THE EFFECT OF MIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT : A CASE STUDY

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 13 THE EFFECT OF MIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT : A CASE STUDY Dusadee Aryuwatana Social forestry Research Project Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Khon Kaen University PREFACE The relationships between rural-rural migration and encroachment on reserved forest areas illustrate one set of social forces affection deforestation in Northeast Thailand. Documentation of this process provides important background for understanding the social fabric of forest communities. How this may affect village response to land allocation procedures. And acceptance of the activities of the Social forestry Research Project. This report describes Thai process for one village in the Dong Lan reserved forest in Khon Kaen province where the SFRP is working with local people to promote reforestation of degraded areas and create community-based resource management programs. The Social Forestry Research Project Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Khon Kaen University Thailand April 1992

2 Page 2 of 13 THE EFFECT OF MIGRATION AND SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT * I. INTRODUCTION : The Significance of the Social Forestry Project Deforestation is a major problem in Thailand. One of the major causes for the rapid rate of deforestation in Thailand is the expansion of permanent cultivation into forest reserves Underlying this expansion has been a high rate of population growth, low agricultural productivity, poor soil, and erratic rainfall (Subhadhira et al., 1987). The shortage of arable land has created a pattern of long-distance, repeated migrations. Recognition of the need to preserve watersheds by maintaining land under forest led the This government to pass legislation in 1964 creating forest reserves. Large areas of forest reserve land have been encroached upon by loggers and farmers in search of land (TDRI, 1987). Approximately half of Thailand s cultivated area is without title, and about half of this is classed by the RFD as degraded forest reserve (NESDB, 1987:112). More than one million families are in the tenuous situation of relying for their livelihood on illegally occupied land (RFD, 1987; Fedal et al., 1988). The Social structure of these agricultural villages inside the reserved forest is unusual for Thailand, and has caused problems for reforestation efforts in the past. In general, the goals of social forestry are achieved though the people s active participation. Activities are planned, implemented, monitored, and assessed by the people. Social forestry aims to achieve the following goals: land productivity, technological sustainability, ecological stability and social equity, with the last on top of the hierarchy. Thailand has achieved some encouraging, though limited, success in setting up a social forestry project with the two main objectives of (1) maintaining productivity though the conservation of natural ecosystems, and (2) uplifting the standard of living of rural people though increased employment and incomes. In October 1989 the Social Forestry Project (SFRP-KKU-Ford) first entered the village, but The RFD had announced a land allocation before. They planned to reduce landholdings to 15 rai, giving any land over this amount to landless households in the village. This announcement created conflict in the village between the foresters and the villagers with landholding over 15 rai. As a result. The announced land allocation was not made. The announcement also caused conflicts between villagers with large landholdings and those with little or no land. This case study examines the differences between these two groups of villagers in order to understand how migration and settlement patterns affected villagers response to the land allocation and acceptance of Social Forestry Project activities II. SETTLEMENT HISTORY A. General Background The forest margin village of Huai Muang lies inside the Dong Lan reserved forest on reserved forest land since These forest areas are in the upper watershed of the Choren River in the Western Hill Mountain and Highland, a regional sub-system in northeast Thailand. The area is dominated by uplands. The Dong Land forest is primarily a dry dipterocarp forest with some dry evergreen at higher elevations. The common tree species found within the forest are : Pradoo (Pterocarpus macrocarpus), Tabak (Lagerstroemia spp.), Daeng (Xylia kerii), and Ching Chan (Dalbergia oliveri).

