UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

To defend ourselves: common property management of forests in northern Thailand Roddan, Laura Kay 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1993_spring_roddan_laura.pdf [ 11.77MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0086158.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086158-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086158-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086158-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086158-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086158-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086158-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

TO DEFEND OURSELVES : COMMON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT OF FORESTSIN NORTHERN THAILANDbyLAURA KAY RODDANB.A., The University of British Columbia, 1986A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESSCHOOL OF COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL PLANNINGWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAMarch 1993© LAURA KAY RODDAN, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature) Department of 09/141/1/1 &el //7-/^e(-29/G),-7 Cc_ / /-7/an ri i, 7The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate 4jri / /6 /DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTIn the contemporary world, a fundamental shift isoccurring in the view of planning for forest areas occupiedand used by indigenous people. It is being recognized asimportant to integrate customary law, such as commonproperty rights to forest lands, into the framework ofnational policy. However, while this is being recognized ona theoretical level, there have been few real attempts toincorporate customary land rights into national law. Thepurpose of this thesis is to explore the dynamics involvedin reestablishing common property rights. To achieve thispurpose a case of an actual project where common propertyrights to forest land are being reestablished is studied inThailand.Under present forest legislation in Thailand, forestsare state-owned and managed. State-defined property rightsand the forest reserve system were superimposed overcustomary common property systems which traditionallyexisted in northern Thailand. In the contemporary scenethis is resulting in considerable tension between thetraditional villagers' view of forests as common propertyresources and official government policy. State managementof forests has been gradually undermining the self-relianceof rural communities, and the authority of traditionalinstitutions to control the use of common property forestresources. Coupled with the inability of the forestrydepartment to provide effective regulation within forestreserves, the result has been widespread legal and illegalexploitation of indigenous forests. Rural communitiesdependent on forest resources are fighting for their rightsto benefit from forest land they have long considered to betheir own.The case study is an experimental community forestryproject in the village of Huey Kaew, in Northern Thailand,where villagers are fighting for common property rightswithin state Forest Reserve. The village represents asignificant case as it is the first time the Thaigovernment has considered awarding common property rights toland located within state Forest Reserve.The research is conducted through the use of ninecategories of analysis^drawn from the literature onproperty rights and self-reliant development. The ninecategories are: property rights, land uses, forestdependency, uses for indigenous species, role of traditionalinstitutions, social controls and sanctions, grassrootsorganization, participation in decision-making, andavailability of technical support.Results from the study indicate that there are manyobstacles to overcome before common property tenure can beaccommodated within the state Forest Reserve system. Theseobstacles include: disagreement between villagers andgovernment over the location of the land to be awarded ascommunity forest, lack of understanding on the part of theiiiRoyal Forestry Department as to land uses in indigenousforests and the dependence of villagers on these resources,break down of authority of traditional institution andcustomary laws, failure of RFD to recognize the potential ofthe traditional institution responsible for forestmanagement, lack of support within the community due to thefact that many villagers do not understand what the projectis about or do not have the time to devote to it, inadequateauthority by the new village level committee created tooversee the project and lack of an extension forester towork with the community in preparing a community forestplan.The case study suggests that until these obstacles areovercome, the project cannot be evaluated as a successfulapproach to management of indigenous forest or buildingself-reliance for the rural community. However, theargument for common property management of Forest ReserveLand in northern Thailand is strengthened by comparing thefindings from Huey Kaew with the findings from anothervillage, Tung Yao, where customary common property rightshave been maintained. These conclusions have importantimplications for policy on common property rights and self-reliance and offer many lessons on the practical reality ofaccommodating bottom-up development within a centralizedstate bureaucracy.ivTABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT^ (ii)LIST OF FIGURES^ (viii)ACKNOWLEDGEMENT (ix)CHAPTER ONE / INTRODUCTION1.1 PURPOSE^ 11.2 CONTEXT 11.3 THE CASE STUDY^ 61.4 METHODS^ 81.5 LIMITATIONS 111.6 ORGANIZATION^ 12CHAPTER TWO / THEORY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND SELF-RELIANTDEVELOPMENT2.1 PROPERTY RIGHTS^ 14What is Tenure?  14Why is Tenure Important?^  152.1.1 STATE PROPERTY REGIMES 172.1.2 COMMON PROPERTY REGIMES^ 202.1.3 TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS DEBATEAND ITS IMPACT ON POLICY 232.2 SELF-RELIANT DEVELOPMENT^ 26Roots of Self-Reliance Theory^ 26Rural Development and Self-Reliance^ 28Access to Land and Resources^ 29Participation in Decision-Making 30vviGrassroots Organization^ 30Local Knowledge and Self-Reliance^ 32Forests and Self-Reliance^ 33Self-Reliance Strategies in Thailand^ 34CHAPTER THREE / CASE STUDY3.1 INTRODUCTION^ 373.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY^ 383.3 DESCRIPTION OF HUEY KAEW 383.4 THE HUEY KAEW CONFLICT^ 403.5 RESULTS OF THE STUDY 45Property Rights^ 45Land Uses^ 49Forest Dependency^ 52Uses of Indigenous Species^ 53Role of Traditional Institutions^ 55Social Controls and Sanctions 57Grassroots Organization^ 59Participation in Decision-Making^ 62Availability of Technical Support 643.6 CLOSING COMMENT^ 66CHAPTER FOUR / COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS4.1 INTRODUCTION^ 684.2 FINDINGS FROM TUNG YAO^ 70Property Rights^ 70Land Uses^ 71viiRole of Traditional Institutions^ 73Social Controls and Sanctions 73Grassroots Organization^ 74Participation in Decision-Making^ 754.3 ANALYSIS OF SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES^ 76CHAPTER FIVE / CONCLUSIONS^ 805.1 OBSTACLES CREATED BY PRESENT FOREST LEGISLATION^ 815.2 IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY FOR POLICY ONCOMMON PROPERTY RIGHTS^ 845.3 IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY FOR POLICY ON SELF-RELIANCE^ 875.4 LESSONS FROM HUEY KAEW^ 91FOOTNOTES^ 94REFERENCES 103APPENDIX 1: Photographs from Huey Kaew^ 108APPENDIX 2: List of Interviews^ 120APPENDIX 3: Checklist of Questions / Case Study^ 122viiiLIST OF FIGURESFigure 1: Map of Huey Kaew showing Area of ForestConcession^ 41Figure 2: Map of Huey Kaew showing Area of ForestConcession and Area Under Customary CommonProperty Rights^ 46Figure 3: Map of Huey Kaew showing Area of ForestConcession, Area Under Customary Common PropertyRights and Area of Proposed "CommunityForest."^ 48Figure 4: Decision-Making Ladder for Huey Kaew CommunityForest Experimental Project^ 63Figure 5: Map of Northern Thailand locating Huey Kaewvillage in Chiang Mai province and Tung Yaovillage in Lumphun province 69Figure 6: Comparative Analysis of Huey Kaew andTung Yao^ 79ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe fieldwork for this thesis was made possible througha research scholarship from the Canadian UniversitiesConsortium: Asian Institute of Technology PartnershipProject. The faculty and students at AIT, with their richarray of experience in South and Southeast Asia, provided astimulating environment in which to begin research. I wouldalso like to acknowledge local assistance in Thailand fromthe Royal Forestry Department, Chiang Mai University, theProject for Ecological Recovery, and the NorthernDevelopment Workers Association. I owe special thanks tomy translator Piyachat Sritabtim; her down to earth mannerassisted greatly in providing our acceptance by thecommunity. This thesis is dedicated to the villagers ofHuey Kaew whose vision of the future has also become my own."the river is the blood of our peopleand the forest is our heart and soul"Taweesilp SrisruangixCHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1 PURPOSEIn the contemporary world, a fundamental shift isoccurring in the view of planning for forest areas occupiedand used by indigenous people. It is being recognized asimportant to integrate customary law, such as commonproperty rights to forest lands, into the framework ofnational policy. 1 However, while this is being recognizedon a theoretical level, there have been few real attempts toincorporate customary land rights into national law. Thepurpose of this thesis is to explore the dynamics involvedin reestablishing common property rights. To achieve thispurpose, a case of an actual project where common propertyrights to forest land are being reestablished is studied inThailand.1.2 CONTEXTUnder present forest legislation in Thailand, forestsare state-owned and managed. State-defined property rightsand the forest reserve system were superimposed overcustomary common property systems which traditionallyexisted in northern Thailand. In the contemporary scenethis is resulting in considerable tension between thetraditional villagers' view of forests as common property1forested. 4governmentA nationalimposed agoal wasnation wide ban on logging inset at that time to increasethe1989. 5forestIn response to the severe deforestationresources and official government policy. State managementof forests has been gradually undermining the self-relianceof rural communities, and the authority of traditionalinstitutions to control the use of common property forestresources. Coupled with the inability of the forestrydepartment to provide effective regulation within ForestReserves, the result has been widespread legal and illegalexploitation of indigenous forests. Rural communitiesdependent on forest resources are fighting for their rightsto benefit from forest land they have long considered astheir own.Thailand experienced an extremely high rate ofdeforestation between 1961 and 1990. 2 Records from theRoyal Thai Forestry Department indicate that in 1961, 53 percent of the total land area of the country was forested. 3By 1988, only 28 per cent of the total land area was2cover to 40 per cent of the total land area. It was decidedthat reserve forests should make up 15 per cent of the totaland economic or plantation forests should make up theremaining 25 per cent. There has been much debate over thisdecision and a push for reversing the percentages andsetting 25 per cent for reserve forests and 15 per cent foreconomic or plantation forests. The crux of this debate hasbeen concern over what constitutes a "real" forest. 6 Thereare many who believe that single-species plantation forestsare not "real" forests. In 1992 legislation was passedwhich reversed the percentages. 7The focus of this study is on forest reserves. Thenature of the forest reserve classification poses a problem.The forest reserve system is based on an early 20th centuryEuropean concept of forest management in which reserves wereto be created in order to protect logging concessions.Their purpose was to exclude people and thereby control theexploitation of the resource. Herein lies the problem: thereserve forest concept does not include people. Thisomission is causing increasing instability for ruralcommunities.In Thailand, it has been estimated, there are 14million to 16 million people making their livelihoodillegally on forest reserve land. 8 This means that 25 percent of the total rural population of Thailand are makingtheir living within forest reserve land. This large ruralpopulation which depends on forest land is among the mostimpoverished and vulnerable sector of Thai society. Theyrarely possess legal rights to the natural resources uponwhich they depend. Their use of public forest land commonlydraws them into conflict with the state. 93Conflict in the Northern region stems in large partfrom the fact that the reserve system was superimposed overtraditional common property systems. Over time these commonproperty systems have been eroded and open-access conditionshave developed due to the fact that the Royal ForestryDepartment lacks funds and personnel to enforce regulationsin Forest Reserves.The current situation suggests that environmentaldegradation and natural resource allocation will continue tobe the source of major conflicts between government andrural people. For this reason, community forestry is notonly being considered as a strategy for forest resourcedevelopment but also as a strategy for rural communitydevelopment and political stability: the villagers couldearn their living and the government could reforest andpreserve the nation's forests. 1°Much current research shows that contrary to popularbelief and local resource policy, it is not these ruralcommunities that are causing the destruction of tropicalforest ecosystems. 11 The breakdown of traditional commonproperty systems, insecure land tenure and open-accessconditions in forest reserves in Thailand have in largemeasure been the cause of environmental degradation andsocial and economic problems for rural communities.Previous efforts have made little headway in improvingforest management. A major reason for their failure appears4to be the lack of attention to tenure issues and theresulting conflicts over usufruct rights of rural forestcommunities. 12 While rural communities are the primaryusers of state forest lands they have no formal role inmanagement. National Forest legislation has graduallyeroded the traditional rights and management systems ofrural communities, and therefore their ability to controlforest and common land use. 13More secure land tenure for rural communities is animportant condition for improving management. Somevillages, with security of land tenure, and secured accessto benefits from resources participate in conservation. 14The tenure of land and trees affects the surroundingecosystem, the standard of living of people who depend onthose resources, the preservation, protection and plantingof trees, and the beneficiaries and victims of forestpolicies. 15In order to understand the benefits of common property,it must be differentiated from open-access conditions, stateproperty, and private property. It is important tounderstand the differences in these forms of propertymanagement in order to evaluate how they each affect issuessuch as; benefit flows, participation, and conservation.Community forestry shares many of the principles of theself-reliant approach to development in that it concentrates5on putting "people first" and recognizes the importance oflocal participation in planning development from the bottomup. Local level participation in planning is consideredindispensable in making people self-reliant. It has beendifficult for development planners to take this approachbecause of the top-down planning framework which exists inThailand. 161.3 THE CASE STUDYThe case study focuses on an experimental communityforestry project in the village of Huey Kaew, in northernThailand, where villagers are fighting for common propertyrights within state Forest Reserve. This village representsa significant case as it is the first time the Thaigovernment is considering awarding common property rights toland located within state Forest Reserve. The primarypurpose of this thesis is to answer the questions: What arethe dynamics involved in re-establishing common propertyrights to forest land? What are the obstacles facing thedevelopment of common property management?The specific objectives of the case study are:- to gain an understanding of the community's dependence onindigenous forests for subsistence and income6- to determine what customary rights and responsibilitiesregarding the use of forest resources exist and how they areenforced- to determine what degree of control over forest resourcesthe community has- to determine what links exist between the community, thesub-district, the district and national levels of planningfor forest resources- to determine whether the project is responding to theneeds of villagers- to determine whether the project is building on customarylaws- to determine the implications of the case study for policyon common property rights- to determine the implications of the case study for policyon self-relianceCommunity forestry in the village of Huey Kaew,represents a significant case as it is the first time theThai government has awarded common property rights withinForest Reserve Land. Previous social forestry programs in7Thailand have focussed on tree planting on private lands,and have consequently failed to respond to the ecologicalcrisis occurring on much of the common property andindigenous forest lands. The lack of legal mechanisms toensure security of tenure has blocked previous attempts toinvolve communities in rehabilitating much of the stateforest lands. 17 New approaches, such as in Huey Kaew stressgreater local governance and pressure for more sociallyresponsive policies. This approach is important because itrepresents a break from exclusive state custodianship.1.4 METHODSThis research is conducted through the use of ninecategories of analysis. These categories have been drawnfrom the literature on property rights and self-reliantdevelopment. Analysis using these categories is consideredessential to understand the dynamics of a community forestryproject. The nine categories of analysis are as follows:- Property Rights- Land Uses- Forest Dependency- Uses for Indigenous Species- Role of Traditional Institutions- Social Controls and Sanctions- Grassroots Organization- Participation in Decision-Making- Availability of Technical Support8Field research was conducted over a four month periodfrom May 1990 through August 1990. Primary data for thecase study was compiled from information generated throughstructured and semi-structured interviews following achecklist of key questions. Informants were selected fromamong those participants taking an active part in variousaspects of the experimental community forest in Huey Kaew.Interviews were conducted with villagers from Huey Kaew,foresters from the Royal Forestry Department, members ofNon-Government Organizations such as the Project forEcological Recovery and the Northern Development WorkersAssociation, and academics from various Thai Universities.As well as personal interviews, both formal and informalmeetings were attended in the village with members of theVillage Forest Conservation Committee, at the provincialoffice of the Royal Forestry Department in Chiang Mai, andat the Social Research Institute of Chiang Mai University.Key informants were selected from twelve households inthe village. Six of these households were landless and theother six owned land. Eight of the twelve householdsparticipated in village meetings regarding the communityforest and four did not. Among the twelve households weretwo key individuals in Huey Kaew; Mr. Sukwong, member of theVillage Forest Conservation Committee and villagespokesperson for the project, and, Mr. Jumsai, the village9headman who is also the "kamnan" or head of the Sub-DistrictCommittee.During this time I worked together with an interpreterwho was familiar with village life and the local dialect.We spent eight weeks living in Huey Kaew at the home of Mr.Sukwong, member of the Village Forest Conservation Committeeand village spokesperson for the project.Both direct observation and participant observationwere used as research methods in the village. During theday we primarily worked and socialized with the womenbecause they were far more active in the collection and useof forest resources. During the evenings there were oftenvillage gatherings where both men and women attended todiscuss the forest conflict and the preparation of aCommunity Forest Plan. Open-ended interviews with villagersfollowing a checklist of key questions were recorded in aworking diary and then transcribed into copy books dividedinto the various questions. 