Heritage Non Timber Forest Product Use and Management by Indigenous Community in Northeastern Himalayan Hotspot, Arunachal Pradesh, India

Review Article

J Plant Chem and Ecophysiol. 2017; 2(1): 1012.

Heritage Non Timber Forest Product Use and Management by Indigenous Community in Northeastern Himalayan Hotspot, Arunachal Pradesh, India

Kaushalendra Kumar Jha*

Technical Forestry, Indian Institute of Forest Management, India

*Corresponding author: Kaushalendra Kumar Jha, Technical Forestry, Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, MP 462003 India

Received: May 09, 2017; Accepted: June 30, 2017; Published: July 12, 2017

Abstract

Arunachal Pradesh (AP), one of the northeastern Himalayan states of India, is rich in biodiversity. The threat of destruction of certain species makes it a hotspot which merits urgent attention. A literature survey revealed that more than 21 indigenous communities and 110 sub-communities are dependent on the biodiversity for basic needs like, food, medicine, shelter, energy, veterinary care and ecosystem services. It further showed that more than 950 plant species are known to these communities as heritage Non Timber Forest Product (NTFP) due to knowledge passed over generations. Out of these, there are 215 fruits, 300 vegetables, 565 medicines, 38 minor shelter materials, 21 fuel provider and 170 other products for miscellaneous uses. Several of these species have commercial potential and could be used for increasing income and employment opportunities, especially for the poor and otherwise disadvantaged people of the region. Such species require innovative attention to enhance the value of products, which in turn would improve the standard of living of the people. However, the scaling up of commercialization might problematize sustainable management of bioresources. Therefore, this could be balanced by home gardening or domesticating the commercial species, along with scientifically improved harvesting or silvicultural operations, and establishing conservation reserves in forests. A key feature of successful approach to NTFP management will be sound monitoring and evaluation of the programme taken up for marketing and conservation of vulnerable species.

Keywords: AP tribes; Conservation; Ethnoveterinary; Food; Homegardening; Marketing channels; Medicine; Value addition

Introduction

The richness of floral and faunal diversity in Northeast India is paralleled by its ethnic diversity with 220 distinct groups that include over 200 tribes speaking an almost equal number of dialects [1]. Among the seven northeastern states AP has the highest forest cover, flora and fauna, i.e. rich forest biodiversity, and ethnic communities. AP is spread over 83.743 km2 area, 62% of which is covered with forests. The state is divided into 16 districts, inhabited by some major tribes and their subtribes, each totaling 25 to 28 tribes and 110 subtribes [2-4]. They use various plant species growing around them for medicine, food supplement and other uses in the form of various plant parts. Food supplements are generally fruits and vegetables, either eaten raw, cooked or processed. Other uses include shelter construction, energy supply, cultural need materials, and fodder for livestock.

As much as 94% of the population is dependent on the forest biodiversity and ecosystem services for subsistence in some parts of AP [1]. Biodiversity covered in this text includes only those plants which have been used by the community for various needs. The knowledge about the products and their use have been practiced and perfected over a long period of time through generations. A survey of literature available in this field, consulted for this paper, reveals a gap in research as many of the tribes have not been covered. However, the available account gives an overall picture of rich NTFP diversity and dependence of the inhabitants on natural products. Also evident is their effort towards livelihood generation through marketing and resource conservation through domestication, religiocultural efforts and other scientific methods.

Indigenous Community

Out of 26 major tribes 21 (Adis, Akas or Hrussos, Apatanis, Bagnis, Hill Miris, Khambas, Khamtis, Khawas or Bugums, Mebmas, Mijis or Sajalongs or Nimmais or Dhammais, Monpas, Mishmis, Nahs, Nishis, Noctes, Sherdukpens, Singphos, Sulungs, Tagins, Tangsas and Wanchos) are indigenous [5]. Some other names are also mentioned in the text (Lispa, Chugppa, Bangani, Khamba, Khowa, Mishing Miri, Yobin /Lisu, Zakhring /Meyor, Idu mishmi, Galo, Koro, Sartang, Tai Khamti, Khamba, Adi -gallong, Adi-Miniyong, Adi-Padam, Dafla, Deori, Galong, Nishang) which may be the important sub-tribes [6]. This is further revealed in a study where Adi tribe has been mentioned to have sub-tribes like Padam, Minyong, Pasi, Bori, Bokar, Karko, Milang, Ramo, Pangi, Shimong, Ashing, Tangam etc. [7]. One can find some confusing names as there is spelling variation in the text, for example, Nishi=Nyishi=Nissi, Monpa=Mongpa, Sinpho=Singpho etc. Each of the tribes and sub-tribes has a unique tradition, culture and lifestyle dependent mostly on biodiversity, mainly forest and wildlife, of the state [2]. However, based on the priority and preference of research, only 18 tribes/subtribes have been covered in different study areas (Table 1, Figure 1).