.thw

I ti:

5??

JE

1... 1313 3‘ .
1., ;

4a b 4...:
{tar .

$5.... :1

>

a:

:
Eh:
ﬁg;

v
I

t

3
3.
2‘ .

\

§
§:‘
§

m
a
0
i

9

km

5
i}
:3
i z»
x, .1
« ..
. 9‘ ;\
Q
’31 ':

a
3
‘3
x

y‘

i

ii

.3}
i;.

Q

4%
i:

t :10...
Nev...

. fall

. 1

K 1:3}. .

.1. 5:1,; .

IO.
9’

.r an?
. . “Hitler
... p . A
tvi|¢hl:.3 3
f... 0;!
, r

P 1 I
5:»fx;.§
'3‘Ipﬁ‘

3.25.11...
. 11).... .

0

..

is: $2.... iii?

15:.— . »r-.4n-vi I:
L .1». 53F}.

mi; N
‘k‘ 3'

l l &|
SDI: b. » $3030!

... rgﬁhv...$ .3».
AA ‘

a

J.
1.). L .9); tn"
1 . a. .
t .....n.f§i3,1§.:.k
|. .ﬂlsvitsxquEVthv)
a; is: a 1.. it.
i.» L...
.2... ..
. -2; 5.. z 4
:2. .5? ; 3.
a! :zié; “€213.29;
i .33... a... » Psatsi..- .31....
233:5... .1 .....:........i.;..
....3n............J .. .i... .
2.. . - 3..
h- uh.) 'quvl... 3’
2.4....

.13

:07.
.3...
«11..
$- 5!:

7:

Yr ’ . .
. I...i,...§. ,

11:11.!

.1

.I z 7... . . \
w; - n... , $3

.I..:. v

 

 

r.ur.....,..?vl 7..

THESlS

                             

I'HUIHUIHIHII‘IIIHIIIWI'IHIHIUHI

31293 01417 3078

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

(Immunity Hoodlots And Their Inpacts
0n Rural Household Fuelwood Supply And

Rural Development
presented by

Vi toon Viriyasakul torn

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Doctoral degree in Forestry

My

 

 

 

Major professor

Date g/gL/VS

MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

0-12771

L

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOXto mmthbchockomnun ywrncotd.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before duo duo.

L_:JI___JJ_
—_]I I I
JEELJ

.___lF—i::]

:3qu
“TV—7V7

MSU IIAn Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Intuition
W1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

COMMUNITY WOODLOTS AND THEIR IMPACTS

ON RURAL HOUSEHOLD FUELWOOD SUPPLY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

By

Vitoon Viriyasakultorn

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirement
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Forestry

1995

ABSTRACT

COMMUNITY WOODLOTS AND THEIR IMPACTS
ON RURAL HOUSEHOLD FUELWOOD SUPPLY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
By

Vitoon Viriyasakultom

Deforestation is a problem in many developing countries that has led to
environmental degradation, loss of an ecological balance, and Shortages in fuelwood
supply which is a major source of energy for most household activities in rural areas.
Under the social forestry scheme, community woodlots have been widely implemented in
many developing countries, including Thailand, to supply fuelwood to rural communities
and contribute to rural development.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of community woodlots on
rural households' fuelwood supply and rural development. Two community woodlots in
northeastern Thailand were studied, which differed in size, tree Species planted, and
development approaches. The study employed an ecological approach which included
population, organization, environment, technology, and culture as an analytical
framework.

The study demonstrated that cash income from the sales of Eucalyptus trees,
fuelwood, and building materials were the major beneﬁts of both community woodlots.
No major differences in beneﬁts were found among the villagers in different economic
strata in the ﬁve villages studied. In both community woodlots, people participation in
woodlot activities was not inﬂuenced by villagers' perception towards fuelwood shortage
and the need for a woodlot. Nor was people participation necessarily affected by the

involvement of villagers in the decision making process to adopt the community woodlot

project. It was also found that the numbers of tree species planted in the woodlots were
not related to the amount of income generated. However, the amount of income
generated was dependent on the Size of woodlots.

The effectiveness of the community woodlot committees to manage the woodlots
partly inﬂuenced village self-reliance on income from their community woodlots. This
self-reliance on community woodlot income was also related to the Size of woodlots.
There was no direct relationship between self-reliance on fuelwood supply from the
woodlots, the effectiveness of community woodlot committees, and woodlot size.

Both woodlots studied created some negative impacts to the project beneﬁciaries.
These impacts included decline in soil fertility, drying up of ground water, and decrease
in grasses for cattle, which were the direct effect of Eucalyptus. However, some
respondents do like their woodlot because it provides the village a green area.

Community woodlots are one attempt to solve rural energy and forest degradation
problems, and are appreciated or criticized by different groups of people for different
reasons and views. This study demonstrated that community woodlot did lessen rural
energy problem to some extent. The complexity of the relationships between social and
biophysical factors or variables must be taken into account when studyng their impacts

and discussing their utility.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the Winrock International for Agricultural
Development, F /F RED project, for granting me a full scholarship for a doctoral degree at
Michigan State University, for which support I am very grateful. I would also like to
thank the Ford Foundation, Thailand, for the ﬁnancial support while I was conducting
ﬁeld research in Thailand.

I whole-heartedly thank to Dr. Maureen McDonough, my major advisor, who
patiently guided my dissertation and provided comments. I am deeply indebted to her
sound advice. I extend a special appreciation to my dissertation committee, Dr. Craig
Harris, Dr. Christopher Vanderpool, and Dr. Michael Gold who always found the time
and consistently provided me an advice.

I owe special thanks to Dr. Somsak Sukwong, my in-country advisor, who kindly
provided me advice and support while I was conducting research in Thailand. His effort
to come to Michigan State University to attend my defense is deeply appreciated.

Last but not least, the community woodlot committees and all villagers, who

helped providing information and data for this dissertation deserve a special thank.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the Problem

1.2 Purpose of the Study

1.3 The Study Areas

1.4 Approach Employed in the Study
1.5 Organization of the Dissertation

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 An Overview of General Energy and Fuelwood Issues
2.2 Energy

2.3 Rural Development

2.4 Social Forestry and Community Woodlots

2.5 Objectives of the Study

2.6 Summary

3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

3.1 The Ecological Approaches in Various
Social Science Disciplines
3.2 The Ecological Complex Model
3.2.1 Population
3.2.2 Organization
3.2.3 Technology
3.2.4 Environment
3.2.5 Culture
3.2.6 Study Model

3.3 Summary

viii

53
7O
70
71
73
75
77
78
83

4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 84

4.1 Selection of the Study Areas 84
4.2 Method of Data Collection 86
4.3 Data Collecting Procedure 87
4.4 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size 91
4.5 The Questionnaire 99
4.6 Analysis of Data 102
5. BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECTS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC
CONDITIONS OF THE VILLAGES STUDIED 104
5.1 General Characteristics of the Study Areas 104
5.2 Kosum Phisai District and Kok Peeba Community Woodlot 111
5.2.1 Historical Background 117
5.2.2 Implementation and Management 122
5.3 Kantarawichai District and Nong E-J one Community Woodlot 126
5.3.1 Historical Background 126
5.3.2 Implementation and Management . 131
5.4 Socio-economic Conditions of the Five Villages Studied 135
5.5 Summary 144
6. ANALYSIS OF DATA 148
6.1 The Kok Peeba Community Woodlot 148

6.1.1 The Roles of Kok Peeba Community Woodlot Committee 148
6.1.2 People Participation in the Kok Peeba Community Woodlot 159
6.1.3 The Beneﬁts of Kok Peeba Community Woodlot Local Villagers

in the 4 Villages Studied 161
6.1.4 Summary 170
6.2 Nong E-Jone Community Woodlot 171

6.2.1 The Roles of Nong E-Jone Community Woodlot Committee 171
6.2.2 People Participation in the Nong E-Jone Community Woodlot 173
6.2.3 The Beneﬁts of the Nong E-Jone Community Woodlot

to the Villagers of Ban Don Bark 174
6.3 The Relationships Between Variables in Research Propositions 17 7
6.4 Other Impacts in the Two Community woodlots Studied 198
6.5 Summary 200

6.6 Conclusion 205

vi

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 Summary of the Study

7.2 Conclusions

7.3 Limitations of the Study

7.4 Study Implications

7.5 Future Research Recommendations

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Household Survey Questionnaire
Appendix B: Guideline Questions for the Interview of
Community Woodlot Committees

BIBLIOGRAPHY

vii

209
209
214
218

219
221

224

242

246

LIST OF TABLES

1. Population Growth and Rate of Change in Forest Land in Thailand.
2. Village Woodlots Implemented by RFD and NBA, 1981-1984.

3. Royal Forest Department Village Woodlot Projects,
Number of Target Villages, 1987-1990.

4. Total Numbers of Households Classiﬁed by Villages.

5. Total Number of Households in the 5 Villages Studied
and their 15 % Sample Size.

6. Samples Classiﬁed by Economic Strata.

7. An Adjusted Samples and their Percentages Classiﬁed by Economic Strata.

8. Variables and Measurement in Research Propositions.

9. Monthly Climatic Data of Maha Sarakham Province (1977-1981).

10. National Forest Reserves and Forest Areas of Provinces
in the Northeastern Region of Thailand ﬁ'om 1976 to 1989.

11. Tree Species Planted and Survival Rate in the First Woodlot
of Nong E-Jone.

12. The Total Number of Inhabitants in the Villages Studied
Classiﬁed by Sex.

13. Village Areas, Population Density, and Family Sizes
of the Five Villages Studied.

14. Respondents Classiﬁed by Household Status.

viii

19

43

43

94

96

97

99

101

109

111

134

136

136

137

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

Respondents Classiﬁed by Gender.

Respondents Classiﬁed by Marital Status.

Respondents Classiﬁed by Age Groups.

Respondents Classiﬁed by Educational Levels.

Respondents Classiﬁed by Occupations.

Respondents Classiﬁed by the Size of Land Owned.
Respondents Classiﬁed by Total Land Holding.

The Sizes of Land Owned and of Land Holding by Average.
Migration Classiﬁed by Villages.

Areas Planted and Harvested, Income Earned, and Management
of Beneﬁts in the Kok Peeba Community Woodlot from 1982-1991.

Beneﬁts from the Community Woodlot Revolving Fund Classiﬁed by
Economic Status Across Villages.

Collection of Fuelwood from the Community Woodlot Classiﬁed by
Economic Status Across Villages.

Beneﬁts Derived ﬁ'om the Community Woodlot Besides
Fuelwood Classiﬁed by Economic Status Across Villages.

Beneﬁts ﬁ'om the Community Woodlot Revolving Fund Classiﬁed
by Economic Status, Ban Don Bark.

Collection of Fuelwood ﬁ'om the Community Woodlot, Classiﬁed
by Economic Status, Ban Don Bark.

Beneﬁts Derived from Community Woodlot Besides
Fuelwood Classiﬁed by Economic Status, Ban Don Bark.

ix

137

138

138

139

140

142

143

143

144

153

162

167

169

174

175

176

31. People Participation in Community Woodlot Activities by Villages.
32. Types of Participation in Community Woodlot by Villages.

33. Reasons for Participating in Community Woodlot by Villages.

34. Villagers' Perceptions Toward Fuelwood Shortage.

35. Test of People Participation and Perception Towards Fuelwood
Shortage by Using Cramer' s (V) Measure.

36. Villagers' Perception Towards The Need of A Woodlot.
37. The Reasons Why a Woodlot is Needed.

38. Test of People Participation and Perception Towards the Need of a
Community Woodlot by Villages by Using Cramer' s (V) Measure.

39. Villagers' Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Community
Woodlot Committees.

40. Impacts of the Woodlots as Perceived by the Villagers in the Five
Villages Studied.

41. Preferences Toward Tree Species Planted in the Woodlots Classiﬁed
by Villages.

178

181

181

182

183

184

184

185

190

197

199

LIST OF FIGURES

1. A Continuum of "Participation". 45
2. The Relationships among Population, Organization, Technology, Culture,

and Environment Viewed as the Relationship between Social System

and the Environment. 80

3. Description of Variables in Model Components. 81

4. The Relationships among Dependent Variables and Independent

Variables in Model. 82
5. Map of Thailand Showing the Northeast Region. 105
6. Map Showing Maha Sarakham Province. 106
7. Map Showing Kosum Phisai and Kantarawichai Districts. 107
8. Map Showing Distances from the 4 Villages which Share Beneﬁts

from Kok Peeba Woodlot. 112
9. Map of Ban Yang Sinchai. 113
10. Map of Ban Nong Had. 114
11. Map ofBan Don Gloy 6. 115
12. Map of Ban Don Gloy 17. 116

13. Coordination among Various Government Agencies Concerning the
Kok Peeba Community Woodlot at Different Levels. 121

14. Map Showing Nong E-Jone Public Land of Don Bark Village where
Two Village Woodlots are located. 127

xi

15. Map Showing Nong E-Jone Public Land of Don Bark Village After
the 2nd Woodlot has been removed. 128

16. Map of Ban Don Bark. 129

xii

EQUIVALENT

1 dollar = 25 baht (approximately)

1 hectare = 6.25 rai

xiii

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Awareness of the necessity to preserve, or even sometimes restore, the ecological
balance of our environment has become quite acute in Thailand as in many other
developing countries. Thai people, including farmers, have realized that it had become no
longer possible to exploit the natural resources without threatening the physical
environment, as they had been doing for centuries. This awareness, however, has come
far too late - the natural forest cover of the country has already shrunk to an extent that it
oﬁen leaves farmers in a difﬁcult situation. On the other hand, no real global alternative
to the traditional rural economy has been found yet.

Most of the population who reside in the rural areas in developing countries,
including Thailand, depend heavily on fuelwood as their major source of household
energy (World Bankzl984, Chatterjizl981). Most of the fuelwood the rural villagers
collect for their household use comes from the natural forests. In Thailand, the need for
fuelwood has increased faster than its rate of regeneration, due to population pressure and
needs for agricultural land. Consequently, forest resources are nearly exhausted.

The rural energy crisis, more speciﬁcally the fuelwood crisis, is believed to have
a direct link with environmental degradation. Fuelwood collection for household energy
consumption is frequently referred to as one of the major causes of deforestation
(Eckholm: 1984).

The fuelwood crisis affects not only the ecological balance but also the rural life
economically, socially, and culturally. Implementing social forestry projects in Thailand
as in many other developing countries, was a response among others to the crisis by
attempting to reverse the tendency of forest depletion. The number of social forestry

projects increased as the urgency of tackling the problem seriously was felt among the

1

2
international community, the Thai authorities, and the people themselves.

The projects implemented under the social forestry scheme generally include
community woodlots, farm forestry, and agroforestry. The objectives of such projects are
twofold: to restore forest cover and to contribute to rural development. Concerning the
ﬁrst objective, reforestation constitutes an urgent and obvious need as the natural forest
cover tends to disappear without being restored. Social forestry is meant to prevent the
encroachment on the remaining forests and to regenerate patches of forests. The second
objective (contribution to rural development) is complex and comprises several
secondary objectives as follows:

- to provide energy and material to rural populations by supplying free or cheap

fuelwood and wood for various purposes (building material, tools, etc.);

- to provide additional sources of food and income to rural villagers;

- to provide occasional employment in rural areas;

- to promote people participation, sense of community, and self-reliance;

- to supply the market with energy and material (NAS:1980, Evans:1982,

TDRI:1990).
These objectives, not all of them being cited in individual projects, appear on paper as
quite promising, and social forestry is quite often presented as a panacea to rural
development by some of those in charge of forestry or rural development projects. It also
is often perceived as such by the general opinion and seems to have become an
alternative strategy in the circles of rural development.

Among the various types of forestry projects under the social forestry scheme,
community woodlots are considered as a dominant model because they have the potential
to provide beneﬁts as described earlier and their ideal concept is to provide forestry
beneﬁts for the whole rural community rather than individuals (Evans:1982, Foley &

Barnardzl984). In developing countries, the evaluation of community woodlot projects

. 3

tends to focus on the rates of new planting due to political pressure. These statistical data,
though not a good measure of forestry achievement, can take on such importance that
they create a need to continue with tree planting policy regardless of sensible practice.
Such reasons for pursuing plantation forestry occur widely and inﬂuence some plantation
programs (Evans:1982). In Thailand, very little has been done to attempt to measure the
impact of the existing community woodlot projects and to evaluate the degree of success
in meeting the objectives. For example, the Royal Forest Department can give statistics
on the areas of land newly planted with trees and on the success, usually exclusively in
ﬁnancial terms, of the projects. But the data have little or no interest in their middle and
long term evolution of the projects and the actual social and physical impacts. In
particular, the rural development aspect of the projects is very often neglected. In other
words, there are no real data and description to help make up a comprehensive picture of
these projects. Consequently, it is nearly impossible to ﬁgure out on any scale if the
global as well as local objectives are met, to what extent they have been achieved, if the
impact is the one expected and if such experiments need redeﬁning or even renewing.

A study of the impacts of social forestry projects thus appears as necessary, and
two factors - time and space - make it possible. The ﬁrst projects were implemented in
Thailand some ten years ago. The comparative age of these ﬁrst projects allows us to
observe the evolution of the projects and their impacts in a relatively long span of time
also allow us to make separate assessments at different stages because the fast-growing
tree species which were planted have already yielded several crops. On the other hand,
the number and variety of projects implemented all over the country make it possible for
a research to exclude unrepresentative situations and select projects which, though

comparable, are different enough to provide a fairly general view.

1.2 Purpose of the Study

The principle purpose of this dissertation is an attempt to complete a
comprehensive study of the impacts of community woodlots on rural communities,
paying special attention to the impacts on rural households' fuelwood supply and rural
development as a whole. The community woodlots, in this study, refer to man-made
forest plantations, not natural forests. As such, the main subjects developed will concern

less the woodlots themselves than their impacts or products.

1.3 The Study Areas

It was possible to study either many projects superﬁcially or a few projects in
more detail. The latter solution was preferred for several reasons. First of all, some
partial data on the projects selected, scattered here and there, are already available.
Second, general data would not provide a comprehensive idea of the impacts of the
community woodlot projects.

The sample area selected consists of two community woodlots situated in the
Maha Sarakham province in the Northeastern region of Thailand. The ﬁrst community
woodlot is located in Kosumphisai district, and was initiated by the Royal Forest
Department (RFD). The second community woodlot is located in Kantarawichai district,
and was initiated by a non-government organization named the Population and
Community Development Association (PDA). This region is relatively poor and most of
the population depend on agriculture for their living. The natural forest which once
covered the land has now disappeared except for a few scattered areas, and farmers face a
severe shortage of wood all over the region.

Five villages are involved in the two community woodlots. A survey of the ﬁve
villages was conducted by interviewing the sampled villagers about the issues concerning

community woodlots and some basic household data. An in-depth interview of the

5
community woodlot committees was also conducted to view the overall picture of how

they manage the woodlots.

1.4 Approach Employed in the Study

This dissertation employs an ecological perspective as its analytical framework,
since it deals both with rural people and community woodlots. The advantage of using an
ecological approach is that it allows one to view the relationship between people and the
environment as interactive or interdependent. The ecological complex model focuses on
four major factors: Population, Organization, Environment, and Technology. However,
the environmental factor does not enter the model as a variable in this study. It is simply
used as a factor to explain why community woodlot projects are promoted. The model
serves to show how the rural villagers are affected by the changing environment, how
they have organized themselves, what technology they employ to c0pe with the
problems they have to face with, and what impacts occurred by applying such
technology. The study views community woodlots as a technology proposed to the rural
communities to alleviate the problem of rural households' fuelwood shortage and to
generate income for the communities. This study added culture as another component to
the ecological complex model because of the important roles of the cultural variables in
many social forestry projects.

Under each component of the model, the key variables concerning community
woodlot projects are identiﬁed and the relationships between the variables identiﬁed are
hypothesized. In the analysis of data, each village is treated as a social system so as to
examine the relationship between each village and the woodlot. A comparison across
villages is then performed to understand how different villages manage the woodlots both

biophysically and ﬁnancially.

1.5 Organization of the Dissertation

This chapter brieﬂy introduces the research and rationale of the study. Chapter 2
provides an overview of general energy and fuelwood issues and an overall presentation
of the basic concepts of energy, forestry, and rural development as far as they concern
this study. The concept of community woodlot projects as an alternative rural
development strategy and the factors affecting the success and failure of the community
woodlot projects are discussed. The issue of the rural energy problem, social forestry,
and rural development in Thailand is also discussed. Chapter 3 is devoted to the
theoretical framework used in conceptualizing the problem studied. Three components in
the ecological complex model, namely population, organization, and technology, are
used as a conceptual framework for the study. Cultural factors are also added to the
framework. Chapter 4 presents the research methodology which includes selection of the
study area, method of data collection, sampling procedure, sample size, and
questionnaire. Chapter 5 describes socio-economic conditions of the province and of the
villages studied as well as the historical background of the two community woodlots
studied. Chapter 6 is devoted to the analysis of data and discussion of the research
results. Chapter 7 presents the conclusions of the study and recommendations for further

research.

DI

5:.

HI

 

I"
If- ‘

\u'u'.
-.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 An Overview of General Energy and Fuelwood Issues

This research focuses on community woodlots, as both a source of renewable
energy for rural households as well as their effects on rural development.

The importance of energy as a vital factor for rural development has been
discussed in previous research (Earlzl975, Boardzl982, Goldembergzl987). Goldemberg
(1987) stated:

"If the world's poor are to achieve decent standards of living, developing
countries must increase agricultural productivity and food distribution, deliver
basic educational and medical services, establish adequate water supply and
sanitation facilities, provide basic amenities, and build and operate new industries
- all activities that require energy."

The basic needs in rural development are generally identiﬁed as nutrition, shelter,
clothing, sanitation, health, education, and gainful employment (Goldembergzl987).
Energy is a also basic need, a means to improve quality of life and increase productivity
and employment-all important to rural development (Soesastro: 1980). To satisfy or
improve those basic needs, energy inputs are directly or indirectly required. The shortage
of energy is thus an important obstacle to rural development, contributing to the vicious
cycle of poverty.

The world energy crisis began to receive wide attention in the mid-19708 due to
the ﬁrst oil shock in 1973 (Baxendell: 1984, Brownzl982, Hitzhusen, and
Macgregor:l987). This crisis caused a tremendous economic hardship not only to the
developed countries Whose industries and technologies rely mostly on fossil energy but
also to the developing countries who depend heavily on traditional energy and have an
accelerating rate of dependence on oil-based industries for developing their modern

sectors. In addition to the oil and fuelwood crises, the recent alarming rate of

8

deforestation in most developing countries worsens the energy-deﬁcit situation,
especially in the rural areas that are highly populated. This statement is backed by studies
showing a signiﬁcant relationship between deforestation and the rate of population
growth (Eckholmzl984, Allenzl985, and Shepherdzl986). Eckholm (1984) noted that
deforestation and the ﬁrewood crisis are obviously closely linked. More often, recent
research has revealed, fuelwood scarcity is as much a consequence as a cause of
deforestation."

According to a study in 1976, land clearing for agriculture and wood gathering
for fuel were referred to as two principal causes of deforestation. In fact, lumber
harvesting for direct or industrial use was far less signiﬁcant, as a source of deforestation,
on a global basis (Eckholmzl976). It was estimated that 200-250 million subsistence
farmers and land-hungry migrants living in a state of shifting cultivation and rural
poverty were destroying some 51,000 square kilometers of tropical forest every year,
which means that the rural poor could be blamed for at least 45 per cent of the tropical
forest area destroyed annually on a worldwide basis (Brownder:1989). In 1989, while
agriculture, livestock expansion, and fuelwood collection were still major causes of
deforestation, demand for commercial forest products or timber harvesting has gained
more recognition as a cause of deforestation (World Bankzl989).

The worldwide deforestation process that we are observing is one of the major
ecological catastrophes of our time. The consequences are already being felt, and these
are only the ominous hints of what might take place in the future. Moreover, the
alarming speed of the deterioration is a matter of serious concern as the face of whole
regions or countries can change in the span of a few years. Brown (1982) noted that the
most important root of the energy crisis was the dependence upon crude oil by many

nations. Hosier (1982) further argued that the energy crisis in developed countries is

 

 

.u

a.“

.1“,
A

 

 

.1“ ;e

"Itbr

:F'HI
~hi.

“as"

M.

 

.. 2‘
'k.
V.
.i“
h .4

 

9
based on the oil-price increase while the one in developing countries is a crisis of
fuelwood shortage. However, Hosier's argument is only partly true because many
developing countries, (including Thailand, whose industries are oil-based) are also
affected by the ﬂuctuation of oil prices in the world market.

It is not an overstatement to say that the developing countries are faced with a
two-edged sword in the ﬁeld of energy: 1) the rising price of oil which reduces the
potential uses of fossil fuel energy and corrodes foreign exchange reserves in oil-
importing countries; and 2) deforestation which may cause a price increase or a shortage
of fuels such as fuelwood and charcoal (Allenzl985). The fuelwood crisis, is the main
focus of this study because about 70-80 per cent of the population in developing
countries reside in rural areas, and the majority depend heavily on traditional sources of
energy, most of which are renewable, such as ﬁrewood, charcoal, crop residues, and
animal dung (World Bankzl984).

The use of fuelwood, which is the major energy source for most household
activities, is the most immediate cause of the growing shortage of energy in rural sectors
in most developing countries (Hosier:1982, Montalembertzl983, Eckholmzl984,
Baxendellzl984, Blairzl988). In 1978, it was estimated that almost 60 per cent of the
total volume of wood extracted in the world was used as fuelwood. Of this, 90 percent

was used in the developing world (Montalembertzl983). Eckholm (1979) noted:

"About half of all the wood cut in the world each year is burned as fuel, mainly
by the one-third of humanity who still rely on ﬁrewood for cooking and heating.
At least 1.5 billion people burn anywhere from one-ﬁfth of a ton (in parts of
Africa and South Asia) of wood a year, putting an awesome pressure on the
world's vegetation that is often ignored in ofﬁcial statistics."

FAO (1983) pointed out that the problem of fuelwood use has three important
dimensions: forestry, energy, and environment. That is why its role in rural energy

systems must be clearly perceived as a problem not only of subsistence but also of

.1

r1.

1:1

. .
as

—0
’V

’1.

In'

I:

"(5.4

10
development. In other words, the need for forest conservation runs the risk of remaining
at the stage of wishful thinking as long as the process of forest clearing is the only
response to two basic needs: new means of subsistence (new land), and for resources
(timber, fuelwood...)

If the need for energy is taken into account only, which is central to this study, we
will see how much energy use depends on and affects the forest. It is reasonable to
consider community woodlots as an appropriate means to provide renewable energy
source and promote rural development because of its crucial role in providing fuel and
other beneﬁts such as income and employment for rural sectors.

The information and data of the demands, supplies, and problems of fuelwood
shortage discussed here are derived from FAO, which has been continuously studying the
subjects of fuelwood and charcoal for more than thirty years. Fuelwood production
represented 5.4 % of world energy consumption in 1978, coming just after oil, coal, and
gas (Montalembertzl983). Fuelwood accounts for more than 90% of the energy needs for
90% of the population of the developing countries (Chatterji:l981). For over 2000
million people in developing countries, of whom approximately half live in Asia, fuel
and charcoal, together with agricultural residues and animal dung, have always been the
most commonly used source of energy and often the only available one. Makhijani

(1975) stated:

"Wood is the poor man's oil. Throughout the underdeveloped world, men,
women, and children spend a considerable portion of their time cutting trees,
gathering twigs and branches, and tending ﬁre to have the energy they need for
cooking and a modicum of heat and light."

In addition, the studies that have been carried out over the past decade concluded that in
most third world countries there would be continued dependence on renewable energy

resources, mainly wood for fuel (Eckholmzl984, Montalembert: 1983, Blair:1988).

11

Fuelwood obviously holds a special place in rural energy systems. FAO outlined
the main characteristics of fuelwood in rural energy systems as domestic requirements
and rural industries. Cooking food and heating homes, which usually account for the
biggest percentage of overall energy consumption in the developing countries, are the
essential elements of fuelwood for domestic requirements. For rural industries, fuelwood
is important for drying tea and tobacco, smoking ﬁsh, making brick, lime kilns, smithies,
potteries and various village handicrafts (Montalembert21983). This heavy dependence
on fuelwood as a source of energy is one of the main causes of deforestation, and the
crisis directly affects the farmers' lives as they face a shortage of energy supply.

When fuelwood becomes scarce it can affect rural life economically, socially, and
culturally (F AO/SIDA:1987). For instance, time, otherwise spent for economic purposes,
is spent for gathering fuelwood, thus affecting the households' economic status
(FAO/SIDA:1987). Rural dwellers, especially women and children, have to walk farther
and farther to collect the bare minimum of wood needed to survive. Scarcity in fuelwood
has altered the patterns in food preparation, e. g. decreased the number of times
households cook their food and caused people in some areas to eat partially cooked food
or cold leftovers, which affects the quality of the family's diet and health (Hoskinszl979a,
FAO/SIDA:1987). In Thailand, the ﬁre lit for a traditional ritual after childbirth to warm
the mother for a number of days is reduced when ﬁrelwood is scarce. Incomes are also
affected. For instance, silk making, which requires accurately controlled temperatures,
and salt making, which requires hours of boiling, are affected by fuelwood shortages.
Moreover, fuelwood scarcity leads to an increase of the price of fuelwood which makes it
more difﬁth for poor people to gather it free or at minimum cost. There is also a shift
from using fuelwood to using animal dung for cooking, which otherwise would have

been used as manure for agriculture (Agarwalzl986).

12
F uelwood shortage also results in environmental and ecological degradation. For
example, over-cutting of the remaining woody vegetation accelerates deforestation and
consequently leads to soil erosion, soil sedimentation, destruction of biodiversity, and
global warming (Barneyzl982, Montalembertzl983, Woodwellzl983, Wilsonzl985).
A study conducted by FAO (Montalembertzl983) classiﬁed world fuelwood

situations into 4 categories:

1. Acute scarcity situations, where the wood energy balance (accessible supply
minus needs) is markedly negative, and minimum energy needs could not be met,
even through overcutting of existing fuelwood resources. Some 96 million
people were living in a situation of acute energy shortage.

2. Deﬁcit situaticm, where population are still able to meet their minimum
fuelwood needs only by cutting in excess of sustainable supply. Some of 1052
million people were living in this situation.

3. Prospective deﬁcit situations, where supplies still exceeded demand in 1980,
but which in 2000 will be in a deﬁcit situation if present trends continue. Some
280 million pe0ple were living in this situations.

4. Satisfactog situations, zones which on the whole will still have sufﬁcient
supplies by the year 2000.

The world fuelwood situations, particularly the ﬁrst two categories, have resulted
in the necessity of ﬁnding other appropriate sources of energy for the national economies
in general and for rural economies in particular. These problems have drawn the attention
of international governments and also international agencies for development. As a
result, many forest-based rural development (FBRD) projects, including industrial
forestry and social forestry, have been launched in many developing countries which
produce fuelwood to supply industrial and rural energy demands and also use forests as a
source of food, fodder, and supplement income for households. As early as the beginning
of the 1980S, there were over 130 forestry development projects implemented in
developing countries by external grants and loans of more than $750 million from eleven
international donors (Foley and Barnardzl984). However, industrial forestry, whose

beneﬁts do not usually go to people living near the forests, was the most heavily funded '

l3
forestry activity compared to others (Barnes: 1982).
Industrial forestry, which was once supported by Westoby (1987) as a promising
strategy for national development, has been proved to be insufﬁcient because most of the

beneﬁts did not go to the poor. As he noted,

"Nearly all the forest and forest industry development which have taken place in
the underdeveloped world over the last decades have been externally oriented,
aimed at satisfying the rocketing demands of the rich, industrialized nations. The
basic forest products needs of the peoples of the underdeveloped world are further
from being satisﬁed than ever: their needs for fuel, building materials, low-cost
housing, cheap furniture, industrial and cultural papers---. The much more
important role which forestry could play in supporting agriculture and raising
rural welfare has been either badly neglected or completely ignored---. This is
why there are so few village woodlots and fuel plantation." (Westobyzl987)

However, things are beginning to change. Social or community forestry began to
receive both national and international attention in the 19705 (Noronhazl982). Under
social forestry schemes, village or community woodlots have become a major activity in
trying to produce fuelwood in order to supply the households' energy needs in rural areas.

Community woodlot projects are one of the responses of national governments
and international agencies to the energy crises confronting rural populations in
developing countries. In most cases, fuelwood production has been a major objective in
global forestry programs due to the aforementioned problem of fuelwood shortage
(ESCAP:1982). Studies have indicated a lack of people's participation in project planning
and decision making as a key factor affecting the implementation of woodlot projects. At
the same time, other studies have pointed to cases of successﬁrl woodlot projects, such as
community forestry in China (Eckholm:]984), Saemaul Udong movement in Korea
(Gregersen:1987), and community woodlots in Gujarat, India (Blair:1988), in which
active community participation and strong support from the national government were

the prime movers for accomplishing the goals of woodlots projects.

14

On paper, these projects present many advantages:

- They give a partial solution to the problem of deforestation by planting trees and
making it no longer necessary for farmers to cut down trees from natural
forests. Additionally they also contribute to the forest cover of the region
concerned.

- They provide wood to communities who use it to meet some of their basic
needs-energy and building materials among others.

- They imply people's participation at many levels, thus reinforcing the farmers'
self-reliance.

- They can play an important role in rural development.

- They usually concern the most deprived layers of the population.

- They produce energy during an energy crisis when it is scarce and expensive.

Community woodlot projects have been implemented in many African and Asian
countries including Thailand. The experiences indicate that not many of these projects
have been successful due to social, cultural, and political constraints (Brechinzl982,
Barneszl982, Noronhazl985, West:l985). Community woodlot projects in Thailand are
not exempt from such constraints, but most studies on community woodlot projects have
failed to point out how community woodlots directly improve the quality for life of rural
people and how community woodlots as a source of renewable energy contribute to rural
development goals.

This research attempts to explore how community woodlots beneﬁt rural
households, how community woodlot projects may help rural people meet their energy
needs for the household's activities in terms of fuelwood supply, how community
woodlots help accomplish rural development goals in terms of income and employment,

as well as other impacts caused by introducing woodlots to the community.

15
2.2 Energy

Rosa, Machlis, and Keating (1988) have done an excellent review on the
importance of energy to society from the point of view of ecology, economics, and
sociology. Their discussion is organized into four sections: energetic theories of society,
macrosociology of energy, microsociology of energy, and energy policy. Each section is
chronologically reviewed.

These researchers have categorized the energetic theories into historical and
contemporary versions. They reach the conclusion that most energetic theorists have
failed to value fully the limits to energy growth imposed by the second law of
thermodynamics (part of the energy involved in doing work is lost as heat to the
surrounding environment) and have failed to take into account the vast differences in
resource endowments available to, and interaction between, societies. This conclusion is
particularly true for fuelwood situations (as an energy source) where the availability of
fuelwood can affect the usage efﬁciency in the sense that people in the less serious
situations might tend to use fuelwood wastefully. However, energetics did suggest a
fundamental perspective: energy plays a crucial role in the link between societies and the
biophysical environment.

The macrosociology of energy is discussed in terms of preindustrialization,
referring to the low energy societies, and industrialization, referring to the high energy
societies. For the preindustrialization stage, the relationship between energy, local
ecological conditions and cultural factors is essential. This has been demonstrated by the
works of Rappaport (1968), Lee (1969), Kemp (1971), and Harris (1971, 1979) who
have studied how the ﬂows of energy are conditioned by environmental circumstances
and mediated by social practices.

Industrialized societies are more concerned about the relationship between energy

16

and economic growth. Several authors conclude that continued energy growth is essential
to economic growth in industrialized societies (Schurr & Netscheret 1960, Starr 1971,
Cook 1971, Linden 1975, and Allen 1979). This has also led to the conclusion that
energy grth is essential to social well-being, such as health, education, and culture, as
shown in the work of Mazur & Rosa (1974). From the review on the works of Makhijani
& Lichtenberg (1972), Schipper & Lichtenberg (1976), and Buttel (1978,1979), Rosa
concluded that there is a need in industrialized countries to reduce energy consumption
through national economic and energy development policies due to the potential shortage
of energy supply.

