Farmers’ land use decision-making in the context of changing land and conservation policies: A case study of Doi Mae Salong in Chiang Rai Province, Northern Thailand

Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 179–189

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

Farmers’ land use decision-making in the context of changing land and conservation policies: A case study of Doi Mae Salong in Chiang Rai Province, Northern Thailand Wirongrong Duangjai a,∗ , Dietrich Schmidt-Vogt b,c , Rajendra P. Shrestha a a Natural Resources Management Field of Study, School of Environment, Resource and Development, Asian Institute of Technology, P.O. Box 4, Klong Luang, Pathumthani 12120, Thailand b Chinese Academy of Sciences Kunming Institute of Botany, 3/F Research Building, Heilongtan, Kunming, 650201, China c World Agroforestry Centre, East and Central Asia, Kunming, China

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 11 December 2014 Received in revised form 14 May 2015 Accepted 1 June 2015 Keywords: Land conservation policies Land use decision-making Ethnic farmers Upland area Northern Thailand

a b s t r a c t In Thailand, land use planning and policy decision-making were—and to some extent still are—organized in a hierarchical and disjointed fashion. This is also true for the utilization of public lands, including forest reserves in the northern uplands that are often settled by ethnic minorities. There are, however, instances of change in land policies and regulations and in the way decisions and plans are made. Doi Mae Salong (DMS) in Northern Thailand, where there is a trend towards land use for conservation purposes, is a case in point. This paper aims to explore decision-making by farmers in DMS in the context of changing land regulations and policies from the 1950s to the present. The Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, together with a historical perspective and with narratives on land management through time, were applied by using in-depth interviews of key informants and group farmers’ discussions as tools. The time period under investigation was divided into three periods of change: The first period, before the year 1960, was an era of security concern. In contrast, the second period, from 1961 to 1996, was an era of emerging conservation priorities. Finally, the third period, from 1997 to the present, is an era of lessons learned from the conservation era. Land use decision outcomes reveal that the decisionmaking processes of farmers are influenced both by the hierarchical decisions of higher authorities and by horizontal linkages among multiple stakeholders. However, while farmers participate readily in forest conservation activities, they do not play an active role in the process of changing policies. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In developing and transition countries, land policies and regulations are often decided in a top–down approach in which decisions are made by central government authorities only. This is also true in Thailand. Policies that have been enacted on forest use and land use are mainly aimed at addressing the problem of deforestation. However, despite these efforts, forest cover has continuously declined in Thailand, from 53.3% in 1961 to 49.6 % in 1985 to 31.57% in 2013 (Lakanavichian, 2001; RFD, 2013). Deforestation has mainly affected the northern region of the country. Though this region has more forests than other regions of Thailand, forest cover has declined from 51.73% in 1982 to 42.09% in 2006 (RFD, 2006). The forest decline was mainly blamed on swidden cultivation, though swidden cultivation has been banned

∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +66 22603275. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.002 0264-8377/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

since the 1960s to promote permanent farming (Rerkasem and Rerkasem, 1994) as part of the highland development program. While early development programs for the highlands of Northern Thailand were mainly aimed at reducing opium production, national security, illegal immigration, and poverty (Ganjanapan, 1998; Hares, 2006), from the 1970s onwards environmental concerns (such as fighting deforestation) began to dominate the agenda of Thai government agencies. Parallel to the growing emphasis on conservation in Thailand, there was a change in the global perception of how natural resources should be managed and how conflicts over natural resources are to be resolved (Fisher et al., 2008). Key concepts related to these changing perceptions in resource management are decentralization, devolution of power, and participation. Ribot (2002) defined decentralization as “any act in which a central government formally cedes powers to actors and institutions at lower levels in a political-administrative and territorial hierarchy.” Hence, decentralization of natural resource management is meant to give

180

W. Duangjai et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 179–189

local people power to participate in decision-making on resources management (Larson, 2005). In Thailand, decentralization was initiated in the 1990s. It was first mentioned in the Seventh National Economic and Development Plan in 1992, and the Decentralization Act was passed in 1999 (Luukkanen, 2000). Local institutions, such as the Tambon Administrative Organizations (TAOs), were established at sub-district levels. Nevertheless, the final decisions on land uses were still made by central government agencies, which prevented a genuine transfer of power (Doklamyai and Ayuthya, 2001).

