Facilitating Better Linkages Between Hilltribe Communities and Government Agencies with Digitised Land Use Maps in Mae Hong Son

Page 1 of 13

1. Summary

The aim of this paper is to present a tool for land use planning in the project areas of the Thai-German Highland Development Programme (TG-HDP) in the form of digitised land use maps at village and sub-district (Tambon) level in Mae Hong Son province. There are conflicting interests between the nearly 800,000 hilltribe people in northern Thailand and the government, which has declared that most of them live in forest reserves under the watershed classification category 1A, according to which they are neither allowed to settle in these areas nor practice any agriculture or use forest resources for subsistence. Yet hilltribe communities have practised their various forms of shifting cultivation for centuries in a sustainable way and it is important to have their types of land management accepted by the central government. The persistent threat of forced resettlement by government authorities combined with the severe erosion problems caused in the highlands have led to a general understanding that forests can only be protected by involving the users of the forest in the planning and management of natural resources, thus softening the top-down approach into a more participatory one. The GTZ assisted TG-HDP has been operating for 15 years in rural development and has developed a Community Based Land Use Planning and Local Watershed Management (CLM) approach using land use maps and topographic models to facilitate the sustainable management of natural resources.

Through the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), hand-drawn village land use maps can be digitised and printed in various sizes for information sharing and joint planning with the various stakeholders in the highlands. Hillribe farming systems, whether they are purely of shifting cultivation types or in intermediate stages towards permanent farming, demarcate about twice as much land area for conservation forest as for agricultural use. Of this agricultural area, only about 10% is actually burned and cultivated every year, while the rest is in various stages of forest regeneration through fallow. This shows that there is a strong awareness among farmers to preseve the environment they live in. On the government side there seem to be changes at policy level with various discussion processes surrounding the pending Forestry Sector Master Plan and Community Forestry Act as well as the renewed controversies of the April 1997 Cabinet Resolutions permitting settlement in forest areas. In most cases village maps are only available in the villages themselves, but a constructive discussion requires information sharing for all parties concerned.

2. Background

This paper is part of a PhD study on "Community Based Land Use Planning in the Highlands of Northern Thailand as a Means of Natural Resource Management" initiated in October 1996 and funded for three years by the Tropical Ecology Support Programme (TOEB) of GTZ. It focuses on participatory land use planning approaches in an environment in transition from swidden cultivation to permanent agriculture and includes two Thai and one German MSc project on related topics as research accompanying the work of the TG-HDP.

The forests in the northern highlands are one of the largest remaining forest resources of the country and serve as the main watershed areas for the Chao Phaya basin, which is the most fertile and valuable farming land of Thailand. In order to assure the functioning of the watershed, and to protect and conserve the genetic resources of the flora and fauna, a large amount of the highlands have been declared as national park or wildlife sanctuary areas. Land use is prohibited in reserve forest areas according to the National Parks and Forestry Laws, and restricted in the highlands according to the national watershed classification system. Logging was banned throughout Thailand in 1989. Despite this fact the forest cover in Thailand has decreased from 53% in 1961 to 26.7% in 1993, a rather alarming trend.

Since the foundation of the Royal Forest Department (RFD) in 1896 for a controlled management of the timber trade, the Thai forest policy can be divided into four main phases as described by Pragtong and Thomas (1990): Page 2 of 13

1. In phase I from 1896 to 1953 forest harvest was in the national interest and the Royal Forest Department was responsible for concessions, regulation and taxation of valuable commercial species. 2. In phase II the forest management focused on state allocation of land for economic development. Conflicting land ownership between central government and local communities began in this period and the first National Parks and wildlife sanctuaries were established. Declared reserve forest covered about 15% of the nation's land. 3. In phase III (1968-1980) the government pushed for economic development with the consequence of vanishing forests and more than 500 concession areas. Forest cover dropped to 32%, flows of migrants into reserve forests increased sharply and the cabinet authorised the issuance of long-term land use certificates for agricultural lands within reserve forests. Deforestation, occupation of forest lands, land use conflicts and environmental deterioration became major issues as time progressed. 4. In phase IV from 1980 onwards, the STK Programme (National Forest Land Allotment Programme) was initiated by the RFD, which issued land certificates to households present before 1982. The National Forest Policy of 1985 targeted the forest reserve of 40% of the national land. A watershed classification system was developed based on physical characteristics, and the STK Programme was accelerated. By 1988 vast areas of reserve forest were occupied by registered villages, with about 1.2 million households receiving services under government programmes. In 1989 commercial logging was banned.

