BASELINE REPORT

India

of the UNEP-GEF Project entitled; “Conservation and sustainable use of cultivated and wild tropical fruit diversity: promoting sustainable livelihoods, food security and ecosystem services”

February 2014

TM Gajanana, Hugo A. H. Lamers, Shalendra Rajan, Awtar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Indrapal Singh, Vasudeva Ramesh, Narasimha Hegde, MR Dinesh, V Dakshinamoorthy

Citation: Gajanana, TM, Lamers, HAH, Rajan S., Singh A., Singh SK, Singh I, Vasudeva R, Hedge N, Dinesh MR, Dakshinamoorthy V (2014) Baseline report India for the UNEP-GEF Project entitled: conservation and sustainable use of cultivated and wild tropical fruit diversity: promoting sustainable livelihoods, food security and ecosystem services.

Copyright 2014 Bioversity International College of Forestry, University of Dharwad (CoF) Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR)

Acknowledgement This baseline report is a joint endeavour of Bioversity International together with Indian Institute of Horticulture Research (IIHR), Central Institute of Subtropical Horticulture (CISH), National Research Centre for Citrus (NRCC), National Research Centre for Litchy (NRCL) and the College of Forestry (CoF) of the University of Agricultural Sciences in Dharwad, Lifetrust and Ecowatch. The following staff contributed in designing the impact framework, formulating impact indicators and research questions, developing the group exercises and baseline questionnaire, conducting the focus group discussions and interviews, data entry, data cleaning, data analysis and writing the final report:

National level: TM Gajanana, Hugo AH Lamers, Froukje Kruijssen, Maya Subedi, Sudha Mysore, Elena Borasino, Wouter van Os.

Malihabad team: Shalendra Rajan, Barsathi Lal, Ramkishore, Surendra Kumar Rawat, Shadab Ahmed (CISH)

Pusa team: Awtar Singh, Sanjay Kumar Singh, Kannaiah Kumar (NRCL)

Amravati team: Indrapal Singh, Nilesh Kalambe, Deepak Shirole, Vijay Ande, Madura Makhe Rajender Karle, R.P. Jichkar (NRCC)

Sirsi team: Vasudeva Ramesh, Sreekanth Gunaga, Narasimha Hedge, MB Naik, Srinivas, Ganapathy, Manjunath, Deepa (CoF and Lifetrust)

Chittoor team: MR Dinesh, V Dakshinamoorthy, Hari Ram, Gopi, Rajani Kumar, Bhuvaneshwari (IIHR)

We thank UNEP/GEF and the Indian Government for making the funds available to accomplish this work. Foremost we would like to thanks all the farm household members, over 1.000 men and women that have dedicated their valuable time to provide us with their knowledge and information regarding their fruit trees, livelihoods and farm management system. Without their time, help and collaboration this baseline study would not have been possible.

Acronyms:

GEF : Global Environmental Facility UNEP : United Nations Environment Program BI : Bioversity International ICAR : Indian council of Agricultural research ICHORD : Indonesian Centre for Horticultural Research and Development MARDI : Malaysian Agricultural and Rural Development Institute DoA : Department of Agriculture TFTGR : Tropical Fruit Tree Genetic Resources project IIHR : Indian Institute of Horticulture Research CISH : Central Institute of Subtropical Horticulture NRCC : National Research Centre of Citrus NRCL : National Research Centre of Litchy CoF : College of Forestry (University of Agriculture Science, Dharwad) FGD : Focus Group Discussions FCA : Four Cell Analysis CBM : Community Biodiversity Management DIVA-GIS : Free computer program for mapping and geographic data analysis HH : Household

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 7 1.1 General project focus and objectives ...... 7 1.2 Introduction of target species ...... 7 1.3 Site selection methodology and results ...... 8 1.4 CBM approach; activities and planned interventions ...... 9 2. Objectives of the impact assessment and baseline study ...... 10 2.1 Specific objectives of the baseline study ...... 10 2.2 Project impact framework, rationale and indicators ...... 11 2.3 Major research questions ...... 12 3. Implementation structure & methodologies ...... 12 3.1 Empirical research set-up ...... 12 3.2 Data collection methods ...... 13 3.3 Sample selection ...... 13 3.4 Justification of major variables used ...... 14 3.5 Data management, cleaning & analysis ...... 14 4. Diversity assessment ...... 16 4.1 Description of project sites ...... 16 4.1.1 Malihabad ...... 16 4.1.2 Pusa ...... 16 4.1.3 Amravati ...... 17 4.1.4 Sirsi ...... 18 4.1.5 Chittoor ...... 19 4.2 Diversity available per site ...... 20 4.2.1 Malihabad ...... 20 4.2.2 Pusa ...... 25 4.2.3 Amravati ...... 32 4.2.4 Sirsi ...... 35 4.2.5 Chittoor ...... 44 5. Socio-economic assessment ...... 48 5.1 Household characteristics ...... 48 5.1.1 Amravati ...... 48 5.1.2 Malihabad ...... 48 5.1.3 Pusa ...... 49 5.1.4 Sirsi ...... 50 5.1.5 Chittoor ...... 50 5.2 Farm system and practises ...... 51 5.2.1 Amravati ...... 51 5.2.2 Malihabad ...... 51 5.2.3 Pusa ...... 52 5.2.4 Sirsi ...... 53 5.2.5 Chittoor ...... 53 5.3 Welfare and income level ...... 54 5.3.1 Amravati ...... 54 5.3.2 Malihabad ...... 55 5.3.3 Pusa ...... 56 5.3.4 Sirsi ...... 58 5.3.5 Chittoor ...... 59 5.4 Knowledge and opinions related to agricultural biodiversity ...... 60 5.4.1 Amravati ...... 60 5.4.2 Malihabad ...... 61 5.4.3 Pusa ...... 62 5.4.4 Sirsi ...... 62 5.4.5 Chittoor ...... 63 6. Discussion of baseline research questions & results ...... 64 6.1 Major threats and drivers for agro-biodiversity ...... 64 6.1.1 Amravati ...... 64 6.1.2 Malihabad ...... 65 6.1.3 Pusa ...... 65 6.1.4 Sirsi ...... 66 6.1.5 Chittoor ...... 66 6.2 Results of diversity assessment ...... 67 6.3 Results of socio-economic assessment ...... 69 7. Conclusions and recommendations ...... 70 7.1 Major conclusions ...... 70 7.2 Conclusions and recommendations per site ...... 71

1. Introduction

The baseline survey was conducted as part of the impact assessment of the Global Environmental Fund (GEF) funded project ‘ Conservation and sustainable use of cultivated and wild tropical fruit diversity: promoting sustainable livelihoods, food security and ecosystem services’. This project, in short the Tropical Fruit Tree Genetic Resources (TFTGR) project, is implemented in four countries, including India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. This 5 year and 10.4 million dollar project for on-farm and in-situ conservation started in January 2009 up to December 2013. All funds and activities are coordinated through the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and implemented by Bioversity International (BI) in collaboration with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) in India, the Indonesian Centre for Horticulture Research and Development (ICHORD) in Indonesia, the Malaysian Agriculture Research and Development Institute (MARDI) in Malaysia and the Department of Agriculture (DOA) in Thailand.

1.1 General project focus and objectives On-farm conservation is increasingly being adopted by both government and non-government sectors to overcome the genetic erosion in developing countries and its consequences on livelihood of local communities (Paudel et al., 2008). On-farm and in-situ conservation is increasingly recognised as a complementary strategy for ex-situ conservation as it a) secures the evolutionary process of creating biodiversity through natural and human selection, b) secures interactions with natural biodiversity and ecosystems and c) preserves and continuously adapts the indigenous and traditional knowledge connected to plants d) provides recognition for farmers as breeders and e) increases resilience by providing solutions for adverse or localized environmental and climatic conditions. The TFTGR project strives to find and promote best practises that strenghten on-farm and in-situ conservation practises of farming communities.

The project objective is to conserve tropic fruit tree genetic resources in-situ and on-farm through strengthened capacity of farming households, collectors, local communities and institutions to sustainably apply good practices and secure benefits .

The expected outcomes are: • tropical fruit tree diversity is conserved in situ and on farm through improved knowledge of its value, use and sustainable management practices; • rural communities benefit by using methodologies and gender-sensitive good practices for the management and conservation of tropical fruit tree species and intra-specific diversity; • and stakeholders have the capacity and the leadership skills to apply good practices for managing tropical fruit tree diversity for sustainable livelihoods, food security and ecosystem health.

The project seeks to provide an effective long-term basis for maintaining the genetic diversity and associated ecosystem functions of both the cultivated and wild varieties of tropical fruit tree genetic resources. It also attempts to establish a scientific and practical foundation for mainstreaming and promoting tropical fruit tree diversity that generates benefits for custodian farmers and communities.

1.2 Introduction of target species The project will focus on four commercially important tropical fruit species with high diversity levels in the Asia region, both at intra-specific level as well as at species level: namely citrus (Citrus spp.), mango ( Mangifera spp.), mangosteen ( Garcinia spp.) and rambutan ( Nephelium spp.) as well as their wild relatives.

The genus Mangifera comprises about 40 species, of which about 26 species have edible fruits, either eaten as fresh or used to prepare jams, jellies or preserves. Mango is the most cultivated and known species ( Mangifera indica ) which does well in sub-tropical conditions with cool and/or dry season to flower and fruit. The Indo-Myanmar border region is considered the historical origin area for mango. Lesser known Mangifera species such as M. foetida, M. odorata and M. casturi thrive in the humid tropics with the highest species diversity found in Peninsular Malaysia, Sumatra and Kalimantan.

The cultivated species of the genus Citrus are native to the tropical and subtropical regions of Southeast Asia while wild relatives occur from Northeastern India and southern China to northern Australia. Although Citrus taxonomy is still confusing, the most commonly used taxonomic scheme (Swingle’s) identifies 16 species; the other proposed subdivisions of the genus recognize from one up to 162 species. Some of the commercialized citrus species well-known across the region are Citrus maxima (pommelo), C. reticulata (mandarins), C. hystrix (kaffir lime), C. madurensis (sweet lime), C. aurantifolia (lime) and C. sinensis (sweet orange).

The genus Nephelium comprises approximately 22 species, centered in Peninsular Malaysia but also reported to occur in Burma, Thailand, Indochina, Borneo, the Philippines and Indonesia. Of the 22 species reported most occur in Peninsular Malaysia (13) and Kalimantan (16). The major commercial species is N. lappaceum (rambutan), which is widely cultivated throughout Southeast Asia. Other semi-wild species such as Nephelium hypoleucum (korlan), N. ramboutan-ake (pulasan) and N. xerospermoides (hairless rambutan) have importance mostly as home consumed fruit crops.

The genus Garcinia is composed of about 150 species. Cultivation of G. mangostana (mangosteen), the most commercially important species of this genus, is limited to the humid tropics in Southeast Asia; from Indonesia, New Guinea, the Philippines and Peninsular Malaysia into the southern parts of Thailand, Burma and Vietnam. Mangosteen ranks among the antioxidant- rich fruits that have attracted increasing interest from industry and consumers globally. Other species such as Garcinia atroviridis (asam gelugur in Indonesia and Malaysia), G. indica (India) and G. gummigatta (India) gained some importance as fruit crops and are often used as spice ingredient or for medicinal purposes. Recently Garcinia indica excited the scientific world for possessing properties that regulate obesity (Yamaguchi F 2000).

Project interventions in India focus on Mangifera indica in Malihabad, Pusa, Chittoor and Sirsi, Citrus spp. in Pusa and Amravati and Garcinia spp. in Sirsi.

1.3 Site selection methodology and results On-farm conservation efforts are undertaken in areas where agricultural biodiversity is still found; so-called origin areas or agricultural biodiversity hotspots. Traditionally, tropical fruits are managed in a variety of production systems such as in natural forests, buffer zones, home gardens and semi-commercial or commercial orchards. Study sites were selected to represent this wide range of agro-ecosystems. A two-stage approach was applied to select the best sites for an on-farm conservation strategy; combining expert meetings using maps (DIVA-GIS) of secondary data on macro level with participatory group discussions using diversity assessment tools like the Four Cell Analysis (FCA) on village level. Maps were used to assess and provide insight into the diversity rich regions from national to district level, and helped to narrow down the range of sites based on limited information. Identified potential sites were further assessed using rapid rural appraisal to evaluate suitability of potential communities using eight key indicators.

Table 1: site selection indicators Diversity Weig 1 High inter- and intra- specific diversity 30%ht Environment 2 Availability of diverse agro-ecological systems 10% Logistics 3 Accessibility – no operational constraints (costs, access, time 10% Socio-economicand facilities ) 4 Low income per capita or household 10% 5 High importance of fruit trees for households – share in 10% Potentialincome for or labour economic gains and conduct of good 6practises Good connection and access to markets 10% 7 Presence of strong local institutions 10% 8 Appreciation of and high interest in maintaining tropical fruit 10% tree diversity 100%

All short-listed communities were ranked for each of the indicators and communities with highest weighted scores were selected. This was followed by a validation visit to select and confirm the communities. In total 18 project communities located in 5 different States and sites were selected in India, as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Project site locations in India

1.4 CBM approach; activities and planned interventions The continued and alarming decline and loss of diversity on farms and in forests requires immediate, effective and sustainable interventions, especially in those areas that are considered origin areas and agricultural biodiversity hotspots. However a substantial amount of research is available describing exemplary case studies of on-farm conservation little research has been done regarding interventions; i.e. how to improve on-farm and in-situ conservation? What are the best methods & tools to intervene and strengthen on-farm and in-situ conservation practises in the field? This project is trying to fill this gab by piloting the Community Biodiversity Management (CBM) approach for perrenual species.

The Community Biodiversity Management (CBM) approach is a participatory and holistic approach that combines strategies for the conservation of natural and agricultural biodiversity and related traditional knowledge with the improvement of livelihoods and empowerment of communities. Central to the CBM approach is that interventions and activities enable communities to take ownership over their natural resources and empower them in making self-directed decisions regarding the protection, management and use of the species and varieties found within their community. Such an approach focusing on the use and value of biodiversity (i.e. finding the synergy between protecting natural wealth, community empowerment and socio-economic development) is a long-term effort and requires several years of capacity building, technical assistance and financial resources.

When implementing on-farm conservation activities there is no ‘one medicine for all’, so the CBM approach is more like a toolbox with participatory methods & tools from which you select the set of tools that fits best to the specific local needs and context of a certain community. CBM activities focus on creating awareness, documenting agricultural biodiversity and knowledge, identifying good practises, identifying custodian farmers, technical and social capacity building and creating added value for local endogenous species and varieties. Interventions connected to CBM include the organization of diversity fairs, development of a fruit catalogue or community biodiversity register, documentation of traditional knowledge connected to local species and varieties, establishment of nurseries, capacity building on propagation techniques, evaluation of local diversity on market traits, strengthening the marketing of unique species and varieties, establishing a community revolving fund and designing a community-based conservation strategy for those fruit tree species or varieties with little market value. Several participatory methods & tools can be used to guide above activities, such as Four Cell Analysis, Identification of Good Practises, Identification of Custodian Farmers and Rapid Market Appraisal.

2. Objectives of the impact assessment and baseline study

Donors, the general public and implementers do increasingly request clear information on the effectiveness and success of project interventions for accountability, learning and promotion purposes. Baseline studies, ex-post evaluations and impact assessments 1 are developed to fulfil these needs in a comprehensive way.

2.1 Specific objectives of the baseline study This baseline study was conducted for two major functions a) to establish a baseline; i.e. to assess the conditions prior to the planned interventions to enable comparison with the conditions after completing all interventions and ultimately measure the effect or impact of the project and b) to

1 Impact refers to measurable long-term changes or effects of the outputs and outcomes, both negative and positive, on the wellbeing of the intended beneficiaries that remained after the project ends. Ex-post evaluation is merely the measurement of outputs and outcomes directly after finishing the project. inform and improve understanding about prevailing conditions in the project sites which can help to improve the project design and implementation of future interventions.

2.2 Project impact framework, rationale and indicators A total of 14 impacts and outcome indicators were developed related to the general objective, intermediate objective and three main outcomes (see Annex B). Furthermore, all planned project activities have specific output indicators as formulated in the logical framework (see Annex C). The key impact indicators and targets formulated for this project are listed below:

• Increase in income – At least 10% of farming households (approximately 750 families) and users from 18 project communities show a 10% increase in the income derived from tropical fruit trees associated with the adoption of good practices by the project by year 5. • Increase in consumption – 20% of the households (approx 1.500 families) in 18 project communities attest to increased consumption of tropical fruits through additions to their diets by year 5. • Diversity maintained & conserved – Genetic diversity on varietal and species level of target tropical fruit trees conserved on 15,000 hectares of the farmer fields and in 25,000 hectares in forest areas by year 5. • Good practices strengthened & adopted – At least 10% of farmers and user groups in project sites (equivalent to 750 households) implement the set of identified Good Practices of Diversity 2 management and use (GPD) in the project sites in four project countries by year 4.

These indicators are selected to provide a measure of success of the two main objectives of the project; namely improved livelihoods and the conservation of tropical tree diversity within the project communities. An impact pathway was developed to show how those key impacts will be achieved, as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Impact pathway

2 Good practices for this project are Good Practices of Diversity management and use (GPD) which is a new concept derived from - but distinct from - Good Agricultural Practices GAP. 2.3 Major research questions To be able to understand how livelihoods and tropical fruit tree diversity in the project communities will be affected, we need to understand more about how diversity is managed and used by communities. This baseline survey provides answers and insight to the following research questions: • What is the initial level of tropical fruit tree diversity within our selected communities? - Which target species are available? What is the level of varietal or genetic diversity? What are the unique traits and characteristics of those species and varieties and how are they used? • Which factors, i.e. drivers & threats, do influence diversity in-situ and on-farm? Why is the number of species or varieties increasing or decreasing? Which varieties are under threat? • What is the initial welfare and income situation of farm households and collectors? - How important are target species for their livelihoods? What are their main income sources? What are the assets of households? What are the key benefits of fruit diversity for farm households and collectors?

3. Implementation structure & methodologies

An impact evaluation should determine whether a programme has had the desired effects on the intended beneficiaries and whether those effects could be attributed to the programme intervention. Thus, the approach attempts to measure the outcome of a programme in isolation of other possible interventions or external effects such as changes in market prices or harvest yields due bad weather conditions.

3.1 Empirical research set-up An impact evaluation must consider thus the counterfactual , that is, what would have happened without project interventions to control for external effects or influences. The project used a difference-in-differences design (see figure 3) by identifying control villages which resemble the treatment group in every way, the only difference being the programme intervention. Control villages were identified during focus group discussion trying to minimize the potential of spill-over effects through ‘learning from neighbours’. Same respondents will be interviewed again at the end of the project as part of the impact assessment. Achievements of project will be shared with control villages after conducting the ex-post survey.

Figure 3: Difference-in-differences approach

3.2 Data collection methods Data collection methods used included key informant interviews to test and adjust the questionnaire, secondary data collection, Focus Group Discussions (See guidelines in Annex E to Annex I) and a baseline questionnaire (See Annex J). The group discussions focused on 5 different aspects and related exercises; • Four Cell Analyses - assessment of diversity richness and abundance, • Venn diagram - assessment of local institutions, • Resource map - assessment of income crops & natural resources, • Timeline analysis - assessment of drivers & threats to diversity over time, • Variety trait scoring diagram - assessment of key traits & characteristics.

For the baseline survey in India in total 90 Focus Group Discussions (FGD) were conducted and 944 questionnaire interviews with households within the 18 project communities (See Annex D and table 2). Besides, 137 interviews were conducted in 13 control villages. The baseline questionnaire covered aspects related to socio-economic household characteristics, fruit tree diversity, farm system and practises, income sources, production assets and consumer items, market linkages and opinions related to diversity.

Table 2: Number of households (HH) and interviews conducted per community Site name Community names Total HH Fruit HH Sample Control Total (~10%) (~30%) 1 Malihabad (UP) Sarsanda 250 230 60 10 70 2 Malihabad (UP) Kasmandi Kalam 300 285 72 0 72 3 Malihabad (UP) Mohammed Nagar 250 225 69 0 69 Talukedari 4 Malihabad (UP) Gopramau 607 475 61 0 61 5 Pusa (Bihar) Mahmada 1,000 160 50 15 65 6 Pusa (Bihar) Jagdishpur 500 60 50 15 65 7 Pusa (Bihar) Dhobgama 1,200 250 50 0 50 8 Pusa (Bihar) Murliyachak 200 55 50 0 50 9 Amravati (Maharashtra) Jarud 2,457 1,301 51 15 66 10 Amravati (Maharashtra) Nagziri 56 20 19 15 34 11 Amravati (Maharashtra) Bargaon 261 150 50 0 50 12 Sirsi (Karnataka) Koligar et al. 355 320 60 10 70 13 Sirsi (Karnataka) Gonsar et al. 663 251 43 11 54 14 Sirsi (Karnataka) Kulibeedu et al. 294 220 53 0 53 15 Sirsi (Karnataka) Kumta et al. 500 374 50 0 50 16 Chittoor (Andrah Pradesh) Bangarupalyam et al. 485 245 53 16 69 17 Chittoor (Andrah Pradesh) Polakala et al. 1,500 900 50 15 65 18 Chittoor (Andrah Pradesh) Talupulapalli et al. 200 160 53 15 68 Total 11,078 5,681 944 137 1,081

3.3 Sample selection A sample of approximately 10% of all households with target fruits in the project community was selected; interviewing approx. Semi-random or multi-stage sampling methodologies were used to select the respondents from each community. After selecting the 5 sites, communities were identified compromising 1 village or a cluster of smaller hamlets of approximately 500 households. About 50 households were interviewed in each community and 15 households 3 in each control community. Every 10 th household on the list maintained by local government or farmer associations were selected for interview. If lists were not available, a pre-defined number of households were selected per area by drawing a grid over the community map from which randomly an area was selected and households were interviewed.

3.4 Justification of major variables used Livelihood benefits is a broad concept and difficult to monitor as it includes monetary and non- monetary benefits. As an increase in income is perceived to be the strongest indicator for livelihood improvement, we selected this as key impact indicator. We differentiated income into sub-categories; namely net income from target fruits, net income from other farm activities and net income from non-farm activities. In addition to net income, we measured welfare level using land ownership, housing conditions, ownership of productive assets and key consumer items associated with the wealth status of the household. Principle Compenent Analysis was used to calculate a wealth index figure for each household. To measure impact on non-monetary benefits we included some questions related to the opinion of farm household heads regarding the importance of non- economic livelihood benefits such as nutritional value, medicinal use, eco-system services or socio-cultural values.

To measure the abundance of agricultural biodiversity we use richness, i.e. the number of distinct species (inter-specific richness) and number of distinct named varieties or types (intraspecific richness). The Simpson index (1-D) and the divergence across households (E) were used as a measure of dominance and distribution. Both measure the chance that two random selected individuals from the population are the same. For consumption level data we assessed the consumption of target fruits during fruiting season. As good practices in diversity management and use (GPD) were not yet defined, hence we only captured information regarding general agricultural practises that are applied in the farms.

3.5 Data management, cleaning & analysis Data were collected by focus group discussions and pen and paper questionnaire in 2010 and data was entered in Excel at site locations. Raw data sets were cleaned, transferred and clubbed together into an improved Excel database for analysis on national level. Data analysis was conducted by national focal point together with regional focal point using Excel, SPSS and STATA. National level report was written based on pre-defined outline, which formed the basis for the final regional baseline report (See figure 4).

3 Less interviews (n = 15) were conducted in control villages at the start of the project due lack of resources. Figure 4: Implementation structure of baseline activities

PDF-B: Finalization of project design Impact framework

Expert consultation Selection of country focal points

Baseline design workshop (Nov 2009)

Focus Group Questionnaire Secondary data & Discussions (n= 2466 hh’s) key informant (n= 180) interviews

1. Four Cell Analysis Stratified Random Sampling (n = 36) ~ 10% (minimum 50 hh’s) 1.946 interviews from 14.345 hh’s

2. Venn Diagram (n = 36)

3. Community map India (5 sites) Indonesia (6 sites) Malaysia (6 sites) Thailand (5 sites) (n = 36)

4. Trait Scoring 18 Communities 6 Communities 6 Communities 6 Communities Diagram (n = 36) n = 944 hh’s n = 364 hh’s n = 240 hh’s n = 432 hh’s

5. Timeline histogram (n = 36) Control Control Control Control 10 villages 6 villages 6 villages 6 villages n = 137 hh’s n = 111 hh’s n = 72 hh’s n = 130 hh’s

Data entry & management in raw database in excel: - Focus group discussions - Questionnaire Data cleaning & Calculation of variables cross checking for analysis Data processing & analysis in cleaned database for analysis (Excel/SPSS/STATA): - Biodiversity assessment - Socio-economic assessment

4 Baseline reports per country

4. Diversity assessment

4.1 Description of project sites In India the project is implemented in 5 sites ranging from commercial orchards in Amravati, Chittoor and Malihabad to semi-commercial orchards and home gardens in Pusa and home gardens combined with collection of semi-wild fruit species from forests in Sirsi.

4.1.1 Malihabad Malihabad is a town and nagar panchayat (sub-district) that is located 40 km east of Lucknow, the capital city of the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh. The small town is the centre of the major mango (Mangifera indica ) production belt of North India and acclaimed for its mangoes. Among different varieties of mangoes grown here Dashehari is the most popular. Malihabad is the origin area for this variety for which a geographic indication claim was approved in 2008. Other varieties of mangoes grown in this area are Chausa, Fazli, Lucknowa, Jauhari, Safeda among many others. The older mango plantations of Malihabad were developed by Pathans , nobleman and wealthy trading families placed under the royal patronage of the Nawabs , the Muslim rulers of this region in the 18 th century. Both the Pathans and Nawabs have played an important role in the enhancement and conservation of mango diversity in this region. Among the many commercial plantations several centenary orchards can still be found in Malihabad which can be linked back to the Nawabs and the Mughal Empire. The climate of Malihabad is sub-humid with long summer period and a short winter season. The summers are very hot (40 - 45 0C maximum) with relative cool and dry winters (minimum 4 - 6 oC). Rain season is from July up to September. Soils are deep and have developed from the deposits of rivers in the gangetic plains. The soils are alluvium, neutral to moderately alkaline and calcareous especially at lower depth.

Mango is one of the major income sources in Malihabad, with mangoes being exported to many neighbouring states. Many nurseries are found here that supply mango saplings to other states as well. The four villages Mahmeda, Mohamed Nagar Talukedari, Sarsanda and Gopramau can be characterised as traditional north Indian villages where farmers earn their main income with mangoes combined with growing pulses, wheat and other crops such as vegetables for home consumption and sales.

4.1.2 Pusa The four communities are located in Samastipur district in Bihar close to the old gandak river in the fertile gangetic plains of north India. This area is known as a litchi production belt in India and harbours some very old mango orchards. The major fruit crops grown in this traditional farming district are mango, litchi, guava, date palm, citrus, gooseberry, custard apple and papaya. Other important livelihood crops include paddy, wheat, potato, tobacco, vegetables and seasonal flowers. Most mango and litchi trees are found in very old orchards along the old gandak river. The majority of the households maintain small kitchen gardens or home gardens. The climate of Pusa site is humid subtropical, where the maximum and minimum average temperatures are 31 and 19 degrees Celsius, respectively, throughout the year with average annual rainfall of 1200 mm, distributed over 35-40 rainy days during the monsoon season. The maximum temperature touches 46 0C in the month of May and the minimum touches 4 0C in the month of January. The maximum precipitation occurs during the months from June to September (monsoon season). During the winter season there are occasional fogs. The soils of the area are sandy loam type and are rich in organic matter. Farmers use mainly organic fertilizers and very few use chemical fertilizers in their fruit orchards. The water-holding capacity of the soils is very good.

