Chapter III

Survey Results

Profile of S.T. Settlements

Achencoil

     Achencoil ST Settlement, also known as Achencoil Girijan Colony is in Aryancavu Grama Panchayath, which falls under the jurisdiction of Anchal Block Panchayath in Kollam district. It is situated 121 km north from the State's Capital City of Thiruvananthapuram and 80 km east from the Kollam District Head Quarters. The geographical area of the colony is 112 hectares. There is no safety boundary neither around the settlement nor around the individual plots of beneficiaries to protect them from wild animals. Achencoil - Mullumala - Punalur road is adjacent to the west side of the colony. From Achencoil, the blacktopped road connects the settlement to Shencottah town in Tamilnadu through Cottavasal. There is a Kutcha road of 1 km length passing through the colony linking the various houses of the tribes. The infrastructure facilities available in the settlement include Primary Health Centre, Lower Primary School, Upper Primary School and a Higher Secondary School. They are situated within a radius of hardly 2 km. Drinking water, electricity and telephone facilities are also available with in the settlement.

     Ninety five families are living in the Achencoil settlement. Out of this, 42 families are benefited by the rubber cultivation scheme. An area of 29.07 hectares has been brought under rubber cultivation programme. The average area per beneficiary comes to 0.69 hectare. The land possessed by them are mostly forestlands. One S.T. Rubber Co-operative society has been established and is functioning in the settlement. Ninety per cent of the sample respondents are members of the society. The society procures Minor Forest Produce (MFP) collected by the tribes. A common rubber roller with shed for making rubber sheet is available in the settlement.

Kuttappara

     Kuttappara S.T. Settlement is in Vithura Grama Panchayath of Vellanad Block Panchayath, in Thiruvananthapuram district. It is situated 40 km east of Thiruvananthapuram, the State Capital and District Head Quarters. There is partial iron fenced safety boundary provided by the Government around the settlement to protect from wild animals. There is no earthen wall or boundary around the individual plot of beneficiary tribes. A black topped road passes through the settlement. There are many Kutcha roads to link the different houses of tribes. There is neither Primary Health Centre nor any School near this colony. Drinking water, electricity and telephone facilities are available with in the colony.

      An area of 29.79 hectares is brought under Rubber cultivation programmes and benefited 89 families in the settlement. An average area per beneficiary works out to 0.34 hectares. The lands possessed by them are forestlands. As envisaged in the project report on the TDRPP no S.T. Rubber Co-operative Society has been established in the settlement. The Rubber Board/S.T. Development Department has not provided rubber roller or smokehouse.

i) Clan

     The tribals in Achencoil Girijan Colony belong to the clan of Malapandaram and therefore it is also known as Malapandaram Colony. In Kuttapara, the tribes belong to the clan known as Kanikaran.

ii) Family

     The family specific details of the beneficiaries are given in Table-9. It reveals that 70 per cent of the beneficiary families in Achencoil had 5 or less than 5 members. Of the remaining, 9 households are having 6 or more members, 6 of them are joint families. In Kuttappara all the beneficiary families were nuclear and had less than 5 members.

Table 9

Distribution of Sample Beneficiaries According to
Type and Size of Family

Size of family	Type of Family
	Achencoil		Kuttappara
	Nuclear	Joint	Nuclear	Joint
Five and below	21	-	30	-
Six and above	3	6	-	-

iii) Area under Rubber

     In Achencoil, rubber plantations of the beneficiaries fall within the range of 0.40 and 0.89 hectares. While in Kuttappara the beneficiaries possessed plantations with in the range of 0.20 and 0.49 hectares (Table-10). In Achencoil about 75 per cent of the beneficiaries possessed rubber plantations in between 0.50 and 0.79 hectares. While, in Kuttappara two-third of the beneficiaries possess rubber plantations in between 0.30 and 0.39 hectares.