Population pressure due to immigration and population growth, as well as the higher demand for cash caused by socio-cultural changes changed the demand for land. As a result more marginal forest was encroached, fallow periods decreased, deforestation and forest degradation took place. This development causes ecological imbalances in the highlands and reduces its watershed functions.

The Government declared a large proportion of the highland area as reserve forest land in 1964 with the consequence, that many settlements became illegal. The watershed classification and other forest protection aims did not reflect the real situation of existing communities. The reserve forests were only classified by using the physical structure of the area, but ignoring the people there. Thai people, who got land use rights through the Government policy, already inhabited the good locations in the lowlands. Thus the highlanders had to stay in illegal settlements or they even moved to more remote areas to escape from law enforcement actions. In mountainous areas the ethnic minorities had no legal status in Thai society, and claims to land under shifting cultivation and forest fallow were difficult to fit under lowland Thai legislation (Pragtong and Thomas, 1990). This situation has still not changed. A result of this situation is the increasing land use conflicts. According to the National Park and Forestry Laws, land use is still prohibited in reserve forest areas and watershed classification systems. Watershed classification maps show that most of the highland area falls under watershed class 1, which does not allow any settlement or agricultural production (Kemp, 1981).

On one hand Thai society is trying to integrate the highlanders in their society and on the other hand the Government started a policy of resettlement. However, its limitations were soon to be seen, as resettlement is very costly and in most cases did not fulfil the expectations. It was realised that law enforcement and a top down approach are not able to control illegal settlement and forest encroachment.

The new (yet pending ratification by Parliament) Thai Forest Sector Master Plan of 1994 admits that the past approach to forestry has failed and is now focusing on a more participatory forest management with local people as partners (Thai Forestry Sector Master Plan 1994, Vol. 2, pp 2-3), and it is also trying to encourage more participatory approaches (Poffenberger and McGean, 1993). But at the same time relocation is still a policy in protected areas, and land ownership, land use rights or legal logging are far beyond reality for the Hilltribe people, as the old laws and regulations still exist. This clearly shows the contradicting and sometimes helpless policy that exists at the moment and which puts Government officials into a state of uncertainty.

3. Highlands in Transition

The highlands of northern Thailand face a rapidly increasing change process from different types of shifting cultivation to permanent agriculture, accompanied by a progressive integration of approximately 800,000 highlanders of different ethnic origin into mainstream Thai society. Among the various highland development projects with foreign assistance, the TG-HDP has been operating the longest with 15 years of project activities. A part of this regional rural development project has been the conservation of natural resources with the full participation of the hilltribe communities through a concept of "Community based land use planning and local watershed management" (CLM) initiated in 1990 in 7 villages and which has spread to 30 villages in Mae Hong Son province (Mohns, 1989, van Eckert, 1993, van Eckert and Borsy, 1995). The Main idea is the establishment of the following land categories on three-dimensional topographic models on a scale of 1:5000: Page 3 of 13

village and housing area including homegardens arable land for annual crops and pasture areas arable land for perennial crops and agroforestry social and community forest land watershed areas and conservation forest

In the final phase, the TG-HDP focused on updates and the aggregation of information at Tambon level. This can then be used as a basis for discussion to increase the size of conservation areas and demonstrate to Government authorities that villagers can manage and protect forests themselves. In the areas for permanent cultivation the community forest areas can be used for wood production as well as the collection of non-wood forest products like mushrooms and bamboo shoots (Chuntanaparb, 1995). The TG-HDP has concentrated the CLM approach in Amphoe Pang Ma Pha, inhabited by Shan, Karen, Black Lahu, Red Lahu and Lisu, and Tambon Huai Poo Ling inhabited by Karen. Prior to the introduction of CLM, the TG-HDP also operated in its first project area in Chiang Rai as summarised below (see Diagram 1):

Tambon Wawi in Chiang Rai Province; first selected area in 1981 and concluded in 1994. Nam Lang in Mae Hong Son Province; second project area started in 1983. Huai Poo Ling in Mae Hong Son Province; third project area started in 1990.