1.1. Changing land policies and conservation regulations in Thailand Before the 1960s, key pieces of legislation on land management were the Forest Act of 1941 and the Land Code of 1954. At that time, the Royal Forest Department (RFD) was under the purview of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, and the Department of Land (DL) was under the Ministry of Interior, but both had authority to manage lands according to these pieces of legislation. Common lands were also directly under their authority at that time (Hares, 2006). The first National Economic and Development Plan (NEDP) was enforced in 1961 to prevent forest and watershed destruction, to end opium cultivation, and to promote socioeconomic development of ethnic minorities in the uplands (Leake, 2007; Pinthong, 1992). In Northern Thailand, forest areas were intensively encroached on by local communities for land certification as well as for agricultural expansion (Delang, 2003). To minimize land encroachment, the National Park Act and Watershed Classification (WSC) legislations were drawn up with the main aim of classifying land uses into zones based on the 1975 watershed classification by the National Environment Board. Watersheds were divided into three classes. Class IA was limited to residential use (Lasimbang and Luithui, 2007). For land utilization in WSC 1B, farmers needed to adopt soil conservation practices as well as replant trees in agricultural areas (Dheeraprasart et al., 2005). Some swidden fallow land used by minority farmers was declared degraded land and appropriated by the RFD for reforestation with Pinus spp., in accordance with the Forest Reserve Act of 1964. The Land Conservation Policy approved in 1985 (Kaosa-ard and Wijuk, 2000) aimed to guarantee the preservation of 40% of the land area as forests, consisting of 25% of conservation forest and 15% of production forest. This policy also designated land with a slope of 35% or more as forest land (Hares, 2006; Hares et al., 2006). In 1989, the Royal Thai Government (RTG) imposed a logging ban on natural forests in recognition that logging had contributed to severe nation-wide deforestation. Two years later, in 1991, the Thai Forestry Sector Master Plan (TFSMP) was formulated to strengthen sustainable management and conservation of natural forests and ecosystems, to develop a strategy for policy implementation through sustainable and participatory methods, and to enhance capacity building for monitoring and evaluating the progress (Hares et al., 2006). However, the Master Plan was never officially enforced. The first Master Plans for Highland Development and Narcotic Crops Control, adopted during 1992–1996, focused on the socio-economic improvement of hill tribes, their settlement in permanent villages, and environmental conservation (RTG, 1997). When the Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand was passed and enforced in 1997, more land management issues were decided at the operational level, marking a first step towards decentralization (Table 1). In this paper, we explore to what extent changing land and conservation policies at the central level have had an effect on land use decision-making and land use patterns at the local level.

More specifically, we try to answer the questions of who are the actors involved in processes of land use change in forest reserve areas in Northern Thailand, and what are their roles. To answer these questions, we need to obtain a historical understanding of central level and use planning processes in Thailand and to explore the link between local level land use planning and decision-making and its influence on decision outcomes of land users at the household level. For this purpose, we analyzed linkages between institutions and hierarchical levels by using the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. We examined the effects of policies and regulations on actors at the local level as well as horizontal decision-making among communities. The Doi Mae Salong (DMS) area of Chiang Rai Province in Northern Thailand was selected as a study site. Due to its border location and history in the drug trade, DMS has been under the direct control of the Royal Thai Armed Force Headquarters (RTAF) since the 1950s. In DMS, the role of the army has changed from maintaining national security to ensuring environmental protection so that the army’s main task today is the implementation of forestry projects, which has recently focused on adopting a participatory approach. Because of its particular history and relatively small-scale application of conservation and decentralization policies, we considered DMS suitable as a pilot site for institutional and policy analysis. 2. Approach and methods 2.1. Research framework Our research applies the IAD framework (Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom, 2005) to explore the linkages between the decision-making of local people and policies developed at higher levels. Linkages are explored and institutional analysis is carried out in so-called action arenas. An action arena comprises of two components: (i) the action situation, which refers to “the social space where individual interests, exchange goods, and services engage in appropriation and provision activities, solve problems, or fight” (Ostrom et al., 1994), and (ii) the actors (i.e., those who participate in the situation). Action arenas can vary within a focal place, where arenas are linked with each other sequentially or simultaneously. There may even be a single action arena with any amount of diverse participants (Ostrom, 2005). Institutional analysis provides an understanding of the exogenous factors that affect action arenas. There are three clusters of exogenous variables: (1) the rules used by participants to order their relationship, (2) the attributes of the biophysical world that are acted upon in these arenas, and (3) the structure of the more general community within which any particular arena is placed (Ostrom et al., 1994; Ostrom, 2005). In this study, the IAD framework was applied to analyze the land use decisionmaking of farmers because it can provide us with an understanding of the linkages of the decision situations with the attributes of the individuals, which eventually produce outcomes through decisions made by farmers. The outcomes of decisions can be affected by vertical interactions between hierarchical levels and by horizontal interactions on the same level. Vertical interaction usually takes place in the form of participants at lower levels being influenced by rules made at higher hierarchical levels. Horizontal interaction takes place in the form of negotiations and consultations between participants at the same hierarchical level. In this study, we focused on temporal changes from past to present in the interaction between multiple stakeholders at the collective choice level. Multiple stakeholders are defined as actors who have been involved in the action situation on land use changes in the DMS community. Within a Thai context, we can expect hierarchical decisionmaking that descends from higher-power to lower-power

W. Duangjai et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 179–189

181

Table 1 Evolving key national level legislation governing natural resource management in Thailand. Level

National level

Local level

Time period (year) Before 1960

1961–1996

1997–Present

• Forest Act, 1941 • Land Code, 1954 and Land Code Promulgation Act, 1954

• The first National Economic and Development Plan • National Park Act, 1961 • Watershed Classification, 1961 • National Reserved Forest Act, 1964 • Highland Development Project, 1971 • Thailand National Forestry Policy, 1985 • Logging ban, 1989 • Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act, 1992

Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, 1997

• The Reserve Forest of Pa Num Mae Kum Pa Num Mae Salong Pa Num Mae Chan Phung Sai • (353,750 rai) established by Royal Forest Department, 1964 • A National Permanent Forest Plantation of Pa Num Mae Kum Pa Num Mae Salong Pa Num Mae Chan Phung Sai Forest Reserve, 1970 • Royal Thai Armed Force Headquarters (RTAF) authorized forest reserve (56,000 Rai), 1972 • The 3rd Armed Force Development Command (AFDC) established by RTAF, 1991 • Community Forest Movement at the village level, led by Hill Tribe Development Foundation (HTDF), 1995