Table -10

Distribution of Sample Beneficiaries According to Area under Rubber Plantations

Area under Rubber cultivation (ha)	Achencoil	Kuttappara
0.20-0.29	-	4
0.30-0.39	-	20
0.40-0.49	2	6
0.50-0.59	7	-
0.60-0.69	5	-
0.70-0.79	10	-
0.80-0.89	6	-
Total	30	30

iv) Age

     Majority of the respondents belonged to middle aged group in both the settlements (Table-11) (63 per cent in Achencoil and 67 per cent in Kuttappara). The proportion of old aged persons in the families of the beneficiaries in Kuttappara is significantly higher than that of Achencoil. It is 20 per cent in Kuttappara as compared to 3.4 per cent in Achencoil. The beneficiaries of Kuttappara have access to the facilities available in the Medical College and Speciality Hospitals located in or near Thiruvananthapuram City. In the case of Achencoil though a Primary Health Centre is functioning near the settlement, for better medical care facilities, the beneficiaries have to go to the nearest town viz., Punalur, which requires 2 hrs journey or have to travel 4 hrs to reach Thiruvananthapuram Medical College.

Table - 11

Distribution of Sample Beneficiaries in Relation to Age

Age group	Achencoil	Kuttappara
Young	10	4
(upto 30 years)	(3.3)	(13.4)
Middle	19	20
(31 to 60 years)	(63.3)	(66.6)
Old	1	6
(above 60 years)	(3.4)	(20.0)
Total	30	30

Figures in brackets denote percentage to total

v) Housing

     The types of house in which S.T. beneficiaries dwell is an important indicator of their socio-economic status. In Kuttappara, all the beneficiaries dwell in their own house. Out of this, 66.67 per cent received assistance from Government for construction of houses. In Achencoil, 93.3 per cent of the sample beneficiaries had their own house and 90 per cent of them received assistance from Government for construction of houses. The remaining 6.67 per cent are residing with their relatives.

     The distribution of beneficiaries according to the type of houses is given in Table-12. In Achencoil 87 per cent of the beneficiaries are having tiled houses as compared to 43 per cent in Kuttappara. Thirteen per cent of the beneficiaries reside in concrete houses in Kuttappara settlement. However, 30 per cent of the beneficiaries of the scheme still are living in huts in this settlement as against 3 per cent in Achencoil.

Table - 11

Distribution of Sample Beneficiaries in Relation to Age

Type of House	Achencoil	Kuttappara
	No. of Beneficiaries	No. of Beneficiaries
Hut	1 (3.33)	9 (30.00)
Thatched	2 (6.67)	3 (10.00)
Sheet	1 (3.33)	1 (3.33)
Tiled	26 (86.87)	13 (43.33)
Concrete	Nil	4 (13.34)
Total	30	30

Figures in brackets denote percentage to total

vi) Household Amenities

      Household amenities of the sample beneficiaries help to assess the standard of living of the tribes.

Amenities	Achencoil	Kuttappara
	No. of Beneficiaries	No. of Beneficiaries
a. Electricity	25 (83.33)	4 (13.33)
b. Drinking Water Well Pipe	6 (20.00) 1 (3.33)	21 (70.00) 2 (6.67)
c. Bath Room	1 (3.33)	-
d. Lavatory	2 (6.67)	11 (36.67)
e. Radio	11 (36.67)	11 (36.67)
f. Television	3 (10.00)	6 (20.00)
g. Telephone	3 (10.00)	1 (3.33)
h. News Paper	5 (16.67)	4 (13.33)
i. Vehicle	1 (3.33)	2 (3.67)

Figures in brackets denote percentage to total

     Table-13 reveals that 83.3 per cent of the houses of beneficiaries in Achencoil are electrified whereas the corresponding percentage in Kuttappara is only 13.3. Seventy per cent of the beneficiaries for drinking water have their own wells in Kuttappara as compared to 20 per cent in Achencoil. The sanitary conditions revealed that 93 per cent of the informants in Achencoil do not have lavatories. However, in Kuttappara 37 per cent have lavatories. Thirty seven per cent of beneficiaries in both the settlements possessed radio. Even twenty per cent of the families of the sample beneficiaries possessed televisions in Kuttappara as compared to 10 per cent in Achencoil. Seventeen per cent and 13 per cent of the beneficiaries in Achencoil and Kuttappara subscribed newspapers respectively. One or two sample beneficiaries in these settlements owned bi-cycle. Household amenities and living conditions of the tribes improved over the years in both the settlements. .

vii) Productivity of Rubber

     Beneficiaries in both the settlements reported that they are selling rubber in the form of sheet to the private dealers. A common rubber roller exists in the Achencoil settlement. Besides 16.67 per cent of the beneficiaries had rubber rollers of their own. In Kuttappara 66.67 per cent owned rubber roller. A common rubber roller as envisaged in the Project Report may be provided in Kuttappara Settlement by S.T. Development Department or any other agencies.