3 Page 3 of 13 Huai Muang village, the study area, is roughly 2,740 rai (438.4 ha.) in area and has 347 households. The village was settled completely by migrants from other areas, in search of agricultural lands. It is Located 120 kilometers west of Khon Kaen city in Phu Phamarn district which is a relatively new administrative division of Khon Kaen province. This village can be reached by mini-buses from Chum Pae district center, the nearest urbanized district of Khon Kaen, by a graveled road. The cost for a one way trip to Chum Pae is 10 baht ($.40) per person. Most of the villagers are farmers growing rice and some other field crop such as maize, soy bean, and sugar cane. (See Figure 1). After harvesting, some households work as wage laborers outside the village, and some depend on forest product utilization. Most of the area is rolling uplands sloping down from the north to the south of village. There are two Huai small streams Huai Muang on the north and Huai Sor on the south of the village. Huai Muang stream was barricaded for a small reservoir by the Irrigation Department in (See Figure 1). There are paddy fields near the streams. Precipitation in the study area is between 1,100 and 1,200 mm per year. Irregularity is a major feature of the rainfall regime in the northeast and that applies to this area as well. Sources of village water supply are six wells. Social services consist of a primary school and two Buddhist temples (wat). For higher primary schools, children must travel to Phu Phamarn or Chum Pae district. The health care center is a sub-unit of Phu Phamarn district hospital. Huai Muang village was officially divided into two villages, Huai Muang and Non Sa ard, in June In this paper, Huai Muang is considered as the unit of analysis to include Non Sa ard. B Migration Pattern The pattern of migration in the village has been divided into four time periods: (See Figure 2). Group I: The migrants in this group came to the village before There were two groups. One came from neighboring villages such as the three households of Pa Kuai and Wang Yao villages. Their purpose was to claim forest land for agricultural crops and grazing. They used to graze in this area before they settled here. The other group, three households, came from the provinces in the central part of the country in 1968, because they wanted land for maize cultivation. In 1964, the forest became set for a national reserved forest. Some families came before this. All of them have left the village, having sold their land to Group II. Group II: In , migrants came from the rural areas of other provinces in the northeast: Chum Pae, Phon, Phu Wiang districts of Khon Kaen: Kawn San district of Chaiyaphum: Phu Kradung of Loei; and Nong Bua Lumphu and Na Klang districts of Udomthani. The migration pattern is rural to rural and interprovince migration. In 1975, a group of seventeen households came to the village, and ten to twenty more households came in each following year. Their purpose was to encroach reserved forest land because this area was cleared by logging in They heard that land in this area was abundant. Some households bought their land from the first group of migrants. Some had migrated more than four times before Some also owned and farmed land in their hometown and returned there each planting and harvesting season. Group III: There were most migrants in They migrated from farther away than the second group of migmts. They were from Kranuan district of Khon Kaen, Nong Kung Si district of Kalasin and Phon Sai district of Roi-Et. They migrated because of the division of land--they inherited too little land, and they came from dry areas. They claimed land far from the village and near the forest, where the soil was poor. Some bought land from the second group at high prices. There were thirty to forty households of migrants each year during this period. At that time, the village was crowded and forested areas were being cleared by the migrants Group IV: The fourth group migrated to the village from 1982 to the present. Few households (less than thirty) came to the village in this period, and they were not able to get much land First, there was little land left that was not too hilly for cultivation Second, the Headquarters of the Royal Forestry Department, the 5th Dong Lan, was set up in Huai Muang in 1989, and this stopped most encroachment of the reserved forest. At least one household from group II sold their land in preparation for the land allocation announced by the RFD (but later changed their mind and stayed). At the same time, Group IV households moved to the village in expectation of receiving land from the RFD land allocation. There were three to five households of new migrants each year. Ten of these households are landless. Most of them leave the village seasonally, and