• Forest Land Survey by Royal Forest Department (RFD), 1997 • The land and forest resources management projects established by the Forest Management Division 2nd, RFD, 1998 • Land Satellite Survey Project for land tenure (Sor-Tor-Kor) established, 2007 • The Administration of Reforestation Projects (ARP) established by the 3rd Armed Force Development Command, 2007 • Forest restoration project established as a collaboration of FORRU-CMU, IUCN, PATT, and ARP, 2008 • Landscapes and Livelihoods project established by IUCN, 2008 • High Land Research and Development Institute established by Land Development Department (LDD), Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, 2010 • Royal Agriculture Station Angkhangextension office established at Doi Mae Salong, 2010 • Sor-Por-Kor Survey Project by Agricultural Land Reform Office (ALRO), Ministry of Agricultures and Cooperatives, 2011

authorities to prevail over horizontal decision-making at the same level. We have modified the conceptual framework by integrating the IAD framework with a historical perspective to provide us with an understanding of land use policy changes and their implementation by government authorities from the past to present, and with narratives on land management to better understand the effects of policies and institutions on land use decision-making of local people. The framework has been structured into three different levels to link the decision-making of local people with the decision-making of higher levels through multiple level analyses. Ananda and Proctor (2013) extended Ostrom’s institutional analysis framework by defining three nested levels of policy action: the operational level, the collective choice level, and the constitutional level. The focus of this paper is on the operational level as affected by the upper two levels. 2.2. Study area DMS is an upland area in the Mae Salong Nok sub-district of Mae Fa luang district of Chiang Rai Province, Thailand. It is part of the watershed of the Mae Chan River, a tributary of the Mekong, located in the northernmost part of Thailand at an elevation of approximately 1200–1800 AMSL. DMS is inhabited by various minority groups, such as the Lahu, Ahka, and Lisu, and also by Chinese settlers. The history of DMS has been strongly influenced by remnants of the Chinese National Army that dispersed throughout the Mainland Mountainous Southeast Asia region following defeat by Communist forces at the end of the Chinese Civil War (Gibson and Chen, 2011). The former Chinese 93rd division, which had first

migrated to Myanmar, was expelled from there in 1961 and settled permanently in this part of the Thai territory. Chinese forces engaged not only in counter insurgency but also in the drug trade. The Thai government addressed the problem of increasing lawlessness by transferring authority over DMS to the Royal Thai Armed Force Headquarters (RTAF). In the case of DMS, forested lands were mostly classified into class 1A watershed area, and they were set aside by the RFD for forest reserve zoning because the declaration of the Forest Reserve Act in 1964. Most of the land used by villagers in DMS—i.e., an area of approximately 2400 ha in the two districts of Mae Chan and Mae Fah Luang—is categorized as forest reserves under the authority of the RFD but is presently managed by the ARP. In 2007, the ARP decided to initiate a reforestation project in DMS in honor of HM the King Bhumibol Adulyadej’s 80th birthday. The ARP set up the project with a duration of 14 years, divided into two phases: a 5-year phase of tree planting, followed by a 9-year phase of post-planting maintenance. The main purpose of this project was to reforest a total area of 1440 ha of degraded mountainous landscapes concentrating on the steepest slopes within the upper water catchments of the Mae Fah Luang and Mae Chan districts. 2.3. Selection of household samples and methods Five villages inhabited by ethnic minority groups in the DMS area were selected for conducting household interviews. The villages were Hea Ko and Loh Yo villages of the Pa Teung sub-district of Mae Chan District, and Pana Sawan, Paca Sukjai, and Jabusi villages of the Mae SalongNok sub-district of Mae Faluang District (Fig. 1). The selection criteria were: (1) villages that are affected by

182

W. Duangjai et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 179–189

Fig. 1. Location map of the five villages in the Mae Faluang District and Mae Chan District, Chiang Rai Province, Thailand.

the reforestation projects of government agencies; (2) community lands in these villages are under the authority of the ARP; and (3) the villages are under the administration of TAOs. The study involved four stages, with each stage characterized by a specific set of methods: Stage (1): Collection of baseline data on the study area, its population, and land use patterns. Stage (2): Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) with key informant interviews, semi-structured interviews, and a historical matrix. The data produced by these tools were then used to develop questionnaires for stakeholder and household surveys. Before conducting

the household survey, target groups were defined on the basis of their livelihoods. On-farm livelihood was targeted for the survey because the decision-making of farmers on land use will affect the actual change of land use in DMS. Stage (3): Group discussions with representatives of government agencies, non-government organizations, international organizations, and Tambon Administrative Organization, as well as with farmers from the five villages for an understanding of changing land use practices in the context of land conservation policies and regulations. Moreover, the outcomes in these discussions were classified as positive or negative outcomes.