Microsociological research on energy ﬁnds its origin in the energy crisis of 1973
and in the urgency to demonstrate the relevance of social science to energy analysis and
policy. Household energy consumption is the unit of analysis at this level. The two major
conceptual models are economic rationality and attitude-behavior consistency models.
The ﬁrst model emphasizes market forces (prices) and conservation technology as an
important role in energy conservation behavior, while the latter deals with the attitude of
people towards energy shortage problems and how they respond to such problems.
However, Stern and Oskarnp (1987) suggested that economic rationality or an attitude-
behavior model alone might not be sufﬁcient to explain energy consumption patterns,
conservation practices, and investment processes. The issues relating to energy and the
consequent policies can be sensitive subjects in public opinion. In 1978, very little was
known about public views on energy and a lot of people remained ignorant about basic
energy facts. Some people did not even believe that the energy crisis was real
(Warkovzl978). The knowledge of the public about energy crisis, thus, affects the policy
solutions on energy.

The discussion and conclusion made by Rosa from the period of energetic

l7
theories, to macrosociology and microsociology of energy, and energy policy, obviously
indicate that many societies are facing a problem of energy scarcity which needs special
attention from ordinary people to policy makers. Energy issues have become the major
component of national social and economic development policies, not only in the
developed but also deve10ping countries.

In general, energy needs can be divided into three categories:

"1. Domestic energy needs- cooking, heating, and lighting, for example.

2. Energy for agriculture and industry- that is, energy needs for economic growth
and the creation of productive employment. Power for irrigation pumps, coke for
steel production, or oil for the transportation of essential goods are examples.

3. Energy needs for the provision of essential social services such as education
and medical care.

Energy plays a much smaller role in the provision of social services than in the
other two categories." (Makhijani:l975)

In deve10ping countries, however, very little attention has been given to the
domestic energy needs in the rural sectors where population density is relatively high.
Goldemberg (1987) reported that energy planning has tended to focus on large-scale
energy supply projects, such as oil reﬁneries and central station power plants, and has not
effectively dealt with the energy needs of the poor. Typically, the problems of the rural
poor have been given the least attention in energy planning. The energy crisis has been
seen almost exclusively as a problem of oil and other modern energy forms that shape the
life styles of the elites.

Soesastro (1984) pointed out that in the past, energy was not a major concern in
rural development planning. Energy problems of rural people were given attention only
recently due to the effects of deforestation. Agriculture development was the primary
concern for rural development. However, agriculture and energy are interrelated. Energy
is necessary to agricultural production while at the same time it greatly inﬂuences the

quality of rural life. Agricultural production relies greatly on energy, because increasing

18

production means using more energy for running irrigation pumps and for producing
chemical fertilizer. More energy is also needed for processing and transporting
agricultural products and for producing ﬁnished goods. To increase agricultural
production, more energy must be injected into the system in the form of fertilizers,
irrigation water, fuels for heating and cooking as well as modest amounts of electrical
power. Energy and rural development cannot then be dissociated but must be considered
as interdependent.

In Thailand the concern for energy problem stems from the concern over high
prices of petroleum products and the country's dwindling forest resource. Growth of
energy consumption in Thailand was rapid in the 19605 and during much of the 1970s ,
due to a rapidly growing economy. During the 19708, the continued growth in energy
consumption was also due to the fact that domestic energy prices were not adjusted in
line with the jump in the international oil price in 1973. In 1981, the import bill from
petroleum and its products matched the trade deﬁcit at 42 per cent of the export value
(Chirarattananon:1984). The point is that only a small share of petroleum products have
been used in the rural sector.

The National Energy Administration (N EA) reported that commercial energy in
rural areas accounts for only 13.5 per cent of the total commercial energy used and this
ﬁgure includes the 4.8 per cent used in agriculture (Chirarattananon:1984). Similar to
other developing countries, most of the rural population in Thailand still largely relies on
the traditional energy sources of fuelwood and charcoal. Due to population pressure and
needs for agricultural land, the requirement for fuelwood has increased faster than its
rates of generation. As a result, rapid deforestation and depletion of forest resources
have occurred. The forest area in Thailand has decreased from 209,200 square kilometers

(41.00 per cent of the country total area) in 1975 to 143,417 square kilometers (27.95 per

19
cent of the country total area) in 1989 (Table 1).
In a 25-year period, the annual decrease in forest area has averaged 3.2 million rai
(0.512 million hectares). However, reforestation of the depleted forest areas has been
implemented only for 3 million rai (0.48 million hectares) in a 79-year period (1906-
1985) or only 0.04 million rai (6,400 hectares) annually (Thailandzl987). Thailand has
lost about 45 per cent of her forests over this 25-year period and has been categorized by

FAO into the fuelwood deﬁcit situation type.

Table 1. Population Growth and Rate of Change in Forest Land in Thailand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Annual Change
Year Population Forest Area of Forest Area
(million) (Sq.Km.) % ( %)
1975 - 209,000 41.00 -
1976 - 198,417 38.67 -2.33
1977 - - - -
1978 45.2 175,224 34.15 -4.52
1979 46.1 170,229 33.18 -0.97
1980 47.0 165,470 32.25 -0.93
1981 47.9 160,932 31.36 -0.89
1982 48.8 156,600 30.52 -0.84
1983 49.5 154,028 30.02 -0.50
1984 50.6 151,513 29.53 -0.49
1985 51.8 149,053 29.05 -0.48
1986 52.5 149,053 29.05 0.00
1988 54.9 143,803 28.03 - l .02
1989 55.9 143,417 27.95 -0.08
1991 56.9 136,698 26.64 -1.31
1993 58.3 133,521 26.02 -0.62

 

Source : Forest Statistics Subdivision, Forestry Statistics of Thailand 1986, 1987, 1990,

1993 (Royal Forest Department,1986,l987,l990,1993)

There are many reasons why the country's forest is dwindling, such as shifting

cultivation, needs for agricultural land, and both legal and illegal logging. With the

 

20

problem of deforestation all over the country, the rural people, who account for more
than 70 per cent of total population, have been seriously affected by the scarcity of
fuelwood which once was easily collected around the homestead or from the forests
nearby. In Thailand fuelwood and charcoal together account for about 85 per cent of the
rural household energy supply, and the major contribution of both fuelwood and charcoal
is for cooking. Very little is used for heating, ironing, and fumigation
(Chirarattananon: 1984).

In this study the kind of energy considered is domestic energy, that is the energy
used by households. The electricity used in almost every village in Thailand is
hydroelectricity generated from the large dams located in different parts of the country.
The most common source of energy in rural economies in the third world countries, and
the one considered here, is fuelwood (charcoal or ﬁrewood) and not the commercial fuels
as described in the deﬁnitions. Most of the fuelwood burned in developing countries is
for household cooking and heating. For example, in Thailand, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Nepal,
Sudan, and even oil-rich Nigeria, 90 per cent or more of the people cook with the
traditional fuels or ﬁrewood and charcoal (Smithzl981). Although some other
agricultural residues, e.g., rice straw and rice husk, are also used as energy sources, they
are not included in this study as they represent but a very small portion of the whole.

It can be summarized ﬁ‘om the above discussion that energy plays a very
substantial role in economic and social development nationally. Energy is needed for
national economic growth and social well-being. In developing countries where the
majority of the pOpulation live in rural areas and depend upon fuelwood for their
household energy supply, the problems of fuelwood shortage must be considered
seriously and the needs for fuelwood must be met if social and economic development of

the nations are to be achieved. Based on the deﬁnition of fuelwood given by

21
Montalembert (1983), fuelwood, in this dissertation, refers to "wood and pulp material
obtained from the trunks, branches and other parts of trees and shrubs to be used
as fuel for cooking, heating or generating energy through direct combustion, not
only in households but also in rural industries." In this research, fuelwood, as a
traditional energy input, from the community woodlots is viewed as having a major

impact on the rural households and communities.

2.3 Rural Development

A large number of rural development programs, with differing concepts and
strategies, have been implemented during the last few decades. Their purpose has been to
upgrade the quality of life for the rural poor who make up the majority in developing
countries. These development concepts and strategies have changed due to new
development fashions and/or development preceptors designed to meet the needs of each
country.

To understand the relationship between energy and rural development, it is
crucial to discuss rural development concepts and strategies in general and how energy
plays its role in the rural development context. Rural development is a very broad and
abstract concept which has been used indiscriminately in most development projects

implemented in rural areas. As Bryant and White (1982) noted:

"Development is one of the most compelling concepts of our time. It provokes
painful questions about values, techniques, and choices. It raises anew the
classical query about the nature of the 'good society' as well as the problem of
who is to decide on society's content and course. Because these are large and
difficult problems, it is easy to lose them in generalizations, using the term
development as a euphemism for change, modernization, or growth.
Development, however, is more complex than any of these suggests."

The World Bank (1975), which has for long been involved in rural development projects

all over the world, deﬁnes rural development as a strategy designed to improve the

22
economic and social life (increase agricultural productivity, employment and income,
and provide minimum acceptable levels of food, shelter, education, and health) of the
rural poor (small-scale farmers, tenants, and the landless).

Others may deﬁne rural development differently depending on different
orientations or concepts. For example, Lowderrnilk & Laitos (1981) deﬁned rural
development as a continuous planned social, political, and economic change in rural and
urban social structures and organizations, which provide adequate incentives, production
possibilities, and services to help rural people achieve higher levels of living, knowledge,
and skills. FAO (1978) was more concerned with environmental problems and views the
objective of development as to enable the rural populations to live a 'better life' in
equilibrium with the environment and natural resources of the target area. Hoskins (1979
b) suggested a more people-oriented deﬁnition of rural development: development is not
something one does to someone, but something people do themselves. A developmental
role, thus, is a supportive role which facilitates local people solving their own problems
in a way to gain control over their own futures. Similar to Hoskins, Bryant & White
(1982) deﬁned development as the increase of capacity of people to inﬂuence their
future, which means that projects and programs not only need to accomplish physical and
concrete changes, but need to do so in such a way that people have a greater capacity to
choose and respond to these changes.

The examples given above reveal no standardized deﬁnition for rural
development. The quoted deﬁnitions vary depending on the different objectives and

perspectives of development organizations. As Kirchhofer & Mercer (1984) noted:

"Rural development itself is like an old hat (shapeless and made to ﬁt any head).
The objectives, strategies, and target groups for rural development vary from
government to government and region to region. Indeed, not all governments
agree (and in fact many are opposed to the concept) that a community approach
involving local people in decision making and beneﬁt sharing, and addressing the

23
collective needs of the rural poor, is essential for rural development."

The issues of employment, equity, energy, and ecology are believed to be the
international agenda of rural development for the remainder of the 20th century and
beyond (Norman:l978). To achieve such development goals, many paths or strategies
have been proposed. The evolution of development strategies began in 1969 when
Agents of Change was ﬁrst published. Since then, many development strategies, such as
stages of growth, institution-building, grassroots approaches, integrated rural
development, community development, village level projects and forests for people have
emerged (Westoby:l985). Among various development strategies, economic growth as
an indicator for development, which was once advocated as the best way to eradicate
poverty, seems to be the most controversial. It is widely criticized for its leading to
increasing inequality of income distribution, including increasing the gap between the
rich and poor countries (Meadows, Meadows, Randers, and Behrens, 1972).

According to Redclift (1987), the concentration on "growth" in an economic
growth model has resulted in resource depletion and unsustainable development, which
has led to the emergence of the sustainable development concept in the early 19703. On
the other hand, Stockdale (1989) viewed the emergence of sustainable development as a
synthesis of pro-growth and limits to growth perspectives.

Since the term "sustainable development" was launched, it has become a
fashionable term used extensively by many development agencies and organizations.
Because the term sustainable development has been used indiscriminately without a
clearly defrned concept, it is confusing and frustrating when the question is posed, "What
should be sustained and how sustainable should it be?"

Repetto (1986) deﬁned sustainable development as "...a development strategy that
manages all assets, natural resources, and human resources, as well as ﬁnancial and

physical assets, for increasing long-term wealth and well-being. Sustainable

24
development, as a goal, rejects policies and practices that support current living standards
by depleting the productive base, including natural resources, and that leaves future
generations with poorer prospects and greater risks of our own."

According to Dixon & Fallon (1989), three distinct uses of the concept of
sustainability can be identiﬁed. First, it is a purely physical concept for a single resource.
In this usage, the scope is limited to particular renewable resources considered in
isolation; sustainability means using no more than the annual increase in the resource
without reducing the physical stock. Second, it is a physical concept for a group of
resources or an ecosystem. Lastly, it is a social-physical-economic concept. The last
concept is particularly important in the context of rural development because it does not
consider only a sustained level of a physical stock or physical production from an
ecosystem over time. It also considers some sustained increase in the level of societal and
individual welfare.

Redclift (1987) noted that "...sustainable development is a concept which draws
on two frequently opposed intellectual traditions: one concerned with the limits which
nature presents to the human beings, the other with the potential for human material
development which is locked up in nature." For a more sustainable development, Redclift
further suggested that we need to consider to what extent energy is used efﬁciently
within agriculture, and we need to consider population, together with ecological
sustainability and energy efﬁciency. It was suggested, however, that achieving
sustainable development was delayed by the overriding structures of the international
economic system.

In the mid 703, the term "alternative" development, which seriously focused on
the content of development rather than the form, was promoted. According to Hettne

(1982), alternative development is deﬁned as:

25

-Need oriented (that is being geared to meet human needs, both material and
non-material);

-Endogenous (that is, stemming from the heart of each society, which deﬁnes in
sovereignty its values and the vision of its future);

-Self-reliant (that is, implying that each society relies primarily on its own
strength and resources in terms of its members' energies and its natural and
cultural environment);

-Ecologically sound (that is, utilizing rationally the resources of the biosphere in
full awareness of the potential of local ecosystems as well as the global and
local outer limits imposed on present and future generations);

-Based on structural transformation (so as to realize the conditions of self-
management and participation in decision making by all those affected by it,
from the rural or urban community to the world as a whole, without which the
above goals could not be achieved).

Alternative development strategies have been used in various rural development
projects such as irrigation, livestock, agriculture, ﬁshery, health and nutrition, as well as
forestry development projects. It has been pointed out that in such alternative
development strategies, there is no universal path to development. Every society must
ﬁnd its own strategy (Hettnezl982) as can be seen in many developing countries which
are still seeking to adapt the best development strategy for their own situation.

Very often development strategies employed by developing countries did not
fully achieve development goals. As Westoby (1985) noted, many underdeveloped
countries followed the changing precepts of the development establishment, "a few rich
were getting richer while the poor were increasing in numbers and getting poorer."

As noted, energy has received particular attention in development circles after

26

the ﬁrst oil crisis in 1973. The focus of energy and development has been on how energy
contributes to economic growth. Studies show that there is a strong correlation between
energy consumption and economic growth in terms of GNP, by comparing annual energy
consumption per capita between developed and developing countries: the former
consumed energy per capita many times more than the latter (Earl:l975, World
Bankzl984). Some critiques were made due to the fact that fuelwood and charcoal are
usually excluded ﬁ'om the statistics of energy use per capita, which may give a
misleading impression of the stage of economic progress reached. In addition, developing
countries make a greater use of forest energy as an essential part of their economy than
developed countries do, but this usually non-traded commodity is not included in the
calculation of GNP per capita, which consequently undervalues the real standard of
economic grth reached in developing countries (Earl:l975).

In developing countries, fuelwood and charcoal are important as energy supplies
for economic growth and as a renewable source of locally available energy. However,
they have not received sufﬁcient consideration in national energy planning and
development policy (ESCAP:1982). It is important that in the developing countries
where priority is given to rural development policy, consideration of energy needs for
rural poor should be taken into account. It is also important to note that forestry cannot
be divorced ﬁom development (Earl:l975, ESCAP:1982, Douglaszl983, Westobyzl985,
Blair:1988). Thus the developing countries need to identify rural energy, especially
fuelwood, as a major component of energy, and must form rural development policies at
the national level by the cooperation of ministries or agencies which are directly involved
in rural development affairs. This policy should be implemented throughout the
countries, both regionally and locally, where rural energy problems exist and rural

development programs are proposed.

27

A recent survey on the rural energy system in Thailand showed that the supply of
fuelwood was estimated at 14 million cubic meters/year, while the demand was expected
to be 40.21 million cubic meters/year (FAO:1982). In 1983, it was estimated that
fuelwood and charcoal together accounted for 61.7 per cent of residential energy
consumption in Thailand. Of this, 93 per cent was due to rural consumption. The source
of fuelwood was found to be 35 per cent from the user's own land, while 14 per cent
came from land belonging to other people. Forest resources accounted for 49 per cent of
the total fuelwood demand. It was also estimated that by the year 2001, there will be a
deﬁcit of 36.1 million cubic meters of wood for fuelwood purposes (Tingsabadhzl987).
If this trend continues, the well-being of rural people who depend heavily on fuelwood
for their energy supply will deteriorate.

Thailand started its ﬁrst National Economic and Social Development Plan in
1961. The main focus of the ﬁrst four National Development Plans (1961-1981) were the
development of infrastructure at both national and local levels to support development
activities. Although good progress resulted from these efforts, current evaluations
indicate that large areas of the country beneﬁted only slightly from these early
development exercises. As a result, the F iﬁh National Development Plan used a strategy
which called more on people participation: development activities were focused at the
sub-district (Tambon) level, both at initial planning stage and at the ﬁnal implementation
stage.

The emphasis on reforestation with fast-growing trees under community control
or on "social forestry", in order to increase forest area, was recently placed in the sixth
Plan (1987-1991) while people participation and self reliance are still the main focus for
rural development. Tingsabadh (1987) reported that the idea of social forestry was

mentioned in the natural resources and energy policies in the Sixth National Economic

28
and Social Development Plan of Thailand. Under the natural resources policy, the plan

says:

"Community Forestry - the government will encourage and support
private/popular organizations at the local level to cooperate in afforestation and to
derive beneﬁts from the planted forests. The emphasis will be on planting of
multipurpose tree species and encouragement of economic utilization of trees."
(Sixth Plan, P. 236-7)

Under the energy policy, the plan says:

"Encouragement of production and utilization of energy in rural area in
appropriate forms. The government will encourage the establishment of woodlots
for household and community use. It will promote private efforts at commercial
afforestation and encourage the dissemination of energy conservation information
relating to present use of fuels. Research on development on biomass energy will
be encouraged. The use of LPG and rural electriﬁcation will also be encouraged."
(Sixth P1an:338-9)

The Sixth Plan, however, still focused mainly on developing commercial energy, such as
petroleum, natural gas, and lignite, which are mainly used in urban and industrial sectors.
Although the government saw a need to integrate forestry as part of rural development
programs, forest resource development was not clearly and sufﬁciently addressed under
the rural development master plan in the Sixth Plan. Instead, it was only discussed under
the natural resources development master plan, which has a different focus of
development. Land and water resources, transportation, health, education, and agriculture
were seen as more crucial for rural development.

The Seventh Plan (1992-1996) stresses development of indigenous energy
resources, management of more effective energy consumption, an adjustment for energy
prices to better reﬂect the production cost, and the promotion of competition in energy
market. This plan has taken a further step regarding community forestry. It encourages an
issuance of an act to ensure the consistency between natural resources conservation and

changing situations. For example, the Community Forest Act should be enforced to

29
provide the people and private development organizations with the opportunity to legally
join in forest conservation (NESDB:1991). Until recently, the contribution of the forest
resource to the livelihood and welfare of the rural people and as a renewable energy input
for rural development has not been fully expressed in the rural development context at
policy level.

The discussion above summarizes the general concept of rural development and
the evolution of rural development strategies. Forestry for rural people is one of the latest
alternative development strategies which aims to help rural people have a better living by
helping them meet their energy needs (fuelwood), provide food and raw materials,
generate income and employment, promote self-reliance, and improve environmental
conditions. The degree of achievement of such development goals varies due to how
successfully forestry projects have been implemented, the most important factors to the
success being the development strategy employed and the socio-cultural constraints
existing in the community. The impacts on rural development goals, i.e., income,
employment, and self-reliance created by forestry projects (community woodlots) are
the key variables for the rural development context considered in this study. The next
discussion focuses on social forestry and community woodlots which have been a major

forestry related rural development strategy in many developing countries.

2.4 Social Forestry and Community Woodlots

Due to the energy crisis, which mainly took the form of fuelwood shortage in
developing countries, and the attempts of governments to seek alternative rural
development strategies to alleviate energy problems in rural areas, social forestry has
come into focus as one of the most promising solutions (ESCAP:1982, Cerneazl985,

West: 1985). Consequently, social forestry, as an alternative rural development strategy,

30

is recognized worldwide. For example, the United States Agency for International
Deve10pment (USAID) has shifted its focus to forestry and ﬁrewood development
programs. The World Bank has announced its intention to increase its support for such
activities as village woodlots, farm forestry and environmental rehabilitation. In Nairobi,
the International Council for Research in Agroforestry has been set up, which is aimed at
coordinating efﬁcient land use by combining wood and food production (NAS:1980).
Referring to the international development issues mentioned in the previous section
(employment, equity, energy, and ecology), social forestry has a potential to create
employment, provide energy for domestic consumption, and ﬁx a degraded ecological
condition. In addition, social forestry is a need-oriented approach which aims to help
rural people meet their domestic energy demands in particular and to solve
environmental problems in general. According to F AO (TDRI:1990), the essential
beneﬁts of social forestry include:

- Generating income and stable employment for the local people;

- Producing a sustained basis of forest products such as fuelwood, construction

wood, fodder, and food for the community;

- Control of local ecological degradation and maintenance of land productivity;

- Strengthening rural community institutions.

Before further discussion, some common but confusing terms used in forestry
projects are to be described. The term 'social forestry' has been deﬁned in various ways
and from different point of views. According to the World Bank (1989), social forestry is
different from industrial and large-scale government forestry because it involves rural
people growing trees for their own use. Social forestry seldom involves large blocks of
trees or forests. Instead, it involves a few trees here and there, a small village woodlot,

trees along the road and trees interspersed in ﬁelds. FAO (1978) used the term social

31
forestry interchangeably with 'farm and community forestry'. For Rao (1983), social
forestry and community forestry are more or less the same. According to Burch (1984)
social forestry covers community, farm, and subsistence forestry. The major differences
among these three types of forestry projects are that community forestry is based upon
growing trees on public or community land as opposed to farm and subsistence forestry,
and community forestry calls for some degree of people participation whereas farm and
subsistence forestry does not. Farm forestry is based upon growing trees on individual or
household owned land and subsistence forestry normally refers to the practice of
permitting landless people to grow trees on unowned marginal land for direct household
consumption. Blair (1988) divideed social forestry into two types only, i.e., community
and farm forestry. Noronha (1982) and Rao (1983) both viewed the direct participation
of local people in a forestry activity which is not a large-scale industrial forestry as a key
factor of social forestry. Mehl (TDRI:1990) viewed social forestry as a means to reduce
forest encroachment, to promote afforestation, to reduce rural poverty through forestry,
and to promote sustainable agricultural and forestry production through environmentally
sound land use. Mehl also categorizes social forestry into ﬁve different forms, i.e., state
owned and managed, joint management system, community concession, private
owned/state regulated, and community owned and managed. Mehl describes the ﬁve

different forms of social forestry as follows:

"ﬁe ownecL and managed - the state owns the forest, provides most management
inputs, makes the management decisions, and supervises activities in the forest.
The community or communities around the forest are allowed to extract trees
products and other forest goods, with the amounts controlled or supervised by the
state. The community often pays for the products it extracts - either as cash
payment or more commonly as labor - to help the state replant and maintain the
forest. The tree products the state allows the community - fuelwood, tree fodder,
some timber - are expected to meet household needs.

32

Joint magement svstem - the state owns and supervises the forest. Management
decisions on use of the forest, however, are split between the state and the
community. The division of management responsibilities is often spatial: the
community is given part of the forest area to manage while the state manages the
rest. The community may have access to the state controlled area for minor forest
products. The division can also be made between types of products: the state
maintains control over the trees while the community is allowed to manage the
rest, often for agriculture or pasture. The community is often allowed residual
products, such as fallen branches or leaves, from the state's trees.

Communig concession - the state remains the owner of the forest, but it grants
concession rights to the community (or individual) to manage and oversee it. In
this form, the state maintains regularity control and has the power to revoke the
concession if the community uses the forest or land in ways contrary to the state's
regulations. While the state can also provide technical and management
assistance. Under this form, the community has rights to enter into commercial
relations with companies.

Private owned/state regulated - nearly all forms of community forestry using
private land are included in this form. The community (again, the term '
community' includes individuals) own the land, manage it, and proﬁt from its use.
The community has the rights to enter into contracts with companies or other
organizations. The state may provide technical assistance (extension). More
importantly, the state regulates tree production and the marketing of tree
products.

Community owned and managed - the community owns the forest, manages and,
most important, has regulatory control over it. The community alone has the
rights to enter into commercial arrangements with the state or industries, granting
the rights to use the forest. The community regulates use of the forest and can
revoke the agreements if the state or companies are found to breach the
community's regulations. It is essentially the reverse of the State Owned and
Managed Form, with the roles of the state and the community switched. This
form can be found in Papua New Guinea and in some South paciﬁc societies."

The concept of social forestry, preferably called community forestry or
communal forest by the Thais, was adopted in Thailand more than a decade ago. There
is, however, no exception in Thailand on the confusion about the real meaning or precise
deﬁnition of the term 'community forestry'. It seems that the concept of community

forestry has been evolving based on the Thai forestry experiences. Nevertheless, many

33

people whose works are related to community forestry activities tend to use the deﬁnition
of community forestry deﬁned by FAO. Pragtong (1990) categorized community forestry
by its purposes, namely traditional and development (Pragtong:1990). The traditional
community forests which comprise sacred groves, watershed, temple forests, communal
recreational areas and natural forests are mainly for conservation purposes. The
development community forests are referred to as tree plantations, i.e., village woodlots
for fuelwood and other forest products, school woodlots for agricultural education and
lunch program for poor students, and temple woodlots for recreation and meditation.
Mehl (1990) summarized that social forestry programs in Thailand have been undertaken
by both the government and non-government organizations (NGOs). Among the
government programs, there are several forestry programs such as forest villages, the
STK land usufruct certiﬁcate program, village woodlots, forestry extension, and Isan
Khiaw (Green Northeast).

According to Mehl, the forest village concept was ﬁrst used by the Forest
Industry Organization (FIO), a government forestry enterprise, as a part of its forest
plantation management setup. These villages aimed to settle landless people in
contiguous groups where they could earn their living as plantation laborers. Forest
villages run by the F10 are exclusively for people who work in tree plantations, whereas
those managed by the Royal Forest Department (RFD) are for people in remote areas,
whether they are near plantations or not. In both schemes, the basic principle is to uplift
the living standard of the people concerned while ensuring that natural resources such as
land, forests, and water are prudently used for the lasting beneﬁt of the nation.

The STK Land Usufruct Certificate Program was started in 1982 by the RFD
to try a more rapid and widespread approach to help the millions of poor occupants in

reserve forest areas. STK land-use rights are similar to those issued under the Forest

34

Village Program, but the program does not include infrastructure development and
government services which are to come later under regular rural development programs.
Under the STK program, RFD grants usufruct rights of 2.4 ha (15 rai) of land to each
household of forest occupants. The land remains the property of the state. It can be
inherited by direct descendants, but not sold, rented, given away, or mortgaged. By
granting usufruct rights, the farmers are expected to gain a sense of secure possession of
the land. This in turn should give them an incentive to settle on it permanently and to
invest in their holdings. They are expected to switch from short-rotation ﬁeld crop
monocropping, with its short term ﬁnancial gains but long-term environmental loss, to a
more sustainable, ecological sound agricultural system that includes tree growing. By
including permanent, sustainable agroforestry systems, the STK program is expected to
halt further forest encroachment by reducing the need for migration to clear new
productive agricultural land.

The village woodlot project was ﬁrst initiated in Northeast Thailand by the
National Energy Administration and the Royal Forest Department funded by USAID.
The project, lasting from 1981 until 1984, involved planting Eucalyptus camaldulensis
on 42 sites in fuelwood deﬁcit areas in seven provinces. Major objectives were to provide
a sustainable supply of fuelwood within the villages, thus reducing the rate of forest
degradation by reducing the need for people to obtain fuelwood from forests and other
state land.

Forest extension was set up by the RFD in 1979 as a pilot project based on
"fuelwood plantations in combination with agroforestry and resettlement" with FAO-
UNDP funding. The pilot project had four major objectives: forest rehabilitation through
communal and individual tree planting, socio-economic development through an

integrated forestry-related scheme, staff development for RFD community forestry

35
personnel, and infrastructure development in the project site. The project continued until
1986 and provided a basis for a broader forestry extension project initiated in 1987, also
with F AO-UNDP support. Initial project activities include identifying RFD staff capacity
in extension work, developing a skeletal forestry extension infrastructure, and testing
innovative methods of community forestry extension.

Isan Khiaw was an attempt of the military to coordinate various concerned
agencies to develop the water, land, and forest resources in the Northeast. The forestry
component of Isan Khiaw included both reforestation of state forest lands and tree
planting in villages. The reforestation of state lands was carried out by the military and
the RFD, with soldiers planting seedlings supplied by the RFD. The provincial forestry
officials were then responsible for maintaining the replanted areas. The community
forestry program included numerous types of village and private tree planting. Trees
were planted along roadsides, along waterways and ponds, in school yards and temple
grounds, and in other community lands. Seedlings for the woodlots and community lands
usually came from the RFD. Village woodlots like those initiated by the RFD were
planted. Villagers were encouraged to plant trees in their homestead and on their farms.
Villagers preferred to plant fruit trees on their homestead and farms; these seedlings were
obtained from the Department of Agricultural Extension.

By 1990, there were over 200 NGOs working on forestry related issues
throughout Thailand. The followings are some of the leading NGOs working on social
forestry projects in Thailand: Project for Ecological Recovery (PER), Population and
Community Development Association (PDA), Local Development Assistance Program
(LDAP), Tree Farrners' Association of Thailand, Catholic Relief Services (CR8), and
Save the Children.

The forestry related activities undertaken by different NGOs vary according to

36
their different objectives. For example, PER plays a major role in providing information
and assistance to other NGOs working on social forestry. PDA encourages villagers to
establish village woodlots, and provides training, technical, and marketing supports for
the villagers. Save the Children works on agroforestry programs with both individual
farmers and village community forestry groups.

Social forestry is a confusing term because it has been used interchangeably with
community forestry, and sometimes referred to as community woodlots. Many books,
project reports, and articles use the term social forestry when discussing community
woodlots. This study, however, does not seek to generate a new deﬁnition of social
forestry, but uses social forestry as an umbrella term for any forestry activity that meets
the following criteria as deﬁned on the basis of the woodlots studied :

- small scale;

- involve local people in the projects and beneﬁt them,

- equitably distribute resources to local people;

- decentralize forestry beneﬁts to meet local needs (McDonoughzl989).

The major interest, however, will be given to community woodlots, which are sometimes
called village woodlots or energy forest/plantations. They are usually considered as
forestry activity under the social forestry scheme because community woodlots have
characteristics that meet all criteria of social forestry as deﬁned above. The ideal concept
of community woodlots is to provide forestry beneﬁts for the whole rural community
rather than individuals (Foley & Bamard:1984). To be clear and speciﬁc, the term
community woodlot will be used for discussion in the analysis part of this research.

It is important to state here that most community woodlot projects proposed for
rural development in Thailand are the kind that are man-made and not the natural forest,

and are normally termed as plantation forest. A plantation is deﬁned as "A forest crop or

37
stand raised artiﬁcially, either by sowing or planting" (F ord-Robertsonzl971). Its
characteristics include orderliness, regularity, and relative ecological simplicity, which
show it to be man-made and clearly distinguish it from natural forest. This deﬁnition is
applicable to most community woodlots implemented in Thailand where a single species,
Eucalyptus camaldulensis, is planted.

Evans (1982) noted that there are ﬁve forest types that can be identiﬁed according
to their origin. First, afforestation of bare land where there has been no forest for at least
50 years. Second, reforestation of land which has carried forest within the last 50 years
but where the previous crop is replaced by an essentially different one. Third,
reforestation of land which has carried forest within the last 50 years by renewal of
essentially the same crop as before. Fourth, forests established by natural regeneration
with deliberate silvicultural intervention and assistance from man. Finally, forests which
have regenerated naturally without assistance from man, e.g. most natural forests in the
tropics. For Evans, only forest types in classes 1 to 3 are considered plantation.

Both community woodlot types studied in this dissertation can be put into class 2
of the above description of forest types. The areas of both woodlots were once covered
with natural forests but were converted into agricultural land for cultivating kenaf and
cassava, then later were replaced by Eucalyptus plantation.

Evans further described several beneﬁts of plantation forestry (including village

or community woodlot) to the economies of developing countries:

"1. Resource creation, rather than solely exploitation, to meet demand for wood
and wood products.

2. Development of a ﬂexible resource able to yield many kind and size of
products for internal demand or for export or both - village woodlots, fuelwood
crops, large scale industrial plantations for pulpwood, small plantations for
sawtimber, or veneer logs, etc.

3. Use of land often of little or no agricultural value.

4. Creation of employment in rural areas.

38
5. High level of employment per unit of investment - plantation establishment is
labor intensive.
6. Use of many skills already common in agriculture, and most additional training
can be done 'on the job'.
7. Extensive plantations bring development of an infrastructure of roads,
communications, services, houses, shops, schools, etc., often to remote areas.
8. Important secondary beneﬁts include integration of tree planting with other
land-uses and the environmental role of forests."

The magnitude of social, cultural, and economic impacts are largely determined
by the size of plantation itself. Browder (1989), however, argued that plantation forestry
alone is not a panacea for Third World energy inadequacy. Nor is it always an
appropriate vehicle for achieving economic development objectives. He also indicated
that the economy of fuelwood plantation forestry tends to favor large enterprises over
small producers, often requires government subsidization, and offers little promise of
signiﬁcantly serving household energy needs.

Since the 19705, afforestation has become an important part of national forest
policies for several countries, and the importance of trees and forests in the environment
has become more widely realized. But much of the expansion in afforestation has been
for industrial purposes, pulpwood, sawtimber, and plywood veneer. Until recently, tree
planting in the tropics was almost wholly for industrial purposes, though this remains the
dominant reason. Planting for ﬁrewood in agroforestry developments and for protection
(to reduce soil erosion, control water run-off, combat desertiﬁcation, provide shelter and
shade) are all becoming increasingly important (Evans:1982).

Turning to the term community woodlot, it is deﬁned by F A0 (1978) under the
heading "Small-Scale Forestry" with a single main product, normally ﬁrewood. It is also
noted that:

"Until recently, experts widely accepted the community woodlot as a dominant
model in social forestry. Many of them thought that massive fuelwood planting
could be best induced if large areas of communal lands were used. Therefore,
introducing this model through the community as a natural social grouping

39
seemed logical. Planting for social forestry was conceived, and treated

operationally, as a collective activity. Social foresters emphasized establishing
woodlots on communal owned land." (World Bankzl989)

On the other hand, Thaiutsa (1988) viewed community woodlots as small-scale
plantations owned and operated by the community to serve the community's needs, to
provide useful source of extra income, and to help the rural poor, and ﬁrewood is not
necessarily the only single product of woodlots. Evan (1982) stated that community
woodlots have the potential to provide fuelwood, building materials, food, fodder,
grazing, salable products, and raw material not only for households but also the whole
community. In addition, community woodlots can provide stable and pleasant
surroundings, shade, shelter, beautiﬁcation, and habitats for wildlife. It has also been
pointed out that they also reduce soil erosion, local ﬂooding frequency, downstream
sedimentation in reservoirs, and ameliorate village climates (NAS:1980, Kirchhofer &
Mercer:l984). Foley & Barnard (1984) stated that the involvement of poor people in tree
growing and beneﬁt sharing is the theoretical attraction of community woodlot programs.
Arnold and Falconer (1987) summarized that social forestry (including community
woodlots) has the potential to generate income and employment, while advocating food
security. Gathering and processing forest products, such as fuelwood, fruits, resins, nuts,
rattan, bamboo, and various ﬁbers, can provide income that in turn can be used to
purchase food. Often, the opportunities are seasonal and ﬁt slack times in agriculture.

