Reforestation in NE-Thailand (Isan)

Suan Mali reforestation project

Community forestation

       There is a "growing awareness that community participation in resource management could assist in protecting forest area as well as further rural development" (RECOFTC, 2002) and it will be most interesting to see to what extend the new Thai forestation bill, which is to be implemented in 2002, will include community forestation.

     Opponents claim that community forestation will damage wildlife as well as the forest. Supporters claim the opposite.

     The author of this paper has no real-life experiences from any project on community forestation in neither Thailand nor Laos. By 'real-life' is here meant first hand and self-experienced knowledge from living in such a community for a time-period long enough to get under the surface of the official image of the project. After 15 years (hereof 10 on his own reforestation project) among farmers in the Phu Phan Mountain Range, the author has his serious doubts whether the people of nowadays Isan can co-exist with forest. After only a few years of experience among the locals, the author was fluent in the names of all precious tree-species and their prices - just by listening to daily conversation in the area. If the objective is to save the trees, then the 'easy' formula is to change the modern materialistic attitude of the inhabitants. If the objective is to save wildlife, then there is an 'easy' formula too: Change the menu card of the Isan people. The Isan menu-card includes every living creature from insects to mammals.
     These 'easy'-formulas are not as easily implemented as written, but they touch in a humorous way some key problems. Poverty is often used as an excuse by the locals for hunting and encroaching. It might be so elsewhere, but not in nowadays Isan. 'Poor' or the feeling of being poor in the neighbouring villages is when not being able to buy motorbikes, TV-sets, karaoke systems, mobile telephones etc. - it is not being unable to pay for medical service, food or school fees. No one goes to sleep starving!  The main problem is the growing materialistic attitude of the citizens of a developing country being bombarded by advertisements. Very short then the problem is craving and has thereby also religious aspects as not to crave is a central issue in Buddhism as well as many other religions.

Lord Buddha reached enlightenment when meditating under a boddhi tree, but the tree could have been any species. One can with a sad irony say that present day cultural Buddhists cut trees and thereby ruin the symbol of Buddhist enlightenment.
 

If man is to co-exist with nature, education is needed in order to change the concept about nature, then maybe the new generations will be more aware of to what extend mans future is dependent on the nature around him. And it must be education that goes to the hearts as well as the brains. Left: Hardwood logs passing Suan Mali

     Traditionally the farmers of Isan have been living in rice-growing communities on the lowlands and in the valleys for only seasonally to go up hills to clear forest in order to grow other crops, to gather forest products and to hunt. The author's Phutai neighbour has followed this pattern, now being old staying permanently growing tapioca - and in recent years rubber. The majority of the other farmers have migrated into to forest area within the last 15 years (after the area was cleared by timber companies) to grow modern cash crops as e.g. cassava, later on sugarcane and now (2005) rubber for the world market (see 'the Final Cut').

     When there was a conflict going on between the local farmers and the forestry department, the author for the first time heard local voices demanding rights to manage forest reserves and to have responsibility for the forest. It was even proposed (by the forestry department), that the author should be in charge of such a project. But the author was reluctant. He did not want to be 'in charge' (and least of all not in charge of a disputed piece of land from where the farmers had been evicted). A community-forest project must be based on democratic participation among farmers, who by heart are concerned about nature and man's future. If the project comes 'from above' - whether it be from NGOs or from governmental bodies - it is doomed to become a fiasco. If the project comes from the grassroots and if the outline follows the author's proposals below, he is most interested in assisting the project.

     The author has therefore found his old notes from 2000. Notes about which elements he regards as essential for an re-forestation project. These notes have been discussed with local friends and NGOs, leaders of NGO-CORD in Khon Kaen and foreign NGOs (see below).