4 Page 4 of 13 work as laborers in the sugar cane fields near Bangkok. To sum up, (1) the pattern of immigration to the village is dominantly from outside the provinces: almost twothirds of all households in the village have come from outside the province (inter-province migrants). The migrants district of origin are Concentrated in central northeast Thailand ; (2) most migrants came to the village in (GroupII-Ill); (3) the villagers came from eleven different districts. This causes an important lack of community cohesion which affects the social forestry project. This village structure contrast to the traditional village in Thailand. The traditional village has the kinship system, most of the people follow the old. C. The settlement History of Huai Muang The forest of Huai Muang--a reserved forest since was cleared for cultivation by households that needed land. This same pattern has caused deforestation in other areas of Thailand, and in fact, other areas of Asia. This pattern shows that the RFD must understand people s needs in order to stop deforestation. The following details will be discussed in terms of the relationships between human settlement and deforestation The settlement of Huai Muang was first established almost thirty years ago. At that time, the land around the village began to be claimed by households from neighboring villages. In 1959, Mr. A. came from Wang Yao village near the study area. His purpose was to claim some land for his family. Before this, he collected forest products from this area (including timber, and hunted). During this period, the area was still rich forest with various species of big trees and wild animals. In 1964, this forest area was officially set aside as a national reserve forest, and the government gave public notice to the villagers settled or farming in that area that they must leave. They hid from the officers but no one left. In 1968 three households arrived from Pa Kuai village, six kilometers from Huai Muang. They daimed the land for maize cultivation But before this they used this area for grazing. Three more households from the central part of the country arrived soon after this in None of them had formal title or other documents to use the land. These seven households were the first group of migrants to the village. The forest northwest of the village, called Chum Ta Kien, was cut for commercial logging under the Industrial Forestry Organization Division (IFO) in Huai Muang itself was not logged Seventeen households, in 1975, moved together to the village led by Mr. J. The route they followed to reach this place was the logging road used by IFO to remove trees from their concessions in the forest near Huai Muang. At that time, the forest around the village was cleared and big trees were cut Mr. J and his group constructed their permanent houses on the central upland of the village. Mr. J was the informal leader of the village committee that was elected by the villagers. Most of this group of seventeen households were members of the village committee. They claimed twenty to eighty rai ( ha.) for each household and many plots of land. Some they bought from the first group but most they cleared from the forest. In 1976, The Border Patrol Police (BPP) came to defend the village because the leftist guerillas stayed in the forest near the village. After a few years the leftists were no longer a threat, and after that, this area was secure and attracted many migrants. The police left the area in The BPP and villagers set up the primary school (the first teacher was from BPP) and the village temple was constructed in At that time, this community was still under the administrative control of Wang Yao village of Chum Pae district. The village got funds from the government to build the weir north of the village and the road from Wang Yao to the village. Between , the largest group of migrants, the third group of settlers, moved to the village. The population of the village was more than one hundred and fifty households at that time. Informants reported that there were thirty to forty households per year. Most of the leaders of each of these new groups of settlers are members of the village committee, and involved in village activities. They got ten to fifteen rai ( ha.) each, some by dearing the forest but most by buying. Sometimes they work as farm laborers inside the village and sometimes outside the village, that is, they are seasonal migrants. In 1981 Phu Phamarn was set up as district. Setting the district up may have increased immigration to the area. The newest households, the fourth group, came to this area in A few of these households came at the invitation of relatives already in the village. Some came when the land allocation was made public. This group was quite poor. They were able to get less than 5 rai (0.8 ha.) and ten households did not get any land at all. Most of them work as laborers and depend heavily on forest products.

5 Page 5 of 13 The King s mother donated her fund supporting the new school building in 1989, when the village had about three hundred households. She heard about the village s need from the BPP. The health care center was constructed in 1984, supported by the district government and the villagers. New households separated from the old ones and expanded to the east of the village (see Figure 3). There were two important occurrences in this period (1) in 1989 (March) the small reservoir was constructed at the Huai Muang stream by the Irrigation Department causing Conflict with villagers whose rice fields were covered: and (2) in 1989 (June) the village was set up as a formal village and separated into two villages under the administration of Phu Phamarn subdistrict (tambon). This means they can get funds from the sub-district and choose a formal village headman. III. FOREST UTILIZATION A. Land Aquisition The earliest settlers claimed large pieces of land by marking trees as boundaries in the forest area, in order to expand their nearby farms. Because they did not have the security of land titles, farmers fought over the land in this period and even killed each other. They sold some of the land to the second group of settlers at prices between baht (U.S.$4 and $20) per rai and kept some land for maize. The land was bought without title deeds or occupancy certificates. In the period of high migration (group Ill), the price of land was increased to 2,000-15,000 baht ($80-$600) per rai, depending on soil fertility, proximity to the village, and whether or not the land had to be cleared of trees. Some group Ill migrants bought land from group II at these high prices, and some of land group Ill migrants were able to get. When the village was densely settled, the newest migrants --group IV--moved in hoping to claim land but it was no longer available (see below). They were forced to buy at high prices Most of them want the land which will be reallocated by the RFD. It is clear that the different groups of migrants to the village experienced very different constraints in their efforts to acquire good agricultural land. In sum (1) the price of land increased as more settlers came to the village, and was already high for group III. (2) the earliest settlers got the highest soil fertility and the best location, close to the village. (3) arable land filled before the fourth group came. As a result of these factors, the average land holding is small and many households have insufficient or no agricultural land. In general, the earliest settlers (group II) have the best land and the most recent ones (group lv) have insufficient or no land, while group Ill has minimal land holdings. B. Forest Clearance The forest area was decreased 1) for commercial logging by IFO in : and 2) for agricultural activities (field crops) by settlers. A large area of the forest was cleared around the village between 1975 and 1981 by group II and III. This process was linked to the growth of the village. The areas were cleared first where water was available for paddy and where there was a better potential soil fertility for crop agriculture, for example, the areas near the mountains with small streams from the mountains (villagers called them chum). Areas near the village were also cleared first. Land cleared later was less fertile and well-watered and farther from the village. Forest clearance was decreased by (1) degree of slope (2) presence of foresters-who set up the headquarters in the village. (see Figure 4). C. Land Use. The study area can be divided into two categories of agricultural land: upland and lowland. (see Figure 5) Maize is the major crop grown in the upland zone near the mountains, two times a o62 year. Ninety-five percent of the households grow maize. The yields of maize have been quite variable due to weeding problems. The villagers reported that most of them have not used chemical fertilizers and insecticides because the area was fertile and rainfall was plentiful. But since many maize fields have been producing since 1975, productivity is decreasing. Now they have started using fertilizers and insecticides increase production.