18Collection of secondary data involved a literaturereview of Newspaper articles, NGO reports, and ethnographicstudies involving other villages within Forest Reserve Land.Forestry Department documents were also reviewed forrelevant information. Most of these documents were writtenin Thai and required translation from Thai to English bymyself and my interpreter. Secondary data also involved a10literature review of common property resources, communityforestry, and self-reliant development. This searchcontinued upon my return to Canada.Names of villagers used in this study have been changedfrom the actual names. The reason for this is to protectthe individuals who volunteered information. Theinformation is politically sensitive due to the fact thatthe community forest is an experimental project which hasnot yet been formally legislated.The argument for common property management of ForestReserve Land in northern Thailand is strengthened bycomparing the findings from Huey Kaew with findings fromTung Yao, another village where customary common propertyrights have been maintained in northern Thailand.The data from Tung Yao is drawn from studies conductedby; Pornpimon Rojanapo, a graduate student from the AsianInstitute of Technology, Dr. Uraiwan Tankimyong, from theResource Management and Development Project at Chiang MaiUniversity, and by staff from the northern office of theProject for Ecological Recovery. 191.5 LIMITATIONSAlthough this study provides important insights intothe operation of community forestry at the village level aswell as its relation to national policies, it is important1 1to realize its limitations. The research is a microstudy ina particular ecological and cultural region and thereforethe findings are specific to this community. A mostimportant limitation in this study is the fact that the HueyKaew community forest is in its early stages. More timewill be required before its impacts can be fully evaluated.In addition, the study was limited by time. Ideally,the study should have covered a full year to observe allseasonal activities and thereby gain a greater understandingof the community's dependence on forest land. However, dueto the fact that the research took place during thebeginning of the rainy season, when most forest activitiestake place, much was learned of forest resource use. Duringthe rainy season, forest resources are more abundant andare used by villagers more than at any other time of theyear. Due to funding and time constraints, similar studiesrarely have more time or even as much time.1.6 ORGANIZATIONThis thesis is divided into four parts. Chapter twooutlines the theoretical framework for the research with adiscussion of property rights and self-reliant development.Chapter three presents the findings from the study of HueyKaew. Chapter four concentrates on some of the findings inchapter three and compares them with findings from anotherstudy of community forestry in northern Thailand. Chapter12five analyzes the Huey Kaew case in light of the theoreticalissues raised in chapter two and discusses the implicationsof the case study for policy on common property rights andthe implications of the case study for policy on self-reliance.13CHAPTER 2THEORY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND SELF-RELIANT DEVELOPMENTThis chapter outlines the theoretical framework withinwhich the case study was conducted. The first part involvesa discussion on the central importance of property rightsand land tenure arrangements in forest development andconservation. The focus of this part is on state managementvs. common property management. This differentiation iscritical for understanding why community forestry isappropriate for rural development and how it affects suchmatters as benefit flows, participation, and conservation.The second part involves a discussion of the self-reliantapproach to rural development. This approach tries to meetthe basic needs of rural people in such a manner that theywill continue it without external assistance. In order toachieve this goal people must have access to land andresources and have the ability to participate in themanagement of those resources.2.1 PROPERTY RIGHTSWhat is Tenure?Tenure refers to a bundle of rights in land or trees.These rights are recognized by law and custom in particularsocieties. 2° A tenure system is the set of tenures in agiven society. A tenure system includes national land law14and the tenures it recognizes plus all the particular localtenure systems.The system of land tenure determines who has access toand benefits from land and resources and under whatconditions. When considering the issue of tenure innatural resource management, there are four possiblemanagement regimes: state property, private property, commonproperty and open access. Open access here is defined as afree for all situation where no particular management regimeis in place. Since this research deals with the issue offorest dependent communities living in state forestreserves, the focus of the discussion will be on stateproperty regimes and common property regimes.Why is Tenure Important?There is much evidence that land tenure affectsconservation and livelihood security. "Recent interest inproperty rights derives not so much from academic concernsbut rather from practical issues of equity, resourcedegradation, and moral responsibility to society in thedevelopment and utilization of resources. "21 Access to landand forest resources under different tenure schemes affectsthe standard of living of people who depend on thoseresources. It has been found that rural communities do notpreserve, protect or plant trees if they do not receive thebenefits. Land and tree tenure systems determine who are15the beneficiaries and victims of forest policies andforestry projects, and set the framework for resolvingconflict over benefits. 22 Land tenure decisions determinewho gets access to the resources and on what terms. 23In many countries, including Thailand, there is littlerelationship between national legislation and practicalreality for villagers in rural communities. Nationallegislation has been superimposed on top of common propertysystems which traditionally existed. In this way communalproperty resources have been nationalized and turned intostate property. As will be explained, this has complicatedthe ownership status of the resource, and led to resourcedepletion. 24Environmental degradation problems are often discussedin terms of common property mismanagement. The breakdown oftraditional common property management systems and theinstability of forest occupants often undermine customaryshort and long term incentives to conserve and sustainablymanage natural resources and is believed to be partiallyresponsible for the rapid and wasteful forest clearing. 25As Owen Lynch states concisely;"The indiscriminate and legal labelling of forestresources as public has effectively created open accesssituations which undermine common property regimes,encourage "legal" and illegal use and extraction ofnatural resources, and promote migration and greatupopulation density in ecologically fragile areas.""16In the contemporary world, a fundamental shift isoccurring in the view of planning for forest areas occupiedand used by indigenous people. The integration of customarylaw, such as common property rights to forest lands, intothe framework of national policy is gaining increasingrecognition. 27 However, while this is being recognized on atheoretical level, there have been few real attempts toincorporate customary land rights into national law. Thecase of Huey Kaew provides many lessons for communities inThailand trying to have customary common property rightslegislated."The development community has gradually come torealize that it will not be successful in addressingresource degradation at the local level so long as thevery nature of property and authority systems overnatural resources are seriously misunderstood in policyformulation and the design of donor assistanceprograms.” 282.1.1 STATE PROPERTY REGIMESIn a state property regime, ownership and management ofland and resources rests in the hands of the state. Thestate may either directly manage the use of state ownednatural resources through government agencies, or lease themto groups or individuals who are given usufruct rights oversuch resources for a specified period of time. 29 The statecreates and protects tenure in land and trees through itsnational legal system, and, through its various agencies,promotes tree planting and forest protection.17There is a long tradition of conflict between the stateand local communities over the control of forests. Arecurrent theme of forestry management in Southeast Asia hasbeen that forests must be protected from the growingdemographic pressure. The major tenurial initiative hasbeen the establishment of forest reserves. The forests havebecome resources to be protected by the state against theirformer users. 30"The view of officials that peasants have beenillegally occupying state lands without realizing ithas a mirror image in the peasant view that the statehas been illegally app wpriating private peasant landswithout realizing it." iThe reserve is a tenure regime designed to excludecommunity use. In the government forest reserve thegovernment owns the forest and seeks to protect resources.The forest may be a natural forest sheltering geneticdiversity or it may be managed for commercial production,with areas periodically cut and replanted. Governments haveasserted the need to create reserves to protect forest fromunsustainable use in free access or ill-controlled commonssituations. 32 While exclusion of farmers is a criticalconcern in the creation of reserves, the state sometimeslacks the human, financial and technical resources to carryout effective forest management.Without effective control by government,nationalization has often converted traditional communal18property into de jure state property but de facto openaccess. 33 Most state property regimes are examples of thestate's reach exceeding its grasp. Many states have takenon far more resource management authority than they can beexpected to carry out effectively. More critically, thissets the government against the peasant when, in fact,successful resource management requires the opposite. 34 Ithas been found that it may be more viable in some cases tocreate proprietary interests which give local communities aninterest in sound husbandry of the forest reserve. 35In most tropical countries, forest land ispredominantly state owned. As a result, most forest zoneoccupants are considered squatters on public land. 36Government policies that promote the tenurial instability offorest dwellers prevent these communities from protectingthe resource because they remove assurance that thecommunity will gain benefits. The failure of nationalgovernments to recognize existing customary property rightsundermines the basic incentive to protect trees. It alsokeeps indigenous peoples and long-term migrants living on"public" forest land from legally benefiting from thenatural resource base. 37In the case of natural forest reserves, policies ofexclusion of traditional users have been increasinglyquestioned. The reserve of national law may be the commons1920of customary law. At certain population levels andsustainable use levels, forests provide a livelihood or partof a livelihood for traditional occupants. Critics ask whycan they not continue to do so? They argue that localcontrol over resources and property rights for users cancreate incentives to conserve the resource. 382.1.2 COMMON PROPERTY REGIMESIn a common property regime, tenure and management arevested in a community. Common property represents privateproperty for the group, since all others are excluded fromuse and decision making." Participants in a commonproperty regime are well aware of their rights andresponsibilities. Common property regimes vary in nature,size, and internal structure across a broad spectrum, butthey are social units with definite membership andboundaries, with certain common interests, with at leastsome interaction among members, with some cultural norms,and often their own endogenous authority systems."The true commons is property held and used in common byan identifiable set of users. Community as defined byresource community or the group of people that use a certainresource. Community control of resources is primarilyassociated with geographically-bounded communities whereties of kinship also apply. The definition of communitymembership determines who may lay what claims againstcommunity resources. The limits placed by definition ofmembership, if they can be enforced, regulate pressure onresources. Communal resources are particularly important insituations where intended beneficiaries are landless.The distinguishing characteristic of common propertyregimes is that their primary legitimacy is drawn from thecommunity in which they operate and not from the nationstate in which they are located. The distinguishingcharacteristic of a common property management system isthat when its participants allocate and enforce rights tonatural resources, they rely on themselves and not on formalexogenous government. 41The manner in which the local community organizesitself as an allied social group to manage the commons willcreate important limits and opportunities for communityforestry. The institution may be a traditional model or anorganizational innovation. Traditional leadership has notbeen indifferent to the destruction of the resources thattheir people require for livelihood security. While theirefforts at conservation have sometimes been overwhelmed bythe weight of economic forces, it is important to note thatthey have sometimes used their influence in attempts toconserve trees. Prevailing popular thought suggests thatcommon property arrangements arise when the population livesclose to the resource and is relatively small. While thismay not always be the case, groups seem to survive if they21have clear-cut rules that are enforced by both users andofficials. 42 Where such systems fail, it is often becauseof government actions or new economic forces that haveundermined the authority of traditional managers.Community based management is traditionally one of theprincipal means of ensuring livelihood security. 43 Withguaranteed access rights to a vital resource, everyone inthe community is assured of the opportunity of meeting theirbasic needs. However, community ownership of a resourcedoes not automatically lead to effective community control.Such control requires the ability to both exclude outsidersand control the behavior of community members. Generally,the more extensive the commons the more difficult it is toexercise control over its use. Common property systemsnormally provide mechanisms for the equitable use ofresources. Rules are mutually agreed upon by all members ofthe group and in many cultures conformity with group normsat the local level is an effective sanction againstantisocial behavior. 44 Essential for any common propertyregime is an authority system able to ensure that theexpectations of rights holders are met. When the authoritysystem breaks down then the management of resource usecannot be exercised any longer, and for all practicalpurposes, common property (res communis) degenerates intoopen access (res nullius). 4522Common property systems are basically conservative inthe way resources are utilized; many aim at self-sufficiency. The emphasis is on taking what is needed; andthere are social sanctions against excessive individual gainfrom communal resources. The ecological wisdom of manycommon property systems emphasizes respect, responsibilityand stewardship. 46 Recognizing existing common propertymanagement systems has great potential in some forest zonesfor promoting sustainable development. 472.1.3 TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS DEBATE AND ITS IMPACT ON POLICYThe best known theory which draws a connection betweenland tenure and the condition of the ecosystem is Hardin's"Tragedy of the Commons". 48 Hardin's argument has had muchinfluence on policy making and in many cases has led toinappropriate policy recommendations. Hardin's view oftenure separated it from the associated system of land useand the encompassing social system. His paper lacked aholistic view of social institutions which have evolved tocontrol resource use in specific ecological and culturalcontexts. Another author notes that, "while degradedcommons do exist, their degradation has not been a simpleand direct result of common ownership. Preservation andprotection also occur under common management." 49 In fact,institutions based on the concept of common property haveplayed socially beneficial roles in natural resourcemanagement from economic pre-history up to the present. 5°23And these same institutions can provide opportunities insolving resource management problems in the future.Unfortunately, due to the popularity of Hardin's"Tragedy of the Commons", common property regimes formanaging natural resources have been frequentlymisunderstood. Many planners and development administratorsobserve a situation in which there is no management regimein place. 51 They observe a free-for-all or open-accesssituation where exploitation of the resource is inevitable.Hardin misuses the term commons for an open accesssituation. The right to exclude is central to the conceptof common property. The true commons implies communityownership and potential for control. 52 Hardin's model failsto take into account the self-regulating capabilities ofusers. It assumes that communities are unable to limitaccess or institute rules to regulate use and therefore,exploitation is inevitable - unless privatization orgovernment controls are imposed. 53The tragedy-of-the-commons model overemphasizes thesolutions of privatization and central administrativecontrols at the expense of local-level management. Manyargue that the cause of the tragedy can be controlled bynaturally occurring social forces that are present withincommunities which have a shared interest in a common24resource upon which they all depend. 54 Chambers describesthis as the "paradox of the commons", where individual self-interest, the force which drives us to overexploit, is notcontrolled by privatization but can be controlled in thecontext of the commons. 55 Many argue that resource managersand development planners should integrate local-levelmanagement, planning with the people, into the existingcommon property resource management framework. 56The topic of common property resources is critical tothe practical work on development projects, primarily inagriculture, forestry, and fisheries. 