm mechanization. There is a lack of agricultural extension and public support system in agriculture among the forest dwellers.

Livelihood assets such as land, livestock, labour and so on, are important. Also important is education, which is found to be miserably low among PVTGs.

The forest dwellers that lack basic education (with minimum Secondary education) and basic livelihood assets such as agricultural and homestead land are regarded as the most vulnerable. Therefore, in order to improve the standard of living of the most vulnerable communities, securing and strengthening their livelihood assets such as land and improvement in education is essential. The forest is found as a safety net for the poor, particularly among the landless families. There is no stable and sustainable livelihood practice without an effective and integrated model of development. Special focus on forest dwellers’ livelihood promotion scheme is desired. The schemes should be managed by the forest dwelling communities with facilitation from the state and central government using participatory model.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

Table 4.

Indicators of livelihood vulnerability assessment.

Tribe	Percentage of households having access to each of the livelihood indicator
Tribe	HT	DW	EL	JF	AM	ED	CI	FA	OO	LH	EX	BS	LI	LS
Bhuiya	12.9	97.4	82.1	30.8	100	20.5	100	51.3	23.1	79.5	95	74.4	87.2	0
Juang	58.3	98.3	21.7	1.7	95	14.1	100	95	15.0	81.7	28.2	75	73.3	100
Pauri Bhuiya	51.7	100	56.9	8.6	81	7.9	91.4	46.6	15.5	82.8	26	94.8	34.5	93
Bhumij	28.6	100	71.4	0	100	20.6	57.1	71.4	28.6	100	85.7	100	71.4	100
Munda	35.0	95	80.0	25	95	33.3	85.0	75	20.0	95	55	100	80	90
Kutia Kondh	18.2	96.4	54.5	0	96.4	7.0	90.9	32.7	32.7	61.8	51	40	89.1	100
Dongria Kondh	0	100	3.7	0	85.2	00	94.4	5.6	1.9	0	42.6	96.3	79.6	100
Kondh	51.0	94.7	2.6	0	76.3	6.1	97.4	52.6	36.8	50	10.5	92.1	57.9	100
Kharwar	0	100	84	8	100	37.9	100	92	0	96	28	100	88	100
Parhiya	65.9	41.9	2.3	48.8	97.7	30.7	97.7	97.7	0	97.7	81.4	88.4	62.8	100
Oraon	0	77.8	71.4	22.2	100	25.5	100	88.9	0	100	77.8	100	88.9	100
Korwa	65.9	100	12.8	17	89.4	9.4	100	53.2	51.1	14.9	61.7	55.3	40.4	100
Sauria Paharia	0	0	0	0	100	9.5	97.9	100	0	6.4	44.7	100	76.6	100
Sabar	25.9	100	85.2	1.2	84	9.2	86.4	95.1	88.9	1.2	88.6	100	24.7	0
Santhal	6.7	100	73.3	6.7	80	5.9	93.3	93.3	80.0	6.7	13.3	100	100	0
Odisha	32.0	97.7	46.6	8.3	91.1	13.7	89.5	53.8	21.7	68.9	49.3	84.1	71.6	85.4
Jharkhand	23.5	74.2	47.0	14.8	93.0	18.3	96.5	88.6	31.4	46.1	56.5	92.0	68.8	71.4

HT: Household with semi-pukka or pukka houses (houses built up of concrete); DW: Drinking water availability for the household for the whole year; EL: Households with the electrification; JF: Joint family type; AM: Households with two or more adult members; ED: Households with or above the secondary education; CI: Households members without any chronic illness; FA: Household’s food availability for throughout the year; OO: Household with non-agriculture and non-forest based primary occupation; LH: Households with 0.5 acre or above agricultural landholdings; EX: Households having expenditure of Rs. 2000 or above per month (EX); BS: Household having availed any banking service (BS); LI: Household with at least two or more livestock (cow, bullock, goat, sheep); LS: Household availed at least any one of the central or state sponsored livelihood scheme.

Acknowledgements

This research paper is an outcome of the research project titled ‘Strengthening livelihood Opportunities among the Forest Dwellers in Jharkhand and Odisha’, funded by the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India with Dr Hari Charan Behera as its Principal Investigator (PI). The authors are grateful to Prof. Satya Ranjan Chakravarty, formerly Professor at the Economic Research Institute, Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata, for his valuable comments in the ‘Methodology’ section. They are also grateful to the publisher for accepting this paper for publication in their esteemed journal.

Author contributions

Hari Charan Behera: Conceptualization, Research design, Data collection, Analysis and Writing. Ashish Aman Sinha, Amiya Kumar Sahoo and Ganganath Jha: Data collection, Data processing and Analysis.

Funding

The author(s) received financial support from the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Hari Charan Behera

Notes

Author biographies

Hari Charan Behera, PhD (Anthropology) is Associate Professor at the Sociological Research Unit of Indian Statistical Institute. His areas of expertise include natural resource governance, tribal studies, livelihood and agrarian studies. He has published research papers in reputed international and national journals published by Springer, Sage, MDPI, etc. He has also delivered lectures and participated widely in national and international conferences and seminars both in India and abroad.