W. Duangjai et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 179–189

183

Table 2 Changing land use decision-making at various hierarchical levels. Hierarchical level

District level Village and household levels

Land use decision-making Before 1960

1961–1996

1997–Present

Particular decisions based on land security choices Individual decisions based on survival choices

Particular decisions based on land conservation choices Relative decisions based on traditional livelihood choices

Collaborative decisions based on alternative choices Collective decisions

Stage (4): Data analysis and visits of related agencies to explore the linkages of higher-level decision-making and local people’s decision-making on land use and land management. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Land use decision-making: hierarchical and horizontal processes The hierarchy of legislation in Thailand is rather clear and simple (Lasimbang and Luithui, 2007). The Constitution is the supreme law of the land from which the authority of other laws emanates. Acts are passed by the Parliament under the Constitution. The Ministries then make regulations and notifications to clarify and implement the acts. This is regarded as central-level decision-making, which in turn affects operational decision-making. To clarify farmers’ decision-making on land use at the operational level, we classified the operational level into multi-level action arenas. The operational levels are divided into district level, village level, and household level. The timeline analysis was divided into three periods: (i) 1950–1960, (ii) 1961–1996, and (iii) 1997–present. These periods were based on political changes and the enforcement of the Thai NEDP, which was first implemented in 1961. Table 2 shows how decision-making at different levels has changed in accordance with policy changes over the three periods. Decisions by policymakers on forestland management were mainly guided by considerations of national security in the first period, and by considerations of land conservation in the second period. The third period was characterized by collaborative approaches to decision-making. At the operational level, decisions were initially made within households and communities following informal rules and later were made increasingly in accordance with formal rules and in consultation with other stakeholders. 3.2. Land use decision-making (before 1960) 3.2.1. At the district level Our interviews with key informants revealed that at the beginning of the 1950s, the main concern of the RTAF was to maintain full authority over sensitive border lands in the presence of Nationalist Chinese troops engaged in drug trade for which ethnic minority groups cultivated opium. At that time, the army was the only agency to carry out operational implementation in DMS. Outcomes of land use planning were final decisions of the RTAF, which were aimed to suppress opium cultivation by ethnic minority groups and to protect Thai citizens from attacks by insurgents (Fig. 2). Regulations of land uses were created in accordance with national security concerns. The clearing of some parts of forestlands was allowed for crop cultivation and for providing secure access to the Thai border. 3.2.2. At the village and household levels From discussions that were conducted at a village level, we learned that the early settlers in DMS were primarily Lahu and Chinese. The Lahu of Jabusi cultivated upland rice in swidden fields. Fertile forestland was freely available at that time, and land for swidden agriculture was selected by household leaders. The Lahu

elders decided to grow opium alternately with soybeans and upland rice in their cultivation plots. When yields declined, they moved onto areas with primary forest and more fertile soil. The first users were entitled to use a plot of land that they had left uncultivated for more than three years. Over the past 50 years, Lahu communities had gradually developed informal rules, which included a traditional land allocation system. In the 1950s, Lahu and Chinese settlers demarcated the land that they laid claim to. Lahu farmers occupied sloping lands in the mountainous western part of DMS, while the Chinese occupied flat lands on the top. Farmers were able to recognize their agriculture plots from the species of plants and types of crops. Because of the small size of households, farmers cultivated less than 2.4 ha per household. Originally, only upland rice and corn were grown for food consumption, and sticky corn was grown for livestock feed. In the late 1950s, farmers made opium their top priority commercial crop. The Taiwanese government supported members of the Chinese army living in DMS by providing education funds and commercial plants, such as tea seedlings, for sustaining their livelihoods. The relationship between Chinese refugees, the Taiwan government, and the Thai army fluctuated depending on the leader of each particular government at the time. The Chinese households started cultivating Oolong tea on terraces with the support of the Taiwanese government. Other commercial tree crops were cherry, coffee, prune, and litchi (Fig. 2). During this period, decision-making was mainly determined by the institutional rules set by the cabinet at the constitutional level. At the operational level—that is, the province and district levels—the RFD and RTAF were concerned with the protection of land boundaries and the control of land use in the DMS border areas. At the time, the RFD and RTAF had not yet established local institutions, so local land users were relatively free to manage those lands. Informal regulations on access to land by refugees were based on the tree cutting capacity of each household. Households capable of clearing forestlands were entitled to establish agricultural plots. While the RFD concentrated on implementing reforestation projects and suppressing illegal loggers, the RTAF was mainly concerned with arresting opium traders. 3.3. Land use decision-making (1961–1996) 3.3.1. At the district level This period can be called “the era of change”, where rapid infrastructure development emerged in DMS together with conservation regulations. The review of Thailand’s conservation policies from 1961 to 1996 has shown that a land use zoning system was introduced after the declaration of the National Park Act in 1961 and the enforcement of the National Forest Reserve Act in 1964. These acts and their regulations were used by conservationists to slow down agricultural expansion and became exogenous driving forces for land use at the local level, including the districts. Land encroachment at the district level was mentioned in document records and by key informants. From 1961 to 1996, several international and national agencies attempted to decrease the production of opium. A pilot project on opium reduction was initiated by King Bhumibol Adulyadej. In 1971, the Highland Development Project was

184

W. Duangjai et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 179–189

implemented for enhancing the wellbeing of ethnic minorities, and reforestation projects were implemented by the RFD between 1991 and 1992. The action arena had been structured by land conservation regulations of the RFD after most of the forest lands had been converted to agriculture plots by ethnic farmers. As a consequence, DMS was classified as forest reserves and class 1B watershed on the basis of the National Reserved Forest Act of 1964 (Fig. 3). Most of the fallow land was converted to National Permanent Forest Plantation authorized by the RFD. The RTAF assumed the role of protecting these forest areas because the area was sensitive and insecure (Renard, 2001). The reforestation projects were focused on the heads of watershed areas. Commercial tree species plantations were established under the ownership of the RFD and RTAF. In 1991, the RTAF established an organization named the 3rd Armed Force Development Command (AFDC), which had particular responsibility for these activities. This was the starting point for declaring the state as the landowner and relocating forest encroachers to other areas. Forest statistics show, however, that despite these measures, forest depletion was still continuing in the district. Ethnic minorities who claimed first-comer status had resisted reforestation projects in the DMS area. Twenty years later, the Hill Tribe Development Foundation (HTDF) established its office in the DMS area near Jabusi village. The purpose was to involve minorities with forest conservation and to introduce them to the concept of community forestry. The HTDF has played a role as an advocate for minorities, particularly for Lahu communities, such as that of Jabusi village.