     The average productivity of rubber per ha of the selected beneficiaries in Achencoil was 2179 kg/ha and that of Kuttappara was 2640 kg/ha. The productivity estimates of rubber in the Project Report are 1400 kg/ha in Kollam and 1500 kg/ha in Thiruvananthapuram district. The average price realized was also higher than the project estimates i.e. Rs 30/- per kg in Achencoil and Rs 28/- per kg in Kuttappara as against Rs 20/-kg in the Project Report. The average price for RSS-3 and RSS-4 at Kottayam during the study period (2001-02) was of the order of Rs 33.43/- per kg and Rs 33.28/- per kg respectively.* The average income per beneficiary as per Project Report is Rs 20000/- per annum after the maturity period. As against this, the average income of the beneficiary from rubber cultivation in Achencoil ST settlement was estimated at Rs 26716/- and that of Kuttappara was Rs 17220/-. The income from rubber cultivation per beneficiary in Kuttappara is lower than that of Achencoil because of the smaller size of holdings in Kuttappara Settlement as against that conceived in the project report. The annual production of natural rubber of all beneficiaries of the scheme together during the study period 2001-02 is estimated at 63578 kg and 80514 kg in Achencoil and Kuttappara respectively. Details are given in Table - 14.

     The classification of productivity per hectare of rubber of beneficiaries is given in Table - 15. Majority of the beneficiaries in both the settlements falls within the productivity range of 2050 kg/ha and 2800 kg/ha.

Table -15
Distribution of Respondents According to the Productivity of Rubber

Productivity of Rubber (kg/ha)	Achencoil	Kuttappara
1900-2050	3	-
2050-2200	5	-
2200-2350	7	-
2350-2500	1	4
2500-2650	-	8
2650-2800	-	7
2800-2950	-	3
Total	16	22

     Some of the tribals of Achencoil and Kuttappara are exploited by middlemen/non-tribes who are settled near the settlement. It was reported that 40 per cent of the beneficiaries in Achencoil and 16.67 per cent in Kuttappara leased out their plantations for nominal amounts. A few among them even disposed of their plantations later on to persons other than family members. The reasons stated by the S.T. beneficiaries for giving out rubber plantations for lease was linked to their debt to meet unforeseen exigencies. The details are given in Table-16. Out of 14 sample S.T. beneficiaries in Achencoil, 6 of them reported that they leased the rubber trees to meet the hospital/medicinal expenses. In this connection it may be noted that 2 beneficiary leased the trees for meeting the death ceremonies of their father. However, six beneficiaries in Achencoil and one in Kuttappara were reluctant to disclose the reasons for disposing/leasing out plantations.

     In Kuttappara, out of 30 ST beneficiaries selected for the study, 8 leased out their rubber plantations, four of them for meeting hospital expenses, one each for repaying loan and to meet the cost of suit.

     From the above analysis, it can be concluded that the lease/disposal of rubber plantations in both the settlements was highly positively correlated to the debt of tribes ,arising out of exigencies.

Table-16
Reasons for giving out Rubber Plantations on Lease/disposal by S.T. Beneficiaries

Reasons	Achencoil	Kuttappara
To meet hospital expenses/ medicine	6	4
For marriage of daughter/ death ceremonies of near relatives	2	1
To Repay loan	-	1
To meet the expenses of the suit	-	1
Not stated	6	1
Total	14	8

     The beneficiaries were not willing to reveal the amount received as per lease agreement but roughly the number of rubber trees. The prevalent rates of lease in these areas were at the rate of Rs 6000/- per annum for 100 rubber trees. Eventhough some of the beneficiaries stated that they only partially leased out the plantations, in actual practice those who leased out were fully leased out their plantations. All the beneficiaries, who leased out the plantations, had not disclosed the duration of the agreement, local enquiry revealed that the period of lease ranged from six months to one year. There were only oral agreements made between the leaser and leasee.The tribes received the lease amount as lumpsum by way of cash in times of need.