The major income source is from agriculture, horticulture, dairy and apiary (bee culture). Some farmers also have fish ponds in low-lying areas. Farmers sell their annual crops like paddy rice, wheat, potato, onion, etc. themselves in the local markets. The majority of the fruits (mango, litchi, guava, etc.) grown in the orchards are sold to pre-harvest contractors, who take up the marketing of the produce. Fruits are generally sent to distant markets like Kolkata or Delhi by the pre-harvest contractors. In the field of marketing, co-operative societies are not functional. Several households have non-farm income from absentee members with jobs as maids or in construction (salary) or small shops and business activities. Some of the crops grown in home/kitchen gardens are also sold and this adds to the family income. The average income for a landless agricultural labourer in this district is around Rs. 2,500 (USD 50) per month, but the big farmers, service workers and businessmen have high average incomes ranging from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 15,000 (USD 100 to 300) per month.

Mahmada is one of the bigger villages of 1.000 households located directly next to the IARI research campus in Pusa. Amit Foundation has its office here. The wet market of the area is located in Mahmeda at the bridge that crosses the old gandak river. Jagdishpur is a smaller hamlet of about 500 households located close to Mahmada. Dhobgama is a bigger village with about 1200 households. Murliyachak is a very small hamlet of only 200 households just outside Mahmada.

4.1.3 Amravati The Vidarbha region in between Nagpur and Amravati is the major production belt for Nagpur Mandarin in India, with more than 90 lakhs of Nagpur mandarin plants cultivated. First citrus trees were introduced probably around 1850 by the local maharadja. The area is nowadays characterised by commercial orchards on highly fertile soils, dark loamy clay soil or ‘black cotton soil’, with a solid rock underground on 5-15 feet (pH varying from 7.3 to 8.2 and high CaCO 3). The three project communities Jarud, Nagziri and Bargaon are located close to the Satpura hills, which rolling landscape provide a perfect micro climate for citrus. The area is unique due its double harvest season as trees flower just after winter and during the hot and dry summer. This area has a sub-humid tropical climate, in which the maximum temperature goes up to 47 0C during the peak summer month of May and the minimum comes down to 7-8 0C during the peak winter months of December and January. Most of the rain is received in the months of July and August, with a total rainfall of 500 to 900 mm per year.

The area planted with Nagpur Mandarin has steadily increased with early introduction of chemical fertilizers in 1950ties and irrigation since the early 90ties. Besides Nagpur mandarine, farmers cultivate sweet orange and often intercrop those fruit species with cotton, soybean, chillies, eggplant, tomatoes or other vegetables in their orchards. Market linkages are relative poor in the three communities. Most of the farmers auction their orchard harvest to the middlemen before maturity (i.e. pre-harvest contractors), and some at the time of maturity. Only few farmers, especially small farmers, harvest fruits and sell themselves in local markets.

Jarud is a relative larger village (2457 Households) located directly on the main road about half way from Nagpur to Amravati in the Satpura hills. From Nagpur it's a 3 to 4 hour drive to Jarud. The village has a farmer cooperative shop for inputs, two nurseries and an irrigation regulation body. Besides several farmers are member of the newly established nagpur mandarine growers association (MOGA) that has its office in Warud, the administrative centre (gram panchayat) of this sub-district. Jarud has approximately 1301 farmers who maintain citrus or mango trees. Farmers can generally be grouped in three categories where small farmers have maximum 5 acre, middle size farmers have orchards of 5 to 15 acre and large scale farmers are larger then 15 acre. Control village for Jarud is Benoda which is a larger village located directly on the main road only 10 km from Jarud. Nagziri (56 Households) is a very small village located in between Jarud and Bargaon, a few kilometre from the main road. Five of the 21 farmers that maintain fruit orchards in Nagziri live on distance in Amravati. Since 2008 Nagziri has an asphalted connection to the main road and few farmers are member of MOGA. Control village for Nagziri is Khadkha which is smaller and relative poorer community and located between Bargaon and Jarud. Bargaon (261 Households) is a smaller village located about 15 kilometre from Jarud in the direction of Amravati directly along the main road. Bargaon has approximately 150 farmers with target fruit trees. Farmers in Bargaon and Nagziri are in general smaller and poorer compared with Jarud. A few very large farmers exist in Bargaon that own a large share of the surrounding farmer fields and land. Approximately 50% of farmers have 1 to 3 acre, 35% of farmers have 3-8 acre and 15% of farmers have more then 8 acre. Control village for Bargaon is Khadkha.

4.1.4 Sirsi Uttara Kannada district, situated right in one of the hotspots of biological diversity - the Western Ghats of India- is one of the largest districts of Karnataka state. It is endowed with rich natural resources. The district has varied geographical features with thick forest, perennial rivers and abundant flora/fauna and a long coastal line of about 140 KM length. In its 10.25 lakh ha of geographical area, a large chunk is under (8.28 lakh ha) forest land (85%), and only about 1.2 lakh ha (roughly amounting to 12%) is under agriculture. The tropical climate of this region is strongly influenced by the monsoons, and moderated by proximity to the sea. During the monsoons, the region receives one of the heaviest rainfalls in the world. Average rainfall in the district is 2835 mm, however the western coastal and crest-line regions of the district receives heavy rain fall exceeding 4000 mm annually. Because of the heavy rain fall, the lateritic soils are rather poor with respect to nutrition. Average climate is 33 º C during the summer and 20º C during the winter at the sea level. The vegetation in the region is mainly moist deciduous wherein valuable timber wood is found. Evergreen and semi-evergreen formations are fragmented in the crest-line of the Ghats. Deforestation and poaching have been the causes for conservation concern in recent years. Arecanut (betlenut) and rice are the main crops of the irrigated region. Along with arecanut, cardamom, vanilla, black pepper are also cultivated.

The study site falls under the high rainfall region surrounded by the forested area. The life-style and the culture of the communities are closely associated with the resources of the forest. The communities are also involved in the collection of non timber forest products (NTFPs) such as wild pickle-mango, Garcinia fruits, gums, resins, leaves etc. Over 40 percent of the indigenous communities who traditionally engage in the collection of NTFPs, are solely engaged in the harvesting of Garcinia gummi-gutta and each such household earns an average of Rs.35,000 in a year solely from such collections (Hegde, 2010). Other species of Garcinia such as Garcinia indica, Garcinia morella, Garcinia pictorius and Garcinia talbotii are equally important to the NTFP harvesters which contribute significantly to their income. Sizable quantities of wild pickle mango (Appemidi) are also harvested from the wild and sold in the local market. Because these resources are being unsustainably harvested from the wild, there is a rapid erosion of valuable types.

4.1.5 Chittoor Chittoor district in Andhra Pradesh has a dry and hot climate with low temperatures of 12-18° C in winter and high temperatures of 38-46° C during summer and an average rainfall of 918.1 mm per year. The region gets the rainfall from the South West monsoon from June to September and the North East monsoon from October to December. The district does not have perennial rivers and is covered by mostly red loamy soils. Chittoor has developed into one of the main mango growing belts in South India. Water table has been dropping down dangerously in the last two decades and bore well irrigation has become a necessity, which is also failing due to dwindling ground water resource. The shortage of water has changed the farming system in the area from water intensive crops like sugarcane, paddy and ragi (irrigated) towards less water intake crop like mango. The average farm size in Chittoor is 6.35 acres and main crops grown are mango, sugarcane and groundnut.

During the last decade, several small and big processing plants of mango pulp have come up due to the increased demand for exports. Hence, during the last three to four decades farmers have been replacing traditional varieties with commercial types and many new plantations have come up with commercial types. As shown in table 2 over 95% of the total number of trees belongs to the four most popular commercial varieties namely Totapuri (Bangalora), Neelum, Banganapalli (Baneshan) and Alphonso (Khadar). The varieties Alphonso and Totapuri have demand from the processing plants and are also used as table variety. The varieties Neelum and Banganapalli are mainly used for table purpose.

4.2 Diversity available per site

4.2.1 Malihabad In Malihabad site in total 46 distinct named varieties were identified during baseline survey which are listed in table 3. The list includes popular commercial varieties for fresh consumption such as Dasheri, Lucknow Safeda, Langra and Chausa next to pickle varieties such as Ramkela, Tuhur and Tukmi, and a long list of rare or lesser-known farmer varieties. Bombay green is an early variety which is also a good pollinator. Other early varieties include Husn-e-ara, Khas ul Khas and Surkha Burma. Several late fruiting varieties are found here including Amrapali, August, Chausa, Fazri, Gilas, Gol Bhadiya, Jouhri Safeda, Lucknow Safeda, Malihabad Safeda, Malika, Ramkela, Taimuria, Tuhiya Pahad. A traditional way of consuming mangoes in India is by squeezing the fruit when ripe and punching a hole in the skin to suck out the juicy pulp. Example of these so- called ‘sucking type’ is variety Bhola.

Besides named varieties, which are mostly grafted trees, a lot of seedlings (grown from seed) are found without names which are called ‘biju’ or ‘desi’ (i.e. seed or local). Those seedlings represent a diverse genetic group which have multiple uses such as for table purpose (fresh consumption), pickle making, mango leather (kind of dried processed mango pulp) and for panna (spicy mango juice). Some of the seedling trees flower heavily attracting many pollinators which improves pollination and fruit setting in the orchard and thus yields. Seedlings are often also less affected by drought or a lack of fertilization as they are good performers and fast growers in marginal soils and in rainfed conditions. Commercial varieties such as Dasheri, Chausa, Malika (released by IARI), Lucknow Safeda and Bombay Green fetch good prices in the market, but also lesser-known varieties receive good prices such as Fazri, Husn-e-ara, Jafarbagh, Jouhri Safeda, Khasokhash, Mohan Bhog, Ramkela, Rataul, Taimuria and Zardalu.

Table 3: Overview of diversity in Malihabad Site

Landraces of A. Four Cell B. Consumptive C. Botanical or D. Morphological mango - Analysis uses agronomic and market traits Malihabad result 4 traits (tree) (fruit) Mangifera Indica

1 Amin Rare table - tasty

2 Amrapali Unique table late tasty, long shelf life 3 August Rare table late tasty

4 Benazir Rare table - pulpy 5 Benazir Sandilla Rare table - pulpy 6 Bhagwanta Rare table - tasty 7 Bhola Rare Table, sucking - tasty type 8 Bhuzada Anees Rare table - tasty

9 Bombay Green Unique table Early, tasty, good price pollinator 10 Chausa Common table late tasty, good price

11 Darahiya Rare table - tasty

12 Dashehari Common table mid - tasty, good price

13 Egrohiya Rare table - tasty

14 Farmers variety Rare table - tasty

15 Fazri Unique table late tasty, good price

16 Gilas Rare table late tasty 17 Gol Bhadiya Rare table late juicy

18 Husn-e-ara Unique table early tasty, good price

19 Jabjanat Rare table - tasty 20 Jafarbagh Rare table mid coloured, good price 21 Jouhri Safeda Unique table late tasty, good price

22 Khala Khan Rare table - tasty 23 Khanokhas Rare table - tasty

24 Khas ul khas Unique table early tasty

25 Khasokhash Rare table - tasty, good price 26 Khol Rare table - tasty

4 Rare means few households and few trees; Unique means many households and few trees or few households and many trees; Common means many households and many trees. 27 Lambauri Rare table - tasty

28 Langra Unique table mid

29 Lucknow Safeda Common table late tasty, good price

30 Malihabad Unique table late good taste Safeda 31 Mallika Unique table late tasty, good price

32 Mohan Bhog Rare table mid tasty, good price 33 Munjar Anees Rare table - pickle

34 Ramkela Unique pickle late tasty, good price

35 Rataul Rare table mid tasty, good price 36 Seedling Rare Table/ pickle Pollinator, tasty sturdy 37 Surkha Rare table mid tasty 38 Surkha Burma Rare table Early tasty 39 Surkhi Rare table mid tasty 40 Suwaswala Rare table mid tasty

41 Taimuria Unique table late tasty, good price

42 Tuhiya Pahad Rare table late tasty

43 Tuhur Rare pickle mid tasty 44 Tukuroo Rare table mid tasty 45 Zardalu Rare table mid tasty, good price 46 Tukmi Rare pickle, table - tasty

Dashehari is maintained by almost all the households (97-99%) and represents 73-87% of the total number of mango trees in the four communities in Malihabad site. Other important commercial varieties are Lucknow Safeda and Chousa. It is interesting to note that about 61 per cent of the HH maintain seedling types which account for about 5 per cent of the total number of mango trees in the area (see table 4, 5, 6 and 7).

Table 4: Abundance and spread of diversity in Gopramau Gopramau M. indica variety # trees % trees # households % households 1 Dashehari 5630 73% 59 97% 2 LucknowSafeda 1379 18% 50 82% 3 Seedling 607 8% 44 72% 4 Chausa 36 0.5% 13 21% 5 Farmers variety 27 0.4% 5 8% 6 Langra 18 0.2% 10 16% 7 Bombay Green 7 0.2% 4 7% 8 Malihabad Safeda 6 0.2% 1 2% 9 Amin 3 0% 1 2% 10 Taimuria 2 0% 2 3% 11 Benazir 1 0% 1 2% 12 Bhagwanta 1 0% 1 2% 13 GolBhadiya 1 0% 1 2% 14 Khasulkhas 1 0% 1 2% Grand Total 7719 61

Table 5: Abundance and spread of diversity in Kasmandi Kalam Kasmandi Kalam M. indica variety # trees % trees # % households households 1 Dashehari 10670 78% 70 97% 2 LucknowSafeda 2193 16% 67 93% 3 Seedling 425 3% 50 69% 4 Chausa 181 1% 30 42% 5 Langra 43 0% 9 13% 6 Taimuria 25 0% 9 13% 7 Mallika 16 0% 6 8% 8 Bombay Green 14 0% 7 10% 9 Farmers variety 12 0% 3 4% 10 Amrapali 11 0% 8 11% 11 Darahiya 10 0% 1 1% 12 Ramkela 10 0% 5 7% 13 Amin 7 0% 3 4% 14 MalihabadSafeda 7 0% 5 7% 15 Bhola 5 0% 1 1% 16 JouhriSafeda 5 0% 2 3% 17 Lambauri 5 0% 3 4% 18 Husn-e-ara 4 0% 2 3% 19 KhasoKhash 4 0% 2 3% 20 MunjarAnees 4 0% 2 3% 21 Fazri 3 0% 2 3% 22 Surkha Burma 3 0% 1 1% 23 Tukuroo 3 0% 1 1% 24 Zardalu 3 0% 2 3% 25 BhuzadaAnees 2 0% 2 3% 26 Gilas 2 0% 1 1% 27 Jafarbagh 2 0% 2 3% 28 Khala khan 2 0% 1 1% 29 Rataul 2 0% 1 1% 30 Surkha 2 0% 1 1% 31 TuhiyaPahad 2 0% 1 1% 32 Tuhur 2 0% 1 1% 33 Benazir Sandilla 1 0% 1 1% 34 Egrohiya 1 0% 1 1% 35 Jabjanat 1 0% 1 1% 36 Khanokhas 1 0% 1 1% 37 Khasulkhas 1 0% 1 1% 38 Surkhi 1 0% 1 1% 39 Suwaswala 1 0% 1 1% 40 Khol 0 0% 1 1% 13686 72

Table 6: Abundance and spread of diversity in Mohammad Nagar Talukedari M. Nagar Talukedari M. indica variety # trees % trees # households % households 1 Dashehari 9184 87% 69 99% 2 LucknowSafeda 762 7% 51 74% 3 Seedling 199 2% 39 57% 4 Chausa 175 2% 29 42% 5 Langra 137 1% 16 23% 6 Amrapali 21 0% 2 3% 7 Amin 9 0% 6 9% 8 Bombay Green 8 0% 2 3% 9 Fazri 2 0% 1 1% 10 August 1 0% 1 1% 10498 69

Table 7: Abundance and spread of diversity in Sarsanda Sarsanda M. indica variety # trees % trees # households % households 1 Dashehari 3058 83% 59 98% 2 Seedling 378 10% 28 47% 3 LucknowSafeda 221 6% 17 28% 4 Chausa 10 0% 4 7% 5 Bombay Green 6 0% 1 2% 6 KhasoKhash 5 0% 1 2% 7 Langra 1 0% 1 2% 8 Mohan Bhog 1 0% 1 2% 3680 60

The mango diversity is rich in Malihabad site with about 40 varieties in Kasmandi Kalan community. However, in Sarsanda, M.N. Talukedari and Gopramau, the varietal richness is substantial lower and ranges from 8 to14 varieties. Community evenness is higher than the HH evenness. The distribution of available diversity appears to be more even in Kasmandi Kalan and Gopramau. Varietal divergence at community level is very low in Malihabad indicating that most farm households are growing similar sets of varieties when comparing within the community and the chance of finding identical varieties among several households is high. Improved access and use of new diversity from Naati types or lesser known and rare varieties will improve divergence and could strengthen resilience at household level.

Table 8: Genetic Diversity Assessment in Malihabad Site Malihabad Sarsanda Kasmandi M.N. Gopramau Kalam Talukedari

Number of households 60 70 69 61 Number of trees (Mango) 3680 13686 10446 7719 Average number of trees per household 61.33 195.51 151.39 126.54 (Mango)

Community richness (Mango intra) 8 40 10 14 Average richness per household (intra) 2.02 4.36 3.13 3.18 Average household eveness 0.23 0.38 0.26 0.37 Community eveness 0.30 0.37 0.23 0.43

Divergence Mango 0.23 -0.27 -0.13 0.14

No. of seedlings 378 425 199 607 Average orchard age (years) 62.14 30.67 32.80 20.41

4.2.2 Pusa Within the four communities farmers have been maintaining old mango orchards with trees reaching up to 50-90 years with high population of seedling mangoes. For decades, families deliberately or inadvertently have grown new seedlings in the back of their home gardens from the stones of favourite fruits. When these are large enough, the best saplings are selected and transplanted into the large old orchards that have been an important income source for many households in this area. In recent years, many of the mango orchards have been neglected due to low prices and strong competition from horticultural crops or off-farm labour income.

The mangoes are sold to pre-harvest contractors who make agreements during fruit setting with the families about a total price for the whole orchard. Most pre-harvest contractors are from an upper- caste group (Muslims, Bhumihars, Baniyas, Brahmins and Rajputs) who control the market of mangoes. In traditionally-oriented regions like Pusa it is difficult for farmers, especially those of lower castes, to change contractor as these trade relationships are based on cultural traditions. Often these pre-harvest contractors make agreements among each other as to who is allowed to purchase mangoes in which village or from which farmers, further limiting the influence of farmers on prices and sales channels. Due to these traditional sales structures and the limited commercial interest, one can still find a lot of seedlings and local varieties in the old orchards in this area compared with other regions as pressure to cut down and replace them with commercial varieties was low. Farmers and pre-harvest contractors put little effort into the orchards, often producing fruit without chemical fertilizers or pesticides.

In the four communities of Pusa together five different citrus species are found including Kagzi lime ( C. aurantifolia ; acid lime), Jambiri ( C. jhambiri ), Lemon ( C. limon ), Pumelo ( C. grandis ) and Mitha Nimbu ( C. limettioides ; sweet lime). Citrus species are mostly found in kitchen gardens or home gardens and merely used for home consumption. Citrus aurantifolia and Citrus grandis are most commonly found. Majority of the citrus trees found in these home gardens are seed born, only for C. aurantifolia grafted trees are used besides seedlings. These trees are planted along with seasonal vegetables and ornamental plants in the vicinity of the house for multi-purpose functions like consumption, aesthetics, beautification, hobby and for a local popular religious celebration named Chhath Puja . The fruits are used as special offering (puja) performed by the women of the village a week after Diwali celebrations in October or November as part of local Hindu tradition, in which they offer 7, 9 or 11 different fruits to the god of the sun. Several fruit species like pumelo and late mango seedlings are maintained specifically for the celebration to supply fruits for this religious occasion.

In Pusa in total 55 different traditional varieties of mango were identified during baseline in home gardens and orchards, of which Malda, Sipia, Sukul, Bathua/Kanchan, Bombay Green and Jarda are the most popular. In addition, households maintain a large population of more than 2,851 seedlings or unnamed mango trees locally called biju , making it one of the sites with highest intra- specific diversity in the project. This seedling population is the dominant group in three of the four villages, representing 36% of the total 8,249 mango trees found in the four communities. Baseline data shows that especially Mahmeda (50 varieties) and Jagdispur village (24 varieties) have high intra specific diversity while varietal diversity found in Dhobgama (8 varieties) and Murliyachak (7 varieties) is much lower. In Jagdishpur village, five or six orchards are found of 10 to 15 acre that are more than 100 years old. Such a single orchard is often owned or shared by several farmers. Most varieties identified in Pusa are for table purpose and fresh consumption, although several varieties are also used for pickle such as Sukul, Latkampu, Kerwa, Bharbaiya, Barbaria and Barmasia. Besides pickle and table varieties farmers recognise so-called sucking types, such as several of the seedlings and the variety Chaparia. These fruits have a thick skin and can be squeezed to drink out the pulp.

Table 9: Overview of citrus diversity in Pusa site Citrus species A. Four cell B. Consumptive uses C. Botanical or Analysis morphological features results5

1 C. aurantifolia Common - fresh fruit juice - bunch bearing (Acid lime; Kagzi - food ingredient (juice) - grown from seed nimbu)

2 C. jambhiri (Rough Rare - fresh fruit juice - big fruit lemon) - food ingredient (juice) - grown from seed

3 C. limon (Lemon) Rare - fresh fruit juice - bunch bearing - food ingredient (juice) - grown from seed - pickling

4 C. grandis (Pumelo; Unique - fresh fruit juice - grown from seed Gagar) - table (fresh consumption)

5 C. limettioides Rare - fresh fruit juice - grown from seed (Sweet lime; Mitha - few plants only nimbu)

Table 10: Overview of mango diversity in Pusa site A. Four B. Botanical C. D. Other interesting Mangifera indica Cell and Consumptive features Analysis agronomic uses and result traits market traits 1 Alphonso - - mid - table - originates from

5 Rare means few households and few trees; Unique means many households and few trees or few households and many trees; Common means many households and many trees. Maharashtra

2 Amrapali - - mid - table - hybrid released by IARI

3 Bagbahar - - mid - table -

4 Belwa - - early - table -

5 Banganapalli - - - - originates from south India

6 Barbaria - - - pickling type -

7 Barmasia - - fruiting 3 - pickling type - times per - table year/ long season - table 8 Bathua/ Kanchan Common - late - originates from Bihar - pickling type (august)

9 Bhadaiya - - late - pickling type -

10 Bijju (seedling) Common - - table/ - grown from seed early/mid/la pickle/ te sucking

11 Bijju (Kerwa) - - mid - table - seedling from Kerwa

12 Bijju (Malda) - - late - table - seedling from Malda

13 Bombai green - - early - table -

14 Chaparia - - early - sucking type - seedling type

15 Chinia - - early - table - sweet taste - seedling type

16 Chorya - - early - - sweet taste - seedling type

17 Chousa - - mid - table - originates from UP

18 Dushari - - mid - table - originates from UP

19 Fajuli - - mid - table -

20 Gola - - mid - table - sweet taste

21 Gulabkhas - - mid - table - sweet taste - hybrid released by Pusa

22 Himsagar - - - table - sweet taste

23 Jarda - - early - table - early Malda type 24 Jardalu - - early - table - early Malda type

25 Jethu - - early - table - early Malda type

26 Jugmag Rare - mid - table - hybrid released from West Bengal

27 Kalkutia - - mid - table -

28 Kapuriya - - early - - seedling type - smells like camphor

29 Kesar - - mid - table - originates from Gujarat

30 Kasurkhas - - mid - table -

31 Kerwa - - mid - pickling type -

32 Kishanbhog - - early - table - edible unripe/ green

33 Lal Malda - - mid - table - red colour - not so sweet - type of Malda variety

34 Langra - - - table - originates from Varanasi

35 Latkampu - - mid - table - - pickling type

36 Malda - - - table - Malda originates from early/mid/la Bihar and West Bengal te and has many grafted subtypes

37 Malika - - mid - table - hybid

38 Mirjafar - - mid - -

39 Mithua - - mid - table - sweet taste - type of Malda variety

40 Paharpur Sinduria - - very late - table - good taste - tree declines after 15 years

41 Priyanka - - early - - seedling type

42 Pula Surya - - early - - seedling type

43 Rary - - mid - table - sweet taste season - good price

44 Safed Malda - - early - table - means ‘white malda’ - yellow/nice colour 45 Sindhu - - early - table - good taste - flesh dark red colour 46 Sinduria - - late - table - good taste - nice/yellow colour 47 Sipia - - mid season - table - good taste - originates from Bihar 48 Sukul - very late - table - lightly digestible - pickling type - originates from Bihar

49 Totapuri - mid season - table - originates from south India

Table 11: Abundance and spread of diversity in Mehmada Mehmada Variety name # % trees # % trees households households Mangifera indica 1 Seedling (Bijju) 992 40% 45 90% 2 Malda 356 14% 47 94% 3 Sukul 286 12% 37 74% 4 Bhadaiya 149 6% 12 24% 5 Bathua 121 5% 3 6% 6 Bombai Green 92 4% 20 40% 7 Sipia 91 4% 19 38% 8 Mithua 63 3% 8 16% 9 Dushaheri 45 2% 12 24% 10 Gola 34 1% 9 18% 11 Jarda 32 1% 11 22% 12 Kishanbhog 31 1% 8 16% 13 Sinduria 25 1% 5 10% 14 Bagbahar 23 1% 6 12% 15 Amrapali 16 1% 7 14% 16 Kerwa 13 1% 3 6% 17 Lal Malda 12 0% 7 14% 18 Himsagar 11 0% 5 10% 19 Safed Malda 11 0% 3 6% 20 Paharpur Sinduria 7 0% 3 6% 21 Kalkutia malda 6 0% 1 2% 22 Mallika 5 0% 2 4% 23 Chaparia 4 0% 1 2% 24 Chousa 4 0% 3 6% 25 Fajuli 4 0% 2 4% 26 Gulabkhas 4 0% 3 6% 27 Langra 4 0% 2 4% 28 Balba 3 0% 1 2% 29 Bombaiya 3 0% 1 2% 30 Kapuriya 3 0% 2 4% 31 Rary 3 0% 2 4% 32 Barmasia 2 0% 2 4% 33 Chorya 2 0% 1 2% 34 Jardalu 2 0% 1 2% 35 Alphonso 1 0% 1 2% 36 Banganapalli 1 0% 1 2% 37 Barbaria 1 0% 1 2% 38 Jethu 1 0% 1 2% 39 Jugmag 1 0% 1 2% 40 Kasur 1 0% 1 2% 41 Kasurkhas 1 0% 1 2% 42 Kerwa seedling 1 0% 1 2% 43 Malda seedling 1 0% 1 2% 44 Mirjafar 1 0% 1 2% 45 Paharpur 1 0% 1 2% 46 Priyanka 1 0% 1 2% 47 Pula Surya 1 0% 1 2% 48 Sindhu 1 0% 1 2% 49 Totapuri 1 0% 1 2% Grand Total 2474 50

Table 12: Abundance and spread of diversity in Jagdishpur Jagadishpur Variety name # % # % trees trees households household Mangifera indica 1 Kanchan/Bathua 882 37% 41 76% 2 M. indica seedling (Bijju) 571 24% 46 92% 3 Sukul 338 14% 44 88% 4 Malda 318 13% 33 66% 5 Sipia 166 7% 30 60% 6 Sinduria 25 1% 10 20% 7 Kalkutia 19 1% 7 14% 8 Bombai Green 18 1% 7 14% 9 Lal Malda 18 1% 7 14% 10 Jardalu 9 0% 4 8% 11 Safed Malda 8 0% 4 8% 12 Kishanbhog 7 0% 5 10% 13 Mirjafar 7 0% 3 6% 14 Amrapali 5 0% 2 4% 15 Bombaiya 2 0% 1 2% 16 Chousa 2 0% 1 2% 17 Kerwa 2 0% 1 2% 18 Latkampur 2 0% 1 2% 19 Mitu Malda 2 0% 1 2% 20 Fajuli 1 0% 1 2% 21 Gulabkhas 1 0% 1 2% 22 Mithua 1 0% 1 2% 23 Unnamed farmers variety 1 0% 1 2% Grand Total 2405 50

Citrus spp. 1 C. aurantifolia (Kagzi lime seedling) 45 57% 14 28% 2 C. maxima seedling (Bijju) 21 27% 11 22% 3 C. Jamberi (Seedling) 11 14% 6 12% 4 C. aurantifolia (Kagzi lime, grafted) 1 1% 1 2% 5 C. limettioides (Hazari nimbu) 1 1% 1 2% 79 50

Table 13: Abundance and spread of diversity in Dhobgama Dhobgama Variety name # trees % trees # % households households Mangifera indica 1 Seedling (Bijju) 692 48% 47 94% 2 Sipia 357 25% 37 74% 3 Jarda 146 10% 36 72% 4 Sukul 103 7% 14 28% 5 Malda 78 5% 33 66% 6 Kalkutia 38 3% 11 22% 7 Fajuli 29 2% 16 32% 8 Bombay Green 3 0% 3 6% Grand Total 1446 50

Citrus spp. 1 C. aurantifolia (Kagzi lime, 130 100% 50 100% grafted) 130 50

Table 14: Abundance and spread of diversity in Murliyachak Murliyachak Variety name # trees % trees # households % households Mangifera indica 1 Seedling (Bijju) 596 31% 49 98% 2 Malda 554 29% 44 88% 3 Sukul 493 26% 43 86% 4 Sipia 142 7% 15 30% 5 Bathua 131 7% 10 20% 6 Amrapali 6 0% 2 4% 7 Lal Malda 2 0% 1 2% Grand Total 1924 50

Citrus spp. 1 Citrus Limon (Lemon) 3 100% 1 2% 3 50

Seedlings are the most dominant type of trees found in all four communities and are maintained by 94% of the households and represent 35% of the tree population. Only exception is Kanchan/Bathua which is the most dominant variety in Jagdishpur. The other commonly found varieties found across all four communities are Malda, Sukul, Sipia, Jarda, Bombaiya and Bombay green. Few unique varieties are found, such as Bhadaiya, Gola and Mithua which larger tree populations across several households. Mango diversity is especially high in Mehmada and Jagdishpur were farmers maintain respectively 6.2 and 5.0 distinct varieties on their farm on average. Average number of varieties per household is lower in Dohbgama (3.94) and Murliyachak (3.28). Evenness on household level (0.62-0.68) and community level (0.78-0.84) is high and about similar in all four communities. This reflects fairly equal distribution of trees over the distinct varieties without having very dominant types. Having a high household and community evenness index suggests that diversity is found as well as on household level as on community level. Divergence is substantial lower (0.13-0.21) suggesting that similar sets of varieties are maintained across households.