57 Renewed interest intraditional management systems stems partly from the pastfailures of development projects, and the search for viablesustainable alternatives to current models of resource use.The interest in community based tenurial strategies isdue to the realization that many forest dwellers in Southand Southeast Asia participate in common property managementsystems. These systems are under great stress, and in someareas have virtually disintegrated. Resource degradation inthe developing countries, while incorrectly attributedintrinsically to "common property systems", actuallyoriginates in the dissolution of local-level institutionalarrangements whose very purpose was to support resource usepatterns that were sustainable. 58 Most national governmentscontinue to view common property regimes with indifference25and in some cases with hostility. They overlook the factthat many common property regimes promote sustainable andenvironmentally sound development. 59Relatively few tenure specialists any longer propoundthe "tragedy of the commons" thesis which was so popularduring the 1970's and early 1980's. 60 "A new paradigm isemerging which seeks a balance between community basedmanagement and management by governments. It links equityissues with conservation by showing how a particularresource may be most effectively conserved under the controlof a group of users who depend on it to meet their ownneeds. ”612.2 SELF-RELIANT DEVELOPMENTRoots of Self-Reliance TheoryAsia, particularly India, has a strong tradition ofself-reliance. 62 This tradition is rooted in the thinkingof Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi rejected the race for economicgrowth as a primary goal. He started with basic needs, andhe finished with basic needs. Gandhi's philosophy taughtthe poorest of the poor to rely on themselves and their ownresources: their labour, their medicinal plants, the food oftheir environment, the simple materials which everyone canuse. Gandhi was seeking to rebuild confidence, to26reestablish personal dignity, to stimulate local self-organization and self-reliance. 63When the basic needs approach is combined with accessto decision-making then development builds self-reliance.The influence of Gandhi has led to the participatoryapproach in development, and towards bottom-up communitydevelopment.^Participatory development involves thebeneficiaries as partners in action and research.^Byworking together with villagers, development will take moreappropriate actions.Schumacher, in his 1973 book "Small is Beautiful",defined development as beginning with people. "Developmentdoes not start with goods: it starts with people and theireducation, organization, and discipline ... Here, then, liesthe central problem of development. If the primary causesof poverty are deficiencies in these three respects, thenthe alleviation of poverty depends primarily on the removalof these three deficiencies ..." 64 Schumacher makes theargument against large centralized models of bureaucracywith a high degree of specialization. He outlines anapproach involving decentralization and diversification.That is, decentralization of responsibility to localcommunities and diversification of production. The goal ofhis approach in "Small is Beautiful" calls for a morehuman-scale development which is spiritually satisfying. He27gives a wonderfully practical example which clarifies thisview;"The gift of material goods makes people dependent butthe gift of knowledge makes them free ... more relevantto the concept of development ... give a man a fish, asthe saying goes, and you are helping him a little bitfor a very short while; teach him the art of fishing,and he can help himself all his life ... and you havehelped him to become not only self-supporting, butalso self-reliant and independent ... this should bethe aim of development then, to make humankind self-reliant and independent by the generous supply of theappropriate intellectual (Wts of relevant knowledge onthe methods of self-help." °°Rural Development and Self-RelianceThe importance of rural development in the context ofdeveloping countries is widely understood and has been asubject of concern for academics, planners andadministrators for a long time. Changes in the ideas ofdevelopment since the 1960's, suggest that growth is not anadequate strategy for the rural poor. Development strategiesin the third world tied primarily to economic growth havenot solved the problems of poverty, unemployment, andinequality. 66 New approaches to rural development haveevolved, mostly influenced by ideas coming from thedeveloping countries themselves. 67 One of the majorobjectives of rural development is to meet the basic needsof rural people in such a manner that these people willcontinue that process without any external help, or in otherwords, meet basic needs through a self-reliant approach todevelopment." To achieve this goal people must have access28to land and resources and have the opportunity and tools toparticipate in the management of resources and directionsfor development. People's participation is necessary tofacilitate the tapping of unused or underutilized humanresources which are abundant in developing countries. 69This thesis accepts the assumption that community forestrycan provide a means to self-reliant rural development, whichis participatory, bottom-up, builds on existing socialinstitutions and local knowledge of the environment, and istherefore a viable approach to development.Access to Land and ResourcesThe question of self-reliant grassroots development isintegrally linked with access to material resources forbasic sustenance of the rural poor without criticaldependence on others. 7° A key principle for self-relianceis therefore access to land and resources. The rural poorneed an equitable share of basic economic assets toparticipate with self-reliance in the process of socialdevelopment. Self-reliance cannot be attained withdependence, in other words, communities must have theability to be independent. Therefore the critical questionfor rural communities such as Huey Kaew is land tenure inthe forest reserve.29Participation in Decision-MakingAnother element in self-reliance is the ability todecide and control the path of future development.Participation in problem definition is necessary to arriveat more effective solutions. Solutions and directions fordevelopment should rely on resources within the village asmuch as possible. Reliance on external capital andexpertise is no solution - it simply forms a relationship ofdependency. Development which builds self-reliance meansincreasing self-determination and empowerment for ruralcommunities. Self-reliance at the individual, the communityand the national level does not call for autarky; self-reliance only requires that interactions at different levelstake place with each starting from a position of nearequality so that the outcome is interdependence and notdependence. 71 "Outside support and information becomecontrary to self-reliance when they include implicit powerrelations through which outside decisions becomecontrolling." 72 Dependence on outside decisions andassistance undermines the sustainability of local effortsand positive cultural values.Grassroots OrganizationSelf-reliance strategies need grassroots organizationswhich pool together people's energy and creativity. "Therural poor must form some type of organization andthemselves determine the tasks to which their collective30initiatives will be addressed." 73 A leader or motivator forthe group may come from within the community or may be fromoutside but must be accepted from within the community.Participation from all interest groups within the communityinsures a better the chance of all voices being heard andoppressive power and social relations being transformed.The negotiations between local groups and external agentssuch as regional and national officials may requireintermediaries. 74 Non-Government Organizations, asgrassroots organizations often play the role of intermediaryand carry out action-research. Faced with the growingnumbers of poor being left out of the growth pattern, thegrassroots development work of NGO's is seen as a viableroute forward. This approach, may not lead to wealth, butto Gandhian levels of self-sufficiency, basic needs andrural dignity. 75As mentioned previously, an overall goal of many ruraldevelopment projects is to prepare and allow rural people toparticipate more fully in development so that they become aninevitable part of the process. An important indicator ofsuccess is, therefore, the extent to which the members of acommunity are able to work together. Self-reliance is aqualitative effect which can be identified by indicatorssuch as: frequency of community meetings, attendance atmeetings, participation in discussion and decisions at thosemeetings, participation in community projects, growth in3132skills of community members. 76 In terms of communityforestry, success in building self-reliance and preservingforest land will come when the forest is managed by thecommunity and its basic needs are satisfied.Local Knowledge and Self-RelianceIn Robert Chambers book, "Rural Development - Puttingthe Last First", he discusses why we need to mobilize localpeople and how their self-reliance can be blocked. 77 Hedescribes a need for research which shifts the initiative torural people as partners in learning, enabling them to useand augment their own skills, knowledge and power. 78 "Ruralpeople's knowledge and modern scientific knowledge arecomplementary in their strengths and weaknesses. Combinedthey may achieve what neither would alone." 79 The key is tostart with the priorities and strategies of the rural poorthemselves to ensure relevant changes. Reliance on localknowledge rather than knowledge from outside does not implythat self-reliance requires going back to the past butrather, requires looking "within" the traditional system forsolutions to problems.The issue of indigenous knowledge in the developmentprocess and issues of self-reliance in Thailand have beendiscussed widely among non-government organizations involvedin grassroots development. At the practical level,indigenous technical knowledge such as traditionalirrigation systems illustrate the relationship betweentechnical knowledge and resource management, and the socialsystem. More often than not, development takes placewithout regard for traditional systems and as a result muchindigenous knowledge is being lost.In terms of forestry research and extension there hasbeen little attention to indigenous species and theircultivation and the social conventions which govern theiruse. Rural people's knowledge of the environment has beenunderutilized in natural resource development. Communityforestry provides the opportunity to recognize local landuse systems and formalize rights to use and benefit fromtrees and other forest resources. It is important fordevelopment workers and planners to interpret indigenoussystems in order to focus attention on this issue andthereby influence government policies."Forests and Self-RelianceCommunity forestry is recognized as an important factorin self-reliance. Self-reliance is linked to the diversitythat is found in natural forests. 81 Forests and farm treesmake a significant direct and indirect contribution to thefood security and nutrition of rural populations. 82 Thedirect contribution includes food collected from the forest.The indirect contribution includes cash income from sales of33forest products, fuel, livestock fodder and medicines orfrom employment in forestry activities. The influence offorests on the environment could also be considered anindirect contribution to food security, insofar as itaffects the source of water for irrigation and agriculturalproduction. Groups with little or no land of their own aregenerally more dependent on common property resources, suchas forests, than those who have sufficient resources tofulfill their household needs. It is estimated that 14 to16 million people in Thailand live in state forest reservesand have no formal legal tenure.Self-Reliance Strategies in ThailandIn Thailand, Seri Phongphit, a philosopher within theNGO movement, defines a new development paradigm takingshape in which the main actors are the people. That is,people become the subject of their own development: withgreater participation in decision-making, leading to morebalanced and appropriate forms of development consistentwith their cultural, social, and economic norms. 83 Thisdevelopment paradigm reflects events in several rural areasin Thailand. Many farmers have reached a turning point inwhich they are revitalizing their traditional values. Thisprocess of development, of "going back to the roots", andincreasing self-reliance is growing as more farmers andvillage communities turn to this way of life. "They areturning to basic agriculture guided by popular wisdom34reproduced for modern reality. "84 As a consequence, manynow have a better life. They have paid off debts incurredby previous commercial farming practices and now grow avaried abundance of food for their own consumption. Thesefarmers are working for their own subsistence throughintegrated farming using appropriate technology rather thanfor the income provided by cash crops. They sell theirsurplus on the market but are less dependent on the marketthan previously. Co-operatives are organized from thebottom up and farmers themselves are responsible foractivities such as rice banks, buffalo banks, irrigation andforest conservation committees. People are revitalizinglocal knowledge and learning to manage their own resources.The main objective of this approach to development isto strengthen people's organizations and cooperative values.Community forestry can be an important factor in such self-reliance. It provides people access to land and resources,and stimulates self-confidence so that people rely onthemselves to make independent decisions on theirdevelopment.This alternative to rural development in Thailandshares many principles with Schumacher's writings onBuddhist economics.^"From the point of view of Buddhisteconomics ...^production from local resources for localneeds is the most rational way of economic life..." 85 He35concludes, "For it is not a question of choosing between"modern growth" and "traditional stagnation." It is aquestion of finding the right path of development, themiddle way between materialist heedlessness and traditionalimmobility, in short, of finding "Right Livelihood." 8636CHAPTER 3CASE STUDY IN HUEY KAEW3.1 INTRODUCTIONHistorically, rural villagers in northern Thailand hada stable coexistence with forest ecosystems due to theintrinsic value attached to forests in Thai culture, as wellas to customary common property management systems. 87 In thecontemporary scene the state management of forests hasgradually undermined these customary laws and the authorityof traditional institutions.88 This has createdconsiderable tension between the traditional villagers' viewof forests as common property resources, and officialgovernment policy. Rural communities dependent on forestresources are fighting for their rights to benefit fromforest land they have long considered as their own.The case of Huey Kaew represents a bottom-up push forreestablishing common property rights. It is also a casewhere the Royal Forestry Department is attempting tointegrate common property rights to forest lands, into theframework of national policy. The purpose of this casestudy in Huey Kaew is to explore the dynamics involved inreestablishing common property rights. The objectives andmethods of the study were outlined in chapter one.373.2 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDYThe contemporary situation in Thailand suggests thatenvironmental degradation and natural resource allocationwill continue to be major sources of conflict between thegovernment and rural communities. 89 The community forestprogram in Huey Kaew therefore has the potential to providea model for other forest communities that face suchconflict." The success for implementation of the Huey Kaewcommunity forest is a goal of the Royal Forestry Departmentand the Ministry of Agriculture and AgriculturalCooperatives. 91 If it is successful, this program willprovide benefits for both the villagers and the nation. Thevillagers will secure their ability to satisfy their ownneeds and the right to protect and manage forest resources,while the government will find a viable alternative to statecontrol for managing Forest Reserve Land.3.3 DESCRIPTION OF HUEY KAEWThe village of Huey Kaew is located in an upper valleyfloor in the northeast corner of Kaew sub-district in ChiangMai Province. The upper part of the village is locatedwithin a Forest Reserve which contains a watershed covering3000 rai (480 hectares) that supplies water to 10,000 rai(1,600 hectares) of paddy land. 92 The whole village issurrounded by mountain ranges and forests which areprimarily secondary growth as a result of loggingconcessions in the early part of the century. The forest38has been classified, by the Royal Forestry Department, asdry deciduous dipterocarp at the lower elevations and mixeddeciduous at the higher elevations. Mixed Deciduous forestshave great economic value because many commercial speciesare abundant. It is the primary habitat of teak (Tectonagrandis). 93 The Dry Deciduous Dipterocarp forest has fewtrees of commercial importance but because trees in theseforests are able to coppice freely they assure a continualsource of fuelwood and various species of bamboo. 94The watershed is the source of four streams one ofwhich flows through the village of Huey Kaew. This streamsupplies sufficient water for cultivation and homeconsumption all year. Two small traditional irrigationcanals draw water to feed rice fields on both sides of theriver. Huey Kaew is an oval shaped village surrounded byrice paddy and forest. Most houses are built along the mainroad. The houses of the wealthier families are generallymade of teak with tile roofs. The houses of the poor aregenerally made from bamboo materials with roofs made fromleaves.The population of Huey Kaew is 513 people. 95 Thesepeople live in 126 households. Ninety-two of the householdsare landless. 96 The villagers of Huey Kaew understand theimportance of conserving the forest in the watershed inorder to maintain the source of water which irrigates theirrice fields. Villagers depend on the forest as a source of39building materials for their homes, fuelwood, grazing landfor domestic animals such as water buffalo and cattle,natural foods, herbs and medicines, and as a hunting groundfor small birds, animals and insects. They also cultivatefruit trees on the fringes of the forest. Low incomes aresupplemented by harvesting trees and wild foods for use andfor sale. The villagers of Huey Kaew have also beeninvolved in illegal logging but this practise must beseparated from logging by those from outside the communitybecause it is a different level of exploitation. Villagersknow their land as it is part of their way of life and theydepend on it for their livelihood. Customary laws to managethese forest lands have existed but the villagers of HueyKaew have found it increasingly difficult to maintain theserights and responsibilities and to enforce regulations toprotect the forest.3.4 THE HUEY KAEW CONFLICTIn February 1989, the Royal Forestry Department leased235 rai (38 hectares) of forest land, directly above HueyKaew, to a private individual from Chiang Mai fordevelopment of a mango plantation. (See figure 1) Rental ofForest Reserve Land is allowed by law according to a 1987order of the Royal Forestry Department. 