Page 1 of 42 Forestland for the people A forest village project in Northeast Thailand First Printing:May 1988 Second Printing: June 1989 FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS BANGKOK Foreword Great interest, both in India and elsewhere, has been shown in the Gujarat forestry experience involving local participation. In 1982, FAO was requested by the Government of India to support a study of forestry activities in Gujarat. This study Evaluation of the Gujarat Social Forestry Programme, was published in 1985. Although it produced new information, it also pointed out the need for case studies which would examine the dynamics of farm forestry, as well as the benefits and costs to farmers, and the perception of these costs and benefits of the rural people involved, especially the poor. The case studies presented in this document were carried out by Dr . Shobhita Jain under the direction of M. Hoskins. In doing the studies, Dr. Jain has analysed some of the questions raised by previous reports through in-depth case studies of various social groups in different communities and involved in contrasting forestry schemes. She first places each case study in relation to the market economy. Her findings and insights shed light on the complexities of successful farm forestry and on the danger of generalizing, especially on such issues as trees replacing food crops or conflicts of goals between the forest service and participating farmers. The success she describes of large-scale farmers includes current efforts to diversify species for a broader market. Small scale farmers, on the other hand, are found to be in need of support services such as market information and assistance in the organization of buying and selling cooperatives. The success seen in the tribal cooperative movement requires support of NGO and government services. Dr. Jain also raises questions of self help and continuity, in situations in which large-scale outside support is used to produce change. This is one of a series of case studies produced by the Community Forestry Unit of the Policy and Planning Service of FAO. This series is being developed in order to provide insights into the functioning, dynamics and impacts of various community forestry interventions especially as seen by the rural people themselves. The case study series is being funded by the Swedish International Development Authority. M.R. de Montalembert Chief, Policy and Planning Service Forestry Department Contents FOREWORD iii Page 2 of 42 LIST OF TABLES vii LIST OF MAPS viii TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS viii PROCESS OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ix INTRODUCTION CHAPTER I: PROJECT BACKGROUND 1 1.1 Project problem and concept 3 1.2 Deforestation and landlessness 4 1.3 Thai policy response to deforestation and landlessness 7 1.4 Forest policy implementation measures: forest conservation and control 7 1.5 Forest policy implementation measures: reforestation 8 1.6 Forest policy implementation measures: use of forestland for poverty alleviation 9 1.7 Elaboration of the RFD/UNDP/FAO Social Forestry Pilot Project 11 CHAPTER II: PROJECT BASELINE: THE PRE-IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT AREA 2.1 Road development and deforestation in Northeast Thailand 15 2.2 Commercial logging in the Khao Phu Luang Forest 18 2.3 The maize boom of the 1960s and 1970s and forest encroachment 18 2.4 Types of cultivators 19 2.5 Role of traders in maize production promotion 20 2.6 Pattern of settlement of forest encroachers 21 2.7 The project area: physical features 21 2.8 The population: socio-cultural characteristics 24 2.9 Living conditions 26 2.10 Land holding, tenurial status, land use 27 2.11 Agricultural enterprise and off-farm work 30 2.12 Income, expenditure, indebtedness 31 CHAPTER III: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 3.1 Physical infrastructure development 33 3.2 Forest rehabilitation 35 3.3 Village community consolidation and land allocation 38 3.4 Project agricultural development strategies 40 3.5 Crop diversification promotion 41 3.6 Forest tree farming promotion 44 3.7 Legal charcoal production promotion 46 3.8 Silvo-pastoral activity promotion 48 3.9 Fruit tree plantation promotion 48 Page 3 of 42 3.10 Bee raising promotion 49 3.11 Fish raising promotion 52 3.12 Agricultural credit facilitation 53 3.13 Social development promotion 55 3.14 Project staff development 56 CHAPTER IV: IMPACTS AND LESSONS 4.1 Project outcome: the post-implementation project area 57 4.2 The natural environment 57 4.3 The project area society 60 4.4 The project area economy 70 4.5 Forestry project impacts 72 4.6 Problem areas 74 4.7 Lessons of the project 78 4.8 Concluding remarks 79 REFERENCES List of tables Table No. Page 1. Forestland and farmland in Thailand 6 2. Size and distribution of holdings in agricultural land, 1982 economic survey sample. (1) 28 3. Size and distribution of holdings in agricultural land, 1982 