Table 15: Genetic Diversity Assessment in Pusa Site

Mehmada Jagdishpur Dohbgama Murliyachak Number of households interviewed (N) 50 50 50 50 Number of trees (mango) 2474 2405 1446 1924 Average number of trees per household 49.48 48.1 28.92 38.48

Community richness (mango + citrus)* 49 + 0 23 + 5 8 + 1 7 + 1 Average richness per HHs (mango) 6.2 5.04 3.94 3.28 Household Evenness mango (Simpson) 0.68 0.65 0.62 0.67 Community Evenness mango (Simpson) 0.84 0.82 0.78 0.78 Divergence mango 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.13

No. of mango seedlings 992 571 692 596 Average weighted orchard age (years) 49.5 47.4 17.7 15.0 * Citrus spp diversity and mango varietal diversity

4.2.3 Amravati The diversity in citrus and mango in the three project communities is relatively low with nagpur mandarin as dominant cash crop. Farmers are increasingly growing mosambi (grafted on rangpur lime rootstock) and maintain few acid lime (seedborn) and mango trees mostly for home consumption. Farmers mostly maintain seedborn mango trees, that are well adapted to the local climat. In the 90ties government institutions introduced improved Nagpur mandarine saplings with better productive traits. These saplings were grafted on rough lemon rootstock instead of traditionally used Galgal species due its better rooting system and thus drough resistancy.

Farmers used to maintain a few citrus trees of galgal, rough lemon or rangpur lime as source for rootstock material on their farm. They provided the seeds to local nurseries in exchange for some newly grafted saplings. Nowadays private nurseries, estimated to be around 350 in the region, retrieve their seeds from other regions like Himachal Pradesh. This reduced the diversity maintained in the fields, as farmers stopped the practise of maintaining rootstock material themselves, and reduced the transparancy on quality and origin of rootstock material. Lately in 2010 NRCC released an improved seedless nagpur mandarine type and promotes the use of rangpur lime as rootstock for nagpur mandarine, due its percieved higher resistancy against phythoptora.

Heavy infestations with phytophtora spreaded since 1990ties and creates young die-off of trees and few farmers experiment with alternative crops like teak, guava or mango that are not affected. Orchards are normally uprooted once per 15 to 20 years and intercropped with cotton, soybean and vegetables like chilli’s or eggplant. Main sources of income are Nagpur mandarine, cotton and soybean. Major problems mentioned by farmers are the soil born disease phytophtora, drought and a lack of marketing facilities.

Table 16: Overview of target fruit diversity in Amravati site Citrus species and A. Four cell B. Consumptive uses C. Other botanical or diversity in results6 morphological features or Amravati characteristics Citrus spp. 1 Nagpur Mandarin Common - table/fresh - Loose skin mandarin consumption - Flower and fruit twice per year - Rangpur lime and Rough lemon is recommended rootstock 2 Sweet Orange Common - table/fresh - Mostly Galgal used as consumption rootstock (inferior) - fresh juice - Rangpur lime is recommended rootstock 3 Acid Lime Unique - fresh fruit juice - Thorny plants with small - food ingredient yellow fruits (juice) 4 Rough lemon Rare - food ingredient - Bigger plant with rough (juice) surface fruits - rootstock material 5 Rangpur Lime Rare - table/fresh - Spreading plant with smooth consumption colour fruits - rootstock material Mangifera indica 1 Seedling Common - pickling type - best adapted to local climate - table 2 Dashehari Rare - table 3 Neelum Rare - table 4 Langra Rare - table 5 Kesar Rare - table 6 Swarna Rehka Rare - table - fruiting 3 times per year/ long season 7 Khobra Rare - pickling type - grown from seed

8 Baramasi Rare - pickling type - fruiting 3 times per year/ long - table season

In the three communities, approx. 97% of the total number of trees (i.e. 113.568 trees) belongs to Nagpur mandarin only (Table 2), respectively 93% in Bargaon, 98% in Jarud and 96% in Nagziri. The other 3% compromise the other citrus species grown (sweet orange, acid lime, rough lemon) and 8 different mango varieties (mangifera indica ). Most farmers maintain seedling mango trees, as they are perceived better adapted to the local climate. While Nagpur mandarin (100% of the farmers) and sweet orange (28% of the farmers) are grown commercially, the mango varieties (28% of the farmers) and acid lime (29% of the households) are merely for home consumptive use. Number of trees for commercial mango varieties such as Dashehari (13 trees), Langra (5 trees), Kesar (2 trees) and Neelum (2 trees) are small and recently introduced to the region. The survey came across few mango trees with unique features such as Kohbra (2 trees) which is used for

6 Rare means few households and few trees; Unique means many households and few trees or few households and many trees; Common means many households and many trees. pickle and Swarna Rekha (3 trees) and Baramasi (0 trees in the sample) which can flower and fruit several times during the year providing an extended harvest season.

Table 17: Abundance and spread of diversity in Jarud

Jarud Variety name # trees % trees # % households households 1 Nagpur Mandarin (C. reticulata) 50246 98% 51 100% 2 Sweet Orange (C. sinensis) 1123 2% 10 20% 3 Acid Lime (C. aurantifolia) 33 0% 13 25% 4 Rough lemon (C. Jhamberi) 27 0% 2 4% 5 M. indica (Dashehari) 11 0% 4 8% 6 M. indica (Seedling) 11 0% 7 14% 7 M. indica (Langra) 5 0% 1 2% 8 M. indica (Swarna Rekha) 3 0% 1 2% 9 M. indica (Khobra) 1 0% 1 2% 10 M. indica (Telya) 1 0% 1 2% Grand Total 51461 51

Table 18: Abundance and spread of diversity in Nagziri

Nagziri Variety name # trees % trees # % households households 1 Nagpur Mandarin (C. reticulata) 13165 96% 19 100% 2 Sweet Orange (C. sinensis) 524 4% 11 58% 3 Acid Lime (C. aurantifolia) 36 0% 8 42% 4 M. indica (Seedling) 31 0% 3 16% 5 M. indica (Kesar) 2 0% 1 5% Grand Total 13758 19

Table 19: Abundance and spread of diversity in Bargaon

Bargaon Variety name # trees % trees # % households households 1 C. reticulata (Nagpur Mandarin) 21532 93% 50 100% 2 C. sinensis (Sweet Orange) 1251 5% 13 26% 3 C. aurantifolia (Acid Lime) 357 2% 14 28% 4 M. indica (Seedling) 18 0% 9 18% 5 M. indica (Neelum) 2 0% 1 2% 6 M. indica (Dashehari) 1 0% 1 2% 7 M. indica (Khobra) 1 0% 1 2% 8 M. indica (Telya) 1 0% 1 2% Grand Total 23163 50

As table 2 has already shown the indicators for diversity are low in all three villages (see table 3). The Simpson index was calculated combining citrus species and mango varieties found in the three villages. Evenness on community level (resp. 0.02; 0.02 and 0.06) is not much different than on household level (resp. 0.02; 0.02 and 0.04). Divergence at community level is low in Jarud and Nagziri (resp 0.16; 0.08) and seems slightly higher in Bargaon (0.27) suggesting some heterogeneity; i.e. that across households different sets of species and varieties are maintained. The smaller community of Nagziri with only 19 households maintains most of the seedlings. Average age of citrus trees in the orchards is 9.5 (Nagziri) up to 13.5 years (Jarud).

Table 20: Genetic Diversity Assessment in Amravati Site

Jarud Nagziri Bargaon Number of households interviewed 51 19 50 Number of trees (citrus + mango) 51,461 13,758 23,163 Average number of trees per household (citrus + mango) 1009 724 463

Community richness (citrus + mango) 4 + 6 3 + 2 3 + 5 Average richness per HHs (citrus + mango) 1.46 1.70 1.49 Average Household Evenness (Simpson)* 0.02 0.021 0.04 Community Evenness (Simpson)* 0.02 0.02 0.06 Divergence* 0.16 0.08 0.27

No. of mango seedlings 11 31 18 Average age of citrus trees (years) 13.5 9.5 10.2 * Diversity indicators combine citrus spp and mango varietal diversity

4.2.4 Sirsi This site has the distinction of having diversity in terms of Mangifera , citrus and Garcinia species which are identified for India. As regards mango, the site is rich with 45 varieties of different types – table, sucking and pickling types including seedling types. For pickling, mostly the Appemidi types are preferred. It is interesting to note that seedlings account for about 52 per cent the trees and 39 per cent of the farmers. About 25 per cent of the trees belong to Appemidi owned by 10 per cent of the sample farmers. Kare Ishadu is the most popular table/sucking type forming about 19 per cent of the trees owned by 8 per cent of the HH.

Among the communities, mango diversity (richness) is high in Gonsar (31), Koligar (23) and Kumta (22) while it was only 12 in Kulibeedu community. However, seedling diversity is generally high in all the communities and it is more prominent in Kulibeedu as 79 per cent of the trees are owned by about 72 per cent of the HH. Appemidi is dominant in Gonsar. Citrus is another import species of this site. About 13 different types of citrus species like lime, mandarin, sweet orange etc. are found in this site. Gonsar has the maximum number of citrus species (9) followed by Koligar (5), Kulibeedu (3) and Kumta (2).

Another important fruit tree species in the site is Garcinia spp . Four different species of Garcinia viz. Garcinia indica (Murugalu or Kokum) , Garcinia gummi-gutta (Uppage), Garcinia morella and Garcinia xanthochymus are found in this site. The first two species of Garcnia are more common while the other two are mostly available in the forest eco-system. In Garcinia indica , Kempu Murugalu or Kokam (red type) is very common whereas Bili Murugalu (white type) is rare in all the communities. Uppage ( G. gummi-gutta ) is popular in Sirsi communities (Gonsar and Koligar) with 30-40 per cent of the Garcinia trees present. However, in Kumta communities (Kulibeedu and Kumta), there is a preponderance of red Kokum ( G.indica -red type) as 99% of trees are owned by 97 % of farmers and uppage is not found in Kumta though it makes a small presence in Kulibeedu. White type kokum ( G.indica ) is a rare type of Garcinia which is observed in all the communities in small number (<1% of Garcinia trees) owned by a very few farmers (2- 7%).

Table 21: Overview of target fruit variety in Sirsi site Varieties or A. Four cell C. Consumptive D. Morphological and market E. Botanical, agronomic species name result 7 uses traits traits or other interesting characteristics Mangifera indica 1 Alphonso - Unique - table It’s a popular introduced Originates from mango variety Maharashtra 2 Amrapali - Rare - table Cluster bearing, deep orange Hybrid bereleased from pulp colour IARI (Dashehari x Neelum) 3 Ananthabhatta - Appe (aromatic -has a strong aroma of cumin -yield has drastically reduced appe pickling type) -good oblong shape in recent years -Leaves are also aromatic -highly preferred for pickle making and in local cuisines 4 Appemidi - Appe (aromatic - preferred variety for making Has aromatic sap, which is pickling type) aromatic mango pickle usually collected and stored to be used for culinary uses for its aroma 5 Arasapura - Appe (aromatic Large sized fruit with oblong pickling type) shape 6 Belehole appe - Appe (aromatic Medium sized fruit with strong Has Good shelf life pickling type) aroma 7 Benet apus - table Medium to big sized fruits with Chance seedling from west purple peel colour coast 8 Bili Ishadu - table -flesh is almost white in colour 9 Chouthi appe - Unique - Appe (aromatic -it’s a large sized late variety Name refers to the Hindu pickling type) with sweet and sour taste festival of “Ganesha -mostly used for Chouthi” which coincides culinary purpose with the fruiting period of this particular variety which comes around August 10 Dombesara -- Appe (aromatic -elongated shape -it’s a high yielding variety pickling type) -has shelf life of 2 years -has strong cumin aroma 11 Gidda appe - Appe (aromatic Round shaped, small sized pickling type) appe variety 12 Giduga - table - has deep pulp with sweet -locally important variety taste -it’s a late variety 13 Giduganamane - Common - table - has no definite shape but has -it’s a late variety very sweet taste 14 Gundappe - Appe (aromatic Roundish shaped fruit with The shelf life is good. pickling type) good cumin aroma. Regualr bearer.

7 Rare means few households and few trees; Unique means many households and few trees or few households and many trees; Common means many households and many trees. 15 Huli Appe - Appe (aromatic Both fruit skin and pulp taste It’s a general name for local pickling type) sour unnamed varieties of appemidi mango 16 Huli mavu - Appe (aromatic Roundish shape and strong pickling type) sour taste 17 Idagai - normal pickling Large sized fruit with thick skin Used for culinary preparation type and deep green skin colouration 18 Jeerige Appe - Appe (aromatic Elongated in shape and give off A good number of unnamed pickling type) strong cumin aroma varieties of Jeerige appe can be found in the Western Ghats whose aroma ranges from strong to mild. 19 Kalipadi - Rare -table Large sized, mildly sweetish, Good for table purpose. Late deep pulped variety variety 20 Kari Eshadu - Common - table -Coppery red pulp -Fruits grow in bunches -Early variety (bunchy-fruit variety) -Has very good taste; popular among local consumers 21 Kempikunde - Common - Appe (aromatic -Medium sized fruits -A patch of pale red colour at pickling type) -Thin fruit skin of greenish the base of fruit indicates yellow colour fruit ripening, so is the name ‘Kempikunde mavu’ 22 Kosagai - Rare - Appe (aromatic -Oblong shaped mango with Its mainly used by the local pickling type) dark green skin communities of Central -It has aroma of a typical appe Western Ghats for cut pickle and tastes sour and local dishes 23 Madora - Appe (aromatic Little roundish, mildly aromatic pickling type) 24 Magemavu - table -Elongated large sized fruits Fruits of this variety ripen with thick skin during the heavy showers of -Fruits have sweetish sour July taste -it’s a late bearing variety (July) 25 Malanji - Unique - Appe (aromatic - Oblong shaped fruits with preferred variety for making pickling type) perceptible beak aromatic mango pickle 26 Mulgoa - Unique - table Round big sized fruits (500 g) Shy bearing semi vigourous with excellent yellow sweet type pulp 27 Mallika - Common - table Big sized fruits of 400-500 g. Hybrid Neelum x Dashehari Attractive yellow colour 28 Manadur katte - Unique - table -Medium sized fruits with High sap content; demands pointed beak care while harvesting fruits -coppery red pulp for the sap could fly to few meters! 29 Manot - table 30 Mavinakatta - Appe (aromatic -Oblong shaped fruits with - pickling type) dark green coloured skin -Perceptible beak -Strong aroma 31 Mavinkurve - table Small sized, deeply yellowish Very good market value in red coloured fruit with sugary coastal villages. Used for taste, thin skin making a sweetish dish 32 Neelum - table Yellow colour pulp, 200 g Late bearing 33 Pairi - Common - table Medium sized fruits, orange Good sugar acid blend pulp 34 Patnaholeappe - Appe (aromatic Small sized, roundish with mild Fully developed fruits are pickling type) aroma of cumin. also used for making curries. Collection of sap is practiced by people 35 Ratna - Common - table Cross between Alphonso and Medium sized fruits of 250 Neelum grams with firm orange pulp 36 Ratnagiri - table 37 Sasive - table -Medium sized fruits with The name refers to a special greenish yellow skin (at the dish made from the this time of ripening) variety; its unique to the -Have fibrous pulp local community 38 Sindhu - Unique - table Cross between Ratna and Cluster bearing with Alphonso, attractive peel colour 39 Sippe varate - food ingredient Locally identified sour tasting for gravy variety with rough skin and dull greenish colour 40 Sundarshi - table, jam -Elongate shaped large fruits Raw consumption of unripe making with perceptible beak fruits is also preferred -Fruits have sweetish sour because of its sweetish sour taste (unique) taste 41 Thandimaneap - Appe (aromatic Appe midi variety with little pe pickling type) largesr sized fruit. Copius amount of sap 42 Totapuri - Common - table 43 Varategiduga - Common - table -Irregular fruit shape One of the few local varieties -Large sized fruit that actually compete with -very sweet taste and shelf life introduced mango varieties of about 15 days in the market; highly preferred local variety 44 Unknown - Rare - table Large sized fruit with thick skin Susceptible to fruit flies. variety (grafted) Garcinia spp.

1 Garcinia - Common - cooking oil/gee - used for making sweets - large framed trees with gummi-gutta - dried rinds as - used as ingredient for anti- lateral branches appetite obesity products - only found wild suppressant - mostly from forest and ‘bettalands’ grows well in moist forests 2 Garcinia indica - Common - kokum juice - juice is used as traditional - small framed trees with - soap/skin care medicine for gastric problems, lateral branches - jam/chutney fever, sickness - found wild and introduced in home gardens - Next to common red a very rare white type is found 3 Garcinia - Rare - little use - fruits can be used in making - only found in forest morella pickles. - dried up fruit slice are valued as a traditional remedy for dysentery 4 Garcinia - little use - fruits used in preparation of - only found in forest xanthochymus jams and juice - fruits are yellow in colour - fruits used in treating and sour taste diarrhoea and dysentery -fruit beak is pointed upward which is peculiar for a garcinia species

Table 22: Distribution of target fruit diversity in Gonsar Kolom1 Gonsar Kolom2 Kolom3 Kolom4 Kolom5 Variety name # of trees % of trees # of households % of households Mangifera Indica 1 Appemidi 89 25.43% 20 46.51% 2 Seedling 85 24.29% 18 41.86% 3 Kare ishadu 36 10.29% 14 32.56% 4 Sasive 22 6.29% 4 9.30% 5 Alphonso 16 4.57% 7 16.28% 6 Mallika 11 3.14% 4 9.30% 7 Pairy 11 3.14% 5 11.63% 8 Bile ishadu 10 2.86% 5 11.63% 9 Huli appe 10 2.86% 1 2.33% 10 Benet apus 7 2.00% 2 4.65% 11 Huli mavu 6 1.71% 1 2.33% 12 Ratnagiri 5 1.43% 4 9.30% 13 Gidda appe 4 1.14% 2 4.65% 14 Giduga 4 1.14% 2 4.65% 15 Neelam 4 1.14% 2 4.65% 16 Varate Giduga 4 1.14% 3 6.98% 17 Giduganamane 3 0.86% 2 4.65% 18 Jeerige appe 3 0.86% 3 6.98% 19 Sundarshi 3 0.86% 1 2.33% 20 Totapuri 3 0.86% 2 4.65% 21 Idagai 2 0.57% 1 2.33% 22 Kempikande 2 0.57% 1 2.33% 23 Unknown (grafted) 2 0.57% 1 2.33% 24 Amrapali 1 0.29% 1 233% 25 Arasapura 1 0.29% 1 2.33% 26 Belehole appe 1 0.29% 1 2.33% 27 Dombesara 1 0.29% 1 2.33% 28 Gundappe 1 0.29% 1 2.33% 29 Malanji 1 0.29% 1 2.33% 30 Patnaholeappe 1 0.29% 1 2.33% 31 Thandimaneappe 1 0.29% 1 2.33% Total 350 43

Citrus spp. 1 Limbu 55 45.45% 4 9.30% 2 Sihi Santra 35 28.93% 1 2.33% 3 Seedling 13 10.74% 2 4.65% 4 Red limbu 6 4.96% 2 4.65% 5 Dodda Limbu 4 3.31% 1 2.33% 6 Kanchi 4 3.31% 2 4.65% 7 Dadli 2 1.65% 1 2.33% 8 Madalkanchi 1 0.83% 1 2.33% 9 Sakre Kanchi 1 0.83% 1 2.33% Total 121 43

Garcinia spp. Kempu murugalu (Red 1 235 52.69% 38 88.37% Garcinia) 2 Uppage 207 46.41% 43 100.00% Bile murugalu (White 3 4 0.90% 3 6,98% Garcinia) Total 446 43

Table 23: Distribution of target fruit diversity in Koligar Koligar Variety name # of trees % of trees # of households % of households Mangifera Indica 1 Seedling 237 36.07% 27 45.00% 2 Kare ishadu 77 11.72% 15 25.00% 3 Appemidi 56 8.52% 14 23.33% 4 Alphonso 45 6.85% 14 23.33% 5 Giduganamane 45 6.85% 7 11.67% 6 Pairy 23 3.50% 4 6.67% 7 Amrapali 20 3.04% 2 3.33% 8 Mavinakatta 20 3.04% 1 1.67% 9 Neelam 20 3.04% 1 1.67% 10 Mallika 19 2.89% 9 15.00% 11 Jeerige appe 17 2.59% 4 6.67% 12 Ratna 17 2.59% 4 6.67% 13 Varate Giduga 16 2.44% 4 6.67% 14 Giduga 11 1.67% 4 6.67% 15 Malanji 11 1.67% 2 3.33% 16 Sindhu 10 1.52% 1 1.67% 17 Bile ishadu 4 0.61% 4 6.67% 18 Ratnagiri 3 0.46% 2 3.33% 19 Manadur katte 2 0.30% 1 1.67% 20 Chouthi appe 1 0.15% 1 1.67% 21 Kosagai 1 0.15% 1 1.67% 22 Magemavu 1 0.15% 1 1.67% 23 Malgova 1 0.15% 1 1.67% Total 657 60

Citrus spp. 1 Limbu 10 35.71% 1 1.67% 2 Kanchi 8 28.57% 3 5.00% 3 Seedling 8 28.57% 3 5.00% 4 Gajakanchi 1 3.57% 1 1.67% 5 Hulikanchi 1 3.57% 1 1.67% Total 28 60

Garcinia spp. Kempu murugalu (Red 1 219 69.52% 25 41.67% Garcinia) 2 Uppage 95 30.16% 20 33.33% Bile murugalu (White 3 1 0.32% 1 1.67% Garcinia) Total 315 60

Table 24: Distribution of target fruit diversity in Kulibeedu Kulibeedu Variety name # of trees % of trees # of households % of households Mangifera Indica 1 Seedling 258 78.90% 38 71.70% 2 Appemidi 19 5.81% 9 16.98% 3 Totapuri 19 5.81% 5 9.43% 4 Kare ishadu 7 2.14% 4 7.55% 5 Bile ishadu 6 1.83% 3 5.66% 6 Mallika 6 1.83% 2 3.77% 7 Pairy 6 1.83% 2 3.77% 8 Alphonso 2 0.61% 1 1.89% 9 Ananthabhatta appe 1 0.31% 1 1.89% 10 Giduga 1 0.31% 1 1.89% 11 Jeerige appe 1 0.31% 1 1.89% 12 Malgova 1 0.31% 1 1.89% Total 327 53

Citrus spp 1 Seedling 12 57.14% 5 9.43% 2 Kanchikayi 7 33.33% 1 1.89% 3 Chikka limbe 2 9.52% 1 1.89% Total 21 53

Garcinia spp. 1 Uppage 621 77.05% 45 84.90% 2 Kempu murugalu (Red 183 22.70% 35 66.03% Garcinia) 3 Bile murugalu (White 1 0.12% 1 1.89% Garcinia) 4 Arishina andi 1 0.12% 1 1.89% Total 806 53

Table 25: Distribution of target fruit diversity in Kumta Kumta Variety name # of trees % of trees # of households % of households Mangifera Indica 1 Seedling 128 29.02% 25 50.00% 2 Mavinakurve 80 18.14% 1 2.00% 3 Alphonso 37 8.39% 5 10.00% 4 Totapuri 31 7.03% 7 14.00% 5 Bile ishadu 21 4.76% 8 16.00% 6 Kosagai 20 4.54% 1 2.00% 7 Kare ishadu 19 4.31% 6 12.00% 8 Neelam 19 4.31% 4 8.00% 9 Ratna 18 4.08% 2 4.00% 10 Appemidi 15 3.40% 8 16.00% 11 Kalipadi 12 2.72% 3 6.00% 12 Mallika 7 1.59% 2 4.00% 13 Benet apus 6 1.36% 2 4.00% 14 Giduga 6 1.36% 3 6.00% 15 Madora 6 1.36% 1 2.00% 16 Ratnagiri 6 1.36% 3 6.00% 17 Pairy 3 0.68% 1 2.00% 18 Huli mavu 2 0.45% 1 2.00% 19 Mavinakatta 2 0.45% 1 2.00% 20 Ananthabhatta appe 1 0.23% 1 2.00% 21 Manot 1 0.23% 1 2.00% 22 Sippe varate 1 0.23% 1 2.00% Total 441 50

Citrus spp 1 Seedling 17 73.91% 6 12.00% 2 Limbu 5 21.74% 1 2.00% Total 22 50

Garcinia spp. 1 Kempu murugalu (Red 262 99.62% 34 64.15% Garcinia) 2 Bile murugalu (White 1 0.38% 1 2.00% Garcinia) Total 263 50

The mango farmers in Sirsi site maintained good diversity as the richness ranged from a minimum of 12 varieties in Kulibeedu to a maximum of 31 varieties in Gonsar community. The average household level evenness is 0.48-0.52 in Koligar, 0.42 in Gonsar, 0.35-0.38 in Kulibeedu and 0.27- 0.51 in Kumta community (Table 26). Community level evenness is higher in the communities. This suggests that dominance of commercial varieties is substantially stronger at household level than community level within all the four communities. This supports that diversity is mostly available at community level; but it is relatively smaller at household level.