Diagram 1: TG-HDP Project Areas in Northern Thailand

The traditional agricultural systems of highlanders from different ethnic origins are based on shifting cultivation, with upland rice and maize on sloping land, paddy rice production in the valleys and poppy, as well as extensive livestock production for the farmers’ cash demand. However, these systems and settlement structures differ, due to ethnic origin and cultural background. The two main types of shifting cultivation will be used as an example from the two project areas in which the TG-HDP is currently working, namely Pioneer Swiddening in Nam Lang practised by Lahu and Lisu hilltribes as well as Rotational Swiddening in Huai Poo Ling by the Karen hilltribe (see table 1).

Table 1: Characterisation of Pioneer and Rotational Swiddening Systems

Pioneer Swiddening Rotational Swiddening Page 4 of 13

After burning, an area is cultivated for 4-5 years After burning, an area is cultivated for 1 year only until soil fertility declines. Then a new area will be and left to fallow for 8-10 years before farmers chosen. An area will not be cultivated again, as return to carry out a cyclical cultivation pattern. there is no cycle. Trees are cut and uprooted to allow tillage, so Trees are cut at breast height, but not uprooted, tree regrowth is not possible and fields are later to allow regrowth, mulching, fodder and seed dominated by Imperata cylindrica grass. production. Rice only is grown in the rainy season followed by There is mixed cropping on the cleared areas: opium, no intercropping. rice with vegetables and tubers, but no opium cultivation. After 1-3 years the rice yields decrease and cash Cash crops are intercropped with rice in the same crops are grown until fields are abandoned. area. Little grouping of households for joint area Several households grow crops in a joint area, cultivation, very scattered fields. there are a few clusters of large fields.

In shifting cultivation systems, about 1 to 1.5 ha (1ha = 6.25 rai in Thai units) of forest for Pioneer Swiddening and regenerated fallow for Rotational Swiddening are burned annually per household for rice cultivation, a classical slash and burn system. The prime crop is rice, but other cereals or vegetables are also grown on the cleared land. Livestock is allowed to graze freely in forest or fallow areas during the rainy season, whereas in the dry season the animals are kept close to the village. Traditionally, no fertilisers or pesticides are used. The annual cycle of cultivation is similar for both systems. There are, however, major differences between the Pioneer and Rotational Swiddening farming systems as shown above.

4. Research Methodology

While the research project examines the whole CLM process, work focuses on village level for detailed surveys and the selected villages represent the two types of shifting cultivation described above. A total of six villages in the areas Pang Ma Pha and Huai Poo Ling have been selected, but only two are included in this paper as examples and a printout of the aggregated maps for Huai Poo Ling maps has been included to give a larger picture.

Hand-drawn land use maps produced with assistance from the TG-HDP Community Development Coordinators (CDC) have been collected in all the 10 CLM target villages of Huai Poo Ling and in three villages in Pang Ma Pha, as only three villages have transferred their land use models onto maps. For Pang Ma Pha it was thus not possible to aggregate the maps into Tambon maps. The village maps were digitised using a hand digitiser into the GIS programme ArcInfo and then converted into maps using the map-drawing programme ArcView 3. Contour lines were obtained from the Remote Sensing Centre of Chiang Mai University (CMU) to give a three-dimensional perspective, with 20 m intervals for the village maps and 100 m intervals at Sub-District level. The roads and streams, as well as the Tambon boundaries for Huai Poo Ling were obtained from the Survey section of the Northern Narcotics Control Office (NNCO) in digitised form and overlayed with the remaining data. The different land categories were then colour coded using the same colours as on village maps. Maps were presented using the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates as reference points in steps of 1 km² for village maps and 5 km² for the Sub-District map. The different land categories were added up by adding the corresponding polygons and used for area calculations.

