Against this backdrop, the current study examines the basic problems and remedial solutions adopted by the beneficiaries of the plantation-based rehabilitation programmes in Tripura.

The specific objectives of the study are-

i) To explore the threats and crises perceived by the jhumia beneficiaries and

ii) To examine their responses and measures undertaken to overcome challenges.

The area of the study is Tripura, India. A tentative list of villages where such schemes were implemented was made by searching the records. Plantation-based rehabilitation of jhumias were found to be implemented mostly in 5 districts of the state, and we have selected 10% of such villages from each district in the first stage of the multi-staged sampling procedure. Thirty-six (36) villages were selected, and all were from the TTAADC jurisdiction. In the second stage, from each village, 20% of the rehabilitated beneficiary households were selected for the survey, maintaining a minimum of 5 respondents from each village.

The respondents of the present study, the representative sample, were drawn through stratified random sampling. The various economic models of rehabilitation were considered as a stratum. The universe of the study was the total number of rehabilitated shifting cultivators in Tripura. In order to draw the samples, Rudra’s (1989) technique of ‘randomising the population rather than randomising the sample’ has been used. The technique has helped find jhumias beneficiary families rehabilitated through plantation-based schemes. The respondents were beneficiaries of various plantation-based rehabilitation models for shifting cultivators. The sample respondents included rubber, tea and horticulture (including fruits) cultivators and information was collected through a structured schedule. Further, personal interviews and case studies were also undertaken whenever required. Among the 252 sample respondents, 162 were rubber cultivators, 39 were tea planters, 41 were horticulturists and 10 pursued multiple cropping. Multiple cropping refers to a system where the beneficiary pursues two types of plantation cropping following the grant of schemes twice, albeit for different crops each time.

The present study uses the following methods for analysing the results-

Beneficiary opinion- Each respondent is asked to share the problems they face in the course of plantation development as well as in its marketing outputs. Their opinions based on experience are taken as a primary source of information to highlight some negative externalities (Viswanathan & Bhowmik, 2014).

Factor analysis- Hassan et al. (2012) suggested that factor analysis is the system that the researchers have often employed to sort out, identify and decrease large items sharing a familiar variance from the questionnaire to certain constructs under one dependent variable in a study. It is useful for studies that engage a few or many variables items from questionnaires that can be decreased to a smaller set and make possible explanations, which is useful for putting variables into important categories (Rummel, 1970).

Principal component analysis- This method extracts maximum variance from the data set with each component, thus minimising a large set of variables into smaller components. Hence, it is a data reduction method that combines highly associated variables together to make a smaller group with the intention of retaining as much information as possible (Yong & Pearce, 2013).

Barlett's test of sphericity and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) is a measure of sampling adequacy; both tests are used to check the factor reliability of the matrix as a whole. Moreover, if Barlett's sphericity test is significant and the KMO value is greater than 0.6, factorability is considered (Hassan et al., 2009).

It should be noted that the samples were classified into four strata based on the crops assigned for rehabilitation. Table 1 provides us with the basic characteristics of the respondent households.

We find that 88.49% were headed by males among the sample households, and the incidence of female- headed households was marginally higher among rubber growers and tea growers. Hinduism is the most prominent religion, followed by Christianity and Buddhism. The incidence of Christianity is relatively higher among horticulture beneficiaries, and all the Buddhist respondents were rubber growers. 39.28% of respondent households were BPL ration cardholders, and 37.7% of respondents were APL cardholders. Antodyaya card was in possession of 21.03% respondents, and such cardholders were in sizeable numbers (41%) among the tea beneficiaries. The incidence of BPL cardholders is more among horti- croppers, whereas APL were relatively more rubber beneficiaries.

