Udhai Chanphaka
Udhai Chanphaka is the former head of the Watershed Management Division of Thailand's Royal Forest Department.
WELL-MANAGED WATERSHED IN THAILAND achieving a multiplicity of benefits (FAO)
· The degradation of watersheds in developing countries is often associated with shifting cultivation. Although to outsiders this problem may sometimes appear relatively easy to solve, it is most difficult for those who try to deal with it in the field. It involves the conservation of natural resources and the environment as well as consideration of the country's socio-economic conditions, including its political character.
It would be easier if the shifting cultivators were native villagers, citizens of the country. But in Thailand and elsewhere, shifting cultivators belong to various hill tribes; some have been living in the country for a long time, while others have more recently migrated from neighbouring countries. These people speak their own dialects, live their own way of life and use different methods of cultivation. Consequently the recovery periods vary in each area. With the Meo's method of cultivation, for example, the reappearance of trees is very rare and the land becomes covered by Imperata grass or elephant grass. In the case of the Lua's territory, however, native tree species regenerate two to three years after abandonment of an area.
This article examines how! watershed management is being applied in areas of shifting cultivation in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines.
Rehabilitation of damaged watersheds was not enough. Something had to be done about the people living in the watershed.
Conflicts between demands for forest land and demands for agricultural land are decreasing.
Problems with the hill tribes living in mountain areas, particularly above 600 m and up to 2 000 m, are considerable. The average density of population there is about 31 persons per km2. Back in 1963, the Public Welfare Department had set up a hill tribe research centre and various hill tribe settlement projects in northern Thailand. After almost 20 years, the settlement projects failed, chiefly for the following reasons:
· inadequate government support;· the fact that these are migrant people who never stay in one area for a long period;
· the fact that they are not considered Thai citizens and thus have no status or identity papers and pay no taxes;
· political interference from neighbouring countries.
In 1965 the Royal Forest Department started a watershed management programme, with reforestation and rehabilitation in the old cultivated area, and found that rehabilitation of damaged watersheds was not enough. Something had to be done about the people living in the watershed (hill tribes and native villagers). The idea was to work on individual watersheds one by one as an "integrated project".
To comply with the government's policy and the country's environmental conditions, the approach to integrated watershed management involves the following activities:
· watershed analysis - the collection of basic data on natural resources, climatic conditions, standard of living, land use, fuelwood, water yield, infrastructure, education, etc.;· land use planning and land capability classification;
· resettlement of the shifting cultivators, after the completion of watershed analysis, land use planning and land capability classification.
Shifting cultivators are stabilized! in a suitable location, under the "Hill Tribe Village" or "Forest Village" project (see "Thailand's forest villages" by Krit Samapuddhi in Unasylva 27 [107]: 20-23 [1975]). All! basic needs are provided, such as new housing, agricultural areas, planting material, irrigation systems, fertilizers, insecticides and fungicides, rangeland and fish-ponds.
Planting material includes food crops, cash crops, fruit crops, nut-tree crops and tree crops. These must be planted according to land suitability and to the seasons of particular crops. Reforestation is done in areas classified as watersheds, or in those with soil unsuitable for agriculture. Native villagers and hill: tribespeople can earn additional income through forestry activities, or earn their living by working in a planting unit of a reforestation programme.
Education for both adults and children living within a watershed is provided through at least the compulsory level. This is especially important for the hill tribes because government policy aims at granting them Thai nationality, for which they have to learn the Thai language. Within the next 15 to 20 years all the hill tribe children will become Thai citizens.
The villagers' health is well cared for. Minor illnesses are attended to by trained medical people, and serious cases are sent to the nearest hospital for treatment.
Such infrastructure as roads from villages to highways or from village to village is being constructed. This speeds up communication and transportation of agricultural products from field to market.
COMPACTING SOIL FOR TERRACE part of FAO project in Thailand (FAO)
FAO EXPERT WITH THAI FARMERS long-term goal is flood control (F. BOTTS/FAO)
Marketing is the extension officer's main problem. The kind of crops needed by both domestic and foreign markets must be decided on before instruction is given to the villagers.