Ashish Aman Sinha, PhD is a Doctorate from the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad. He has interest in Economics, Econometrics, Land tenure and livelihood studies. He has published several papers in journals of national and international repute. Presently, he is a Research Associate at the Department of Economics, University of Hyderabad.

Amiya Kumar Sahoo is a Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS), Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad. His research interests include public health, poverty and livelihood studies. He has published several research papers in top journals both at the national and international levels.

Ganganath Jha, PhD (Anthropology) is presently an Assistant Professor in the University Department of Anthropology, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand. He teaches Anthropology to Post Graduate students and involved in several research projects on tribal and livelihood studies.

References

Alkire

Oldiges

Kanagaratnam

(2018) Multidimensional poverty reduction in India 2005/6–2015/16: still a long way to go but the poorest are catching up. OPHI research in Progress 54a. Oxford: University of Oxford.

Bakshi

Chawla

Shah

(2015) Regional disparities in India: a moving frontier. Economic and Political Weekly 50(1): 44–52.

Barik

(2020) Odisha reverses historical injustices by recognising all PVTGs. The Hindu, 4 June. Available at: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/odisha-reverses-historical-injustices-by-recognising-all-pvtgs/article31749106.ece

Bose

(2011) Forest tenure reform: exclusion of tribal women’s rights in semi-arid Rajasthan, India. The International Forestry Review 13(2): 220–232.

Census of India (2011) Government of India. Available at: https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/data/HH2011

Chilongo

(2014) Livelihood strategies and forest reliance in Malawi. Forest Trees and Livelihoods 23(3): 188–210.

Choudhury

(2015) Economic activities of Pauri Bhuiya. In: Ota

Mohanty

(eds) Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs) of Odisha, vol. 1. Bhubaneswar, India: SCSTRTI, pp.722–730.

Dasgupta

Badola

(2020) Indicator-based assessment of resilience and vulnerability in the Indian Himalayan Region: a case study on socio-economy under different scenarios. Sustainability 12: 6938.

Dash

(2006) Shifting cultivation among the tribes of Odisha, Orissa Review, July 2006, pp.76–84. Available at: odisha.gov.in (accessed 1 October 2021).

10.

Dungdung

Pattanaik

(2020) Tribal development disparities in Odisha: an empirical analysis. South Asia Research 40(1): 94–110.

11.

FAO (1998) People and forests, Asia-Pacific Forestry towards 2010, report of the Asia-Pacific Forestry Sector Outlook Study. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/w9615e/w9615e0b.htm (accessed 20 September 2021).

12.

Ford

Smit

(2004) A framework for assessing the vulnerability of communities in the Canadian Arctic to risks associated with climate change. Arctic 57(4): 389–400.

13.

Government of Jharkhand Forest Department (n.d.). Available at: http://forest.jharkhand.gov.in/Administration/forest_area.aspx

14.

Hahn

Riederer

Foster

, et al. (2009) The Livelihood Vulnerability Index: a pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change – a case study in Mozambique. Global Environmental Change 19(1): 74–78.

15.

Hasnain

(1991) Tribal India Today. New Delhi, India: Harnam Publication, pp.26–27.

16.

Hossen

MdB

(2016) Livelihood vulnerability assessment and local adaptations against climate change in South West Coastal Belt of Bangladesh. Available at: https://dspace.kuet.ac.bd/bitstream/handle/20.500.12228/95/Full%20Thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed 13 May 2021).

17.

Huong

NTL

Yao

Fahad

(2018) Assessing household livelihood vulnerability to climate change: The case of Northwest Vietnam. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal 25: 1157–1175

18.

IGNFA (n.d.) Policy Issues in NTFP management. Available at: https://www.ignfa.gov.in/document/biodiversity-cell-ntfp-related-issues10.pdf

19.

ILO (2021) Forestry, wood, pulp and paper sector. Available at: https://www.ilo.org/global/industries-and-sectors/forestry-wood-pulp-and-paper/lang–en/index.htm (accessed 1 October 2021).

20.

Junquera

Grêt-Regamey

(2020) Assessing livelihood vulnerability using a Bayesian network: a case study in northern Laos. Ecology and Society 25(4): 38.

21.

Koirala

(2015) Livelihood vulnerability assessment to the impacts of socio-environmental stressors in Raksirang VDC of Makwanpur District Nepal. Thesis, The Department of International Environment and Development Studies, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Noragric. Available at: core.ac.uk (accessed 13 May 2021).

22.

Malik

(2020) Introduction. In: Malik

(ed.) Land Alienation and Politics of Tribal Exploitation in India. Singapore: Springer, pp.1–32.

23.

Ministry of Tribal Affairs (2015) Revised scheme for development of particularly vulnerable tribal groups (PVTGs). Available at: https://tribal.nic.in/downloads/NGO/Latter-Notice/14.pdf (accessed 20 March 2015).

24.

Misra

(2016) The Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups in Odisha. New Delhi, India: Manohar.

25.

Mohanty

(2014) The Forest Rights Act and Kendu Leaf Trade in Odisha. Economic and Political Weekly 49(43–44): 15–19.

26.