Table 2 indicates the most severe challenges or difficulties the beneficiary households faced during the entire rehabilitation process and its aftermath. Each respondent was asked to identify the most formidable challenge, and interestingly, 120 of the 252 respondents (47.62 %) opined that even though they had faced several challenges or hurdles during the rehabilitation process, none could be considered unconquerable. This group included 57.41% rubber growers and, 24.39% horti-cultivators, 35.90% tea- growers and 30% multi-croppers. This category of respondents is represented in the last row of the table. On the other hand, 52.38% of respondents believed they had faced tough challenges during their rehabilitation process. It appears from Table 2 that for rubber planters, primary issues were low quality (16.67%) as well as untimely damaged plantations (13.58%); such problem was also found among horti- cultivators, as reported by 21.95% and 26.83% the sub-group respectively. Animals like monkeys, wild pigs, and squirrels, etc., offer severe challenges to a few rubber growers, horti-cultivators and multi- croppers. In the case of tea cultivation, bad marketing is the central issue faced by 41.03% of households, followed by degraded quality of planting materials (12.82%). Some beneficiaries had also mentioned serious financial challenges, including late payment of subsidies. There have been challenges from theft and input (fertiliser) shortages.

Table 3 depicts that the main reason for plant loss in the rubber plantation sector is nature’s fury. 77.16% opines that strong winds resulted in the fall of standing trees. The second major problem is poor management (19.75) in the form of animal forays, forest fires, and the absence of cleaning bushes and pruning; non- scientific tapping often leads to rubber tree cancer, thereby resulting in a quick breakdown. The problem of plant loss for horticulture cultivation is from insects (51.22) and poor management (26.83). In the case of tea and multiple crops cultivators, poor management of the plantation is the prime cause of plant loss. Some respondents believed that the water problem leads to plant loss.

Fig. 1 lists out the major infrastructural challenges faced by the beneficiaries. The respondents, particularly of rubber (81.5%), horticulture (73.2%) and tea (66.7%), believe that there are lacunas in terms of dissemination of proper information regarding the schemes as well as cropping and plantation management. Almost 61% of rubber beneficiaries, 49% of horticulturists, and 72% of tea growers have opined about the non-receipt of timely technical advice and capacity-building mechanisms. The non- existence of a cold-chain system, absence of agro- processing industry, inadequate packaging material as well as limited storage facility are significant challenges for rubber growers as well as multiple croppers as these are factors which restrict their livelihood diversification efforts. Inadequate post- harvest facilities and limited irrigation systems are major concerns for tea growers. The beneficiaries seemed to be less worried about the seedling and planting materials, quality of tools and availability of power at farms. Further, labour shortage is not a major issue for these households.

Regarding the financial issues, the respondents' major problem was a lack of awareness about the eligibility criteria for subsidies. Fig. 2 shows that almost 70% of tea growers, 60% of horti-cultivators, 40% of multi- croppers and 35% of rubber planters have considered this as a concern. Around 30-35% of rubber planters and 25% of tea growers consider interest rates, amount of support/credit and mortgage specification are not favourable to them. The horticulturists are more content on these issues of financial involvement as their extent of grievance or threat perception is the least. However, most of them appear to be content regarding availing of subsidy even though there are variations in the time lag, and the process is somewhat tedious and requires specific documentation, which is often obtained through a lot of cajoling of officials.

Table 4 provides us with the various problems and its extent faced by the beneficiaries. Price and its various manifestations were the most significant concerns regarding the marketing and selling of the product by rubber growers and tea planters. The beneficiaries are mostly price takers and have to accept the price offered to them. Almost 70% of the rubber plantation respondents and 80% of the tea growers have such a belief, while more than 75% of rubber beneficiaries and 90% of tea beneficiaries, along with 70% of multiple croppers, feel they have to accept a lower price. The lack of minimum support price is a concern for almost all of them, including the horti-cultivators. The absence of competitive prices and lack of transparency in determining the market transactions, including the price fixation, is again a concern for the majority of the tea, rubber and multiple croppers. The lack of an online trading facility has been identified as a hurdle by many respondents.