In practice, community woodlots are not all comparable in size, operating
methods or management, and ownership of land (Kirchhofer & Mercer: 1984, Foley &
Bamard:1984). In India, for example, there are two types of community woodlots:
"supervised" and "self-help." Under the supervised system, the Forestry Department
undertakes the work of planting, maintenance, and protection on the land set aside by a
village. After harvest, the village receives 50 per cent of the net proﬁt. Under the self-

help system, woodlots are entirely managed by the village with free seedlings and

40
technical advice provided by the Forestry Department, and the village receives the entire
proﬁt. In some village woodlots in Africa, while trees are planted on communal land, the
individual who planted each of the trees regards herself or himself as the owner of the
identiﬁable trees. Kirchhofer & Mercer concluded that the primary characteristics of
community woodlots include collective decision making and action, and the sharing of
beneﬁts and costs by the community as a whole. West (1985) also emphasized that the
main characteristic of community forestry is the collective adoption of projects. Finally,

Cernea (1985) assumed that:

"Community would inﬂuence their members to plant, would mobilize labor and
promote self-help, and would collectively protect the young plantations on 'their'
land. It was also assumed that they could ensure the wide distribution of beneﬁts
among the small farmers who make up the majority of the community."

It can be concluded from the above discussion that community woodlots
generally have two important characteristics. First, the physical factors which are size of
land, tree species, capital, materials, and labor. Second, development approaches which
emphasize collective adoption, people participation, and role of local organizations in
managing the woodlots. These two major characteristics make community woodlots
different from other types of forestry projects because the design of community woodlot
projects are normally located on public or communal lands and the projects call for
collective adoption and people participation in all stages of the project cycle. Evans
(1982) suggested that the projects aimed at encouraging tree planting by rural
communities, like community woodlots, should include the following characteristics to
ensure their success: (1) participation and involvement of the local people; (2)
commitment and ﬁnancial provision by government over a long period; (3) use of
integrated land-use planning so that all needs are met - food, ﬁrel, fodder, posts and

poles, timber, shade, etc.; (4) provision of technical expertise; (5) institutions capable of

41
carrying out program requirements; (6) security of land tenure for the tree crop; (7)
adequate facilities to meet requirements, e.g. nursery; (8) choice of project objectives that
meet the needs of the community and reasonable expectation of villagers; (9) the period
of time between the proposal being put forward and its implementation should be kept
short; and (10) adequate sociological and economic information about the rural
commmrities involved.

Most of the forestry related development projects implemented by the Thai
government have mainly emphasized forest village, community woodlots, agroforestry,
and watershed management. Of these projects, community woodlots have been the
principal approach in producing fuelwood to supply the communities' need and
encourage self reliance on the wood by rural communities. In 1981, community woodlots
were ﬁrst established as a component of Renewable Nonconventional Energy Projects
supported by the USAID and Royal Thai Government with the following objectives:

- To provide a sustained supply of wood fuel for the communities which own a

woodlot and also for the communities which do not have a woodlot;

- To lessen the pressure resulting from the cutting of trees on the public in

general;

- To create employment opportunities and increase income for rural families;

- To develop techniques to be used as an important ﬁrst step toward a

countrywide scheme;

- To stimulate interest in tree farming by demonstrating the beneﬁts derived from

such development (RFD/NEA,1984: in Tingsabadh: 1987).

Tables 2 & 3 show the number of village woodlots implemented under the

Renewable Non-conventional Energy Projects from 1981-1984, and the number of target

villages for village woodlot projects in 1987-1990.

42

A historical review of ﬁfteen community woodlots by Saphasri and Pragtong
(1983) indicated that most community woodlots in Thailand have been carried out by a
number of governmental organizations, i.e., the Royal Forest Department (RFD), the
Land Development Department, and the Department of Public Work. The objectives of
those community woodlots were either to provide a source of fuelwood and charcoal or
to supply the needs for other kinds of wood necessary to the rural communities.

In 1988, there were 17 community woodlot projects carried out by various
governmental authorities (Pragtong:1988). Most of them are located in the Northeast and
North of Thailand where problems of fuelwood shortage, forest encroachment, and
deforestation are severe. Recently, many non-govemment organizations (N GOs) have
also promoted community woodlot projects throughout the country, but with more focus
on the conservation purposes, due to the nation-wide deforestation problem rather than
promotion of fuelwood.

The Royal Forest Department and the NGOs have come to an agreement that
community forests (woodlots) are the forests (woodlots) owned and managed by the rural
people and for the beneﬁts of rural people. Moreover the NGOs suggested that the real
community forests (woodlots) must be concerned with the needs of villagers only.

Generally, the types of community woodlots in Thailand can be divided into the
externally sponsored, where woodlots are initiated and sponsored by the external
agencies, e.g., the Royal Forest Department, USAID, district ofﬁcer, etc., and the locally
sponsored woodlots, where villagers themselves are interested in having a woodlot.

A study (ODI:1986) reported that the major social forestry projects in Thailand

are dominated by government. Land is under government ownership, and even where

43

Table 2. Village Woodlots Implemented by RFD and NBA, 1981-1984.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Province 1981 1982 1983 1984 Total
Sites Area(ha) Sites Area(ha) Sites Area(ha) Sites Area(ha)
M a h a - - l vil 24.0 4 vil 92.8 2 vil 72.0 188.8
Sarakham 2 sch 1 sch
1 tern l tem
(l plot) (7 plots) (4 plots)
Yasothom - - 6 vil 70.4 6 vil 87.7 3 vil 44.9 203.0
6 sch 3 sch
2 tern
(5 plots) (l4 plots)
Roi-Et - - 3 vil 40.0 3 vil 84.8 2 vil 28.8 153.6
4 sch 3 sch
(7 plots) (5 plots)
Si 5a Ket 1 vil 12.8 2 vil 32.0 3 vil 80.2 6 vil 62.4 187.4
8 sch
(1 plot) (2 plots) (11 plots) (6 plots)
Khon Kaen - - - - 4 vil 88.0 1 vil 16.0 104.0
(4 plots) (1 plot)
Kalasin - - - - 5 vil 96.0 2 vil 32.0 128.0
(4 plots) (2 plots)
Surin - - - - 3 vil 32.0 1 vil 16.0 48.0
(2 plots) (1 plot)
Total 1 plot 12.8 10 plots 166.4 48 plots 561.4 23 plots 272.2 1,012.8

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: Derived from The 1990 TDRl Year-End Conference, lndustrializing Thailand and Its Impacts on

the Environment, Research Report No.2 "Deforestation and Poverty: Can Commercial
and Social Forestry break the Vicious Circle?" 1990.

Table 3. Royal Forest Department Village Woodlot Projects, Number of Target
Villages, 1987-1990.

(vil=village, sch=school, tem=temple)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Region 1987 1988 1989 1990 Total
North 148 80 85 76 907
Northeast 200 238 238 23 l 907
Central 37 57 63 7 l 228
South - l6 6 14 36
Total 385 391 392 392 1,560

 

Source: Derived ﬁ‘om The 1990 TDRI Year-End Conference, lndustrializing Thailand and Its Impacts on
the Environment, Research Report No.2 "Deforestation and Poverty: Can Commercial and
Social Forestry break the Vicious Circle?" 1990.

 

 

44

usufruct arrangements have transferred some control to households, there are stringent
governmental restrictions on species selection, timing and intensity of harvest, the type of
product to be extracted, and other important management decisions. It has been claimed
by the RFD that most community woodlots implemented have been quite successful.
Success of community woodlots, however, has been mostly determined by areas and
number of trees planted, number of woodlots established, and income derived from
selling trees of the woodlots.

In most countries, the lack of collective decision-making and people participation
have been a major constraint to the accomplishment of community woodlot projects.
People participation is another term which needs to be clearly deﬁned, because people
participation has been credited as an essential ingredient for successful development
projects. But the term and scope of 'participation' are deﬁned differently and determined
by rural development practitioners. As a result, the concept of participation is diversely
applied in the rural development context, which causes difﬁculty in implementing and
evaluating projects.

People participation has different interpretations. Noronha (1982) suggested that
it is important to examine who participates, both at stage of project formulation, and at
stage of implementation. Hoskins (1979) referred to people participation in community
woodlots in the extent of project design, implementation, and beneﬁt sharing. The World
Bank (1988) viewed people participation in four different ways: farmer contribution in
resources or labor; farmer identiﬁcation of project priority; farmer organizations and
COOperatives; and recovery of project costs. People participation, according to Lohani
(1980), had a broader range compared to the deﬁnitions deﬁned by others and includes
conceptualization and identiﬁcation of problems, decision making, resources

mobilization, implementation, sharing of beneﬁts, and evaluation and control. It has also

45
been suggested that participation can be viewed in terms of a continuum from self-
initiated action by people to action imposed on villagers from the outside

(FAO/SIDA:1987) (Figure 1).
self-initiated indirectly encouraged induced imposed

< >

 

Figure 1. A Continuum of "Participation".

In reference to Figure 1, self-initiated action arises when people individually or
collectively see a need to solve a common problem and feel urged to organize and plan
an action themselves. An imposed action, on the other hand, is often the result of
pressure by a person of authority, or a fulﬁllment of a past obligation without real
identiﬁcation with the activity.

Though criteria of people participation are established for some development
projects, in practice they are not easily measured or evaluated. In community woodlot
projects, people participation tends to consist of planting trees and maintaining the
woodlot. Engaging the community in implementing schemes of this type is largely
passive and is normally restricted to the provision of hired labor for planting, and to an
agreement to cooperate to protect the plantation. The projects are normally initiated and
planned by the government who also provides technical and ﬁnancial supports. Inputs
such as fertilizers and seedlings are provided without any outlay by the community
(Foley and Bamard:1984).

Lack of participation in woodlot projects has been attributed to factors such as

local organizations, land-use conﬂicts, perceptions toward community property

46

resources, genders, development approaches, labor, political commitment, and local
culture (Brechinzl982, Escapzl982, Cemeazl985, FAO:1985, FAO/SIDA:1987). To
entail more participation local organizations can refer to village development
councils/committees, village woodlot committees, women groups, youth groups, temples,
or other local institutions. Skutsch (1983) pointed out that the success of community
woodlots is related to the cohesion of the village. Where local organizations are weak, it
is more difﬁcult to mobilize people participation in the projects (Kirchhofer &
Mercer: 1984).

The problem of land-use conﬂicts, in some cases, has been the result of using
public land, which normally has economic value for local people, especially the poor,
and which is legally owned by the government, but customarily utilized by local people.
If such land is taken back by the government for community woodlot projects without
local consent, the projects might be negatively affected (Foley & Bamard:1984).
Bromley (1985) observed that in developing countries, changes in resource management
by proclamation by the central government have created perverse incentives at the local
level and have discouraged villagers from initiating local-level institutional arrangements
that might improve resource use practices.

The World Bank (1989) indicated that the issue of communal land has caused
social forestry programs focusing on village woodlot models using community or state
lands to be less successful than programs that involve individual farms and other private
lands, where costs and beneﬁts are much more clearly deﬁned, due to the "commons"
syndrome. In other words, individuals overuse the commons since they do not own it; if
they do not use it, others will. The problem of "commons" syndrome simply implies that
villagers to some extent have the knowledge of zero-sum game: if someone loses, there

will be someone who gains.

47

This issue is particularly intractable, since it runs contrary to the need for
community members to cooperate in establishing woodlots, in abstaining from premature
harvesting, and in protecting them from animals. Erasmus (1977) pointed out that Rural
Third World people are reluctant to work for 'the Common Good' when the rewards are
imprecise and uncertain: they lack incentives to participate. The same point on unclear
potential beneﬁts and difﬁculties in effecting equitable distribution of beneﬁts which
affect people participation was made by Chowdhry (1985). Thomson (1979) has also
made a similar point with speciﬁc reference to fuelwood projects in the Sahel. Local
people were reluctant to participate when the link between their efforts and their potential
rewards was unclear. A good example of the problem of using communal land for tree
planting was given by Cernea (1981). He reported that the underlying reasons for the
failure of community forestry in the Azad Kashmir region of Pakistan was that while in
legal terms Shamlat land (communal land) continued to be considered communal, in
reality much of it was operated and used as private land. Thus the assumption that
Shamlat land would provide beneﬁts to the small farmers was not true. In Niger, project
participants argued that reforestation was not their affair but the concern of the
government because they viewed village woodlots as foresters' property. As a result, the
villagers were reluctant to participate in the project (Thomson: 1980).

Gender has been another factor contributing to failure of community woodlot
projects. A number of West African woodlot projects have failed due to the lack of
involvement of the women in projects which were located in regions where women
traditionally do all crop maintenance tasks. The projects were planned with local village
men who willingly planted the trees. Since women were not involved in the project the
trees died from lack of care (Hoskinszl979b).

Issues of development approaches used in forestry projects have been

48

controversial. The top-down approach has been criticized as an inappropriate strategy for
forestry projects owing to the lack of involvement of local people in identifying their real
needs, selecting tree species, and formulating the projects (Hoskinszl979b). For example,
in Niger, a World Bank ﬁnanced rural development project, which included the
establishment of 500 hectares of village woodlots, failed because the villagers themselves
had not been involved in formulating the project. They uprooted the seedlings because
they perceived the village woodlot area as a traditional grazing ground, access to which
was now precluded because of the project (Spearszl978).

However, there was evidence, for example, in Gujarat, India that bottom-up or
village self-help approach, which allowed local people to take over the organization and
management of woodlots, was not very successful in terms of meeting the targets for
self-reliance woodlots. The villages were not able to manage the woodlots themselves.
As a result, the Forestry Department concluded that more emphasis should be placed on
'Supervised Woodlots' rather than a 'self-help' approach (Foley & Bamard:1984).

The issues of labor in community woodlot projects are the availability of labor,
traditional division of labor, and whether labor should be voluntary (without payment) or
paid. The example given earlier of the role of women in taking care of all crops in West
Aﬁican woodlot projects is related to the division of labor by sex which affected the
outcome of woodlot projects. In the villages in Niger, where woodlots have succeeded, it
was usually because they had been planted and managed by the Forest Department using
paid labor (Foley & Bamard:1984). Government commitment and response through
legislation, technical support, and ﬁnancial support are believed to be major factors
determining local participation (World Bankzl989). A strong political commitment of
governments which resulted in the success of community forestry projects has been

evident in China, Korea, and India (Eckholmzl984, Gregersenzl987, Blair:1988).

49

Cultural factors in terms of beliefs, values, traditions, and local knowledge can
also affect people participation in community woodlot projects. Farmers are more likely
to plant trees which are familiar and yield direct beneﬁts to them. Promoting alien trees
which do not match their preferences or go against their beliefs might cause a project
failure. Eucalyptus is a good example because it has been questioned by people in many
countries that promoted them for community woodlot projects. For instance, many
farmers wondered if Eucalyptus would harm their crops, soils, and environment while
the governments believed that Eucalyptus were appropriate for reforestation purposes. As
a result, farmers did not participate in Eucalyptus planting projects and, more seriously,
some even demolished the tree nurseries (Walshzl989). Another example of the
difference in perceptions was given by French (1986) who stated that farmers seldom
perceive problems in the same way as do foresters. For example, farmers in Malawi felt
that there was little urgency in planting trees for fuelwood while the government was
very serious about this problem. In the Casarnance region of Senegal where the forestry
service encouraged planting cashews, rural people burned the trees to evict the evil spirits
which these trees were reputed to shelter. In southern Niger, people refused to plant
baobab even though these trees are highly valued, because of the perception that these
trees are a divine gift. A farmer who grows baobabs faces the risk of tampering with the
divine course of events (F A0: 1985).

Similar to other countries, sociological factors such as people participation,
involvement of local people in selecting tree species, local organization, and land tenure
have contributed to the success or failure of community woodlots in Thailand (Thamrong
Nawasawatzl986, Odizl986, Tingsabadh:l987). For example, Eucalyptus camaldulensis,
a dominant species once recommended by the Royal Forest Department as a promising

species to be planted for ﬁrewood in the infertile soil of dry sites in Northeastern

50

Thailand, has become a controversial issue for its negative effects on the soils and
ecology. Moreover, the actual market for the Eucalyptus stands are uncertain. The "de
jure" owner of forest reserve lands (namely the government of Thailand) and the "de
facto" controller of land (who are generally the local people who have encroached the
forest land) have always been in conﬂict when the government wants the land for public
uses. It was difﬁcult to call for participation in some community woodlot projects due to
legislative restrictions of forest reserve lands and the collective nature of people. In some
villages, effective leadership and local organizations have proved to have a positive
effect on community woodlots.

Given the difﬁculty to ensure people participation with the constraints mentioned
above, some studies have indicated that farm forestry would be a better solution than
community forestry for solving rural energy problems, if the local organization is weak.
The justiﬁcation for such beliefs is that farm forestry does not demand massive
communal participation like community forestry (Thomson: 1980, Eckholmzl984,
Cemea:1985, West:l985). Noronha (1982) and Brokensha (1984), however, argued that
beneﬁts from farm forestry or individual tree-planting would go to the rich or farmers
who have more land while the landless, who also need fuelwood and fodder, do not

generally get seedlings. Hoskins (1982) also argued that:

"Some social scientists have gone so far as to suggest that no communal projects
are possible, and that only family groups or individually owned trees will actually
be maintained and distributed with equity. 1 would not go so far, but would
caution that the model of communal woodlots is not an easy one to apply."

Although community woodlot projects might be more appropriate, they seem more
difﬁcult to implement. However if the main purpose of forestry development is to help
the whole community meet their household energy needs, which includes the poor and

landless farmers, rather than just individuals, then forestry development projects are

51
justiﬁed. Such projects hopefully will lead to a better nutritious status, higher income,
improvement of ecological conditions, and the halt of deforestation.

It can be summarized that community woodlots, under social forestry program,
have many advantages as compared to other types of forestry activities. F uelwood, food,
fodder, poles for construction, raw materials, income, employment, and environmental
improvement are obvious examples of the beneﬁts drawn from community woodlots.
Although other types of forestry projects can provide similar beneﬁts, community
woodlots are more attractive to rural development programs in the sense that community
woodlots are normally designed to beneﬁt the whole community which includes small

and landless farmers.

2.5 Objectives of the Study
There are three principle objectives of this research:
1. To describe the beneﬁts of community woodlots to local villagers and
communities.
2. To examine why community woodlots provide such beneﬁts and how
community woodlots accomplish the goals of rural development.
3. To investigate other possible impacts of community woodlot projects on

households and communities.

2.6 Summary

This chapter has discussed the general energy issues and the importance of the
inclusion of fuelwood in the national social and economic development policies of the
developing countries whose populations rely on fuelwood as a major source of household

energy. The concepts of rural energy, rural development, social forestry, and community

52
woodlot have also been discussed.

Social forestry is believed to be one of the most promising rural development
strategies in solving the problem of deforestation, fuelwood crisis, and environmental
degradation. Social forestry, especially community woodlots, is perceived as particularly
important for rural development not because of its contribution to physical infrastructure
but mainly because of its importance as a sustainable source of energy for rural people
and of other beneﬁts such as income, employment, food, and raw materials. These
community woodlots can be viewed as a means to strengthen development processes or
approaches themselves and to create some concrete outcomes such as income,
employment, food, and raw materials. The review of literature in this chapter shows that
the factors affecting success or failure of community woodlot projects vary from place to
place and from culture to culture. From this review it is clear that to ensure the success of
community woodlot projects, the socio-cultural factors must be carefully examined.

In the context of this study, community woodlots are particularly important
because they are a type of technology proposed to cope with the problems of fuelwood
shortage and environmental degradation. They are managed by a goal-oriented local
organization called community woodlot committee with the cooperation of all the
community. Though these community woodlots are expected to beneﬁt the rural villagers
in project areas, it is possible that these woodlots might also create some negative
impacts to the project beneﬁciaries. The next chapter presents a model on how
community woodlots and their effects on rural villagers and the environment can be

viewed.

CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

In this chapter, one of the most frequently used approaches in studying the
relationship between people and the environment will be discussed. It will be discussed
in terms of its origin and its application to different disciplines. Then, the particular
analytical framework used in this dissertation will be discussed. This analytical
framework will be used in a later chapter to address the impacts of community woodlots
on the rural dwellers in the villages studied. The chapter concludes with an explanation
of the potential of this approach in discussing the relationship between rural villagers and

community woodlots along with the research propositions.

3.1 The Ecological Approaches in Various Social Science Disciplines

Social scientists have numerous theories which provide a framework within
which researchers work. To understand research problems clearly and thoroughly, and to
reﬂect the central vision of the problems to be analyzed, an appropriate conceptual or
analytical framework is needed. Because this study deals with the impacts of community
woodlots on villagers and rural development, the appropriate analytical framework
should encompass both social and environmental factors. An ecological framework also
should help address the interrelationship between the local villagers and their community
woodlots.

The ecological framework for viewing society and social problems has received
increasing attention in the 19605 and 19705. This framework applies the concept of
ecology, which focuses on the relation of organisms or groups of organisms to their
environment, to the study of the human social system. The ecological perspective,
according to Micklin (1984), focused primarily on populations, environments, and their
interrelationships. It is designed to address questions about the behavior of

53

54

organisms/populations in an environmental context. The unit of analysis can range from
a speciﬁc population and its habitat to an entire ecosystem. The primary advantage of
this framework is a structure that enables the researcher to include a variety of
interrelated population and environmental variables at various levels, thereby allowing
for the complexity of environments which can be overlooked with other frameworks.

Koppel and Schlegel (1981) reviewed major frameworks for the analysis of
energy-rural development interactions in developing countries. The frameworks reviewed
include socio-technical analysis, evolutionary perspectives, dependency, social impact
analysis, and ecological approaches. Most reviewed frameworks have some limitations in
understanding energy-rural development interactions. For example, socio-technical
analysis, which focuses on the "ﬂow" metaphor as an approach to understanding energy-
rural development interactions, views the presence of rural social systems only in the
form elicited by energy "ﬂows." The evolutionary perspectives attempts to identify
systematic processes underlying the distribution of technologies and patterns of
technology use across geographic and social space as well as across time. Its major
limitations are a tendency to improperly generalize historical patterns of energy use and
social change and the misleading that results from aggregating a wide range of energy
uses and fuel types in terms of a single heat measure. The dependency framework views
the energy question in developing countries as an element of the international political
economy. The energy-rural development interaction are seen in the context of the
dynamics of underdevelopment. It is noted that this framework should place more
emphasis on political interests to help distinguish those who participate in energy-related
decision making from those who are affected by decisions about energy-related issues. It
should also illuminate the aspects of urban-rural relationships which inﬂuence energy-

rural development interactions and the interactions of those relationships with class-

55

related variables. Applying social impact assessment to rural energy research may
encourage sensitivity to correlations between energy patterns and important rural
development performance indicators such as employment, health, and income. But the
lack of theory regarding energy and rural social systems is a major problem of this
framework. Koppel and Schlegel (1981) concluded that the ecological approach is
probably the leading candidate to use in social research on energy and rural development
because it draws from a paradigm that encompasses both energy and social systems.
They further suggest that applying physical and biological principles to explain social
change is logical only in the ecological perspective.

In social sciences, the ecological perspective has been adopted in such disciplines
geography, econorrrics, political science, psychology, anthropology, and sociology. The
purpose of the following review is to conﬁrm the beneﬁts of applying ecological
approaches to different social science disciplines.

In GEOGRAPHY the ecological perspective began to receive attention after the

 

writing of Schnore in 1961 (Micklinzl984). According to Micklin (1984), geography can
be divided into a number of specialities, e.g., physical geography, resource geography,
social geography, cultural geography, and human geography. He noted that only human,
social, and cultural geography reﬂect a concern with relationships between man and the
physical environment. He further reported that the older conceptions of human
geography viewed the unit of analysis as the "natural geographic region", whereas more
recent approaches emphasize areas deﬁned in terms of human activity systems. The use
of an ecosystem concept was explicitly proposed by Berry (1973) who presented a
"behavioral model of spatial process" which viewed the ecosystem as a product of
interacting natural and cultural processes. Berry noted that with the emphasis on man's

intrusion into and control of the natural environment, geographers are increasingly likely

56
to explain patterns of resource use and availability in terms of social organization and
beliefs and perceptions. Berry's model is considered an ecological approach in the way he
views the relationship between human cultural factors and the exploitation of natural
resources.

Berry and Johnson (1986) stated that there are two traditions in geography in
studying the human impacts on natural resources: (1) the earth science tradition of
physical geographers, and (2) the "man-Ian " tradition of cultural geographers. The
former stresses the importance of physical processes in the resource use equation and is
concerned particularly with the degradation of the physical resource base. The latter
tradition emphasizes the role of cultural and livelihood systems in shaping the physical
environment and is more interested in the impact of environmental change on human
population than on the diminution of the physical resources base. Both approaches are
useful but very seldom have been effectively integrated. One of the major issues that
dominates the contemporary geographic assessments of environmental change is the
integration of livelihood systems into environmental and resource systems. Berry and
Johnson (1986) examined various human impacts on resource systems--such as an
expansion and intensiﬁcation of agriculture, desertiﬁcation, and irrigation-~by reviewing
the works of geographers and others that share a geographic perspective within a man-
environment tradition. They found that the assessment of the human impacts on resources
has been based on interactive man-environment model. This model rejects both
environmentalism and cultural determinism and recognizes that not only do human
systems modify their environment but also that natural ﬂuctuations and rhythms affect
people, which is the fundamental concept of the ecological approach. They further
summarized that the works reviewed address fundamental people-environment issues,

and most work starts from the utilization components of the human system rather than

57
from the characteristics of the physical system.

ECONOMICS: Bromley and Szarleta (1986) developed a conceptual view of
the choice process central to the way in which humans (social systems) interact with the
natural environment (ecosystems). They deﬁned resource as something with value to
humans, directly or indirectly, that can be controlled by humans. They also introduced
the concept of "non-resources" (things that have not yet assumed economic value) and
"negative resources" (things that have a negative economic value). Then they offered a
"choice exchange" model which explains that the key factors involved in the human use-
abuse of resources are choice, decision, values, goals, institutional rules, and systematic "
control center" (the position of individual and collective choice exercised with respect to
the use of a resource), vested interests, proﬁt, and trade-off. This model can be viewed as
an ecological approach because it considers resources as having neutral, positive, and
negative impacts on humans. In turn, resources can be affected or controlled by humans,
and humans have the choice to select any kind of resources that can fulﬁll their
objectives.

In POLITICAL SCIENCE, Sprout and Sprout (1965) employed an ecological
perspective. They deﬁned the perspective in terms of the "ecological triad", environed
organisms (population), milieu (environment, including social relationships), and the
interrelationships between the two. These three elements constitute an ecosystem. The
environed organism was described by the Sprouts as surrounded by an environment
which inﬂuences, conditions or affects human values, choices, and decisions. By
employing the ecological approach to discern the dynamics of foreign policy and
international politics, Sprout and Sprout (1971) found that there is an increase in the
likelihood of competition among nations for scarce resources. They also pointed out that

there is a need for governments, the major actors in the international ecological system,

58
to ﬁnd ways for a more equitable resource distribution.

Cadwell (1970) examined the politics of environmental policy by focusing on
governmental issues related to management of the natural habitat, including resource use
and environmental protection. He argued that through excessive population growth and
resource destruction the ecological basis of life is in danger of being destroyed. He
focused on public policy formation and enforcement as the means by which governments
respond to human disruptions of the ecosystems. He also viewed nongovernmental
modes of response--e.g., cultural orientations towards growth and consumption--as
important conditions inﬂuencing the relationship between humans and nature. Cadwell' s
perspective reﬂects man-environment relationships which is the basis of the ecological
approach.

PSYCHOLOGY: Egon Brunswik and Roger Barker were pioneers in the
application of an ecological perspective in the ﬁeld of psychology. In psychology,
Brunswik emphasizes the analysis of the interrelation between two systems, the
environment and the behaving subject (Berry:1976). These interrelations are viewed
largely as adaptive events. Brunswik viewed culture as human beings most important
instrument of adaptation to a particular habitat. He includes culture as part of the overall
habitat to which the individual adapts, whereas cultural ecologists consider culture as the
entity which adapts to the natural habitat (Berry:1976). Though the use of the term
ecology by Brunswik has not been very precise (Leeperzl966), there is a constant theme
in his use of term, which indicates the relationship of culture and environment.

Barker (1963) viewed behavior as taking place within ecological units termed
"behavior settings." He also viewed environment and behavior as "mutually causally
related systems." Thus, the direction of the relationship between behavior and

environment is not simply one way. Behavior is adaptive to environment both by

5 9

adjustment and reaction. In contrast to Brunswik, Barker recognizes the distinction
between physical and sociocultural components of the environment by proposing that
"people are the source of behavior variance in relatively stable environment," while in
"varied and changing environments, the contribution of environmental inputs to the
variance of behavior is enhanced."

An ecological perspective has also been employed in cross-cultural psychology.
The interest in the ecological approach stemmed from an emphasis on cultural-behavioral
relations as being insufﬁcient in explaining cross-cultural behavior because there is a
variation in natural habitats across culture. Berry (1976) suggested that three variables,
i.e., ecology of the biophysical environment, culture, and behavior, must be taken into
account in any satisfactory cross-cultural research. These three variables have received
considerable attention in the short history of cross-cultural psychology. Ecological
factors include the physical environment and the learning environment, as well as some
economic and demographic features of the maintenance system. Cultural variables
include the indigenous social structure and diffusions from other cultures. And the
behavioral elements include both learned and innate behaviors. The behavioral element
may be argued to be a matter of culture, returning as it does to group-shared forms of
behavior (Whitingzl973). Edgerton (1971) was able to discern some systematic
relationship among the ecological, cultural, and behavioral variables in his study of
individual and group adaptations among East African pastoralists and agriculturalists. His
study supports the value of the ecological approach.

ANTHROPOLOGY: Moran (1986) noted that during its early decades
anthropology seemed bent on proving that environment was not very important to the
way societies were constituted. However, it did not take long for anthropologists to turn

their attention to the interaction between people and habitat. The inﬂuence of the

60

writings of Julian Steward (1938), who noted that human societies did not interact with
total environments but only with particular features of it, resulted in the development of a
sub-area within anthropology known under different names such as cultural ecology,
ecological anthropology and human ecology, (Nettingzl977, Hardesty:l977,
Moranzl982). Though these three names are basically the same, it was initially called
ecological anthropology to emphasize its foundations in ecological rather than
anthropological theory.

According to Anderson (1973), the ecological perspectives in anthropology can
be divided into three categories: cultural ecology, ethnoecology, and quasi-population or
systems ecology. Cultural ecology is concerned with the process by which a society
adapts to its environment (Stewardzl955). It emphasizes the role of physical
environmental factors in shaping, limiting, or determining various forms of group-shared
behavior and the regularities which lie behind them (Berry:1976). According to Steward
(1955), there are three fundamental procedures of cultural ecology and include three
analyses: (1) the relation between environment and exploitative or productive
technology; (2) the behavior patterns involved in the exploitation of a particular area by
means of a particular technology; and (3) the extent to which the behavior patterns
entailed in exploiting the environment affect other aspects of culture.

Essentially, there are two extremes-the weak and the strong versions of cultural
ecology-between which cultural ecologists vary (Berry:1976). The "weak" version is an
approach which emphasizes the functional interdependencies between physical-
environmental and cultural variables. In other words, it focuses on the interrelations of
cultural and environmental variables in networks and patterns of dependencies and is less
concerned with establishing hard and fast causal relations. In contrast, the "strong"

version is a causal approach that attempts to account for cultural origins or development.

61
This view claims that environmental phenomena are responsible in some manner for the
origin or development of the cultural behavior under investigation. In this approach,
environment is seen as strongly determining, limiting, and affecting behavior and cultural
processes.

Cultural ecology is different from sociological ecology in that it attempts to
identify origins of the particular cultural features of different areas rather than derive
general principles applicable to any environment. It is pointed out that the cultural
ecology approach is deﬁcient in its failure to work with a theory of human behavior.
Culture becomes the substitute for a behavioral analysis, which gives the impression that
it is not people who are the agents of environmental impacts so much as their culture, or
ways of doing things.

There are further problem with the cultural ecology model concerning natural
systems or ecosystems. Humans may participate in ecosystems, but they do so out of
will; they are not biologically-driven agents in natural food chains--at least, not in
contemporary society (Bennett:1986). Consequently it is difﬁcult to conceptualize the
human-ecosystem interaction process; it tends to become abstract and general, not
speciﬁc and concrete. This is the case because it is seen largely as a matter of the
interaction of constructed second-order entities: culture, nature, etc.

Leeds (1969) employed a strong version of cultural ecology perspective in his
analysis of the impact of environmental factors on the leadership structure of the Yaruro
Indians of south central Venezuela. In this group there is apparently very little formal
leadership, and when leaders do appear, they often seem to be ignored or play only a
minor role in the life of the people. Leeds hypothesizes that ecological, geographical, and
climatological features of Yaruro life led, over the years, to a system in which leaders

were not especially powerful or inﬂuential because they were simply not needed.

62

An example of a weak cultural ecology approach is Turnbull's analyses of the
Mbuti Pygmies of the Ituri Forest of northeastern Zaire, Aﬁica (Turnbullzl96l, 1968).
Turnle observed different hunting styles among various Pygmy bands. Some bands
worked in a cooperative arrangement involving many people and captured animals in
large nets, while others used bows and arrows and hunted in small groups. He found that
there were no apparent environmental reasons that these different hunting styles should
exist. The terrain, climate, and food sources were exactly the same, and the environment
did not seem to place different demands on net hunters and archer hunters. Turnbull
speculated that the difference in hunting technique may have arisen because so few
environmental demands were placed on the people that they had the freedom to develop
individualistic styles. This example illustrates the principle that, although the
environment may be an important contributor to cultural practices, its inﬂuence is not
simple, and it does not generally operate in a strict, one-way, wholly causal fashion.

Peterson (197 9) employed a cultural ecology approach to compare territorial
adaptations among desert hunter-gatherers: the Kung and the Australians. He considered
the pattern of Kung territorial organization and compared it with desert Australian
patterns to elucidate the nature and signiﬁcance of the similarities and differences. He
found out that there are some strong similarities between the two people in terms of
territorial behavior and ideology. And there are also some differences, the major one
being the Australians' elaborate patrilineal religious ideology of land ownership
associated with the transmission of resource rights. The reasons for this difference
seemed to be that if patterns of residence and descent are related, then there may be
greater stability of association between people and place in Australia for an ecological
reason.

Ethnoecology centers on the description and elaboration of culturally-based

63
cognitions or perceptions of the natural environment (Frake:1962). It generally ignores
the cause and effect relationships as are considerations of ecological change. The unit of
analysis of ethnoecology is a cultural vocabulary for classifying the natural environment,
with little attention given to functional interrelationships with the wider ecosystem.
Considering its focus, the ethnoecology approach is clearly less ecological than is
cultural ecology.

Conklin (1969) employed an ethnoecological approach to study shifting
agriculture in the Philippines. He examined the ethnographic data of a speciﬁc culture
(the Hanunoo) of southeastern Mindoro Island in the Philippines by focusing on the local
environmental conditions and their apparent modiﬁcations, and the determination of how
these conditions and modiﬁcations are culturally interpreted.

The most comprehensive treatment of the ecological approach in systems ecology
can be seen in the work of Bennett (1976). He focused on the relationships among the
physical environment (soil, climate, other species), natural resources, energy and goods,
social organization (population, differentiation, interaction, power, rituals), formal
controls (law, regulations), values, needs, goals, technology (tools, machines) and human
biology (population, physiology, genes). In Bennett' 5 framework, emphasis is placed on
(1) "adaptive systems" that are involved in energy exchanges with the environment, and
(2) the physical environment which is viewed as a variable rather than a constant in
human ecological systems.

Micklin (1984) reported that Bennett's ecological paradigm reﬂects a complex
system from which a variety of partial relationships can be isolated. For instance,
production of energy and material goods feeds directly back to physical environment,
and indirectly inﬂuences this environment through social organization, technology,

formal control, and symbolic culture. He ﬁnally concluded that Bennett's ecological

64
paradigm is the ﬁrst comprehensive statement of a systems approach to anthropology,
and it contains ideas and concepts relevant to ecological paradigm developed in several
other disciplines.

Pandey and Khanna (1990) used a systems ecology approach to develop a
structural model to examine the village ecosystem of Indian villages. They pointed out
that population growth and poverty in Indian villages have led to the problems of
deforestation, overgrazing, pollution, and malnutrition. They emphasized that the role of
afforestation policy, the ability to purchase energy, and energy efﬁciency must be studied
critically in developing a model for an economically and ecologically self-sustained
village unit. Thus Pandey and Khanna integrated the ecological and economic variables
into their model. These factors include forest biomass, litter, forest land, agricultural
land, degraded land, food, capital, fuel and bricks. They concluded that the model they
used can help to improve the understanding and management of village ecosystem.
However, the model should not be used to deal with problems for which it was not
designed and for which it lacks proper state variables.