3.3.2. At the village and household levels The farmers of DMS communities had established informal regulations for the use of common property land, such as forestlands, because they had not yet officially obtained land tenure or any land documentation from the government. Only users’ rights were offered to them. With increasing population pressure and land degradation, land use choices diminished. Focus group discussions indicated that by 1960, each village had developed its own agricultural pattern. Jabusi’s Lahu farmers received seedlings of upland rice, maize, and soybeans from their parents when they got married and established a new family. By sharing experiences, they developed multiple cropping practices, such as cultivating soybeans after maize and upland rice to increase soil fertility. Shortage of forest and agricultural lands became a problem after 1980. Paca Sukjai village was named after the grass Imperata spp., or Paca in the Thai language, that covered the area. Farmers initially practiced pioneer swidden cultivation, but changed to intercropping under the influence of land conservation policies (Fig. 3). The Lisu community of Hea Ko village cultivated commercial crops, such as fodder maize, sweet maize, and opium. Species selection and cultivation techniques were the same throughout the village, but the volume of cultivation varied according to household capacities and expenditures. Pana Sawan village is inhabited by both Chinese and Ahka ethnic groups, who practice diverse land use systems. Oolong tea and coffee were popular among Chinese farmers, as were cherry and plum. The orchards were introduced and supported by the Taiwanese government to serve the fruit markets in Taiwan. The Ahka

Fig. 2. Diagram of district level and household level decision-making process (before 1960).

W. Duangjai et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 179–189

185

Fig. 3. Diagram of district-level and household-level decision-making process (1961–1996).

farmers, on the other hand, cultivated upland rice and fodder maize in short rotations. In each community, household heads determined the type of land use activities for the plots the household owned. Traditionally, labor needed for farm activities in Ahka households was provided by both women and men, while men (and especially the elders) decided on the plan of the household’s land use for each year. During this period, a number of institutions developed at the local level. Several federal institutions established their offices. The RFD established a provincial forest office and a district forest office, while the Land Development Department established a provincial land development office. At the same time, the National Economic and Development Plan, which was declared by the National Eco-

nomic and Social Development Board (NESDB), stimulated the agricultural sector, benefitting the ethnic minorities whose livelihoods depend on crop cultivation. The ethnic minority farmers transformed their land to commercial farmlands in response to economic incentives from the government and related federal institutions. Though the incentives were helpful in achieving a reduction of opium grown, they were also regarded as a factor for continued deforestation. The reforestation projects of the RFD and the 3rd AFDC were not successful—despite their alleged conservation purposes—because farmers viewed them as a form of land confiscation and resented being treated as forest destroyers in the sense of the study by Forsyth and Walker (2008). This was a time of serious conflict, exacerbated by the fact that ethnic minority farm-

186

W. Duangjai et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 179–189

ers in DMS were not allowed to possess land because they are not Thai citizens. In a study of Akha communities in China and Thailand, Sturgeon (2005) found that the Ahkas were doing better in China compared to Thailand, mainly because they were Chinese citizens with access to rights and benefits. Institutional factors—land rights and tenure, land use regulations—had been formed at the operational level to limit farmers’ encroachment. The power over land management is exerted directly by the government authority, especially the RFD, which has the right to manage the forestlands of the country. 3.4. Land use decision-making (1997–present) 3.4.1. At the district level This period was a “lesson learned era” for the central government, which had found that its policies and regulations led to conflicts. The Eighth National Economic and Development Plan, from 1997 to 2001, was meant to be people-centered and to give Thai people a right to common pool resource management. In 1998, the Tambon Administrative Organization was empowered for zoning and governing. DMS had consisted of only two villages in 1969 and increased to 40 villages over the next 40 years. In 1996, two TAOs—Mae Salong Nok TAO and Pa Tueng TAO—had authority over the villages of DMS. With respect to land management, the TAOs aimed at determining land uses suitable for ethnic minorities in a participatory manner. Several projects based on village needs were established in collaboration with other organizations. At this time, several organizations were negotiating ethnic livelihoods and conservation aims. Non-government organizations included the HTDF and the Royal Agricultural Station Aangkhang extension office (AKE). Government agencies included the Administration of Reforestation Projects (ARP), authorized by the 3rd AFDC, the Highland Research and Development Institute (HLRD), authorized by the Land Development Department (LDD), and the TAO authorized by the Ministry of Interior. In the early 1990s, there was not much collaboration between these agencies. In 1995, the HTDF had focused on Jabusi village with the aim to enhance the livelihoods of the Lahu community by establishing community forestry. The ARP was formed by the 3rd AFDC in 2007 to handle reforestation projects. The HLRD promoted sustainable upland agricultural practices, especially the cultivation of Vetiver grass along contour lines of agricultural plots and terraced cultivation. In early 2000, the HTDF began to collaborate with the RFD and AFDH on reforestation projects, as well as with the IUCN on sustainable livelihoods and landscapes of ethnic minorities, with the aim of linking resource conservation with sustainable livelihoods. The Royal Agricultural Station Aangkhang extension office cooperated with the ARP and IUCN to establish agroforestry projects. Agroforestry and terraced cultivation were accepted and successfully implemented by the five villages (Fig. 4). This resulted in more variety of agricultural products and greater diversity of land use patterns at the village and household levels. 5.4.2. At village and household levels Land management now received more attention from more organizations and agencies at the district level, which collaborated with each other at the village level. Interactions among these organizations have also shaped institutional arrangements at the community level. Institutional arrangements were hierarchically authorized in accordance with the actors and their roles. Heads of villages played the role of mediator, who received an agenda and implemented it in their community. With the help of the ARP and IUCN, the heads initiated interest groups to conserve forestlands, such as a group for forest fire protection and groups for community forest protection. Villagers were selected to form a village com-