The preservation of agricultural products is necessary whenever the agricultural area is distant from the market or the product is perishable - examples being mushrooms and certain vegetables and fruit crops. Canning is necessary for keeping products for longer periods and facilitating transport.
Wood-based industries, such as furniture, charcoal and pulp and paper, are also encouraged in the village. According to the new forest law, the private sector can obtain long-term leases of forest areas to plant trees for commercial purposes. This is to encourage the private sector to pay more attention to tree-planting programmes.
In pine plantations, tapping of oleo-resin for commercial purposes is also arranged for those who need additional income. Under the agroforestry programme, other crops grown include rice, mung beans, strawberries, tea, coffee, sweet potatoes, cowpeas, soybeans and various fruit-tree species.
Institutional linkages Under the integrated watershed management programme, close cooperation and assistance from various government agencies is required. In particular, the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives and the ministries of the Interior, Education, Health and Commerce (for export of agricultural products) are all involved. Since the start of the programme, the Royal Forest Department has made good progress with people's participation. Conflicts between demands for forest land and demands for agricultural land are decreasing. This, it is hoped, will continue to prove to be a good approach to watershed management in areas of shifting cultivation.
The problems of watershed lands in most developing countries are often connected with social and economic patterns that in turn endanger the environment. In the case of Thailand, shifting cultivation often takes place in areas associated with opium production; this makes it different from Indonesia and the Philippines and poses a very serious problem for the world.
There are about 1 million potential shifting cultivators to be moved to more suitable environments.
In Indonesia, efforts and activities to rehabilitate degraded lands in many densely populated watersheds and river basins, as in Java, Sumatra, and the Celebes, have been progressing steadily. A watershed management approach to the problems of land rehabilitation and population resettlement is necessary in order to solve the problems permanently. Various land uses in a watershed demand the cooperation and coordination of different agencies involved in soil and water conservation programmes, to secure a sustained utilization of a watershed's resources.
The newly established Directorate of Soil Conservation under the Directorate General of Reforestation and Land Rehabilitation, Ministry of Forestry, will now be responsible for implementing the soil conservation programme in 35 existing watershed projects throughout Indonesia.
An overall approach to watershed management will involve the following activities:
· the resettlement of shifting cultivators from the permanent forest areas, and their gradual introduction to a more permanent agricultural system such as estate crop planting;· the construction of different types of terraces for dryland farming with contour planting and crop rotation;
· agroforestry practices involving a combination of agriculture and forestry crops in areas adjacent to forests: one example would be a rural community development, with active participation by villagers in starting demonstration plots;
· the reforestation of degraded land in the upstream area for the purpose of establishing protection forests. Forests already existing will be demarcated and gradually put under management, primarily for protection from fire and illegal cutting;
· the building of structural works such as check dams, levees, diversion channels, ditches and other flood control devices;
· the control of logging practices in both natural forests and plantation forests, chiefly with respect to methods of mechanical logging and forest road-building in order to minimize soil erosion within the watershed area.
Of all these activities, the most complicated is the resettlement of shifting cultivators. There are about 1 million potential shifting cultivators to be moved to more suitable environments so as to increase their prosperity and well-being in education, housing, farming productivity and health.
The government programme known as the "Local Community Resettlement Project" was started in 1972. Originally, it resettled shifting cultivators who lived in scattered houses and isolated areas, trained them and established them as permanent farmers. Up to 1982, 16 217 households were moved in this way to 19 different provinces throughout Indonesia, with government funding of about US$16 million.
TERRACED NURSERY IN INDONESIA integration of activities is essential (F. BOTTS/FAO)
This project did not progress as quickly as expected, because of the psychological factors involved with people who had practiced shifting cultivation for several generations. However, experience has been gained and there have been some developments and improvements in both methods and approaches to resettlement.