SOCIOLOGY: The ecological approach was ﬁrst introduced into the ﬁeld of
sociology during the early part of this century by Robert E. Park, Ernest W. Burgess, and
Roderick D. Mckenzie (Poston, Frisbie, and Micklinzl984). Hawley, however, was
recognized as the leader in this ﬁeld due to his writings and teaching, which determined
and shaped the theoretical and conceptual foundations of contemporary human ecology.
Hawley (1950) argued that human ecology deals with the same central issue as general
ecology. From his perspective, human ecology is seen as the study of development and
change in the morphology of human communities. Organization, according to Hawley
(1968), is hypothesized to arise from the interaction of population and environment.

Population and environment may be viewed as either independent or dependent

65
variables, but the relationship between the two is mediated through organization. Gibbs
and Martin (1959) argued that sustenance organization is the proper subject matter of
human ecology because humans survive by collective organization in exploiting natural
resources.

The term "sociological human ecology" is generally used in the ﬁeld of sociology
to differentiate it from human ecology in anthropology, which is sometimes referred to as
cultural ecology. Hawley's conceptualization of human ecology lies in four important
principles: (1) the assumption that general and human ecology address the same central
problem; (2) the recognition that ecological relationships reﬂect both competition and
interdependence; (3) the view that survival of human populations is essentially a
collective accomplishment, thus directing the ecologist' s attention to populations rather
than individuals; and (4) the identiﬁcation of sustenance activities as the principal
component of ecological organization.

In recent decades, a few theoretical orientations have dominated sociological
human ecology, particularly Hawley's theory of expansion, the ecological complex (as an
analytical framework), and the sustenance organization model (Micklin &
Choldinzl984). Hawley's theory of expansion deals with the process of ecological
change which stimulates system growth or cumulative change (Micklin: 1984). Expansion
involves grth of a dominant center of activity as well as enlargement of its scope of
inﬂuence. Expansion can be seen at all levels of organization--the region, the city, and
the local community. When the limits of expansion are reached, equilibrium conditions
tend to be reestablished.

Hawley (1972) applied his expansion theory to urban social systems and the
process of urban growth. Urbanization is viewed as an expansion process and cities are

examined in terms of their role as functional units in an expanding system of ecological

66
relationships. He emphasized the cumulative elaboration of social organization as a
means of making the urban community responsive to changing environmental conditions
and requirements for system survival. These changes in social organization are evident in
cultural patterns, social institutions, communication and transportation technology, the
functions of government, and the spatial and temporal organization of functional activity
complexes.

Inﬂuenced by Hawley, Duncan (1959) developed an alternative approach to
sociological human ecology called "The Ecological Complex", which consists of four
interdependent categories of variables: Population, Organization, Environment, and
Technology (POET). The ecological complex can be regarded as a system because each
component in the model is assumed to be interdependent with the other. In other words,
each component in the model can serve as a dependent or independent variable. The
theoretical objectives of this model are to provide a framework for describing the
morphology of ecological relationships and to explain the emergence and nature of
organizational structure. According to Schnore (1961b), the ecological complex is
"materialistic" in that ideas and ideology are essentially excluded from its purview. It
gives more emphasis to the emergent properties of populations, and makes no use of
individual attitudes, motivations or opinions as explanatory factors.

The contribution of the ecological complex in sociological research has been
evident. For example, Duncan's study (1969) on the problem of air pollution (smog)
during the last two decades in the community of Los Angeles where the smog (E) created
negative effects on the population (P) (reduced visibility, eye and respiratory tract), on
the environment (damaged plants), and on technology (T) (cracked rubber, accelerated
the rate of deterioration of automobile tires). In response to this problem, many

organizations (0) took action, and new technologies were developed to tackle the

67
problem (E).

Sly (1972) employed the ecological complex framework to study the migration of
black males in 253 Cotton Belt counties. He hypothesized that, "The cause of
organization change (0) can be found in a population's environmental (E) and
technological (T) conditions." He added, "Migration (P) is a response to changes in
population organization (0)." Another study by Sly and Tayman (1977) examined an
environmental model of migration based on a sample of manufacturing oriented
metropolitan areas. In this case environment, rather than organization, was treated as the
key variable affecting migration. Organizational and technological factors were assumed
to affect the dependent variable indirectly through the environment. This study showed
that a different causal ordering of the ecosystem dimensions may be obtained, depending
on the nature of the analytical unit under investigation.

A revision of the ecological complex has been suggested by Micklin (1973,
1977). He reduced the number of interdependent dimensions in the complex to three:
population, environment, and organization. He also incorporated symbolic factors such as
social values, ideologies, customs, and traditions into the model. By incorporating the
symbolic factors, the revised model of Micklin abandons the purely materialistic
orientation of the ecosystem framework, but introduces a qualitative dimension of the
ecological complex.

It has been summarized that a very large proportion of ecological research over
the past 20 years has used one or more of the concepts embodied in the ecological
complex, but very few applications have taken into account all four dimensions of the
ecological complex.

The sustenance organization model is characterized by its concern with the

organizational aspects of human populations arising from their sustenance-producing

68

activities. These activities are necessary for the collective existence of populations and
must be adapted to the changing conditions which confront them (Piston, Frisbee, and
Micklinzl984). The sustenance model can be distinguished from the ecological complex
model by its principal focus on the analysis of sustenance organization, with somewhat
less attention given to the other ecological complex dimensions of population,
environment, and technology. And it differs from Hawley's expansion model in that it
does not deal with ecological change.

Gibbs and Martin (1959) suggested that there are eight dimensions involved in
sustenance organization: (1) sustenance differentiation; (2) functional interdependence
between sustenance activities; (3) population members in sustenance-related pursuits; (4)
bureaucratization; (5) sustenance productivity; (6) efficiency of the sustenance
organization; and (7) hierarchical location. It is concluded that, since 1970, there has
been extensive research conducted by using the sustenance organization approach. The
number of empirical investigations is impressive. However, the sustenance organization
model has not been the subject of investigations utilizing its full potential and
complexity.

From another point of view, Buttel (1986) reported that rural sociology has
played a pioneering role in introducing ecological variables to sociological analysis. In
reviewing the development of rural sociology and its relationship to sociology, he
discussed the applicability of an ecologically-oriented rural sociology to the
understanding of socioeconomic impacts on global resources by examining the general
parameters of the social ecology of Latin American agricultural development. He also
suggested a new development strategy based on agro-ecological theories and concepts.
This strategy is known as "farming systems research" and seeks to understand the farm as

integrated systems of crops, animals, and humans, with emphasis generally given to

69
small holder or subfamily farms.

It can be summarized that the application of an ecological framework in various
social science disciplines reviewed above have included the basic notions of
organism/populations, environment and interaction which are also the central issues of
this dissertation. The above review demonstrates the beneﬁts of applying ecological
approaches to the study of the relationship between humans and their environment.
Although the emphasis on people and environment are not balanced in most social
science disciplines reviewed, due to the researcher's academic orientation and the nature
of research problems, applying ecological frameworks to social science seems to be more
preferable than the single discipline approach in studying people and the environment.

This dissertation adopts an ecological perspective to study the impacts of
community woodlots on local people and their communities. As discussed earlier, the
expansion, ecological complex, and sustenance organization models are the three major
ecological approaches in sociological human ecology. The "expansion model" focuses on
ecological change and the "sustenance organization model" focuses on sustenance
organization, while the major interest of the "ecological complex model" deals with the
way populations with technological resources at their disposal structure their
organizational response to their environment (Duncanzl959). This dissertation does not
deal directly with either ecological change (as a major focus of the expansion model) or
sustenance organization (as a major focus of the sustenance organization model). Rather,
it focuses on what technology (T) local people (populations) and community woodlot
committees (organization) use to cope with the problem of fuelwood shortage
(environment) and how this technology affects such populations, communities, and
village development. Duncan's ecological complex model, thus, is considered as a more

appropriate analytical framework due to how it treats the four variables (population,

70

organization, environment, and technology) equally. In addition, it also allows us to
describe the relationships among the four variables on an interdependency basis, which is
somewhat similar to the "weak version" of cultural ecology which suggests that it is best
to examine culture/environment relations as a network of related factors, each of which
can affect another. As Rambo (1983) noted, "In applying the system model of human
ecology to community forestry, we are concerned with how implementation of a forestry
program is affected by social factors and how forest management affects social
organization and human welfare."

The next section discusses how the four components of the ecological complex

are conceptualized and treated under this investigation.

3.2 The Ecological Complex Model

3.2.1 Population

Hawley (1950, 1986) deﬁned the term "population" by quoting Boulding (1934),
"A population may be deﬁned as an aggregate of disparate items, or individuals, each one
of which conforms to a given deﬁnition, retains its identity with the passage of time, and
exist only during a ﬁnite interval. An individual enters a population, or is 'bom', when it
ﬁrst conforms to the deﬁnition which identiﬁes the population; it leaves the population or
'die' when it ceases to conform with its deﬁnition."

The term population is applicable to a great variety of collections of things. As
applied to human beings, population refers to a spatially delimited aggregate of
individuals. Ryder (1964) deﬁned population along the same line with Hawley.
According to Ryder, human population can be characterized by its collective attributes,
e.g., size, rates of reproduction, mortality, migration, growth, sex ratio, age distribution,

and density. Berry and Kasada (1977) deﬁned population as "any internally structured

71
collectivity of human beings that routinely functions as a coherent entity. Poston, Frisbie,
and Micklin (1984) stated that in most ecological inquiries, population enters the model
mainly from the standpoint of the unit of analysis. That is ecologists will inquire about
organizational, technological, and environmental attributes of human populations but are
seldom concerned with their demographic characteristics.

The deﬁnitions of population reviewed above suggest that a human population
involves an aggregate of individuals in a speciﬁed setting. In this investigation,
population refers to people who live in the same village where a community woodlot has
been implemented. However, this dissertation does not focus on the demographic
variables such as age, sex composition, and mortality. It gives more attention to income
and employment generated from the community woodlots to different groups of villagers
in different villages, which can be viewed as population characteristics. These variables
are of interest because income and employment have been claimed as one of the major

beneﬁts from the community woodlot projects.

3.2.2 Organization.

In sociological human ecology, Hawley (1971) deﬁned organization as the "entire
system of interdependence among the members of a population which enables the latter
to sustain itself as a unit." Duncan (1959) viewed organization as "an adaptation to the
unavoidable circumstance that individuals are interdependent and that the collectivity of
individuals must cope with concrete environmental conditions--including, perhaps,
competition and resistance afforded by other collectivities--with whatever technological
means may be at its disposal." The two views of organization are similar in terms of the
emphasis on the interdependence among individuals and their ability to organize

themselves for survival. But Duncan explicitly emphasized the role of environment that

72
leads the individuals to form an organization and the technology used to cope with such
environmental conditions.

Organization, in this dissertation, is viewed as a collective action organized in
response to the physical environment. In the community woodlot context, the villagers
organized themselves into community woodlot committees to manage the woodlot. Thus
the community woodlot committee can be viewed as a collective organization to manage
and utilize community woodlots for their own beneﬁts in terms of fuelwood supply and
village development.

The communig; woodlot committee: The committee is a goal-oriented, local
organization responsible for managing and maintaining the community woodlot. They
also help organize the villagers to participate in their community woodlot.

There are two groups of community woodlot committees dealing with two
different community woodlots in this study. The component to be examined is the
effectiveness of the committees in managing the beneﬁts derived from their woodlots. A
discussion follows of three organizational variables included in this.

Self-reliance of the community: This dissertation also focuses on self-reliance as
an attribute of organization. If humans survive by collective organization in exploiting
natural resources (Gibbs and Martinzl959), self reliance can be viewed as the ability of
the organization to rely on and maintain itself. In the context of this study, community
self-reliance is examined not as a factor affecting the woodlot projects but as a result of
the implementation of the woodlot projects. In other words, self-reliance is viewed as
being effected by the pr0posed technology. The focus is on how the communities can
rely on themselves in terms of fuelwood supply and income from community woodlots.

Development approaches: Development approaches can be viewed as a function

of village organizations such as community woodlot committees. The bottom-up

73
approach implies more involvement of local people in the decision-making process of the
community woodlot projects, while the top-down approach tends to lessen the role of
local pe0ple in decision making. Thus, development approaches are considered as a
organizational variable which might affect people participation.

The two community woodlots studied were differently initiated. The ﬁrst one was
promoted by the Thai Government, and the approach employed was somewhat top-down.
The second one was initiated by a non-government organization, and the approach used
was relatively bottom-up.

People participation: People participation is also included in the organizational
variables under this study, due to its crucial role in the community woodlot projects
reviewed in chapter 2. People participation, in this study, covers three dimensions: who,
what, and how. The "who" dimension refers to the local residents who live in the villages
where community woodlots have been implemented. The "what" dimension includes:

- Participation in project decision making: adoption of the project, identiﬁcation

of the project site, and distribution of project beneﬁts.

- Participation in implementation: contribution of resources--labor, materials, and

cash.

- Participation in project beneﬁts: loans from the community woodlot fund,

fuelwood, building materials, etc.
The "how" dimension looks at the impetus to participate: coerced, voluntary, or being

hired.

3.2.3 Technology
Technology is another component in the ecological complex model. Lenski

(1970) noted that it is the prime mover in the process of social change and adaptation.

74

Redclift (1984) cited Descartes (1968) that technology "is the application of scientiﬁc
ideas to the environment, providing us with the knowledge by which we may be able to
make ourselves masters and possessors of nature." Bromley (1985) viewed technology as
a combination of technique and of institutional arrangements. He described that it is
when institutions combine with techniques that we ﬁnally comprehend technology. For
technique without institutions is inanimate and useless. Frisbie and Clark (1979)
reviewed the deﬁnitions of technology given by Lenski (1970), Sjoberg (1965), Ogburn
(1955), and Duncan (1959), and summarized that the deﬁnition of technology covers
three dimensions: (1) material features (tools, capital, equipment, machines); (2)
information (knowledge, techniques, scientiﬁc discovery); and (3) energy. Dahlberg
(1986) conceptualized technology by relating it to culture and environment. He described
that "technologies are shaped by culture and environment and any particular technology
must be understood in terms of its cultural history and environmental setting."

It must be noted here that community woodlots can be viewed as either
environment or technology. The community woodlot is a technology in the sense that it
is a kind of knowledge proposed to solve the resource problem, i.e. fuelwood shortage.
But once the community woodlot has been implemented, it becomes the environment of
the villages, which rrright positively or negatively affect the populations under
investigation. However, it makes more sense to view the community woodlot as a
technology rather than environment because this study focuses on the impacts of the
proposed community woodlots on the environment of villages. It has been discussed that
community woodlots can be designed to meet different needs of rural villagers.
However, most community woodlots in most developing countries including Thailand
were primarily designed to supply fuelwood to rural communities. In Thailand,

Eucalyptus camaldulensis has been the major tree species promoted by the Royal

75
Forestry Department to plant in the woodlots, which responds to the need for fuelwood
only. If other tree species had been planted in the woodlots, other needs such as food and
fodder may have also been met. These choices of tree species create different impacts on
the communities. Therefore, the design of a woodlot is, in fact, the design of technology
and the impact of community woodlots is the impact of technology. The size of woodlot
is also part of technology design, since the larger the woodlot, the wider the impacts it

may create.

3.2.4 Environment

Hawley (1968) deﬁned environment as "whatever is external to and potentially or
actually inﬂuential on a phenomenon under investigation." Hawley (1950) classiﬁed
environment into two categories, i.e., inorganic and organic. The inorganic environment
includes all the mechanical and nonliving conditions that surround the organism, such as
light, air pressure, humidity, temperature, minerals, topography, etc. The organic
environment comprises all manifestations of life whose activities impinge upon the
individual or group of individuals. For humans the organic environment is composed of
the vegetation which impedes movements, animals which prey upon them and upon
which they prey, domesticated plants and animals, and, most important, fellow humans.

According to Micklin (1984), the environment can be divided into four
categories: natural, man-made, social, and symbolic. He emphasized that the symbolic
environment is of importance primarily for ecological studies of the human species.

Poston, F risbie, and Micklin (1984) categorized environment into physical and
social environments. The former refers to factors like climate, natural resources, and
topography. The latter refers to other populations and organizations which inﬂuence the

populations being investigated. Unlike Poston, Frisbie, and Micklin (1984), Altman and

76

Chemers (1984) focused only on the physical environment and divided it into the natural
environment and the built environment. Natural environment refers to geographical
features, such as mountains, valleys, and oceans; environmental conditions, such as
temperature and rainfall; and ﬂora and fauna. Built environment refers to the results of
people's alterations of environments such as homes, cities, communities, and farms. In
some cases, the built environment includes alterations of natural environmental
conditions, such as artiﬁcial rainfall or pollution of air, water, and food.

Olsen (1978) classiﬁed the environment into two types: natural environment and
social environment. He emphasized that human life is totally dependent on the natural
environment, but individuals or organizations are inevitably forced to interact with others
in their social environment.

The above deﬁnitions show that the term "environmen " can be differently
deﬁned because it has no ﬁxed content. Environments vary in scale from relatively small
places, like particular woodlots and forests, to large places, such as wilderness regions.
Hawley (1968) suggested that the concept of environment must be deﬁned anew for each
different object of investigation because an environment is only an environment in
relation to something that it environs.

In the context of community woodlots and rural development, the condition of
forest cover is an important environmental factor that leads to promotion of community
woodlot projects. Normally, villagers collect fuelwood and building materials from the
natural forests and from trees on farms. However, many villages now have few trees left
on farms, as trees grow much slower than they are harvested. The natural forests are also
degraded due to the excessive utilization by different groups of people. In some areas,
the villagers are no longer allowed to collect any forest products from natural forests due

to the national conservation policy. These policies make collection of fuelwood and

77
building materials from the natural forests or farms around the village areas more
difficult. In many countries, the governments see community woodlots as an immediate
solution to the problems of shortages of fuelwood and building materials at the village
level. This study considers the condition of forest cover, both natural forests and trees on
farms, as a characteristic of the biophysical environment that is related to shortages of
fuelwood and building materials. Forest cover is treated as the frame of the study, and is

viewed as an environmental factor affecting human social systems.

3.2.5 Culture

The above discussion revealed how the ecological complex can be a useful model
for studying community woodlots. However, literature reviewed in chapter 2 suggested
that cultural factors also contribute to the success or failure of community woodlot
projects.

Cultural factors, in many studies, have been used to explain the relationship
between people and their environment (V ayda & Rappaportzl976, Petersonzl979,
Ingold:1979, Ellis:l989,). Micklin (1984) stated "The concept of culture is a necessary
and useful element of the ecological perspective when it is applied to human ecosystem."
He suggested a revision of the ecological complex model by omitting the technological
variable and adding cultural variables into the model. His cultural variables included
social values, ideologies, customs and traditions (Micklinzl973, 1977).

White (1975) and Goodenough (1989) also advocated the notion of
interrelationships of or interaction between cultural systems and their environment.
Hutterer and Rambo (1985) indicated the importance of culture in the context of
technology and suggested that cultural rules and social relationships must be considered

in order to understand the formal and functional conﬁguration of a particular

78
technological system.

According to Altman and Chemers (1984), culture refers to "beliefs and
perceptions, values and norms, customs and behaviors of a group or society." This study
emphasizes perception as a cultural variable, because people perceive their environment
differently. This is because people receive information about the environment from their
senses, then process and organize it in ways that are meaningful to them and to their
lives. What becomes meaningful, consistent, and appropriate is heavily inﬂuenced by
their cultural experiences (Altman and Chemerszl984).

Villagers seldom perceive problems in the same way as do foresters. In some
countries, the government was quite concerned about fuelwood problem while farmers
felt that there was little urgency in planting trees for fuelwood as it was still available in
the natural forests or on farms. Generally, fuelwood shortages can be measured by
studying the demand and supply of fuelwood. Villagers' perceptions of the shortage can
also be measured. However, perceptions are not objective measures of the presence or
absence of fuelwood but rather cultural measurement. This study deliberately introduces
culture as an additional variable into the ecological complex model. In the community
woodlot context, perceptions of villagers toward their natural environment, deﬁned as
forest cover, in terms of the availability of fuelwood or fuelwood shortage, and toward
the need of a community woodlot in terms of the expected beneﬁts, are important factors

which might affect their participation in woodlot projects.

3.2.6 Study Model
To illustrate the variables and their interactions, a model is presented in Figures 2
& 3. The major components of the ecological complex model are viewed as interactive.

Figure 2 shows population, organization, technology, and culture as components in a

79
social system, which have interrelationships among themselves within the natural
environment. Figure 3 shows the variables being studied under each component of the
model. Figure 4 illustrates why community woodlots as a proposed technology
accomplish or do not accomplish the goals of rural development. Development
approaches, Villagers' perception toward community woodlots and fuelwood shortage,
diversity of tree species, sizes of community woodlots, and community woodlot
committees are considered as independent variables, whereas people participation,
income and employment, and self-reliance are dependent variables. The arrows in the
diagram show that different dependent variables are affected by different independent
variables. For instance, people participation in a community woodlot project is seen as
inﬂuenced by development approaches and Villagers' perceptions toward community
woodlots and availability of fuelwood in the environment. The relationships among the

key variables in Figure 4 are based on the following research propositions:

80

mammary! fagrsh, may"
.r 4. tart-:9 41'»: rag. w: ..
.M e.g.", m... . 5...
. 1' ”.1 5.

I POPULATION I

a; ORGANIZATION

I TECHNOLOGY I
CULTURE

 

Figure 2. The Relationships among Population, Organization, Technology, Culture, and
Environment Viewed as the Relationship between Social System and the
Environment.

81

ENVIRONMENT
- Forest cover

 

POPULATION
Tl - Amount of income and employment

 

 

ORGANIZATION

- Community woodlot committee
- Self reliance

- Development approaches

- People participation

 

 

TECHNOLOGY
- Diversity of tree species
- Size of community woodlot

 

 

CULTURE
- Villagers' perceptions toward the need of a
woodlot and availability of fuelwood

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Description of Variables in Model Components.

82

Forest cover (E)

 

“Development approaches (0)

 

 

 

People participation (0)

 

Villagers' perception toward
community woodlots and
availability of fuelwood (C)

 

 

 

 

Diversity of tree species (T)

 

 

 

Income and employment (P) I

 

Size of community woodlots (T)

 

 

Self-reliance (0)

 

 

I Community woodlot committee (0)

 

 

Figure 4. The Relationships among Dependent Variables and Independent Variables
in Model.

83
Proposition 1.

- The degree of people participation in community woodlot projects will be higher if
the villagers perceive fuelwood shortage as a problem, if community woodlots are
needed, and if villagers are involved in making decisions to adopt the project

(bottom-up approach).
Proposition 2.

- The greater the diversity of tree species planted, the higher the income and

employment that can be generated.
Proposition 3.
- The larger the woodlot, the higher the income and employment that can be
generated.
Proposition 4.
- A higher degree of community self-reliance will be achieved if the effectiveness of
community woodlot committees is higher in terms of managing woodlots.
Proposition 5.
- A higher degree of community self-reliance will be achieved if the size of
community woodlot is bigger.
3.3 Summary
This chapter explained the theoretical framework on which this dissertation is
based. It began by reviewing the application of ecological approaches to study the
relationships between humans and the environment in different social science disciplines.
Then, the ecological complex model as applied to this study was discussed. The key
variables in studying the impacts of community woodlot projects were identiﬁed and
placed into the model. Finally, the research propositions, based on the key variables

identiﬁed, were presented.

CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses the methodology of this research. It presents the study area
selection, the method of data collecting, the sampling procedure and sample size, the

method of data analysis, and the construction of questionnaires.

4.1 Selection of the Study Areas

As discussed in the review of literature, the concepts of social or community
forestry in Thailand vary in space and time. Community or village woodlots are
frequently referred to as forestry development projects at both the grassroots and policy
levels under the social or community forestry program. To select an appropriate site for
this study, it was important that community woodlot projects in the proposed study area
be in place long enough to create some impacts on the community. To match the
objectives of this research, the development community forests by the Royal Forest
Department of Thailand seemed to be the most appropriate type of community woodlots
for this study because these woodlots are primarily planned for promoting fuelwood and
generating income for rural residents, unlike the traditional community forests which
501er aim at the natural conservation. In other words, community woodlots in this
study are the plantations not the natural forests. In addition, because commrmity
woodlots in Thailand are operated in many different ways, with different concepts, and
by different organizations, a case study of a single community woodlot would not be a
good representative to generalize how community woodlots help achieve rural
development goals.

To distinguish what is general from what is speciﬁc to a single community, a
comparison of two different community woodlots was conducted. Two community

woodlots proposed and implemented by two different agencies with different major
84

85
objectives and different approaches were selected for a comparative purpose. Both
villages are located in the same province, but different districts, in Northeastern
Thailand.
The ﬁrst community woodlot named Kok Peeba, located at Lao sub-district,
Kosumphisai district, Maha Sarakham Province, has the following characteristics:

- the community woodlot was a demonstration project implemented in 1982 by
the Royal Forest Department with funding from USAID to promote fuelwood
production as a component of Renewable Nonconventional Energy Projects;

- Eucalyptus camaldulensis was the only tree species planted;

- the community woodlot ofﬁcially belongs to two villages, but the beneﬁts are

shared among four villages;

- the public land used for the community woodlot is large (approximately 800 rai

or 128 hectares).

The second community woodlot is located at Ban Don Bark, Srisuk sub-district,

Kantarawichai district, Maha Sarakham province and has the following characteristics:

- the community woodlot project was initiated in 1986 by the Population and
Community Development Association (PDA), a non-government organization,
as part of its community development program;

- there are more tree species than in the ﬁrst community woodlot. The trees

planted are E ucalyptus, Acacia auriculiformis, Leucaena Ieucocephala, and
Cassia siamea (Khilek);

- the woodlot belongs to only one village;

- the public land used for the community woodlot is relatively small
(approximately 55 rai or 8.8 hectares).

The different characteristics of these two community woodlots made it possible to

86
examine the differences of both the social and physical factors in terms of people
participation, development approaches, woodlot management, diversity of tree species,
woodlot size and their affects on the accomplishment of community woodlots and of

rural development goals.

4.2 Method of Data Collection

Considering the fact that the two selected community woodlots have been
implemented for several years, some studies and research have already been conducted
by various agencies. Data on the project background of both community woodlots are
already available in the research reports written by the Royal Forest Department,
Chulalongkom University Social Research Institute, and the Research and Development
Institute of Khon Kaen University. These research reports were used as secondary data
after veriﬁcation. Data derived from this secondary source, however, were veriﬁed by
cross-checking with ﬁeld data.

Due to the amount of work and time constraints, the community-based approach
or anthropological participant observation were considered not appropriate for collecting
primary data for this comparative study. A formal survey of households coupled with an
in-depth interview of the community woodlot corrrrnittee and local leaders were
conducted because it took less time, especially when more villages were studied.
However, observations on the use of fuelwood and other forest products from community
woodlots and activities related to village woodlots were also made during the 1-2 month
stay in the villages. In addition, an investigation on the physical characteristic of the
community woodlots such as conditions of trees and soil, agroforestry practices, and
maintenance of woodlot, was also performed.

In Thailand, household heads can be men or women. Generally, the oldest male in

87
the family is considered the household head. Women are considered household heads if
they are divorced, their husbands passed away, or their husbands went away for
employment. The respondents were randomly sampled from the list of household heads.
First, the household heads were classiﬁed into three different economic strata. Then 15
per cent of the total households from each economic stratum were randomly selected.
Both male and female household heads were qualiﬁed as interviewees in this survey if
they were informative about their woodlot. Initially, the household heads were asked
whether they would be able to answer the questions concerning their community woodlot
and the interview was performed only if they said yes. In most cases, the spouses of male
household heads also helped answer the questions if they were together at the time of
interview. The female respondents were selected as samples in two occasions: (I) when
the women themselves were household heads, and (2) when their husbands were absent.
It happened that quite a few male household heads were absent during the survey. Thus,
their wives were asked whether they would be able to answer the questions in relation to
their community woodlot. If their wives responded that they were, they were interviewed
instead of their husbands. For in-depth interviews, all members of the community
woodlot comrrrittees were interviewed individually or collectively. Informal discussions
under the form of conversation with small groups of villagers and community woodlot

committee members were also made whenever possible.

4.3 Data Collecting Procedure

The data collecting procedure is summarized as follows:

1. Meetings were made with resource persons involved in the ﬁeld of social
forestry in Thailand. These resource persons worked at the Food and Agriculture

Organization, Bangkok ofﬁce (FAO), Royal Forest Department (RFD), Population and

88

Community Development Association (PDA), Chulalongkom, Kasetsart, and Khon Kaen
universities. The purpose of these meetings was to ﬁnd out the current situation of social
forestry in Thailand and also to determine the study area for this research. The original
research plan was to conduct a case study of one community woodlot. Having talked with
the resource persons, the original plan was changed to a comparative study of two
community woodlots. This idea was based on the fact that social forestry projects
(preferably called community forestry in Thailand) are so fashionable that many
organizations (both governmental and nongovernmental) are now working on social
forestry-related projects with different approaches. Once the decision to do a comparative
study of two community woodlots had been made, the next step was to select the study
areas (criteria for selecting the study area has already been discussed earlier in this
chapter).

2. Literature was reviewed related to the selected community woodlot projects.
These secondary data were derived from Chulalongkom University Social Research
Institute (CUSRI), Research and Development Institute (RDI) of Khon Kaen University,
and Population and Community Development Association (PDA). In 1980, CUSRI
conducted a regional baseline survey, mainly on socio-economic aspects of the sampled
villages, for a project on Renewable Nonconventional Energy sponsored by USAID
through the National Energy Administration (NEA) of Thailand. Kok Peeba public land
of Lao sub-district, Kosumphisai district, Maha Sarakham province was one of the public
lands selected as pilot projects for community woodlots. The Kok Peeba community
woodlot has been claimed as the most ﬁnancially successﬁrl community woodlot. A
report on the historical background of the Kok Peeba community woodlot and socio-
economic data of the villages involved in this woodlot is available at CUSRI and was

partly used for this study. In 1989, RDI was hired by PDA to conduct an evaluation of

89

community woodlot projects implemented in their responsible areas covering Buri Ram,
Khon Kaen, and Maha Sarakham provinces. The Nong E-Jone community woodlot of
Ban Don Bark, Srisuk sub-district, Kantarawichai district, Maha Sarakham province was
one of the nine villages sampled for this project evaluation from the total of 33 villages.
The evaluation report provided information on how Nong E-Jone woodlot was
established, general characteristics of the village, the community woodlot committee, and
the perceived impacts of the woodlot. This report was derived from PDA main office in
Bangkok.

3. Interviews were conducted of both the forestry ofﬁcials of RFD and PDA who
are responsible for the selected community woodlot projects and the village headmen of
the villages studied. Two visits were made to both Bangkok and local ofﬁces of the RFD
and PDA to get some ideas about the background information of the two community
woodlots studied and to ﬁnd out if they still have any on-going activities in those
woodlots. It was found out at this stage that after the implementation of projects both the
RFD and PDA had turned over their responsibilities to the community woodlot
committees and that their staff occasionally visited the community woodlots. Staff of the
PDA were able to visit their woodlot more frequently than of the RFD because the PDA
has more staff working at ﬁeld level and their woodlot projects are relatively new, thus
they still need monitoring. In contrast, the RFD has only one district forestry ofﬁcer who
is responsible for the whole district, and Kok Peeba is already a mature woodlot.
Meetings with the village headmen and some key informants were also made to inform
them of the purpose of the visits and the objectives of this research. Some preliminary
data of the villages were also collected at this time.

4. Construction of questionnaire. The questionnaire for household survey, in fact,

was formulated little by little from the very beginning of the research process. Some

90
questions were added or eliminated after some preliminary data had been collected (the
topics covered in the questionnaire are presented later in this chapter). Comments on the
ﬁrst draft of questionnaire were also made by an American survey expert who was
working in Thailand at that time.

5. Pretest and correction of the questionnaire. The pretest of the questionnaire was
conducted in both community woodlot projects. Two villagers in each village were
interviewed by using the draft questionnaire. In total, ten villagers were interviewed for
the pretest, eight villagers in Kok Peeba and two villagers in Nong E-Jone woodlot
projects. The pretest was completed in January 1991. Only minor changes were made
after the pretest.

6. Determining sampling method and sample size. After conversations with the
village headman and other community woodlot committees had been made in all ﬁve
villages, it was decided that proportionate stratiﬁed random sampling would be used to
ensure the representativeness of samples drawn from the different economic strata. Then
the sample size was determined (see details in the next section).

7. Primary data by household survey was collected in April 1991. Ban Don Bark,
Kantarawichai district, was the ﬁrst village to be surveyed. Surveys of the other four
villages in Kosumphisai district were completed later.

8. In-depth interviews of community woodlot committee members were also
conducted in April 1991 while doing the household survey. There was no ﬁx schedule
for the interview of community woodlot committees. The interviews were done
whenever the opportunity arose. Visits to both community woodlots to investigate the
physical condition (soil, undergrowth, and Eucalyptus mushroom) of the woodlots were
also made at this time.

9. Veriﬁcation of the data collected from different sources. After completing the

91
household survey, the data collected from villages were compared with the data derived
from other sources. Only little inconsistency of data on demographics (numbers of
households) and the establishment of community woodlots was found.

After the household survey had been completed, three more visits were made to
the villages and to both community woodlots to collect additional data on the
management of income from the last sale of trees, and on the collection of fuelwood
from the woodlot. The purpose of later visits was also to follow up the woodlot activities.

The last visit was made in October 1991.

4.4 Sampling Procedure and Sample Size

The sampling procedure was designed to cover the whole range of target groups
in the selected villages as one of the major objectives of this study is to investigate the
impacts of woodlots on households and the community as a whole. An approach called
"Wealth Ranking Technique" was employed. This technique was developed by Gradin
(1988) to categorize villagers into different economic strata by using the local concept of
wealth. The key informants were asked to classify villagers into different economic

strata. Gradin (1988) noted that:

"Wealth ranking is a community-based activity. The households ranked should be
members of the same community, whether it is deﬁned, for example, as a village,
a neighborhood, a ward or a group ranch. They are people who live near each
other, help each other, attend each others' ceremonies and so on. As a result of
close interaction (and gossiping) they know each other well."

However, this study did not follow every step of wealth ranking technique
described by Gradin because some villages studied are relatively large, making it
impossible for the key informants to rank all households in order. Thus they were asked
to group the households into three different economic strata based on their own local

concept of wealth. First, the lists of households of the ﬁve villages studied were derived

92

from the district ofﬁces. Then the names of household head in each list, from the ﬁrst to
the last, were referred to while doing economic classiﬁcation with the village headmen
and some key informants. The classiﬁcation method was simple. One by one, every name
of the household head in the list was mentioned, and then the village headman and key
informants discussed in what appropriate economic strata the name referred to should be
placed. Most of the time, they had no difﬁculty in placing the names of villagers into a
certain economic strata. In a few cases they had different opinions on what economic
strata should be the most appropriate for the name mentioned. When this happened, they
discussed and gave reasons why they thought the name referred to should be place in
such economic strata and ﬁnally reached the consensus. Village headmen and key
informants of Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had were asked to classify their villagers
together because these two villages are neighbors and they used the same wealth criteria
for the classiﬁcation. The same thing was done for Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy
17 which are neighboring villages, but located about 5 kilometers from Ban Yang
Sinchai and Ban Nong Had. Ban Don Bark, which is located in a different district, was
the last village to do economic classiﬁcation.

It appeared that the criteria used for wealth classiﬁcation relied on the size of land
owned, income, and number of buffaloes owned. The villagers who owned more
buffaloes were perceived as richer farmers. The quality of the land is not decisive. The
villagers who owned less farmland might not be considered poor farmers, if they have
other sources of income. There were a few individual exceptions who have an extra
source of income (the school masters, the owners of the village shop). The information
given by the key informants was then checked and sometimes corrected with the
individual interviewees concerning the size of farmland owned and the existence of extra

income. However, no attempt was made to deﬁne with precision the income of the

93
interviewees. In summary, the size of farmland owned, income, and the number of
buffaloes were the criteria used in classifying the villagers into different economic strata.