mittee for enforcing conservation regulations and launching forest restoration projects. Occupational groups, such as honey pickers, bamboo collectors, and handicraft producers, agreed on controlling and limiting collection. Jabusi villagers formed an ecotourism committee to manage home stays and eco-tour operations. Each committee made decisions on resource use in accordance with regulations of the TAOs, RFD, ARP, and HTDF. Farmers accepted the division of community land into three categories: forest community land uses, agriculture land uses, and land for household purposes. Decisions on land use were made in consultation with the villagers. Fig. 4 shows how decisions on land conservation rules were made by government agencies at the upper level and by non-government agencies at the district level. Some actors, such as the IUCN, FORRU, HTDF, ARP, and HLRD, have positioned themselves at all operational levels. The establishment of community forests has fulfilled households’ basic needs for non-wood forest products. Because there are rules on burning, farmers have to coordinate preparing, cultivating, and harvesting in accordance with the seasonal burning period. Problems arose due to late harvesting, so that farmers cannot burn the residue on time. Farmers have, therefore, decided to harvest earlier the next season. Because of lower crop production due to repeated cropping, farmers add more chemical fertilizers and incur more costs. Informal rules have been shaped through interaction processes. Elders were responsible for rice production, while household heads decided on cultivation of commercial crops. Young men provided most of the labor, while women looked after the quality of production. Households consulted with each other on which pattern of cultivation to follow each year. They have decided not to cultivate opium but, rather, to shift to alternative crops such as fodder maize, to increase the variety of crops, and to adopt agroforestry. This period is characterized by the participation of multistakeholders at the local level. Government agencies, nongovernment organizations, and international organizations collaborated in initiating a number of projects on land conservation and sustainable livelihoods. The ethnic minority farmers who participated in these projects gradually addressed conservation practices for sustaining their livelihoods. These projects were implemented based on consultation with farmers and discussion among themselves. These interactions were based on horizontal linkages between stakeholders on the same hierarchical level to manage lands for multiple proposes in a participatory manner. The success of initiatives based on horizontal linkages rests to a large extent on the fact that the ethnic minority farmers in DMS have the right to manage agricultural lands for their household consumption, while community land is allocated to practice community forestry. This is in accordance with the argument of Barry et al. (2010) on the security of community rights and forest land tenure, which provides local communities with a sense of land ownership and enables them to manage lands for their own purposes. During this period, the conflicts over conservation and utilization of forestlands between farmers and government agencies seem to have decreased as a consequence of applying a participatory approach with the help of non-government organizations, including HTDF, FORRU, PATT, the Royal Agricultural Station Angkhang extension office under Royal Project Foundation, and IUCN (an international organization), which have been working in collaboration with one another to establish the Forest Restoration Project for enhancing local livelihood capacity. The observation of Robinson et al. (2010) that forest management in developing countries is shifting from an adversarial approach to cooperative management regimes is confirmed in the case of the forest reserve areas of DMS. A particularly promising development is the participation of ethnic minority farmers in a multi-stakeholder process, which was initiated by the 3rd AFDC. Since early 2007, the 3rd AFDC

W. Duangjai et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 179–189

187

Fig. 4. Diagram of district-level and household-level decision-making process (1997–present).

has maintained a special office, the so-called Kor Aor Pluk Pa (or ARP), to address the deforestation problem. During the first stage of the reforestation projects promoted by the ARP, farmers resisted forest planting, which they considered a form of land confiscation. When farmers were later involved by the ARP as actors in land conservation planning together with several organizations from both government agencies and non-government organizations, farmers responded more positively. This is shown in Table 3, which lists the outcomes of land use planning, which are perceived by farmers as either positive or negative. Table 3 shows that the land management regulations were classified into three periods—before 1960, 1961–1996, and 1997–present—according to the years when the respective regulations were issued. Blank blocks indicate that land management

regulations were not enacted and enforced during that particular period. Blocks of the second and third period include the accumulated land use decision outcomes of previous periods. In the second period, farmers tended to perceive land conservation practices as positive outcomes, including the land allocation system, the promotion of fruit orchards, and terraced tea cultivation. On the other hand, they perceived the promotion of maize cultivation as a negative outcome, even though it has provided them with more income. Maize was introduced as an opium-replacement crop at the end of the first period. Maize mono-crop cultivation rapidly expanded into forest areas and brought farmers into conflict with the authorities. In the third period, positively perceived outcomes included the establishment of agroforestry practices and the introduction of intercropping, which are closely connected with increased horizon-