97 The land aboveHuey Kaew had been classed by the RFD as degraded land andwas therefore available by concession for privatereplanting. According to RFD policy, a private plantation4011:50,000111 area of forest concessiontt.t.. rice paddies41Figure 1. Huey Kaew showing area of forest concession.Source: Project for Ecological Recovery, Chiang Mai Office.meets the definition of reforestation of a degraded area.As mentioned previously, there is much debate over thispolicy in terms of what constitutes a real forest. Criticsof the policy argue that a single species plantation shouldnot be defined as a forest.When development of the plantation began in March 1989the land was cleared of indigenous species by bulldozer.The impact of this clearing spoiled the natural foodgathering and grazing area which villagers depended on tosupplement their diet and household income. The clearingalso resulted in sediment build up that blocked stream flow.Villagers were informed that their use of this land wasillegal, and they were prevented from passing through theforest. Villagers of Huey Kaew considered this land astheir land as they had been using it for over twogenerations. Villagers argued that this forest was notdegraded and this was supported by a survey conducted byforestry students from Kasetsart University. The villagersof Huey Kaew wondered why their use of the forest wasillegal while outsiders had the legal right to profit fromtheir forest?Protest against the concession was initiated bylandless villagers from Huey Kaew because they live nearestto the forest and were directly affected. However, theneighbouring village of Mae Tao Din also depended on waterfrom the stream for irrigation and joined in the protest.42By November 1989 villagers had gained the support of variousNGO's, students, academics, and the media. Key supporterswere from the Chiang Mai University student union, ThammasatUniversity student union, Kasetsart University studentunion, the Committee of Natural Resource Conservation (agovernment advisory committee), and seventeen environmentalgroups from all over southeast Asia. Newspaper headlines inboth the Thai and English language papers reported on thesequence of events over six months. Villagers and theirsupporters demanded that the lease of Forest Reserve Land becancelled and that a review and redefinition of law beundertaken to allow for community forestry.The villagers argued they were simply trying to protecttheir right to use the forest for public usefulness; thatthey had been living there for generations; the forestshould remain for their children; the concession waschanging a diverse indigenous forest to a single speciesplantation; and changing public forest to private.By December 1989, the issue had reached the office ofthen Prime Minister Chatichai in Bangkok. The land leasewas cancelled and the government announced plans to award1600 rai (256 hectares) of Forest Reserve Land to villagersof Huey Kaew sub-district. Although no formal propertyrights have yet been awarded, Huey Kaew became the first43politically recognized community forest within forestreserve land in Thailand on December 26, 1989. 98The Huey Kaew community forest experimental project, asit has become known, has two main objectives; first, to helpthe government solve the problem of deforestation, andsecond to use the economic value of the community forest tosolve the livelihood problems of the villagers. On April20, 1990 four committees were appointed to oversee theplanning of the Huey Kaew community forest experimentalproject. 99 The Village Forest Conservation Committee wasappointed by the head of the Sankhampeang District Officeand is made up of villagers from Huey Kaew and Mae Tao Din.Three other committees were appointed by the Governor ofChiang Mai province. These three committees are composed ofpeople from different government departments including theRFD, academics from Chiang Mai University and members ofvarious NGO's. The roles of the three committees are toadvise, direct, and support action for the Huey KaewCommunity Forest Project. That is, their role is to worktogether with the villagers of Huey Kaew in making acommunity forest plan and implementing common propertymanagement of the land selected by the RFD. Final authorityfor any decisions made rests with the RFD. (see figure 4)44The following section presents the research findingsfrom three months of field work in Huey Kaew from June 1990through August 1990.3.5 RESEARCH RESULTSProperty RightsLand and tree tenure is the most important variable indetermining the potential success of community forestry.Tenure provides access to land and resources and is crucialfor self-reliance as it formalizes the rights to benefitfrom trees and other forest resources. Tenure also providesthe opportunity to recognize traditional land uses andinstitutions. Control over the land provides a communitywith the ability to direct its own development.Despite the fact that the watershed above Huey Kaew hasbeen classified as state Forest Reserve Land, 100 communalownership and customary laws have co-existed to some degreefor at least two generations. Ten of the twelve householdsinterviewed in Huey Kaew were familiar with customary lawsfor forest use. Villagers of Huey Kaew have had customarycommon property rights to 1500 rai (240 hectares) of forestland since the village was settled approximately fifty yearsago and they have requested a formal tenure arrangement withthe state. 101 This forest land extends above Huey Kaew andincludes the 235 rai concession. (See figure 2) Thevillagers are fighting for this land because they consider451:50,000area of forest concessionarea under customarycommon property rights1,--"„&  rice paddies■Mae Tao DinJA. AL16 .u. .14-.1s.JA. AC^11-AL A.0 y.11 AL.ALJLAL-U- Huey,KaewAC AL.J.& -LC J.L JJ.YY1I JJ.ja. JJ- JLJA.AL AA.Figure 2. Huey Kaew showing area of forest concessionand area under customary common property rights.Source: Project for Ecological Recovery, Chiang Mai Office.46that it belongs to the community and they should have thelegal right to benefit from it. Nine of the twelvehouseholds interviewed in Huey Kaew made it clear that theyrequire the legal right to benefit from the forest or theywill not be able to continue living there. Villagersperceive that their property rights are highly insecure:many believe that there is an urgent need to survey theboundaries of the community forest; to legislate forvillagers rights to manage the forest; in order to end theopen-access conditions and stabilize exploitation. 102 Thisprocess had a slow start due to disagreement over thelocation of the land to be granted tenure.The Royal Forestry Department is not prepared to granttenure to the forest land which the villagers haverequested. 103 The Department has surveyed 1600 rai (256hectares) of degraded forest land for the community forestwhich is located further from the village. 104 (See figure 3)The underlying problem is that present forest legislationdoes not provide for community forestry. In Thailand,Reserve Forest Land is divided into three classes;conservation forest (watersheds), economic forest (degradedforest available for concession) and reform forest (grantedthrough land use certificates for agriculture). None ofthese categories includes community forestry. 105The land requested by villagers of Huey Kaew for thecommunity forest includes the 235 rai (38 hectares) that had471:50,0001.1 area of forest concessionarea under customarycommon property rightsarea of proposed"community forest"-U. la- rice paddiesFigure 3. Huey Kaew showing area of forest concession,area under customary common property rights andarea of proposed "community forest".Source: Project for Ecological Recovery, Chiang Mai Office.48been leased by RFD for the private development of a mangoplantation. Villagers have not been granted access to thisland because of the political situation surrounding it. Theland they have requested also includes an area ofconservation forest. It was decided that villagers cannotbe granted tenure in a conservation forest because it is awatershed area with thin soils and steep slopes susceptibleto erosion. 106 Villagers are allowed to gather naturalfoods and fallen wood for firewood in conservation areas butno cutting of trees is allowed. 1" Villagers argue thatthey have preserved the forest at higher elevations in thewatershed for years and understand the connection betweenmaintaining the forest and maintaining the source of theirirrigation water. 108 Eight of the twelve householdsinterviewed in Huey Kaew spoke of the need to protect theforest in order to protect their water source.Land UsesHistorical information regarding land use patterns inindigenous forests and communal areas can be used todetermine what forest products are essential from thecommunity point of view. The assumption is that traditionalland use patterns should be reflected in the current tenuresystem and the resources that are made available throughcommunity forestry. Where certain products are obtainedfrom outside the boundaries of the community forest, such as49in adjacent indigenous forests, it is argued by communityforest theorists that these areas should be brought undercommunity management as wel1. 109According to villagers in Huey Kaew, approximatelythirty years ago the area was thickly forested and therewere many large teak trees. Five of the twelve householdsinterviewed in Huey Kaew spoke of the degradation of theirforest over the past 30 years. The forest has always beenan important resource for the villagers. There was no needto buy food because everything could be found around thehouse and the village. Villagers use the forest as a sourceof building materials for their homes, fuelwood, grazingarea for domestic animals such as water buffalo and cattle,gathering area for natural foods, herbs and medicines, andas a hunting ground for small animals, birds and insects.They also cultivate fruit trees on the fringes of theforest. Every household interviewed in Huey Kaew dependedon the forest for various combinations of reasons. The lowincome of villagers is supplemented by gathering forestresources for subsistence and for income.Villagers of Huey Kaew admit that logging has been aprimary source of income for many. Landless villagers inparticular, have often been forced to cut trees in order tohave some source of income. Six of the twelve householdsinterviewed in Huey Kaew have at one time or anotherdepended on income from harvesting trees. Villagers50maintain that there was always an area of conservation athigher elevations in the watershed where no cutting wasallowed. Cutting was selective and only at lower levels ofthe watershed in areas of mixed deciduous forest. Althoughthis method of conservation worked at one time, villagersrealize they have had little control over the use of forestresources by outsiders during the past several years. Withthe increase in use of their forest by outsiders someresidents of Huey Kaew have also been disregardingtraditional rules and responsibilities regarding use ofthese resources. As a result, their forest is suffering andvillagers must travel much further now to find treessuitable for building.Villagers understand the importance of conserving theforest in the upper watershed as their water source.Without this forest they will have no water for irrigationand the area will become very dry. Every householdinterviewed in Huey Kaew spoke of this connection betweenthe forest and their water source. Some villagers arefamiliar with a neighbouring village which cut too manytrees and lost the water for their irrigation canals andtheir source of firewood and wood for building. 110Villagers of Huey Kaew collect firewood and bamboo atlower elevations in areas of dry dipterocarp forest. Due to51the rapid regeneration of these species the villagers havebeen assured a continual source of firewood and bamboo forvarious purposes. 111 However, since the conflict over theconcession forest, villagers must travel further into theforest to find these resources. Five of the twelvehouseholds interviewed in Huey Kaew complained of thisproblem. The villagers of Huey Kaew do not see any benefitsin gaining tenure to the degraded land which the RFD hasidentified for a community forest. Villagers feel that thisland is too far from the village and the land will requirereplanting of indigenous species. 112 Even if the RFDsupplies the seedlings for replanting, villagers areconcerned about where they will gather resources until thisland is replanted and restored. 113Forest DependencyDependency on common property forest resources tends tovary with access to land: households which are landless aremore dependent on common property resources. According to asurvey conducted in Huey Kaew by the Northern DevelopmentWorkers Association, there are twenty two households whichare directly dependent on forest resources, and all of themare in support of the community forest. 114 Most of thesefamilies live in the upper part of the village which islocated within Forest Reserve Land. 115 Landless families inHuey Kaew could not survive without access to forestresources. Of the twelve households interviewed in Huey52Kaew, six said they could not survive without access toforest resources. Households with land also spoke of thedependence of landless families on the forest. Landless andlandowning villagers depend on the forest as a source ofwater. Villagers perceive the river as the blood of thepeople and the forest as their heart and soul. 116Villagers describe their relationship with the forestin the expression, the boat needs water like the tiger needsthe forest. 117 They fear for the next generation who willneed access to the forest in order to meet their basic needsfor water, food, and shelter. One woman said to me that shefeared for her children; she grew up because of normai(bamboo shoots, a staple in the diet of villagers) and whatwould her children eat without the forest? Members of thevarious Huey Kaew Community Forest Committees are inagreement that in order for the community forest to be asuccess it must meet the needs of the segment of thepopulation who are dependent on the use of indigenousspecies.Uses for Indigenous SpeciesSelf-reliance of villagers is linked to the diversityof the natural forest. The forest makes contributions tofood security and nutrition in the wild fruits andvegetables collected. Cash income is also supplementedthrough the sale of forest foods and products.^What53products and species are used and for what purposes? Theassumption here is that the greater the use of indigenousspecies the greater the need to bring indigenous forestsunder common property management.There are numerous indigenous species of value to localvillagers. Every household interviewed in Huey Kaew saidthey depended on the forest as a source of resources forsubsistence or for income. Bamboo shoots are a staple inthe diet during the rainy season and are also sold at thedistrict market for cash income. Various species ofmushrooms are collected to supplement the diet and somespecies can be sold at the district market for income. Inaddition, there are numerous leafy green vegetables and wildfruits which are collected to supplement the diet. Smallanimals, lizards, frogs, birds and insects are hunted.Although herbal medicines are not as popular since theavailability of medicines at the village store some olderpeople still collect roots and plants to make herbalremedies. 118 Different species of bamboo are harvested andused for house construction and can be sliced thinly andwoven into baskets and rope. Worms found inside the bambooare a delicacy that can be sold at the market.^Leaves arecollected to make roofs for buildings.^Firewood iscollected and charcoal is made from gathered wood.^Theforest is used as a grazing area for water buffalo andcattle. Timber is cut for building houses and for sale to54supplement incomes. Most villagers have had to cut treesfor income at one time or another to pay off debts or carrythem through troubled times.Role of Traditional InstitutionsTraditional institutions encompass local values andinclude rights and responsibilities which govern the use offorest resources. Traditional institutions are generally anunderutilized resource in state forestry planning. Byincorporating indigenous institutions the state could shiftinitiative to the community allowing them to use their ownskills and knowledge. Revitalizing traditional values andknowledge of forest ecosystems and the customary laws whichgovern their use can have a positive impact on how thecommunity perceives its situation. That is, villagers canbe empowered and can be more secure and self-reliant withlocal control of their forest.In Huey Kaew, the traditional institution governing theuse of forest resources was the village irrigationcommittee. 119 Over time this institution has gradually lostcontrol in terms of accepted laws governing the use offorest resources. These laws were not written but wereunderstood by all members of the community. 120 Members ofthe irrigation committee are elected by villagers andeveryone participates in decision-making. The communitycontinues to cooperate and successfully run the village55irrigation committee or Muang Faai system. By cooperating,and sharing benefits and responsibilities, villagers havebeen able to maintain their system of irrigation. Thevillage headman, Mr. Jumsai, and NGO workers spoke of otherinstitutions such as the village rice bank and the villagebuffalo bank which are run successfully by villagersthemselves. 121 Therefore there is every reason to believethat the villagers of Huey Kaew are capable of managing acommunity forest.The customary laws regarding forest use in Huey Kaewhave been gradually breaking down due to the fact thatvillagers held no real authority and were unable to enforceregulations concerning the use of the forest. Neighbouringvillages and outsiders have not respected their authorityand have poached timber due to the open-access conditionswhich exist. This was a continual topic of discussion atVillage Forest Conservation Committee meetings. Inaddition, every household interviewed in Huey Kaew spoke ofthe problem of controlling the use of forest resources.The Village Forest Conservation Committee which wasappointed by the head of the Sankhampeang District Office inan attempt to create and formalize a local levelinstitution. 122 It could attempt to regain traditionalrights and responsibilities for forest use in order tomaintain the forest as a headwaters for agricultural56production, for timber cutting, firewood, wild food, herbalmedicine, and as an animal grazing area. The problem withthis new institution is that it lacks the key connectionbetween the village water source and the forest that wasinherent in the previous indigenous management through theirrigation committee.Social Controls and SanctionsProviding a community with forest tenure and a locallevel institution does not automatically lead to effectivecommunity control of the resources. Social controls andsanctions and the ability to enforce them are an importantvariable to the success of community forestry. Thisincludes the ability to control use by people from outsidethe community as well as by community members.Members of the community in Huey Kaew admit that theyhave little control over either but perceive the situationhas improved since the formation of the Forest ConservationCommittee. 123 Formalizing the rights of the Committee willprovide the community with a greater ability to control theuse of forest resources. The first step has been to definewho is included in the resource community and who isexcluded. 124 Only members of the community are allowed touse forest resources in the community forest. Under specialconditions, family members from outside the community cancollect resources such as bamboo but they must obtain57special permission from the Village Forest ConservationCommittee beforehand. 