It was found that the sizes of farmland owned used as criteria for wealth vary
from village to village. In Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had, better-off villagers are
determined as having 30-50 rai (4.8-8 hectares) of farmland while the medium-farm and
small-farm farmers own 6-29 (0.96-4.64 hectares) and less than 5 rai or 0.8 hectares
(including the landless) of farmland respectively. In Ban Don Bark, villagers who own
more than 30 rai (4.8 hectares) of farmland are considered better off farmers whereas
those who own 17-20 rai (2.72-3.2 hectares) of farmland are perceived as medium-farm
farmers. Villagers who own less than 7 rai (1.12 hectares) of farmland and the landless
are said to be small farmers. In Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17, richer farmers are
expected to own at least 70 rai (11.2 hectares) of rice farmland if they do not have other
upland crops cultivation or at least 50 rai (8 hectares) of rice farmland if they have some
additional land for upland crops cultivation. Medium-farm farmers own between 30 to 50
rai (4.8 to 8 hectares) of rice ﬁelds. Small-farm farmers are either landless or own less
than 20 rai (3.2 rai) of rice ﬁelds.

The landless were not placed in a separate category because there are very few
landless farmers (less than 5%) in most villages studied, except for Ban Don Gloy 6
which has about 11 per cent. A small percentage of the landless would yield a very small
sample size and it might not be meaningful for a statistical test. Thus, the landless were
grouped together with the small farmers for sampling and data analysis. The analysis of
data does not take into account the differences in the sizes of land owned that are used as
criteria for wealth ranking in different villages because this method emphasizes the local
concept of wealth, and the criteria used by local people in different villages might be

different.

94
As mentioned, the beneﬁts from Kok Peeba woodlot are shared among four
villages, namely Ban Yang Sinchai, Ban Nong Hard, and Ban Don Gloy 6 and 17. But
Nong E-Jone woodlot belongs to only one village, Ban Don Bark. The formal surveys of
households, thus, were conducted in ﬁve villages. Table 4 shows the data on the total

numbers of households as told by the village headmen.

Table 4. Total Numbers of Households Classiﬁed by Villages.

 

 

 

Villages No. of Households
Ban Yang Sinchai 84
Ban Nong Hard 50
Ban Don Gloy 6 87
Ban Don Gloy 17 173
Ban Don Bark 110
Total 504

 

 

 

 

Data in Table 4 are slightly different from the data collected in 1990 in the
National Survey of Villages by the Department of Community Development, Ministry of
Interior. However, the total number of households told by the village headmen was used
as a sampling frame for this study because these data are more current. The following

statistical equation was employed to obtain a sample size (n).

 

Npq
n =
(N -1)D+pq
where
q =1-p
2
B
D =

95
N = population
n = sample size
p = the population parameter for the binomial
B = acceptable bound of error for the parameter

This equation can be adopted for the survey situation in which population variance is

unknown. This has been noted:

"In a practical situation we do not know p. An approximate sample size can be
found by replacing p with an estimated value. Frequently, such an estimate can be
obtained from similar past surveys. However, if no such prior information is
available, we can substitute p = .5 into the equation to obtain a conservative
sample size (one that is likely to be larger than required)."(Scheaffer,
Mendenhall, and Ott:1986)

The total number of households in the ﬁve villages studied is 504. The acceptable bound
of error for the parameter is set at .1 or 10 % for this sampling because if the acceptable
bound of error is set at lower than 10%, the sample size will be too large for this
dissertation to handle due to time and budget limitations.

In the above equation we have N = 504, B = .1, p = .5, and q = .5

So that we have

504 * .5(1-.5)

(504-1)(.12) + .5(1-.5)
4

n:

 

= 83.5821

The sample size derived from the above equation is approximately 84. Referring
to the statement made by Scheaffer, Mendenhall, and Ott (1986) presented earlier, the
sample size (84) derived from the equation above is considered a conservative sample
size but likely to be larger than required. Thus it was not necessary to use that number.

Because there are ﬁve villages involved in this study, the samples calculated should be

96
drawn from all ﬁve villages. To ensure the representativeness of each village, a certain
percentage of samples must be drawn from each village. The calculations showed that a
15 per cent sample size drawn from each village would yield a total sample size of 79
which is very close to the sample size calculated. This sample size (79) was considered
sufficient for the total population of 504 because, as already mentioned, the sample size
of 84 is likely to be larger than required. Another reason for taking a 15 per cent sample
was that a greater percentage sample, say 20 per cent, would not make a great difference
in the size of sample drawn from a small sampling unit. For example, the total number of
large-farm farmers in Ban Don Gloy 6 amounts to only six people as perceived by the
key informants. Taking those six people as a sampling unit, both 15 and 20 per cent
would yield only one sample. On the other hand, a 20 per cent sample size would have
given a bigger number of interviewees when dealing with a large sampling unit, as is the
case with medium-farm farmers, and more time and money would have been required for
this larger sample size. Table 5 shows a 15 per cent sample size of the total households

in each village.

Table 5. Total Number of Households in the 5 Villages Studied and their 15 % Sample

 

 

 

Size.
Villages Total Households Sample Size (15%)
Ban Yang Sinchai 84 13
Ban Nong Had 50 9
Ban Don Gloy 6 87 13
Ban Don Gloy 17 173 26
Ban Don Bark 110 18
Total 504 79

 

 

 

 

 

97

A full list of household heads' names from both the village headmen and the
district ofﬁce was used to classify households into each economic stratum by having
discussions with key informants. Then 15 per cent of the total households from each
economic stratum were randomly selected. This sampling procedure is known as a
stratiﬁed random sampling or a stratiﬁed proportionate random sampling because the
samples are proportionate to size of sampling units, or economic strata in this case. Table
6 shows the numbers of sampled respondents classiﬁed according to their economic

status.

Table 6. Samples Classiﬁed by Economic Strata.

 

 

 

no. of large no. of medium no. of small
Villages farmers farmers farmers Total
interviewed interviewed interviewed
Ban Yang Sinchai 2 8 3 13
Ban Nong Had 2 4 3 9
Ban Don Gloy 6 2 10 l 13
Ban Don Gloy 17 5 15 6 26
Ban Don Bark 3 10 5 18
Total 14 47 18 79

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The interviews of about three to four households took about one day. It took
about 25 days to complete the interviews of 79 households. In-depth interviews of
community woodlot committee members were also conducted whenever the opportunity
allowed. These interviews were conducted before, during, or after the household survey.
The interview schedule of the community woodlot committee was open to indeﬁnite
length, since the questions asked were open-ended.

Nevertheless, it was found that the sample size of 15 per cent was not appropriate
for every economic stratum because some sampling units or economic strata were too
small. The result was too small a sample size. For instance, 15 per cent of small farmers

in Ban Don Gloy 6 yielded only one sample, which was considered not very

98
representative for that economic stratum. To make the data more reliable and statistically
more signiﬁcant, a disproportionate random sampling was conducted to lessen the risk of
too small a sample size of some economic strata. It was determined that a minimum of
ﬁve samples from each economic stratum would assure the representativeness of each
economic stratum due to the following reasons:

a) to make possible an analysis of association with discrete variables by using 2
by 2 tables. It is suggested that the expected frequencies in a cell should not be less than
ﬁve so that a better estimate of the true alpha levels can be made (Bohrnstedt &
Knokezl988).

b) in Ban Don Gloy 6, there are in total ﬁve villagers in the category of large
farmer as determined by the key informants so that ﬁve samples is the maximum for this
category.

The total sample size (N) became 100, after the sample size has been adjusted.
The followings table shows an adjusted sample size by economic strata using the

stratiﬁed disproportionate random sampling procedure.

99

Table 7. An Adjusted Samples and their Percentages Classiﬁed by Economic Strata.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

no. of large no. of medium no. of small
Villages farmers farmers farmers Total (N)
Yang Sinchai 10 57 17 84
(1 1.90%) (67.90%) (20.20%) (100.00%)
Samples 5 8 6 S = 19
(50.00%) (15.00%) (35.00%) (22.62%)
Nong Had 10 30 10 50
(20.00%) (60.00%) (20.00%) (100.00%)
Samples 5 5 5 S = 15
(50.00%) (15.00%) (50.00%) (30.00%)
Don Gloy 6 5 70 12 87
(5.70%) (80.50%) (13.80%) ( 100.00%)
Samples 5 10 5 S = 20
(100.00%) (15.00%) (42.00%) (17.40%)
Don Gloy 17 28 105 40 173
(16.20%) (60.70%) (23.10%) (100.00%)
Samples 5 15 6 S = 20
(17.85%) (15.00%) (15.00%) (18.20%)
Total samples 20 38 22 S1 = 80
for Kok Pee- (25.00%) (47.50%) (27.50%) (100.00%)
Ba woodlot
Don Bark 15 66 29 110
(13.60%) (60.00%) (26.40%) (100.00%)
Samples 5 10 5 S = 20
(33.33%) ( 15.00%) (17.00%) (18.20%) 3
Total samples
for Nong E- Jone 5 10 5 S2 = 20
woodlot (25.00%) (50.00%) (25.00%) (100.00%)
Total samples
for both 25 48 27 S = 100
woodlots

 

4.5 The Questionnaire

 

Two types of questionnaire were prepared for this study. First, a structured
questionnaire was used for household survey. This questionnaire covers the following
topics:

1. Respondent's personal data;

100

2. Migration history of respondent's family;

3. Land use and landholding;

4. Livestock production;

5. Beneﬁts derived from the woodlot;

6. Household's energy consumption;

7. Respondent's attitude towards trees and community woodlot.

Second, an open-ended questionnaire was used for in-depth interview of
community woodlot committees. Questions asked are classiﬁed under the following
topics:

1. Planning and preimplementation phase of community woodlot project;

2. Implementation and management of community woodlot;

3. Harvest of community woodlot;

4. Attitudes toward community woodlot, fuelwood shortage, and rural

development.

The household survey using the structured questionnaire provided data which
focused on household energy consumption, especially fuelwood, household participation
in the community woodlot project, beneﬁts derived from the community woodlot, and
opinions toward the community woodlot. The in-depth interview of community woodlot
committee members and local leaders, by using open-ended questions as a guideline,
provided data on village development processes especially the community woodlot
project, which focused on its planning, implementation, management, supervision,
distribution of beneﬁts, and constraints. Data from both sources, i.e. households and
community woodlot committee members, complemented each other. Table 8 shows how

variables in the research propositions were measured:

101

Table 8. Variables and Measurement in Research Propositions

 

 

VARIABLES

Participation
(by local residents)

Participants' perceptions
Development

approaches

Community woodlot
committee

Self-reliance

Income

Employment

Diversity of tree
species

 

MEASUREMENT

 

 

- Participation in decision making to adopt (by local residents)
the woodlot project (being consulted individually by village
development committees and/or woodlot project officials or
through meetings before project implementation).

- Participation in implementation (contribute resources, labor
and material, being a member of community woodlot
committee).

- Participation in beneﬁts (fuelwood, building materials, loans,
etc.).

- Availability of fuelwood.
- Need of a community woodlot.

- Top-down or bottom-up (initiation of the project,
involvement of people in decision making to adopt the
project).

- Intensity or frequency of support, supervision, and
monitoring of agencies who proposed the woodlot project.

- Ability to solve conﬂicts (conﬂicts can be settled by the
community woodlot committees without referring to the higher
authority).

- Management of woodlot (satisfaction of villagers with

general performances of community woodlot committees
and with the distribution of beneﬁts from the woodlot).

- Villages' dependency on ﬁnancial support from the
government (sources of ﬁnancial support for village
development after the woodlot had been implemented).

- Villages' dependency on fuel supply from the community
woodlot (percentage of villagers who rely on the
community woodlot as their single source of fuelwood).

- Cash earned from selling trees from the community
woodlot.

- Being hired to work in the community woodlot.

- Single species or multi-species.

 

 

102
4.6 Analysis of Data

The populations of the villages studied are considered as units of analysis, and
ﬁve units are taken into account, though only two community woodlots are involved.
Two types of analysis of data were made. First, a descriptive analysis on how villagers in
different economic strata differently or similarly beneﬁted from the community woodlot
projects was made. Second, a test of relationships between variables in the research
pr0positions was performed and compared among ﬁve villages to investigate how
different villages interact with community woodlots. The results of the test are then
discussed in the context of the ecological complex model.

Considering the objectives of the research and the data collecting technique which
employed both conventional household survey and in-depth interviews of community
woodlot committees, both quantitative and qualitative methods of data analysis are
applied. Chi-square, a quantitative method to test a statistical signiﬁcant relationship
between variables, is utilized where possible, since most of the variables studied are
discrete in nature. As for the relationships between variables that cannot be answered by
a chi-square test, the qualitative data is employed in the analysis. Firstly, how similarly
or differently the villagers from different economic strata of each village beneﬁt from the
woodlot project is described by using the percentages as a comparison. Then a Chi-
square test is performed by using a Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), which
focuses on the relationships between variables hypothesized in the research propositions.
Next they are compared across populations--i.e. the ﬁve villages under investigation.
Babbie (1990) indicated that, in disproportionate stratiﬁed random sampling, the
researcher needs not worry about the differential sampling, as long as he or she analyzes
the two area samples separately or comparatively. This means that weighting stratum

means is not required, although the samples were drawn by using a disproportionate

103
stratiﬁed random sampling method. Some other reasons that make weighting un-
necessary for an analysis of data in this study include:

1. The variables to be tested are discrete. Weighting sample means of nominal or
discrete variables will not give a meaningful interpretation.

2. The comparison between or among stratiﬁed groups are to be made on the
percentage basis. The relationship between variables will be tested by using Chi-square,
then will be compared across populations.

Data derived from in-depth interviews are to be used to explain the relationship
between variables analyzed by using a Chi-square test, which leads to the explanation of

interactions between or among variables.

CHAPTER 5
BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECTS
AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS OF THE VILLAGES STUDIED

This chapter begins by presenting general characteristics of the study areas at the
provincial level, followed by a description of Kosumphisai district and the historical
background of Kok Peeba community woodlot, then of Kantarawichai district and the
historical background of Nong E-Jone community woodlot. Then it presents personal

data of the respondents and socio-economic conditions of the ﬁve villages studied.

5.1 General Characteristics of the Study Areas

Thailand consists of four regions, i.e., Central, North, South, and Northeast, with
a total area of 513,115 square kilometers. Maha Sarakham province is one of the
seventeen provinces that make up the Northeast, known as Isan, having a total area of
168,854 square kilometers. It is located about 475 kilometers from Bangkok by road. The
province has an area of 3,307,302 rai or 5,291.68 square kilometers, and is
administratively divided into 11 Amphoes (districts), 114 Tambons (sub-districts), and
1,474 villages. It is one of the poorest provinces in the poorest region of the country. In
1986, 35.8% of the population in rural areas of Thailand, but 48.2% of the population in
the Northeast, were living below the poverty line (The 1990 TDRI Year-End Conference,
PDA report). Listed clockwise, provinces bordering on Maha Sarakham are Khon Kaen
and Kalasin on the North, Kalasin and Roi-et on the East, Surin and Burirum on the
South and Burirum and Khon Kaen on the west.

At the end of 1987, a total of 866,519 persons with 436,550 males and 429,969
females were registered at the Local Administration Department, Ministry of Interior, in
the province. The number of males and females were 50.38 and 49.62 percent of the total

population respectively.
1 04

105

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

o
20
Nerthcast
1 ha Ila nd
0’
‘5 J
Klmpuch .
O
40
Dun
o ‘00 200
:23“
O

 

 

Figure SJMap of Thailand Showing the Northeast Region.

 

106

 

\J k ""\ 0
l -\ NOHG KAI ’ '- .\1
“ \ O :‘t ’_‘-! \-~\ I ‘
I \ —J' k ‘\ '&\
L L. J . .
. \--'/ ’4 I, .
ton ) ,’ wkmrou I'HANO
, UDomnnAm I ~-,.-,,-‘
I ' ' ‘
r o
t r
.’ “\.‘\ ° ’
‘. "\SAKON NAKMOM.
‘J 1".“ I'-
q (A\ ' I. ‘ I, .-".-
' ‘ I- “‘~ 0' \\ "
)“Na‘.. 1 "‘,_/‘\5 ‘J \ /
ar’ "\ I a V
./ ‘~’ |
i. WUKDAHAN
‘ . KH N KA
‘\ 2 I; mums":~ 1,
\r-‘-_‘ 9% O . I, ‘J‘u/r-“r
l .-
t ' ‘~
I M I f“ nap- .
I, / r-../
a ' ,
‘ ROIEI / ,
CHMVAPHUM” l ' . ’
,vasomolr
. ‘s‘. '
I
‘9} \~'\-J.‘ ‘ I‘
'I \ p O
.f. 7 I’I\‘ {
o _- ,..--¥ \
l ( - - s c usow nucnamam
'0'- 1. o
I" “ N-’-‘\
._,r ‘ ', smsnmn }
/ | ‘ o
In M
NAKHON nA‘ICHASIMA j But: U ’5 I X.
0‘ 0’ UR." ( ‘
. \‘ ’ O \
I \ s
“I ,’ x \
i ‘ g
1 l . ,
r I ' t
t : .
t k .
s‘ \

Figure 6. Map Showing Maha Sarakham Province.

107

 

 

Wapl Pathum /

' r
‘ 1 King 0 /
Amphoe
N. Chuck Na Dun ’
t O ,
\ ﬂ
\
\
‘ l
I
\ ~
\ s

\ \d’.)
\ Phayaklthaphum Phisai I
I
1
1 o 5
K I
\\

\ I
\_r\~_ I

Figure 7. Map Showing Kosum Phisai and Kantarawichai Districts.

108

The important occupations of the people in Maha Sarakham are glutinous rice
growing, planting kenaf and cassava, livestock raising and ﬁshery, but the crops yields
are very low because of the infertile soil and water shortage. The other marginal
occupations of the population are trade, agroindustry and waged labor.

Geoggaphical Location: The location of Maha Sarakham province is between
latitudes 15 24' and 16 39'N, longitudes 102 50' and 103 31'E, on the Korat Plateau in the
Northeast of Thailand, and is about 130-230 meters above mean sea level. Kosumphisai
and Muang districts are drained by the Chi River in the north, the Plub Pla River in the
south, the Choo River in the west, and the Tua River in the east. These rivers are
branches of the Mun River which runs through the North of Surin province. The
topographical features of Maha Sarakham province can be classiﬁed into 3 major
categories:

a) Plain areas. These are located along the Chi river in the northern part of Muang
and Kosumphisai districts, and the area of Thung Kula Ronghai in the southern part of
the province.

b) Undulating plain areas, found in the Northern part of Phayakkhaphum Phisai
district extending to the eastern part of Muang district.

c) Undulating plain and tilted undulating land, found in the North and the West of
the province. This type of land accounts for 50 per cent of the total land area of the
province.

0

Climate: The climate of Maha Sarakham is classiﬁed as tropical savanna type,

 

according to the Koppen's Climatic Classiﬁcation. There are three seasons, the rainy
season which lasts approximately from May to November, the cold season which lasts
from November to February, and the dry season which lasts from February to April. The

hot season is very hot whereas the cold season can be rather cold. The data on

109
temperature from 1951 to 1975 indicated that Maha Sarakham has an average
temperature of 27.1 C. (Land Development Department: 1982). The annual average
number of rainy days is around 83 (National Statistics Ofﬁce: 1982). The following table
shows the monthly distributions of rainfall, temperature, and relative humidity of Maha

Sarakham province.

Table 9. Monthly Climatic Data of Maha Sarakham Province (1977-1981).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Month Rainfall, Temmrature, C
m Mean Max Min Humidity
%

January 1.30 23.6 34.0 12.9 63.54
February 4.52 26.2 37.5 14.1 61.88
March 31.04 30.3 39.0 18.0 59.18
April 73.14 30.4 40.0 20.8 66.24
May 200.04 29.3 37.7 21.7 75.02
June 196.80 28.9 35.5 22.7 79.68
July 134.72 28.3 35.2 22.5 78.31
August 191.20 27.9 34.6 26.3 79.82
September 268.92 27.4 33.7 21.8 82.60
October 84.70 26.6 33.4 18.5 75.54
November 8.54 24.4 32.7 14.4 71 .66
December 1.36 22.6 33.2 11.3 66.92

 

 

Source : Royal Forest Department, The Village Woodlot: Its Implementation in
Thailand. 1984.

Table 9 shows that the average annual rainfall is 1,196.28 mm, which is
considered as medium rainfall among the provinces in the northeast. However, water
shortages can be serious for agriculture at the beginning of the rainy season and for
drinking in the dry season due to the unpredictability of rainfall and sedimentation in
most canals and waterways.

Water Resources: There are three major sources of water in Maha Sarakham

province:

110

a) Rain water, which is considered the most important source of water.

b) Surface water. Maha Sarakham has water catchments which provide water to
many important rivers and canals, namely the Chi, Pong, Plub Pla, Tua, Choo, and Siew
rivers.

c) Underground water. This source of water is normally obtained by digging
deep wells. The quality and quantity of underground water depend on the type of
underground rock and the depth of wells.

Some small water reservoirs, canals and swamps, which supply water to a few
percent of the agricultural area, cannot supply enough water year round.

Forest Resources: The type of natural forest in Maha Sarakham is classiﬁed as
dry dipterocarp forest, the dominant tree species of which are Shorea obtusa Wall, S.
siamensis Miq., Dipterocarpus tuberculatus Roxb, Dipterocarpus obtusifolius T eijsm,
and Xylia xylocarpa Taub. The Royal Forest Department (Forestry Statistics: 1990)
indicated that the national forest reserves of Maha Sarakham covered 407 square
kilometers, or 7.69 percent of the total area of the province. The total forest area of the
province gradually declined from 263 square kilometers or 4.97 percent in 1976 to 49
square kilometers or 0.92 percent in 1989. Table 9 shows the forest area in the
northeastern region of Thailand from 1976 to 1989.

Table 10 clearly shows that Maha Sarakham has the smallest area of both national
forest reserves and other forest land compared to other provinces in the northeast. A
study (Land Development Division: 1982) indicated that two major causes of the decrease
in forest land of Maha Sarakham province were the population pressure and the
conversion of subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture which led the villagers to

encroach the forests for more agricultural land.

111

Table 10. National Forest Reserves and Forest Areas of Provinces in the Northeastern
Region of Thailand from 1976 to 1989.

 

 

 

Total Area National
Provinces (Sq.kms) Forest Total Area (Sg.kms/%)
Reserves 1976 1989

Kalasin 6,946.746 1,831 l,659(23 . 88) 63 7(9. 1 7)
Khon Kaen 10,885.991 2,716 1,829(16.80) 917(8.43)
Chaiyaphum 12,778.287 3,304 4,555(35.65) 3,146(24.62)
Nong Khai 7,332.280 3,339 1,653(22.54) 540(7.37)
Nakom Phanom 5,512.669 2,733 2,995(54.33) 640(11.62)
Mukdahan 4,339.830 1,073 - 1,544(35.59)
Maha Sarakham 5,291.683 407 263(4.97) 49(0.92)
Udon Thani 15,589.388 7,220 4,420(28.35) 2,395(15.36)
Nakorn Ratchasima 20,493.964 7,783 4,477(21.84) 2,577(12.57)
Buri Ram 10,321.885 2,800 1,489(14.42) 596(5.77)
Roi Et 8,299.449 767 638(7.69) 222(2.68)
Loei 1 1,424.612 6,963 5,132(44.92) 3 ,264(28.57)
Surin 8,124.056 1,784 961(11.83) 338(4.16)
Si Sa Ket 8,839.976 2,039 1,487(16.82) 786(8.89)
Sakon Nakom 9,605.764 2,723 2,889(30.07) 1,568(l6.33)
Ubon Ratchathani 18,906.089 6,509 6,285(33.24) 3,887(20.56)
Yasothon 4,161.664 1,140 762(18.31) 480(11.52)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source : Forestry Statistics 1990, Forest Statistics Sub-division, Planning Division, Royal
Forest Department.

5.2 Kosumphisai District and Kok Peeba Community Woodlot

Kosumphisai district, one of the two sites studied in Maha Sarakham province,
has a total area of 916.351 square kilometers and is located about 28 kilometers west of
Maha Sarakham town. The district boundaries of Kosumphisai are as follows:

North - Chiang Yun and Kantarawichai districts, Maha Sarakham province;

East - Kantarawichai and Muang districts, Maha Sarakham province;

South - Borabu district, Maha Sarakham province, and Ban Phai district, Khon

Kaen province;

West - Muang district, Khon Kaen province.

112

.368? 38; sex 88 emcee 22% 523 as; a. 2.. use 85am .386 a: a cam

 

comtomom

1U .amnwﬁw

a. 2: u 82 .53
8683 29$ x3.

 

325 we; Em

on

 

 

1:1
[—1

 

 

5.85 522.35 a.

 

 

 

 

 

 

__r|._ .5 N
o .85 con 5 _ll_ _ .35 can 5m

\U Ema
E .N _

so: 32..

 

 

 

 

a. 85 u 82 ask
8383 308 sex

5
LE 3

3: $82 5m

 

 

 

l:
H

 

 

 

113

._Eo£m man.» can mo 82 .m oSmE

 

828: u.

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . , a: w:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O O O O O. O OOOOnmsaof

O
o o o o o o o co
O O

o o o o o o

O O O O

O
O O 000
. t L 0H.
\\\l\\\t\t\\L\\l egg—nan
O

 

 

z<—l—

 

 

 

114

.3: mcoz 5m no new: .2 839m

 

 

Base: .1. O
55 cam

58% was. 5m

/

 

 

 

3.83 was :8

 

 

585 we? 5m

\ﬁ %.
3:33 a a.

 

 

 

 

Rm ”82 5m

.02—ow 295,—. O

G“ ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3: 982:8 8: 982:8
0 C O
O, O O
o o o
o co oo
o o o oo o o A o

 

 

 

 

0000
m I .
36.5. was :8

+

 

 

8m $82 :8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

115

.9 86 Sn :8 he an: .: 2:5

 

 

55 a: a

 

Egg—=83. a

 

\

 

: Eu :8 5m as e 30 :8 am mésaam Rom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

+ 22m $8..
2

O O O O
O O
O

O

O
O O

O
O O O
O OOO O

soarim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116

.5 >20 con sumac 9&2 .S SEE

 

__

 

 

       

82m wéoﬁ 03:5 t

035 conga

 

 

 

: 35 :8 5m Ba 0 36:8 8m méuaaa 98¢

 

 

m .5330

 

 

n 536
5.va0: own—#5 G
_ hams—U
m .226
2 5o :8 Sm o .335
N hymn—o

 

 

2&th

 

20E 3.3—

W

 

new 3m

=3 32

 

 

 

117

The district has a total population of 101,619, of which 51,192 are males, 50,427 are
females. It is divided into 14 sub-districts which consists of 177 villages and 19,666
households. The inhabitants' major occupations are rice farming and cassava cultivation.
The district has two national forest reserves: Wang Dang and Wang Kung national forest
reserves covering an area of 76,250 rai, and Gud Rung national forest reserves covering
an area of 4,375 rai, if only the part that belongs to Kosumphisai district is considered.
The natural forest in Kosumphisai district no longer exists due to the extensive forest
encroachment for cassava cultivation. This happened long time ago and was caused by
the rapid increase of population and the decrease in land holding size of individual
families.

Lao sub-district where Kok Peeba community woodlot is situated is one of these
14 sub-districts. Lao sub-district was officially established in 1915 and now has a total
area of 77 square kilometers. It is bounded in the north by Hua Kwang sub-district, in the
south by Nong Mek sub-district, in the east by Kang Kae sub-district, and in the west by
Wang Yao sub-district. As mentioned, there are four villages sharing beneﬁts from the
Kok Peeba community woodlot, two of which are situated in Lao sub-district and the
other two in Hua Kwang sub-district. The two villages of Lao sub-district are Ban Yang
Sinchai and Ban Nong Had located seven kilometers from the market-town of
Kosumphisai. The other two villages of Hua Kwang sub-district are Ban Don Gloy 6 and

Ban Don Gloy 17, located only two km. from the market town of Kosumphisai.

5.2.1 Historical Background
Kok Peeba community woodlot is located about four to ﬁve km. from
Kosumphisai market along the road from Kosumphisai district of Maha Sarakham

province to Ban Phai district of Khon Kaen province. The woodlot was promoted and

118
established by the Thai Government under the responsibility of the Royal Forest
Department (RFD), and the National Energy Administration (N EA). It was incorporated
with and funded by USAID to promote fuelwood production as a component of the
Renewable Nonconventional Energy Project in Thailand.

The concept of community woodlots emerged from the government's concerns
over the decrease of national forest cover and the increasing demand of fuelwood
production in the rural sector. The government implemented such community woodlots
to cope with the anticipated problem of fuelwood scarcity in the very near future. The
idea of this project was to plant fast-growing trees with a maximum of a ﬁve year cutting
cycle on land determined by a baseline survey. The villagers were to be responsible for
the woodlots in terms of preparing land, planting, maintenance, and distributing beneﬁts,
with supervision and technical support from the concerned government agencies. The
objective was to promote sense of belongings among the villagers, so that they would
take good care of their own community woodlots for their beneﬁts.

The project was part of a regional level project which had the following
objectives:

a. To provide a sustained supply of wood fuel for both woodlot owners and non-
woodlot owners. ‘

b. To lessen the pressure resulting from the cutting of trees in the natural forests
and illicit cutting of trees on public lands in general.

c. To create employment and increase income for rural families.

d. To develop techniques to be used as an important ﬁrst step toward a
countrywide scheme of community woodlot projects.

e. To stimulate interest in tree farming by demonstrating the beneﬁts derived

from such development. (National Energy Administration, The village woodlot: its

119
mplementation in Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand. 1984)

The target of this project was to plant trees on 6,000 rai (960 hectares) of public,
school, and temple land in the northeastern region of Thailand between 1981 and 1984.
Criteria for site selection included the size of public land available, readiness of the
community, economic condition, and demand or scarcity of fuelwood. However, not all
criteria were given equal attention in practice. The size of public land proved, in fact, to
be the dominant factor (Phutarapomzl983). The Kok Peeba community woodlot was one
of the many sites identiﬁed as having large public land and fuelwood shortage problems
in the national baseline survey on rural energy conducted by Chulalongkom University
Social Research Institute (CUSRI). Other sites identiﬁed were in Si Sa Ket, Roi-et, and
Yasothon provinces, also in the northeast of Thailand.

In 1982, Mr. Dee Dankamsarn, village headman of Ban Yang Sinchai and also
head of Lao sub-district, was contacted by the assistant forestry ofﬁcer of Kosumphisai
district to select a piece of public land in the village for planting fast growing trees. At
that time, he and his villagers had no knowledge about community woodlots. However,
the village did have some 800 rai (128 hectares) of public land located at the border
between Lao and Hua Kuang sub-districts. This public land ofﬁcially belonged to Ban
Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had of Lao sub-district, but was mainly exploited by
villagers from Ban Don Gloy of Hua Kuang sub-district for grazing cattle and growing
cassava. Mr. Dee and the village development committees of Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban
Nong Had decided to adopt the proposed community woodlot project, with the idea of
getting the public land back from the villagers of Ban Don Gloy. Later, the district
forestry ofﬁcer came to discuss the situation with Mr. Dee and village development
committees, and agreed that USAID funds through the RFD would provide seedlings,

ﬁnancial and technical supports.

120

It was decided by the RFD that Eucalyptus camaldulensis would be planted by
hiring local people. The plan was to plant Eucalyptus camaldulensis with 2 x 4 meter
spacing on 150, 150, and 100 rai in 1982, 1983, and 1984 respectively. The RFD
provided ﬁnancial support to the Kok Peeba community woodlot only from 1982 to
1984, after that, the community woodlot committee, who had in the meanwhile gained
some experience, fully managed their own woodlot ﬁnancially, but they still received
advice from the RFD from time to time.

Phutarapom (1983) reported that although there was a coordinated effort among
the governor of Maha Sarakham province, provincial land department, and Lao sub-
district council during the implementation phase, the project staff did not coordinate with
the government ofﬁcials at the district level. This caused the project staff to decide to
select the Kok Peeba public land without knowing the existing problems. In addition,
direct contact with local villagers was almost neglected. Consequently, most villagers did
not understand the objectives of the project. They also did not believe in the potential
success of the project and thought that the woodlot belonged to the Royal Forest
Department instead of the villagers themselves. Some leaders took advantage of the lack
of direct contact between the project staff and the villagers by hiring only their relatives
to work in the project, which caused the villagers to resent the project.

Similar to most government officials, the project staff of the Kok Peeba
community woodlot thought that any problems concerning the woodlots could be solved
by enforcing the law. They hardly thought about other solutions. The ﬁgure shows the
coordination among various government agencies at different levels. The solid lines in
Figure 13 shows the existence of coordination, while the broken lines indicate the

absence of coordination.

121

 

I Royal Forest Department I

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 Provincial Provincial
I Governor I I Forestry Ofﬁce I I Land Ofﬁce

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

District . .
Drstnct
Government “““ I I
Ofﬁce I Forestry Ofﬁce

 

 

 

Sub-district
Council

 

I
l
l
l

 

I Villagers I

 

Figure 13. Coordination among Various Government Agencies Concerning the Kok
Peeba Community Woodlot at Different Levels.

122

5.2.2 Implementation and Management

Implementation of the community woodlot resulted in conﬂicts among the
villages which share the beneﬁts. Phutarapom (1983) identiﬁed three major factors
which led to conﬂicts among villages. First, Kok Peeba public land was used for grazing
animals by many villages before the woodlot was implemented. The conversion of this
public land from grazing area to community woodlot had affected the villagers who
grazed animals there. Second, Kok Peeba public land was used and occupied by villagers
from Ban Don Gloy which is closer to this public land than are Ban Yang Sinchai and
Ban Nong Had who have the rights over it. Some villagers from Ban Don Gloy, who
were forced to move out of this land, not only strongly disagreed with the community
woodlot project but also resisted and destroyed seedlings in the woodlot. Finally,
problems of land use conﬂicts between the Lao sub-district council and Ban Don Gloy
had existed even before the community woodlot project was proposed. Lao sub-district
council had been trying to drive away the villagers of Ban Don Gloy who had settled on
Kok Peeba public land, but had never been successfully able to do so. Therefore, the
project was a very good opportunity for Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had
inhabitants to drive away villagers of Ban Don Gloy from Kok Peeba public land.
Although Phutarapom (1983) reported that most villagers felt the shortage of fuelwood
in the surrounding areas, it is clear to this point that fuelwood shortage was not a major
reason to adopt the project. And it appears that the objective of the Royal Forest
Department to promote community woodlot project, and the objective of Lao sub-district
in getting back the Kok Peeba public land have been met by implementing the project.
However, there was serious difﬁculties in implementing the project at the very
beginning. One problem was that some villagers of Ban Don Gloy purposely grazed their

animals in the woodlot. As a result, the seedlings planted were destroyed by the animals.

123
Nevertheless, conﬂicts among villagers from different villages gradually declined due to
the techniques used to manage and distribute the beneﬁts from the woodlot, as will be
presented.

In keeping with the plan of RFD, only 150 rai of Kok Peeba public land were ﬁrst
planted in 1982. Before the trees were planted, a temporary community woodlot
committee was formed, comprised of 11 members, with the social researchers and
forestry ofﬁcers who were working in the project at that time serving as advisors. Mr.
Dee Dankamsam, the village headman of Ban Yang Sinchai, became its chairman and
has retained the function ever since. Other members consisting of the village headman of
Ban Nong Had and other local leaders were directly elected by the villagers. This
committee was called "the tree planting committee" and was closely supervised by the
project staff of RFD. Later on, the woodlot committee decided to form a more permanent
one. At that point, the members were reduced from 11 to 6, and was called "the woodlot
maintenance committee". No villagers from Ban Don Gloy participated in this ﬁrst tree
planting stage, only villagers from Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had being hired.
They were paid 30 baht a day for land clearing and 1 baht for planting each tree (.50 baht
for digging a hole with 1 cubic foot dimension and another .50 baht for planting). By
using 2 x 4 meter spacing, they were able to plant 200 Eucalyptus seedlings in one rai,
for a total of about 30,000 seedlings planted in 150 rai. Thaiutsa et a1. (1983) reported

that soil chemical properties of the planting site in Maha Sarakham were comprised of

the following:
pH 4.7
O.M. 0.94 %
P 15.00 ppm

K 33.00 ppm

124

Ca 89.00 ppm

M8 46.00 ppm
The growth rate of Eucalyptus planted in Kok Peeba was 3.88 meters/year. The survival
rate was 90 per cent. However, in the ﬁrst year, the rate of seedling survival was quite
low because villagers had no experience and the trees were planted in the dry season
(April and May). Moreover, seedlings were uprooted by some villagers of Ban Don
Gloy. Consequently, it was necessary to replant the trees several times.