188

W. Duangjai et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 179–189

Table 3 Land management regulations and land use decision outcomes. Land management regulations

Land use decision outcomes Before 1960

1961–1996

1997–Present

• Forest Act, 1941 • Land Code, 1954

• Expanded swidden cultivation (−) • Illegal opium cultivation (−)

• The First to Seventh National Economic and Development Plans • National Park Act, 1961 • Watershed Classification, 1961 • National Reserved Forest Act, 1964 • Highland Development Project, 1971 • Thailand National Forestry Policy, 1985 • Logging ban, 1989 • Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act, 1992

(ND)

• • • • •

• Increased multi-land use cultivation (agroforestry, intercropping) (+) • Planned burning period for crop cultivation (+) • Seasonal collection of non-wood forest products (+) • Cultivation of soybeansininfertile soil (+) • Farmland allocated to community forests (+)

• Constitution of Kingdom of Thailand, 1997 • The Eighth to Tenth National Economic and Development Plans • National Park Act, 1961 • Watershed Classification, 1961 • National Reserved Forest Act, 1964 • Thailand National Forestry Policy, 1985 • Logging ban, 1989 • Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act, 1992

(ND)

Stopped opium cultivation (−) Promotion of maize cultivation (−) Land allocationsystem (+) Promotion of fruit orchards (+) Promotion of terraced tea (+)

(ND)

Note: (+) Positive outcomes of land management regulations enforcement; (−) negative outcomes of land management regulations enforcement; (ND) land management regulations not yet declared.

tal linkages of various organizations at the local level. The situation has become more complex, due to the accumulation of land management regulations from the first and the second periods, and because of an increase in the number of organizations involved. Moreover, there were interactions between ethnic farmers and organizations at the operational level, through which farmers had been able to influence regulations concerning the burning period and gathering non-wood forest products. These interactions were also approved by land policy implementers at the collective choice level.

4. Conclusion The findings from the three periods covered by our study confirm that land use changes in accordance with policy changes and changes in institutional factors. This is in accordance with results of Neef et al. (2000) that change in land use patterns of upland villages in Northern Thailand from food crop cultivation to fruit orchards was driven by the institutional support of government projects in addition to market forces. In DMS, land use by ethnic minority farmers has changed in accordance with a paradigm shift in land conservation. This case study shows that the politics of land conservation were adjusted after the second period (1961–1996) to integrate land use with conservation goals similar to the shift from wilderness protection to more inclusive conservation in the US (Davis, 2009). Moreover, the three periods discussed in this paper show a progression of institutional development towards more community involvement at the local level in DMS. In the past, the organizational structure for institutional development in DMS was primarily hierarchical. Similar structures can be found in developing countries such as Tanzania where, according to Kauzani et al. (1993), land use planning is carried out by official government land use planners and is based on centralized, top-down planning by experts.

Land use conflicts were caused by the conflicting aims of the government and local people. While vertical linkages of decisionmaking still prevail and are often associated with negative impacts on local farmers, linkages at a horizontal level were developed in the early stage of the last period when paradigms shifts in upland management began to have an impact. The actors involved in land use planning during this period belonged to different organizations and implemented a variety of land use management choices. They set up regulations and rules that were mainly based on land use conservation planning. The implementation of land conservation policies in DMS from the past to the present has resulted in considerable growth of stakeholder institutions at the local level. The combination of changes in land and conservation policies has led to a growth of horizontal linkages among local institutions, while vertical linkages to the central level remain strong. According to Ribot (2002), three requirements must be met for local resource management to be successful: local people must value the resource, they must possess some property rights in the resource, and they must construct or be involved in local-level institutions. These requirements are only partly fulfilled in DMS: while farmers value resources, according to the findings of our study, only those who possess a Thai citizen card have property rights. Farmers in DMS have not constructed local-level institutions, but they are certainly involved in them, though in a passive consultative role, rather than in an active fashion.

Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge Making the Mekong Connected (MMC) project of the World Agroforestry Centre China and the Asian Institute of Technology for financial support during the fieldwork and Srinakharinwirot University for in-kind support. In addition, we would like to thank Mr. Jonathan Teichroew for