The same procedure was carried out at Sub-District level for Huai Poo Ling, and the data for the 10 CLM target villages aggregated into one map. This will be of particular use for the emerging Tambon Administrative Organisations (TAO) when formulating land use plans at Sub-District level. As the map was aggregated from individual village maps, neighbouring villages often had overlapping outer user boundaries (marked in pink on the map), which is significant in the case of land disputes when registering a village with DOLA. At this stage the village boundaries become official and there are several cases where areas claimed by adjacent villages overlap and DOLA makes a decision to allocate them to one of the two. This means that villages actually lose some land. In the remaing time of the research project these printouts are cross-checked with community leaders and TAO members before they are shared with government officials. A framework for future updating then needs to be developed in cooperation, so that communities can participate in decision making processes regarding their land resources.

Page 5 of 13

5. Results and Discussion

Bor Krai village (see Map 1) is inhabited by Black Lahu (Lahu Sheleh) for 20 years and became officially registered with the Department of Local Administration (DOLA) in 1996 as Moo 11 in the Tambon and District of Pang Ma Pha (population 16,000). The village has a population of 160 (79 male and 81 female) and consists of 31 households. There are two Christian families and 29 Buddhist ones. The village is located 800 meters from the main Pai to Mae Hong Son road and approximately 10 km form the administrative centre of Pang Ma Pha district. The villagers of Bor Krai migrated to the new location from the original village of Ja Bo to the north in 1978, and the village first carried the name of the headman, Mr. Ja-ue, prior to official registration as Bor Krai. The main reason for the migration to Bor Krai was to find a new place to cultivate crops and to raise animals, as with the rapid population increase in Ja Bo the land resources had reached their limits. Some villagers still have land in Ja Bo, but the two villages have reached an agreement regarding their outer user boundaries. The farming system is classified as Pioneer Swiddening, but is in a transition towards permanent agriculture. The geology of Bor Krai with limestone outcrops limits the land capability for cultivation. Most of the crop production is carried out on sloping land and scattered pockets of flat land in the valleys and hillsides surrounding the village. Bor Krai is located within the Pai Wildlife Sanctuary and thus a very sensitive area as far as the conflict between agricultural use and wildlife conservation is concerned. Page 6 of 13

Huai Hee village (see Map 2) is inhabited by Karen (Sgaw Pakanyaw) for more than 20 years and became officially registered with DOLA in 1983 as Moo 8 in Huai Poo Ling Sub-District (Tambon, population 4,000) and Mae Hong Son District (Muang). It has a population of 127 (69 male and 58 female) and consists of 22 households, all of which are Christians. The village is located about 26 km from the town of Mae Hong Son and is the first village when driving into the Huai Poo Ling project area along a dirt road in bad condition. Huai Hee practises mainly subsistence agriculture of the Rotational Swiddening type, but here too there is a Page 7 of 13

transition towards permanent agriculture. Due to the surrounding steep slopes, there is no paddy cultivation and the village thus has to rely on upland rice for its staple food, interplanted with vegetables. Some livestock are reared and there are also perennial crops grown. The village is bordered by the Nam Tok Surin National Park to the West and had agricultural area within the national park in the past. Due to pressure from the Royal Forest Department (RFD) this land had to be abandoned. As an attempt to diversify its sources of income, Haui Hee has started to become a destination for eco-tourism in November 1997 in cooperation with the former TG-HDP Area Manager of Huai Poo Ling and the Thailand Research Fund. With its limited agricultural potential, yet blessed by a spectacular environment, eco-tourism could become an alternative way of land use planning.