6 Page 6 of 13 Sugar cane was introduced to the village in 1982 by seven households in group II, who grew it in upland areas because they had extra land. Informants reported that sugar cane was difficult to manage and take care of and a high investment. It was also necessary to join a cooperative (inter-village organization that bargained with companies) to sell sugar cane, and this cooperative was difficult to join. It was not appropriate for every household. Rice dominated on the lowland. One-third of the rice area belonged to the second group of Huai Muang villagers. Two-thirds of the rice area belonged to people living outside the village, either group I households or households they sold land to. Most of group Ill and IV did not have any rice fields. Rice was grown for household consumption Some paddy fields were flooded when the reservoir was constructed. The villagers were not compensated for their land. This affected eleven households and was a cause of conflict between villagers and government officers. After rice harvesting, some of villagers grow soybeans in the paddy fields to sell. The landless or other households who do not have rice fields can ask the owners to be allowed to grow soybeans because they increase the field s fertility. Group IV do not have rice fields, other villagers hire them to work in farms in the area. D. Forest Products Utilization Before the forest clearance, the villagers (group I) near the forest used trees--cut timbers for housing materials---and forest products--grazing, collecting bamboo shoots, mushrooms, hunting. After the wave of migrants, when the land was claimed and forest area decreased, the villages who used to use this area could not use the land for grazing, and could not cut timbers. As numbers of migrants increased, the supply of forest products, such as trees and wildlife declined. Now, they still cut any trees still standing on the land they claim, even though the foresters do not allow this. After the 5th Dong Lan, a station of the RFD, was set up in 1989 in the village, the villagers took them more seriously. Informants said that the villagers go farther away than in the past for fuelwood collecting and cutting trees for charcoal making which is illegal. In national reserved forest, cutting trees and collecting forest products are illegal but people are often permitted to collect forest products, graze animals, and hunt fore their survival. Villagers, from this village and also from nearby villages, collect bamboo shoots from the mountain for food and selling. Mushrooms are collected for households consumption (see Figure 5) though they are not so plentiful as before The fourth group of settlers depend more than the others on the forest. They are hired by other groups to cut timber and carry it to the village. They cut timber in the mountains, an illegal activity. They usually sell forest products, mushrooms and bamboo shoots, to the other groups, but sometimes they use them themselves. Group IV now does almost all actual harvesting of forest products, though many of these products are sold to other groups. Group IV households have to depend on forest products because they do not have enough land, even if these activities are illegal. In sum, the sources, quantity and objectives of forest utilization changed as the village was settled and the forest was cleared, and was thus different for different groups. IV. HOW HUMAN SETTLEMENT AFFECTED THE SOCIAL FORESTRY PROJECT The Social Forestry Project (SFRP-KKU-Ford) started in 1987 and two community organizers (CO s) were placed in the village in October The project had two main general objectives, first, increasing community production, which means that the project will help the villagers to improve their life: secondly, forest protection for watersheds. The community organizers tried to implement the activities after studying the village and identifying their needs. There were four activities: (1) Extension: the CO s organized training and study tours for silkworm raising and introduced the best