125 There are social and peerpressures to conform with the rights and responsibilitiesassociated with use of the forest. Enforcement of theserules is primarily through monetary fines. 126The committee understands that there should be nocutting in the conservation area of the watershed and if itsboundaries are marked out they say villagers will be betterable to abide by this rule. 127 In the forest above thevillage, where the forest was cleared for the concession,the committee has decided not to cut any trees for fiveyears. This will allow natural regeneration of the area. 128Villagers must obtain permission from the Village ForestConservation Committee to cut trees anywhere within thecommunity forest. 129 Generally, villagers are allowed tocut trees to build a house when there is a marriage in orderthat every family has its own house. Special conditions forbuilding a house sometimes arise when a family is in debtand needs money. At times like this, special permission isgiven for the family to sell their house and build a newone. Villagers have a rule stating that for every tree aperson cuts, they must plant five trees in its place andmaintain them for three years.Collection of firewood is restricted to home use andvillagers cannot sell firewood or charcoal to people from58outside the community. Depending on the species, harvestingbamboo is regulated to a certain amount per family peryear. 130 Sanctions for breaking laws are in the form ofmonetary fines. For example, if a person is caughtharvesting timber or bamboo without permission or over thelimit, a fine must be paid and the wood is confiscated andused for the good of the community.There still exists the problem of how to enforce theregulations. According to Mr. Jumsai, the village headman,future success will depend to a great extent on creatingincentives for individuals to abide by the regulations. 131A hopeful sign is provided by the fact that villagers areable to cooperate in rights and responsibilities regardingthe use of water. For example, everyone shares waterequally and anyone caught taking more than their share mustpay a fifty baht fine. Everyone participates in themaintenance of irrigation canals. Every householdinterviewed in Huey Kaew actively participates in theresponsibilities associated with water use. Villagersbelieve that if this method works for the IrrigationCommittee it can work for the Forest Conservation Committee.Grassroots OrganizationGrassroots organization pools the energy and creativityof community members in solving community problems.^An59important indicator of success therefore is the extent towhich members of a community are able to work together.Huey Kaew was very successful in organizing to protestagainst the private concession and fight for their right tobenefit from the forest. 132 However, in terms of proceedingwith a plan of action for the community forest, conflictwithin the community and lack of support within thecommunity is a problem. 133 Only about one third of thevillagers really support the community forest project andparticipate in village meetings. These include the twenty-two landless families living within the Forest Reserve Landplus another twenty families from Huey Kaew and fourteenfamilies from Mae Tao Din. 134Of the twelve households interviewed in Huey Kaew sixwere actively involved in various aspects of planning forthe project. Four of the twelve households interviewed inHuey Kaew said they supported the idea of the communityforest but would not actively participate. Two of thesehouseholds did not want to be involved due to the fact thatthey did not depend on the use the forest resources tosupplement their income and did not see any direct benefitsfrom the project. Their main concern in regards to forestmanagement was protection of the watershed in order tomaintain their source of water for irrigation. They feltthat the watershed would be maintained whether the community60managed the forest or the government managed the forest.They did not like the conflict the project had caused in thevillage and therefore felt it would be better for thegovernment to manage the forest. The other two householdsthat did not support the project would not participate dueto fear. At the time of conflict over the concession, thevillager who led the community in its fight for the right tobenefit from the forest was assassinated.Among supporters of the community forest and members ofthe Forest Conservation Committee there is a gap between theinformal leader and other community members. 135 Mr.Sukwong, the informal leader of the Village ForestConservation Committee has had more experience with lifeoutside the village and so the others tend to follow hisideas rather than participating themselves. Mr. Sukwong hasbecome the village spokesman for the project at the variousmeetings of the Huey Kaew Community Forest Committeemeetings. A large part of the problem with community forestdevelopment in Huey Kaew is that most of the villagers donot really understand the concept of the communityforest. 136Mr. Jumsai, the village headman said that there hasbeen no problem in gaining support for previous communitydevelopments because they have benefited the wholecommunity. In the case of the community forest however, the61situation is different because it is the landless villagerswho stand to benefit the most. In this case, Mr. Jumsaifeels that if villagers were educated on the benefits of thecommunity forest they would be more willing toparticipate. 137Participation in Decision-MakingSelf-reliance requires that the community has theability to decide and control the path of its development.This includes participation in problem definition andadoption of solutions that rely on local resources as muchas possible. Reliance on outside support provides no realsolution if it creates dependency and undermines thesustainability of local efforts.In theory, the creation of the Village ForestConservation Committee is an attempt by the government tofind a model for community forestry that gives villagersdirect power in decision-making. 138 After a five yearperiod the experimental project will be evaluated todetermine if the Village Forest Conservation Committee iscapable of managing the community forest on its own. 139In reality, members of the Forest ConservationCommittee and other supporters of the project within thevillage are experiencing fear and frustration and increasinginstability as their committee holds no real authority inthe decision-making hierarchy . 140 (See figure 4) Any62MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVESROYAL FORESTRY DEPARTMENTPROVINCIAL FORESTRY OFFICEPROVINCIAL OFFICEDISTRICT OFFICESUB-DISTRICT COMMITTEEHUEY KAEWCOMMUNITY FORESTCONSERVATION COMMITTEEDIRECTIONCOMMITTEE ACTIONCOMMITTEEADVISORYCOMMITTEEFIGURE 4: DECISION-MAKING LADDER FORHUEY KAEW COMMUNITY FOREST EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT63decisions they make must be accepted first by the sub-district committee, then by the district forestry office,then by the provincial forestry office, and finally by theRoyal Forestry Department and the Ministry of AgriculturalCooperatives. 141 They might stand a chance if they had thefull support of their village headman, Mr. Jumsai. However,his business involvement with higher level governmentofficials as the poh Jiang or local lumber patron make it avery difficult for him to become too supportive of thecommunity forest which would end his patronage and primarilybenefit landless villagers. 142The villagers initial access to decision-making, andsuccess in stopping the concession would have been unlikelywere it not for the strong support they received from NGO's,academics, and the media. 143 The continued availability oflegal and technical support until the community has formallegislated common property rights will determine thevillagers' real success in gaining access to decision-making.Availability of Technical SupportThe role of the three committees appointed by thegovernor of Chiang Mai province is to support villagers andthe principles which villagers want for the communityforest. 144 NGO workers are assisting villagers in thepreparation of a community forest plan to be approved by the64RFD. 145 While this process brings together many people ofdiffering views to learn from one another, the problem isthat there is little collaboration among the committees andconflicting opinions are causing the process to be extremelyslow. 146 There has been no agreement on the boundaries ofthe community forest and until common prperty rights areformalized the project is at a standsti11. 147Villagers appreciate the support of NGO workers whohelped them to stop the leasing of the concession and savetheir forest, as well as set up the successful village ricebank and buffalo bank. Eleven of the twelve householdsinterviewed in Huey Kaew responded favourably to this NGOsupport. Villagers believe it has helped them to improvetheir lives, become more active in decision-making, and moreself-reliant. Previously, villagers say they would be morelikely to accept whatever developments the governmentwanted. However, the villagers do not feel much support fortheir plans for the community forest on the land which theywant. 148 If the project uses the degraded land, the RFD hasagreed to supply seedlings of indigenous species as well astechnical support to maintain the seedlings through 1995. 149But villagers fear that seedlings and technical support tomaintain them will not be enough. 150 Planting andmaintaining seedlings will demand time away from subsistenceactivities. How will they have enough time to devote tothis project if they receive no compensation for their65efforts? 151 And what resources will they have access tountil the degraded land has been replanted and reached astage where resources can once again be harvested? 152One specific problem, in terms of technical support, isthat there is no extension forester to work with and supportthe villagers. 153 It is the opinion of some NGO members andacademics that the Royal Forestry Department does not have aclear concept of community forestry and therefore cannotprovide an appropriate extension forester to work with thevillagers. 154 At the same time, the RFD does not trust thecapability of villagers to manage the forest on theirown. 155 They believe that villagers do not understand theprinciples of community forestry. In order for the projectto be successful, forestry officials and villagers need towork together to survey and classify the forest and preparea plan for sustainable use. Without a technical survey ofthe customary lands chosen by villagers or the degraded landchosen by RFD there is no way of measuring the effects ofthe project.3.6 CLOSING COMMENTThis analysis illustrates the extremely complexdynamics involved in the Huey Kaew community forestexperimental project. There are many obstacles to overcomebefore common property tenure can be accommodated within thestate Forest Reserve Land system. These obstacles include:66disagreement between villagers and government over thelocation of the land to be granted as community forest; lackof understanding on the part of the Royal ForestryDepartment on land uses in indigenous forests and thedependence of villagers on these resources; break down ofauthority of traditional institution and customary laws;failure of RFD to recognize the potential of the traditionalinstitution responsible for forest management; lack ofsupport within the community for the project due to the factthat many villagers do not understand what the project isabout or do not have the time to devote to it; lack ofsupport from the village leader of Huey Kaew; inadequateauthority by the new institution and lack of an extensionforester to work with the community in making a communityforest plan. Until these obstacles are overcome, theproject cannot be evaluated as a successful approach tomanagement of indigenous forest or building self-reliancefor the rural community. Real action in terms of proceedingwith common property management of Forest Reserve Land bythe community of Huey Kaew will be at a standstill until theboundaries of the community forest are determined and theirmanagement is formalized.67CHAPTER 4COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS4.1 INTRODUCTIONThe argument for common property management of ForestReserve Land in northern Thailand can be strengthened bycomparing the findings from Huey Kaew with the findings fromanother village where customary common property rights havebeen maintained. There are many examples of common propertymanagement in northern Thailand but Tung Yao is the bestdocumented case of a community which has been successful inpreserving local forests for the long-term sustainability ofthe community. Tung Yao is located in Lumphun province,neighbouring Chiang Mai to the south-east, and fourkilometers from the Lumphun - Lampang highway. (see figure5) The elevation and vegetation is similar to Huey Kaew andis classified as Dry Deciduous Dipterocarp and MixedDeciduous forest.The similar geographic locations and socio-economicsystems of the two villages and the fact that both villagesare composed of ethnic Thai peoples, rather than hilltribepeoples, make them suitable for a comparative analysis. Itis realized that a comparative study of two differentvillages can be a difficult task in terms of generalizationand oversimplification. However, such a comparison can alsoprovide the opportunity to highlight certain attributessuccessful common property management as an example for68other communities. A comparison also makes it possible toindicate certain attributes which might be considered theresult of cultural adaptation to a particular ecosystem,independent of the contemporary national setting.The comparison between Tung Yao and Huey Kaew beginswith a discussion of the findings from Tung Yao. That is,several of the categories for analysis from the case studyin Huey Kaew will be applied to Tung Yao. The discussionwill include only six of the nine categories, as availableinformation was limited. Similarities and differencesbetween the two villages and their practise of communityforestry will be identified and the implications will bediscussed in the final section.4.2 FINDINGS FROM TUNG YAOProperty RightsCustomary common property rights have been in effect inthe San river watershed since Tung Yao was settled in1924. 156 At that time, an area of 60 rai (9.6 hectares) offorest was clearly marked and preserved around a naturalspring which fed the village irrigation system. 157 Tung Yaoresidents established a system of forest protection withinthis clearly demarcated area. Villagers were forbidden tocut any trees within this area. An adjacent area was usedfor collecting firewood and building supplies. By 1990, the70villagers of Tung Yao had increased the area of commonproperty forest to 1800 rai (288 hectares). 158The forest which villagers of Tung Yao consider commonproperty is officially classed as state Forest Reserve Land.Although there is no formal common property tenure agreementwith the state, the villagers of Tung Yao and their systemof forest management have been recognized by the RFD assuccessful in preserving indigenous forest land. Severalfactors have contributed to the RFD recognition. The Sanriver watershed is a lower class of watershed than the onewhich villagers of Huey Kaew depend upon. That is, theslopes of the watershed are not as steep or as vulnerable toerosion from overcutting. Also, the forest around Tung Yaohas not seen much commercial logging or poaching due to itsproximity to the district forestry office. This absence ofexternal users has allowed the villagers of Tung Yao tomaintain their own system of common property management.Land UsesVillagers of Tung Yao have been successful inconserving their forest and water source for more thanseventy years. 159 They recognize ecological principles andrealize that to maintain their water source they mustprotect the forest surrounding it. The community hasdivided the forest under common property management into twodistinct areas; an area of preservation, and an area for71common use. Villagers do not practise conservation merelyfor the sake of it, but rather, they learned the importanceof forest preservation through experience. The ancestors ofthe villagers of Tung Yao had to flee drought due toovercutting in the watershed of their previoussettlement. 160 Villagers see the protection of forest as aguarantee of subsistence and income. Protecting their watersource is of paramount importance as "the stream is theartery bringing the village's lifeblood. H161 It keeps theclimate fresh and moist and supplies grazing land.Villagers are forbidden to cut any trees within theconservation area immediately surrounding the spring.However, they are allowed to collect wild foods and fallenwood for firewood. In the adjacent area for common use,villagers are allowed to cut trees for firewood and buildingsupplies providing they adhere to the rights andresponsibilities regarding the use of forest resources.Commercial logging has not been common in the area due tothe proximity of the forest to the district forestry office.The forestry department has recognized the community's'ability to manage the forest and the right of the communityto benefit from forest resources. However, the communityhas no officially authorised common property rights.72Role of Traditional InstitutionsThe village irrigation committee has been theinstitution responsible for governing the use of forestresources from the time Tung Yao was first settled. Therehas always been strong leadership of this villageinstitution. Since everyone has a vested interest in themaintenance of the irrigation canals which feed their ricefields, there has always been participation from allmembers of the community. 162The success of the village irrigation committee inmaintaining common property management of forests in TungYao promises to continue with the next generation. Eldersand teachers in the village encourage children to conservetrees and other forest resources. Stories about how theirancestors came to Tung Yao to flee from drought are told athome and at school. In this way local wisdom and awarenessof the important connection between forest preservation anda continued source of water is passed from generation togeneration. This ensures that the role of the irrigationcommittee will remain clear.Social Controls and SanctionsVillagers adopted an absolute prohibition on cuttingtrees in the area surrounding the natural spring when thevillage was first settled. This prohibition was in the formof an oral agreement among the villagers. The rights and73responsibilities regarding forest use in the adjacent areafor common use were designed by the villagers themselves.Authority rested with the village headman and the leader ofthe irrigation committee.As the village grew, the system of forest preservationbecame more complex and more formal regulations wereadopted. A system of rights and responsibilities wasdeveloped by the community as a whole and drawn up in thefirst village agreement in 1953. 163 The agreement wassigned by all members of the community. It states thatanyone caught cutting trees within the conservation areawill pay a fine to the common village activity fund and thetrees will be confiscated for communal use. In the area forcommon use, each family is allowed to cut enough trees tobuild one house with permission from the village headman.If villagers cut over their limit in the area for common usethey must also pay a fine. The penalty for cutting treeshas increased over the years. Most villagers readily adhereto the village regulations and pay the fine. They realizethat the penalty would be far more severe in an officialcourt.Grassroots OrganizationTung Yao has a history of strong village leaders whohave encouraged members of the community to cooperate andconserve the forest. In 1990, the population of Tung Yao74was 1200 people living in 243 households. 