Constraints facing the Livelihood sector
The present situation indicates that rural livelihoods in the select districts of some states are still ensconced within the agrarian structure. Alongside, a number of allied activities (farm based/off farm/non-farm) are also positioned as secondary sources of livelihoods. In some areas, however, even these have acquired the status of primary sources of livelihoods. The varying forms of micro level house hold behaviour in terms of their livelihoods strategy however indicate a common behaviour, viz: dependence on agriculture (cultivation of foodgrains – cereals/coarse) to address the issue of household level food security coupled with at least one secondary occupation, that ensures some cash flow to meet the daily requirements of non-food items in the household consumption basket.

The factors that emerged as constraints in the realising higher gains along the value chain of the key sectors/activities of livelihoods in the various sectors may be broadly classified as technical and institutional. The interventions, therefore, have also been suggested accordingly, with varying combinations of technical and institutional measures for the different sectors in the select districts covered under the various livelihood projects. However, the study also shows that in order to address the basic livelihoods question at present in the district, the institutional interventions may have to be taken on a priority basis, so that adequate base is created among the key players to absorb the technical interventions. It is the institutional interventions that would help define the willingness of the poor marginal households to absorb the technical inputs so as to move to a higher output, employment and income trajectory.

A review of the livestock sector highlights the constraints facing poor rural livestock producers. Livestock production contributes to rural livelihoods by serving as a source of food, a store of wealth, and a source of cash. Missing or inadequate infrastructure—such as roads, electricity, weighing stations and cattle dips— serves as a serious constraint to the marketing of livestock. Inadequate infrastructure raises transaction costs, exacerbates information asymmetries between producers and traders, and discourages investment in processing. Although the government has begun rebuilding the infrastructure destroyed during the conflicts, much of the responsibility for animal health services provision and marketing infrastructure has been devolved to local governments that have not prioritized the livestock sector. Policymakers and livestock producers are also challenged by the small size of the domestic market and limited capacity to service international markets.

Question:- How important are forests to rural livelihoods in India? (aggregated) What are the determinants of the relative importance of forest income?