When interpreting the land use maps it must be kept in mind that is a reasonably high level of inaccuracy, as there are various sources of error when enlarging base maps, producing models, transferring data from models to hand-drawn maps, and when digitising them. Additional sources of error arise from transferring three-dimensional information from areas of steep slopes to two-dimensional maps. The data should thus be used with care and area measurements not be taken as too accurate, and the researcher cannot estimate a percentage for error on area measurements. The evaluation is only meant to give rough indications of percentages of different types of land use to show the contrast between forest area, potential agricultural area and area actually burnt and cultivated each year, as this is the focal point in the controversial discussion on the sustainability of shifting cultivation systems in the hills. The author has thus compared the data with data presented by TG-HDP staff, in which hand-drawn land use on models was multiplied to scale to obtain area measurements. The data for Bor Krai was compared to that of Jantakad (1998) below (Table 2).

There are differences between the two sets of data as expected. According to the TG-HDP, 37% of the total area is used for agriculture, compared to 43% from own calculations. As an approximation the average figure of 40% shall be used. Of that agricultural area, only an average of 12% is actually burned and cultivated every year, while the rest remains as fallow. If one compares that to the total village area, then only about 5% of the land is cultivated every year, a rather small amount. If one compares this to the government forest policy with a target of 40% national forest cover (Amornsanguansin, 1992), then Bor Krai village certainly is in line with the country's target. One may extrapolate and compare the population increase in Pang Ma Pha district from 4,000 to 16,000 over the last 20 years to the decrease in forest cover of 17% (Tansiri et al., 1995) over the same period and conclude that the transition from pioneer swiddening to permanent agriculture has not only provided sufficient food for the increased population, but has also had a minor effect on forest cover. The fear that a population increase will automatically bring with it forest destruction is thus not that serious. As Pang Ma Pha continues to develop an infrastructure the decrease in forest cover may become an issue in future, but not in the current development of the area. Page 8 of 13

Table 2: Bor Krai village land use data from two sources of information

Land use categories Own area calculations Data from TG-HDP Difference Page 9 of 13

1. Community forest, 5113 rai 5946 rai 833 rai

consisting of: 4100 rai 5486 rai 1386 rai

1.1. Conservation forest 294 rai 310 rai 16 rai

1.2. Forest product areas 719 rai 100 rai 619 rai

1.3. Multipurpose forest not mapped 56 rai 56 rai

1.4. Cemetery

2. Agricultural area, 3931 rai 3450 rai 481 rai

consisting of: 575 rai or 9 % 324 rai or 15 % Average: 12%

2.1. Area used in 1996 50 rai not mapped

2.2. Livestock area

3. Village 25 rai 40 rai 15 rai

Total village area (1+2+3) 9069 rai, 1451 ha 9436 rai, 1509 ha 367 rai, 59 ha

% Agricultural area 43 % 37 % Average: 40%

% Forest area 57 % 63 % Average: 60%

Note: 1 rai = 0.16 ha

The second village of Huai Hee lies in the more remote and less densely populated project area Huai Poo Ling with a population of only 4,000 compared to 16,000 in Pang Ma Pha. There is thus much less population pressure on the land. When it is compared to the other target villages in this project area, one notices that Huai Hee has not marked an outer user boundary on its map, thus the forest area cannot be calculated here. There is an inconsistency in the pattern of land use in that some upland area lies outside the demarcated agricultural area. It is assumed that the gaps in between are filled by forest (as is shown on the sub-district map), but such small and fragmented patches can hardly be called forest. Of the total agricultural area of 2,913 rai, only 5 % on average have been used during the last three years. This is less than half the land used in Bor Krai, while Huai Hee has 80% of the population of Bor Krai. It may be interpreted that this is much more of a subsistence farming system with more interaction with the forest in the collection of forest products, yet this difference is remarcable. Fruit trees play a lesser role with 44 rai under cultivation, as the fruits are only grown for home consumption due to the lack of a market. There are no paddy fields just like in Bor Krai, and the village sizes are similar. The village has started to get involved in an eco-tourism project and it will be interesting to see if this will bring changes in the land use patterns.