Table 26: Genetic Diversity Assessment in Sirsi Site Gonsor Koligar Kulibeedu Kumta Number of households interviewed (N) 43 60 53 50 Number of trees (mango) 917 1005 1156 728 Average number of trees per household 21.33 16.75 21.81 14.56

Community richness (TFT) 43 31 19 26

Community richness ( Mangifera ) 31 23 12 22 Community richness ( Citrus ) 9 5 3 2 Community richness ( Garcinia ) 3 3 4 2 Average richness per HHs (Homegarden – (5.56-7.75) (4.54-7.18) (2.37-4.86) (3.86-6.86) Orchard) Household Evenness, Simpson index (0.48-0.52) (0.42- 0.42) (0.38-0.35) (0.27-0.51) (Homegarden-Orchard) Community Evenness, Simpson index (0.5-0.82) 0.84-0.91) (0.73-0.50) (0.76-0.80) (Homegarden-Orchard) Divergence mango

No. of mango seedlings (mango + citrus) (85+13) (237+8) (258+12) (128+17) Average weighted orchard age (years) 15.29 12.17 10.61 8.39

Table 27: Maintenance of Naati (local) varieties by farmers in Sirsi site Community Farmers (%) Plants (%) Koligar 36.07 45.00 Gonsar 24.29 41.86 Kulibeedu 78.90 71.70 Kumta 29.00 50.00

Table 28: Maintenance of Appemidi varieties by farmers in Sirsi site (%) Community Farmers (%) Plants (%) Koligar 8.52 23.30 Gonsar 25.43 46.51 Kulibeedu 5.81 16.98 Kumta 4.76 16.00

4.2.5 Chittoor Besides seedlings (naati) about 28 different varieties of mango are found in the three communities in Chittoor (Table 29). On an average, 4-5 varieties are maintained per HH. Indigenous varieties like Gaddamar, Omlette, Chakkaraguttulu, Reddy Pasand, Atimadhuram, Raja Pasand, Kalepadu, Torapadu, HimamPasand, DilPasand, Khurdus, Gadiyaram are combined with commercial varieties like Totapuri (Bangalora), Neelam, Banganapalli (Baneshan), Alphonso (Khadar), Mallika, Mulgoa, Rumani and Pulira (Sendura). Of late, however, there has been a shift towards varieties like Totapuri – processing variety and one or two table purpose varieties like Alphonso (Khadar), Neelam and Banganapalli (Baneshan). This shift is caused by the growing amount of pulp factories present in Chittoor district.

Table 29 Overview of mango varieties in Chittoor site Name of varieties or Four Cell Botanical and Morphological Other characteristics species Analysis agronomic traits traits and uses result 8 (tree) (fruit) Off-season 1 Ali Pasand Rare Pickling type Acidic & fibrous variety - High price Table - High juice content 2 Alphonso/ Khadar Common Mid (May) - Excellent table variety

synonym for Alphonso 3 Amini/Omelete Rare Early Pickling Acidic & big Fibrous Pollinator - Excellent taste/sweet 4 Atimadhuram Rare Table shy bearer - Yellow colour - Large fruits Banganapalli/ 5 Common Mid Table - Yellow colour Baneshan - High yield - Excellent taste 6 Chakkaraguttulu Rare Mid to late Sucking type - Size very small preferred for cooking - Taste is good 7 Chitti Bangalora Rare Mid Table - Small type of Totapuri 8 Dil Pasand Rare Mid Table -Taste is good 9 Gaddemar Rare Early to Mid Pickling type - Big size fruits Mid 10 Gadiyaram Rare Table - Good taste & skin colour Regular bearer - Excellent taste Pollinator 11 Himam Pasand Rare Table - Fetches highest price Shy bearer - Need to improve productivity 12 Kalepadu Unique Mid/late Table - Sweet taste

8 Rare means few households and few trees; Unique means many households and few trees or few households and many trees; Common means many households and many trees. Shy bearer - Good keeping quality 13 Khuddus Rare Mid-late Table - Good colour - Red colour Pollinator 14 Lalbaba Rare Table - Good taste

- Good keeping quality - Good taste 15 Mallika Rare Mid Table - Hybrid between Neelum and Dashehari - Long shelf life (more than 20 Late days) 16 Manoranjitam Rare Table Shy bearer - High price - Good skin colour Mid/late - Farmers need to improve 17 Mulgoa Unique Table Shy bearer productivity Pollinator Table/pickling - Good skin colour 18 Naati (seedling) Unique disease resistant type Regular bearer Mid 19 Naati Baneshan Rare Table - Green skin Regular bearer Late - Medium size 20 Neelum Common Table Regular bearer - High yield Omlete (same as 21 Rare Early Pickling type - Large-sized fruits Amini) Mid - Medium size 22 Pither (Peter) Rare Table regular bearing - Coloured, - Red colour Very early Table - Good price 23 Pulira/ Sendura Common Regular bearer Pulp - Good substitute for Khadar (Alphonso - Good taste 24 Raja Pasand Rare Mid Table - Round shape fruits 25 Reddy Pasand Rare Mid Pickling type - Heavy bearing Mid/late - Good taste 26 Rumani Common Table - Round shape fruits - Good taste 27 Seeri Rare Mid Table - Oblong fruits 28 Thorapadu Rare Mid Table - Large-sized - High yield Late - Large fruit with good pulp Regular bearer Mostly for pulp, 29 Totapuri/Bangalora Common recovery but also for table - Parrot beak shape

- Originates from Chittoor area

Table 30: Distribution of target fruit diversity in Bangarupalyam Bangarupalyam Variety name # of trees % of trees # of households % of households Mangifera Indica 1 Totapuri 10662 55.97% 53 100.00% 2 Neelam 5211 27.35% 53 100.00% 3 Baneshan 1226 6.44% 44 83.02% 4 Alphonso 878 4.61% 26 49.06% 5 Pulira 341 1.79% 32 60.38% 6 Kalepadu 146 0.77% 23 43.40% 7 Rumani 144 0.76% 10 18.87% 8 Mulgoa 127 0.67% 16 30.19% 9 Naati 101 0.53% 14 26.42% 10 Himam Pasand 62 0.33% 3 5.66% 11 Khurdus 50 0.26% 1 1.89% 12 Seeri 31 0.16% 3 5.66% 13 Gaddamar 26 0.14% 10 18.87% 14 Atimadhuram 11 0.06% 6 11.32% 15 Reddy Pasand 10 0.05% 1 1.89% 16 Dil Pasand 9 0.05% 2 3.77% 17 Raja Pasand 5 0.03% 1 1.89% 18 Torapadu 5 0.03% 1 1.89% 19 Mallika 2 0.01% 1 1.89% 20 Omelette 2 0.01% 1 1.89% 21 Chakkraguttulu 1 0.01% 1 1.89% Grand Total 19050 53

Table 31: Distribution of target fruit diversity in Polakala Polakala Variety name # of trees % of trees # of households % of households Mangifera Indica 1 Totapuri 9021 51.06% 50 100.00% 2 Neelam 3768 21.33% 48 96.00% 3 Baneshan 2521 14.27% 42 84.00% 4 Alphonso 1223 6.92% 16 32.00% 5 Rumani 600 3.40% 6 12.00% 6 Pulira 247 1.40% 30 60.00% 7 Mulgoa 86 0.49% 11 22.00% 8 Naati 59 0.33% 14 28.00% 9 Kalepadu 57 0.32% 12 24.00% 10 Gaddamar 27 0.15% 7 14.00% 11 Dil Pasand 12 0.07% 3 6.00% 12 Khurdus 12 0.07% 2 4.00% 13 Pither 10 0.06% 1 2.00% 14 Reddy Pasand 9 0.05% 2 4.00% 15 Gadiyaram 7 0.04% 1 2.00% 16 Mallika 6 0.03% 2 4.00% 17 Chakkraguttulu 2 0.01% 2 4.00% 18 Alli Pasand 1 0.01% 1 2.00% 19 Chitti Bangalora 1 0.01% 1 2.00% Grand Total 17669 50

Table 32: Distribution of target fruit diversity in Talupulapalli Talupulapalli Variety name # of trees % of trees # of households % of households Mangifera Indica 1 Totapuri 11060 77.07% 53 100.00% 2 Baneshan 1505 10.49% 48 90.57% 3 Neelam 931 6.49% 35 66.04% 4 Alphonso 360 2.51% 22 41.51% 5 Pulira 281 1.96% 35 66.04% 6 Kalepadu 48 0.33% 17 32.08% 7 Naati 47 0.33% 18 33.96% 8 Mulgoa 36 0.25% 13 24.53% 9 Gaddamar 25 0.17% 21 39.62% 10 Chitti Bangalora 12 0.08% 4 7.55% 11 Reddy Pasand 10 0.07% 6 11.32% 12 Himam Pasand 9 0.06% 2 3.77% 13 Rumani 9 0.06% 4 7.55% 14 Lalbagh 4 0.03% 1 1.89% 15 Chakkraguttulu 3 0.02% 2 3.77% 16 Mallika 3 0.02% 1 1.89% 17 Dil Pasand 2 0.01% 1 1.89% 18 Khurdus 2 0.01% 1 1.89% 19 Atimadhuram 1 0.01% 1 1.89% 20 Naati Barnisha 1 0.01% 1 1.89% 21 Pither 1 0.01% 1 1.89% 22 Torapadu 1 0.01% 1 1.89% Grand Total 14351 53

Most dominant varieties are Totapuri, Neelum and Alphonso (Khadar) which are grown mostly for pulping industry, together with Baneshan (Banganappali) for fresh consumption, compromise 85- 95% of the total tree population (Table 30,31 and 32). Despite being a commercial oriented farming region, the diversity in the communities appears to be high as the number of varieties maintained by the farmers ranges from 19-22 in each of the three communities with an average of 4-5 varieties per house hold (Table 33). Over 25 per cent of the farmers maintain naati (local i.e. seedling origin) varieties. Besides farmer keep pickling types like Gaddemar, Ali Pasand and Omelette. Chakkaraguttulu is a very small mango and sucking type. Community evenness is slightly higher (0.39-0.67) then on household level (0.39-0.52) and the low divergence indicator (0.16-0.22) indicates that diversity on community level is low and mostly found on household level. Improved access to and use of new diversity from naati types or lesser-known and rare varieties will improve divergence and could strengthen resilience at household level, thereby reducing dependence on those four varieties.

Table 33: Genetic Diversity Assessment in Chittoor site Bangarupalyam Thalapulapalli Palakala Number of households interviewed (N) 53 53 50 Number of trees 19050 14351 17669 Average number of trees per household 359 270 353

Community Richness 21 22 19 Average Richness per Household 4.92 4.88 4.38 Household eveness 0.51 0.39 0.52 Community eveness 0.61 0.39 0.67 Divergence 0.16 0.00 0.22

No. of seedlings 101 47 59 Average weighted orchard age 15.00 14.48 18.15

5. Socio-economic assessment

5.1 Household characteristics

5.1.1 Amravati The average age of the head of the Household is ranging from 47 (Bargaon) to 52 years (Nagziri) with a family size of 4 to 5 members. Only few families have a female head of household; respectively 4% of households in Jarud and Bargaon and none in Nagziri. Among the heads of the Household in the communities 56-86% had education level of high school and above. Of this, 20- 32% had college and post graduate education. Education level is highest in Nagziri and lower in Jarud and Bargaon. Number of females in the household ranges from 2 - 2.5 on average and the people that do not contribute to livelihood activities is on average 64 to 67% of the household members in all three communities. Membership of local institutions is relative low (8-22%) while majority take up loans (64-76%) in Jarud and Bargaon. Farmers did not receive a lot of technical assistance from agricultural departments (only 8% in Jarud).

Table 34: Household characteristics in Amravati

Jarud Nagziri Bargoan Family size (# members) 5.18 4.78 4.30 Sex head of household (% female) 4% 0% 4% Age head of household (years) 50.74 52.58 47.14 Education level ( % > high school) 20 32 26 Female household members (#) 2.45 2.21 2.02 Dependent family members (%)* 64% 65% 67%

Technical assistance (% received) 8% 0% 0% Micro-finance (% that use) 76% 27% 64% Member of local institutions (% yes) 8% 16% 22% Number of households interviewed 51 19 50

* Those that cannot contribute to livelihood activities

5.1.2 Malihabad Family size is relatively large in Malihabad ranging from 6.2 to 7.6 members on average. The average age of the head of the Household ranges from 46-58 years. Only few head of households have higher education. Education is highest in M.N. Talukedari (23.2%) and very low in Gopramau (6.6%), Kasmandi Kalam (9.7%) and Sarsanda (1.7%). Several households in Kasmandi Kalam have a female head (15.2%).

Table 35: Household characteristics in Malihabad Sarsanda Kasmandi M.N. Gopramau Kalam Talukedari Family size (# members) 6.23 7.59 6.35 7.74 Sex head of household (% female) 5 15.28 8.70 6.56 Age head of household (years) 46.14 58.40 55.19 56.13 Education level ( % > high school) 1.67 9.72 23.19 6.56 Female household members (#) - - - - Family members dependent (%) 16.31 3.39 6.00 6.34

Technical assistance (% received) - - - - Micro-finance (% that use) - - - - Member of local institutions (% yes) - - - - Number of households interviewed 60 72 69 61

5.1.3 Pusa The average family size is highest in Dhobgama (5.20) followed by respectively Jagdishpur (4.06), Mahmeda (3.42) and Murliyachak (4.32). Education level measured by number of head of households that continued education after high school is very high in Jagdishpur (68%) and Mahmeda (46%) and lower in Dhobgama (12%) and Murliyachak (26%). Age of the head of household is highest in Mahmeda (56.1) and relatively low in Dhobgama (47.0). Families in Jagdishpur include many household members that cannot contribute to livelihood activities (60.6%) while this number of dependent family members is lower in Murliyachak (45.4%) and around 32-36% in Dhobgama and Mahmeda.

Table 36: Household characteristics in Pusa

Jagdishpur Mehmada Dhobgama Murliyachak Family size (# members) 4.06 3.42 5.20 4.32 Sex head of household (% female) 2 4 0 0 Age head of household (years) 51.7 56.1 47.0 52.2 Education level ( % > high school) 68 46 12 26 Female members average (#) 1.50 1.26 2.24 1.38 Dependent family members (%)* 60.6 36.3 31.2 45.4

Technical assistance (% received) 58 66 n/a 48 Micro-finance (% that use) 8 32 n/a 8 Member of local institutions (% yes) 24 14 n/a 58 Number of households interviewed 50 50 50 50

* Those that cannot contribute to livelihood activities

5.1.4 Sirsi The average family size in Sirsi site is 5-6 members and 2-8 per cent of the households (HH) have a female HH head. The average age of the head of household is 51 to 56 years across the communities. Eduaction level is very low among the HH and a maximum of 16 per cent of the HH members had high school education. Around 37-45 per cent of the members is dependant on others in the household for income and food. Very few HH participated in institutions and availed finance and technical assistance. A small proportion of the sampled farmers are receiving technical assistance from different sources and about 3-10 per cent of the HH are involved in micro finance activities. About 10 per cent of the HH in Koligar and Kulibeedu and 35-46 per cent in Gonsar and Kumta have participated in local institutions.

Table 37: Household characteristics Sirsi Koligar Gonsor Kulibeedu Kuta Family size (# members) 5.59 5.58 4.49 4.92 Sex head of household (% female) 0 0 1.89 8.00 Age head of household (years) 55.34 53.95 51.08 56.49 Education level ( % > high school) 1.67 2.33 11.32 16.00 Female household members (#) - - - - Family members dependent (%) 36.75 43.08 38.74 44.83 Technical assistance (% received) 13.33 18.6 9.43 6.00 Micro-finance (% that use) 10.00 11.63 3.78 8.00 Member of local institutions (% yes) 10.00 34.88 9.43 46.00 Number of households interviewed 60 43 53 50

5.1.5 Chittoor The average age of the head of the Household is about 52 years with a family size of 4-4.6 members. Among the heads of the Household in the communities 22-13 percent continue studies after high school. Only very few hosueholds have a femal head (2-4%).

Table 38: Household characteristics Bangarupalyam Thalapulapalli Palakala Family size (# members) 3.98 4.11 4.64 Sex head of household (% female) 1.89 1.89 4.00 Age head of household (years) 52.41 51.88 52.38 Education level ( % > high school) 16.98 13.21 22.00 Female household members (#) - - - Family members dependent (%) 0.58 0.35 0.41

Technical assistance (% received) - - - Micro-finance (% that use) - - - Member of local institutions (% yes) - - -

Number of households interviewed 53 53 50

5.2 Farm system and practises

5.2.1 Amravati Average size of the land holding ranged from 5.87 acre in Bargaon to 11,09 acre in Jarud and the area under mango orchards formed about 74-81 per cent of this land holding. Cultivating citrus contributes to 55-65% of income according farmers. Data regarding distance to markets was not collected. Majority of farmers (84-95%) in all three communities apply chemical fertilizers and conduct pruning and more than half of the farmers use irrigation (59-70%). About half of the farmers apply chemical pesticides (37-54%) and conduct weeding during the season (41-68%). About a third of the farmers (24-44%) apply compost and only very few (5-16%) wrap the fruits with bags against insect pests. No processing is done as all citrus fruits are sold fresh. Use of chemical pesticides, fertilizers and irrigation is highest in Bargaon.

Table 39: Farm size and cultivation practises Amravati Jarud Nagziri Bargoan Land/farm size (acre) 11.09 6.52 5.87 Orchard size (acre) 8.17 5.31 4.58 Share orchard in land size (%) 73.67 81.44 78.02 Importance citrus (% rank number 1) 94 100 100 Share in income (%) 70.47 39.54 38.99 Apply chemical fertilizers (% yes) 88 89 92 Apply compost (% yes) 24 37 44 Use irrigation (% yes) 59 68 70 Apply chemical pesticide (% yes) 47 37 54 Pruning (% yes) 88 95 84 Weeding (% yes) 41 68 42 Wrapping with bag (% yes) 14 5 6 Processing of fruits (% yes) 0 0 0

5.2.2 Malihabad Farm size is relative small in Malihabad ranging from 4 acre in Kasmandi Kalam to only 1.9 acre in Sarsanda. Most land is converted in orchards in Malihabad, from 59% in Gopramau up to 97% of the farm land in M.N. Talukedari, although the size of orchards remains small in all four communities. Slightly less then half of the income is from mango cultivation. Chemical pesticides (79-100%) are widely used across all four communities, just as irrigation (78-91%). Use of chemical fertilizers is relatively less (7-78%), just as weeding (1-70%), especialy in M.N. Talukedari. The market ( mandi ) is about 1 hour drive from all four communities.

Table 40: Farm size and cultivation practises Malihabad Sarsanda Kasmandi M. Nagar Gopramau Kalam Talukedari Land/farm size (acre) 1.94 4.05 3.15 3.91 Orchard size (acre) 1.60 3.22 3.06 2.31 Share orchard in land size (%) 82.47 79.5 97.14 59.01 Importance mango (% rank number 1) - - - - Share in income (%) 46.22 42.36 48.67 47.38 Distance to wholesale market (hour) 1 1 1 1

Apply chemical fertilizers (% yes) 78.33 41.67 7.25 62.30 Apply compost (% yes) 95 82.00 57.00 84.00 Use irrigation (% yes) 91.67 86.11 78.26 91.80 Apply chemical pesticide (% yes) 88.33 83.33 79.71 100 Pruning (% yes) 86.67 91.67 79.71 83.61 Weeding (% yes) 65.00 19.44 1.45 70.49 Processing of fruits (% yes) 80.00 66.67 76.81 55.74

5.2.3 Pusa Average farm size is highest in Mahmeda (4.49 acre) followed by Jagdishpur (4,05 acre), Murliyachak (2.56 acre) and Dhobgama (2.16 acre). Orchards contribute to about 23-34% of the farm land in Mahmeda, Dhobgama and Murliyachak, reflecting that fruits are not the main income source. Orchards and fruits seem to be more prominent in Jagdishpur with 70% of the farm land dedicated to fruits. Home gardens are generally small (0.14 to 1.13 acre) and represent 6-29% of the farm land in all four communities. In total 12-18% of the households in Jagdishpur and Mahmeda ranked fruits as the most important livelihood activity and about 30% of income is derived from the sales of mango fruits in both communities. In Dhobgama and Murliyachak contribution of mango to livelihoods and income seem very small. Farmers seem to apply pesticides and chemical fertilizers profoundly in Jagdishpur, Mahmeda and Murliyachak. Data from Dhobgama is not available.

Table 41: Farm size and cultivation practises Pusa Jagdishpur Mehmada Dhobgama Murliyachak Land/farm size (acre) 4.05 4.49 2.16 2.56 Orchard size (acre) 2.02 1.05 0.72 0.62 Share orchard in land size (%) 49.88 23.39 33.33 24.22 Home garden size (acre) 1.12 0.41 0.14 0.40 Share homegarden in land size (%) 27.65 9.13 6.48 15.63

Importance mango (% rank number 1) 14 6 - 72 Share in income (%) 30.16 28.91 - 20 Distance to wholesale market (hour) 1.33 2.88 - 1.06 Apply chemical fertilizers (% yes) 50 90 - 98 Apply compost (% yes) - - - 98 Use irrigation (% yes) 50 80 - 98 Apply chemical pesticide (% yes) 100 62 - 98 Pruning (% yes) 52 90 - 98 Weeding (% yes) - 18 - 2 Processing of fruits (% yes) 18 15 - -

5.2.4 Sirsi The average size of land holding ranged from 3 acre in Kumta, 3.9 Acre in Kulibeedu, 8 acre in Gonsar to 10.75 acres in Koligar. This site has the distinction of having orchards as well as the homgarden which are both very small, mostly less then 1 acre. Orchards constituted about 2.42 per cent in Koligar, 11.76 per cent in Gonsar, around 28 per cent in Kulibeedu and Kumta communities. Homegardens formed about 4 per cent in Koligar, 8 per cent in Gonsar, 19 per cent in Kulibeedu and about 56 per cent in Kumta communities. Mango contributed only about 13 per cent to HH income as the site is dominated by arecanut. The mango growers have to travel a small distane of about two kilometres to sell their produce. The sample farmers are involved in processing of fruits, especially pickle making from ‘Appemidi’ type mango.

Table 42: Farm size and cultivation practises Sirsi Koligar Gonsor Kulibeedu Kumta Land/farm size (acre) 10.75 8.08 3.89 3.08 Orchard size (acre) 0.26 0.95 1.10 0.86 Share orchard in land size (%) 2.42 11.76 28.28 27.92 Home garden size (acre) 0.4 0.68 0.74 1.74 Share homegarden in land size (%) 3.72 8.42 19.02 56.49

Importance mango (% rank number 1) 0 3.33 0 0 Share in income (%) 13.82 11.70 1.33 n/a Distance to wholesale market (hour) 0.62 1.20 2.25 2.29

Processing of fruits (% yes) 39.50 48.33 72.00 n/a

5.2.5 Chittoor Average size of the land holding ranged from 5.84 acre in Talupulapalli to 6.98 acre in Bagarupalyam. The area under mango orchards formed about 86-94 per cent of the land holdings of farmers. From the analysis of the base line data, it was observed that mango contributes more than 74 - 96 per cent to the total HH income. Bangarupalyam community farmers take up application of fertilisers (39%), weeding (56%), irrigation (13%) and also pesticide application (47%). The distance to wholesale mango market is 1.1 to 1.5 hours.

Table 43: Farm size and cultivation practices in Chittoor Bangarupalyam Thalapulapalli Palakala

Land/farm size (acre) 6.98 5.84 6.26 Orchard size 5.99 5.13 5.89 Share orchard in land size (%) 85.82 87.84 94.09 Distance to wholesale market (hour) 1.53 1.52 1.12 Apply chemical fertilizers (% yes) 39.62 - - Use irrigation (% yes) 13.21 - - Apply chemical pesticide (% yes) 47.17 - - Pruning (% yes) 58.49 - - Weeding (% yes) 56.60 - -

5.3 Welfare and income level

5.3.1 Amravati Livelihoods of all three communities are highly dependent on cultivation of Nagpur mandarin. Also labourers depend on this crop for their jobs during harvest season. From the analysis of the base line data, it was observed that net total household income was highest in Jarud (INR 274,663) and substantial lower in Nagziri (INR 88,557) and Bargaon (INR 102,812). Feedback from farmers indicated that during the baseline year 2010, when data was collected, income was low and even negative for several farmers as fruit setting was low due unexpected rains during flowering time. Especially in Jarud the largest share of the total household income comes from non-farm activities (INR 92,722) such as shops, government employment or business activities. Income from other farm crops is small in all three communities. Income from citrus cultivation per acre is highest in Jarud (INR 18,149) and very small in Nagziri (INR 6,571) and Bargaon (INR 3,524)

Table 44: Household income and contribution of target fruit Amravati (Indian Rupees INR) Jarud Nagziri Bargaon

Total revenue citrus* 305,574 104,014 65,902 Total costs citrus* 167,610 59,497 47,720 Net income citrus* 135,259 33,568 9,928 Net income fruit processing 0 0 0 Net income other farm crops 46,682 30,305 69,718 Net income non-farm activities 92,722 24,684 23,400 Net total household income 274,663 88,557 102,812

Net citrus income per acre 18,149 6,571 3,524 Sample size 51 19 50

* citrus is nagpur mandarin and sweet orange combined

Wealth index shows Jarud households are 82% above the mean of all households interviewed in India and thus relatively wealthy, while Nagziri is 44% above the mean and Bargaon just 2% above the mean of the whole sample. In Jarud most households have an RCC house (51%) followed by Bargaon (44%) and Nagziri 31%). Only 1 household in Jarud has an improved house. An RCC or improved house is considered a luxury and popular type of house. While general transport means like cycle (52-86%) and motor cycle (38-66%) are owned by relatively high proportions of the households, car (which may be a luxury in the selected sites) is owned by a very few (2-11%). Cows appear to be an important asset to the communities (58-66%). Agricultural capital goods like generators with water pump are common (68-89%) while tractors are owned by just few households (2-11%). Only two households in Bargaon own a computer and few households own a fridge (20-36%). It appears that the households in all the communities are well aware of the beneficial effects of communication devices such as mobile phones (74-92%). While majority has a television (84-100%) less than half of the households have a radio (32-52%). Across the productive and consumable household assets it appears that Bargaon has structural lower ownership rates while Nagziri and Jarud are about equal. This validates the assumption that Jarud and Nagziri are well-off and Bargoan seems poorer.

Table 45: Welfare indicators Amravati Jarud Nagziri Bargaon

Welfare index (deviation of country mean in %) +82.32 +44.62 +2.07 Land holdings in ownership (acre) 11.09 6.52 5.87 Ownership RCC or improved house (% yes) 51.00 31.60 44.00

Ownership cycle (% yes) 86.27 78.95 52.00 Ownership motorcycle (% yes) 63.16 63.16 38.00 Ownership car (% yes) 10.53 10.53 6.00

Ownership cow (% yes) 58.82 57.83 66.00 Ownership tractor (% yes) 3.80 10.53 2.00 Ownership genset pump 76.74 89.74 68.00

Ownership computer (% yes) 0.00 0.00 4.00 Ownership fridge (% yes) 35.23 26.32 20.00 Ownership television (% yes) 32 .16 100 .00 84 .00 Ownership mobile handphone 30.20 84.21 74.00 Ownership radio 50.98 36.84 32.00

Sample size 51 19 50

5.3.2 Malihabad Target fruits contributes contribute for more then half of the income in Malihabad communities. Household income is low in Sarsanda (INR 49,772) and higher in Gopramau (INR 100,407), M. Nagar Talukedari (INR 120,288) and Kasmandi Kalam (INR 126,987). Households do get income from processing mango in all four communities but income is low, ranging from INR 425 to INR 1503. Income per acre is lowest in Gopramau (INR 20,187) followed by Sarsanda (INR 32, 356), Kasmandi (INR 41,884) and M.N. Talukedari (INR 48, 805).

