Forest products and household economy: a case study from Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctuary, Southern India

Traditional communities living at forest margins use forest resources in va rious ways. Understanding the resource-use patterns of such communities pro vides a basis for seeking the participation of such communities in forest c onservation. The present study undertaken in the Mudumalai Wildlife Sanctua ry and the adjoining Sigur Plateau in the state of Tamil Nadu, India, addre ssed the importance of forests in the household economy of indigenous commu nities. Its main objective was to quantify the forest dependence of local p eople, and assess to what extent restrictive biodiversity conservation stra tegies would affect their livelihoods. These questions help in understandin g the stake of the people in forest conservation strategies. Economic activ ities of the households were investigated in eight selected villages, four of which (proximal villages) had access to reserve forest areas where colle ction of forest products was allowed and were also located close to markets that provided opportunities to sell forest products. The remaining four vi llages (distal villages) were close to the Wildlife Sanctuary where the col lection of forest products was not allowed and there was no access to organ ized markets, A total of 132 households were surveyed. The households both in proximal and distal villages were classified into three distinct income groups namely 'low','medium' and 'high', based on their gross annual income . Use of forest resources in Mudumalai was found to be influenced by multip le factors. In terms of livelihood of the traditional communities, livestoc k rearing and collection of non-wood forest products (NWFPs) were very impo rtant, the latter both for cash income and subsistence use. Peripheral comm unities used the forest resources in a varied fashion, with NWFPs contribut ing differently to different income groups. Where there was no restriction on forest use, higher income groups used the resources more heavily than lo wer income groups, and hence would suffer most from any restriction on fore st use. People's reliance on forests evidently declined with increased leve l both of education and of opportunities in non-forestry vocations. Forests were still very important to the household economy of the local people bot h; in terms of food security and cash income.