Substantial government funds were allocated to these programmes. These concerned not only villagers moving to better places but also agricultural and industrial development, education, health improvement and so on. Here are some examples of related and integrated activities and projects:
· indigenous and isolated tribes resettlement, under the Department of Social Affairs;· mixed transmigration, combining local people (10 percent) and people from Java (90 percent) under the Department of Transmigration;
· "nucleus estates" for export commodities under the Department of Agriculture.
Watershed management in Indonesia is a difficult task because population density is above 500 people per km2, at some places reaching even more than 800. However, the general policy now is to accept the occupation of highlands for cultivation while simultaneously adopting an intensive programme to improve agricultural techniques and practices and to avoid further destruction of the watershed. Successful demonstration farms have been established in Panawangan, one of the subbasins of the Citanduy River Basin Project.
Regarding watersheds in the Philippines, the problem of deforestation through shifting cultivation - known locally as kaingin - is serious. Such forest reduction has brought about annual floods, droughts and landslides, which in turn have caused untold misery to the Filipino people in the form of lost lives, destroyed crops and ruined properties. As early as 1884, through the "Inspección General de Montes", which became the prototype of the Philippine forest-regulating agency, forestry laws were promulgated. Among such laws were provisions specifically aimed at deterring forest destruction resulting from slash-and-burn by upland farmers, better known as kaingineros.
For many years, the kaingineros and other forest occupants have been a major concern of the Philippine Forestry Service. Natural resource policy-makers, planners, researchers and programme officers from government, private industry and education had been almost unanimous in considering the kaingineros the primary cause of many forest lands turning into grasslands. Naturally, forestry laws had been tailored against them and their shifting cultivation practices: kaingineros could be prosecuted and even ejected from the uplands and other forest zones. The hope was that such a strategy could provide a permanent solution to the problem of mounting deforestation.
In spite of all these measures and the imposition of severe penalties on kaingineros, slash-and-burn agriculture still continued. With a tremendous influx of migrants to forest land, it even increased. The influx was caused by rapid population growth, increasing demand for food, inadequate employment opportunities, and land speculation or pressure from "land-sharks". It is estimated that today there are around 7.5 million people within forest lands who are directly dependent on this valuable resource for sustenance and livelihood.
The situation called for a redirection of Philippine forestry policies, this time to be more attuned to present and future needs. A strategy that would transform forestry-based activities into more effective agents of socio-economic development for rural people was therefore adopted by the Bureau of Forest Development (BFD). One of the BFD's policy directions now involves establishing more forests and making them more beneficial to a greater number of people, especially the rural community.
This change of official attitude toward kaingineros and other forest occupants gradually led to a series of moves to institute what would later become the Integrated Social Forestry Programme of the Philippines.
In 1971, the government adopted the Kaingin Management and Land Settlement Regulations (Forestry Administration Order No. 62), geared toward integrating the kaingineros and other forest occupants into the socio-economic mainstream of society.
This was followed by the Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines, issued in 1975, which further confirmed the government's concern for forest occupants. Among its provisions is one that states that "forest occupancy shall henceforth be managed... 'kaingineros', squatters and other occupants who entered into forest lands before the effective date of the code (19 May 1975) shall not be prosecuted provided that they "do not increase their clearings; and provided further, that they undertake activities to conserve and protect the forest resource".
Then came the Forest Occupancy Management Programme, aimed at stabilizing the occupancy of kaingineros and others who entered the forest lands before 19 May 1975. Specifically, this programme sought to prevent further forest encroachment and destruction and to help improve the socio-economic condition of forest occupants. Under the programme, bona fide forest occupants were allowed to develop the lands they were occupying or cultivating but with the specific provision that the subject lands should not exceed 7 ha per occupant. To this effect, a renewable two-year forest occupancy permit was issued to every participating kainginero.