Table 46: Household income and contribution of target fruit Malihabad (Indian Rupees INR) Sarsanda Kasmandi M. Nagar Gopramau Kalam Talukedari

Total revenue target fruit* 28,054 92,312 78,129 69,547 Total costs target fruit* 10,297 38,381 35,635 25,291 Net income target fruit* 25,478 71,372 84,295 56,474 Net income fruit processing 1,503 1,301 1,042 425 Net income other farm crops 2,407 5,256 609 19,718 Net income non -farm activities 20,383 49,058 35,272 25,239 Net total household income 49,772 126,987 120,288 100,407

Net target fruit income per acre 32,356 41,884 48,805 20,187

Target fruit income (%) 52.24 60.27 73.63 46.92 Sample size 60 72 69 61

On average all four communities have lower wealth index then the mean. Sarsanda is substantial lower (-77.6%) followed by Gopramau (-29.2%) and Kasmandi (-10.4%) and M.N. Talukedari (12.9%). Farm size ranges from just 2 acre (Sarsanda) to about 3-4 acre in Kasmandi, M.N. Talukedari and Gopramau. Households in Sarsanda and Gopramau have fewer assets compared with those in Kasmandi and M.N. Talukedari.

Table 47: Welfare indicators Malihabad Sarsanda Kasmandi M. Nagar Gopramau Kalam Talukedari

Welfare index (#) -77.60 -10.45 -12.96 -29.21 Land holdings in ownership (acre) `1.94 4.05 3.15 3.91 Ownership RCC or improved house (% yes)

Ownership cycle (% yes) 31.67 37.14 82.61 30.16 Ownership motorcycle (% yes) 15.00 55.71 62.32 29.51 Ownership car (% yes) 3.33 10.00 17.33 0.00

Ownership cow (% yes) 70.49 26.09 25.71 28.33 Ownership tractor (% yes) 1.67 2.86 8.70 6.56 Ownership genset pump 1.67 0.00 4.35 3.84

Ownership computer (% yes) 0.00 2.86 0.00 0.00 Ownership fridge (% yes) 1.67 38.57 14.49 1.64 Ownership television (% yes) 28.33 87.14 81.16 24.59 Ownership mobile handphone 51.67 96.71 79.71 59.02 Ownership radio 11.67 42.86 49.28 16.33

Sample size 60 72 69 61

5.3.3 Pusa Income in Pusa is merely derived from other farm crops and off-farm activities. Total income earned by the cultivation of mango was INR 36,374 in Jagdishpur, INR 35,196 in Murliyachak and INR 12,238 in Mahmeda during baseline in 2010. Mango varieties mostly sold are sukul, malda, kerwa, kanchan, kalkuttia, sepia and biju. Additional income was generated through the processing and sales of dried mango, mango pickle or chutneys resulting in additional income of INR 12,212 and INR 1,747 in Jagdishpur and Mahmeda. Mango varieties used often for processing are sukul, kerwa, kanchan and biju. Mango cultivation is important for livelihoods in Jagdishpur contributing 61.8% to total income. Contribution to total income is still substantial in Murliyachak (39.8%) and little in Mahmeda (23.5%). The main cash crops cultivated in Pusa are wheat, paddy and potato among other grains and vegetables. Besides household have substantial income from non-farm activities, especially in Mahmeda (INR 57,980). Highest annual net incomes are recorded in Mahmeda with INR 166,991 while net annual income in Jadishpur and Murliyachak was respectively INR 93,764 and INR 100,342. Average income of mango per acre ranges from INR 15,354 in Murliyachak to INR 48,830 in Jagdishpur. No data from Dhobgama was obtained.

Table 48: Household income and contribution of target fruit Pusa (Indian Rupees INR) Jagdishpur Mehmada Dhobgama Murliyachak

Total revenue target fruit* - - - - Total costs target fruit* - - - - Net income target fruit* 36,374 12,238 - 35,196 Net income fruit processing 2,212 1,747 - - Net income other farm crops `46,708 95,026 - 42,786 Net income non-farm activities 8,470 57,980 - 22,360 Net total household income 93,764 166,991 - 100,342 - Net target fruit income per acre 48,830 23,975 - 15,354 - Target fruit income (%) 61.81 23.46 - 39.82

50 50 50 Sample size

All households in the four communities, with only 1 exception, own the farm land which they cultivate. Average land holdings are ranging from 4.49 acre in Mahmeda, 4.05 acre in Jagdishpur, 2.56 acre in Murliyachak to 2.15 acre in Dhobgama. Households with mango orchards are wealthier in Mehmada (+24.6%) and Dhobgama (+32.6%). Wealth is lower in Jagdishpur (+4.4%) and especially Murliyachak (-24.2%). Many households in Jagdishpur have an improved or RCC house (40%) while majority of households in the other three communities live in more traditional brick houses. Ownership of transportation items such as cycle, motorbike and car is similar in the four communities with high ownership rates for cycles (84-100%), lower rates for motorbikes (about 50%) and low rates for cars (0-10%). Jagdisphur and Mahmeda households seem more affluent compared with Murliyachak as they have higher ownership rates for most expensive productive assets such as cars (8-10%), tractors (4-18%) and gensets (8-32%) and consumer goods such as computers (14-6%), refrigerators (22-18%), televisions (78-90%) and hand phones (76- 72%).

Table 49: Welfare indicators-Pusa Jagdishpur Mehmada Dhobgama Murliyachak

Welfare index (#) +4.38 +24.62 +32.64 -24.23 Land holdings in ownership (acre) 4.05 4.49 2.15 2.56 Ownership RCC or improved house (% yes) 40.00 18.00 0.00 6.00

Ownership cycle (% yes) 84.00 90.00 - 98.00 Ownership motorcycle (% yes) 56.00 48.00 96.00 48.00 Ownership car (% yes) 10.0 8.00 0.00 6.00

Ownership cow (% yes) 30.00 46.00 40.00 74.00 Ownership tractor (% yes) 4.00 18.00 0.00 6.00 Ownership genset pump 8.00 32.00 - 2.00

Ownership computer (% yes) 14.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 Ownership fridge (% yes) 22.00 18.00 28.00 2.00 Ownership television (% yes) 78.00 90.00 - 50.00 Ownership mobile handphone 76.00 72.00 - 52.00 Ownership radio 76.00 90.00 - 78.00

Sample size 50 50 50 50

5.3.4 Sirsi Target fruits collected from forests are a minor source of income for communities in Sirsi, as income from target fruits is small, ranging from INR 98 to INR 6,022 in Kumta and Gonsar respectively. General household income are low from INR 28,881 in Kulibeedu to INR 37,094 (Kumta), INR 53,824 (Gonsar) and INR 69,924 in Koligar. People earn most income with other farm crops such as areca nut, pepper, nutmeg or cardamon.

Table 50: Household income and contribution of target fruit Sirsi (Indian Rupees INR) Koligar Gonsor Kulibeedu Kumta

Net income target fruit* 1,050 6,022 2,198 89 Net income fruit processing 930 2,181 1,764 - Net income other farm crops 49,133 26,406 11,193 29,843 Net income non -farm activities 18,821 19,215 13,736 7,162 Net total household income 69,924 53,824 28,881 37,094

Net target fruit income per acre 21,922 699 5,408 291

Target fruit income (%) 20.14 32.85 40.21 7.98 Sample size 60 43 53 50

Although incomes are small, the wealth index shows that the wealth index of communities in Koligar (+64.2%) and Kumta (+33.5%) is well above average, suggesting they have a good assets base. The communities in Gonsar and Kulibeedu have a lower wealth index of just 9.8% and 8.9% above the mean.

Table 51: Welfare indicators Sirsi Koligar Gonsor Kulibeedu Kumta

Welfare index (#) +64.17 +9.85 +8.85 +33.51 Land holdings in ownership (acre) 10.75 8.08 3.89 3.08 Ownership RCC or improved house (% yes) 8.33 2.32 3.77 14.00

Ownership cycle (% yes) 0.00 11.63 0.00 0.00 Ownership motorcycle (% yes) 53.33 30.23 20.75 24.00 Ownership car (% yes) 16.67 6.98 5.66 10.00

Ownership cow (% yes) 71.67 81.40 86.79 82.00 Ownership tractor (% yes) 0.00 0.00 1.87 2.00 Ownership genset pump 5.00 4.65 0.00 50.00

Ownership computer (% yes) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ownership fridge (% yes) 3.3 0.00 1.89 12.00 Ownership television (% yes) 71.67 56.10 50.94 62.00 Ownership mobile handphone 30.00 31.71 16.98 62.00 Ownership radio 41.67 6.98 30.19 16.00

Sample size 60 43 53 50

Average land holding size ranges from 3-4 acre in Kulibeedu and Kumta towards 8 and 10.8 acre in Gonsar and Koligar. Most families life in traditional houses as only 2-14% of the households have a RCC house in this site. As Sirsi and Kumta are the sites receiving heavy rains during the rainy season, majority of the HH have mud and stone houses with tiled roof. While 20 to 53 per cent of the HH own motor cycles, only 5-16 per cent of the HH own the cars. It is interesting to note that 72 to 87 per cent of the HH own cows. While no one owns computers, 51 to 72 per cent of the HH possess television and except in Kumta, very few HH (16-30%) have mobile handphones. Similarly, radio is owned by a few HH (7-16%) in Gonsar and Kumta and about 30- 41 per cent of the HH possess radio in Koligar and Kulibeedu communities

5.3.5 Chittoor Mango cultivation is a major source of income and contributing 80-90 percent to total household income in all three communities. Income from mango is highest in Thalapulapalli (INR 213,945) followed by Palakala (INR 145,923) and Bangarupalyam (INR 133, 311). Litte income comes from other farm crops and off-farm activities. Highest household incomes were found in Thalapulapalli (INR 233,945), followed by Palakal (INR168,619) and Bangarupalyam (INR 157,240).

Table 52: Household income and contribution of target fruit Chittoor (Indian Rupees INR) Bangarupalyam Thalapulapalli Palakala

Total revenue target fruit* - - - Total costs target fruit* - - - Net income target fruit* 133,311 213,945 145,923 Net income fruit processing - - - Net income other farm crops 23,930 15,868 9,256 Net income non-farm activities 16,725 4,132 13,440 Net total household income 157,240 233,945 168,619

Net target fruit income per acre 15,949 39,004 20,224

Target fruit income (%) 80.44 84.13 89.90

Sample size 53 53 50

While income is high, wealth index figures are low, ranging from -14.4% below the mean of all households in Bangarupalyam to -49.9% in Palakala, suggesting relative lower wealth status among households in Chittoor. Over 90 percent of the households own RCC houses, about 50 per cent of the households own two wheelers (cycle and motor cycle) and a few of them have cars. While about 77 per cent of the households in Talupulapalli own cows, and great majority of them possess gensets. A few of the households in all the three communities possess tractors. It is interesting to note that the communication tools like hand phone and TV are possessed by a great majority of the households in all the communities. Majority of households in Bangarupayam own fridge and about 20 per cent of the households in all the communities possess computers.

Table 53: Welfare indicators Chittoor Bangarupalyam Thalapulapalli Palakala

Welfare index (#) -14.37 -39.19 -49.95 Land holdings in ownership (acre) 6.98 5.84 6.26 Ownership RCC or improved house (% yes) 96.22 94.33 94.00

Ownership cycle (% yes) 47.17 58.49 36.00 Ownership motorcycle (% yes) 52.83 49.06 56.00 Ownership car (% yes) 0.00 3.77 8.00

Ownership cow (% yes) 3.77 77.36 32.00 Ownership tractor (% yes) 1.87 13.21 32.00 Ownership genset pump 26.42 60.38 28.00

Ownership computer (% yes) 26.42 20.75 4.00 Ownership fridge (% yes) 96.23 13.21 20.00 Ownership television (% yes) 13.21 94.34 92.00 Ownership mobile handphone 84.91 86.79 84.00 Ownership radio 9.43 20.75 4.00

Sample size 53 53 50

5.4 Knowledge and opinions related to agricultural biodiversity

5.4.1 Amravati Farmers are monoculture minded in Amravati site. A clear majority of households in Jarud prefer monoculture over diversity (65% against 33%), while preference for monoculture above diversity in Bargaon (56% against 44%) and Nagziri (53% against 47%) is small. Farm households strongly confirmed that citrus is very important source of income (84-90%). Besides income few households opined that citrus has importance as source of food (14-18%), other products (such as fire wood, timber or leaves for mulching; 10-21%) and contributes to the beauty of their village (12-21%). Aspects such as medicinal value, religious or cultural uses or eco-system services are according to them less important. Combining different species and varieties is perceived important to reduce yield risks by pests and diseases (74-76%) and helps to spread income (72-76%) over the year. To avoid price risks in the gut season is considered less important (22-58%).

Table 54: Perceptions of the farmers about mango diversity in Amravati Perceptions Jarud Nagziri Bargaon

Prefer monoculture (% yes) 65 53 56 Neutral (%) 2 0 0 Prefer diversity (% yes) 33 47 44 Fruit trees are: Source of income (% very important) 88 84 90 Source of food (% very important) 14 16 18 Source of medicinal products (% very important) 8 5 4 Source of firewood, timber or leaves (% very important) 18 21 10 Contribute to improved ecosystems (% very important)* 4 5 4 Have cultural or religious meaning (% very important)** 8 11 2 Contribute to beauty of my village (% very important) 12 21 16 Diversity helps me to: Reduces yield risk by including resistant varieties 75 74 76 Provides income security by spreading income sources 73 74 76 Reduces price risk by enhancing the fruiting season 58 26 22 * Ecosystems are to retain water, improved soils, less erosion or lower temperature by shade ** Are part of sacred groves or used in religious or cultural ceremonies & celebrations

5.4.2 Malihabad While households in Sarsanda and Kasmandi seem to prefer diversified orchards, households in M. N. Talukedari and Gopramau seem to prefer mono-culture and grow more of the popular varieties such as Dasheri. Households in Malahabad seem to value the trees not only for income but also for other values such as a source of food, timber, firewood and for its estaethics and cultural value.

Table 55: Perceptions of the farmers about mango diversity in Malihabad Perceptions Sarsanda Kasmand M. Nagar Gopramau i Kalam Talukedar i Prefer monoculture (% yes) 32 42 78 100 Neutral (%) - - - - Prefer diversity (% yes) - - - - Fruit trees are: Source of income (% very important) 100 95 100 100 Source of food (% very important) 100 95 100 100 Source of medicinal products (% very important) - - - - Source of firewood, timber or leaves (% very important) 100 95 100 100 Contribute to improved ecosystems (% very important)* 100 95 100 100 Have cultural or religious meaning (% very important)** 100 94 100 100 Contribute to beauty of my village (% very important) 90 88 97 100 Diversity helps me to: Reduces yield risk by including resistant varieties 83 69 89 98 Provides income security by spreading income sources 51 33 36 - Reduces price risk by enhancing the fruiting season - - - -

5.4.3 Pusa While households in Sarsanda and Kasmandi seem to prefer diversified orchards, households in M. N. Talukedari and Gopramau seem to prefer mono-culture and grow more of the popular. Income, food and timber value seem to be most important. Other values are considered but are less often mentioned as an important value by households. About half of the households indicate diversity is important to them to manage yield, income and price risks.

Table 56: Perceptions of the farmers about mango diversity in Pusa Perceptions Jagdishpu Mehmad Dhobgam Murliyacha r a a k Prefer monoculture (% yes) 52 24 - 30 Neutral (%) - - - - Prefer diversity (% yes) - - - - Fruit trees are: Source of income (% very important) 100 94 - 96 Source of food (% very important) 96 88 - 98 Source of medicinal products (% very important) 48 16 - 72 Source of firewood, timber or leaves (% very important) 50 44 - 54 Contribute to improved ecosystems (% very important)* 46 10 - 4 Have cultural or religious meaning (% very important)** 0 8 - 4 Contribute to beauty of my village (% very important) 46 4 - - Diversity helps me to: Reduces yield risk by including resistant varieties 54 58 - 12 Provides income security by spreading income sources 50 44 - 6 Reduces price risk by enhancing the fruiting season 48 52 - 8

5.4.4 Sirsi Mango is not the main source of livelihood in Sirsi site as the farmers depend mostly on arecanut. Hence, the perception with respect to mango diversity is that majority of the farmers do not want to maintain more varieties. Very few of them opined that fruit trees are source of income (8-42%). About 28 per cent in Kumta and 21 per cent in Gonsar perceive the fruit trees as source of tasty food and nutrition to their family. About 12-18 per cent of the HH across the communities perceive the TFT as source of medicinal products. This is mainly with regards to Garcinia fruits, Kokum juice for acidity and butter from Bili Murugalu (white type) as a pain killer.

Table 57: Perceptions of the farmers about mango diversity in Sirsi Perceptions Koligar Gonsor Kulibeedu Kumta

Prefer monoculture (% yes) 85 72 83 90 Neutral (%) - - - - Prefer diversity (% yes) - - - - Fruit trees are: Source of income (% very important) 21 39 7 42 Source of food (% very important) 8 20 13 28 Source of medicinal products (% very important) 11 18 11 14 Source of firewood, timber or leaves (% very important) 8 0 1 20 Contribute to improved ecosystems (% very important)* 8 13 0 14 Have cultural or religious meaning (% very important)** 10 18 0 12 Contribute to beauty of my village (% very important) 8 18 0 14 Diversity helps me to: Reduces yield risk by including resistant varieties 11 18 3 8 Provides income security by spreading income sources 3 4 9 8 Reduces price risk by enhancing the fruiting season 6 4 1 10

5.4.5 Chittoor Chittoor is a major production belt in India for mango which is reflected by the high importance given to mango as a source of income. Hower, farmers seem to be interested in diversifying their orchards as half or less then half of the farmers favoured monoculture. Besides as a source of income the mango diversity is valued as a source of food, especially in Thalapulapalli (75%). Other types of values are not seen as important in Chittoor communities such as its medicinal, cultural, astethics or environmental values. Farmers seem to be interested to utilize diversity mostly to reduce yield risks (by including good pollinator types), but also to reduce income and price risks by including early or late varieties.

Table 58: Perceptions of the farmers about mango diversity in Chittoor Perceptions Bangarup Thalapul Palakala alyam apalli Prefer monoculture (% yes) 41 22 50 Neutral (%) - - - Prefer diversity (% yes) - - - Fruit trees are: Source of income (% very important) 87 100 98 Source of food (% very important) 11 75 38 Source of medicinal products (% very important) 4 0 0 Source of firewood, timber or leaves (% very important) 2 2 0 Contribute to improved ecosystems (% very important)* - - - Have cultural or religious meaning (% very important)** 4 4 2 Contribute to beauty of my village (% very important) 1 0 0 Diversity helps me to: Reduces yield risk by including resistant varieties 30 90 92 Provides income security by spreading income sources 32 79 70 Reduces price risk by enhancing the fruiting season 28 84 68

6. Discussion of baseline research questions & results

6.1 Major threats and drivers for agro-biodiversity To be able to understand how livelihoods and tropical fruit tree diversity in the project communities will be affected, we need to understand more about how diversity is management and used by communities. The focus group discussions conducted with farmers during baseline data collection combined with semi-structured interviews with key informants resulted in following identified drivers for maintaining citrus, mango and garcinia diversity in each of the sites:

6.1.1 Amravati Major threats for citrus and mango diversity: • Long-term high dominance of Nagpur mandarin takes attention away from other species that might be interesting as income source. This results in limited interest in diversity of farmers as they are used to mono-cropping farm systems. • High dependency on pre-harvest contractors blocks market incentives to reach farmers and subsequent their interest to improve their crop base, product portfolio or quality management. • Mango and acid lime doesn’t contribute much towards household income; they are merely for home consumption only. No market channels for fresh or processed products exist yet in the region for these species.

Major drivers for citrus and mango diversity: • Farmers have seen increased infestations of phytophthora and orchard decline 9 in their mono- cultured fields. Re-introducing rough lemon and rangpur lime mother trees on farms and local nurseries which seeds can be used as source for qualitative rootstock material improves resistance against both diseases and will reduce current high (and costly) replacement rates. Farmers used to replace trees every 20-25 years, but this is reduced to only 8-15 years with use of inferior plant material with galgal as rootstock. • Introducing other tree crops that are resistant or not a host plant for phytophthora could reduce infestation levels. Few farmers experimented combining Nagpur mandarin and sweet orange with crops such as mango, guava and teak with mixed results. Markets for those fruits are not established yet and farmers informed that teak seems to host and increase insect pest levels that will affect Nagpur mandarin.

9 General dying of trees caused by a combination of factors such as nutrient deficiencies and infestations of phytophthora and other diseases. • Local adaptation of mango seedlings to hot climate conditions. Farmer opined that the seedlings performed best in the local climate conditions. Some farmers have just recently introduced mango varieties such as kesar, dushaheri, langra and neelum.

6.1.2 Malihabad Major threats for mango diversity: • Malihabad is located just outside of Lucknow and has seen a sharp increase in land prices due to interest for residential development, especially along the main road. Farmers have been selling their orchard land for residential development during last two decades. • Last three decades, many farmers have been replacing seedlings and heirloom varieties with the variety dasheri which has become the most preferred variety in north India for fresh consumption because of its sweet taste and good yield. Malihabad is one of the biggest mango growing belts in north India and is the origin area of Dasheri. • Farmers sell mangoes mostly to pre-harvest contractors and the local ‘mandi’ with a fixed price per orchard or quintal. In this system heirloom varieties and seedling varieties are often bulked and often get a low price.

Major drivers for mango diversity: • Malihabad has a long tradition in mango cultivation and some orchards are very old and established by rich traders (Pathans) and rulers (Nawabs) of this region. Several very old orchards with many different varieties were established over 100 years ago as a display of wealth and cultural pride. • Farmers have planted seedlings in those areas and villages with sandy and marginal soils where grafted dasheri saplings often didn’t survive, due lack of irrigation faciliaties and poor soil conditions. • Consumers in cities such as Lucknow and Delhi have increasing interest in traditional varieties such as sucking types or heirloom varieties and attendance and interest of city dwellers in mango diversity is high as observed during diversity fairs.

6.1.3 Pusa Major threats for mango diversity: • The low productivity and high timber value of old trees will provide strong incentive to cut down the old orchards especially when large amount of money is required for weddings, repayment of loans or planned investments. • Changing living conditions (many household members live far away for jobs) reduce the labour availability at home to attend and process the products derived from home gardens. • The low income derived from the older orchards and home gardens create strong incentive to abandon the home garden and replace diversity in orchards with commercial varieties or other farm crops.

Major drivers for mango diversity: • The cultural practise of chat puja, were many different fruits are used for offerings, creates a market for several mango and citrus fruit species and varieties. It stimulated farmers to identify late bearing mango types (i.e. Malda) and maintenance of seedling population of several mango and citrus species in home gardens. • The traditional practise of having home gardens at the house where combinations of many varieties and species are grown for home consumption and processing or small scale sales has helped to maintain seedling populations of several mango and citrus species. • The existence of century old orchards with high diversity (local varieties and seedlings) which are seen as a capital asset by households through its timber value. These orchards or not actively maintained and produce little yield and income but can provide finance for big occasions such as weddings, fruits for home consumption, leaves for fodder, firewood and add to the beauty of the village and proud or status of the family.

6.1.4 Sirsi Major threats for Garcinia spp. and mango diversity: • Drying of Garcinia rind, especially Uppage is cumbersome and Uppage collection coincides with rainy season. Price fluctuation is another constraint facing the farmers/collectors who depend on collecting traders for their sales. • Due increase of value of kokum and uppage rinds in last two decades the trees in the forest are overharvested and get damaged and forest get degraded. • Households in Sirsi who collect or cultivate mango, kokum ( Garcinia indica ) or uppage ( Garcinia gummigatta ) have very limited insights in the value chain and potential products or value of those species. • Value added products are not explored has villagers have limited processing and marketing skills and markets for processed products are very new and still not well developed.

Major drivers for Garcinia spp. and mango diversity: • Potential of developing added value products connected to Garcinia spp. for weight loss products, soap, juice, candles etc. If a larger share of the added value is captured by the villagers they will have more interest to conserve the forest and source trees. • Processing activities associated with mango are mainly confined to pickling especially Appemidi mangoes which is mostly a cottage industry and not so much a commercial venture. Citrus diversity is maintained mostly in home gardens and less of marketing activities and mostly confined to home consumption. Garcinia – Uppage and Murugalu - are grown in the Betta lands and collected from the forests. Processing of these Garcinia species is in the form of fruit rind, juice and rarely butter from seeds.

6.1.5 Chittoor Major threats for mango diversity: • Long-term dominance of Totapuri and other commercial varieties like Neelum, Baneshan and Alphonso takes attention away from other species that might be interesting as income source. This results in limited interest in diversity of farmers as they are used to mono-cropping farm systems. • High dependency on local markets (mandi) and contractors is blocking market incentives to reach farmers and subsequently their interest to improve their crop base, product portfolio or quality management. • There is no separate market for indigenous mango varieties and the farmers have to look for this. • The main constraints are availability of planting material, monoculture being promoted because of the processing industry demand for a particular variety.

Major drivers for mango diversity: • Mango contributes substantially to HH income. The custodian farmers realized the importance of having more number of varieties especially indigenous varieties of mangoes as source of income, home consumption, for social use and also as source of ecosystem services.