In the project area of Huai Poo Ling the ten village maps were aggregated on a sub-district map (see Map 3), and the white areas indicate villages that lie outside the TG-HDP project area. The contour lines and rivers, however, have been included for the whole sub-district. It is interesting to note that the village of Pa Kaa lies outside the Tambon boundary (in neighbouring Pai district in fact), if the data provided by ONCB are correct. To date there exist no reliable maps from the Royal Survey Department indicating Tambon boundaries, and work is in progress to produce this data. But even more important is the fact that there are overlapping areas claimed by adjacent villages (marked in pink), which may lead to conflicting claims over its use. In most cases this land lise in conservation forest areas, which means that the total forest area claimed by each village is actually less when aggregated to Tambon level. The appearance of village maps can thus be deceiving when they are examined from a higher level. Here again calculated figures are compared to those given by the TG- HDP Agriculture and Forestry Extension Specialist Mr. Tawee Tinwana below (Table 3): Page 10 of 13

Table 3: Comparison of TG-HDP land use categories for Huai Poo Ling with own data:

Land use type TG-HDP figure % of total Own calculation % of total

Total Tambon area 232,201 rai 232,201 rai Page 11 of 13

1. Conservation forest 177,714 rai 76.4% 91,875 rai 39.6%

1.1. Ordained forest not mapped 6,250 rai 2.7%

2. Total agricultural area: 48,038 rai 20.7% 47,500 rai 20.5%

of which used in 1995 1186 rai 2.5% 625 rai 1.3%

of which used in 1996 1260 rai 2.6% 1875 rai 3.9%

of which used in 1997 1258 rai 2.6% 4375 rai 9.2%

2.1. Perennial crops 660 rai 1.4% 1875 rai 3.9%

2.2. Paddy fields 1147 rai 2.4% 1875 rai 3.9%

3. Village 938 rai 0.4% 1250 rai 0.5%

Note: 1 rai = 0.16 ha

The greatest difference between figures are in the area demarcated as conservation forest, possibly because the TG-HDP has marked all the white areas outside the project area as forest, in spite of the fact that there are villages. There is more correlation between the total agricultural area, which makes up some 20% of the whole Tambon area, or with perennial crops and paddy fields, which if added brings the figure of used land to 25% of the whole Tambon. This still leaves 75% forest area for conservation and well in line with the official national target of 40%. According to own calculations the area cultivated each year is increasing from 1.3% in 1995 to 9.2% in 1997, a rather sharp increase that needs to be verified. As far as forest policy is concerned it is fair to say that the rotational swiddening system in transition as practised by the Karen is sustainable for many years to come and deserves official acceptance by the Royal Forest Department (RFD) as an example that people and forests can co-exist.

6. Conclusion

It is obvious that one works with many differing figures and a relatively high level of inaccuracy for reasons elaborated before. The process of mapping in Thailand has a long history of European influence as described by Winichakul (1998), and the demarcation of boundaries is now being taken to the marginal areas after it has established itself in the lowlands. The area figures discussed here are thus only significant in the comparison between area used for agriculture and area of conservation forest. Work has begun to cross-check maps with villagers and in doing so it has been found that sometimes agricultural areas lie outside the ones marked on models or maps. Map updating still is a difficult process, as the mapping skills of TAO representatives are limited, yet they are the ones in the best position to update them together with extension staff from the government. This can only be done systematically with field surveys and Global Posioning System (GPS) equipment if the political will to do so is there on the side of the government

In the more densely populated village of Bor Krai, 40% of the land is used for agriculture as compared to 20% at Tambon level in Huai Poo Ling. The area cultivated per year makes about 12% or 5% of the total agricultural land respectively. As population densities increase, it can be expected that more land will be used for permanent agriculture. When aggregating maps to Tambon level, the patchiness of forest cover becomes more apparent. This patchiness is much more pronounced in Pang Ma Pha district as demonstrated by Tansiri et al. (1995), and could serve as an indicator that Huai Poo Ling may follow the same path once the road has been completed and there is more access to mainstream infrastructure. Based on the information collected here it would be presumptuous to declare either of the two swiddening systems as more resource preserving, but there is a general trend towards deforestation as populations increase and villages gain more access to infrastructure. Indicators for sustainability of particular farming systems would require separate studies, yet the production of land use maps reflecting the actual situation are an important tool for the formulation of a framework of highland development.