In 1979, the government launched the Communal Tree Farming Programme, which involved the, establishment of tree farms and agroforestry plantations in areas needing immediate reforestation, as well as in other open lands. It was! purposely conceived to provide additional livelihood opportunities for rural people, particularly the so-called subsistence and submarginal farmers. The programme also sought to intensify the nation's food production, to promote self-sufficiency and to accelerate the rehabilitation of denuded forest lands.
Unlike the Forest Occupancy Management Programme, the Communal Tree Farming Programme catered not only to kaingineros and other forest settlers but also to other people wishing to venture into tree farming. All participants were allocated an area equivalent to their actual occupancy; in the case of i open and denuded areas, an average of 2 ha was granted. A 25-year Communal Tree Farming Lease Agreement, renewable for another 25 years, was issued to the participants.
Next, in 1981, the Philippine Government set up another project, called the Family Approach to Reforestation Programme. It involved the payment of forest occupants and family participants on a contractual basis for the establishment, maintenance and protection of forest plantations. It was aimed at accelerating the reforestation of open and denuded forest lands while raising the income of forest occupants without necessarily dislocating them. The areas allocated to each family ranged from 3 to 5 ha, and these were turned over to the Bureau of Forestry Development after two years, as soon as the required seedling survival rate of at least 80 percent had been attained.
Finally, the Integrated Social Forestry Programme (ISFP) signalled the adoption of social forestry as a forest management and development concept. President Ferdinand E. Marcos on 28 July 1982 signed instructions under which the ISFP became the umbrella programme for all social-forestry-related activities of the Bureau of Forest Development. The activities, personnel and objectives of the Forest Occupancy Management Programme and the Communal Tree Farming Programme were merged.
There are seven strategies involved in the social forestry programme:
· Security of tenure. The previous lack of such security did not encourage people to participate in the scheme, because they were unsure of their rights in the utilization of perennial species such as forest trees and other crops grown within the designated area.· Census of all the kaingineros, forest occupants and cultural minorities; a goal here is wise select ion of the area to be developed for social forestry.
· Community appraisal. Before the actual development, a community assessment is undertaken, with the help of the participants, to determine existing farming practices, demographic and socio-economic information, leadership patterns, kinship, accessibility and biophysical conditions, and significant problems and constraints. On the basis of the assessment, appropriate technology packages are formulated to be included in the project area management plan.
· Development of agroforest farms. For this strategy, participants are encouraged to develop their lands into productive farms by adopting feasible agroforestry technologies with due consideration for soil erosion control and water conservation. Whenever appropriate, livestock and fisheries may also be introduced. The boundaries of the land allocated to the individual participants are planted with forest tree species such as Leucaena leucocephala, Albizia falcataria and others.
· Institutional linkages. Implementation of the social forestry programme, which involves both forest resources management and forest-based livelihood development, requires the close cooperation and assistance of various government agencies and instrumentalities such as the ministries of Agriculture, Natural Resources, Local Government, Social Services and Development and others.
· Support activities. Various support activities are needed to meet the requirements of a social forestry programme. These differ from place to place and chiefly involve education, extension, information, research and training.
· Monitoring and evaluation. Periodic field inspection and monitoring are necessary to ensure that problems arising during implementation are given immediate attention. Annual evaluations and reviews will also be conducted to thrash out financial and technical as well as administrative problems that hinder effective management. All the approaches used here by the, three countries are inspired by the necessity to establish a harmonious, relationship between people and the environment. Sometimes the best solution is to keep people in place and increase production in a manner that does not negatively affect the environment.
In other situations, resettlement appears to be the best solution for shifting cultivators operating within a watershed environment whose stability is being endangered by their activities. In either case, the government needs to become substantially involved in planning and implementation efforts. The three national programmes discussed in this article demonstrate convincingly that what might work in one country might not work in another; that a careful, pragmatic watershed-by-watershed approach is the best overall solution; and that people themselves need to be involved in the process, with their socioeconomic and cultural needs taken into consideration. Shifting cultivation can and often does endanger watersheds, but there is no reason, if proper planning is exercised, that it has to.