W. Duangjai et al. / Land Use Policy 48 (2015) 179–189

providing language help, the Biology Department of Chiang Mai University, and the Administration of Reforestation Projects of the 3rd Royal Thai Armed Force Development Command for logistic support, and all villagers and field assistants for their contributions to the interviews and group discussions. References Ananda, J., Proctor, W., 2013. Collaborative approaches to water management and planning: an institutional perspective. Ecol. Econ. 86, 97–106. Barry, D., Larson, A.M., Colfer, C.J.P., 2010. Forest tenure reform: an orphan with only uncles. In: Larson, A.M., Barry, D., Dahal, G.R., Colfer, P.C.J. (Eds.), Forest for People: Community Rights and Forest Tenure Reform. Earthscan, London, UK. Davis, C., 2009. Advocacy coalitions and changes in national forest wildness policies. J. Nat. Resour. Policy Res. 4, 293–306. Delang, C.O., 2003. Social and economic adaptations to a changing landscape. In: Delang, C.O. (Ed.), Living at the Edge of Thai Society: The Karen in the Highlands of Northern Thailand. Routledge Cuzon, Taylor & Francis Group, London and New York. Dheeraprasart, V., Laungaramsri, P., Kaiyoorawong, S., Kuaycharoen, P., Rajesh, N., Boonchai, K., 2005. After the Logging Ban: Polities of Forest Management in Thailand. Foundation for Ecological Recovery. Bangkok, Thailand. Doklamyai, P., Ayuthya, N.K.N., 2001. Lesson from the northern community forest movement. International Symposium on Watershed Management Highland and Lowland in the Protected Area Regime: Towards New Principles and Practices. International Center, Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp. 23–26 (03.01.). Fisher, R., Maginis, S., Jackson, W., Barrow, E., Jeanrenaud, S., 2008. Linking Conservation and Poverty Reduction: Landscape, People and Power. Earthscan, Sterling, VA, London. Forsyth, T., Walker, A., 2008. Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyers: The Politics Of Environmental Knowledge In Northern Thailand. University of Washington Press, Chiang Mai. Ganjanapan, A., 1998. The policies of conservation and the complexity of local control of forest in northern thai highlands. Mt. Res. Dev. 18, 71–82. Gibson, R.M., Chen, W., 2011. The Secret Army. Chiang Kai-Shek And The Drug Warlords Of The Golden Triangle. John Wiley & Sons, Singapore. Hares, M., Eskonheimo, A., Myllyntaus, T., Luukkanen, O., 2006. Environmental literacy in interpreting endangered sustainability case studies from Thailand and the sudan. Geoforum 37, 128–144. Hares, M., 2006. Community Forestry and Environmental Literacy in Northern Thailand: Towards Collaborative Natural Resource Management and Conservation. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Helsinki, Finland, pp. 36–51. Kaosa-ard, M., Wijuk, P., 2000. Thailand’s Natural Resources And Environmental Profile: A Decade Of Change. TDRI, Bangkok. Kauzani, A.S., Kikula, I.S., Mohamed, S.A., Lyimo, J.G., 1993. Land use Planning and Resource Assessment in Tanzania: A Case Study. IIED Environmental Planning Issues No.3 IRA Research Paper No. 35.

189

Lakanavichian, S., 2001. Forest Policy and History in Thailand. Working Paper No.9, December 2001. Research Centre on Forest and People in Thailand, Thailand. Larson, A.M., 2005. Democratic decentralization in the forestry sector. Lessons learned from Africa, Asia and Latin America. In: Colfer, P.C.J., Capistrano, D. (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization – Forests, Power and People. Earthscan, London, UK, pp. 32–62. Lasimbang, J., Luithui, C., 2007. Natural Resource Management Country Studies: Thailand. Regional Indigenous Peoples’ Program. United Nation Development program Regional Centre, Bangkok, Thailand. Leake, H., 2007. Bridging The Gap: Policies And Practices On Indigenous Peoples’ Natural Resource Management In Asia. UNDP-RIPP. AIPP Foundation, Thailand. Luukkanen, O., 2000. The vanishing and reappearing tropical forest: forest management and land use in Thailand. In: Myllyntaus, T., Saikku, M. (Eds.), Encountering the Past in Nature Essays in Environmental History. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, USA. Neef, A., Sangkapitux, C., Kirchmann, K., 2000. Does Land Tenure Security Enhance Sustainable Land Management? Evidence from Mountainous Regions of Thailand and Vietnam. Discussion Paper 2/2000. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing The Commons. The Evaluation Of Institutions For Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ostrom, E., 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. New Jersey, USA, Princeton University Press. Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., Walker, J., Agrawal, A., Blomquist, W., Schlager, E., Tang, S.Y., 1994. Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resource. The University of Michigan Press, USA. Pinthong, J., 1992. The Evolution Of Forest Land Clearing In Thailand. Local Development Institute, Bangkok, Thailand. Renard, R.D., 2001. Opium Reduction In Thailand 1970–2000: A Thirty-Year Journey. Silkworm Chiang Mai, Thailand. Rerkasem, K., Rerkasem, B., 1994. Shifting Cultivation in Thailand: Its Current Situation and Dynamic in the Context of Highland Development. IIED Forestry And Land Use Series No. 4, London. Ribot, J.C., 2002. Democratic Decentralization Of Natural ResourcesInstitutionalizing Popular Participation. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA. Robinson, E.J.Z., Kumar, A.M., Albers, H.K., 2010. Protecting developing countries’ forest: enforcement in theory and practice. J. Nat. Resour. Policy Res. 2, 25–38. Royal Forest Department (RFD), 2006. Forestry Statistics of Thailand 2006. Forest Statistic Sub-Division, Planning Division. Royal Forest Department, Bangkok, Thailand (in Thai). Royal Forest Department (RFD), 2013. Forestry Statistics of Thailand 2013. Forest Statistic Sub-Division, Planning Division. Royal Forest Department, Bangkok, Thailand (in Thai). Royal Thai Government (RTG), 1997. Second Master Plan for Highland Development and Narcotic Crops Control. Royal Thai Government, United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse, Bangkok, Thailand (in Thai). Sturgeon, J.C., 2005. Border Landscapes: The Politics Of Akha Land Use In China And Thailand. Silkworm Books, Chiang MaiThailand.