164 The villageirrigation committee maintains the support and participationof all villagers and is therefore well suited to forestpreservation as well. The awareness of environmental issuesamong the community and the irrigation committee hascontributed to the successful common property management offorests. The conservation ideal has been maintained in TungYao through an annual ritual to the guardian spirit of theforest. This occurs each year after the irrigation systemhas been repaired. The result is strong grassrootsorganization for forest management.Participation in Decision-MakingAlthough the villagers of Tung Yao have no officiallyrecognized common property rights to the community forest,the proven success of the community in managing the foresthas given them some power and access to decision-making. In1974, villagers supported by political activists fromnorthern NGO's protested to the Governor of Lumphun thattheir common property forest was being encroached upon byneighbouring villagers. 165 The Governor ordered theencroachers to leave and this led to national levelrecognition of the rights of villagers to the use of stateForest Reserve Land. Villagers of Tung Yao succeeded asecond time in gaining access to decision-making in 1989when the RFD tried to encourage the community to develop theforest into a national park. 166 Once again with the support75of political activists from northern NGO's, the villagers ofTung Yao protested the development. They argued against thepark on the grounds that state parks prohibit the use ofresources by local people.4.3 ANALYSIS OF SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCESIn Huey Kaew the customary system of common propertymanagement has dissipated due to the open-access conditionswhich exist in state Forest Reserve Land. The open-accessconditions have been the result of outside interference.The area has a long history of logging, beginning with thecolonial powers in Southeast Asia which introduced the ideaof the forest as a source of profits. Insufficientregulation of cutting by the forestry department led toopen-access conditions. Local people became involved inlogging in Huey Kaew when they saw others logging theirforests and district officials have been involved in turninga blind eye to illegal logging as they receive a commission.The attempt to re-establish common property rights in HueyKaew was initiated by the community as a result of thecontemporary situation which directly threatened the rightsof villagers to benefit from resources they had longconsidered as their own. Although the community's abilityto manage their forest according to customary commonproperty rights has been dissipating, what remains bearsmany similarities to the system in Tung Yao (see figure 6).76In Tung Yao the customary system of common propertymanagement has been maintained and resulted in successfulforest preservation. The forest has been preserved due to anumber of important factors: the area has clear boundaries,the forest is divided into an area for common use and anarea of strict preservation, there are clear rights andresponsibilities regarding forest use, there is a clearunderstanding of the ecological connection between theforest and the watershed, villagers are dependent on forestresources for subsistence and income, the village irrigationcommittee has influence over all members of the community,cooperative values between members of the community areencouraged by the village leader, there has been no poachingof trees in the area due to the ability of the community tocontrol use within the area as well as the proximity of theforest to the district forestry office.An important part to take note of in this comparison isthat formally authorised common property rights are notnecessary for successful common property management offorests. Villagers such as those in Tung Yao have been ableto maintain their customary common property management inspite of outside influences. However, in the contemporarysituation with open-access conditions prevailing in manyareas of state Forest Reserve Land, and increasing numbersof conflicts between state and community interests, formalcommon property rights offer a viable approach for securing77the rights of villagers who depend on forest resources.Evidence of the success of customary common propertymanagement is clear in Tung Yao and supports the argumentfor granting tenure rights to a community such as Huey Kaew.By rebuilding existing common property rights in Huey Kaew,the exploitation of forest resources could be stabilized andthe community could regain some degree of self-reliance. Inthe case of Tung Yao, the community is secure for the timebeing but formal common property rights would greatlyincrease the community's' ability to maintain its self-reliance. These ideas and others will be more fullyexplored in the concluding chapter.7879CATEGORIES OF ANALYSIS^HUEY KAEW^ TUNG YAOProperly Rights — State Forest Reserve— Customary common propertyrights broken down— State Forest Reserve—Customary common propertyrights maintainedLand Uses —Water for irrigation—Wood for shelter and fuel—Wild Foods, & animal fodder andmedicines—Water for irrigation—Wood for shelter & fuel—Wild Foods, animal fodder andmedicinesForest Dependency —Varies with access to land—Use and saleUses for Indigenous Species —Self reliance linked with diversity—Use and saleRole of Traditional Institutions —Broken down—New committee regaining—MaintainedGrassroots Organization —Broken down—42/126 households participate—Full support-243 householdsParticipation in Decision Making —Right to benefit recognizedby government—3 committees support villagers—No legislated property rights—Successful managementrecognized by government—Rights to benefit recognized bygovernment—No legislated property rightsAvailability of Technical Support —Need support until village participationstrong and policy change—Need extension foresterFIGURE 6 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF HUEY KAEW AND TUNG YAOCHAPTER 5CONCLUSIONSResidents of Huey Kaew are among a growing number ofvillage based groups in Thailand demanding land rights ingovernment owned forest reserves where they have been living"illegally." There are an estimated seven million otherThais in the same state of insecurity. 167 These grassrootsmovements are pushing for reform of the state forestlegislation to include common property rights. Previousattempts by the government to deal with people living inforest reserves have failed to bring effective results instopping deforestation or in providing increased stabilityfor rural communities. Will providing for common propertymanagement and local control of forest resources besuccessful in addressing these problems? What do theresults from the Huey Kaew case study suggest? What are thedynamics involved in reestablishing common property rights?What are the implications of the case study for policy oncommon property rights and self-reliance?Independent efforts of rural communities who rely onforests for their livelihood indicate that these communitieshave great concern for forest conservation. Local controlof forest resources by the people who depend on thoseresources can improve livelihood security and improve forestmanagement. Although it is too soon for the full impacts offormal common property rights to be evaluated in Huey Kaew80many lessons can be learned from this experimental projectto regain and incorporate some form of customary commonproperty management.5.1 OBSTACLES CREATED BY PRESENT FOREST LEGISLATIONIn Thailand, the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) hasresponsibilities more extensive geographically than anyother government department. The responsibilities arebeyond the capability of a single agency to handle with aninsufficient staff and budget. 168 As Jeff Romm observes,"state property is a reasonable proxy for control only whenthe state is willing and able to fully enforce its rightsand responsibilities. 11169The inability of the forestry department to enforceregulations in all areas, heavy land speculation, and lackof secure land tenure threaten the survival of naturalforests. The resulting open-access conditions in manyforest reserves and uncertainty about tenure security forpeople living within forest reserves remain because currentlegislation does not recognize the right of a community tomanage, use, or own forest land. As outlined earlier,forest reserve land is divided into three classes;conservation forest (watersheds), economic forest (degradedforest available for concession), and reform forest (grantedthrough land use certificates for agriculture). None of thethree categories includes community forestry. Current81policy separates forest from areas of human settlements anddefines community forestry as small scale tree plantationsfor fuelwood and other local uses in tenured lands only. Asclearly illustrated by the case of Huey Kaew, this view doesnot accommodate customary common property rights.Occupation of land without the corresponding legalcertificate is illegal. Local critics of Thai forest policymaintain that with at least twenty-five per cent of therural population living illegally in forest reserves, anysolution to the forest crisis must be predicated on acomprehensive land reform programme. 17°Komon Pragtong, the senior Community Forestry Officerin the national office of RFD, says that with loggingconcessions now banned, attention should be focussed on themillions of villagers living within the boundaries of forestreserve land. The RFD is looking for innovative solutionsto the deforestation problems in occupied forest reserveland. To date, the RFD forest village and STK landcertificate programmes have often resulted in increasedimmigration and forest destruction. 171 The RFD forestvillage program, or village woodlot program as it issometimes referred to, involves reforestation of degradedeconomic forest. Village woodlots are small scale treeplantations primarily for fuelwood production. The STK landcertificate program provides land use certificates forvillagers for agricultural production in reform forest.82Neither of these programs have succeeded in gaining thecooperation of villagers in forest preservation due to thefact that the projects are designed by RFD officials ratherthan by members of the community.RFD forest villages and STK land certificates provideuser rights only. A study by Chalamwong in 1986 of thesetwo programs suggests that without strict enforcement landusufruct rights appear to have no particular value. Thelack of secure title causes uncertainty regarding the landoccupants ability to benefit from any investment which hemay undertake, such as forest conservation measures. "Clearformal title backed by a legal system capable of enforcingproperty rights is one obvious way to reduce or eliminateuncertainty regarding tenure duration. "172These programmes differ from the common property rightsin conservation forest proposed by villagers in Huey Kaew.Past efforts in community forestry, such as RFD forestvillages, have relied on top-down decision-making withlittle "local" participation in planning andimplementation. 173 The RFD is now recognizing the value oflocal knowledge and experience for community forestry inunderstanding local land characteristics and the needs oflocal communities. 174Common property management provides a flexible tenuresystem for trees and people. Access to land and resources83is secured so that rural people can gain benefits from thoseresources. Once rural people have security of tenure theywill have the incentive to conserve and sustainably use theresources. Management plans which build on localinstitutions and knowledge of the environment therebyincrease rural people's ability to participate in decision-making and be more self-reliant.5.2 IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY FOR POLICY ON COMMON PROPERTYRIGHTSThe Huey Kaew and Tung Yao case studies shows thatcommon property resource tragedies in the Hardin sense donot necessarily hold. That is common property resourcetragedies are related to the breakdown of the existingcommon property system due to external influences. Commonproperty management can control individuals within acommunity but not stronger outside forces unless mandated todo so. Insecure land tenure and open-access conditions areresponsible for the uncontrolled use of forest land aroundHuey Kaew. More secure tenure in the form of commonproperty rights for the community will improve landmanagement.Confusion over the land rights issue is at the heart ofthe Huey Kaew conflict. The RFD has no legislation forcommon property rights. To date, the failure of thegovernment to act on legislation to accommodate common84property rights to forest reserve land for the community ofHuey Kaew indicate the confusion over community forestry.After the logging ban was announced in 1989, theMinister of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives made apublic address in which he assured that the cancellation oflogging concessions in forest reserves would not result inforced evictions of people from their land. He went on tosay that forests closed to commercial concessions would beturned over to villagers as community forests. However,when questioned about the situation of villagers in HueyKaew he said there was no way villagers could claim rightsover their land. 175This confusion suggests that there are many obstaclesto overcome to recover the indigenous system of managementand obtain government support by way of legislation.Communities such as Huey Kaew need government support forcommon property rights.From the case study we see that Huey Kaew's system ofcommon property rights has broken down but its roots remain.Through the comparative analysis with Tung Yao we canunderstand how common property rights should work. Thestudy implies that only when a community has secure accessto forest resources and receives benefits from them willthey participate fully in conservation. Therefore, in termsof developing a new system, it makes sense to learn from85tradition and build up from these roots. In that way thenew system will be more likely to meet the needs of thecommunity: be more accepted by the community; less expensiveto implement; and more likely to be carried on by futuregenerations without dependence on outside support.The question therefore becomes, how to accommodate thisform of bottom-up development within the framework ofexisting policy? There is no doubt that this will require achange in forest policy. But how to convince RFD of theability of local communities to manage the forest? Manycommon property systems exist despite official governmentpolicies to nationalize forest resources. The provensuccess of communities like Tung Yao to manage naturalresources without legal guarantees from the state, points tothe gap between forest policy and reality. 176 RFD hasrecognized the ability of the community of Tung Yao tomanage forest reserve land. Perhaps, the focus should be onTung Yao in terms of finding an appropriate form forlegislating common property rights. The complex dynamics atwork in Huey Kaew do not readily lend itself to anappropriate form for common property management of forests.But the community of Huey Kaew and the Royal ForestryDepartment could learn much from the success of Tung Yao.This case study indicates that common property systemsdo have future relevance. The most important reason for the86Thai government to encourage common property systems iseconomic. The most effective and cost-efficient solution isto recognize existing common property rights based on longterm occupancy and use. 177 Legal recognition wouldcounteract national policies which promote open-accessconditions in forest reserves and would realign the RoyalForestry Department with the potential of forestcommunities. 1785.3 IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY FOR POLICY ON SELF-RELIANCE"Because of the critical role played by common propertysystems in sustainable resource use, their mostsignificant application in the contemporary worldcontext is their relevance to development. Sincecommon property systems provide, in effect, long termand grassroots institutions, these systems are the mostimportant candidatqR for popular participation indecision-making."'Results from the Huey Kaew case study indicate thatpresent forest policy in Thailand is opposed to ruralcommunities whose livelihood is dependent upon indigenousforests. Therefore, in terms of livelihood security, lackof guaranteed access rights to the forest results inincreasing insecurity of the community's ability to meetbasic needs. Basic needs derived from the forest includewater, food, shelter, and fuelwood. Losing access toindigenous forests and the ability to meet these four basicneeds is causing a loss of self-reliance in thesecommunities.87When the traditional system of management was intact,resource conservation was aimed at self-sufficiency inmeeting basic needs. Social controls and sanctions weredesigned by the community to protect the forest fromexploitive use and to sustain the forest for community use.In looking for a contemporary form for common propertymanagement of forests, RFD should try to serve the needs ofrural people dependent on indigenous forests. Communityforestry projects should be carried out "by" the peoplethemselves and for the benefit of the community as awhole. 180 Owen Lynch maintains that involvement of localpeople in a project is best promoted by reinforcing existingcommon property rights. 181Forest resources make a significant contribution tofood security and nutrition for the villagers in Huey Kaew.The landless segment of the population is particularlydependent on forest resources and access to these resourcesis crucial for self-reliance. However, in addition tosimply having access to indigenous forest land the communityneeds access to decision-making for self-reliance. It isimportant to note that if the landless people in Huey Kaeware to benefit from the project they must be included inplanning and implementation.Recalling that one of the major objectives of the self-reliant approach to development is to meet the basic needs88of people in such a manner that the people will be able tocontinue the process without external help - how does HueyKaew meet up to this objective? Results from the case studysuggest a lack of trust on the part of the forestrydepartment. That is, the RFD is reluctant to trust thecompetence of villagers to manage forest reserve land. Thissituation illustrates the observation by Obaidullah that,outside support and information are contrary to self-reliance when they include implicit power relations throughwhich outside decisions are controlling. 182For example, village self-reliance is threatened by thefact that the RFD proposes to grant common property rightsto degraded land further from the village. The land undercustomary common property rights has traditionally been thesource of water for irrigation, as well as an area rich inwood, fuel and food. The alternative degraded area offersfew benefits in the short term. In addition, the areaselected by the RFD does not contain the village watersource. Therefore, the key connection between the forestand the community is broken.The results from the case study clearly indicate thedifficulties in implementing the bottom-up approach todevelopment in Thailand. Input from the community isrestricted in that it must be approved at all levels of thedecision-making hierarchy. (see figure 4) The major problem89is that the village has no real power or autonomy. 