To lessen the conﬂicts with Ban Don Gloy, the community woodlot committee,
which originally comprised only villagers from Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had,
decided to have some representatives from Ban Don Gloy. These representatives helped
make the villagers from Ban Don Gloy understand the objectives of the woodlot project
better and encourage them to participate in replanting of trees. In addition, the
community woodlot committee, under close supervision of the project staff, also allowed
villagers from Ban Yang Sinchai, Ban Nong Had, and Ban Don Gloy to grow cassava in
the woodlot. Each village was allocated 50 rai for growing cassava. The woodlot
committee members of each village were responsible for selecting the households that
wanted to grow cassava in the woodlot. Priority was given to the landless and small
farmers. In Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had, the committee themselves selected the
villagers. In Ban Don Gloy, households were selected by a rafﬂe. The households
selected were allocated a three rai plot to grow cassava in between the rows of trees, with
an obligation to take care of the tree seedlings. However, this was practiced only in the
ﬁrst few years of tree planting because the yield of cassava declined after the trees grew
larger.

The second batch of planting was done in 1983 on a 130 rai surface and not 150

rai as initially planned. The RFD supplied seedlings which came from Si Sa Ket

125
province. Villagers were paid 30 baht a day and were also allowed to grow cassava
between the rows of Eucalyptus trees in the woodlot as done in the previous year. The
trees planted that year grew quite well due to good rain. However, some of the seedlings
were again destroyed by villagers from Ban Don Gloy. Another 100 rai of Eucalyptus
were planted in 1984 using the same method of planting by hiring villagers. But only 28
rai survived due to severe drought and destruction of seedlings. This was the last year
when the Kok Peeba community woodlot was to be ﬁnancially supported by USAID. No
further planting was done in 1985 and 1986, due to the termination of the outside grant.
During the period when no more planting took place and when villagers had to wait until
Eucalyptus were mature enough to be harvested, the community woodlot committees
reported that they were somewhat worried about the outcome of the project, because it
was quite a new experience for them to plant Eucalyptus trees. They were skeptical of the
beneﬁts promised by the RFD and they did not know at that time how to manage the
woodlot and its products. The ﬁrst harvest of Eucalyptus trees took place in 1987 with
the trees planted in 1982. Having no idea how to sell the trees, the community woodlot
committee was contacted by a middleman who bought Eucalyptus poles and sold them to
a major pulp mill in Khon Kaen province. The committee sold 150 rai of Eucalyptus for
210,000 baht for the ﬁrst harvest. A village revolving fund then was established and
spent to plant more trees. Since 1987, the community woodlot committee has been able
to sell Eucalyptus trees from the woodlot every year. Up to 1991, they have harvested
and sold their trees on six occasions. Additional areas of 50, 70 and 50 rai were planted
in 1987, 1988 and 1989 respectively. The money used to make these plantings was

earned by selling the trees in the community woodlot.

126

5.3 Kantarawichai District and Nong E-Jone Community Woodlot

The second community woodlot, "Nong E-Jone", is also in Maha Sarakham
province, but in another district called Kantarawichai. The district covers an area of 412
square kilometers and is situated about 18 kilometers north of Maha Sarakham town. The
following are boundaries of the district:

North - Yang Talat and Kamalasai districts, Kalasin province;

South - Muang district, Maha Sarakham province;

East - Kamalasai, Kalasin province;

West - Kosumphisai and Chiang Yun districts, Maha Sarakham province.

Kantarawichai has a population of 72,753, of which 36,567 are males and 36,186
are females. It is divided into 10 sub-districts which comprise 131 villages. Don Bark
village, where Nong E-Jone community woodlot is located, is in Srisuk, one of the 10
sub-districts in Kantarawichai. The topography of Kantarawichai is generally undulating
land, sloping down from the North to the South. Its climate is similar to that of other
provinces in northeast Thailand. Ninety eight percent of the inhabitants are rice farmers,
though some cultivate upland crops as cash crops. Kantarawichai district, similar to most
provinces in the northeast, has water shortages for both agriculture and drinking, due to
the unfavorable rainfall and inadequate reservoirs. There are no national forest reserves

in this district.

5.3.1 Historical Background

Nong E-Jone community woodlot is located 500 meters south of Ban Don Bark
(Srisuk sub-district, Kantarawichai district, Maha Sarakham province). The woodlot was
established quite differently than that of Kok Peeba. It was initiated by the Population

and Community Development Association (PDA), a Thai nongovemment organization.

127

.383 2a 322.83 8%, 25H 223 035 Em :8 co 23 23.5 257m 982 35% an: .2 2am

 

mm. mm H 3583 .«o 8.2 .83

 

Run «82 MES in

.il

2% :68

E 8 n

.2825

co 82
Ba

8&5 «an :8 ﬂ

/

/

 

 

 

 

 

 

activism xsmtw AF

 

 

 

128

.B>oEoM soon was 8:60? cam 05 8% ems—5 ism com MO 984 0:95 0:2...m meoZ mEBonw amE .2 2sz

 

E 2 n 8683 Lo 82 gap

Ram 52 ES

 

1|

20E zuvmm I E -

035 scam =8 e.

/

 

98m

 

 

// lllllllllll\l|ll

amgvaﬁﬁ
gen—85

 

 

€333 ﬁﬁm a.

 

 

129

can :8 88.5 a: .2 8%;

 

 

 

 

 

awn—om .ll .

20; £5

.uBm_Vp=m xsmtm a.

 

 

 

new $8..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O O O
o
o co 000
o o co 00
0 OOO OOOO
00 0000 e co
oo
o e o o on
000 one
0 O O 23:83;
O
o o 0
OO O
O...
OOO
OO

 

sum :68

 

 

 

 

130
PDA was developed from the Office of Community Family Planning founded in May
1974 to implement family planning programs insisting on people participation.
Currently, PDA's activities include public health services, improving the municipality's
environment, improving drinking and domestic use water resources, and improving
agricultural production systems, and social welfare. The headquarters of the PDA are
located in Bangkok but it also has thirteen centers in the central, north, and northeast
regions of Thailand. The Community-Based Integrated Rural Development Center
(CBIRD), situated approximately four kilometers outside the provincial capital of Maha
Sarakham, is one among thirteen throughout the country. CBIRD Maha Sarakham
represents the efforts of PDA to expand its services beyond its original family planning
program to include the development of the rural poor. It is now undertaking a wide range
of development activities including community afforestation. Realizing that rural people
have the potential to plant trees on degraded land to improve the physical environment of
rural villages, PDA promotes planting fast growing, hardwood and fruit trees in public
places within the villages, on private land and in community woodlots adjacent to the
village. CBIRD teaches the villagers techniques of propagation, transplanting, grafting,
and maintenance of trees. By encouraging the villagers to plant "economic forests" with a
mixture of trees, it is anticipated that many of the minor forest products and wildlife will
reappear. Most community woodlots promoted by PDA are relatively small as compared
to those promoted by RFD, and are funded by the Local Development Assistance
Program (LDAP), the German Government, and the United Nations. The major objective
of the PDA in promoting community woodlots is to encourage reforestation by rural
people and to reduce deforestation of local forests. Choices of tree species and
management of beneﬁts from woodlots are based on the Villagers' own decisions. This

means that villagers decide which species of trees to plant and for what purposes. There

131
were a total of 33 community woodlots implemented in the Northeast of Thailand in
1988. Of these 33 community woodlots, 8 are in Khon Kaen, 14 in Maha Sarakham, and
11 in Burirum provinces.

In 1987, Mr. Thongsuk Pongsongkram, an employee of CBIRD Maha Sarakham
Center, brought the idea of the community woodlot to the Srisuk sub-district council, and
asked if there was any public land available in Srisuk sub-district for planting trees. He
talked to Mr. Suk Neungpho, the village headman of Ban Don Bark, and found that the
public land locally called 'Nong E-Jone', once a forested land, might be appropriate to
establish a commmrity woodlot. Nong E-Jone public land covers an area of 82 rai
approximately, 27 of which are swampy, and was used for grazing at that time. Mr.
Thongsuk justiﬁed the proposed community woodlot project by reasoning that there was
no forested land in Don Bark village. If the villagers adopted this project, the community
woodlot would be a future source of fuelwood and construction materials. Being
interested in the proposed project himself, Mr. Suk organized a meeting with his villagers
and found that most villagers agreed with the proposed community woodlot project
because they were satisﬁed with the conditions offered by the PDA. The villagers had
only to provide labor and poles for making fences around the woodlot, and the PDA was
to provide seedlings, equipment, and technical support. Although some villagers
disagreed with the proposed project because they were afraid of losing grazing area, they
eventually had to follow the majority's consensus. The decision-making process took less

than a month.

5.3.2 Implementation and Management
Once the project had been adopted in principle, Mr. Suk immediately began to

form a community woodlot committee to help coordinate villagers and PDA staff. Unlike

132

Kok Peeba community woodlot where the committees were elected by the villagers, the
members of the community woodlot committee were appointed by Mr. Suk. Because
some members of the ﬁrst committee did not cooperate well, the village headman
dissolved it and set up a new committee made up of some members from the former
committee who were still willing to work and new ones. Later, dates for planting and
fencing were set. The tree species to be planted offered by the PDA were Eucalyptus
camaldulensis, Acacia auriculiformis, Leucaena leucocephala, and Cassia siamea.
Initially, most villagers agreed with all tree species offered, except Eucalyptus because
they had heard about the negative impacts of Eucaljptus on the environment. However,
once they learned that Eucalyptus was a fast-growing tree and could be sold for cash, the
villagers decided to give it a try. Although the villagers were free to select the tree
species themselves, not all tree species preferred could be provided due to the limits on
the numbers of tree species offered by the PDA.

It was decided that only 35 rai of Nong E-Jone public land would be used for
their ﬁrst woodlot to plant these four tree species. The area of 35 rai was divided into
four plots for the planting of Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Acacia auriculiformis, Leucaena
leucocephala, and Cassia siamea. Each household was required to contribute one labor
unit and provide 4 poles for making fences. This woodlot was implemented in June,
1987, because it was the rainy season. The lot was planted in one day using 3 x 3 meter
spacing, as was suggested by Mr. Thongsuk. Fencing took two 2 days to construct.
Maintenance of the community woodlot was voluntarily done twice a year by
representatives of all households. The villagers also practiced agroforestry by growing
jasmine rice between rows of trees in the woodlot in the ﬁrst year. The opportunity for
growing rice in the woodlot was open to everybody, but only four villagers attempted to

do so, and the yield was not very high. However, they were able to grow rice in the

133
woodlot only in the ﬁrst year when the trees were still young. Later, they changed to
grow grasses in the woodlot where the trees, especially Leucaena leucocepphala, were
not very well growing. Seeds of Lucy grass were provided by the Grasses Improvement
Station in Chiang Yuen district, Kalasin province. The villagers normally do not let their
cattle graze in the woodlot, but they the grass in the woodlot and use it to feed their cattle
elsewhere.

In the rainy season of 1988, the second woodlot was implemented because the
villagers had noticed that the trees planted in the ﬁrst woodlot were growing quite well
and some of Nong E-Jone public land was still unused. Another 25 rai plot of Nong E-
Jonc public land was used for the second community woodlot. The adoption and tree
planting procedures were quite similar to those of the ﬁrst woodlot, but some tree species
planted were different. The did not plant Leucaena Leucocephala and Cassia siamea in
the second woodlot because they were not growing well in the ﬁrst one. Eucalyptus
camaldulensis, Acacia auriculiformis, Azadirachta indica (Sadao or Neem), T ecoma
stans, and Cassia fistula were the species planted in the second woodlot. Unfortunately,
the trees planted in the second woodlot did not grow as well as those in the ﬁrst one.
However, villagers were able to collect some food from this woodlot. The trees were
clear cut by the villagers in December 1991 due to a proposed development project. This
project was initiated by a development program called "Isan Khiaw", or "Greening the
Northeast", and was undertaken by the military who proposed to construct a reservoir on
public land, part of which was once the area of the second community woodlot. The
village headman and the villagers felt that the reservoir could be a very important source
of water for their village. They also thought that they had already quite enough trees in
the ﬁrst community woodlot. As a result, they decided to adopt this reservoir

construction project. After the villagers had cut down all trees in this woodlot, the soil

134

was found to be too wet to excavate. Accordingly, work was stopped and was to be
resumed in the dry season, in April 1991. While this dissertation is being written (July
1993), the villagers are still waiting for the project staff to come back and construct a
reservoir as promised. As a matter of fact, the Isan Khiaw project has been altogether
given up by the military and the villagers are left with less forest and no reservoir.

Soil Condition and Seedlings Survival: An evaluation study of the Nong E-Jone
community woodlot conducted in 1988 by the Research and Development Institute
(RDI), Khon Kaen University, indicated that the soil in the Nong E-Jone community

woodlot has the following chemical properties:

Organic matter 0.489 %
pH 4.74
Nitrogen 0.023 %
Phosphorus 2.175 ugP/g
Potassium 9.00 ugK/g

Table 11 shows the number of each tree species planted and the survival rate in the ﬁrst

woodlot of 35 rai.

Table 11. Tree Species Planted and Survival Rate in the First Woodlot of Nong E-

Jone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tree species No. of trees No.of trees Survival rate (%)
planted survived
Eucalyptus camaldulensis 2,000 1,344 67.20
Acacia auriculiformis 2,000 1,107 55.35
Leucaena leucocephala 100 91 91.00
Cassia siamea 2,000 1,493 74.65

 

 

135

5.4 Socio-economic Conditions of the Five Villages Studied

Data on general characteristics and socio-economic conditions of the villages
studied are presented below. These data are based on both the national survey of villages
conducted in 1990 by the Community Development Department, Ministry of Interior,
and the data collected during the ﬁeldwork of this research. To make it easier to
understand and for the comparing purposes, data are not presented separately village by
village. Instead each set of data of the ﬁve villages is presented together.

Population

Ban Don Gloy 17 and Ban Don Gloy 6 have the highest population density as
compared to the other three villages. As a matter of fact, these two villages used to be the
same village bur due to population growth, the village was administratively divided into
Ban Don Gloy 6 and 17 in 1988. The division of the village caused no expansion of the
village area. Instead, it was divided by using a road between the two villages as a
boundary. Among the ﬁve villages studied, Ban Don Gloy 6 has the smallest family size
(4.3 members per family). Ban Don Gloy 17 and Ban Don Gloy 6 have the highest
population density (30.53 and 18.90 persons respectively per rai or .16 hectare) due to
the fact that these two villages have smaller village areas as compared to the other three
villages (Table 13). And the land is so limited that the village areas of these two villages
can no longer be expanded. Population growth and density was very probably the reason
why the people of these villages encroached the Kok Peeba public land of Lao district for

both agriculture and resettlement.

136
Table 12. The Total Number of Inhabitants in the Villages Studied Classiﬁed by Sex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

VILLAGES
Total Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
Population %(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)
Male 47.7(219) 50.0(132) 48.1(191) 49.5(423) 47.9(297)
Female 52.3(240) 50.0(132) 51.9(206) 50.5(432) 52.1(323)
Total 100.0(459) 100.0(264) 100.0(397) 100.0(855) 100.0(620)

 

 

Table 13. Village Areas, Population Density, and Family Sizes of the Five Villages

 

 

Studied.
Villages Village Areas (rai) Pop. Density Family Size
(person/rai) (persons)
Yang Sinchai 50 9.18 5.40
Nong Had 30 ‘ 8.80 5.50
Don Gloy 6 21 18.90 4.30
Don Gloy 17 28 30.53 5.60
Don Bark 50 12.40 5.60

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 14 shows that more than 55 per cent of the respondents in the villages
surveyed, except Ban Nong Had, are householdheads, both male and female. The
majority of the respondents in Ban Nong Had (53.3%) are wives of the householdheads.
However, there were more female than male respondents in this study. In every village
surveyed, except Ban Don Bark, more than 50 per cent of the respondents were women
(Table 15). Most female respondents interviewed were wives of the householdheads,
although some were householdheads themselves (Table 14). The female respondents
identiﬁed as householdheads were either widowed or divorced. The female respondents
including household heads and wives were able to answer the questions concerning the

community woodlots because most of them took part in the community woodlot

137

activities as well. Table 16 shows the marital status of respondents. Most are married

and living together.

Table 14. Respondents Classiﬁed by Household Status.

 

 

 

 

 

 

VILLAGES
Status in Household Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
%(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)

Male HH. Head 42.1(8) 26.7(4) 45.0(9) 46.1(12) 60.0(12)
Female HH. Head 21.1(4) 20.0(3) 10.0(2) 23.1(6) 10.0(2)
Wives 31 .6(6) 53 .3(8) 30.0(6) 23.1(6) 30.0(6)
Sons/daughters 5.3(1) - 15.0(3) 7.7(2) -

Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

Table 15. Respondents Classiﬁed by Gender.

 

 

 

 

 

 

VILLAGES
Respondents' Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloyl 7 DonBark
Gender %(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)
Male 42.1(8) 26.7(4) 45.0(9) 46.2(12) 65.0(13)
Female 57.9(11) 73.3(11) 55.0(11) 53.8(14) 35.0(7)
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

Table 17 shows that the ages of most respondents in Ban Nong Had, Ban Don

Gloy 6, and Ban Don Bark range from 41 to 50. The age of most respondents in Ban

Yang Sinchai and Ban Don Gloy 17 fall between 31 to 40, and 51 to 60, respectively.

 

 

138
Table 16. Respondents Classiﬁed by Marital Status.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VILLAGES
Marital Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
Status %(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)
1. Single 5.3(1) - - 3.8(1) 3.8(1)
2. Married and 73.7(14) 66.7(10) 85.0(17) 76.9(20) 80.0(16)
living together
3. Married and - - - - 5.0(1)
spouse working
off-site
4. Married but - - 5.0(1) - -
staying separately
(without legal
divorce)
5. Widowed 21 .1(4) 33.3(5) 10.0(2) 19.2(5) 10.0(2)
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)
Table 17. Respondents Classiﬁed by Age Groups.
VILLAGES
Respondents' Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloyl7 DonBark
Age Groups %(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)
< 20 - - - 3.8(1) -
21 - 30 5.3(1) - 5.0(1) - 15.0(3)
31 - 40 36.8(7) 6.7(1) 35.0(7) 19.2(5) 15.0(3)
41 - 50 15.8(3) 46.7(7) 35.0(7) 23.1(6) 30.0(6)
51 - 60 15.8(3) 33.3(5) 5.0(1) 30.8(8) 25.0(5)
61 - 70 26.3(5) 13.3(2) 20.0(4) 19.2(5) 5.0(1)
71 - 80 - - - 3.8(1) 10.0(2)
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

 

 

Education Level

 

Among the 100 respondents interviewed, more than 80 per cent of the
respondents in every village ﬁnished grade 4, which once was the compulsory education

level for everybody in Thailand. The new educational system requires students to ﬁnish

139
grade 6 as a minimum. Only four respondents had never been to school. There is only
one respondent, from Ban Don Gloy 6, who went to university and received a BA.

degree and is now teaching at the village school (Table 18).

Table 18. Respondents Classiﬁed by Educational Levels.

 

 

 

 

VILLAGES
Educational Level Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
%(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (1")
No schooling 5.3(1) 6.7(1) - - 10.0(2)
Below grade 4 - - - 3.8(1) -
Grade 4 89.5(17) 93.3(14) 85.0(17) 80.8(21) 85.0(17)
Grade 5-7 - - 5.0(1) 7.7(2) 5.0(1)
Grade 8-10 5.3(1) - 5.0(1) 3.8(1) -
Occupational school - - - 3.8(1) -
University - - 5 .0( 1) - -
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

 

 

 

Occupation

More than 80 per cent of the respondents in every village are engaged in
agriculture, mainly rice farming. (Table 19) Glutinous rice is the most important
subsistence crop. Except for Ban Don Bark, which does not have any upland areas, the
villagers of the other four villages also grow upland crops, i.e. cassava which is the most
important cash crop. The respondents not working are those who are too old to work in
the farm (66-78 years old) and normally help looking after the children at home. One 50
year-old respondent in Ban Nong Had reported that she was not able to work in the farm

because she had to look after her grandson.

140
Table 19. Respondents Classiﬁed by Occupations.

 

VILLAGES
Occupations Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloyl7 DonBark

%(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)

 

 

Agriculture 84.2(16) 80.0(12) 90.0(18) 73.1(19) 80.0(16)
Gov't services - g - 5.0(1) 3.8(1) -
Waged labor 15.8(3) 13.3(2) - 23.1(6) 5.0(1)
Not working - 6.7(1) 5.0(1) - 15.0(3)
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

 

 

 

Land Ownership and Land Holding

The size of land owned by the individual respondents ranges from zero to more
than 80 rai. The wide range of the size of land owned may be the result of the sampling
method employed in this study. As already mentioned in the previous chapter, the key
informants were asked to classify the villagers into three economic strata, i.e., large-farm,
medium-farm, and small—farm. Among other criteria, the size of land owned was one of
the most important factors used in assigning the villagers into different economic groups.
The better-off farmers are considered as owning more land than do the poor. However,
the ranges of the size of land owned by the better-off or large-farm farmers are not the
same in every village because the availability of the land resource varies. In Table 18 it is
obvious that the ranges of the largest size of land owned by the respondents varies from
village to village. In Ban Don Bark, the largest size of land owned by the large-farm
farmers falls between 41 -50 rai, whereas the large-farm farmers in Ban Don Gloy 6 and
17 own more than 80 rai. This result is the average size of land owned in each village
which appears in Table 21 and shows that Ban Don Bark has the smallest average (12.30
rai) while Ban Nong Had has the largest average size of land owned (30.27 rai). More
interestingly, when using land ownership documents as criteria, the landless in Ban Don

Bark make up to 40 per cent of the respondents interviewed, the highest among the ﬁve

141

villages studied. Among the eight landless farmers, only two proved to be really landless.
Another six owned no land, but worked in their parents' farm and shared the agricultural
produce with their brothers and sisters. These people were not considered landless by the
key informants because most of them have already been given a piece of land from their
parents, but the ownership is not yet been legal. For such cases, they might have been put
in either the group of small-farm or medium-farm farmers depending on how much land
they were to receive. It is found that the landless who are considered really poor are those
who earn their living by working as waged laborers or those who have to rent land.

The size of land owned and the size of land holdings in each village can be seen
in Tables 20 and 21. The size of land holding is the size of land the villagers are really
working on or using, regardless of their ownership. It includes the land owned, the land
rented, and the land used free of charge, but excludes the land rented out. There are
fewer cases of respondents who have zero landholding in Table 21 than of the landless
shown in every village in Table 20, except in Ban Nong Had which remains the same.
The reason might be that some of the landless rented some land. For example, the
respondents of Ban Don Gloy 6 who own more than 80 rai rented out some of the land
they own. As a result, nobody in Ban Don Gloy 6 holds more than 80 rai of land in Table
21, while it appears in Table 20 that two respondents own more than 80 rai of land.
Table 22 gives some information regarding land used for agriculture, and shows that,
except for Ban Don Gloy 6, the average sizes of land holding are larger than the average
sizes of land owned. This implies that some of the respondents, if not working on
someone else's land free of charge, tend to rent more land, either because they are
landless or because the land they own is too small to feed their families.

The survey found that more than 90 per cent of the respondents who own both

farmland and upland have the type of land document called N.S.3, which gives them the

142
rights over their land. This type of document gives villagers the rights to transfer their
land with a restriction on transfer from 5-10 years. It is also acceptable as collateral. The
maximum period of legal protection is one year, and the period of right for preemption is
ﬁve years for this kind of document. This type of document is considered quite secure as
compared to other types of documents. It is only second to the document called N.S.4,

which is considered the best type of land ownership document.

Table 20. Respondents Classiﬁed by the Size of Land Owned.

 

 

 

 

 

VILLAGES
Size of Land Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloyl7 DonBark
Owned (rai) %(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)
Landless 36.8(7) 6.7(1) 30.0(6) 19.2(5) 40.0(8)
l - 5 - 6.7(1) - 15.4(4) -
6 - 10 15.8(3) 6.7(1) 20.0(4) 7.7(2) -
ll - 20 0.5(2) 20.0(3) 15.0(3) 15.4(4) 45.0(9)
21 - 30 15.8(3) 13.3(2) 5.0(1) 7.7(2) 5.0(1)
31 - 40 5.3(1) 13.3(2) 5.0(1) 11.5(3) 5.0(1)
41 - 50 - 20.0(3) 5.0(1) - 5.0(1)
51 - 60 - 6.7(1) 10.0(2) 7.7(2) -
61 - 7O 10.5(2) 6.7(1) - 7.7(2) -
7l - 80 5.3(1) - - - -
> 80 - - 10.0(2) 7.7(2) -
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

 

143 '

Table 21. Respondents Classiﬁed by Total Land Holding. ,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VILLAGES
Total Land Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
Holding (rai) %(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)
0 26.3(5) 6.7(1) 20.0(4) 7.7(2) 10.0(2)
l - 5 - 6.7(1) - 3.8(1) -
6 - 10 5.8(3) 6.7(1) 10.0(2) 19.2(5) 10.0(2)
11 - 20 15.8(3) 13.3(2) 20.0(4) 26.9(7) 60.0(12)
21 - 30 10.5(2) 13.3(2) 25.0(5) 7.7(2) 10.0(2)
31 - 4O 10.5(2) 20.0(3) 10.0(2) 11.5(3) 5.0(1)
41 - 50 - 20.0(3) 5.0(1) 3.8(1) 5.0(1)
51 - 60 - 6.7(1) 10.0(2) 7.7(2) -
61 - 70 10.5(2) 6.7(1) - 7.7(2) -
71 - 80 5.3(1) - - - -
> 80 5.3(1) - - 3.8(1) -
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)
Table 22. The Sizes of Land Owned and of Land Holding by Average.
VILLAGE
Size of Land by Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloyl7 DonBark
Average (rai) (rai) (rai) (rai) (rai) (rai)
Land owned 19.58 30.27 24.35 25.35 12.30
Land holding 25.53 31.80 21.00 27.04 16.85
M

More than 50 per cent of the households interviewed own at least one buffalo.

The largest numbers of buffaloes owned are found in Ban Don Gloy 17 and Ban Nong

Had, which are 9 and 7 respectively. Buffaloes are mainly used as draught labor on the

farm. Less than 45 per cent of the respondents in every village, except for Ban Nong

Had, own cows. The purpose of raising cows is mainly for trade. Very few respondents

raise hogs, and only in Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Don Gloy l7.

 

144

Migration

When asked about migration, most respondents said they had never migrated
anywhere for a job (Table 23). None of the respondents in Ban Yang Sinchai ever
migrated for employment outside the village. However, the percentage of migration for
outside employment is relatively high in Ban Don Bark (45 %). The migration found in
every village was seasonal, and the main purpose of migration was for employment. It
might be possible that the high rate of migration in Ban Don Bark was due to the
limitation of land. Ban Don Bark not only has the smallest average size of land owned
and of land holding as compared to the other four villages, but also has no upland at all.
This means that the villagers in Ban Don Bark rely solely on rice farming, mainly for
household consumption, whereas villagers in the other four villages can have their
supplementary income from upland crop, i.e. cassava. It is found that one respondent in
Ban Don Bark and two respondents in Ban Don Gloy 17 have been to middle-east

countries for employment.

Table 23. Migration Classiﬁed by Villages.

 

 

 

 

 

VILLAGES
Migration Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
%(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)
Yes - 6.7(1) 10.0(2) 19.2(5) 45.0(9)
No 100.0(19) 93.3(14) 90.0(18) 80.8(21) 55.0(11)
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

 

5.5 Summary

The two community woodlots studied are located in the same province, Maha
Sarakham, in northeast Thailand, but were initiated by different agencies in different
years. The ﬁrst community woodlot, Kok Peeba, covers an area of 800 rai, was proposed

by the Royal Forest Department (RFD) through USAID funding in 1982, with the major

145

objectives of supplying fuelwood to and of generating income for the project
beneﬁciaries. The decision to adopt the project was done between the RFD staff and the
Lao sub-district council with no direct involvement of local villagers. The project was
originally planned to beneﬁt only two villages, i.e., Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong
Had. Due to conﬂicts in the use of Kok Peeba public land, Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don
Gloy 17 were also allowed to join the project. The RFD provided free Eucalyptus
seedlings and hired local villagers to work for the project. A community woodlot
committee was formed under a supervision of the RFD staff. These committees were
directly elected by the villagers. After the project had been implemented, the RFD staff
transferred their responsibility to the community woodlot committee, which later played
a key role in managing the woodlot both physically and ﬁnancially, under occasional
supervision of the RFD staff.

The second community woodlot, Nong E-Jone, covers an area of 35 rai, and was
initiated in 1987 by the Population and Community Development Association (PDA), a
Thai non-government organization. The main objectives of the project were to encourage
tree planting to improve the physical environment of rural villages and to reduce
deforestation of local forests. In the Nong E-Jone community woodlot project, the
villagers of Ban Don Bark were directly involved in the decision to adopt the project and
to select the tree species to be planted, which included Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Acacia
auriculiformis, Leucaena leucocephala, and Cassia siamea. The community woodlot
committee members were not elected, but were appointed by the village headman.

Both Kok Peeba and Nong E-Jone woodlots were introduced to the communities
by outside agencies. However, the objectives and approaches employed in the two
projects were different. The historical background of both community woodlots has

described how the two woodlots were initiated and implemented. The reason to adopt the

146

Kok Peeba community woodlot by the Lao sub-district council, in fact, was to drive
away the villagers of Ban Don Gloy from Kok Peeba public land, whereas the decision to
adopt the Nong E-Jone community woodlot was based on the Villagers' awareness of
forest resource problems. As for people participation in the projects, the villagers in
Nong E-Jone project were involved in the decision making process to adopt the woodlot
and in the selection of tree species, while the villagers in Kok Peeba were not. However,
people participation in Kok Peeba woodlot did occur through meetings with the woodlot
committee members in the later stage of the project to discuss how project activities
should be implemented and how beneﬁts should be distributed. It was found that the
villagers in Nong E-Jone project were not hired to work in all project activities with their
woodlot committee members, while the villagers in Kok Peeba project were paid for
most woodlot activities they participated in. It is clear at this point that the two woodlots
have some differences in the process of project formulation and implementation. This
raises the question of whether the beneﬁts to villages differ under the two different
approaches employed in Kok Peeba and Nong E-Jone, as will be discussed in Chapter 6.

This chapter has also presented a picture of the study areas by describing the
general characteristics and socio-economic conditions of the areas studied at the
provincial, district, and village levels. In general, there is no signiﬁcant difference in
geographical and demographic characteristics among the ﬁve villages studied, although
the ﬁrst four villages (which share Kok Peeba community woodlot) and the ﬁfth village
(which owns Nong E-Jone community woodlot) are situated in different districts. The
ﬁeld survey also indicates that the populations under study are quite homogenous in
terms of educational background and occupation. The security of land rights over their

farmland is also quite similar among the ﬁve villages.

147
The next chapter describes the roles of community woodlot committees and the
dimensions of people participation in both woodlots studied. It then discusses the
relationships between variables in the propositions. Finally, it presents other impacts of

the community woodlots on both the rural villagers and the physical environment.

CHAPTER 6
ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter describes the roles of community woodlot committees and gives a
detailed analysis of how the community woodlots beneﬁted the populations in the
villages studied. A presentation of how the villagers in different economic strata beneﬁt
from the two community woodlots is made village by village, starting with Ban Yang
Sinchai, continuing with Ban Nong Had, Ban Don Gloy 6, Ban Don Gloy 17, and
ﬁnishing with Ban Don Bark. Afterward the relationships between variables in the
research propositions presented in Chapter 3 are discussed. Finally, a discussion on the
similarities and differences of impacts resulting from the two different community

woodlots studied is presented.

6.1 Kok Peeba Community Woodlot

6.1.1 The Role of Kok Peeba Community Woodlot Committee

The committee of the Kok Peeba community woodlot is comprised of six ofﬁcial
members. Three out of six members (one being a village headman) are from Ban Yang
Sinchai, the other three (one being a village headman of Ban Nong Had) are from Ban
Nong Had. In addition to the six ofﬁcial members of Kok Peeba community woodlot
committee, there are three more representatives from Ban Yang Sinchai, two from Ban
Nong had, four from Ban Don Gloy 6, and three from Ban Don Gloy 17, for a total of 18
members. The village headmen of Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17 are also in the
group of representatives. All 18 committee members are either formal leaders or the most
respected persons in the villages.

The groups of representatives from each village may be called sub-committees.
The sub-committees are required to participate in the meetings with the ofﬁcial

committee and to adopt the same principles or rules in managing the woodlot. These
148

149
committee meet regularly every 2-3 months. Normally, the committee are responsible for
all kinds of woodlot activities as well as for deciding on how to distribute the beneﬁts.
However, they do listen to the voices of their villagers.

Although all committee were elected by the villagers and work on a voluntary
basis, they receive wages for their labor. Every time the committee worked in the
woodlot, they get paid at the same rate as the villagers (30 baht per day). Not all woodlot
committee members work at the same time. There has been a rotation of representatives
from all 4 villages to work in the woodlot. Nor do they work all year round. The major
responsibilities of the committees are as follows:

(l)_Ma_1i_r_rt£r_r_ance of woodlot

The committee have a duty to investigate the physical conditions of the woodlot
from time to time. For example, they have to see which plots need thinning or weeding,
and decide when to hire the villagers to work. If there is little work, the committee
members might do it themselves. The committee members also have to prevent the trees
from being cut down without permission. They have further responsibility in that they
have to report the chairman any problem they come to know about

(2) Selection of villagers

The woodlot committee determine what woodlot activities are required and when
they should be performed. They then determine how many villagers need be hired to
work in the woodlot each time. Next, the sub-committees of each village inform their
villagers about the activities that need be done and the number of workers needed.
Normally, priority of employment is given to the poor villagers in each village.

(3) Trauma

The community woodlot committee members represent the villagers in training

about forestry-related subjects provided by the provincial or district forestry ofﬁce.

150

When the representatives who attended the training return to the village, they are
supposed to share the knowledge learned from the training with the villagers. However, it
was found that this does not frequently occur.

(4) Coordinating with the government agencies

The committee, especially the six ofﬁcial ones, coordinate from time to time with
the government agencies concerning the community woodlot project. For example, in
1987 when the funding ﬁ'om USAID was terminated, the committee requested the district
forestry ofﬁcer to get them more seedlings from other places by using the money
obtained from selling trees in the woodlot. Many times, the district forestry ofﬁcer
coordinated with the woodlot committee to prepare for the visit of foreigners to the
woodlot. However, the contact between the district forestry ofﬁcer and the woodlot
committees has been less frequent since the project was implemented.

(5) Distribution of beneﬁts

One of the major responsibilities of the community woodlot committee is to
determine how the beneﬁts should be distributed among the villagers. The tangible
beneﬁts of the community woodlot include cash income, employment, fuelwood,
building materials and mushrooms. The income from the woodlot does not go directly to
the villagers, but belongs to the communities under the management of the community
woodlot committees. The other beneﬁts go directly to the villagers. Before the ﬁrst tree
harvest, the community woodlot committee never considered the commercial beneﬁts of
the woodlot. They only wondered how they should distribute the fuelwood beneﬁts to
villagers, as the main objective of having the woodlot was to provide fuelwood to their
villages. Ban Don Gloy proposed that the trees in the woodlot be harvested and used
solely for fuelwood. This idea was not accepted because cash income from selling

Eucalyptus trees turned out to be the major beneﬁt from the woodlot, not fuelwood as

151
they had expected. So the community woodlot committee decided to sell the trees to
middlemen, and the villagers were allowed to collect only the unwanted parts of trees for
fuelwood.

It was agreed by the committee and villagers that the total income derived from
selling Eucalyptus trees each year was to be divided into three major funds for different
purposes: a community woodlot maintenance fund, a sub-district council
development fund, and a community woodlot revolving fund. The community
woodlot maintenance and sub-district development funds are run by the committee of
Ban Yang Sinchai, the village in which Mr. Dee Dankarnsan, the chairman of the
community woodlot committee, lives. The community woodlot maintenance fund has
been mainly used on buying Eucalyptus seedlings and for maintaining the woodlot. Since
the discontinuance of USAID funding in 1984, the community woodlot committee have
continued the woodlot activities by reserving part of the income from selling Eucalyptus
poles to maintain the woodlot. This fund has been used to hire villagers to plant more
trees and to do weeding, and to hire the community woodlot committees to take care of
the woodlot. In 1989, the community woodlot maintenance fund was also spent on
planting a natural forest l2 rai in size on the occasion of the birthday of the King's
mother. Since 1987, The sub-district council development fund has been strictly spent
on maintaining a meeting center located in Ban Yang Sinchai. This meeting center is
where the village headmen of Lao sub-district council meet to discuss the issues related
to village development and meet the villagers.