Table 1: Basic statistics of the respondents

Source: Field survey, 2018; Note: Figures in parentheses indicate the percentage

Table 2: Difficulties faced by the households (in %)

Source: Field survey, 2018

Table 3: Causes of Plant losses (in %)

Source: Field survey, 2018

On the other hand, the condition of the road and the absence of transport vehicles (including refrigerated vans) resulting in increased transport costs are cause of concern by some respondents. Lack of market information, high commission charged by intermediaries, and high brokerage interventions are challenges to a few, but are of minor concern. Surprisingly, delay in payment is not much faced by the sample beneficiaries, and sadly, limited measures for quality check and standardisation process is not a botheration for them

Based on the several challenges perceived by the respondent beneficiaries, a factor analysis was attempted using the principal component method of extraction. Table 5 shows that the KMO specification is 0.747, which is acceptable, while Bartlett's test of sphericity is significant at 1% levels.

Further, from Fig. 3 and Table 6, we find that the 45 components indicated 14 factor loadings with an Eigen value of 1 and above. From the 15th factor onwards, the Eigen value is less than 1. In other words, the 45 components of threat could be clubbed into 14factors, and these 14 factors explained 67.78% of the variations. In other words, the various problems and threats the beneficiaries perceive have different dimensions and can be broadly categorised into 14 factors. Factor 1 is the most prominent, has an Eigen value of 7.229 and explains 16.064% of the variations. Factor 2 explains 8.023% of the variation based on an Eigen value of 3.610, while three more factors have an Eigen Value greater than 2. These first five factors cumulatively explain almost 41% of the variation while 9 more factors are identified with Eigen value above 1; as a result, almost 68% of the variation in the threat perspectives gets explained.

Table 4: Problems faced by beneficiaries relating to the marketing of the crop (in %)

Source: Field survey, 2018

Table 5: Factor Analysis: KMO and Bartlett’s Test

The first factor, which explains almost 16% of the variations in the threat perception, has a prominent contribution from components like lack of power, inadequate post-harvest facility, non-existence of cold chain provisions, high price of packing materials, limited storage facility, post payment of subsidy, delays in subsidy payment, high marketing cost, low price, lack of online trading facilities and can be termed as infrastructural (1) factor. The most prominent component of the second factor is the problem related to the need of excessive documentation for financial subsidy, which can termed as a legal (2) factor. For the third factor, irrigation issues are prominent, and the factor itself can be considered as issues relating to irrigation (3). Regarding the fourth factor, inadequate financial facilities and mortgage issues are important positive contributors, which can be considered as monetary (4) factor. For the fifth factor, a high interest rate is the most prominent contributor; therefore, the factor is a rate of interest (5). The sixth factor includes the role of brokers and commissions; therefore, the factor is named as intermediary issues (6). The seventh factor includes delay in payment (7), while lack of awareness (8) about subsidy is the eighth factor and is part of the broader financial factor. Labour (9) issues emerge as the ninth factor, and the tenth factor is related to lack of market information, thus can be termed as the marketing (10) factor. The eleventh factor combines unforeseen household issues, distress sale of property, family challenges, etc. and can be considered as familial (11) factor. The beneficiaries being price takers and having very little control in the market is a challenge, and price (12) can be considered as the twelfth factor. The thirteenth factor emerges from accidents (13), while the final factor arises due to limited awareness and lack of capacity building of the beneficiaries; thus, the fourteenth factor can be called the skill deficiency (14) factor. However, several of these factors, like- irrigation, rate of interest, skill deficiency, and labour, can be considered as part of a broad category of institutional factors. Further, looking into the commonalties of components, we observe that the top five highest scores are for inadequate amount of support/credit (0.864), mortgage issues (0.843), drought (0.811), water crisis (0.785) and non-existence of cold chain (0.783); whereas, the least commonalities score were for limited modern packing materials (0.522), lack of standardisation (0.530), labour crisis (0.534), accidents (0.540) and low quality of planting materials (0.560). Nonetheless, it can be understood from the above analysis that there are several threat perceptions among the respondents, but they are of varied dimensions. The factor analysis helps us to reduce the listed 45 threats to 14 major groups.

Table 7 shows the most prominent response mechanism of the rubber beneficiaries in case of threats and problems that crop up. Even though there have been several dimensions of threats and problems, the respondents are mostly bothered with problems relating to their economic condition, which increases their livelihood threats, and their responses can be clubbed into four types of strategies.