Mohanty

(2015): Kutia Kandha: a socio-cultural profile. In: Ota

Mohanty

(eds) Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (Pvtgs) of Odisha, vol. 1. Bhubaneswar, India: SCSTRTI, pp.625–642.

27.

Moret

(2014) Vulnerability assessment methodologies: a review of the literature. USAID. Available at: fhi360.org (accessed 13 May 2021).

28.

Nag

(1958) Tribal Economy. Delhi: Bharatiya Adimjati Sevak Sangh.

29.

Nayak

Kohli

Sharma

(2018) Livelihood of local communities and forest degradation in India: Issues for REDD+. Available at: https://moef.gov.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/redd-bk3.pdf

30.

Nguyen

Holmes

(2019) Ten quick tips for effective dimensionality reduction. PLOS Computational Biology 15(6): e1006907.

31.

Oldekop

Rasmussen

Agrawal

, et al. (2020) Forest-linked livelihoods in a globalized world. Nature Plants 6: 1400–1407. Available at: https://www-nature-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/articles/s41477-020-00814-9 (accessed 30 September 2021).

32.

Oraon

(n.d.) Oraon. Ranchi, India: Bihar Tribal Welfare Research Institute, Government of Bihar.

33.

Paumgarten

(2005) The role of non-timber forest products as safety nets: a review of evidence with a focus on South Africa. Geojournal 64(3): 189–197.

34.

Radhakrishna

(2009) Starvation among primitive tribal groups. Economic and Political Weekly 44(18): 13–16.

35.

Report of the Sub-Group II on NTFP and their sustainable management in the 12th 5-year plan (2011) Available at: https://niti.gov.in/planningcommission.gov.in/docs/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp12/enf/wg_subntfp.pdf

36.

Ros-Tonen

MAF

Wiersum

(2005) The scope for improving rural livelihoods through non-timber forest products: an evolving research agenda. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 15(2): 129–148.

37.

Roy Burman

(1982) Report of the Committee on Forest and Tribal in India. New Delhi, India: Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India.

38.

Roy Burman

(1987): Report of the committee on forest and tribals in India. In: Sinha

(ed.) Tribals and Forest. Ranchi, India: Bihar Tribal Welfare Research Institute, pp. 61–82.

39.

Sahay

(2012) Post-colonial forest policy of India and tribal communities of Jharkhand. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 73(2012): 1350–1356.

40.

Sahoo

(2018) Common Property Resource Degradation and Tribal Livelihood. New Delhi, India: SSDN Publishers & Distributors.

41.

Sarap

(2017) Erosion of access to resource, poverty and public action in the tribal belt of Central India. Sociological Bulletin 66(1): 22–41.

42.

Sarap

Sarangi

(2009) Malfunctioning of forest institutions in Orissa. Economic and Political Weekly 44(37): 18–22.

43.

Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006. Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India.

44.

Shackleton

(2003) Value of non-timber forest products and rural safety nets in South Africa. In: International conference on rural livelihood, forests and biodiversity, Bonn, 19–23 May.

45.

Sharma

(1996) The Parahiyas of Palamu: An Ethnographic Study. Ranchi, India: Bihar Tribal Welfare Research Institute.

46.

Shiv Kumar (2018) Human Development Index: encapsulation of indicators of well- being of Jharkhand. Jharkhand Journal of Development and Management Studies 16(3): 7797–7781.

47.

Singh

Nair

(2014) Livelihood vulnerability assessment to climate variability and change using fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Climatic Change 127: 475–491.

48.

Singh

(2020) Assessing livelihood vulnerability of farmers’ in backward regions of India. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 55: 222–226.

49.

Sujakhu

Ranjitkar

Niraula

, et al. (2018) Determinants of livelihood vulnerability in farming communities in two sites in the Asian Highlands. Water International 43(2): 165–182.

50.

Sujakhu

Ranjitkar

, et al. (2019) Assessing the Livelihood Vulnerability of Rural Indigenous Households to Climate Changes in Central Nepal, Himalaya. Sustainability 11: 2977.

51.

Sylvester

Segurac

Davidson-Hunt

(2016) The protection of forest biodiversity can conflict with food access for Indigenous people. Conservation and Society 14(3): 279–290.

52.

Tikkanen

Takala

Järvelä

, et al. (2020) Challenges and solutions for non-timber forest product businesses in Finland an application of the SODA analysis. Forests 11: 753.

53.

UNICEF (n.d.) Tribal nutrition. Available at: https://www.unicef.org/india/what-we-do/tribal-nutrition (accessed 18 February 2021).

54.

World Bank (2005) Unlocking Opportunities for forest dependent people in India (in two Volumes) Volume I (main report). Available at: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/8416/3448110vol01.txt?sequence=2&isAllowed=y (accessed 7 September 2021).

55.

Wunder

Angelsen

Belcher

(2014) Forests, Livelihood and Conservation: Broadening the Empirical Base. World Development 64(1): S1–S11.

56.

Yan

Zhang

(2011) Livelihood vulnerability assessment of farmers and nomads in Eastern Ecotone of Tibetan Plateau. Available at: harvard.edu (accessed 13 May 2021).