Socio-economic Development of Tribal Communities through Natural Rubber Cultivation in Odisha

Abstract

The study was taken up in Baripada and Kaptipada blocks of Mayurbhanj district in Odisha where the Rubber Board in association with the Government of Odisha have implemented Rubber Block Plantation Projects for the socio-economically marginalized scheduled tribes. Primary data was collected from randomly selected 63 households of scheduled tribes with and without income from rubber cultivation, for comparison. The major findings of the study are presented below. • Average annual household income of the respondent households with income from rubber was 188 per cent higher than that of households without income from rubber. • Increased expenditure was noticed in personal conveyance, education of children and healthcare by those who had income from rubber. The average expenditure of households with income from rubber was 879 per cent, 491 per cent and 481 per cent higher than their counterparts without income from rubber for personal conveyance, education and healthcare, respectively. While 65 per cent of the children of the households with income from rubber were pursuing education, it was only 46 per cent in the case of households without income from rubber. • In all, 73 per cent of the households with income from rubber had made modifications to their houses. Sixty six per cent of the households with income from rubber invested in improving their houses from the traditional mud huts with thatched roofs to houses constructed using cement/burned bricks and asbestos roofs. • Open defecation was common in the region. While 66 per cent of the households with income from rubber had toileting facility, only 33 per cent of households without income from rubber had toilets. • A substantial change was observed in the items owned by the households influenced by the changed lifestyle and standard of living consequent to increased household income from rubber. • While 79 per cent of the households with income from rubber owned at least one motorbike, only 16 per cent of the households without income from rubber owned one. While 61 per cent of the households with income from rubber income owned a TV with DTH, only three per cent of the households without income from rubber owned it. Similarly, while 21 per cent of the households with income from rubber owned a radio, it was only three per cent for households without income from rubber. • While a few households having income from rubber owned items like refrigerator, water pump, LPG connection and a motor vehicle, none of the households without income from rubber owned these items which are normally associated with a higher standard of living. • Apparently, owing to assured income from rubber and increased repayment capacity, 30 per cent of the sample households with income from rubber had availed loans from institutional sources for increasing consumption expenditure, for agricultural purposes and as vehicle loans. Only 7 per cent of the respondents without income from rubber had availed loans due to poor repayment capacity. In conclusion, the study found that rubber cultivation had transformed the tribal households from a subsistence livelihood based system to a highly remunerative and sustainable livelihood system. The average income earned by the sample households with income from rubber was almost three times than that of their counterparts without income from rubber. This has substantially influenced their expenditure pattern and standard of living for the better.