1) The Phu Phan mountain-range area is primarily a water catchment area and the aim of the project must be re-establishment of wild forest (pa dong dip, pa anurak) and wildlife with a low population density.
Comments: Like in national parks. Not industrial forestation (e.g. eucalyptus for paper pulp or rubber). Not fruit-orchard. No monoculture. A small plot for private utilization could be a compromise - See note 3.

2) Concept: Community-forestation with high bio-diversity and sustainability.
Comments: Let wild trees grow up and fill out empty spaces with local species from the wild forest. Establishment of seed-banks. Education and training in forest management - in corporation with relevant NGOs and governmental bodies.

3) Large pieces of land: Min.: 250 rai/family (40 hectares) of which max. 20 % could be for private/commercial use (cash crops as cassava, teak, rubber etc.).
Comment: Big pieces of land are to ensure a low population density.

4) Buy all “tapioka-land”, which formerly was forest and establish a kind of “forest-fond”, if that is juridical possible in Thailand. Preferably as a first step concentrate on a buffer-zone along the existing “preservation-forest A” (pa anurak).
Comments: Land-prices in pa sa-nguan is in 2002 around 2000 baht/rai (app. 285 US$/hectare). The farmers have bought the land mostly within the last 10-15 years (for app. 1000 baht/rai). Whether they have bought it legally or illegally is not the point. If the farmers are evicted without compensation, experiences have shown, that the land will be burned down, when the grass after next rainy season is high and dry.
Comment (2006): After the last years rubber implementation on pa sa-nguan land the prices has reached 10.000 baht/rai and the prices has not settled yet. The rubber-policy has out ruled reforestation.

5) No private ownership (which can be sold) - only the right to utilize the land, and the right to let one child inherit all the land.
Comment: The reason is to ensure a low population density. This might be a controversial point for the local farmers, because it conflicts with basic tai-customs! But the author's argument is, that tai-customs can be claimed on the lowlands, where the farmers traditionally have lived and grown rice. If the highlands are to be reforested and maintained, new customs are needed!

6) Monthly wages.
Comments: As the project is aiming at non-commercial reforestation, there is no profit generation. The money for maintaining the forest (primarily weeding and fire prevention) must come from outside the forest-area. And as the profit generated by cutting down the forest mostly has benefited the people in the big cities and abroad, then the payback must come from the local government and from countries abroad.
There must also be funds available for hiring people from the villages to weed in and after the rainy season.

7) No modern roads, electricity, schools etc. in the reforestation-area.
Comments: Roads giving access to virginal forests give poachers easy access too. Roads also disturb wildlife. Roads should only be maintained to an extend, that the road can be used all seasons. Electricity might be used carefully, but will mostly generate noise and disturb wildlife. Schools etc. are to kept in the existing villages, school busses can solve the transport problem.

8) Education in ecology, selection of seeds from the wild forest, and in corporative thinking and action. No big tractors on reforestation land. No ploughing on sloping land at all. No pesticides and no chemical fertilizers. No washing clothes directly in the creeks.

9) Careful water-management.
Comment: The area is a water-catchment area - not an irrigation area (see note 1). No big pumps for any crops. No dams. What cannot grow naturally does not belong to the area. Water-use is for personal consumption and for tree nurseries. If all highlanders greedily use water, no water will reach the Mekong River.

10) No hunting.
Comments: Raising wild boar, deer etc. could be an option.

11) Donor-control with the project through some kind of contract, which stipulates detailed conditions.
Comment: How to minimize misuse of money and not keeping obligations? Who checks money end work?

12) Contact between the foreign donors and the local farmers - eventually in form of some kind of tourism: “Come out and see what is gained by the donated money? And maybe participate in the daily practical work (!)

Asger Mollerup (ทอง / Thong), Ban Kaeng Nang, April 2002.

Postscript (2005): Since these 12 points were written the 'development' has taken another direction. Two new elements will be dealt with on separate web-pages:
1. Implementation of rubber plantations: The Final Cut
2. Construction of a dam in the preservation forest-A (pa anurak): The Dam