The community woodlot revolving fund is divided among the four villages: Ban
Yang Sinchai, Ban Nong Had, Ban Don Gloy 6, and Ban Don Gloy 17. It is
independently managed by each village on the basis of the consensus between the

members of the community woodlot committee, who have responsibility at the village

152

level, and the villagers. So far, the community woodlot revolving funds have been spent
on activities such as improving village infrastructure (road, fences, temple), lending
money to villagers at low interest rates for agricultural and health purposes, and buying
fertilizer and water jars in order to sell them to villagers at prices lower than that of the
market. However, the income from selling Eucalyptus trees each year is not equally
divided among the three funds. The committee considers how much money is needed for
each activity every year and then allocates the money according to the needs for each
activity. Normally the community woodlot revolving fund is equally sub-divided among
Ban Yang Sinchai, Ban Nong Had, and Ban Don Gloy. When Ban Don Gloy, was
administratively divided into two villages in 1988, namely Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don
Gloy 17, the community woodlot revolving fund for Ban Don Gloy was again equally
sub-divided into two village development funds. And Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don
Gloy 17 have independently managed their own community woodlot revolving fund
since.

The community woodlot committee provided 6,000 baht from the total income
generated in 1989 to buy ﬁle cabinets for the district forestry ofﬁce, and 30,000 baht
from the total income of 1991 to improve the ﬂag pole and to restore the landscape of the
district ofﬁce. Table 24 gives details on how the income from selling Eucalyptus trees

has been allocated and spent among the villages.

 

153

 

 

 

 

Table 24. Areas Planted and Harvested, Income Earned, and Management of Beneﬁts in
the Kok Peeba Community Woodlot from 1982-1991.
Years Area Years Income Villages & Management of
planted (rai) harvested (baht) beneﬁts (baht) beneﬁts
1982 50 1987 210,000 -Yang Sinchai -Fertilizer sold to
50,000 villagers at low price.
-Nong Had - Ibid.
50,000
-Don Gloy -Construction of
50,000 temple.
-Tambon council -Improvement of
20,000 meeting center.
-Woodlot fund - Buying seedlings
40,000 and hiring villagers
to plant and prune
trees.
1983 130 1988 260,000 -Yang Sinchai - Providing loans to
55,000 villagers with 2%

interest rate/month.
The interest rate was
exempted on loans

for construction of
latrine and water jar.

-Nong Had - Ibid.

55,000

-Don Gloy 6 - Fertilizer sold to

27,500 villagers at low
price.

-Don Gloy 17 - Ibid.

27,500

-Tambon council
20,000

-Woodlot fund -Wages for planting
75,000 and thinning trees.

154

 

 

 

 

 

Table 24 (cont'd).
Years Area Years Income Villages & Management of
planted (rai) harvested (baht) beneﬁts (baht) beneﬁts
1984 100 1989 80,000 -Yang Sinchai -Village running
20,000 water.
- Nong Had - Village running
20,000 water.
- Don Gloy 6 - Fertilizer for
10,000 villagers at lower
price.
- Don Gloy 17 - Fertilizer for
10,000 villagers at lower
price.
-Tambon council
10,000
-Woodlot fund
10,000
END OF USAID FUND
1985 No planting
1986 No planting
1987 50 - - - -
1988 70 - - - -
1989 50 - - - -
- - 260,000 -Yang Sinchai - Providing loans to
64,667 villagers with 2%
(2nd generation interest rate/month.
of plot planted The interest rate
in 1982 sold was exempted on
for 150 rai) loans for
construction of

latrine and water
jars.

155

 

 

 

Table 24 (cont'd).
Years Area Years Income Villages & Management of
planted (rai) harvested (baht) beneﬁts (baht) beneﬁts
-Nong Had - Same as
64,667 Yang Sinchai
-Don Gloy 6 - 20,000 baht for
32,333 improvement of
village road,
buying water jars
and fertilizer for
villagers at low prices.
-Don Gloy 17 - Providing loans to
32,333 villagers with 10%

-Tambon council
20,000

-Woodlot fund
40,000

-Additional uses
6,000

interest rate/year,
buying additional
fertilizer for every
household.

- 30,000 baht to
plant natural
forest for 12 rai
on the occasion of
birthday of the
King's mother.
- Purchase of ﬁle
cabinets for district
forestry ofﬁce

 

1990 no planting

 

156

 

 

 

 

Table 24 (cont'd).
Years Area Years Income Villages & Management of
planted (rai) harvested (baht) beneﬁts (baht) beneﬁts
199] 200,000 -Yang Sinchai -Adding to the
(2nd generation 40,000 existing community
of plot planted woodlot revolving
in 1983 sold fund.
for 130 rai
-Nong Had - Ibid.
40,000
~Don Gloy 6 - Not decided yet.
20,000
-Don Gloy 17 -Improvement of
20,000 village road with
50% contribution
from villagers.
-Tambon council
20,000
-Woodlot fund
30,000
-Additional uses -Providing 30,000
30,000 baht for
improvement of ﬂag
pole and land
scaping for the
district ofﬁce.
1991 100,000 -Yang Sinchai
(2nd generation 30,000
of plot planted -Nong Had
in 1984 sold 30,000
for 100 rai) -Don Gloy 6
1 5,000
-Don Gloy 17
15,000

-Tambon Council
1 0,000

 

157

Employment is considered as another beneﬁt from the community woodlot. The
committee members and the villagers in the Kok Peeba community woodlot project were
paid for their labor for activities such as planting, thinning, and weeding. The wage rate
per day ranged from 30 to 40 baht. The committee members were also paid for taking
care of the woodlot. The eighteen committee members rotate for the supervision of the
woodlot. This might be why some villagers complained that the committees got more
employment than the villagers. The committee also make decisions on who is to be hired
to work in the woodlot. Normally, the quota of villagers to be hired is set for each village
by the committees, and the sub-committees of each village inform their villagers of the
decision.

It is reported that priority for employment was given to the poor villagers.
However, some villagers complained that some committee members tend to hire only
their relatives. Data on who was employed and in what activities are not available since
the committees did not keep records. Thus, it is not possible to conclude to what extent

widespread employment has been generated by the woodlot.

As for the beneﬁt in terms of fuelwood, villagers normally are allowed to collect
fuelwood in the community woodlot on two occasions. The ﬁrst instance is after
Eucalyptus trees have been sold and harvested by the middleman. The 3-inch top
diameter, the standard set by the paper making company, is located. Then the stem is cut
2.5 meters above the 3" diameter. This is the merchantable volume. From this, the upper
end stems are cut off and are either given or sold to villagers for fuelwood. The other
instance is when villagers are allowed to collect fuelwood when the coppice shoots of
Eucalyptus need thinning. Normally, the villagers keep only 2-3 coppice shoots and later
cut the rest for fuelwood or for other uses. It must be noted that fuelwood collection in
the woodlot can happen as little as once a year or can occur many times in the same year,
depending on how frequent the trees are sold and how frequent the thinning of branches
is performed. The agreements made between the community woodlot committee and the

middleman vary every year, because the committee does not sell the trees to the same

158

middleman every year. That is why some years the villagers had to buy fuelwood, and
some years received for free. Normally, the community woodlot committee will sell the
trees to the middleman who gives them the best price. Thus the price of Eucalyptus
obtained by the community woodlot committee will be higher from the middleman who
wants to keep half of the upper end stems of Eucalyptus to sell to the villagers as
fuelwood than the price offered by another one who will give fuelwood to the villagers.
It is reported that people from other villages and Kosumphisai town occasionally came to
buy fuelwood from the woodlot.

The villagers did not get much beneﬁt in terms of building materials because all
the trees in the woodlot were sold for cash income. What they were allowed to collect,
the branches of Eucalyptus trees, are good only for making fences around the houses. It
is the rule that the villagers cannot cut any branches of trees in Kok Peeba community
woodlot unless they have received permission to do so. This rule applies to all four
villages which share the woodlot. When the committee think that the trees are big enough
to be lopped, all villagers are informed. Normally, each household will send one
representative, 3 man or a woman, to help work in the woodlot, and their work is closely
supervised by the community woodlot committee. The branches are then distributed
among the villagers. The smaller ones are normally used for fuelwood, while the bigger
ones are used for building materials. The woodlot committee occasionally gave
permission to out big trees for development activities. For example, Ban Tan village was
given some trees for building materials for the village development. Ban Don Gloy was
also allowed to cut some trees in the woodlot to make building materials to improve the
temple. The woodlot has also beneﬁted the local government. The district government
ofﬁcials sometimes asked for Eucalyptus poles from the woodlot committee when they
needed building materials for district development activities. The woodlot committee
reported that they were willing to contribute building materials or cash from the woodlot
as long as it is for development.

Food is another beneﬁt from the Kok Peeba community woodlot. The only kind
of food from the Kok Peeba community woodlot has been the so called Eucalyptus
mushroom. The respondents reported that this kind of mushroom was not available until

they had the woodlot. The mushroom only grows in the woodlot in the rainy season,

159
which is why it is called Eucalyptus mushroom. Most villagers found this kind of

mushroom an excellent food.

6.1.2 People Participation in Kok Peeba Community Woodlot

(1) Participation in decision mak_ing

The Kok Peeba community woodlot was initiated by the Royal Forest Department
and only a few local leaders from Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had were involved in
the decision making process to adopt the project. The decision making was made strictly
by the Lao sub-district council and village development committees of Ban Yang Sinchai
and Ban Nong Had through meetings with forestry ofﬁcers. In other words, the villagers
of Ban Yang Sinchai, and Ban Nong Had were not consulted, and the community
woodlot committee were elected only after the decision to adopt the project had been
made. The villagers of Ban Don Gloy 6, and Ban Don Gloy 17 were not consulted at all
because these two villages do not have any legal rights over Kok Peeba public land. As a
result, most villagers did not understand the objectives of the project. In addition, some
members of the village development committee, who had direct contact with the forestry
ofﬁcers, not only did not understand the objectives of the project, but also were not sure
about the rights of the villagers to harvest the trees after the community woodlot had
been implemented.

(2) Participation in project implementation

Participation, however, did occur when implementing the project. From the
author's experience working with development agencies in Thailand, free labor is
preferred in rural development projects because many people perceive it as the Villagers'
contribution to the projects. In this case, however, the RFD agreed with the village
development committee that the paid labor approach would be used. People participation
in implementing the project therefore was in the form of paid labor. Initially, the tree
planting committee seemed to play a major role at this stage because they selected the
villagers to be hired to plant the trees. This had led to the problem of unfairly selecting
villagers to be hired as indicated by some of the respondents who were not hired. Those
who were hired were closely supervised by the committee and project staff in planting

trees.

160

A baseline survey of the Kok Peeba project, conducted by CUSRI
(Phutarapomzl983), indicated that the villagers tended to wait for assistance from the
government, rather than to help themselves. Although the villagers realized that a
fuelwood shortage problem might occur in the near future, they were not very willing to
participate without compensation at the beginning of the project. The chairman of the
community woodlot committee also reported that he was not sure whether the free labor
approach would be possible for the project. However, free labor participation did occur
once in May 1991. At that time, there was a contest to select the most beautiful village in
Kosumphisai district. Ban Yang Sinchai was representing Lao sub-district for the contest.
To help develop and beautify Ban Yang Sinchai, some building materials were needed.
Volunteers were available because it was the tradition that the villagers must help in their
village development activities.

The community woodlot committee asked the villagers in all four villages to help
10p the branches of Eucalyptus. The bigger branches were given to Ban Yang Sinchai for
making fences, while the villagers collected the smaller twigs for fuelwood. Most
villagers cooperated very well in the activity. Each village helped work in the woodlot
for two days. This seems to suggest that free labor participation, in fact, is possible under
certain conditions. Nevertheless, the villagers currently are still hired to lop branches of
trees and weed the woodlot from time to time, because the paid labor approach has been
used since the beginning of the project. It is reported that not every villager wants to
work in the project because they can get other jobs with higher wages in the area.

(3) Participation in beneﬁts

Ideally, every villager is eligible to receive beneﬁts from their community
woodlot on the same basis. However, not all villagers received beneﬁts from the
community woodlot for several reasons. Some villagers did not get loan, fuelwood, or
building materials because they did not want them. Some villagers asked for loans, but
received none. Some villagers got fuelwood for free, but some had to pay for it. Details

on participation in beneﬁts is presented in the next section.

161

6.1.3 The Beneﬁts of Kok Peeba Community Woodlot to Local Villagers in
the 4 Villages Studied

(1) m

In the ﬁrst year (1987), the sub-committee of Ban Yang Sinchai decided to spend
the money earned from the woodlot to buy fertilizer from the state's central market for
agriculture, whose prices are lower than the prices in the general market. The committee
resold the fertilizers to the villagers with little proﬁt. The proﬁt made from the sales went
back to the community woodlot revolving fund.

In 1988, after the trees of the second plot of woodlot had been sold, the
committee were not able to buy cheap fertilizer from the market as they had done the
previous year, so they decided to loan the community woodlot revolving fund to needy
villagers. The major purpose of providing loans was for agriculture. The interest rate was
two per cent/month for those who used the loan for household consumption and for
buying fertilizer from the market, but two and one half per cent/month for those who got
the loan for commercial investment. Those who used the loan for building latrines and
for making water jars were not charged interest because the committees considered
latrines and large water jars necessary for villager health. Normally, the loan was given
up to 2,000 baht per household for a year, but the committee could agree to loan more
than 2,000 baht, if necessary.

In 1989, the community woodlot revolving fund was spent to provide the village
with tap water. This was combined with money received by Ban Yang Sinchai from the
government for a village tap water project. The villagers also had to make some
contributions to this project, especially for those who wanted the pipeline installed into
their house. Besides the regular loan, Ban Yang Sinchai also provides emergency loans
for the maximum of 30,000 baht for a one month period with 2 per cent interest rate. So
far the community woodlot revolving fund of Ban Yang Sinchai has been mainly used as
loans for the villagers.

In Ban Yang Sinchai, more than 80 per cent of the villagers across every
economic stratum have received loans from the community woodlot revolving fund
(Table 25). The purposes of such loans have been for household expenses, buying

fertilizer, and for education. However, no respondents reported getting cheap fertilizer

directly from the community woodlot committee.

162

Table 25. Beneﬁts from the Community Woodlot Revolving Fund Classiﬁed by
Economic Status Across Villages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beneﬁts“
Economic Status % (N)
1 2 3 4 5

Large Farmers

Ban Yang Sinchai 80.0(4) - - - 20.0(1)

Ban Nong Had 60.0(3) — 40.0(2) - -

Ban Don Gloy 6 20.0(1) 60.0(3) 20.0(1) - -

Ban Don Gloy l7 - 60.0(3) 40.0(2) - -
Medium Farmers

Ban Yang Sinchai 87.5(7) - - - 12.5(1)

Ban Nong Had 60.0(3) 20.0(1) - - 20.0(1)

Ban Don Gloy 6 - 50.0(5) - 50.0(5) -

Ban Don Gloy l7 13.3(2) 26.7(4) 53.3(8) - 6.7(1)
Small Farmers

Ban Yang Sinchai 83.3(5) - - - 16.7(1)

Ban Nong Had 60.0(3) 40.0(2) - - -

Ban Don Gloy 6 60.0(3) 20.0(1) 20.0( 1) - -

Ban Don Gloy 17 50.0(3) 16.7(1) 16.7(1) - 16.7(1)

 

* 1 = Loan 2 = Fertilizer 3 = Loan + fertilizer
4 = Fertilizer + water jar 5 = Never

Due to the fact that Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had are very close
neighbors, the sub-committees of Ban Nong Had managed their community woodlot
revolving fund similarly to Ban Yang Sinchai. The village development fund has been
spent on fertilizer, loans for villagers, and village tap water with the same criteria used in
Ban Yang Sinchai. It was found that about 60 per cent of the villagers interviewed in
every economic class received loans from the community woodlot revolving fund (Table

25). A few respondents reported that they had never received loans, only fertilizer. One

respondent in the medium-farm category reported that he had received nothing.

 

163

The sub-committee of Ban Don Gloy 6 managed the community woodlot
revolving fund differently than did Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had. In 1987, when
the committees of Ban Don Gloy 6 ﬁrst received their share of the community woodlot
revolving fund from Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had, Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban
Don Gloy 17 were still just one administrative unit. The committee spent all the
community woodlot revolving fund to ﬁnish constructing a village temple shared
between Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17. In 1988, when Ban Don Gloy 6 was
administratively divided into Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17, the share of the
community woodlot revolving fund was equally divided for both villages.

Due to the principle agreed upon by the committee members from all the villages
which share the Kok Peeba community woodlot, that the community woodlot revolving
fund must be spent on the basis of revolving fund, in 1988 and 1989 the committee of
Ban Don Gloy 6 spent this fund to buy cheap fertilizer. It was then sold to the villagers
for little proﬁt, as in Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had. Besides selling cheap
fertilizer to the villagers, in 1990 the committee spent part of the community woodlot
revolving fund to buy water jars which were sold the villagers for less than the market
price. (The cost of a water jar was 500 baht and the committee sold it to their villagers
for 550 baht.) Forty-seven households requested water jars.

The sub-committees also spent part of the community woodlot revolving fund to
improve the village road. The villagers whose houses are close to the road had to
contribute some money to improve the village road as well.

At the time the survey was conducted, some of the respondents reported that they
had received loans from the community woodlot revolving fund. However, it was found
that the purpose of the loans was somewhat different from that of Ban Yang Sinchai and
Ban Nong Had. Unlike Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had, the sub-committee of Ban
Don Gloy 6 provided loans because they had been unable to buy fertilizer from the
government, so they decided to let the villagers buy fertilizer directly from the market.
Table 24 shows that 20 and 60 per cent of the respondents in the large-farm and small-
farm categories got this type of loan to buy fertilizer themselves. About 20, 50, and 60
per cent of the respondents in the small-farm, medium-farm, and large-farm categories

bought fertilizer from the committee. Fifty per cent of the respondents in the medium-

164
farm category bought both fertilizer and water jars from the committee.

After being separated from Ban Don Gloy 6 in 1988, Ban Don Gloy 17 formed
their own community woodlot sub-committee and began to manage their community
woodlot revolving fund independently. However, there was no big difference in the
management of the village development fund between Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don
Gloy 17. The only difference was that Ban Don Gloy 17, in 1990, provided ldans to the
villagers with 10 per cent interest rate per year. The way in which the loan was provided
in Ban Don Gloy 17 was also different from Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had. The
committees of Ban Don Gloy 17 did not provide loans upon request. According to the
village headman and a key informant who was responsible for the community woodlot
revolving fund, the village development fund was equally divided by the total numbers
of clusters of households. Then the sub-fund was again divided by the numbers of
households in each cluster. Thus, every household could receive a loan, if they wanted to.
Some of the respondents mentioned that they did not really need it, but they did not want
to lose the opportunity. However, data in Table 24 shows that 50 per cent of the
respondents in the small-farm category did receive loans, while 60 per cent of the

respondents in the large-farm category got only fertilizer, not loans.

(2) Fuelwood

The survey shows that fuelwood has been the only source of energy for cooking
for most respondents (more than 70 per cent) in Ban Yang Sinchai. Nobody uses
charcoal alone for cooking. About 26.3 per cent of the respondents reported that they
used both fuelwood and charcoal, but more fuelwood than charcoal. Nobody reported
having ever bought fuelwood. Homestead area and farmland have been the major sources
of fuelwood for most respondents in Ban Yang Sinchai. Only 21.1 per cent of the
respondents reported that their major source of fuelwood is the Kok Peeba community
woodlot.

Table 26 shows the beneﬁts from the community woodlot in terms of fuelwood.

The data indicate that more than 60 per cent of the villagers in every economic class of

165
Ban Yang Sinchai collected fuelwood from the community woodlot. How often
fuelwood was collected and the amount of fuelwood collected varied from household to
household. Some reported that they had collected fuelwood from the woodlot only once
since the woodlot was implemented, while others reported that they collected fuelwood
from the woodlot every year or every time they were allowed to do so by the community
woodlot committees.

Data on the amount of fuelwood collected each year were not available. However,
some respondents were able to estimate how long the fuelwood collected each year
lasted. For small families, the fuelwood collected from the woodlot each year could last
for a year. For large families, the fuelwood collected normally lasts less than a year.
However, this depends on the amount of fuelwood collected because there is no limit for
fuelwood collection for each household. The interviews show that more than 60 per cent
of the respondents in the medium-farm and small-farm categories perceive fuelwood
from the community woodlot as a big help for solving the fuelwood shortage problem,
while most respondents in the large-farmer category think that it does not help very
much. This is due to the fact that the large farmers do not consider the community
woodlot a major source of fuelwood as fuelwood is still available on their own land.

Similar to Ban Yang Sinchai, fuelwood is the only major source of energy for
cooking for most respondents in Ban Nong Had. Only one respondent reported that he
used charcoal alone. There was also only one respondent who bought fuelwood from
other villagers to make charcoal. Other respondents never bought fuelwood. Unlike Ban
Yang Sinchai, most villagers in Ban Nong Had reported that they had never collected
fuelwood from the Kok Peeba community woodlot. The reasons given by the
respondents are either that the woodlot is too far from their village or that they still have

fuelwood available on their own farmland. The three respondents (one in each economic

166
class) who reported that they collected fuelwood from the woodlot, only did it once. Of
those three, two felt that fuelwood from the Kok Peeba woodlot helped solve their
fuelwood problem to some extent, while the third thought it helped a lot.

Only 40 per cent of the respondents interviewed in Ban Don Gloy 6 reported
using fuelwood alone for cooking. The majority of respondents (55 per cent) reported
using both fuelwood and charcoal for cooking, with more fuelwood than charcoal being
used. One respondent used charcoal and gas as a major source of energy for cooking.
About 70 per cent of all respondents collected fuelwood from their own farmland and
homestead area. More villagers in Ban Don Gloy 6 collected fuelwood from the Kok
Peeba community woodlot than in Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had. However,
about 60 per cent of the respondents reported that they also bought fuelwood from the
community woodlot. The cost of fuelwood bought from the community woodlot varied
with the size of fuelwood. Normally, the villagers paid 5 to 10 baht for a small push-cart
load.

Table 26 indicates that most respondents, especially in the medium-farm and
small-farm categories, collect fuelwood from the Kok Peeba community woodlot. About
40 and 50 per cent of the respondents in the medium-farm and small-farm categories
respectively collected fuelwood from the Kok Peeba community woodlot every year.
Data show that about 50 to 60 per cent of the respondents in both medium-farm and
small-farm categories perceived the Kok Peeba community woodlot as another important

source of fuelwood for their household uses.

167

Table 26. Collection of Fuelwood from the Community Woodlot Classiﬁed by
Economic Status Across Villages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Collection of Fuelwood
Economic Status Yes No Total

Large Farmers

Ban Yang Sinchai 100.0(5) - 100.0(5)

Ban Nong Had 20.0(1) 80.0(4) 100.0(5)

Ban Don Gloy 6 60.0(3) 40.0(2) 100.0(5)

Ban Don Gloy l7 80.0(4) 20.0(1) 100.0(5)
Medium Farmers

Ban Yang Sinchai 62.5(5) 37.5(3) 100.0(8)

Ban Nong Had 20.0(1) 80.0(4) 100.0(5)

Ban Don Gloy 6 100.0(10) - 100.0(10)

Ban Don Gloy 17 100.0(5) - 100.0(5)
Small Farmers

Ban Yang Sinchai 83.5(5) 16.7(1) 100.0(6)

Ban Nong Had 20.0(1) 80.0(4) 100.0(5)

Ban Don Gloy 6 80.0(4) 20.0(1) 100.0(5)

Ban Don Gloy 17 100.0(6) - 100.0(6)

 

 

Similar to the other villages studied, the majority of respondents in Ban Don Gloy
17 used fuelwood for cooking. Although 57.7 per cent of the respondents reported that
they used both fuelwood and charcoal, fuelwood is their primary source of energy. About
53.8 per cent of the respondents collected fuelwood mainly from their own farmlands,
and 30.8 per cent collected fuelwood mainly from land owned by others. Only 7.7 per
cent of the respondents said that they mainly collected fuelwood from the community
woodlot. However, almost every respondent interviewed had collected fuelwood from
the Kok Peeba community woodlot (Table 26). About 80 per cent of the respondents
reported that they had to buy fuelwood from the community woodlot at same cost as in
Ban Don Gloy 6. It was found that most large-farm farmers (80 per cent) perceived the
community woodlot as helping the fuelwood shortage problem a lot, while most

reSpondents in the small and medium-farm categories, 83.3 and 53.3 per cent

168
respectively, thought that the woodlot only helped a little bit.

(3) Other Beneﬁts

In addition to loans and fuelwood, other beneﬁts from the Kok Peeba woodlot are
building materials, food, growing cassava in the woodlot during the initial years, and
grass for cattle. Table 27 shows that in Ban Yang Sinchai more than 50 per cent of the
respondents in every economic class collected both mushrooms and building materials
from the woodlot.

As for the opportunity to practice agroforestry (growing cassava) in the
community woodlot, it was found that only three respondents in Ban Yang Sinchai were
doing so. All three respondents fall into the category of medium-farm farmers.

Though most respondents in Ban Nong Had did not collect fuelwood from the
Kok Peeba community woodlot, they did collect mushrooms and branches of trees for
building materials. Two of the ﬁve respondents in the large-farmer category reported that
they grazed their cattle in the woodlot (Table 27). Only one respondent, in the small-farm
category, grew cassava in the community woodlot.

Besides fuelwood, most respondents in every economic class in Ban Don Gloy 6
reported that they also received other kinds of beneﬁts from the community woodlot,
especially the Eucalyptus mushroom. Some of the respondents also grazed their cattle in
the woodlot (Table 27). In Ban Don Gloy 6, only ﬁve respondents reported that they
once grew cassava in the woodlot. Four out of ﬁve respondents are in the medium-farm
category (about 40 per cent of the total respondents in this class), while one is in the
small-farm category (about 20 per cent of the total respondents in the small-farm
category).

Most respondents in Ban Don Gloy 17 also collected mushrooms from the Kok

Peeba community woodlot. Besides collecting mushrooms, more than 60 per cent of

169
respondents in the medium-farm and small-farm categories also grazed their cattle in the
woodlot (Table 27). Nobody reported obtaining building materials from the woodlot. As
compared to other villages, the villagers in Ban Don Gloy 17 who were growing cassava
in the woodlot were found in every economic classes. The survey found that the majority
of respondents ( > 80 per cent) in the small-farm category used to practice cassava
growing in the community woodlot, while a small percentage of large-farm respondents

used to do so.

Table 27. Beneﬁts Derived from the Community Woodlot Besides Fuelwood Classiﬁed
by Economic Status Across Villages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beneﬁts"
Economic Status % (N)
l 2 3 4 5

Large Farmers

Ban Yang Sinchai - 20.0(1) 20.0(1) - 60.0(3)

Ban Nong Had - 40.0(2) - 40.0(2) 20.0(1)

Ban Don Gloy 6 - 80.0(4) - - 20.0(1)

Ban Don Gloy l7 40.0(2) 60.0(3) - - -
Medium Farmers

Ban Yang Sinchai 12.5(1) - - - 87.5(7)

Ban Nong Had 40.0(2) 20.0(1) 20.0(1) - 20.0(1)

Ban Don Gloy 6 10.0(1) 50.0(5) - - 40.0(4)

Ban Don Gloy 17 6.7(1) 33.3(5) - - 60.0(9)
Small Farmers

Ban Yang Sinchai - 50.0(3) - - 50.0(3)

Ban Nong Had 20.0(1) 60.0(3) - - 20.0(1)

Ban Don Gloy 6 - 60.0(3) - 20.0( 1) 20.0(1)

Ban Don Gloy l7 16.7(1) 16.7(1) - - 66.7(4)

 

* 1 = Nothing 2 = Fruit/food 3 = Building materials

4 = Grazing cattle 5 = More than one beneﬁt

 

170

6.1.4 Summary

The Kok Peeba commtmity woodlot has yielded a number of beneﬁts. The major
beneﬁts are fuelwood and cash income from selling Eucalyptus trees. The villagers also
received beneﬁts in terms of building materials, food, and grass for cattle. The income
from Kok Peeba community woodlot has been managed in such a way that all villagers
can beneﬁt in terms of village infrastructure and loans, regardless their economic status.
All villagers can request loans from the village revolving fund through the woodlot
committee who carefully consider all requests. Except for Ban Nong Had, most
respondents, especially in the medium-farm and small farm categories, collected
fuelwood from the community woodlot. But the amount of fuelwood collected varied
from household to household and from village to village.

Although the majority of villagers were not involved in the decision making
process to start the woodlot, the project seems to continue smoothly due to good woodlot
management by the committee. Phutarapom (1983) suggested that the success of the Kok
Peeba project would depend on the effectiveness of community woodlot committee,
because the villagers at the time the woodlot was being initiated were not ready yet to
provide free labor to the project, though they realized that the problem of fuelwood
shortage would soon occur. One major reason given by Phutarapom was that most
villagers at that time were not familiar with the participatory kind of assistance. They
tended to wait for full assistance from the government only. This study conﬁrms that the
committee of the Kok Peeba community woodlot must be credited for their role in
maintaining the woodlot, selecting the villagers to work in the woodlot, coordinating
with government agencies, attending forestry-related training, and distributing the

beneﬁts, all of which brought about positive changes to the villages.

171

6.2 Nong E-Jone Community Woodlot

6.2.1 The Role of Nong E-Jone Community Woodlot Committee

The structure of the community woodlot committee of Nong E-Jone is relatively
simple. The committee is comprised of 11 members with the village headman as
chairman. Two formal assistants of the village headman are also members of the
committee. The rest were appointed by the village headman because they were diligent
and were willing to cooperate with the project. Most members live in the same vicinity as
the village headman, which makes it very easy to call a meeting.

There are four major responsibilities of the woodlot committee.

(1) Mg’ptpin the woodlot

The committee must go to the woodlot from time to time to see if anything has
gone wrong. For example, the fences around the woodlot must be well maintained to
prevent the seedlings from being destroyed by cattle. There is no ﬁxed schedule for the
committee to look after the woodlot. One committee member has a house close to the
woodlot, so he tends to investigate the woodlot more often than the others. Unlike Kok
Peeba project, there is no agreement that the committee members of the Nong E-Jone
community woodlot will be paid for their labor. Thus they work voluntarily for the
project. However, the villagers agreed to give 1,000 baht, subtracted from the total
income from selling the Eucalyptus trees, to the committee, because the villagers felt that
the committee members are devoted to their work.

(2) Inform villagers

The committee has a duty to inform their villagers when and how to participate in
the woodlot activities. They have to lead and participate in all kinds of woodlot activities,
such as planting trees and thinning and weeding the woodlot. This is one of the major

responsibilities of the committee.

 

172

(3)Itai_11i£g

Another task of the community woodlot committee is to attend forestry related
training provided by either the provincial or the district forestry ofﬁce. The committee
members who attend the training have to pass on the knowledge learned to the villagers.
However, very little training has been provided so far.

(4) Distribution of beneﬁts

The beneﬁts from Nong E-Jone woodlot include cash income, fuelwood, building
materials, and food. Apart from Eucalyptus, no other tree species have been sold. By
December 1991, the Eucalyptus trees had been harvested only once. In April 1990, the
community woodlot committee sold the trees to a middleman for 11,000 baht. The
middleman sold these Eucalyptus trees to a pulp and paper mill in Khon Kaen province
(the same company to which the Eucalyptus trees from Kok Peeba were sold). Mr.
Thongsuk suggested that the money from selling Eucalyptus should become a village
revolving fund offering loans to villagers with a two percent interest rate per month.
Therefore, 10,000 baht were used as suggested and another 1,000 baht were spent for the
expenses of the committee responsible for maintaining the woodlot.

The woodlot committee allowed the villagers to collect fuelwood from the
woodlot when the Eucalyptus trees had just been harvested, when the coppice shoots of
Eucalyptus needed thinning and when maintenance work of the woodlot was done. The
villagers also collected twigs of Acacia auriculiformis, and Leucaena Ieucocephala for
fuelwood. Leaves of Cassia siamea are popular for food among the villagers. It is
reported that villagers from the villages nearby also came to collect the leaves of Cassia
siamea in the Nong E-Jone community woodlot for household consumption as well as
for sale. Villagers were also able to collect the so called Eucalyptus mushrooms to eat

during the rainy season. This species of mushroom ﬁrst appeared with the planting of the

173

woodlot.

6.2.2 People Participation in Nong E-Jone Community Woodlot

(1) Participation in decision making

In contrast to the Kok Peeba community woodlot, the villagers of Ban Don Bark
were directly involved in the decision making process to adopt Nong E-Jone community
woodlot. They were consulted many times through village meetings held by the village
development committee and a representative from the PDA. Though there were
arguments in the meetings between the villagers who agreed and disagreed with the
project, the majority of villagers decided to adopt the project. In addition, the villagers
were also consulted for the selection of tree species to be planted in the woodlot.

(2) Participation in project implementation

The villagers of Ban Don Bark were not paid for working in Nong E-Jone
woodlot. They contributed not only their labor in planting trees and in making fences
around the woodlot, but also building materials (i.e. small poles for making fences). In
addition, the villagers voluntarily helped thin and weed the woodlot whenever asked to
do so by the woodlot committee. The form of people participation in implementing the
Nong E-Jone community woodlot was thus very different from Kok Peeba community
woodlot.

(3) Participation in beneﬁts

The villagers of Ban Don Bark began to reap the beneﬁts from the Nong E-Jone
community woodlot a few years after it had been implemented. The kinds of beneﬁts
from Nong E-Jone are not very much different from the Kok Peeba community
woodlots, except for the magnitude of beneﬁts due to the difference in size of the two
woodlots. The next section describes how the villagers of Ban Don Bark participated in

each kind of beneﬁt from Nong E-Jone community woodlot.

174

6.2.3 The Beneﬁts of the Nong E-Jone Community Woodlot to the Villagers
of Ban Don Bark

(1) Ms

Nong E-Jone is a younger woodlot than Kok Peeba. As a result, the beneﬁts in
terms of income have not been very evident. In 1990 Ban Don Bark villagers received
their ﬁrst income, 11,000 baht, from selling Eucalyptus trees. When the survey was
conducted in April 1991, no more harvests had been done. After subtracting 1,000 baht
for hiring the committee responsible for managing the woodlot, the rest of the income
was set up as a village revolving fund. The survey shows that only one respondent, in the
medium-farm category, got a loan (Table 28). Due to the small amount of income, the
community woodlot revolving fund has not been used for other activities such as road
improvement, or providing cheap fertilizer and water jars, as was done in the Kok Peeba

woodlot.

Table 28. Beneﬁts from the Community Woodlot Revolving Fund Classiﬁed by
Economic Status, Ban Don Bark

 

Economic Status
Beneﬁts from Woodlot Fund Large %(N) Medium %(N) Small %(N)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Loan - 10.0(1) -
No loan 100.0(5) 90.0(9) 100.0(5)
Total 100.0(5) 100.0(10) 100.0(5)
(2) Fuelwood

Similar to the other four villages studied, fuelwood is the major source of energy
used for cooking by most villagers in Ban Don Bark. No respondent reported buying
fuelwood. About 80 per cent of the respondents mainly collected fuel from their own
farmland, while another 20 per cent mainly collected fuelwood from the land owned by

others. Most respondents also collected fuelwood from the Nong E-Jone community

175
woodlot, but the fuelwood collected did not help much (Table 29). About 50 per cent of
the respondents reported that the fuelwood they collected from the woodlot lasted less
than a month. The villagers are allowed to collect fuelwood whenever the community
woodlot committee feels that the woodlot needs thinning, and after the trees have been
harvested for sale.

Concerning four tree species planted in the Nong E-Jone woodlot, the villagers
primarily collected Eucalyptus camaldulensis and Acacia auriculiformis for fuelwood,
because they sold Eucalyptus trees and had to do some thinning after the trees
regenerated, and although Acacia auriculiformis have never been sold, they are branchy
and need thinning as well. No respondent was found buying fuelwood or making

charcoal in Ban Don Bark.