183"Although the Tambol Council was created to practicedemocratic self-government at a lower level of the stateadministration, the council, in its operation has beenbudgetarily and administratively under the supervision ofdistrict officials and therefore, measures to encourageself-government have been relatively unsuccessful. 1,184To ensure the self-reliance of villagers after aproject is completed, local organizations and institutionsneed to be strengthened and induced to work with foresters.The strength of the village institution will assure thesuccess of the project after the support of the RFD iswithdrawn. 185 Results from this case study indicate thatalthough the RFD is trying to focus attention on indigenousspecies and knowledge of the environment, it is not willingto provide tenure to land where customary common propertyrights have applied. To complicate matters further, ratherthan focussing on the irrigation committee, which is thelocal level institution traditionally responsible forforest management, the RFD has created a new institution:the forest conservation committee. Since this newinstitution lacks participation from all villagers, whichthe irrigation committee maintains, it will be moredifficult to gain support for its decisions from the rest ofthe community.905.4 LESSONS FROM HUEY KAEWAlthough rural empowerment is one objective ofcommunity forestry, community forestry cannot achieve thisobjective on its own. That is, while common property rightsare intended to promote rural development by increasing therights of people to the land they use, these rights are onlyas strong as their enforcement and only as valuable as thebenefits which they secure. 186 Success therefore, dependson legal recognition and support.This does not imply that legislating common propertyrights is a simple matter of turning all control overindigenous forests to communities such as Huey Kaew. Wherethe customary system of common property management hasbroken down it will require time and support to rebuild thesystem from the roots. But in the long term such projectswill be more successful in preserving indigenous forests andbuilding self-reliant communities, than present forestmanagement.The situation in Huey Kaew is unique in that it is thefirst time the Thai government is considering grantingcommon property rights in state forest reserve land.However, this does not mean that "legal" tenure is necessaryfor successful common property management. There areexamples of successful management of indigenous forests suchas Tung Yao which have been maintained despite thenationalization of forest resources. But in the91contemporary setting of the centralized state bureaucracy,and increasing conflicts over land rights, legal tenure iscrucial for the survival of forest dependent communities andthe knowledge they possess.There is a need to improve the ability of foresters andthe community to work together in the process of delineatingproperty rights and designing an appropriate management planfor community forestry. In the past, foresters have notbeen involved in extension activities such as thosenecessary for community forestry. 187 The curriculum in theonly forestry school in Thailand, at Kasetsart University,has tended to isolate foresters from the people instead oftraining them to work "with" rural institutions that needforest resources to develop their communities.Another aspect to emphasize in the argument for commonproperty rights in forest reserve land concerns foreign aidto Thailand. That is, successful local control is gainingimportance with the shrinking of foreign aid which Thailandhas experienced. 188 With less development money to supportprojects in Thailand, it could be anticipated that theresponsibilities of the Royal Forestry Department willincrease. If the department is presently unable toeffectively manage resources in forest reserves it could beassumed the situation will become worse. By incorporatingcommon property rights into existing policy both the9293government and rural communities would benefit. Ruralcommunities dependent on indigenous forests would secureaccess and benefits from forest reserves and the state couldfind a viable alternative for conservation and sustainableforest management.In conclusion, this study offers many lessons on thepractical reality of accommodating common property rightswithin national forest legislation, as well as, importantinsights into accommodating bottom-up development within acentralized state bureaucracy. The future of ruralcommunities, such as Huey Kaew and Tung Yao, and theirability to plan for forest resources themselves depends uponchanges in present forest legislation.Chapter One: Introduction1 John Raintree, Land, Trees and Tenure. Land TenureCenter, University of Wisconsin-Madison & InternationalCouncil for Research in Agroforestry, Nairobi, Kenya, 1987.2 Komon Pragtong, Senior Community Forestry Officer, RoyalForestry Department, Bangkok, personal communication, May1990.3 Royal Forestry Department, Forestry Statistics ofThailand. Forest Statistics Sub-Division, PlanningDivision, Royal Forestry Department, Bangkok, 1988.4 Ibid.5 Komon Pragtong, Senior Community Forestry Officer, RoyalForestry Department, Bangkok, personal communication, May1990.6 Witoon Phirmphongsacharoen, Environmental Lawyer, NGODirector, Project for Ecological Recovery, Bangkok, personalcommunication, May 1990.7 Sukum Attavavutichai, Professor, Thammasat University,personal communication, October 1992.8 Owen Lynch, "Community-Based Tenurial Strategies forPromoting Forest Conservation and Development in South andSoutheast Asia." Paper prepared for USAID conference onenvironmental and agricultural issues, Colombo, Sri Lanka,19919 Jeff Romm, "Forestry for Development: Some Lessons fromAsia." Journal of World Forest Resources. Vol. 4, 1989.10 Pornpimon Rojanapo, "Report in Community Forestry"Unpublished manuscript, Human Settlements Development,Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 1990.11 See; Mark Poffenberger, "Joint Management for PublicForests: Experiences from South Asia." A Ford FoundationStatement, 1990. Owen Lynch, op. cit.12 Mark Poffenberger, Keepers of the Forest: Land ManagementAlternatives in Southeast Asia. Kumarian Press:Connecticut, 1990.13 Ibid.14 Louise Fortmann & John Bruce, Whose Trees?: ProprietaryDimensions of Forestry. Westview Press: Boulder, 1988.15 Ibid.16 Soparth Pongquan, Participatory Development in Villages of Central Thailand. Studies on Human SettlementsDevelopment in Asia, HSD Report 17, Asian Institute ofTechnology, Bangkok, 1988.17 Mark Poffenberger, "Joint Management for Public Forests:Experiences from South Asia." A Ford Foundation ProgramStatement, 1990.18 This method of organizing research data was suggested byKarl Weber, Professor, Human Settlements Development, AsianInstitute of Technology, Bangkok, personal communication,June 1990.19 Pornpimon Rojanapo, "Ecosystem of Forests: Case Study inBan Tung Yao." Unpublished manuscript, Human Settlements94Development, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 1990.Uraiwan Tankimyong, Resource Management and DevelopmentProject, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, ChiangMai University, personal communication, June 1990. Projectfor Ecological Recovery, "Community Forestry in Tung Yao,Lumphun Province, Thailand." Paper prepared by Project forEcological Recovery, Bangkok, 1990. Project for EcologicalRecovery, "Community Forests: Forestry By and For thePeople." Paper prepared by Project for Ecological Recovery/ IDRC, 1989.Chapter Two: Theory of Property Rights and Self-ReliantDevelopment20 John Bruce, Community Forestry: Rapid Appraisal of Treeand Land Tenure. FAO: Rome, 1989.21 Patrick Matakala, "Property Rights and Timber Rights inBritish Columbia." Unpublished manuscript, Department ofForestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, 1992.22 Louise Fortmann & John Bruce, op. cit.23 Louise Fortmann, John Bruce & James Riddell, Trees andTenure. Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison& International Council for Research in Agroforestry:Nairobi, Kenya, 1985.24 F. Berkes, D. Feeny, B.J. McCay & J.M. Acheson, "TheBenefits of the Commons." Nature. Vol. 340, 1989.25 Fikret Berkes, Common Property Resources: Ecology andCommunity-Based Sustainable Development. Belhaven Press:London, 1989.26 Owen Lynch, op. cit., p. 11.27 John Raintree, op. cit.28 Daniel Bromley & Michael Cernea, The Management of CommonProperty Resources. World Bank Discussion Paper 57. TheWorld Bank: Washington D.C., 1989, p. 5-6.29 Ibid.30 Louise Fortmann & John Bruce, op. cit.31 John Raintree, op. cit., p. 345.32 John Bruce, op. cit..33 F. Berkes, D. Feeny, B.J. McCay, & J.M. Acheson, op. cit.34 Daniel Bromley & Michael Cernea, op. cit.35 John Bruce, op. cit.36 Owen Lynch, "Whither the People?: Demographic, Tenurialand Agricultural Aspects of the Tropical Forestry ActionPlan." Paper prepared for the World Resources Institute:New York, 1990.37 Ibid.38 Louise Fortmann & John Bruce, op. cit.39 S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup & Richard C. Bishop, "CommonProperty as a Concept in Natural Resources Policy." Natural Resources Journal. Vol 15, 1975.40 Daniel Bromley & Michael Cernea, op. cit.41 Owen Lynch, "Whither the People?: Demographic, Tenurialand Agricultural Aspects of the Tropical Forestry ActionPlan."9542 John Bruce, op. cit.43 Fikret Berkes, op. cit.44 Ibid.45 Daniel Bromley & Michael Cernea, op. cit.46 Fikret Berkes, op. cit.47 Owen Lynch, "Whither the People?: Demographic, Tenurialand Agricultural Aspects of the Tropical Forestry ActionPlan."48 Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons." Science.Vol 162, 1968.49 Louise Fortmann & John Bruce, op. cit., p. 4.50 S.V. Ciriacy-Wantrup & Richard C. Bishop, op. cit.51 Daniel Bromley & Michael Cernea, op. cit.52 John Bruce, op. cit.53 F. Berkes, D. Feeny, B.J. McCay, & J.M. Acheson, op. cit.54 Alan Chambers, "The Paradox of the Commons." Discussionpaper prepared for the 1991 meeting of the InternationalAssociation for the Study of Common Property, 1991.55 Ibid.56 Fikret Berkes, op. cit.57 Daniel Bromley & Michael Cernea, op. cit.58 Ibid.59 Owen Lynch, "Community Based Tenurial Strategies forPromoting Forest Conservation and Development in South andSoutheast Asia." Paper prepared for USAID conference onenvironmental and agricultural issues. Colombo, Sri Lanka,1991.60 Ibid.61 F. Berkes & David Feeny, "Paradigms Lost: Changing Viewson the Use of Common Property Resources." Alternative.Vol. 17, 1990, p. 48.62 R. Poulton & Michael Harris, Putting People First: Voluntary Organizations and Third World Development.Macmillan Publishers: London, 1988.63 Ibid.64 E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful: Economics as ifPeople Mattered. Harper & Row Publishers: New York, 1973,p. 179.65 Ibid., p. 209.66 S. Aziz, Rural Development: Learning from China.Macmillan Press: London, 1978.67 R. Poulton & Michael Harris, op. cit.68 Soparth Pongquan, op. cit.69 Ibid.70 Anisur Rahman, Grassroots Participation and Self-Reliance: Experiences in South and Southeast Asia. Oxford &Ibh Publishing: New Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, 1984.71 Azm Obaidullah, Creative Development: An Unfinished Sagaof Human Aspirations in South Asia. The University Press:Bangladesh, 1990.72 Ibid., p. 15.73 Anisur Rahman, op. cit., p. 14.74 Azm Obaidullah, op. cit.75 R. Poulton & Michael Harris, op. cit.9676 Jim Rugh, Self-Evaluation: Ideas for Participatory Evaluation of Rural Community Development Projects. WorldNeighbours Publication: Oklahoma, 1989.77 Robert Chambers, Putting the Last First. Longman:London, Lagos, New York, 1983.78 Ibid.79 Ibid., p. 75.80 Chantana Banpasirichote, "The Situation of IndigenousKnowledge in Thailand." Discussion paper prepared for the1989 meeting on Indigenous Knowledge and Learning, Cha'am,Thailand, 1989.81 Wibul Khemchalerm, "Self-Reliance Through Agro-Forestry."RUDOC News. Vol. 3, No. 4, Thai Institute for RuralDevelopment, Bangkok, 1988.82 Willemine Brinkman, Why Natural Forests are Linked withNutrition, Health and Self-Reliance of Villagers inNortheast Thailand. Royal Forestry Department / Ministry ofAgriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives / UNDP / FAO /SIDA, 1989.83 Seri Phongphit, Development Paradigm: Strategies, Activities and Reflection. Thai Institute for RuralDevelopment, Bangkok, 1989.84 Ibid., p. 10.85 E.F. Schumacher, op. cit., p. 62.86 Ibid., p. 66.Chapter Three: Case Study87 Shalardchai Ramitanondh, "Forests and Deforestation inThailand: A Pandisciplinary Approach." Culture andEnvironment in Thailand. The Siam Society, Bangkok, 1989.Uraiwan Tankimyong, Resource Management and DevelopmentProject, Chiang Mai University, personal communication, June1990. Witoon Phirmphongsacharoen, Environmental Lawyer,Director of Project for Ecological Recovery, Bangkok,personal communication, August 1990.88 David Feeny, "Agricultural Expansion and Forest Depletionin Thailand, 1900-1975." World Deforestation in the Twentieth Century. Duke University Press, 1988. WitoonPhirmphongsacharoen, Environmental Lawyer, Director ofProject for Ecological Recovery, Bangkok, personalcommunication, August 1990.89 Pornpimon Rojanapo, "Report in Community Forestry."Unpublished manuscript, Human Settlements Development, AsianInstitute of Technology, Bangkok, 1990.90 Shalardchai Ramitanondh, Department of Anthropology andSociology, Chiang Mai University, personal communication,July 1990.91 Wichai Gitmee, National Reserve Forest ConservationOfficer, Royal Forestry Department, Chiang Mai, personalcommunication, July 1990.92 Ibid.9793 Peter Kunstadter, E.C. Chapman & Sanga Sabhasri, Farmersin the Forest. East-West Center, University of Hawaii,Honolulu, 1978.94 Ibid.95 Sopon Thangphet, Unpublished study on Population andDomestic Fuel Consumption in Huey Kaew Tambol. ResourceManagement and Development Project, Chiang Mai University,1990.96 Ibid.97 Wichai Gitmee, National Reserve Forest ConservationOfficer, Royal Forestry Department, Chiang Mai, personalcommunication, July 1990.98 Ibid.99 Ibid.100 Niporn Ganjanapa, Forester, Royal Forestry Department,Chiang Mai, and member of Huey Kaew Community Forest ActionCommittee, personal communication, July 1990.101 Sukwong, landless villager of Huey Kaew, member ofVillage Forest Conservation Committee, and member of HueyKaew Community Forest Direction Committee, personalcommunication, June 1990.102 Village Forest Conservation Committee meeting, HueyKaew, July 1990.103 Niporn Ganjanapa, Forester, Royal Forestry Department,Chiang Mai, and member of Huey Kaew Community Forest ActionCommittee, personal communication, July 1990.104 Ibid.105 Patchiaporn, Research Associate in Forest Conservation,Royal Forestry Department, Chiang Mai, personalcommunication, July 1990.106 Ibid.107 Ibid.108 Sukwong, landless villager of Huey Kaew, member ofForest Conservation Committee, and member of Huey KaewCommunity Forest Direction Committee, personalcommunication, June 1990.109 Patrick Matakala, "Developing a Community ForestryManagement Model for Zambia." Unpublished manuscript,Department of Forestry, University of British Columbia,Vancouver, 1992.110 Yong, leader of village irrigation committee in HueyKaew.111 Ba, landless villager of Huey Kaew, personalcommunication, July 1990. Patchiaporn, Research Associatein Forest Conservation, Royal Forestry Department, ChiangMai, personal communication, July 1990.112 Village Forest Conservation Committee meeting, HueyKaew, August 1990.113 Ibid.114 Kingkorn Naayudhaya, NGO Worker, Project for EcologicalRecovery, Chiang Mai, and member of the Huey Kaew CommunityForest Action Committee, personal communication, July 1990.115 Ibid.98116 Sukwong, landless villager of Huey Kaew, member of theVillage Forest Conservation Committee, and member of theHuey Kaew Community Forest Direction Committee, personalcommunication, June 1990.117 Kai, landless villager of Huey Kaew, personalcommunication, June 1990.118 Choey, landless villager of Huey Kaew, personalcommunication, August 1990.119 Yong, leader of village irrigation committee in HueyKaew, personal communication, August 1990.120 Ibid.121 Jumsai, Village headman and leader of Huey Kaew Sub-District, personal communication, August 1990. SonchaiKeowai, NGO Worker, Project for Ecological Recovery, ChiangMai, personal communication, August 1990.122 Huey Kaew Community Forest Committees meeting, YMCA,Chiang Mai, June 1990.123 Village Forest Conservation Committee meeting, HueyKaew, August 1990.124 Ibid.125 Ibid.126 Ibid.127 Ibid.128 Ibid.129 Ibid.130 Ibid.131 Jumsai, Village headman and leader of Huey Kaew Sub-District, personal communication, August 1990.132 Niporn Ganjanapa, Forester, Royal Forestry Department,Chiang Mai, and member of the Huey Kaew Community ForestAction Committee, personal communication, July 1990.Kingkorn Naayudhaya, NGO worker, Project for EcologicalRecovery, and member of Huey Kaew Community Forest ActionCommittee, personal communication, July 1990. ShalardchaiRamitanondh, Department of Anthropology and Sociology,Chiang Mai University, and member of Huey Kaew CommunityForest Advisory Committee, personal communication, July1990.133 Huey Kaew Community Forest Committees meeting, YMCA,Chiang Mai, June 1990. Village Forest ConservationCommittee meeting, Huey Kaew, July 1990.134 Kingkorn Naayudhaya, NGO Worker, Project for EcologicalRecovery, Chiang Mai, and member of the Huey Kaew CommunityForest Action Committee, personal communication, July 1990.135 Ibid.136 Jumsai, Village headman and leader of Huey Kaew Sub-District, personal communication, August 1990.137 Ibid.138 Niporn Ganjanapa, Forester, Royal Forestry Department,Chiang Mai, and member of Huey Kaew Community Forest ActionCommittee, personal communication, July 1990. Huey KaewCommunity Forest Committees meeting, RFD, August 1990.139 Ibid.99140 Shalardchai Ramitanondh, Department of Anthropology andSociology, Chiang Mai University, and member of the HueyKaew Community Forest Advisory Committee, personalcommunication, July 1990.141 Ibid.142 Ibid. Uraiwan Tankimyong, Resource Management andDevelopment Project, Chiang Mai University, and member ofthe Huey Kaew Community Forest Advisory Committee, personalcommunication, August 1990.143 Ibid.144 Huey Kaew Community Forest Committees meeting, YMCA,Chiang Mai, June 1990.145 Kingkorn Naayudhaya, NGO Worker, Project for EcologicalRecovery, Chiang Mai, and member of the Huey Kaew CommunityForest Action Committee, personal communication, July 1990.Niporn Ganjanapa, Forester, Royal Forestry Department,Chiang Mai, and member of Huey Kaew Community Forest ActionCommittee, personal communication, July 1990. VillageForest Conservation Committee meeting, Huey Kaew, July 1990.146 Kingkorn Naayudhaya, NGO Worker, Project for EcologicalRecovery, Chiang Mai, and member of the Huey Kaew CommunityForest Action Committee, personal communication, August1990. Niporn Ganjanapa, Forester, Royal ForestryDepartment, Chiang Mai, and member of Huey Kaew CommunityForest Action Committee, personal communication, August1990. Chayan Vaddhanaphuti, Director, Social ResearchInstitute, Chiang Mai University, and member of Huey KaewCommunity Forest Direction Committee, personalcommunication, August 1990.147 Ibid.148 Village Forest Conservation Committee meeting, HueyKaew, August 1990.149 Niporn Ganjanapa, Forester, Royal Forestry Department,Chiang Mai, and member of Huey Kaew Community Forest ActionCommittee, personal communication, July 1990. Patchiaporn,Research Associate in Forest Conservation, Royal ForestryDepartment, Chiang Mai, personal communication, July 1990.150 Village Forest Conservation Committee meeting, HueyKaew, August 1990.151 Ibid.152 Ibid.153 Ibid. Kingkorn Naayudhaya, NGO worker, Project forEcological Recovery, Chiang Mai, and