economic survey sample. (2) 29 4. Forest rehabilitation achievements of the project 37 5. Project area villages, 1985 39 6. Estimated production of main crops and beans, excluding cassava, in the project area of 43 April 1984 7. Estimated production of main crops in the project area 1985 43 8. The economics of bee keeping in the project area illustrated by the actual accounts of 51 one farmer over 20 months 9. Size and distribution of holdings in agricultural land, 1985 economic survey sample (1) 61 10. Size and distribution of holdings in agricultural land, 1985 economic survey sample (2) 61 11. Comparison of size and distribution of holdings in agricultural land,1982 and 1985 63 economic surveys 12. Livestock production of the 1985 economic survey 300 household sample 65 13. Net income (gross income minus farm enterprise related expenditures) of the 40 65 household economic survey samples, 1985 14. Mean total household expenditures of the 40 household survey samples (in Baht) for 68 1985 15. Range of loans and credit from informal sector lenders of the 40 household survey 69 Page 4 of 42 samples (in Baht) for 1985 16. Household financial balances (total earnings minus total expenditures) of the 40 69 household survey samples for 1985 List of maps Map No. Page 1. Central and Northeastern Thailand 16 2. Khao Phu Luang National Reserved Forest 22 3. Project area 34 Terms and abbreviations ALRO Agricultural Land Reform Office BAAC Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FIO Forestry Industry Organization NEROA North-East Regional Office for Agriculture PEA Provincial Electricity Authority Phuyaiban village headmen RFD Royal Forest Department RTG Royal Thai Government STK Sor Tor Kor usufructuary land rights scheme Tao Kae Local maize traders/wholesalers UNDP United Nations Development Programme Tambon Sub-District Kamnan Sub-District headman LAND AREA CONVERSION FACTORS Rai Ha Acre 1.0 0.16 0.395 2.532 0.405 1.0 6.25 1.0 2.471 US DOLLAR/THAI BAHT EXCHANGE RATES US$ Baht Page 5 of 42 Before 15 July 1981 1.00 20 15 July 1981- 5 November 1984 1.00 23 After 5 November 1984 1.00 26 Introduction The purpose of this study is two-fold. The first is to provide a detailed analysis of the processes and achievements of an FAO-assisted project to rehabilitate a degraded area in the Khao Phu Luang National Reserved Forest in Northern Thailand through the community forestry approach. In this respect, the study is written for development planners and foresters in Thailand as a means of helping these national experts evaluate the results of their efforts in this area, and to make appropriate decisions regarding the expansion of the community forestry approach throughout rural Thailand. The second, more far-reaching purpose of the case study is to draw attention to elements of international relevance. Although it refers to a single, specific campaign, many of the experiences reported in the case study can be applied in a wide variety of socio-economic conditions. As a still relatively new concept, every community forestry effort has lessons to teach about forestry as a tool and a resource for rural development. The forest village project in Thailand is attempting to address a number of common problems with an approach which is not at all common and contains unique elements which merit study for their applicability in other situations and other countries. First, it is attempting to provide a socio-economically viable stable alternative to shifting cultivation through an integrated land use approach combining food crops and forestry activities. It is also addressing the dual and sometimes conflicting goals of forestry, i.e. watershed protection/ reforestation and utilization of forestry resources to provide a better livelihood and socio-economic environment in a basically land poor agrarian society. Finally, it is a voluntary resettlement scheme based on providing roads, water points and other social service and production supports thereby allowing isolated forest encroachers an opportunity to enter the mainstream of Thai society. The case study by Dr. Jacques Amyot first describes the area and the economic process through which it arrived at its present degraded state. It then details the achievements of the first two phases of the project, covering the period from early 1979 through mid-1986. The first phase of project activity concentrated on infrastructure development. A large part of this effort was road construction and it is significant that many of the local forest dwellers considered this one of the major benefits of the project. The value of starting the project with an activity that immediately was viewed as worthwhile by the local inhabitants should not be overlooked. The second phase of project implementation initiated a broad range of activities using forestry as the lead agency, and gave foresters, who had long been feared in the region, the role of advocates for rural people (see chart of project activities, page XX).