The process of participatory mapping is gaining more and more acceptance by government authorities in Thailand and seems to reflect a change in policy. Although the Forestry Sector Master Plan of 1993 still needs Page 12 of 13

to be ratified by Parliament just like the hotly debated Community Forestry Act to allow community forestry in protected areas, various organisations are working with participatory mapping and planning approaches at different levels. The furthest steps have been taken by the NGO CARE in its Integrated Natural Resources Conservation Project in Mae Chaem district of Chiang Mai (Anonymous, 1997). The establishment of Village Forest Conservation and Watershed Management Committees, of which government representatives are members and district officials sign land use agreements, has given highland farmers the necessary confidence that their land management systems are endorsed by the government. The recent revocation of the three April 1997 Cabinet resolutions granting settlement in forest areas occupied prior to 1993, however, puts this whole development back on the table for discussion.

As farmers have taken important steps by openly displaying their land management, it is now up to the government authorities to continue this process and to produce computerised maps for joint land use planning with the keepers of the forest. Maps are essential for natural resource management planning and it is possible to link bottom-up approaches with technology, as can be seen by the fact that the maps produced for this paper are being used by the Tambon Administrative Council (TAO) representatives at provincial level in Mae Hong Son in a petition to be submitted to the Parliament for the recognition of highland farming systems. The procedure described herein can be used as a method should this participatory process become firmly established. It would be a pity if this information were used instead for land confiscation as the villagers still fear. This method can be used to establish and refine natural resource management in the highlands, given the necessary political will. Hilltribe representatives themselves could be trained as extension and forestry staff in order to monitor this participatory land use planning process in the northern highlands.

References

Amornsanguansin, J. (1992)

Thailand Forest Policy and Extension

In: Local Organisations in Community Forestry Extension in Asia

FAO Field Document 34. Bangkok

Anonymous (1997)

Integrated Natural Resources Conservation Project (mid-term review)

CARE Thailand, Bangkok

Chuntanaparb, L. et al. (1995)

Study on Non-Wood Forest Product Identification, Availability, Improved Production and Potential for Marketing in Northern Thailand

TG -HDP Internal Paper No. 190 van Eckert, M. (1993)

Findings of the Review of the Community Based Land Use Planning and Local Watershed Management Process and Recommendations

TG -HDP Internal Paper No. 171 van Eckert, M., Borsy, P. (1995)

CLM Guidelines in Brief

TG -HDP Internal Paper No. 189

Jantakad, P. (1998) Page 13 of 13

Community-Based Land Use Planning and Natural Resource Management. A case study of Ban Bor Krai

TG -HDP Internal Paper No. 212

Kemp, J.H. (1981)

Legal and Informal Land Tenures in Thailand

Modern Asian Studies 15, 1:1-23

Mohns, B. (1989)

The Introduction of Land Use Planning and Local Watershed Management in the TG-HDP project areas Nam Lang and Huai Poo Ling

TG -HDP Internal Paper No. 113

Poffenberger, M. and McGean, B. (1993)

Community Allies: Forest Co-Management in Thailand

Research Network Report No. 2

Center for Southeast Asian Studies, University of California, Berkeley

Pragtong, K., Thomas, D. E. (1990)

Evolving Management Systems in Thailand

In Poffenberger, M.: Keepers of the Forest. Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia

Ateneo de Manila University Press

Tansiri, B., Chantanaroj, A., Kanchanalai, W. (1995)

Monitoring Land Use Change in Nam Lang Area

Department of Land Development Bangkok

Winichakul, T. (1998)

Siam Mapped. A History of the Geo-body of a Nation

Silkworm Books, Chiang Mai