member of the Huey KaewCommunity Forest Action Committee, personal communication,August 1990.154 Ibid. Shalardchai Ramitanondh, Department ofAnthropology and Sociology, Chiang Mai University, andmember of the Huey Kaew Community Forest Advisory Committee,personal communication, August 1990.155 Niporn Ganjanapa, Forester, Royal Forestry Department,Chiang Mai, and member of Huey Kaew Community Forest ActionCommittee, personal communication, July 1990. Patchiaporn,Research Associate in Forest Conservation, Royal ForestryDepartment, Chiang Mai, personal communication, July 1990.100Chapter Four: Comparative Analysis156 Pornpimon Rojanapo, "Ecosystem of Forests: Case Study inBan Tung Yao." Unpublished manuscript, Department of HumanSettlements, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok, 1990.157 Project for Ecological Recovery, "Community Forestry inTung Yao, Lumphun Province, Thailand." Paper prepared byProject for Ecological Recovery, 1990.158 Pornpimon Rojanapo, op. cit.159 Niporn Ganjanapa, Forestry officer, Royal ForestryDepartment, Chiang Mai, personal communication, July 1990.160 Project for Ecological Recovery, "Community Forests:Forestry By and For the People." Paper prepared by Projectfor Ecological Recovery, 1989.161 Ibid., p. 5.162 Uraiwan Tankimyong, Resource Management and DevelopmentProject, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, ChiangMai University, personal communication, July 1990.163 Project for Ecological Recovery, "Community Forestry inTung Yao, Lumphun Province, Thailand."164 Ibid.165 Project for Ecological Recovery, "Community Forests:Forestry By and For the People."166 Pornpimon Rojanapo, "Ecosystem of Forests: Case Study inBan Tung Yao."Chapter 5: Conclusions167 Witoon Phirmphongsacharoen, "Tropical Forest Movements:Some Lessons From Thailand." Paper prepared for Project forEcological Recovery, Bangkok, 1990.168 Laurence Judd, In Perspective: Trends in Rural Development Policy and Programs in Thailand 1947-1987.Research Report Series No. 41, Payap University Center forResearch And Development, Chiang Mai, 1987.169 Jeff Romm, "Forest Policy and Development Policy."Journal of World Forest Resource Management. Vol 2, 1986,p. 91.170 The Nation, Bangkok, June 10, 1990.171 Komon Pragtong, Senior Community Forestry Officer, RoyalForestry Department, Bangkok, personal communication, June1990.172 Yongyuth Chalamwong, Land Ownership Security and LandValues in Rural Thailand. World Bank Staff Working Papers,Number 790. The World Bank: Washington, D.C., 1986, p. 13.173 Komon Pragtong, Senior Community Forestry Officer, RoyalForestry Department, Bangkok, personal communication, June1990.174 Komon Pragtong & David E. Thomas, "Evolving ManagementSystems in Thailand." Keepers of the Forest: Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia. Kumarian Press:Connecticut, 1990.175 The Nation, Bangkok, December 29, 1989.101176 Ibid.177 Owen Lynch, "Community Based Tenurial Strategies forPromoting Forest Conservation and Development in South andSoutheast Asia." Paper prepared for a USAID conference onenvironmental and agricultural issues, Colombo, Sri Lanka,1991.178 Ibid.179 Ibid., p. 13.180 Komon Pragtong, "Overview in Social Forestry." Paperprepared for Group Training in Social Forestry, Faculty ofForestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok, 1987.181 Owen Lynch, op. cit.182 Azm Obaidullah, Creative Development: An Unfinished Sagaof Human Aspirations in South Asia. The University Press:Bangladesh, 1990.183 Shalardchai Ramitanondh, Department of Anthropology andSociology, Chiang Mai University, personal communication,August 1990.184 Chartchai Na Chiang Mai, Parapolitical Behavior of Northern Thai Villagers: An Application of Social NetworkConcepts. Phd Thesis. University of Wisconsin-Madison,1983, p. 98-99.185 Komon Pragtong, "Helping Rural People Help Themselves: AReport on Thailand's Forest Villages." Community Forestry: Lessons from Case Studies in Asia and the Pacific Region.FAO / Environment and Policy Institute. East-West Center,University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 1986.186 Ibid.187 Vitoon Viriyasakultorn, "Social Forestry: A Look on itsConstraints," Journal of Social Research. Forestry: Economic, Social and Environmental Dimensions. SocialResearch Institute, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, 1989.188 Harvey Demaine, Professor, Human SettlementsDevelopment, Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok,personal communication, June 1990.102REFERENCESAziz, S. (1978) Rural Development: Learning From China.Macmillan Press. London.Banpasirichote, Chantana (1989) "The Situation ofIndigenous Knowledge in Thailand." Discussion paperprepared for the 1989 meeting on Indigenous Knowledgeand Learning. March 2 - 5. Cha-am, Thailand.Berkes, F. & D. Feeny (1990) "Paradigms Lost: ChangingViews on the Use of Common Property Resources."Alternative. Vol. 17, 1990, pp. 48.Berkes, F., D. Feeny, B.J. McCay & J.M. Acheson (1989)"The Benefits of the Commons." Nature. Vol. 340,July 13, 1989, pp. 91-93.Berkes, Fikret (ed.). (1989) Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development.Belhaven Press. London.Brinkman, Willemine (ed.). (1989) Why Natural Forests areLinked with Nutrition, Health and Self-Reliance of Villagers in Northeast Thailand. Royal ForestryDepartment / Ministry of Agriculture and AgriculturalCooperatives / UNDP / FAO / SIDA.Bromley, Daniel W. & Michael M. Cernea (1989) TheManagement of Common Property Resources. World BankDiscussion Paper 57. The World Bank. Washington, D.C.Bruce, John W. (1989) Community Forestry: Rapid Appraisal of Tree and Land Tenure. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations. Rome.Chalamwong, Yongyuth (1986) Land Ownership Security andLand Values in Rural Thailand. World Bank StaffWorking Papers. Number 790. The World Bank.Washington, D.C.Chambers, Alan (1991) "The Paradox of the Commons."Discussion paper prepared for the 1991 meeting of theInternational Association for the Study of CommonProperty.Chambers, Robert (1983) Rural Development: Putting theLast First. Longman. London, Lagos, New York.Ciriacy-Wantrup, S.V. & Richard C. Bishop (1975) "CommonProperty as a Concept in Natural Resources Policy."Natural Resources Journal. Vol. 15, October 1975,pp. 713-727.103Feeny, David (1988) "Agricultural Expansion and ForestDepletion in Thailand, 1900-1975." World Deforestationin the Twentieth Century. Duke University Press.Fortmann, Louise, John Bruce & James Riddell (1985) Treesand Tenure. Land Tenure Center, University ofWisconsin-Madison & International Council for Researchin Agroforestry. Nairobi, Kenya.Fortmann, Louise, John Bruce (1988) Whose Trees?: Proprietary Dimensions of Forestry. Westview Press.Boulder.Hardin, Garrett (1968) "The Tragedy of the Commons."Science. Vol. 162, December 13, 1968, pp. 1243-1248.Judd, Laurence C. (1987) In Perspective: Trends in Rural Development Policy and Programs in Thailand 1947-1987.Research Report Series No. 41, Payap University Centerfor Research and Development. Chiang Mai.Khemchalerm, Wibul (1988) "Self-Reliance Through Agro-Forestry." RUDOC News. Vol. 3, No. 4, Oct-Dec 1988.Thai Institute for Rural Development. Bangkok.Kunstadter, Peter, E.C. Chapman & Sanga Sabhasri (1978)Farmers in the Forest: Economic Development andMarginal Agriculture in Northern Thailand. East-WestCenter. University of Hawaii. Honolulu.Lynch, Owen J. (1991) "Community-Based TenurialStrategies for Promoting Forest Conservation andDevelopment in South and Southeast Asia." Paperprepared for USAID conference on environmental andagricultural issues. September 10-13, 1991. Colombo,Sri Lanka.Lynch, Owen J. (1990) "Whither the People?: Demographic,Tenurial and Agricultural Aspects of the TropicalForestry Action Plan." Paper prepared for the WorldResources Institute. New York.Matakala, Patrick (1992) "Property Rights and TimberRights in British Columbia." Unpublished manuscript,Department of Forestry, University of British Columbia,Vancouver.Matakala, Patrick (1992) "Developing a Community ForestManagement Model for Zambia." Unpublished manuscript,Department of Forestry, University of British Columbia,Vancouver.104Na Chiang Mai, Chartchai (1983) Parapolitical Behavior ofNorthern Thai Villagers: An Application of Social Network Concepts. Phd Thesis. University ofWisconsin-Madison.The Nation. Bangkok, June 10, 1990.The Nation. Bangkok, December 29, 1989.Nawasawat, Thalerng Thamrong (1986) "Private Forestry andRural Development: Thailand." Five Perspectives onForestry For Rural Development in the Asia-PacificRegion. FAO / RAPA.Obaidullah, Azm (1990) Creative Development: AnUnfinished Saga of Human Aspirations in South Asia.The University Press. Bangladesh.Phirmphongsacharoen, Witoon (1990) "Tropical ForestMovements: Some Lessons From Thailand." Paper preparedfor Project for Ecological Recovery. Bangkok.Phongphit, Seri (1989) Development Paradigm: Strategies, Activities and Reflection. Thai Institute for RuralDevelopment. Bangkok.Poffenberger, Mark (ed.) (1990) Keepers of the Forest: Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia.Kumarian Press. Connecticut.Poffenberger, Mark (1990) "Joint Management for PublicForests: Experiences from South Asia." A FordFoundation Program Statement. January 1990.Pongquan, Soparth (1988) Participatory Development inVillages of Central Thailand. Studies on HumanSettlements Development in Asia, HSD Report, 17. AsianInstitute of Technology. Bangkok.Poulton, R. & Michael Harris (ed.). (1988) Putting PeopleFirst: Voluntary Organizations and Third WorldDevelopment. Macmillan Publishers. London.Pragtong, Komon (1987) "Overview in Social Forestry."Paper prepared for Group Training in Social Forestry.Faculty of Forestry. Kasetsart University. Bangkok.Jan 12 - Feb 20, 1987.Pragtong, Komon (1986) "Helping Rural People HelpThemselves: A Report on Thailand's Forest Villages."Community Forestry: Lessons from Case Studies in Asiaand the Pacific Region. FAO / Environment and PolicyInstitute. East West Center. University of Hawaii.105106Pragtong, Komon & David E. Thomas (1990) "EvolvingManagement Systems in Thailand." Keepers of the Forest: Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia.Kumarian Press. Connecticut.Project for Ecological Recovery (1989) "CommunityForests: Forestry By and For the People." Paperprepared by Project for Ecological Recovery / IDRC.Project for Ecological Recovery (1990) "CommunityForestry in Tung Yao, Lumphun Province, Thailand."Paper prepared by Project for Ecological Recovery.Bangkok.Rahman, Anisur (ed.). (1984) Grassroots Participation andSelf-Reliance: Experiences in South and Southeast Asia.Oxford & Ibh Publishing Co. New Delhi, Bombay,Calcutta.Raintree, John B. (ed.). (1987) Land, Trees and Tenure.Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison &International Council for Research in Agroforestry.Nairobi, Kenya.Ramitanondh, Shalardchai (1989) "Forests and Deforestationin Thailand: A Pandisciplinary Approach." Culture andEnvironment in Thailand. The Siam Society. Bangkok.Ramitanondh, Shalardchai (1986) "Socio-Economic Benefitsfrom Social Forestry: For Whom? (The Case of NorthernThailand)." Community Forestry: Socio-Economic Aspects. FAO / RAPA.Rojanapo, Pornpimon (1990) "Report in Community Forestry."Unpublished manuscript, Human Settlements Development,Asian Institute of Technology. Bangkok.Rojanapo, Pornpimon (1990) "Ecosystem of Forests: CaseStudy in Ban Tung Yao." Unpublished manuscript,Human Settlements Development, Asian Institute ofTechnology. Bangkok.Romm, Jeff (1989) "Forestry for Development: Some Lessonsfrom Asia." Journal of World Forest Resource Management. Vol. 4, 1989, pp. 37-46.Romm, Jeff (1986) "Forest Policy and Development Policy."Journal of World Forest Resource Management. Vol. 2,1986, pp. 85-103.Royal Forestry Department (1988) Forestry^Royal Forestry D Thailand 1988. Forest Statistics Sub-Division,Planning Division, Royal Forestry Department. Bangkok.Rugh, Jim (1989) Self-Evaluation: Ideas for ParticipatoryEvaluation of Rural Community Development Projects.World Neighbours Publication. Oklahoma.Schumacher, E.F. (1973) Small is Beautiful: Economics asif People Mattered. Harper & Row Publishers.New York.Thangphet, Sopon (1990) Unpublished study on Populationand Domestic Fuel Consumption in Huey Kaew Tambol.Resource Management and Development Project. Facultyof Social Sciences, Chiang Mai University.Viriyasakultorn, Vitoon (1989) "Social Forestry: A Lookon its Constraints." Journal of Social Research.Forestry Economic, Social and Environmental Dimensions.Social Research Institute, Chulalongkorn University.Bangkok.107APPENDIX 1PHOTOGRAPHS FROM HUEY KAEW1. Transition Zone Between Dry Deciduous Dipterocarp andMixed Deciduous ForestDry deciduous dipterocarp forest occurs at lower elevationsand contains various species of bamboo. This area providesa source of firewood and many wild foods and medicines.Mixed deciduous forest occurs at higher elevations andcontains many commercial species such as teak.1082. Collecting Bamboo ShootsThis woman has just returned to the village after a full dayof harvesting bamboo shoots. "Normai" or bamboo shootssupplement the family diet, are used for barter amongstvillagers and are sold at the District market for cashincome.1093. Irrigation CanalCommon property forest is the source of a stream which flowsthrough Huey Kaew and supplies water for rice cultivationand home consumption year round.1 104. Rice PaddyRice paddy surrounds the village and extends to the edges ofthe forest. Fruit trees such as banana and papaya arecultivated along this interface. The edge of the forest isalso a grazing area for water buffalo.1115. Woman Tending Banana TreesBanana and other fruit trees are cultivated along the edgesof the forest.1126. Collecting MushroomsDuring the rainy season women often spend 2-3 hours per daycollecting mushrooms to supplement the family diet and usefor barter amongst villagers.1137. Harvesting TreesThese men are harvesting trees to supply the local woodcarving industry. Sale of wood provides cash income forlandless villagers.1148. Cooking Over Wood StoveSmall fuel efficient stoves are used by all villagers inHuey Kaew for cooking. Fuelwood is collected in landclassified as dry deciduous dipterocarp forest. This is notwithin land classified by the RFD as conservation forest.1159. Rest House in Rice PaddyThis structure offers protection from sun and rain. Builtfrom local resources, leaves collected from forest are atraditional roofing material.11610. Finishing Boards for House Constructionfrom Locally Harvested Trees.11711. Traditional HousesFew villagers of Huey Kaew expect that their children willbe able live in such houses as trees are no longer asabundant as they once were.11812. Water Buffalo GrazingEdges of the forest provide grazing areas for water buffalo.119APPENDIX 2LIST OF INTERVIEWS* Aot & Ying, Landowners in Huey Kaew, July - August 1990.Attavavutichai, Sukum, Professor, Thammasat University,October 1992.* Ba & Aoi, Landless villagers in Huey Kaew, July - August1990.* Bong & Goi, Landless villagers in Huey Kaew, July - August1990.* Chalad & Mai, Landless villagers in Huey Kaew, July -August 1990.* Chai & Lek, Landowners in Huey Kaew, July - August 1990.Demaine, Harvey, Professor, Human Settlements Development,Asian Institute of Technology, June 1990.* Dtik & Chu, Landless villagers in Huey Kaew, July - August1990.Ganjanapa, Niporn, Forester, Royal Forestry Department,Chiang Mai and member of Huey Kaew Community Forest ActionCommittee, July - August 1990.Gitmee, Wichai, National Reserve Forest ConservationOfficer, Royal Forestry Department, Chiang Mai, July 1990.* Jumsai, Landowner in Huey Kaew, Village Headman and Kamnan(leader of Huey Kaew Sub-District), July - August 1990.* Kai & Chang, Landless villagers in Huey Kaew, July -August 1990.Keowai, Sonchai, NGO Worker, Project for EcologicalRecovery, Chiang Mai and member of Huey Kaew CommunityForest Direction Committee, August 1990.Naayudhaya, Kingkorn, NGO Worker, Northern DevelopmentWorkers Association and member of Huey Kaew Community ForestAction Committee, July - August 1990.Patchiaporn, Research Associate in Forest Conservation,Royal Forestry Department, Chiang Mai, July 1990.Phirmphongsacharoen, Witoon, Environmental Lawyer, NGODirector, Project for Ecological Recovery, Bangkok, May &August 1990.120Pragtong, Komon, Senior Community Forest Officer, Royal ThaiForestry Department, Bangkok, May & June 1990.Ramithanondh, Shalardchai, Professor, Department ofAnthropology and Sociology, Chiang Mai University and memberof Huey Kaew Community Forest Advisory Committee, July -August 1990.Rojanapo, Pornpimon, Graduate Student, Human SettlementsDevelopment, Asian Institute of Technology, June & July1990.* Sem & Malee, Landowners in Huey Kaew, July - August 1990.* Sukwong & Choey, Landless villagers in Huey Kaew, memberof Village Forest Conservation Committee, and member of HueyKaew Community Forest Direction Committee, July - August1990.Tankimyong, Uraiwan, Resource Management and DevelopmentProject, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, ChiangMai University and member of Huey Kaew Community ForestAdvisory Committee, July - August 1990.* Udom & Pranee, Landowners in Huey Kaew, July - August1990.Vaddhanaphuti, Chayan, Director, Social Research Institute,Chiang Mai University and member of Huey Kaew CommunityForest Direction Committee, July - August 1990.Weber, Karl, Professor, Human Settlements Development, AsianInstitute of Technology, June 1990.* Yong & Suripan, Landowners in Huey Kaew, leader ofirrigation committee, July - August 1990.121* Names with asterisk are fictitiousAPPENDIX 3CHECKLIST OF QUESTIONSPROPERTY RIGHTS Where is the common property forest located? How many rai?Who manages this forest?Who benefits from this forest?Will the "community forest project" grant common propertyrights to this land?LAND USESWhat land uses are associated with the common propertyforest?Have you observed any changes in these land uses?Will the "community forest project" provide the same landuses associated with the common property forest?FOREST DEPENDENCYDo you own land for rice or crop production?How often do you go to the common property forest forresources?How would your life change without access to this forest?USES FOR INDIGENOUS SPECIES What resources do you obtain from the forest and what arethey used for?Are these resources for subsistence or income?Will the "community forest project" provide access to theindigenous species which you depend on?122ROLE OF TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS Is there a village institution responsible for governing theuse of forest resources? Who are its members? Is iteffective?Does the "community forest project" acknowledge the role ofthis institution?SOCIAL CONTROLS AND SANCTIONS What rights and responsibilities exist regarding the use offorest resources? How are these enforced?How effective are these social controls and sanctions incontrolling the use of forest resources by members of thecommunity? By people from outside the community?GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONWere you involved in the protests over the forestconcession? Why? / Why not?Are you involved in the "community forest project"?Why? / Why not?PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKINGWhat degree of control in decision-making for forestresources does the community have?What are the links between the village, the sub-district,the district, the province and national levels of planningfor forest resources?Is the "community forest project" responding to the needs ofvillagers?AVAILABILITY OF TECHNICAL SUPPORT Who is involved with the project? What are their roles?How effective is their support?123


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items