7 Page 7 of 13 species of mulberry. The people who participated in this activity came from the wealthiest group (Group II), both men and women. Most of the men who enrolled are formal leaders. This group had land for growing mulberry and wanted to learn the new technology for silk production. But the most important reason was to get the best species of mulberry. Many people in the village said that they did not want to grow mulberry for feeding silkworms because they would have to wait before getting any profit and they thought they got more cash more quickly by, working as laborers. But the more important reason was that most of them did not have enough land. Most of those who did not participate in this activity were in Group IV. (2) Household nursery: The CO s tried to convince the villagers to set up nurseries to provide seedlings. The project provided equipment such as a watering can and the best species of seed for fruit trees and trees. The villagers who participated were people who wanted the seedlings for their own land. Household nurseries were provided the seedlings for fruit trees such as mangoes, sugar apple, papaya and jack fruit, and trees such as Neem tree, Khae Ban (Sesbania grandiflora), Khi Lek Ban (Cassia siamea Britt.) There were four household nurseries, three in Group II and one from Group III. They were interested in this activity because they thought about the long term benefits, and had enough land to grow both fruit trees and cash crops. (3) Planting trees: The CO s organized an informal group of people, mostly from Group II, who worked with the monk, to engage in planting activities. They planted trees in the temple area, which is a kind of public land. Seedlings were provided by the project. Most of the people who were involved were elderly. (4) Demonstration: The CO s looked for the village s knowledge a bout techniques like budding and grofting then tried to transfer those technologies to others. But some did not want to join, because they did not believe that the man demonstrating his techniques, who was from Group II, knew the best way. This means that each farmer believed strongly in his own o62 techniques. The poor people in Group IV were not interested in this activity because they did not know how they could benefit from it with no agricultural land. Therefore, participation in the Social Forestry Project was limited in particular ways. Most people from Groups II and III of the settlers were interested in the project activities, because they were suited to their needs and their potential. Group IV in contrast did not get involved in project activities. This is a serious problem for the project, because it is people in Group IV who most need to clear new land for growing crops, and also who harvest most forest products. If they get a piece of land through land allocation, project activities might become interesting for them. We can say that there are two main reasons for the lack of involvement in the Social Forestry Project: (1) unsuitability of activities for villagers with marginal or no land, and (2) lack of community cohesion. Group II dominates village leadership position and Group III usually follows Group II, but Group IV is not represented. V. CONCLUSION This case study shows that patterns of migration and settlement in the national reserved forest area are related to patterms of forest clearance, land acquisition, forest utilization, and land use. Migration patterms also influence social aspects, like conflict and community cohesion. In particular, migration patterns have created inequitable acquisition of forest land, and this is the basis of present conflict between different groups of migrants to the village. This case study also provides answers to many important questions about forest encroachment and what are the best implementation strategies for the social forestry project. It also allows us to make specific recommendations about how to begin solving these problems. How can we predict where people will encroach into the forest? The farmers used the forest for grazing animals, hunting wild animals and cutting timbers long before they encroached to farm; that is, forest use preceded farming in the forest. We can predict that maybe the mountain forests even though sloped will be encroached in the future, because now villagers secretly use them. What attracts migrants to an area? (a) Migrants look for the physical requirements for farming, especially fertile soil, abundant water, and level land, though they become less particular as land shortages increase. (b) Farmers are attracted to land that has already been cleared--thus logging attracts settlers (Group II in the study) by clearing land and providing access roads. It is recommended that after logging the RFD should give special protection to the area until the trees have grown back. (c) Landless farmers are actually attracted by news of a reallocation, which means that reallocation increases the migration problem. How can the conflict over land allocation be reduced? The Iand to be reallocated was being bought and

