Maradavally is a relatively high rainfall area with generally a more protected environment. It also enjoys lower development pressures and lower population pressure. Both areas suffer from a decreasing biodiversity, with generally low levels of awareness of and activism against biodiversity depletion and its consequences, although both have small community groups which seek to ameliorate the situation. These groups collaborated in this study.
The primary differences between the two areas is in the context of the beneficiaries of the collection process. In Maradavally, this benefit, little as it is, accrues to landless labourers. In Devrayanadurga, the local community is not benefited in any apparent way.
In both places, the primary beneficiaries are small contractors who either act as middlemen to large manufacturers or are manufacturers themselves. These groups are possibly conscious of the effect of their actions but tend to be tightly knit and generally inaccessible organizations motivated by profit without being adequately sensitive to the long term impact of their actions, in its totality. Creating awareness in this segment about the need for efficient rather than destructive harvesting would be an essential first step.
It appears that providing opportunities to produce MPs through cultivation is not necessarily a complete solution. In Maradavally, the MPs resulting from the cultivation process initiated by the Forest Department are sold by auction. However, at least one forest contractor obtains more than 40 product types from the cultivated area although only 5 products are auctioned by the Forest Department.
Better management of the collection process would require a concerted effort to map the depletion and its effects and awaken local communities to the consequences of such loss. Much of this would be facilitated by the existence of an infrastructure for education and for basic services in the areas themselves so that the young and the fit can be encouraged to develop, study and work within their own communities rather than choose to migrate to urban centers. The quantification of biodiversity benefits and of the effects of their decrease would constitute appropriate first aid. Groups (NGOs) such as those which asisted in these case studies could assist in this effort.
Finally, the development of cultivation as a source for MP would potentially have the effect of ameliorating some of the current habitat destruction and at the same time, serve to create awareness of the role of MPs forin the community. This also requires the development of alternative marketing mechanisms, so that a higher percentage of profits would flow to members of the local community and thus encourage small landowners to become MP suppliers. There is a need for a coherent, transparent and equitable process of generation, processing, marketing and revenue sharing.