6.2 Results of diversity assessment In India a total of 3 genera were assessed and in total 13 species of Citrus (1 unknown), 3 species of Garcinia and 1 species of Mangifera were found in the project communities during baseline. A total of 159 distinctly named varieties were identified within the species Mangifera indica and 4 distinctly named varieties within the species Citrus maxima. Besides two types of Garcinia indica were identified with red and white coloured frutis. Unique traits of each variety are described and provided in chapter 4.2

Table 61: Species found in India sites Citrus Garcinia Mangifera Total 1 Citrus aurantifolia Garcinia gummigutta Mangifera indica 2 Citrus aurantium Garcinia indica 3 Citrus decumana Garcinia morella 4 Citrus grandis/maxima 5 Citrus jambhiri 6 Citrus limon 7 Citrus medica 8 Citrus medica var. Acida 9 Citrus pseudolimon 10 Citrus reshni 11 Citrus reticulata 12 Citrus sinensis 13 Citrus spp. Total 13 3 1 17

Table 62: Named varietal diversity found in India sites Species Varieties distinguished by name #

Mangifera indica August, Alli Pasand, Alphonso, Amin, Amrapali, Ananthabhatta 159 appe, Appemidi, Arasapura, Atimadhuram, Bagbahar, Balba,

Baneshan, Banganapalli, Barbaria, Barmasia, Belehole appe, Benazir, Benazir, Sandilla, Benet apus, Bhadaiya, Bhagwanta, Bhola, Bhuzada Anees, Bile ishadu, Bombaiya, Bombay Green, Bontha Bangalor, Chakkraguttulu, Chaparia, Chausa, Chitrychety, Chitti, Bangalora, Chorya, Chouthi appe, Darahiya, Dashehari, Dil Pasand, Dombesara, Egrohiya, Fajuli, Farmers variety, Fazri, Gaddamar, Gadiyaram, Gidda appe, Giduga, Giduganamane, Gilas, Gol, Bhadiya, Gola, Gulabkhas, Gundappe, Himam Pasand, Himsagar, Huli appe, Huli mavu, Husn-e-ara, Idagai, Jabjanat, Jafarbagh, Jarda, Jardalu, Jeerige appe, Jethu, Jouhri, Safeda, Jugmag, Kadhar, Kalepadu, Kalkutia, Kalkutia malda, Kanchan, Kapuriya, Kare ishadu, Kasur, Kasurkhas, Kempikande, Kerwa, Kerwa seedling, Kesar, Khala khan, Khanokhas, Khas ul khas, Khaso Khash, Khobra, Khol, Khurdus, Kishanbhog, Kosagai,, Lal Malda, Lalbagh, Lambauri, Langra, Langra, Latkampur, Lucknow Safeda, Madora, Magemavu, Malanji, Malda, Malda seedling, Malgova, Malihabad Safeda, Mallika, Manadur katte, Manoranjani, Manot, Mavinakatta, Mavinakurve mavu, Mirjafar, Mithua, Mitu Malda, Mohan Bhog, Mol Bhadariya, Mulgoa, Munjar Anees, Naati, Barnisha, Neelum, Omelette, Paharpur, Paharpur Sinduria, Pairy, Patnaholeappe, Pither, Priyanka, Pula Surya, Pulira, Raja Pasand, Ramkela, Rary, Rataul, Ratna, Ratnagir i, Reddy Pasand, Rumani, Safed Malda, Sasive, Seedling, Seeri, Sindhu, Sinduria, Sipia, Sippe varate, Sukul, Sundarshi, Surkha, Surkha Burma, Suwaswala, Swarna Rekha, Taimuria, Telya, Thandimaneappe, Torapadu, Totapuri, Tuhiya Pahad, Tuhur, Tukuroo, Varate Giduga, Zardalu

Citrus maxima Biju/seedling, Kanchi, Kanchikayi, Sakrekanchi 4

Garcinia indica Kempu murugalu (Red Garcinia), 2 Bile murugalu (White Garcinia)

In a commercial oriented production region such as Amravati, the diversity in species or varieties is low with high dominance of Nagpur mandarin and sweet orange. However commercial oriented regions which have a long history of cultivation can harbour high diversity, which is reflected in Malihabad site and to lesser extend Chittoor. These regions have very high dominance of commercial varieties such as Dasheri and Totapuri respectively, nevertheless still substantial amount of diversity of heirloom varieties and seedling populations can be found, which are mostly maintained for home use, as they can survive on non-irrigated sandy soils and as farmers are attached to the orchards as planted by their forfathers.

Besides we can see that mango intra-specific diversity is found mostly in older orchards, many times with trees of over 80 years old, which are maintained in Pusa, Malihabad and Chittoor as they add to the pride of its owners or where planted by wealthy families. Even when not very productive, as in the case of Pusa, farmers feel attached to the orchards and maintain them. However, when commercial interest becomes very dominant, for example due emerging pulping industry in Chittoor, farmers start to replace old trees with popular varieties such as totapuri, alphonso and dasheri as can be seen in Chittoor and Malihabad.

Diversity in the form of seedlings is also often found in home gardens in Pusa (pummelo), Amravati (acid lime and mango) and Sirsi (mango, citrus). In Sirsi, located within the Western Ghat mountain forests, mango diversity, especially Appemidi and seedlings are found along the riverside. Garcinia , especially Uppage is mostly available in forests and Murugalu is also available in Betta lands besides mostly being in forests. Citrus diversity is found in home gardens.

Overall varietal diversity seems highest in Mahemeda (49) in Pusa, Kasmandi Kalam (40) in Malihabad and Gonsar (31) in Sirsi. Furthermore substantial diversity is found in Jagdishpur (23) in Pusa, Koligar (23) in Sirsi, Thalupalapalli (22), Bangarupalyam (20) and Polakala (19) in Sirsi. Actual richness in intra-specific diversity is estimated to be higher as only a sample of about 10% of the population was interviewed.

Table 59: Ranking of communities on key diversity indicators # Mango Richness intra Evenness D-1 # Seedlings trees (Simpson) 1 Mahmada 49 Koligar et al. 0.91 Mahmada 992 2 Kasmandi Kalam 40 Mahmada 0.84 Dhobgama 692 3 Gonsar et al. 31 Gonsar et al. 0.82 Gopramau 607 4 Jagdishpur 23 Jagdishpur 0.82 Murliyachak 596 5 Koligar et al. 23 Kumta 0.80 Jagdishpur 571 6 Kumta 22 Dhobgama 0.78 Kasmandi Kalam 425 7 Talupulapalli 22 Murliyachak 0.78 Sarsanda 378 8 Bangarupalyam 21 Polakala 0.67 Kulibeedu et al. 258 9 Polakala 19 Bangarupalyam 0.61 Koligar et al. 237 10 Gopramau 14 Kulibeedu et al. 0.50 M.N. Talukedari 199 11 Kulibeedu et al. 12 Gopramau 0.43 Kumta 128 12 M.N. Talukedari 10 Talupulapalli 0.39 Bangarupalyam 101 13 Sarsanda 8 Kasmandi Kalam 0.37 Gonsar et al. 85 14 Dhobgama 8 Sarsanda 0.30 Polakala 59 15 Murliyachak 7 M.N. Talukedari 0.23 Talupulapalli 47 16 Jarud 6 Bargaon 0.06 Nagziri 31 17 Bargaon 5 Jarud 0.02 Bargaon 18 18 Nagziri 2 Nagziri 0.02 Jarud 11

6.3 Results of socio-economic assessment Farms are largest in communities of Amravati (Jarud), Sirsi (Gonsar, Koligar) and Chittoor (Bangarupalyam, Talupulapalli) and substantial smaller in Pusa and Malihabad communities. Income from fruit is highest in Chittoor (Polakala, Talupulapalli and Bangarupalyam) and Amravati (Jarud) which are commercial oriented fruit belts for mango and mandarins respectively. Also fruit incomes are substantial in Kasmandi Kalam and M.N. Talukedari in Malihabad. Fruit income is very small in Sirsi communities as farmers mostly have other major income sources. Household income is highest in Jarud, Polakala and Talapulapalli which are located in Amravati and Chittoor. Household incomes are small in Sirsi communities and Sarsanda in Malihabad. Wealth index shows that communities in Malihabad and Pusa have lowest asset base. Communities in Jarud, Koligar and Nagziri are relatively wealthy.

Table 60: Ranking of communities on key economic indicators # Landsize Acre Fruit income INR Household INR Wealth index Deviation income from the mean 1 Jarud 11.09 Polakala 213,945 Jarud 274,663 Sarsanda -77.60 2 Gonsar et al. 10.75 Talupulapalli 145,923 Polakala 233,945 Talupulapalli -49.95 3 Koligar et al. 8.08 Jarud 135,259 Talupulapalli 168,619 Polakala -39.19 4 Bangarupalyam 6.98 Bangarupalyam 133,311 Mahmada 166,991 Gopramau -29.21 5 Nagziri 6.52 M.N. Talukedari 84,295 Bangarupalyam 157,240 Murliyachak -24.23 6 Talupulapalli 6.26 Kasmandi Kalam 71,372 Kasmandi Kalam 126,987 Bangarupalyam -14.37 7 Bargaon 5.87 Gopramau 56,474 M.N. Talukedari 120,288 M.N. Talukedari -12.96 8 Polakala 5.84 Jagdishpur 36,374 Bargaon 102,812 Kasmandi Kalam -10.45 9 Mahmada 4.49 Murliyachak 35,196 Gopramau 100,407 Bargaon 2.07 10 Jagdishpur 4.05 Nagziri 33,568 Murliyachak 100,342 Jagdishpur 4.38 11 Kasmandi Kalam 4.05 Sarsanda 25,478 Jagdishpur 93,764 Kulibeedu et al. 8.85 12 Gopramau 3.91 Mahmada 12,238 Nagziri 88,557 Gonsar et al. 9.85 13 Kulibeedu et al. 3.89 Bargaon 9,928 Koligar et al. 69,924 Mahmada 24.62 14 M.N. Talukedari 3.15 Gonsar et al. 6,022 Gonsar et al. 53,824 Dhobgama 32.64 15 Kumta 3.08 Kulibeedu et al. 2,198 Sarsanda 49,772 Kumta 33.51 16 Murliyachak 2.56 Koligar et al. 1,050 Kumta 37,094 Nagziri 44.62 17 Dhobgama 2.16 Kumta 89 Kulibeedu et al. 28,881 Koligar et al. 64.17 18 Sarsanda 1.94 Dhobgama - Dhobgama - Jarud 82.32

7. Conclusions and recommendations

7.1 Major conclusions

The following research questions guided our baseline survey: • What is the initial level of tropical fruit tree diversity within our selected communities? - Which target species are available? What is the level of varietal or genetic diversity? What are the unique traits and characteristics of those species and varieties and how are they used?
In India a total of 3 genera were assessed and in total 13 species of Citrus (1 unknown), 3 species of Garcinia and 1 species of Mangifera were found in the project communities during baseline.
A total of 159 distinctly named varieties were identified within the species Mangifera indica and 4 distinctly named varieties within the species Citrus maxima. Besides two types of Garcinia indica were identified with red and white coloured frutis.
Unique traits of each variety are described and provided in chapter 4.2 and various distinct preferential traits and type of uses were identified for specific mango varieties or the Citrus and Garcinia species, which have several medicinal values attached to specific species.

• Which factors, i.e. drivers & threats, do influence diversity in-situ and on-farm? Why is the number of species or varieties increasing or decreasing? Which varieties are under threat?
Land use change for construction, replacement with most popular commercial varieties, lower yields of old trees in heritage orchards resulting in low incomes, lack of established value chains for processed products and the lack of value for traditional varieties in the market system with pre-harvest contractors and sales through ‘mandis’ without demand side information flowing back to farmers were recognized as major threats for diversity.
Cultural value of mango as a Indian heritage crops, home use, pride and inheritance of orchards from forefathers, adaptation and high survival of seedlings and landraces on marginal soils, raising interest in traditional varieties are the major drivers for diversity identified in the project sites.
All sites show a high dominance of just 2-5 commercial varieties and a long list of rare seedling types or farmer varieties as listed in the tables of chapter 4.2 are under threat of replacement. Awareness about the wealth of diversity and initial interest was mostly low in all sites, although diversity fairs are a common feature during the mango season throughout India. Interest in mango or fruit tree diversity is mostly limited towards its function as a source of income and food. Consultations confirmed that diversity is most probably decreasing fast last two decades although this could not be substantiated with quantitative data.

• What is the initial welfare and income situation of farm households and collectors? – How important are target species for their livelihoods? What are their main income sources? What are the assets of households? What are the key benefits of fruit diversity for farm households and collectors?
Traditional farming regions such as Pusa in Bihar, Malihabad in UP and Sirsi in Karnataka harbor most mango or citrus diversity, although a higher amount of diversity could be found in commercial oriented production belt such as Chittoor. A commercial citrus growing area such as Amravati where mandarin cultivation has only took root for 50-60 years shows substantial lower diversity levels. Level of diversity varied a lot across communities which were located close to eachother.
Income and wealth stutus varied across all communities and 5 sites. Target fruit tree diversity was found in poor communities such as Gopramau with high number of seedlings, but also within rich and more affluent communities such as Mahmeda in Pusa, Kasmandi Kalam in Malihabad and Gonsar and Koligar in Sirsi.

7.2 Conclusions and recommendations per site

Malihabad • Malihabad harbours wide range of mango diversity with over 46 distinct varieties identified, albeit a high dominance of dasheri in the region. • Seedlings have been crucial to be able to plant orchards on marginal soils in Gopramau and Sarsanda without proper irrigation facilities, as most grafted saplings did not survive here according farmers. • Very old highly mlti-varietal orchards can be found that trace back to the Nawabs and Pathans and were established out of a sence of pride among wealthy rulers and trading families. • Local diversity fairs could be strengthened to focus stronger on promoting diversity among consumers and the sales of unique varieties or derived products.

Pusa • Pusa harbours maybe most diversity. In Pusa in total 55 different traditional varieties of mango were identified during baseline in home gardens and orchards, of which Malda, Sipia, Sukul, Bathua, Bombay Green, Jarda and Kanchan are the most popular. • Mango diversity is very high in Mahmeda (50 varieties), one of the highest intra-specific diversity sites of the project. Besides high mango varietal diversity is found in Jagdishpur (24 varieties). • Unique diversity is found in mango seedling populations in very old orchards (36% of total population), unique varietal diversity with large populations is found in specific villages (Kanchan, Bhadaiya, Gola, Mithua) and citrus diversity in home gardens (especially seedling population of C. grandis and C. aurantifolia). • Mango or citrus is a minor income source for households in the four communities. In total 12- 18% of the households in Jagdishpur and Mahmeda ranked fruits as the most important livelihood activity and about 30% of income is derived from the sales of mango fruits in both communities. • Farmers seem to apply pesticides and chemical fertilizers profoundly in Jagdishpur, Mahmeda and Murliyachak. Data from Dhobgama is not available. • In general you see that majority of households opines that mango diversity is important source of income, food and other products such as timer. • The sales of fruits in Oct-Nov for chat puja are found as a unique practise which contributes to conserving many seed-grown fruit species in home gardens. • Key driver for maintaining old orchards is their capital/saving value in timber, home consumption and sales, leaves for fodder and adding to the beauty of the village and status of the family. • However the low productivity and high timber value of these old orchards which generate strong incentive to cut down the trees. Lack of time and available family members for home processing activities related to home garden crops.

Amravati • Citrus and mango diversity is low with high dominance of nagpur mandarin and orange which are the most important farm crops in this region next to cotton. • Unique diversity is found in acid lime (seed born; home consumption), mango (seed born; home consumption) and varieties with long fruiting season (swarna rehka and baramasi) and in rootstock material (rough lemon and rangpur lime) • Diversity is maintained by very few key farmers who experiment with intercropping mango, guava or teak in citrus orchards or that maintained mother plants of rough lemon on their farms. • Income level and welfare level is high, especially in Jarud and lower in Nagziri and Bargaon. • Citrus fruits are pre-dominantly sold through pre-harvest contractor resulting in little incentive by farmers to adhere to specific market demands. • Potential for introducing mango to diversify farm systems as farmers are burdened by green back and phytophtora. • Potential for introducing qualitative rootstock types to ensure improved quality of planting material.

Sirsi • Mango diversity, especially seedlings and Appemidi , besides Kare Ishadu is rich in Sirsi site. However, some of the special Appemidi types are very rare and need to be conserved. Organisation of associations of grafters for multiplying the rare types at community level s needed. • Bili Murugalu (White Garcinia) is a rare Garcinia species in the site and farmers are finding it difficult to conserve this as the success of grafting is very low. Expert grafters need to train the community in increasing the graft success rate. • Uppage and Kempu murugalu are collected from forests and due to unscientific harvesting methods (shaking of trees, harvesting of immature fruits, cutting branches of trees), the population of trees is coming down. Village forest committee need to look into these aspects. There is a need to have a policy to ensure harvesting of only ripe fruits and not unripe fruits of Uppage. • Drying of Uppage fruit rind coincides with peak rainy season and results in low quality rinds. Solar/Electric Dries at community level is a necessity. Village Forest Committee (VFC) can look into this. • Value addition to fruits is not at yet a reality and processing of Garcinia in to butter, candles, HCA and a forward linkage for these products will go a long way in improving the livelihood of collectors. Even pickling of Appemidi is confined to cottage industry level. Forward linkage is required.

Chittoor • The latest tendency to go for a single variety – Totapuri may lead to erosion of elite indigenous varieties. Hence efforts are needed to conserve these indigenous varieties. • Establishment of ‘Mango Diversity Parks’ in the communities of Chittoor site may increase the awareness about the diversity. The seedling diversity of desirable types (core collection) should be maintained in two replicates in two farmer’s fields thus enabling the community to conserve these desirable types and use them if necessary at a later date. The evaluation data of all the indigenous varieties shouldbe made available for the community so that varieties having desirable types can be further multiplied by the farmers. • Himam Pasand is a variety that has good market potential. However, current yield is very low and needs intervention in the form of better production practices. • Atimadhuram is produced in small quantities and is locally consumed. The variety is known for its taste and has market potential in local and Tamil Nadu region. As the name suggests, it is a very tasty variety and needs to be conserved. Intervention may be in the form of community nursery for increasing the number of plants in cultivation and for commercial exploitation. • Thorappadu is a variety which is grown in small number and marketing is a problem. Establishment of niche market for the fruits may be needed. • Chakkaraguttulu, a variety has a growing market and needs to be produced in large quantity. Community nursery for supply of planting material and linking the farmers to market for the products is required. • Manoranjitam has good shelf life and taste but has the problem of alternate bearing which needs some intervention in the form of production practices. • Several Naati (seedling types) varieties are grown in small numbers in several orchards and these varieties have good taste and varied uses resulting in conserving such material by the farmers. The Naati ones with small size and do not have uniform maturity, are used extensively for pickling. Evaluation and characterization of these varieties may throw some light on their specific traits like higher nutrient contents, skin colour, abiotic/biotic stress tolerance etc., which may be used in conservation. • The interventions for livelihood improvement through mango diversity should be based the production traits – agronomic and climatic suitability, extended harvesting period etc.; consumption traits – taste, colour, shelf life etc.; and processing traits – pulp making, pickle making, fresh mango drinks (panna) etc., Nursery for propagation of varieties like Atimadhuram, Manoranjitam, and Himam Pasand to be encouraged. Further, multivarietal grafts show potential livelihood option through demand for planting material from urban, peri- urban and leisure farming communities.

References

Anonymous (2008). "Project Document of Conservation and Sustainable Use of Cultivated and Wild Tropical Fruit Diversity: Promoting Sustainable Livelihoods, Food Security and Ecosystem Services."

Bhag Mal, V. R. R., R.K. Arora, Percy E. Sajise, B. R. Sthapit (2010). "Conservation and sustainable use of tropical fruit species diversity Bioversity’s efforts in Asia the Pacific and Oceania." Indian Journal for Plant Genetic Resources 24 (1): 1-22.

Brush, S. B. (1995). "In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity. : . ." Crop Science 35 : 346-354.

Paudel B, M. S. K., Rana R B, Shrestha A, Shrestha P, Basnet A, Adhikari A, Gurung A, Regmi B R and B Sthapit (2008). Findings of Baseline Survey on Socio-economic and Agricultural Biodiversity of Western Terai Landscape Project of Nepal. Pokhara, Nepal, Local initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD).

Yamaguchi F, A. T., Yoshimura Y, Nakazawa H (2000). "Antioxidative and anti-glycation activity of garcinol from Garcinia indica fruit rind." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 48 (2): 180-185.

Annex A: Short introduction of TFTGR project sites # of com Province or Site mun Target Agro-eco state location ities species system General Characteristics 1 Uttar Pradesh Malihabad 4 Mango Orchards Commercial oriented mango belt with high intra specific diversity and old orchards with seedling types, is the origin of the mango variety ‘deshaheri’ 2 Bihar Pusa 4 Mango, Orchards + Semi-Commercial with some old orchards with pummelo Home gardens seedling types, pummelo seedlings grown in home gardens for religious festival, potential to strengthen home gardening 3 Maharashtra Amravati 3 Citrus, mango Orchards Commercial oriented citrus belt with active farmer association and nurseries. Mango seedling types exist; Unique area as citrus trees flowers twice a year. 4 Karnataka Sirsi 4 Garcinia , Orchard, home Forested area including collection from wild to semi mango garden and commercial gardens; richness in pickle mango natural forests diversity; 3 garcinia species, potential for value addition interventions 5 Andhra Chittoor 3 Mango Orchards Commercial mango belt, orchards with varietal Pradesh diversity, good network of nurseries & fruit processing factories

Annex B: The project developed 14 impact indicators :

Related to objective: Improved livelihoods 1. At least 10% of farming families and users from 36 local communities (equal to 15,000 families) show a 10% increase in the income derived from tropical fruit trees associated with the adoption of good practices\ by the project by year 5. 2. 20% of the households in 36 local communities attest to increased consumption of tropical fruits through additions to their diets by year 5.

Related to intermediate objective: Genetic resources conserved in situ and on farm through improved capacities 3. Genetic and species diversity of target tropical fruit trees conserved on 30,000 hectares of the farmer fields and in 50,000 hectares in forest areas by year 5. 4. At least 30% of farmers and user groups in project sites (equivalent to 540 households) implement the set of good practices in the project sites in four project countries by year 4. 5. At least 10 representatives of user groups in each country trained in the development of environmental certification schemes to link decentralized management and community level planning with livelihood security and improved environmental management by the end of year 5 6. At least two departments of the Ministry of Agriculture and two departments of the Ministry of Forest/Environment include good practices that utilize tropical fruit tree genetic resources as part of their regular program in all four project countries by year 5

Related to outcome 1: Improved knowledge on value, use and management of TFTGR 7. 36 local communities contribute to the documentation and use of genetic diversity knowledge on the value of target tropical fruit genetic resources for improving food security and income generation by providing support and guidance to farmers and user groups by year 5. 8. 40 local and national agricultural development institutes use knowledge on the value of target tropical fruit tree genetic resources, including information on environmental certification, to assist in improving food security and income generation by providing support and guidance to farmers and user groups by year 4. 9. 20 national resources management and environmental protection institutes use knowledge obtained on the ecosystem services provided by tropical fruit tree genetic resources to support and provide incentives, including guidance on use of certification schemes, to local communities to sustainably use target species by year 4.

Related to outcome 2: Benefit for community through good practices 10. At least two policy recommendations per country for benefit sharing mechanisms of farmer communities and national programs are developed by year 5 and adoption of policy recommendations begin at least in one country

Related to outcome 3: Building capacities, leadership skills and partnerships of stakeholders on all levels (farmer, community, institution/region) 11. At least one male and one female member of each local community/institution participates in the national, provincial and district levels decision-making fora for planning and evaluation of the project activities by year 3 12. Eight national-level training programs established; four within a national agricultural educational institute and four within a forestry/environmental/natural resources educational institute, on the participatory assessment, conservation, valuation, certification schemes and enhanced use of tropical fruit tree resources by year 4 13. At least four local level education institutes in each countries have programs on using good practices to enhance the value of tropical fruit tree genetic resources by year 5 14. At least 80 multilevel stakeholders implement good practices developed outside their own country (in a partner country) in their own national program through a regional level consortium that provided collaborative training in implementing good practices and setting up certification schemes at a regional level by year 4.

Annex C: Logical Framework

Annex D: Implementation structure of baseline activities

PDF-B: Finalization of project design Impact framework

Expert consultation Selection of country focal points

Baseline design workshop (Nov 2009)

Focus Group Questionnaire Secondary data & Discussions (N= 2466 hh’s) key informant (n= 180) interviews

1. Four Cell Analysis Stratified Random Sampling (n = 36) ~ 10% (minimum 50 hh’s) 1.946 interviews from 14.345 hh’s

2. Venn Diagram (n = 36)

3. Community map India (5 sites) Indonesia (6 sites) Malaysia (6 sites) Thailand (5 sites) (n = 36)

4. Trait Scoring 18 Communities 6 Communities 6 Communities 6 Communities Diagram (n = 36) N = 910 hh’s N = 364 hh’s N = 240 hh’s N = 432 hh’s

5. Timeline histogram (n = 36) Control Control Control Control 13 villages 6 villages 6 villages 6 villages N = 207 hh’s N = 111 hh’s N = 72 hh’s N = 130 hh’s

Data entry & management in rough database in excel: - Focus group discussions - Questionnaire Data cleaning & Calculation of variables cross checking for analysis Data processing & analysis in derived database for analysis (Excel/SPSS): - diversity assessment - socio economic factors

Baseline report

Annex E Question list Four Cell Analysis 1 hour

When to use the tool: • To identify which varieties are found in the community and which varieties are unique, common and rare. • I helps to identify the amount and distribution of these varieties in terms of richness, evenness and divergence at community level. • It documents the key characteristics and reasons why crop species or varieties are in a certain dynamic stage, regarding their abundance and distribution within the community. • It further facilitates the identification of potential interventions for the conservation of a crop species or variety within a specific community.

Four Cell analysis (FCA) can be done on the ground preferably with real samples of the varieties/crops, or on a large piece of paper with cards. Do the Four Cell Analysis for the mandate crop (mangifera, citrus, nephelium or garcinia) of that community, including the inter- and intra-species diversity. Include all species and varieties found in the homegarden, orchards and collected from the forest.

Questions: 1. Which species and varieties are used in home gardens, orchards or are collected form the forest within your community? Facilitator: Write each variety name on a separate card. Try to get an exhaustive list and make sure the spelling is correct.

Draw a cross on the paper sheet; with many trees on the top, few trees on the bottom, few HH on the right and many HH on the left side.

Large area/many trees

A B

Many HH Few HH

C D

Small area/few trees

2. Which fruit varieties are grown in large areas or by large numbers by many households? 3. Which fruit varieties are grown in large areas or by large numbers by few households? 4. Which fruit varieties are grown in small areas or few trees by many households? 5. Which fruit varieties are grown in small areas or few trees by few households? Facilitator: Let the participants discuss and place the cards in one of the 4 cells. The difference between question 4 and 5 (cell C and D) is often difficult for participants, so provide sufficient time to explain and move varieties if necessary.

6. How many trees are found in total in the village for every variety? Provide an estimate of the total number of trees. This is used to calculate and estimate diversity richness on community level. Facilitator: Be sure they give estimates of total numbers of the whole village and not average per homegarden or household.

7. Ask for every variety, why it falls into that specific category? For example why variety A is found only in small numbers and used only by few households? Which traits, uses or reasons are responsible for this current status? Facilitator: The reasons like adaptive traits to specific conditions, socio-culturally or religiously valued traits, market preferred traits and productive traits are recorded after a group discussion for all fruit species on the card.

8. Which varieties are rare or unique and should be prioritized? Which potential interventions could be initiated to promote the use and conservation of these varieties? Facilitator: record and summarize the information in a diagram as given below.

This whole exercise, can be followed or preceded by a transect walk through the village visiting 4-5 homegardens for validation of findings. Analysis of the results achieved during former exercizes showed that there was a common pattern between land allocation and value of crop variety diversity, as shown in the table below.

Categories Many Households Few Households Large Area/many Crops grown for food Varieties with trees security or for the specific abiotic traits market* (adaptability to context)* Small Area/few Landraces cultivated Varieties with low trees for socio-cultural use value or specific (traditions, religious use values to rituals)* particular families*

Tips for implementation: • It is better to do this exercise seperetaly per genus (mangifera, citrus, garcinia, nephelium). • First write down the names of all varieties mentioned by participants on cards and then let the participants place the cards in the correct cel. • Make sure you covered inter (species level) and intra specific diversity (variety level) for the mandate crop of the site location. Differentiate if farmers recognise different types or variants of one variety (e.g. thick skin and thin skin) but no names exist. • A common variety in the village might be a rare variety outside the village and still be interesting to include as one of our project target varieties! • Follow this exercise by the Variety Preference Diagram discussing by scoring the uses, traits and characteristics of all species and varieties. • As this is one of the key exercises for our project repeat the exercise once with another group to validate and triangulate data on richness (varieties) and eveness (total number of trees). This could be done at the same time. • Ask what the cut-off point between many trees or few trees in a garden is; when is het many and when is it few? What is the cut-off point between few households and many households? • Make a photo of the sheet with all varieties per category

Baseline survey RECORDING FORMAT FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

Four Cell Analysis Date : Project Community name : Village name : Name(s) Facilitator(s) : No. of participants (see attendance list below) M: F: Total:

Fill in per variety the results of the four cell analysis Variety name Few or Few or Total Appointed reasons of Prioritized key many many number current status and varieties and HH’s trees of trees related traits various potential interventions or remarks 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Variety name Few or Few or Total Appointed reasons of Prioritized key many many number current status and varieties and HH’s trees of trees related traits various potential interventions or remarks 11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS:

Name Age Profession Village 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Annex F: Question list Community & Resource Mapping 1 hour

Maps are useful in depicting differentiated existing land-use patterns in the form of drawings, pictures, or images as reference data of the geographical locations. They can show the changes over time if replicated for different time periods. Participatory mapping is one of the most versatile tools in generating pictures or figures on any aspect of the physical reality. It can be used as documentation of mental maps and used to depict infrastructures, natural resources, land ownership, soil types, cropping pattern etc. For the purpose of a project it can draw the people’s vision and plans on how the project will be or how they want it to be. A map is very visual and can be used to turn complex concepts into simple images. People generally enjoy and respond to this method expressing their own perceptions through drawings.