The first strategy is related to cost saving mechanism based on a conservative approach. Reusing old input material (3.1%), sunlight drying of sheet rubber (1.9%), replacement of hired labour by family labour (4.3%), delaying procurement of new equipment/ implements (0.6%) along with judicious and prudent use of resources (0.6%) constitute the conservative approach and accounts for the survival strategy for 10.5% of the rubber-based rehabilitated beneficiaries. Cost cutting helps in increasing household surplus and helps in their livelihood strategy. The second set of response strategy is related to the production process based on technological and innovation measures. The most prominent response in this regard is to stop the self-processing of rubber sheets (21.6%) and collaborate with other processors to enjoy the benefits of scale. Depositing the rubber latex at the rubber processing centres appeared promising toward minimising the cost and burden of the respondents while being ensured of getting a premium on the first week of the month according to the dried rubber content (DRC) of the deposited latex. On the other hand, there are opinions about initiating self-sheet processing as a strategy by having it at home/farm (4.3%) and purchasing new processing machinery (3.7%). It will supplement as an income source as processing for other private individual cultivators can be done at a rental charge (fee) of Rs. 2 per sheet. The use of fertiliser is, again, an essential strategy. Some (1.3%) believe increased use will enhance production, whereas a few (0.6%) thinks that lesser use will ascertain higher grading of sheets, thereby better prices. There are views that increased production will help in reducing threats; therefore, 1.9% of rubber beneficiaries are of the opinion of replanting the lost and ageing trees, while 1.2% would like to lease in more areas for scale efficiency. There are also innovative response strategy suggestions in the form of more intensive tapping during sunny days (0.6%) and altering the thickness of sheet rubber (0.6%). In all, production-based strategy accounts for 35.8% of the rubber beneficiaries.

Marketing-related issues form the third set of response strategies for the rubber beneficiaries. 20.4% of the respondents believe that selling their product at the market directly would fetch them better prices as well as higher returns. Contrary to them, 9.3% believe selling at the farm gate is a better strategy as it reduces transaction costs. Different forms of selling- bulk (2.5%), regular intervals- weekly (1.8%) & monthly (1.2%) also stand as a response against threats by a few. Stability in marketing forms like- particular buyer (0.6%), normal price (2.5%), needs-based approach (5.5%), and market information-based approaches (3.1%) are also strategies against threats. The marketing-based response strategy for survival is the most prominent and accounts for 46.9% of the rubber respondents. 6.8% of the rubber beneficiaries believed in financial strategies to ward off threats and problems, and it includes responses like- loans and advances (2.5%), supplementary wage work (3.1%) and alternative vocations (1.2%). These three measures provide additional current funds, enhancing their financial situations to cover up the crisis.

Similarly, for the horti-cultivators, tea-planters and multi-croppers, we find that the strategies adopted can be subdivided into four similar types for rubber beneficiaries. Table 8 shows that marketing strategies are overwhelmingly dominant for the horti-cultivators (78%) and tea-planters (87%). Selling at the local market is the preferred measure for almost 49% of horticulture beneficiaries, while 29.3% prefer avoiding intermediaries and pursuing direct sales to consumers. Conservative strategies for cutting down costs include using family labour (14.7%) and using bicycles (4.9%) to reduce transportation costs. Among the tea planters, selling leaf to the tea factory directly is preferred by 41% of respondents, while 28.1% prefer selling at the farm gate. 15.3% prefer selling their leaf at the local market. Alternative vocations, use of family labour, use of bicycles, cease production (stop plucking leaves), better maintenance and waiting for a stable price are also response strategies for a few tea planters. Among the multi-croppers, selling the product at the market is the best response mechanism, followed by crop diversification, which is an attempt to boost finances through alternative income. Use of family labour, better maintenance, leasing more area and waiting for price stability are also part of the response strategy of some multi-croppers.

Table 6: Identification of Factors

Table 7: Strategies adopted by Rubber beneficiaries (in %)

Source: Field Survey 2018

Table 8: Strategies adopted by horti-cultivators, tea-planters and multi-croppers (in %)

Source: Field Survey 2018