8 Page 8 of 13 sold even though legally it belonged to the RFD (without titles). The RFD should give the villagers compensation for any land taken away (at a compromise price) to be reallocated, because they have improved the land and invested time, effort and money into making it productive (Dove 1987: ). In case this is not possible, perhaps a system of compensating for past land clearing could be arranged between the previous landholder and the new occupant. How can land be equitably reallocated? Some households of migrants own land in their hometown, and it is recommended that they should get less land from land allocation. Some areas of the village, especially paddy fields but also field crops, belong to people who live outside the village. The RFD should make a decision about the people, pawho farm land in the village but live outside. It is suggested that they receive compensation, but are not allocated any land. Which groups in the village are most important for the Social Forestry Project to work with? Groups III and IV need more land and have been prevented from encroaching the forest by the RFD headquarters. If the RFD leaves, these people will take more timber and clear more land from the forest. That means the needs of Group IV and some of Group III are most important for the Social Forestry Project. Most of the Social Forestry Project activities were not suitable for the landless and took too long to produce a profit for people who need immediate cash This means that the project should look for activities that do not require land and have a short time frame, like mushroom growing after the rice harvest. If land allocation occurs, especially if less than 15 rai are allocated, then all the Groups will need income-generating assistance. The RFD has to have cooperation from other departments in order to implement these income-generating activities, especially agricultural extension How can Forest Villages be organized? The forest village structure is not like traditional Thai villages -- they are bigger, have no kinship ties nor community cohesion, and most people are very self-reliant. The Social Forestry Project should work with informal groups that include Group IV, or with households, rather than trying to organize entire villages. REFERENCES Dove, Michael R "The Perception of Peasant Land Rights in lndonesan Development : Causes and Implications." In Land, Trees and Tenure Jonh Raintree, ed. pp Nairobi/Madison: ICRAF/Land Tenure Center. Eckholm, Erik The Dispossessed of the Earth : Land Reform and Sustainable Development. Worldwatch Paper 30 June. Feder, G, Onchan, T. and Yongyuth. C "Land policies and Farm performance in Thailand s forest reserve areas" Economic Development and Cultural Change. 36, pp Hirsch, Philip "Settlement and Resettlement on Marginal Land: A Case study from Thailand." Australian Geographer. 20(1),May pp Nair, CTS and Krishnankutty, C.N., Socio-Economic Factors In fluencing Farm Forestry :A case Study of Tree Cropping in the Homesteads in Kerala, India. pp In Community Forestry : Socio-Economic Aspects. Bangkok : FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. NESDB [National Economic and Social Development Board] Sixth National Economic and Social Development Plan ( ). Bangkok : NESBD. Rambo, AT "Community Forestry-The Social View." In Community Forestry : Some Aspects. pp Bangkok : FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific Ramitanondh, Shalardchai "Socio-Economic Benefits from Social Forestry: for Whom? (The Case of Northern Thailand)" In Community Forestry : Socio-Economic Aspects. pp Bangkok: FAO Regional Office for Asia and The Pacific

9 Page 9 of 13 RFD [Royal Forestry Department] Helping villagers to gain rights to land in national forest reserve. Bangkok : RFD. Subhadhira, Sukaesinee, et al.,1987. Case Studies Human-Forest Interactions in Northeast Thailand. Bangkok : KU/KKU/Ford, Northeast Thailand Upland Social Forestry Project. TDRI [Thailand Development Research Institute] Thailand national resources profile Bangkok : Thailand Development Research Institute. *Reprinted from Ayuwat, Dusadee, The Effect of Migration and Settlement Patterns on the implementation of a Social Forestry Project : A Case Study, In Voices Form the Field: Third Annual Social Forestry Writing Workshop. Environment and Policy Institute, East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii pp APPENDIX Figure 1: Crossection of Huai Muang Area

10 Page 10 of 13 Figure 2: Migration History of Huai Muang Figure 3: Settlement in Huai Muang

11 Figure 4: Pattern of Forest Clearance in the Study Area Page 11 of 13

12 Figure 5: Agricultural Land Use in Huai Muang Page 12 of 13

13 Page 13 of 13