Community and Resource Mapping helps: + to get a good description and insight of the project site locations + to collect additional data on households to prepare for questionnaire + to discuss certain topics like land use patterns, markets, income, eco-system services and fruit garden management + to have a clear start of project activities and helps to explain the project to participants.

Topics to cover: • Major landmarks and layout of the area by using roads, rivers, villages, hamlets, mountains, hills, important institutions etc. • Major farm crops and income activities • Number of households per farm type (home garden, orchard, forest) • Kind of varieties and species kept per farm type • To gain info on land management structures of communal orchards/forests • Market channels (distance to the major markets, importance, actors) • Identify major uses, values and eco-system services that are recognized • Identify fruit garden management practises (replacement and selection of plant material) • Major farm constraints & problems with fruits

Meta cards can be used as legenda in the corner of the map and symbols are drawn on the map to locate items. If requested or needed write information on the map or cards and apply ranking in importance.

Questions to ask to participants: 9. Can you draw a map of your village area including the following land marks: roads, rivers, village, hamlets, mountains, hills, important institutions (religious, school, government office or factory) or other clear land marks? Facilitator: Ask one person to draw a map on a large paper sheet. Help if necessary.

Livelihood and income: 10. Can you list the most important livelihood activities (that take most labour time, can be for income and consumption) of the households in the community and rank them from most important to least important (not more then 5)? Facilitator: Write each crop or activity on a card or on the sheet with a symbol and add them in a corner of the map as legenda. Ask participants to locate the areas where these crops (ducks, fruits, rice, vegetables, corn etc) are grown on the map by using the symbol.

11. What are the most important sources for income for the community households? Include non-farm activities like labour work or remittances if applicable. Rank them from most important to least important (not more then 5) Facilitator: Add new cards for non- farm activities to the legenda and give the most important source of income card number 1, the second source of income number 2 etc. Locate income activities on the map if possible by using a symbol.

Households: 12. How many households keep fruit trees in the village? Of these households how many have an home garden, how many have an orchard/ field with fruit trees; how many collect from natural or community forest? (Use number of households or percentage). If single species orchards exist, can you specify how many households have an orchard of this certain species? Facilitator: Add a card with this information to the legenda in corner of the map.

Home gardens, orchard and forest: 13. Which species and varieties are grown in the homegardens? Per location of the home gardens in the village show which target species and varieties are grown there? Facilitator: Add a card for home gardens with its symbol (e.g. triangle) and locate the home gardens on the map by drawing a triangle on the location. Write down inside the triangles on the map or on the card of homegarden which species and varieties are found per location. Use symbols if handier.

14. Where are all orchards or fields with fruit trees located on the map? Per location show which species and varieties are grown there? Which crops are grown/animals are kept together with the fruit trees in the orchard or field? Facilitator: Add a card for orchard with its symbol (e.g. square) and locate the orchards on the map by drawing a square. Draw inside the square on the map which target species and varieties are found per location. Mention the crops used for intercropping. Repeat this exercise for communal forest and natural forest. (e.g. use circle as symbol or draw trees).

15. If communal forest are available, how is the communal forest managed and used? Can you desribe and explain the regulations for harvesting and maintanance of the communal forest? Can you explain who are included and excluded for making use of the communal forest? Facilitator: Write down the information on a card or on the map.

Market channels: 16. What are the most important market channels that households in the community use? Rank them from most to least important (not more then 5). Facilitator: Make a separate card per market channel and add to the legenda in the corner. Give them a rank number.

17. Can they identify the location where the sales takes place per market channel?; i.e farm gate, village market, markets or place outside the village? Ask participants to draw arrows on the map to the locations and estimate the amount of hours it takes to bring the fruit to this location (one way)? Identify if it’s a wholesale market, retail market or collection point for cooperative, processor etc. Facilitator: Add the information to the card per market channel . Locate the markets or sales locations on the map if possible (use an arrow for its direction if outside the village) Add the distance in hours.

18. To whome do you sell your fruits? Can you identify to which kind of person or institution they sell the fruits; i.e. consumers, collecting trader, middle man/agent, pre-harvest contractor, wholesaler, retailer/shop, processor, exporter, cooperative. How many actors are active per sales location? Facilitator: Add the information to the card or map and estimate the number of actors that are available per location.

Eco-system services and socio-cultural uses and values: 19. The fruit trees in the home gardens, orchards and surrounding forests might provide more uses to the community then just food and income. Can you name and describe such other kind of uses; i.e firewood, construction wood, animal fodder, medicinal use, to make specific tools or as input for certain practises? Rank them in order of importance. Facilitator: See if they can come up with additional uses and values based on these examples. Note only clearly defined and described uses on a card or on the map and rank them in importance.

20. The fruit trees in the home gardens, orchards and surrounding forests might provide also social, cultural or religious values. Can you name and describe such social cultural or religious functions; i.e. use in specific religious ceremonies, use for special traditional dishes at special cultural occasions, are part of a sacred area or are trees with additional meaning as border or landmark? Rank them in order of importance. Facilitator: See if they can come up with additional uses and values based on these examples. Note only clearly defined and described values on a card or on the map and rank them in importance.

21. The fruit trees in the home gardens, orchards and surrounding forests might provide also other services to the natural environment or eco-system. Can you name and define such other kind of services? i.e. provide shade, protect against erosion, host specific birds, pollinators or predators, function as water purifier, contribute to the hydrologic cycle in the area, part of the nutrient recycling, source for genetic plant material etc. Rank them in order of importance. Facilitator: See if they can come up with additional services based on these examples. Note only clearly defined and described services on a card or on the map and rank them in importance.

Plant material and replacement: 22. From which sources do they get new plant material?; i.e. natural grow up, own fruit garden, other farmer in village, other farmer ouside the village, get from forest, nursery in the village, nursery outside the village or government institution? Appoint which ways are commonly used, rarely used or not used in the community? Facilitator: Draw a diagram with in the collumns common, rare and not used as shown below and let participants discuss all potential sources of planting material.

23. Which methods do households use for replacing trees; grow-up from seed, acquire saplings that are grafted, acquire saplings that are non-grafted, apply grafting themselves (shoot or bud), apply ground or air layering themselves? Appoint which methods are commonly used, rarely used or not used in the community? Facilitator: Draw a diagram as provided below with the options and let participants decide how often or how rarely methods are used within the community.

24. Do they use specific selection criteria for selecting saplings, rootstock or mother plants for grafting; if yes ask which ones? Facilitator: List if farmer use selection criteria commonly, rarely or not and list the major selection criteria.

Production or management constraints: 25. What are the major constraints and problems that you have in the production, management and plant material for your fruit gardens? Facilitator: List the major constraints on cards and rank them in order of importance and specify; i.e. which kind of diseases, quality of plant material or market problems exactly.

Baseline survey RECORDING FORMAT FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

Community & Resource Mapping Date : Project Community name : Village name : Name(s) Facilitator(s) : No. of participants (see attendance list below) M: F: Total:

Question Data Descriptive remarks 1 Make a photo of the map 2 Major crops 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 3 Major income 1. sources 2. 3. 4. 5. 4, Number of Total HH: 5, Households 6, HH with target fruit:

Home garden # of HH:

Species and varieties:

1. 2. 3.

Orchard # of HH: Intercropping:

Species and varieties:

1. 2. 3.

Collect from # of HH: communal or natural forest Species and varieties:

1. 2. 3.

7 Management communal forest

8, Rank the most used Location: Distance Actors: Num 9, sales channels in ber 10 order of importance. 1. 2. Describe location, 3. distance to village, 4. kind of actors + how 5. many actors 11 Additional Uses in order of importance 1. 2. 3.

12 Additional Socio- cultural or religious 1. values in order of 2. importance 3.

13 Additional eco- system services in 1. order of importance 2. 3.

17 Constraints in production, 1. management and 2. access to plant 3. material

Propagation, Plant Material and Replacement Mark with a √ how often sources, methods or selection criteria are used by members of the community.

Question Common Rare Not used

14 Source of plant material

Emerged from seed – wild growth

Own fruit garden

Other farmer inside village

Other farmer outside village

Forest

Nursery inside village

Nursery outside village

Government

Market/trader (purchase fruit)

15 Method of propagation

Natural from seed

Get saplings (grafted)

Get saplings (non-grafted)

Apply Grafting on farm

Apply ground or air layering (marcot) 16 Selection critera All farmers Some farmer None

Farmers use clear selection criteria?

Which criteria are commonly used 1. for selecting plant material? 2. 3. 4.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS:

Name Age Profession Village 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

Annex G: Question list Venn Diagram 20-30 minutes

In this method, data is collected on the different stakeholders that exist in the community. When to use the tool: • To Identify with the participants what are considered important internal and external stakeholders within and/or associated to the community. • To facilitate better understanding of the interactions of organisations by participants and support the division of responsibilities during planning based on the outcomes of the appraisal. • To inform what are the key stakeholders to be involved in community based activities or Multi Disciplinairy Site Teams (MDST).

26. Start the exercise by asking the participants to write down all organisations that play a role in the communities livelihood and social organisation and that are related to fruit trees. Next, ask participants which institutions are considered most important for the communities development and which are less important? Facilitator: Write down all stakeholders and institutions on separate cards. Add informal community structures and organisations. Use large round cards for important stakeholders that play a major role and small round cards for less important stakeholders that play a minor role.

27. Draw a big circle on a sheet of paper that represents the relationship with the village. Inside the circle is more close or positive related to the village. Outside the circle is more distant or negative related to the village. Place all institutions and organisations according there relationship status with the community in or outside the circle. Facilitator: Let the participanst place the cards inside or outside the circle. Give space for participants to agree and disagree. This may need considerable discussions.

28. Subsequently ask participants if relationships exist among the organizations and groups? Facilitator: Organise the institutions in such a way that related once are placed close to eachother or use arrows to link them.

Record the results in the following diagram: Stakeholder Role in fruit Relationship Location Descriptive remarks farming 1 … Big Close (+) Within village … 2 … Small Distant (-) Outside village … 3 … 4 … 5 … 6 … 7 … 8 … 9 …

Baseline survey RECORDING FORMAT FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

Venn Diagram Date : Project Community name : Village name : Name(s) Facilitator(s) : No. of participants (see attendance list below) M: F: Total:

Fill in per variety the results of the Venn diagram Stakeholder Role in fruit Relationship Location Descriptive remarks farming 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS:

Name Age Profession Village 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

……

...

Annex H: Question list Time Line Analysis 1 hour …

The time line helps the facilitator and participants (community) to ……… understand changes in the communities past. The exercise is visualised by depicting a vertical timeline on a large sheet of paper and … depict/draw important events as reference points over the last 50-100 years as far participants can remember. It is a useful tool to start a … participatory appraisal and put a diversity of issues in a historical context. In case of the TFTGR project, the TLA exercise will be used to elicit data on the changes in diversity, farm management, yields and income over time. Firstly asks the community to give some clear reference points in the communities history, important events that everybody recalls like the time of independene, construction of first road, introduction of electricity, time of turbulance etc.

Topics that will be discussed by Time line analysis: • History overview of the kind of varieties and species used over time o Identify lost species over time or that reduced in number of trees o Identify new varieties introduced over time or that increased in number of trees • History overview of the fruit farm practises over time o Introduction of certain technologies (inputs, tools etc) o Changes in the fruit farming system (spacing; management; sales) • Identify factors that have contributed or could have lead to change in fruit tree biodiversity by identify drivers and threats • Identify changes in the natural environment like pollinators, pests & diseases, predators, water catchment & retaining features, wild relatives and forest cover • History overview of farmer income (general and from fruits) over time and changes in production

Questions: 29. What is the oldest major event that you still can remember that happened in the village; i.e. independence war, major flood, construction of the asphalt road/school/irrigation dam? In which year did this happen? What is the second oldest major event that you still can remember that happened in the village; first electricity or television? In which year was that? What is the next major event that you still remember that happened? Etc. Facilitator: Write down these events next to the timeline and use these event as reference point for that year (see picture above). Make sure they are about evenly spread over the time line up to today. Do not use more then 5 or 6. Use these reference points to discuss when certain things happened; e.g. before or after the major event.

Diversity: 30. Which species or varieties were newly introduced to the village and can you still remember when they were introduced for the first time, use the reference point to determine the time period? Facilitator: Write down the name of the newly introduced varieties on seperate cards and place the card on the paper sheet in the correct period of introduction.

31. Which old species or varieties can you still remember that were used before and are now not existing anymore? What was the exact name of the variety and when did they get lost, use the reference point to determine the time period. What was its major use and characteristics? Facilitator: Write down the name of the lost varieties on seperate cards and its major uses and place the card in the correct period of extinction.

32. Which varieties have been always there in the village according the stories of your parents and grandparents? Facilitator: Write down the name of the varieties that has been always there, what are its major uses and place them on the top of the timeline.

33. Which varieties did reduce substantial in number of trees over time? Can you define in which period this happened? Which varieties did substantially increase in number of trees? Can you define in which period this happened? Facilitator; Write information on the sheet.

Drivers and threats: 34. Drivers: Ask per newly introduced variety why or how they got introduced? Ask which varieties substantially increased in numbers and which factors have contributed to that increase? Rank the major factors. Facilitator: Write down on the card or map how the variety got introduced and list the major varieties and factors/reasons why certain varieties increased in number over time.

35. Threats: Ask per lost variety why this variety got extinct and which factors have contributed to that? Ask which varieties substantially reduced in numbers and which factors have contributed to that reduction? Rank the major factors. Facilitator: Write down the reason of extinction or reduction on the card or paper sheet per time period including which factors have contributed to that reduction.

36. Which changes did you notice in the natural environment over time; like changes in climate, the abundance of pollinators, pests & diseases, predators, water catchment & retaining features, abundance of wild relatives and of forest cover Facilitator: Write down the changes percieved by community and place them on the sheet in the correct period when they took place.

Farm management and practises: 37. Which new technologies or management practises were introduced regarding fruit garden management in which period of time; i.e. introduction of irrigation, introduction in the use of chemical fertilizers, use of wrapping, introduction of certain pesticides, change in orchard structure like spacing or variety combinations? How were they introduced? Facilitator: Describe each introduced technology or new management practise on a separate card or on the sheet and place the information in the correct period when it was introduced.

38. Which good fruit garden management practises can you still remember that were used before but are now not used anymore? Use the reference point to determine the time period when they dissapeared? Can you say why they are not used anymore? Facilitator: Write down and describe the old technology or management practises on seperate cards and place the card on the paper sheet in the correct period when it dissapeared. Desribe the reason of dissapearance.

39. Which local good management practises that they still apply now regarding maintaining the field, propagation, harvesting or processing? Facilitator: Write down the good practises and use to refine Module F-3 in Questionnaire

Income and production: 40. Did income activities change over time in the community? Which new income activities were introduced over time or which income activities got marginalised? What was the average level of income per time period by using a symbol? Participants: Describe the major changes in income activities on a card and place them in the respective time period. Ask participants to determine per time period if income did increase, decrease or stayed stable compared with the period before and ask them to estimate the average level of income per period by appointing a certain amount of symbols per period. See example below.

41. Did fruit tree yield and production change over time in the community? Ask participants to determine per time period the average yield per tree and if it increased, decreased or was stable over time and to estimate average yield per tree per period. Ask why the yield changed in that period? Participants: Use symbols to show the increase or decrease by appointing a certain amount of symbols per period. See example below.

The data collected per topic can be consolidated in an historic graph as shown in the eample table below. Do this preferably together with the participants. To capture data for recording in excel use the table below: Period 1945-1960 1960-1980 1980-1990 1990-2002 2002-2010 Diversity ↓ ↑ − ↓ ↓

lost: variety A, B,C.D Introduced: variety Increase in number of Increase number of trees, lost variety I E,F,G trees of existing var lost: variety H Farm Small Stopped natural Developed larger Developed dense orchard, practises homegardens, pesticides, intro of more dense less space between trees used natural chem. fertilizer and orchards, less then before pesticide for fruit pesticide space between flies trees then before Drivers 1. Improved varieties 2. Community forest 3. Re-introduce introduced by program by government bee farming since government program 1960 by government program Threats 2. Need wood for 1. Can sell the wood for 5. Converted house construction housing construction and home garden in 4. Need of furniture vegetable crop firewood for 3. Not allowed to take garden for better cooking wood from natural forest, income so use mango trees from communal forest Natural Last natural forest Problems with Pollinators Increase in pests environment cut down on flooding and landslide reduced, difficult & diseases; fruit mountain hillside since cutting down pollination fly & antracnose with wild relatives. forest Average $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ real HH income

Yield and 20 kg per tree 50 kg per tree 50 kg per tree 50 kg per tree 60 kg per tree production Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ Ỏ

Baseline survey RECORDING FORMAT FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

Time Line Analysis Date : Project Community name : Village name : Name(s) Facilitator(s) : No. of participants (see attendance list below) M: F: Total:

Fill in the results from the time line analysis Question Data collected Descriptive Remarks 1 Varieties lost Time period: 1. 2. 3. 4.

2 Varieties reduced Time period: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

3 Varieties Time period: introduced 1. 2. 3. 4.

4 Varieties Time period: increased 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5 Good practises Time period: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6 Major Threats in Time period: order of 1. importance 2. 3. 4. 5.

7 Major drivers in Time period: order of 1. importance 2. 3. 4. 5.

8 Changes in Time period: natural 1. environment in 2. order of 3. importance 4. 5.

9 Changes over time in average real income

10 Changes over time in yield and production of target fruit trees

Annex I: Question list Variety Preferences Scoring Diagram 1 hour

This exercise should be done after the Four Cell Analysis by listing all varieties that are found in the community in the columns of a diagram as shown below. Use the results listed here to complete and refine Module E-2 of the Questionnaire.

Questions: 42. Start the exercise by asking why farmers like to grow specifically Variety 1? Facilitator: Farmers will tell you the reason, write down this answer in the first row of the diagram as trait 1. Ask for another reason why they grow variety 1? If all reasons for Variety 1 are exhausted continue with Variety 2 by adding new traits or characteristics to the list. Continue so until participants are exhausted with reasons or traits for all varieties. Try to find a positive reason for every variety listed.

Score Diagram: Variety 1 Variety 2 Variety 3 Variety 4 Trait 1 5 5 1 3 Trait 2 4 3 5 1 Trait 3 2 5 1 … … Use 1 Use 2 Fruiting season June, July July, Aug April, May June, July Origin Type Wild Modern Local …

43. Can you give a score to every variety individually for a certain trait? Facilitator: Do not ask participants to rank varieties from best, 2 nd best, 3 rd best to worst. Several varieties can get the same score. Use a scale from 1 to 5 to appoint scores for the performance of varieties per trait, where; • 1 represents very bad performance, • 2 represents bad performance, • 3 represents indifference (not good not bad), • 4 represents good performance and • 5 represents very good performance for that specific trait.

44. Can you say which month the varieties are fruiting? Idenfity what the early, normal and late season varieties are? List which varieties are wild (not deliberately planted), which are modern (introduced to the area) and local (originate from the area)? Facilitator: Add a row with harvest timing and variety type (modern, wild, local) and fill-in for the different varieties.

45. Can you say what are the major uses per variety and which parts? i.e. Fruit, leaves or skin for fresh consumption, dried consumption, pickle, jam/jellies, juice/pulp, dyes/ oils, food ingredient/ flavor or others Facilitator: Add a row with uses and describe per variety the major uses and which parts are used.

Tips for implementation: • Rare varieties often do not have obvious positive traits, but try to dig these up and include them in the trait list. • It is often easier to fill in first the varieties that score 5. Then ask for varieties that score 1. Then ask the variaties that are indifferent (score 3). At last, discuss the varieties that should score 2 or 4. Otherwise just use 3 categories.

Baseline survey RECORDING FORMAT FOR FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION

Trait Scoring Diagram Date : Project Community name : Village name : Name(s) Facilitator(s) : No. of participants (see attendance list below) M: F: Total:

Fill in per variety the results of the trait scoring diagram Trait A B C D E F

Variety 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Fill in per variety the results of the trait scoring diagram Use A B C D Fruit Type Season (wild, Variety (Jan – Dec) modern, local) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS:

Name Age Profession Village 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

ANNEX J: STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL HH Questionnaire ID code:

TFTGR-project Baseline Questionnaire

HOUSEHOLD QUESTIONNAIRE for fruit farmers and collectors

TABLE OF CONTENTS

MODULE A: SURVEY INFORMATION 107 MODULE A-1: IDENTIFICATION 107 MODULE A-2: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 107 MODULE A-3: HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION: 108 MODULE B: FRUIT DIVERSITY ON FARM 109 MODULE B-1: HOME GARDEN 110 MODULE B-2: ORCHARDS AND FIELDS 111 MODULE B-3: COLLECTION FROM FOREST 112 MODULE C: FARM HOUSEHOLD 113 MODULE C-1: FARM PRODUCTION SYSTEM 113 MODULE C-2: WELFARE INDICATORS 114 MODULE D: COSTS AND INCOME 115 MODULE D-1: DIRECT COSTS OF FRUIT TREES 115 MODULE D-2: FRESH FRUIT SALES AND INCOME PER VARIETY 116 MODULE D-3: FRUIT PROCESSING 117 MODULE D-4: ADDITIONAL INCOME FROM SIDE PRODUCTS 117 MODULE D-5: OTHER NON-FRUIT FARM INCOME 118 MODULE D-6: NON-FARM INCOME ACTIVITIES 119 MODULE E: PERCEPTIONS 120 MODULE E-1: DIVERSITY PERSPECTIVE AND FRUIT TREE VALUE 120 MODULE E-2: TRAITS AND CHARACTERISTICS 121 MODULE F: FRUIT GARDEN MANAGEMENT 122 MODULE F-1: HISTORY 122 MODULE F-2: CURRENT DRIVERS AND THREATS 1 MODULE F-3: GOOD PRACTISES 1 MODULE G: SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT 3 MODULE G-1: MARKETS AND ASSISTANCE 3 MODULE G-2: SOCIAL NETWORKS 4 MODULE G-3: FRUIT FARMING CONSTRAINTS AND SOLUTIONS 5

Remarks 10 :

MODULE A: SURVEY INFORMATION

MODULE A-1: IDENTIFICATION 2. Date of interview: (dd/mm/yy)

3. Name of Surveyor:

4. Country o 1. India o 2. Indonesia o 3. Malaysia o 4. Thailand 5. Date of data entry: (dd/mm/yy)

Geographical Positioning System Coordinates of household dwelling location (Use decimal system for longitude and latitude e.g. Longitude 36,453923. Latitude below the equator is minus e.g. Latitude – 48,209458) 6. Longitude (degrees): , 7. Latitude (degrees): , 8. Altitude (metre):

MODULE A-2: HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 1. Name of the head of household 2. Name of respondent

Location of household 3. Address:

4. Project Community:

5. Project Site:

6. Respondent’s or HH’s contact phone number 7. Current or former status and o 1. Kepala desa or member village council functions of Head of household o 2. Higher level staff government organisation within community? o 3. Board member or advisor community organisation/group o 4. Part of management of community organisations/groups o 5. Former or current government employee/staff o 6. Entrepreneurial leader, teacher or doctor o 7. Head or leader of farm group o 8. Religious/medicinal/cultural/social advisor or expert o 9. No special status or function o 10. Other…

10 Regarding coding; use ‘–‘/ code 99 for not applicable and ‘?’ / 98 when farmers doesn’t know answer, does not want to answer or when answer is probably not valid. MODULE A-3: HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION: Please provide the names of all people that are considered as part of this household. Household means the people that sleep and share their food together under the same roof and that contribute or are dependent of the households livelihood activities. Include also household members that are currently absent for school, army or migrant labour. Servants or staffs are not considered as part of the household, just as visiting guests or new family members staying less then 4 months during the last year. Dependent household members are a) elderly or disabled people that are above working age or that are not involved in economic activities (but may assist in household chores) and b) children below 14 years old or that are in school and cannot contribute to livelihood activities. Make sure that the person identified as decision maker will answer the modules related to their topic, by writing the person ID code above the module. 0. 1. Household composition by 2. Sex 3. Age 4. Level of education 5. Is the person able to 6. Which person is the relationship to the head of household: contribute to livelihood decision maker for the Pers 1. Male If less than 1. Illiterate activities or is dependent on following activities? on 1. Head 2. Female one year, 2. Primary/ Elementary School other members of the HH? 2. Spouse write ‘0’ 3. Middle School Include absent members! 0. Not decision maker ID 3. Son/ daughter 4. High School/Secondary School 1. agriculture 4. Spouse of son/ daughter 5. College/ Under graduate 1. Dependent 2. fruit gardens CO 5. Grandchild 6. Post graduate 2. Contribute to livelihoods 3. sales of fruits DE 6. Father/ mother 7. Vocational/professional school 4. fruit processing activities 7. Brother/ sister 8. Informal schooling 8. Father-/ mother-in-law 9. Brother-/ sister-in-law 10. Other Code # # Code Code Code 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12

MODULE B: FRUIT DIVERSITY ON FARM Please draw a map of your home garden and fruit gardens. How many different varieties do you have of the target species mangifera, citrus, nephelium and garcinia in the gardens? Please locate them on the map by using signs and numbers: 1. How many fields with fruits does he/she have? (home garden and orchards/fields). Draw and discuss each field separate. 2. Which species are grown per field? Which varieties? List varieties per species. Ask for all mangifera, citrus, nephelium and garcinia! 3. Locate the trees in the field on the map, count and ask how many trees per variety? 4. How old are the trees per variety and field? 5. Ask which other crops or non-target fruits are grown in the same field. Only ask species names! 6. What is the size of the field? Fill-in the information in the table of module B-1 and continue with question 5.