     An analysis of the productivity/income from rubber production of S.T. beneficiaries who had leased/sold the rubber trees partially/fully and those who are still continuing with the cultivation of the crop revealed that the average annual income per beneficiary of those not leased rubber trees was found to be 161 per cent higher than those leased/sold the rubber plantations in Achencoil. The corresponding percentage in Kuttappara was 183 per cent. The details of income generated from rubber production is given in Table -17. The cultivation cost per family having an average of 0.69 ha in Achencoil during 2001-02 is estimated at Rs 7500/- and that of Kuttappara for an average area of 0.34 ha is Rs 4523/-. Here the cultivation cost includes the material cost for processing rubber sheet from latex, manure and fertilizer cost etc. Now the average annual net income of beneficiaries from rubber production in Achencoil and Kuttappara are respectively Rs 37500/- and 20805/-. But In Achencoil 14 sample beneficiaries had given their plantations for lease and the average leased income amounts to only Rs 14392/- at no cultivation cost, while in Kuttappara 8 sample beneficiaries leased out their plantations and the average annual income is Rs 7360/- having no cultivation cost. By combining the average annual income per beneficiary of these two groups, such as leased out and not leased out, the overall average annual net income per beneficiary in Achencoil and Kuttappara are respectively Rs 26716/- and Rs 17220/-.

     Technical assistance on tapping and allied activities has been imparted to all beneficiaries in Achencoil as compared to 30 per cent in Kuttappara. Therefore, it is suggested that Rubber Board may give training to the remaining beneficiaries on tapping and allied activities.

      It was reported that 86.67 per cent of the beneficiaries in Achencoil were carrying out tapping and allied activities themselves. On the other hand, in Kuttappara 56.67 per cent of the beneficiaries were carrying out these activities with paid labourers. Therefore, a major portion of the income from rubber production was paid out as wages to labourers in Kuttappara Settlement.

Problems Involved in Rubber Cultivation
 
     Tribal beneficiaries are encountered with a host of problems in the cultivation of rubber. Details are given in Table - 18.

     Low price of rubber leading to low profitability is reported to be the major problem of beneficiaries in both the settlements. Natural calamities and non-tribal interference are also reported in these areas. A few of the tribals hired labour for rubber cultivation especially in the application of fertilizer, tapping and making sheet etc. This can be overcome by giving intensive training in fertilizer application, tapping and allied activities in respect of rubber cultivation. Rubber Board should initiate these training. Another major problem was non-tribes' interference in the cultivation of rubber. That is, the beneficiaries of the scheme are compelled to give plantations to the non-tribes on lease at very low rate.

Employment and Income

      The beneficiaries in Achencoil on an average had 173 days of part time employment in a year from rubber cultivation by way of tapping and allied labour. In case of Kuttappara the part time employment by way of tapping and allied activities from rubber cultivation was estimated at 163 days per year.

     The average annual income per family of the sample beneficiaries in Achencoil settlement from rubber cultivation was Rs 26716/-. The average annual income from MFP was Rs 3720/- per family in Achencoil. In Kuttappara, none of the family members of sample beneficiaries was engaged in the collection of MFP and the average annual income per family of the sample beneficiaries was Rs 17220/-. Here it may be concluded that the rubber cultivation scheme initiated by the government under Special Central Assistance to Tribal Sub Plan in lands owned by the tribals with the twin objectives of raising natural rubber production and lifting the economic state of the tribes has proved to be highly successful in the selected settlements. The project report on the scheme envisages recurring and continuous stream of income of Rs 20000/- per family annually from rubber cultivation for 25 years. The study revealed that the rubber plantation increased the income of the cultivators far beyond the objectives. Thus the rubber cultivation schemes turned out to be a worthwhile proposition in mitigating the poverty of Scheduled Tribes.

      In Achencoil, a Co-operative Society is functioning. Ninety per cent of the beneficiaries reported that they are the members of the society and 3.33 per cent have savings A/C in Nationalized Banks at Punalur. While in Kuttappara Settlement, no Co-operative Society is functioning and 3.33 per cent had reported that they have savings A/C in Nationalized Bank at Nedumangad.