MODULE B-1: HOME GARDEN ID 1. Name of species 2. (Local) name of 3. No. of 4. 5. From whom did you 6. From where did you get 7. How were the trees of 8. Which part of the 9. How is this variety vari Variety trees Average get the saplings or seeds? these saplings or seeds? this variety propagated? tree is used by the used by HH? ety age of HH for home these 1. Forest – self collected 1. My village 1. Grown- up naturally consumption or 1. Fresh trees 2. Own garden 2. Sub-district from seed sales? 2. Dried (years) 3. Nursery 3. District / Division 2. By planting seed 3. Pickle 4. Trader 4. State 3. By layering/ marcot 1. Fruit 4. Jam/jellies 5. Research institution 5. Country 4. By grafting 2. Leaves 5. Juice/pulp or government person 6. Don’t know 5. Don’t know, too long 3. Wood 6. Dyes/ oils 6. Other farmer time ago 4. Skin of the fruit 7. Food ingredient/ 7. Don’t remember 5. Pits spice/flavor 8. Other 6. Other, ….. 8. Other, specify ...

be complete, more be complete, more options possible! options possible! Text Text # # code code code code Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

MODULE B-2: ORCHARDS AND FIELDS ID 1. Name of species 2. (Local) name of 3. No. of 4. Average 5. From whom did you 6. From where 7. How were the trees 8. Which part of the tree 9. How is this variety used vari Variety trees age of these get the saplings or seeds? did you get these of this variety is used by the HH for by HH? ety trees saplings or seeds? propagated? home consumption or (years) 1. Forest – self sales? 1. Fresh collected 1. My village 1. Grown- up 2. Dried 2. Own garden 2. Sub-district naturally from seed 1. Fruit 3. Pickle 3. Nursery 3. District / 2. By planting seed 2. Leaves 4. Jam/jellies 4. Trader Division 3. By layering/ 3. Wood 5. Juice/pulp 5. Research institution 4. State marcot 4. Skin of the fruit 6. Dyes/ oils or government person 5. Country 4. By grafting 5. Pits/kernel 7. Food ingredient/ 6. Other farmer 6. Don’t know 5. Don’t know, too 6. Other, ….. spice/flavor 7. Don’t remember long time ago 8. Other, specify ... 8. Other be complete, more options possible! be complete, more options possible! Text Text # # code code code code code 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

MODULE B-3: COLLECTION FROM FOREST 1. Name of species 2. (Local) Name of variety 3. What is the name of 4. What is the status 5. What is the 6. Estimate 7. What is 8. Which part of the 9. How is this variety the area/forest where of the forested land abundance in the number the distance tree is used by the HH used by HH? they collect? where they collect? number of of individual to your for home consumption trees of this trees from farmhouse? and sales? 1. Fresh 1. Unprotected area variety or which fruits (in hours 2. Dried 2. Buffer zone species in the are collected walking) 1. Fruit 3. Pickle ID 3. Protected area forest? during the 2. Leaves 4. Jam/jellies Var 4. Communal land 1. Rare last 12 3. Wood 5. Juice/pulp iety 5. Sacred groves 2. Frequent months? 4. Skin of the fruit 6. Dyes/ oils

6. Not known 3. Abundant 5. Pits/kernel 7. Food ingredient/ 7. Other, 6. Other, ….. spice/flavor specify…………… 8. Other, specify ... ……. be complete, more be complete, more options possible! options possible! Text Text Text code code # hours code code

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45

MODULE C: FARM HOUSEHOLD

MODULE C-1: FARM PRODUCTION SYSTEM 1. Total Farm size is o 1. Hectare o 2. Rai o 3. Acre o 4. Borong o 5. Other … 2. Size Home garden o 1. Hectare o 2. Rai o 3. Acre o 4. Borong o 5. Other … 3. Total size fruit gardens/land with fruit trees o 1. Hectare o 2. Rai o 3. Acre o 4. Borong o 5. Other … 4. Farm area cultivated for other crops without fruit o 1. Hectare o 2. Rai trees o 3. Acre o 4. Borong o 5. Other …. 5. Do you rent or rent out land? o 0. No (Go to Q8) o 1. I rent land for farming from somebody else o 2. I rent out my own land to other farmers 6. What is the current rent price you have to pay for your land with fruit trees? (In local currency per unit as mentioned above) 7. What would be the current estimated sales price of your agricultural land with fruit trees? (in local currency per unit as mentioned above) 8. Can you rank which farm crops or livelihood 1. activities are the most important for your Household 2. as source of income or source of food? Include also non-farm or off-farm income or livelihood activities. 3. Start with the crop or activity that is most important 4. for your household and end with the activity or crop 5. that is least important during the last 12 months. 9. How much time do you and your household members spend on your fruit trees and derived products of the total labour time your household has Percent available for livelihood activities? Use percentage 11 .

10. Of your last year total income, how much income was derived from target fruit trees? Estimate the share of income from fruit trees in total income by Percent percentage.

11. What is the quality of your agricultural land used o 1. Good, for fruit trees relative to the other land in the village o 2. Better than average and surrounding area? o 3. Average (To justify ask; if there is anybody with better o 4. Poorer than average quality land in the area then the farmer? ) o 5. Much poorer than average 12. Do you hire labour outside household for farm o 0. No activities? o 1. Yes full time o 2. Yes Seasonal

11 Often cannot ask this at once; you need to ask some questions on how they divide their time over the fields and which crops require most attention per field

13 Do you use intercropping in your home garden o 0. No or orchard? o 1. Yes, last 12 months o 2. Yes, before when trees where still small 14. If yes, which crops do you use for intercropping?

MODULE C-2: WELFARE INDICATORS Please review the options per questions or indicators so they can differentiate most best the level of welfare of households (poor to rich) and measure a potential change after the project ends. 1. What is the type of housing your household is o 1. Long house living in? o 2.Timber house o 3. Partly cemented o 4. Stone or brick house o 5. Improved brick house o 6. other (specify) 2. What is the dwelling tenure? o 1. Owned o 4. Shared o 2. Government o 5. Other o 3. Rented 3. What is the farm land tenure o 1. Owned o 4. Shared o 2. Government o 5. Other o 3. Rented 4. Do you have a boat? o 0. No o 1. Yes 5. Do you own a motorboat? o 0. No o 1. Yes 6. Do you own a motorbike? o 0. No o 1. Yes 7. Do you have a car? o 0. No o 1. Yes 8. Does your HH own household appliances? o 0. No o 1. Yes o 2. Radio o 3. TV set o 4. Mobile or telephone o 5. Refrigerator o 6. Air-conditioner 9. Do you own livestock? o 0. No Number of o 1. Yes livestock o 2. Cows o 3. Sheep o 4. Goats o 5. Pigs o 6. Poultry o 7. Fish o 8. Other …

10. Do you own capital goods or o 0. No o 1. Yes Used for target fruit trees? larger agricultural equipment or o 2. Bush cutters o 0. No o 1. Yes tools? If no, continue to next o 3. Hand tractor o 0. No o 1. Yes module o 4. Genset/pump o 0. No o 1. Yes o 5. Thresher o 0. No o 1. Yes o 6. Tractor o 0. No o 1. Yes o 7. Machinery for cultivation o 0. No o 1. Yes o 8. Other (Specify): … o 0. No o 1. Yes

MODULE D: COSTS AND INCOME

MODULE D-1: DIRECT COSTS OF FRUIT TREES How much time did your household spend on the target fruit trees in the home garden and orchard during last year? How much were your expenditures on materials and labour inputs for your target fruit trees last year? Include all direct costs made and fill-in per activity: • Ask how many household members spend time on the fruit gardens and how much time they spend per activity (write one hour as 1/8 day, two hours as 1/4 day or 4 hours as 1/2 days) • To re-call the exact material costs made per activity ask which materials were used, what quantity was used and the price per unit • To re-call the costs made on hired labour ask for the number of people hired, the number of days they worked and the salary paid • Fill-in the total costs made based on answers given before and check with the respondent if this is correct.

ID 1. Activity during 12 months: Own labour time Direct inputs Hired labour costs 14. Total Direct Costs of labour 2. # 3. # of 4. Gender 5. Inputs 6. Unit of 7. 8. Price 9. Costs of 10. # 11. # 12. Salary 13. Total and materials people days 1. Male Quantity measureme Number per unit? direct inputs? of of paid per labour costs (calculated by 2. Female used? nt of times people days person per enumerator) 3. Both applied? day Local Local # # code # # Local currency Local currency currency currency Cleaning of the orchard/ pruning 1 of trees 2 Chemical Fertilization (leaf/soil) Irrigation (pump hire, costs of 3 water, electricity, fuel for pump) Weeding/ herbicides/ harrowing/ 4 seedbed maintenance Apply i nsecticides / 5 fungicides/hormones Guarding of the field/ wrapping 6 of fruits 7 Harvesting of fruits Apply organic fertilizer, manure 8 or compost 9

10 TOTAL

MODULE D-2: FRESH FRUIT SALES AND INCOME PER VARIETY Income (gross profit) is the total revenue received minus the direct costs made over the period of one year. Revenue is the quantity that is sold plus the quantity consumed by the household times the most regular paid price of last year. Fill-in per fruit species and variety how much was a) consumed, how much was b) sold for earning income. 1. Species and variety code 2. Total yield 3. Unit of 4. Home 5. Sold Which price did you receive for 9. Unit of 10. Revenue 11. Expenditures 12. Income received name per variety measurement consumpt (%) this species during the last 12 measurement received during made related to during last year? obtained from ion (%) months? last year? sales all trees over (to be calculated by the last 12 (transport, enumerator) months? packaging/boxes, fees)

Local currency 6. 7. Most 8. Name % % Local currency Local currency Local currency lowest frequent highest 1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 TOTAL

MODULE D-3: FRUIT PROCESSING Fill-in here the income derived from fruit processing activities or the sales of additional products derived from fruit trees. Fill in also if processed products or by-products are only used for home consumption. Use for each side product or processed product a separate row. 1. Species and variety name 2. Processed into: 3. Total 4. Unit of 5. Home 6. 7. Price received 8. Revenue 9. Expenditures 10. Income production during Measurement consumpti Sold(%) for the products received during made on inputs, received during 1. Dried fruit last 12 months? on (%) during last 12 last 12 months related to sales or last 12 months 2. Pickle months? by hiring labour 3. Jam/ jellies for this activity (to be calculated 4. Juice/pulp during last 12 by enumerator) 5. Dyes/ oils months? 6. Food ingredient/ flavor 7. Other ……

Name Code % % Local currency Local currency Local currency Local currency

TOTAL

MODULE D-4: ADDITIONAL USES/INCOME FROM BY-PRODUCTS 1. Species and variety name 2. By-products: 3. Total 4. Unit of 5. Home 6. 7. Price received 8. Revenue 9. Expenditures 10. Income production during Measurement consumpti Sold(%) for the products received during made on inputs, received during 1. Timber last 12 months? on (%) during last 12 last 12 months related to sales or last 12 months 2. Firewood months? by hiring labour 3. Flower for this activity (to be calculated 4. Leaves during last 12 by enumerator) 5. Other side months? product … Name Code % % Local currency Local currency Local currency Local currency

TOTAL

MODULE D-5: INCOME FROM LIVESTOCK AND OTHER CROPS 1. Which crops other than target fruits did your household cultivate during the last 12 months? Include income derived from livestock or other non-target fruit trees. 1. Crop name (include crops, 2. Yield Use 5. Price 6. Revenue Direct costs (inputs like seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, other materials, 11. Income livestock and other non- derived over hired equipment and hired labour)? (revenue – direct target fruit crops) the last 12 costs) 3. 4. Sales month? 7. Quantity 8. Price 9. Material costs 10. Labour costs Home (to be calculated by consum enumerator) ption Local Local currency Local Text % % Local currency Local currency Local currency ... currency ... currency 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL

MODULE D-6: NON-FARM INCOME ACTIVITIES For all income activities of household members that provided income besides crop farming and fruit trees. ID 1. Other income activities 2 Income received during the last 12 months? Local currency 1 Casual wage labour (farm and non- farm like construction industry) 2 Long-term agricultural employee at other farm 3 Salaried employment at company or government 4 Business, trade, manufacturing other then fruit 5 Collection / foraging (other plants then fruit trees like medicinal plants) 6 Remittances from absent members

7 Income from memberships (cooperatives, groups etc) 8 Renting out capital (truck, water pump, tractor, draught power, car or machinery etc) 9 Pension

10 ...

11 TOTAL

MODULE E: PERCEPTIONS

MODULE E-1: DIVERSITY PERSPECTIVE AND FRUIT TREE VALUE Please what do you think of the following propositions? 1. I do not want to grow many different kind of fruit o 1. Strongly agree species and varieties, I want to grow many trees of one o 2. Agree specific fruit variety o 3. Neutral o 4. Disagree o 5. Strongly disagree o 6. Don’t know 2. Maintaining and using many different kind of o 1. Strongly agree fruit species and varieties on my farm improves o 2. Agree and strengthen my household income and welfare o 3. Neutral o situation. 4. Disagree o 5. Strongly disagree o 6. Don’t know

Why do you maintain these target fruit trees in your 1. Very 2. Little 3. Not home garden, orchard/field or nearby forest? Which important/ important/some important/ not reasons are important for you to maintain these target highly relevant relevance relevant (mangifera, garcinia, nephelium or citrus) fruit trees? 3. Target fruit trees are a source of income o o o

4. Fruit trees are a source of tasty food and nutrition of o o o my family 5. Fruit trees are a source of medicinal products and o o o healthy fruits that maintain good health of my family 6. Fruit trees are a source of additional products like o o o firewood, timber or leaves for animal fodder 7. Fruit trees are a source for natural services like o o o providing shadow, lower temperature on my farm, help to protect for soil erosion, help to retain water and reduce fast run-off of water, harbour useful predators for crop pests & diseases, harbour pollinators or help to maintain organic matter and soil conditions 8. Fruit trees have special cultural or religious meaning o o o for my family and my village as they are located on a sacred location or its fruits or products are used for special ceremonies and celebrations 9. Fruit trees are contributing to the beauty of my o o o village and this area.

Ask if the following strategies are important or relevant for the farmer? 10. Keeping many different varieties and species o 1. Very important and relevant for me reduces the yield risks I face from natural hazards o 2. Little important and relevant for me and pests & diseases as I can include resistant o 3. Not important and relevant for me o varieties. 4. Don’t know

11. Keeping many different species gives me o 1. Very important and relevant for me income security during the whole year as o 2. Little important and relevant for me harvest will be spread over de year and o 3. Not important and relevant for me o provides me every season with some income. 4. Don’t know

12. Keeping many different varieties reduces the o 1. Very important and relevant for me price risks I face like low prices during the gut o 2. Little important and relevant for me season as I can combine early and late varieties or o 3. Not important and relevant for me o include varieties that will be less affected by price 4. Don’t know fluctuations.

MODULE E-2: TRAITS AND CHARACTERISTICS Which traits and characteristics do you value most and are most important for you when choosing to select and plant a new variety? List all the traits that came forwards from the FGD trait-scoring diagram in the table below. If the farmer come up with other important traits add them to the list. Ask the farmer to rank them in order of importance. Start with 1 as most important, 2 second most important etc. Traits & Characteristics Rank number A High yield B. Pest & disease resistant C. Well adapted to local soil and climate conditions D. Good market value - higher price level then other varieties E. Low operational costs – easy to cultivate F. Good taste and preferred by consumers G. Long life cycle of the trees H. Benefits for the environment I. Good storability – variety has long shelf life J. Many benefits for the household – health and medicinal use K. Early bearer – early first harvest L. Tree functions as a saving and investment for later M. Other…

MODULE F: FRUIT GARDEN MANAGEMENT

MODULE F-1: HISTORY Did you cut down or replace any fruit trees in your home garden or orchard over the last 10 years? If yes, start at column 1. ID 1. Name variety: Can you give 2. When 3. Number 4. Average 5. The variety was r eplaced with 6. What were your reasons for cutting down the old me the names of the species and cut down? of trees age of which variety or crop? variety? (more options possible) variety that you have cut down that were these trees during the last 10 years? cut down? that were o 1. Older trees with lower productivity cut down? o 2. Attack by pests & diseases o 3. Adverse local soil & climate conditions o 4. Low market prices o 5. High operational and maintenance costs o 6. Change in household & consumer preferences o 7. No time due other activities o 8. Change to other more profitable crop o 9. Can sell or rent out the land for other use/crop o 10. Use land for other purpose e.g. house construction o 11. I needed the wood for construction o 12. I was in need of money so sell the wood or land o 13 Change to other more profitable variety o 14. Other, specify ... ID/text year # years ID/text Code 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

MODULE F-2: CURRENT DRIVERS AND THREATS 1. Do you consider cutting down some of your o 0. No (continue to question 4) fruit trees? o 1. Yes 2. If yes, which variety or species would you like to cut down? (write down name of variety or ID code of variety ) 3. Why? ( More than one answer is possible). o 1. Older trees with lower productivity o 2. Attack by pests & diseases o 3. Adverse local soil & climate conditions o 4. Low market prices o 5. High operational and maintenance costs o 6. Change in household & consumer preferences o 7. No time due other activities o 8. Change to other more profitable crop o 9. Can sell or rent out the land for other use/crop o 10. Use land for other purpose e.g. house construction o 11. I needed the wood for construction o 12. I was in need of money so sell the wood or land o 13 Change to other more profitable variety o 14. Other, specify ... 4. Do you have land or space available to plant o 0. No more fruit trees? o 1. Yes 5. Do you consider enlarging the number of o 0. No fruit trees that you have by planting more fruit o 1. Yes trees? 6. Which variety or species would you like to plant? (name of variety or species) 7. If yes, why? ( More than one answer is o 1. Higher yield then others possible). o 2. Pest & disease resistant o 3. Well adapted to local soil and climate conditions o 4. Good market value – higher price level then others o 5. Low operational costs – easy to cultivate o 6. Positive consumer preferences - good taste o 7. Long shelf life – easy to transport o 8. Other, specify …

MODULE F-3: GOOD PRACTISES Which farm practises does the farm household apply in their fruit gardens? Develop some general good practises for fruit trees and some specific for the 4 target species (mangifera, citrus, nephelium and garcinia). Select few common good practises to be able to evaluate performance of farmers. Try to include some farmer induced good practises that are based on local and traditional knowledge that you were able to pick up from the focus group discussions and field visits. Ask and include only for the mandate crop of the respective community. Please check the boxes for the practises that the farmer actively apply. Good practises applied on citrus Apply Not apply Cultivation practises: o o A. Wrapping of fruits with bags against fruit flies during fruiting season o o B. Apply compost in combination with NPK and urea twice during growth o o season just after fruit setting and just after harvest (example) C. Add earth on the seedbed to cover the trunk to delay ripening of citrus o o sinensis fruits with maximum one month when prices are low (example)

D. Use irrigation by hand, channels or tubes during last 12 months o o E. Clean and sanitize the field from weeds, dropped fruits and branches o o F. Use active pest control by using natural or chemical pesticides o o Diversity management: o o G. Have more then one variety in my garden to reduce the dependency on o o just one variety and lengthen the harvest period. H. Maintain the older trees in my garden by pruning and cutting back o o branches to increase exposure to sunlight I. Apply rejuvenation – pruning and grafting of new scions on older trees o o Marketing & product development: o o J. Make juice out of the citrus fruits for home consumption or sales o o K. Make candies out of the pummelo fruit skin for home consumption or o o sales Community organisation: o o L. Member of a farmer group to help and learn from each other o o M. Organise and manage water supply and irrigation together with other o o farmers N. Member of a group to organise the sales and marketing of fruits o o together O. Member of a group that organise the joint processing of fruits into o o products

Good practises applied on mangifera Apply Not apply Cultivation practises: o o A. Wrapping of fruits with bags against fruit flies during fruiting season o o B. Apply compost in combination with NPK and urea twice during growth o o season just after fruit setting and just after harvest (example) C. Use irrigation by hand, channels or tubes during last 12 months o o D. Clean and sanitize the field from weeds, dropped fruits and branches o o E. Use active pest control by using natural or chemical pesticides o o Diversity management: o o F. Have more then one variety in my garden to reduce the dependency on o o just one variety and lengthen the harvest period. G. Maintain the older trees in my garden by pruning and cutting back o o branches to increase exposure to sunlight H. Apply rejuvenation – pruning and gr afting of new scions on older trees o o Marketing & product development: o o I. Make dodol (candy) out of the mango fruits for home consumption or o o sales J. Make dried fruits – preservation of fruits by sun drying or fuelled driers o o K. Make puree out of fruits as ingredient for juice or beverages o o Community organisation: o o L. Member of a farmer group to help and learn from each other o o M. Organise and manage water supply and irrigation together with other o o farmers N. Member of a group to organise the sales and marketing of fruits o o together O. Member of a group that organise the joint processing of fruits into o o products

2

MODULE G: SOCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENT

MODULE G-1: MARKETS AND ASSISTANCE Can you rank the most important market channels you make use of in order of importance? 1. 2. Describe market/ 3. Actor 4. Location Rank channel 1. Pre-harvest contractor 1. Farm gate 2. Agent/middleman 2. Village retail market 3. Merchant/ trader 3. Sub-district market 4. Retailer 4. District market 5. Cooperative 5. Collection point of 6. Exporter cooperative/ processor/ 7. Consumers (direct sale) exporter 8. Processor 6. Street side 9. Other …. 7. Other 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

5. Regarding sales; How many different actors or o 1. Just one options do you make use of to sell your fruits or o 2. Few derived products ? o 3. Many 6. How much time does it take to transport your harvest to the major sales location? (use hours, fill-in 0 if sold at farm gate) 7. What kind of sales agreement did you make when o 1. direct sales and on the spot payment selling your fruits last year? ( More than one answer is o 2. direct sales – payment 1-7 days later possible). o 3. direct sales – payment more then a week later o 4. contract agreement – for market price o 5. contract agreement – with fixed price o 6. pre-harvest contract – direct payment o 7. other

8. In the last 5 years, did you join any project or o 0. no  continue to question 9 received any technical assistance or advice for your o 1. yes agricultural or farm processing activities? 9. From whom did you receive this assistance? o 1. government institution (More than one answer is possible). o 2. agricultural research station o 3. NGO o 4. private company o 5. farmers’ cooperatives o 6. private person/ other farmer o 7. other specify ... 10. What kind of technical assistance did you receive? o 1. technical advice in the field (More than one answer is possible). o 2. training on prod/processing of fruits o 3. training on other crops then fruits o 4. training on economics/marketing o 5. received materials like fertilizer, inputs

3

o 6. received seeds or seedlings o 7. other, specify ......

11. Did you borrow money or take up a loan during o 0. No (Continue to Module G-2) the last 5 years? o 1. Yes 12. If yes, from what kind of institution did you take o 1. Bank up a loan? o 2. Government institution o 3. NGO – micro-credit o 4. Money lender o 5. Trader o 6. Family or friend o 7. Other

MODULE G-2: SOCIAL NETWORKS 1. Are you or any of your household members a o 0. No member of an organisation, society or group? o 1. Yes (Continue to Q3) 2. If not, why not? o 1. None available in the area o 2. Not useful o 3. Too costly o 4. Do not trust them o 5. Not possible to join o 6. Collaboration not sustainable/ happens on ad hoc basis o 7. Other , specify …

If yes, please fill-in: 3. Name of organization 4. Type of 5. Type of position 6. Kind of 7. Number 8. Benefit for farmer organization? ? activities of meetings from organisation? participated in? or activities 1. farm cooperative 1. board member organised? 1. Agricultural 2. farmer group 2. staff 1. meetings services 3. loan & saving 3. group leader 2. training 2. Social interaction group 4. ordinary member 3. celebrations 3. Economic gains 4. social 5. other, specify … 4. activities 4. Training 5. political 5. other, specify … 5. Information 6. religious 6. Other, specify … 7. other, specify Text Code Code Code Code 1

2

3

4

5

4

MODULE G-3: FRUIT FARMING CONSTRAINTS AND SOLUTIONS 1. What is the main problem or constraint that you I have problems with: are facing for your fruit tree garden and crops? o 0. No problems o 1. Pests & diseases (if farmers reply the problem or constraint is lack of o 2. Soil conditions (nutrients, pH, texture) money, ask for what problem they need the money. o 3. Water conditions (rainfall, groundwater level) o 4. Climate conditions (temp/ humidity/extreme (Preferably one answer, but more answers are wind/weather) possible) o 5. Technical inputs pre-harvest (access, quality, high costs) o 6. Technical inputs post-harvest (access, quality, high costs) o 7. Labour inputs (expensive, availability) o 8. Saplings/seed material (access, quality) o 9. Sales & Marketing (negotiation power, market constraints) o 10. Economic low/erratic prices o 11. Production technique (simple, low yielding) o 12. Capital/ finance systems (access, quality) o 13. Social network related (access, quality) o 14. Other, specify in next row below 2. Shortly describe the exact main problem here:

3. How to solve these problems related with your I need: fruit garden and crops? Can the farmer come up with o 0. Don’t know how to solve the problem(s) a solution? o 1. Technical inputs and material (fertilizer, mulch, pesticides) (if the farmer replies that the solution is lack of o 2. Agricultural tools (machinery, irrigation) money, ask for which solution they need the money.) o 3. Post harvest tools & material (processing, packaging, storage) (Preferably one answer, but more answers are o 4. Specific training on agronomics/ techniques possible) o 5. Specific training on economics/ marketing o 6. Longer term advice on agronomics o 7. Longer term advice on marketing/sales o 8. Other technical training/assistance o 9. Access to financial services (loan/saving/insurance) o 10. Collective action/ empowerment o 11. Improved linkages and networks (technical and market information/ supply & sales network) o 12. Other, specify in next row below 4. Shortly describe the exact needs of the farmer to solve the problem here:

Thank you for your cooperation!

5

Annex K: Overview of diversity found in project communit Landraces of A. Four cell result B. Botanical and C. Consumptive D. Morphological and E. Other mango - Chittoor agronomic traits uses (table/fresh, market traits (fruit interesting (early, mid, late variety, pickling type, size, high yield, features or shy bearer, pollinator, sucking type, eaten excellent taste, red characteristics drought tolerant, raw/green, spice colour, juicy, long shelf (any other feature) disease resistant for ingredient) live etc) mango hopper etc) 1 Ali Pasand Few HH, Few trees Off-season variety Pickling type Acidic & fibrous Off season 2 Alphonso/ Khadar Many HH, Many Mid (may) Table High price Excellent table trees High juice content variety synonym for Alphonso 3 Amini/Omelette Few HH, Few trees Early Pickling Acidic & big Fibrous

4 Atimadhuram Few HH, Few trees Pollinator, shy bearer Table Excellent taste/sweet Yellow colour 5 Banganapalli/ Many HH, Many Mid Table Large fruits Baneshan trees Yellow colour High yield 6 Chakkaraguttulu Few HH, Few trees Mid-late Sucking type Excellent taste Size very small preferred for cooking 7 Chitti bangalora Few HH, Few trees Mid Table Taste is good Small type of totapuri 8 Dilpasand Few HH, Few trees Mid Table Taste is good 9 Gaddemar Few HH, Few trees Early Mid Pickling type Big size fruits 10 Gadiyaram Few HH, Few trees Mid Table Good taste & skin Regular bearer colour 11 Few HH, Few trees Pollinator, shy bearer Table Excellent taste Himam pasand 12 Kalepadu Many HH, Few trees Mid/late, shy bearer Table Sweet taste Good keeping quality 13 Khurdus Few HH, Few trees Mid-late Table Good colour Coloured variety 14 Lalbaba Few HH, Few trees Pollinator Table Red colour Good keeping Good taste quality 15 Mallika Few HH, Few trees Mid Table Good taste Hybrid 16 Manoranjitam Few HH,, Few trees Late, shy bearer Table Long shelf live (more Good skin colour then 20 days) High price

17 Mulgoa Many HH, Few trees Mid/late, shy bearer Table Shy bearer 18 Naati (seedling) Many HH, Few trees Pollinator Table/pickling type Good skin colour Regular bearer disease resistant 19 Naati Baneshan Few HH, Few trees Mid Table Green colour skin Regular bearer 20 Neelum Many HH, Many Late Table Medium size Regular bearer trees High yield 21 Omlete (same as Few HH, Few trees Early Pickling type Amini) 22 Pither (Peter) Few HH, Few trees Mid Table Medium size Coloured, regular bearing 23 Pulira/ Sendura Many HH, Many Very early Table Red colour Regular bearer, trees Pulp Good price good substitute for khadar (alphonso) 24 Raja Pasand Few HH, few trees Mid Table Good taste Round shape fruits

25 Reddy pasand Few HH, Few trees Mid Pickling type Heavy bearing 26 Rumani Many HH, Many Mid/late Table Good taste Round shape fruits trees Drought tolerant? 27 Seeri Few HH, Few trees Mid Table Good taste Oblong fruits 28 Torapadu Few HH, Few trees Mid Table Big sized 29 Totapuri/ Many HH, Many Late Mostly for pulp, but High yield Parrot beak shape Bangalora trees also for table High price Originates from Large fruit Chittoor area

6