Table 29. Collection of Fuelwood from the Community Woodlot, Classiﬁed by
Economic Status, Ban Don Bark.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic Status
Collection of Fuelwood Large %(N) Medium %(N) Small %(N)
Yes 80.0(4) 80.0(8) 100.0(5)
No 20.0(1) 20.0(2) -
Total 100.0(5) 100.0(10) 100.0(5)
(3) Other Beneﬁts

 

Besides fuelwood, other beneﬁts from Nong E-Jone woodlot woodlot include
leaves of Cassia siamea and Eucalyptus mushrooms for food, and grass for cattle. Leaves
of Cassia siamea, locally called Kee Lek, are popular among Thai people for cooking a
kind of curry. The villagers of Ban Don Bark also enjoy eating these leaves. Some
villagers also grow these trees in their homestead area. Similar to the Kok Peeba

community woodlot, most respondents in Ban Don Bark reported that they found the

176
Eucalyptus mushroom just after the implementation of Nong E-Jone woodlot, and that
they like to eat it. Unlike the Kok Peeba woodlot, the villagers of Ban Don Bark did not
graze their cattle in the woodlot because the woodlot is fenced. Some villagers grew
grass in the woodlot where Leucaena leucocephala were planted, though it did not grow
well. The grass was harvested and fed to the cattle. Table 30 shows that most respondents
in the large-farm and medium-farm categories derive beneﬁts other than fuelwood such
as mushrooms, leaves of Cassia siamea, or grass for their cattle. Nevertheless, only 20
and 40 per cent of the respondents in the large-farm and medium-farm categories
received all three beneﬁts. Only 40 per cent of the respondents in the small-farm
category receive such beneﬁts besides fuelwood. In other words, the majority of the
respondents in the small-farm category (60 per cent) receive no beneﬁts other than
fuelwood, though everyone in the village is allowed to grow grass, collect mushroom,

and leaves of Cassia siamea.

Table 30. Beneﬁts Derived from Community Woodlot Besides Fuelwood Classiﬁed by
Economic Status, Ban Don Bark.

 

 

 

 

 

Economic Status
Beneﬁts from the Woodlot Large %(N) Medium %(N) Small %(N)
No - 20.0(2) 60.0(3)
Mushroom/food 20.0(1) 10.0(1) -
Grass for cattle 60.0(3) 30.0(3) 20.0(1)
Mushroom/food/grass 20.0(1) 40.0(4) 20.0(1)
Total 100.0(5) 100.0(10) 100.0(5)

 

 

Another beneﬁt of the Nong E-Jone woodlot witnessed by the author is the use of
the woodlot for playing games and resting. A number of children of Ban Don Bark were

seen playing games in the Acacia auriculiformis woodlot while letting their buffaloes eat

177
grass outside the woodlot. It is cooler in this woodlot than in the Eucalyptus woodlot
because Acacia auriculiformis have more branches and leaves than Eucalyptus. This
aesthetic value should not be overlooked as a beneﬁt. Some villagers expressed a love for
their woodlot because it looks beautiful.

In summary, the Nong E-Jone community woodlot project has provided the
villagers quite a few beneﬁts. Although the beneﬁts of income and fuelwood are
relatively small compared to the Kok Peeba woodlot, the villagers of Ban Don Bark
stated that they are satisﬁed with their woodlot. Although Nong E-Jone woodlot was not
a self-initiated project, the village headman had no problem in getting villagers involved
in every stage of the project. The reason for this success might be that the PDA staff had
clearly informed the villagers about the nature of project, and about the importance of
trees to the enviromnent before implementing the project. As a result, the villagers
understood how the project would beneﬁt their village and why they should participate

in it.

6.3 The Relationships between Variables in Research Propositions

The discussion of the four research propositions will be presented one by one,
based on both quantitative and qualitative data. Chi-square tests of relationships between
variables is made where applicable.

Proposition 1: The degree of people participation in community woodlot projects
will be higher if the villagers perceive fuelwood shortage as a problem, if community
woodlots are needed, and if villagers are involved in making decision to adopt the
project.

Table 31 shows that the percentages of people participation in the four villages

which share the same woodlot were different, though the same approach was applied.

178
The percentages of people who participated in Ban Yang Sinchai, Ban Nong Had, Ban
Don Gloy 6, and Ban Don Gloy l7 varied from 45 to 94.7 per cent. Although, the
percentage of people participation in Ban Don Bark was higher than in Ban Nong Had,
Ban Don Gloy 6, and Ban Don Gloy 17, the data from Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Don
Bark do not support the proposition that people participation is higher if the villagers
were involved in the decision process of community woodlot projects. The degrees of
people participation in both villages were almost equal (94.7 per cent in Ban Yang
Sinchai and 95 per cent in Ban Don Bark), though different development approaches

were applied

Table 31. People Participation in Community Woodlot Activities by Villages.

 

 

 

Villages
Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
Participation %(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)
Yes 94.7(18) 60.0(9) 45.0(9) 50.0(13) 95.0(19)
No 5.3(1) 40.0(6) 55.0(11) 50.0(13) 5.0(1)
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

 

 

 

It is not possible to draw a conclusion on the relationship between people
participation and development approaches without considering how people participation
was formed in each village. In the Kok Peeba community woodlot, it was predetermined
by the Royal Forest Department that villagers be hired to clear land and to plant trees in
the proposed community woodlot. Initially only the villagers in Ban Yang Sinchai and
Ban Nong Had were hired because these two villages ofﬁcially possess Kok Peeba public
land. The Eucalyptus seedlings were partly destroyed by the villagers of Ban Don Gloy
because they were driven away from the Kok Peeba public land. To lessen the conﬂicts

on the use of Kok Peeba public land, the villagers from Ban Don Gloy 6 and 17 were

179
also hired to replant trees later in the same year. It can be seen that people participation
in all four villages which share the Kok Peeba community woodlot consisted of hiring
people as the ﬁrst step. The villagers were hired to lop the branches of trees planted in
the earlier years. In the following years, they were hired to plant more trees in the
woodlot. Most activities in the woodlot were accomplished by hiring either the
community woodlot committee members or the villagers.

In contrast to Kok Peeba, people participation in the Nong E-Jone community
woodlot was unpaid. The villagers of Ban Don Bark were willing to plant trees without
getting any wages. They also helped lop the tree branches in the woodlot whenever
requested to do so by the community woodlot committee. People participation includes
participating in decisions to adopt the project, selecting tree species, planting trees,
maintaining the woodlot, and being on a committee. However, most villagers who
reported participating in the community woodlot project referred to activities such as tree
planting and maintaining the woodlot (Table 32).

Table 32 shows that the villagers participated differently in the woodlot projects.
Some people participated either in planting trees or maintaining the woodlot (lopping of
branches), and some did both. For the villagers who share the Kok Peeba woodlot, their
participation mostly depended on whether they were hired to plant trees or to lop the
branches. The committee initially worked without being paid, but later on it was agreed
by most villagers that they should get a small wage as a reward for their dedication. But
for the villagers in Ban Don Bark, their participation is entirely unpaid. This is clear in
Table 33 which indicates the reasons why people decided to participate in the project.
Most villagers in Ban Yang Sinchai (72.2 per cent), Ban Nong Had (88.9 per cent), and
Ban Don Gloy 17 (61.5 per cent) reported that the major reason for their participation

was the wages they earned, whereas the future beneﬁts in terms of fuelwood and

180

construction materials from the Nong E-Jone woodlot was an incentive for participation
of most villagers of Ban Don Bark. A number of respondents reported that they
participated because it is a rule or requirement that every household must contribute
labor when requested. This kind of rule has been used from the very beginning of the
Nong E-Jone community woodlot, but was only occasionally used in Kok Peeba
woodlot. Normally, most villagers are quite willing to participate upon request of the
community woodlot committee, except when the villagers are short of labor.

The previous discussion leads to a conclusion that people participation, in fact, is
not necessarily affected by development approaches. No matter if the villagers were
involved in the decision making process or not, people participation in project
implementation can be motivated. The issue seems to be the incentives for participation.
As in the case of Kok Peeba woodlot, hired labor has been used as an incentive for
people participation in various woodlot activities, while in the case of Nong E-Jone
woodlot an awareness of forest resource degradation caused villagers to participate in the
project. Although, Agyemang (1984) argued that the involvement of villagers in the
decision-making process is important for active participation, which will lead to a
success of project, this study demonstrates that people participation in the later stages of
project can be mobilized regardless of Villagers' involvement in the decision making

process.

181
Table 32. Types of Participation in Community Woodlot by Villages.

 

 

 

Villages
Types of Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
Participation %(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) %(N)
l. Planting trees 33.3(6) 55.6(5) 11.1(1) 30.8(4) 5.3(1)
2. Maintaining the
woodlot 16.7(3) 22.2(2) 55.5(5) 30.8(4) 21.0(4)
3. Both 1 & 2 38.9(7) - 11.1(1) 38.4(5) 73.7(14)
4. More than 2
activities 1 l . 1(2) 22.2(2) 22.2(2) - -
Total 100.0(18) 100.0(9) 100.0(9) 100.0(13) 100.0(19)

 

 

 

 

Table 33. Reasons for Participating in Community Woodlot by Villages.

 

 

 

Villages
Reasons Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
%(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) %(N)
1.Were hired to plant 72.2(13) 88.9(8) 22.2(2) 61.5(8) -
trees in the
woodlot
2. It is a rule 22.2(4) 11.1(1) 44.4(4) 36.8(3) 36.8(7)
3. Have land close to 5.6(1) - 22.2(2) - -
woodlot
4. Being village - - 11.1(1) - -
headman
5. Expected - - - 15.4(2) 63.2( 12)
beneﬁts
Total 100.0(18) 100.0(9) 100.0(9) 100.0(13) 100.0(19)

 

 

 

 

Table 34 shows the Villagers' perceptions toward fuelwood shortage. More than
50 per cent of villagers in all villages studied, except Ban Nong Had, perceived fuelwood
shortage as a serious problem. The percentages of villagers who perceived fuelwood as a
serious problem are highest in Ban Don Gloy 17 and Ban Don Gloy 6 because these two
villages have more population and less farmland as sources of fuelwood. Approximately

60.0 per cent of villagers in Ban Nong Had felt that the problem of fuelwood shortage

182

was not so serious because fuelwood is still available on their farmland.

Table 34. Villagers' Perception Towards Fuelwood Shortage.

 

Villages
Villagers' Perception Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark

%(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) %(N)

 

 

1.Serious problem 57.9(11) 33.3(5) 75.0(15) 76.9(20) 55.0(11)

2.Some problem 42.1(8) 60.0(9) 20.0(4) 23.1(6) 40.0(8)

3.No problem - 6.7(1) 5.0(1) - 5.0(1)
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

 

 

 

A statistical test was performed to examine the relationship between people
participation and the Villagers' perception towards fuelwood shortage. The Cramer's (V),
one of the Chi-Square based measures, was selected to measure the relationship between
such variables because it is designed for cross-tabulation tables of any dimension with no
limitation on the minimum number of the expected frequencies as found with Pearson's
Chi-Square. Although Table 34 indicates that most villagers in the villages studied
thought that there was a fuelwood shortage, the statistical test shows no relationship
between people participation and the Villagers' perception towards the problem of fuel
shortage in the villages studied, except for Ban Don Gloy 17 where the relationship
between these two variables was found statistically signiﬁcant (Table 35). This suggests
that people participation is not necessarily inﬂuenced by Villagers' perception towards

fuelwood shortage.

183
Table 35. Test of People Participation and Perception Towards Fuelwood Shortage by
Using Cramer' s (V) Measure.

 

 

Villages Cramer' s (V) Signiﬁcance (on)
Yang Sinchai .20101 .3 8094
Nong Had .57735 .05668
Don Gloy 6 .34816 .29757
Don Gloy 17 .54772 .00522“
Don Bark .20751 .65010

 

* Signiﬁcance at or = 0.05

Table 36 shows that the majority of villagers in every village surveyed thought
that a community woodlot was needed. Table 37 indicates that beneﬁts in terms of
income and fuelwood were the major reasons why most villagers thought that there was a
need for a woodlot. Table 36 also shows that of those who shared the Kok Peeba
woodlot, a higher percentage thought that a woodlot was needed because of its beneﬁt in
terms of income than did the percentage of those who thought that a woodlot was needed
because of fuelwood, except in Ban Don Gloy 17, where the percentages are equal. In
contrast, cash income alone was not a major reason that made the respondents of Ban
Don Bark, who use the Nong E-Jone woodlot, think that a woodlot was needed. Instead,
most of them (68.4 per cent) referred to beneﬁts as income, fuelwood, and food, as

reasons for the need for a woodlot.

184

Table 36. Villagers' Perception Towards The Need of A Woodlot.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Villages
Villagers' Perception Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloyl7 DonBark
%(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) %(N)
1. Need 94.7(18) 100.0(15) 80.0(16) 100.0(26) 95.0(19)
2. Do not need 5.3(1) - 10.0(2) - 5.0(1)
3. Not sure - - 10.0(2) - -
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)
Table 37. The Reasons Why a Woodlot is Needed.
Villages
Reasons Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
%(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) %(N)
1. Cash income 38.9(7) 73.4(11) 50.0(8) 26.9(7) 5.3(1)
2. F uelwood 22.2(4) 6.7(1) 37.5(6) 26.9(7) 21 .0(4)
3. 1+2 16.7(3) 13.3(2) 12.5(2) 34.6(9) -
4. Fuelwood and
food 11.1(2) - - - 5.3(1)
5. Income, fuelwood,
food 11.1(2) 6.7(1) - 11.4(3) 68.4(13)
Total 100.0(18) 100.0(15) 100.0(16) 100.0(26) 100.0(19)

 

 

 

Although the majority felt that there was a need for a woodlot (Table 36), no
statistically signiﬁcant relationship between people participation and Villagers' perception
towards the need of a woodlot was found in the villages studied. This suggests that
people participation is not inﬂuenced by Villagers' perceptions toward the need of a
woodlot. The value of Cramer's (V) in Ban Nong Had and Ban Don Bark cannot be
calculated because no variation was found in the perception of need for a woodlot (Table

38).

 

l 85
Table 38. Test of People Participation and Perception Towards the Need of a
Community Woodlot by Villages by Using Cramer' s (V) Measure.

 

 

Villages Cramer' s (V) Signiﬁcance (on)
Yang Sinchai .05556 .80866

Nong Had (V) cannot be calculated

Don Gloy 6 .30151 .61099

Don Gloy 17 (V) cannot be calculated

Don Bark .05263 .81392

 

The relationship between people participation and Villagers' perception towards
fuelwood shortage, and the relationship between people participation and Villagers'
perception towards the need of a woodlot are not statistically signiﬁcant in most villages.
To explain this, it is necessary to refer to the earlier discussion made on how people
participation was formed in the two different woodlots. People participation, in fact, was
directly stimulated by wage labor in Kok Peeba woodlot project and by Villagers'
anticipation of future beneﬁts and the tradition of providing labor in the Nong E-Jone
woodlot project. Thus the Villagers' perceptions toward fuelwood shortage and the need
of a woodlot were not the greatest inﬂuences of people participation. An exception to the
statement that the relationship between people participation and perception towards
fuelwood shortage is not signiﬁcant was found only in Ban Don Gloy 17. This might be
explained by the fact that most villagers (76.9 per cent) of Ban Don Gloy 17 perceived
fuelwood shortage as a serious problem, while in other villages the percentages of this

perception were lower (Table 34).

186

Proposition 2: The greater the diversity of tree species planted, the greater the
income and employment that can be generated.

Based on the data derived from the community woodlot committees, the
assumption that there is a relationship between the numbers of tree species planted in the
community woodlot and income and employment generated from the woodlot is
questionable. It has already been stated that only Eucalyptus camaldulensis were planted
in the Kok Peeba community woodlot. However, Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Leucaena
leucocephala, Acacia auriculiformis, and Cassia siamea were planted in the Nong E-
Jone woodlot. Earlier discussions showed that the Kok Peeba woodlot has generated
more income than Nong E-Jone. Kok Peeba woodlot has also generated employment to
the villagers in terms of wages, while Nong E-Jone has not generated any employment.
Although four tree species were planted in the Nong E-Jone community woodlot,
Eucalyptus has been the only species sold because pulp mills demand only Eucalyptus
trees for making paper. The data from the woodlots studied do not support the
proposition that if more tree species are planted, the more income and employment can
be generated because only Eucalyptus trees were planted for the market.

However, one should not overlook other beneﬁts of Leucaena leucocephala,
Acacia auriculiformis, and Cassia siamea. Although these tree species are not
marketable, they did provide multiple beneﬁts to meet the needs of local people. In Nong
E-Jone woodlot, besides Eucalyptus, the branches and twigs of Leucaena leucocephala
and Acacia auriculiformis can also be used as fuelwood and building materials. The
leaves of Cassia siamea are an excellent food for the villagers. The villagers also
reported that they love these trees because they provide shade and beautify their village.

Due to the market demand for Eucalyptus, some respondents in all ﬁve villages

studied have planted and some plan to plant Eucalyptus trees on their own land. Some

187
respondents also reported that Eucalyptus gives a better economic return than cassava, so
they might shift from growing cassava to planting Eucalyptus. In promoting tree species
other than Eucalyptus in the community woodlot projects, it is important to note the
policy of the Thai government concerning Eucalyptus plantations. It is widely known
that the Royal Forest Department has been supporting villagers to plant Eucalyptus in
community woodlots all over Thailand. The Thai government also encourages the private
sector to plant Eucalyptus on a large scale in order to supply the pulp mills. This means
that the market is open for Eucalyptus only. If the purpose of promoting tree species
other than Eucalyptus is to provide fuelwood, building materials, and food, the market
for these tree species will not be an issue as in the case of Nong E-Jone community
woodlot. But if the major objective is to generate income, the market for the tree species

promoted must be guaranteed, which is quite difﬁcult in the current situation in Thailand.

Proposition 3: The bigger the size of the woodlot, the greater the income and
employment that can be generated.

According to the data derived from the community woodlot committees, the size
of the woodlot seems to affect income. The ﬁrst community woodlot, Kok Peeba, is
bigger in size (800 rai or 128 hectares for Eucalyptus alone), while the second
community woodlot, Nong E-Jone, is smaller (55 rai or 8.8 hectares for all four tree
species). The area of the Eucalyptus plantation in Nong E-Jone woodlot is only 8 rai or
1.28 hectares.

It is obvious that the income derived from the Kok Peeba community woodlot is
greater compared to the income from Nong E-Jone community woodlot due to the bigger
size of Kok Peeba woodlot and its longer time of operation (Table 23). Within 10 years,

1982-1991, the committee of the Kok Peeba community woodlot has been able to harvest

188
and sell the Eucalyptus trees six times for a total income of 1,110,000 baht
(approximately $43,530), while the committee of Nong E-Jone community woodlot have
sold the Eucalyptus trees only once within three years, 1987-1990, for 11,000 baht
(approximately $431). The average prices of Eucalyptus sold per rai were 1,460.5 baht
and 1,375 baht in the Kok Peeba and Nong E-Jone community woodlots respectively.
The prices of Eucalyptus per rai were not very much different in the two woodlots. The
advantage of having a bigger woodlot is that the trees can be planted on different plots at
different times. By rotating tree planting, the trees can be harvested more often. Thus the
villagers can sell the trees and receive the income more often. Unlike the bigger woodlot,
the relatively small Nong E-Jone woodlot does not have enough land for the rotation of
tree planting as part of the woodlot has been used for the planting of Leucaena
leucocephala, Acacia auriculiformis, and Cassia siamea, which have little market value.
As a result, the villagers have to wait longer for the next harvest. However, other
beneﬁts such as fuelwood and building materials of non-market tree species should also

be considered in evaluating the woodlot.

Proposition 4: A higher degree of community self-reliance is achieved if the
effectiveness of the community woodlot committee is greater in terms of managing the
woodlots.

In this study self-reliance is evaluated in terms of the villages' dependency on
outside ﬁnancial supports such as the government or development agencies, and the
villages' dependency on fuel supply from the community woodlots. Since 1982, when the
Kok Peeba community woodlot project was implemented, only Ban Yang Sinchai and
Ban Nong Had received a budget, in 1989, from the so-called Job Creation Program of

the government to construct a village tap water supply. This budget, however, was not

189
enough to ﬁnish the project. The woodlot committees of Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban ,
Nong Had decided to spend part of their community woodlot revolving funds to ﬁnish
the project. No ﬁnancial support from the government or other sources for village
development activities was required in Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17 since
implementing the Kok Peeba woodlot project.

The four villages that share the Kok Peeba woodlot have been largely dependent
on the income from the woodlot for their village development activities, but not in the
case of Ban Don Bark where the amount of income generated from the Nong E-Jone
woodlot was small and so far has been used for loan to villagers only. Ban Don Bark is
still entirely dependent on the government budget for its development activities.

Data from the survey show that the Villagers' dependency on fuelwood from
community woodlots varies from village to village. Regardless of the economic classes,
more than 78.9 per cent of the respondents in every village studied, except Ban Nong
Had, used to collect fuelwood from the community woodlots. Although the respondents
were not able to give data on the amount of fuelwood collected each year, most were able
to estimate how long the fuelwood collected from the woodlot lasted. The use of
fuelwood collected from the woodlot, on average, lasted 9.8, 5.5, 4.7, 4.8, and 1.4
months per household in Ban Yang Sinchai, Ban Nong Had, Ban Don Gloy 6, Ban Don
Gloy 17, and Ban Don Bark respectively. Data show that most respondents in Ban Yang
Sinchai are highly dependent on fuelwood from the woodlot. Fuelwood collected from
the woodlot by 78.9 per cent of the respondents, on average, lasted for 9.8 months.

The villagers of Ban Nong Had were least dependent on fuelwood from the Kok
Peeba woodlot, although the average duration of the use of fuelwood per household was
5.5 months, because very few respondents (20 per cent) used to collect fuelwood from

the woodlot. This might be due to the fact that the villagers of Ban Nong Had have

190

another source of fuelwood near their farmland, while Ban Yang Sinchai, Ban Don Gloy
6, and Ban Don Gloy 17 do not.

The dependency on fuelwood from the woodlot of Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don
Gloy 17 was not as high as in Ban Yang Sinchai. Although more than 85 per cent of the
respondents in these two villages collected fuelwood from the woodlot, the fuelwood
collected from the woodlot lasted only 4.7 and 4.8 months on average.

The respondents of Ban Don Bark were not very dependent on fuelwood from the
Nong E-Jone woodlot (only 1.4 month per household) because most respondents mainly
collected fuelwood from their own farmland. Though 85 per cent of the respondents in
Ban Don Bark reported that they also collected fuelwood from the Nong E-Jone woodlot,
it seemed that the fuelwood supply from the woodlot was not adequate for all villagers. It
is clear from the previous discussion that the dependency of villagers on fuelwood from
both woodlots studied is not high, except for Ban Yang Sinchai.

The respondents were asked how satisﬁed they were with the kinds of woodlot
management performed by the committees. It was found that the satisfaction levels

varied among villages (Table 39).

Table 39. Villagers' Satisfaction With the Effectiveness of Community Woodlot

 

 

 

Committees.
Villages
Villagers' Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
Satisfaction %(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) %(N)
Very effective 84.2(16) 80.0(12) 55.0(1 l) 69.2(18) 90.0(18)
Not effective 10.5(2) 13.3(2) 20.0(4) 23. 1(6) 5.0(1)
Indifference 5.3(1) 6.7(1) 25.0(5) 7.7(2) 5.0(1)
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

 

 

 

Most respondents in Ban Yang Sinchai, Ban Nong Had, and Ban Don Bark (84.2,

80.0, and 90.0 per cent respectively) were satisﬁed with the general performance of their

191
committees. More respondents of Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17 were less
satisﬁed with their committees' performances compared to other villages.

In 1991, the woodlot committee of Ban Yang Sinchai spent the dividend from the
community woodlot revolving fund to buy cement blocks for their villagers to grow
vegetables. Each household was provided two free cement blocks. In previous years, the
committees also spent the dividend to build a village gate and "SALA" (a public rest
area) in the village. The idea was that the dividend can be used, but the community
woodlot revolving fund must be retained. The village development fund is spent on the
revolving basis only. This is why most villagers were satisﬁed with the committees. No
other villages have done what Ban Yang Sinchai did.

In the ﬁrst year Ban Don Gloy spent their community woodlot revolving fund to
ﬁnish constructing their temple because temples are culturally very important to village
life. Although this was appreciated by most villagers who wanted to have a new temple,
it was considered by the woodlot committees a misuse of the community woodlot
revolving fund because the committees from all four villages had agreed to spend the
village development fund on a revolving basis. As a result, the committee of Ban Don
Gloy used the community woodlot revolving fund as a loan for their villagers the
following year. By managing the revolving fund in this way, the fund will not be
ﬁnished, but will increase from the accumulation of interest by the villagers who
received a loan.

In the Nong E-Jone woodlot, the income from the woodlot has also been managed
on a revolving basis. Some villagers also wanted the committee to spend some money to
improve their temple, but this idea was not approved. There has not been other village
development activity besides providing loans to villagers, using the income from the

woodlot.

192

The villagers were asked how satisﬁed they were with the distribution of beneﬁts.
The degree of satisfaction with the committees' performances decreased in some villages.
For example, 80 per cent of respondents in Ban Nong Had were satisﬁed with the general
performances of their committee, but only 66.7 per cent of them were satisﬁed with the
way the committee distributed the beneﬁts. The respondents complained that the
selection of villagers to work in the woodlot was unfair. Some complained that the
income from the woodlot had not been clearly declared to the villagers.

A number of respondents in Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17 complained
that they had to buy fuelwood from the woodlot. They said that if it was a real
community woodlot, fuelwood should be free. They blamed the community woodlot
committee for this policy and called the woodlot "Pa F uen Nai Toon," meaning a
commercial woodlot rather than a community woodlot. The community woodlot
committee realized this problem existed, but they were not able to force the middlemen
to give the unwanted parts of trees to the villagers for free because the middleman had
the rights over the trees they had already bought. It is up to the middlemen to give or to
sell the unwanted parts of trees to the villagers. The problem was that the villagers
normally did not go to the woodlot to collect fuelwood at the same time when an
announcement for fuelwood collection was made. Moreover, there was no limit on how
much fuelwood each household could collect. Consequently, those who arrived earlier
got more free fuelwood. Those who were late might get less free fuelwood or had to buy
fuelwood from the middleman. To solve this problem, in 1991 the community woodlot
committee began to limit the amount of fuelwood collected each time. The rule is applied
to all four villages. According to this rule, each household is allowed to collect only two
small push-carts of fuelwood every time fuelwood collection is announced by the

committee. The result of this rule, however, was not yet evident at the time of the survey.

193

In the case of Ban Don Gloy 17, only 50 per cent of the respondents reported that
they were satisﬁed with the way their committees managed the beneﬁts. Most of the
respondents who were not satisﬁed with their committee reported that some committee
members were corrupt. This issue was mentioned by many villagers in both Ban Don
Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17. The author was told that in 1990 the government was
implementing an electriﬁcation project in Lao sub-district and that part Kok Peeba
woodlot was consequently cut down to install the high voltage electric poles and cables.
The community woodlot committee received compensation of 35,000 baht. This amount
of money was divided among the four villages. Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had
equally received 10,000 baht. Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17 equally received
5,000 baht. Another 5,000 baht was spent on a type-writer for the sub-district council.
Every village, except Ban Don Gloy 17, put the money into their community woodlot
revolving fund. The members of Ban Don Gloy 17 committee shared this money among
themselves. This would have remained a secret, but a villager in Ban Don Gloy 17 found
out about the arrangement through a conversation with people from other villages. As a
result, the committee of Ban Don Gloy 17 were forced to return the money, and were
replaced by others, those who were interviewed in this study. The villagers decided to
give the money to the temple because they no longer perceived it as good money.

In the early stage of implementing the Kok Peeba woodlot, the conﬂict between
Ban Yang Sinchai, Ban Nong Had, and Ban Don Gloy was rather serious. There was a
confrontation between the villagers of Ban Don Gloy who encroached on Kok Peeba
public land and the Lao sub-district council who wanted to move these people out. This
case was brought to the district ofﬁce, and it was judged that the villagers of Ban Don
Gloy had to move out, because Lao sub-district council has the rights over Kok Peeba

public land. This led to the destruction of seedlings in the woodlot by the villagers of Ban

194

Don Gloy later on. Because Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17 have had some
representatives in the meetings along with ofﬁcial members of the Kok Peeba woodlot
committee, and because the villagers of Ban Don Gloy were allowed to grow cassava in
the woodlot, this conﬂict was settled. It must be noted that the idea of having
representatives from Ban Don Gloy and of allowing their villagers to grow cassava came
from the committees of Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had with supervision from the
forestry ofﬁcials of the project. Since that time there has been no serious conﬂict among
the villagers again.

In the Nong E-Jone woodlot, only one conﬂict concerning the use of trees in the
woodlot occurred since the implementation of the project. One respondent reported that
her brother, who was temporarily in army service in Bangkok, moved back to Ban Don
Bark in March 1991 and wanted some building materials for his new house. He asked the
committee for two Eucalyptus trees from the woodlot, but the request was refused. Out
of anger, he cut down one Eucalyptus tree and left it unused. As a result, it was felt by
some that the committee had not kept the promise that the villagers could reap the
beneﬁts from the woodlot. However, the community woodlot committees reported that
the man who asked for the trees was too rude and aggressive and had never participated
in any woodlot activity. The committee, in fact, would have granted his request if he did
not cut down the tree in anger. The committee were about to send him to the police, but
decided not to do so, because they did not want to ruin their good relationship with the
villagers. Instead they gave him a caution.

The above discussion describes the dependency of the villages studied on external
ﬁnancial support for village development activities and on fuelwood from the woodlots,
which are the substance of village self-reliance. It also describes how the community

woodlot committees in both projects manage the woodlots and their beneﬁts in general

195
and how the sub-committees of each village manage the beneﬁts from the woodlot as
well as the conﬂicts in their own villages.

It might be concluded that the community woodlot committees in every village
studied, to some extent, have been working quite effectively. The management of income
from the woodlot on the revolving fund basis in both woodlot projects has demonstrated
the capability of the woodlot committees to rely on themselves ﬁnancially. Many village
development activities, especially in the villages that share the Kok Peeba woodlot, have
been accomplished without external ﬁnancial support. Although the community woodlot
committee in the Nong E-Jone project is efﬁcient in both woodlot and conﬂict
management, Ban Don Bark has not relied on its own ﬁnancial resources, because the
income from the woodlot has been too little. The degree of dependency on fuelwood
supply from the woodlot of each village seems to depend on the ability of each
household to collect fuelwood, since there was no limit for fuelwood collection in the
woodlot at the times announced for fuelwood collection. In other words, the village that
collected more fuelwood from the woodlot is more self-reliant (less dependent on other
sources of fuelwood). This seems to suggest that the effectiveness of community woodlot
committee in terms of controlling the distribution of fuelwood, has an indirect effect on
self-reliance of the villages on fuelwood supply from the woodlot. In other words, if the
committee are to put a limit on the amount of fuelwood to be collected for each family
on an equal share basis, the large families who collect fuelwood from the woodlot solely
may not have enough fuelwood supply for all year round. However, there were also
families who never collected fuelwood in the woodlot at all. It may be said that the
committees did not see the need for putting a limit on the amount of fuelwood to be
collected because villagers normally collected fuelwood just enough for their own use

and there was no problem concerning fuelwood distribution among villagers.

196

Proposition 5: A higher degree of self-reliance of the community is achieved if
the size of community woodlot is larger.

Self-reliance refers to the ability of the communities to rely on themselves in
terms of income and fuelwood supply from their community woodlots. To examine the
relationship between self-reliance of the villages studied and the size of community
woodlots, it is necessary to compare the bigger woodlot (Kok Peeba) with the smaller
one (Nong E-Jone).

To begin with, we must refer to the conclusion drawn earlier that the four villages
which share the Kok Peeba woodlot have been able to rely on themselves ﬁnancially for
their village development activities, in part because of the ability of their woodlot
committee to manage the woodlot funds. The committee of Nong E-Jone community
woodlot has also been working quite effectively. However, the villagers in Ban Don Bark
have not been able to rely on themselves ﬁnancially because the income from their
woodlot was so small. It seems that the effectiveness of the committees to manage the
woodlot is not the only factor that makes the villages less dependent on the external fund
for their village development activities. The amount of income from the sales of trees is
also important for the villages to be able to stand on their own feet.

More income from the woodlot means that the villagers must have a larger
woodlot. It has been clear in the discussion of Proposition 3 that there is a positive
relationship between the size of the woodlot and income from the woodlot. Thus the
degree of dependency of villages on the external fund for village development activities
is indirectly related to woodlot size. It can be concluded that a larger woodlot tends to
generate more income, and good management of income makes the villages less
dependent on the external development fund. In other words, no matter how large the

woodlot is and how much the income can be generated from the woodlot, if the woodlot

197
committees were not capable in managing the village funds effectively, self-reliance of
the community might not occur.

Although data show that a larger woodlot (Kok Peeba) provides more fuelwood
than a smaller one (Nong E-Jone) in terms of the number of months used by each
household, it is too risky to conclude that a larger woodlot yields more fuelwood to the
villagers. This conclusion holds true only if we disregard the rule concerning fuelwood
collection set by the woodlot committees. No matter how big the woodlot, if fuelwood is
considered a by-product of the project and fuelwood collection is allowed occasionally, it
is difﬁcult for the villagers to fully rely on fuelwood from the woodlot as their major
source of household energy. The villagers still have to collect fuelwood from other
sources which are becoming more scarce every year. At best, the community woodlots

can be only a supplementary source of fuelwood for most villagers who badly need it.

6.4 Other Impacts in the Two Community Woodlots Studied

Besides income, employment, fuelwood, food, and building materials, the two
community woodlots studied also create other impacts. The respondents were asked
whether they ever noticed any impacts caused by the woodlots. Table 40 shows the

responses to this question.

Table 40. Impacts of the Woodlots as Perceived by the Villagers in the Five Villages.

 

 

 

Studied.
Villages
Noticeable Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloy17 DonBark
Impacts %(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) %(N)
Yes 73.7(14) 66.7(10) 90.0(18) 92.3(24) 55.0(11)
No 26.3(5) 33.3(5) 10.0(2) 7.7(2) 45.0(9)
Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

 

 

 

198

F A0 (1988) indicated that Eucalyptus may: (1) consume much ground water; (2)
affect soil fertility under certain circumstances; (3) not provide adequate food and habitat
for wildlife; (4) not protect the soil against erosion due to its sparse canopies; and (5)
upset local values or traditions. These impacts seem to occur in both woodlots studied.
The followings impacts were perceived by the respondents:

1. The soil becomes infertile;

2. Ground water dries up;

3. No grass is found in the woodlot;

4. Crops grown near the woodlot are less productive;

5. Eucalyptus leaves do not easily decay;

6. The cattle do not like to go into the woodlot because it is too hot.

According to the respondents, these impacts were caused speciﬁcally by
Eucalyptus trees in the Kok Peeba woodlot. The same kinds of impacts were also
reported by the respondents in Ban Don Bark who used the Nong E-Jone woodlot. The
author also noticed these impacts during his visits to both woodlots. The difference in
micro climate between the Eucalyptus and non-Eucalyptus woodlots in Nong E-Jone was
evident. It was much cooler in the non-Eucalyptus than in the Eucalyptus woodlot. There
was also more undergrowth in the non-Eucalyptus than in the Eucalyptus woodlots.
Although most respondents complained about the negative impacts of Eucalyptus trees,
they still like them.

199
Table 41. Preferences Toward Tree Species Planted in the Woodlots Classiﬁed by
Villages.

 

Villages
Preferences Yang Sinchai NongHad DonGloy6 DonGloyl7 DonBark

%(N) % (N) % (N) % (N) %(N)

 

 

 

 

 

Yes 94.7(18) 93.3(14) 55.0(11) 69.2(18) 55.0(11)
No - - 15.0(3) 23.1(6) 5.00)
Not sure 5.3(1) 6.7(1) 30.0(6) 7.7(2) 40.0(8)

Total 100.0(19) 100.0(15) 100.0(20) 100.0(26) 100.0(20)

 

Table 41 shows that more than 90 per cent of the respondents in Ban Yang
Sinchai and Ban Nong Had liked Eucalyptus trees. The most frequent reason for liking
Eucalyptus was their marketability. Other reasons were that Eucalyptus trees are fast
grong and can be used as fuelwood and building materials. The respondents of Ban
Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17 did not like Eucalyptus trees as much as the
respondents of Ban Yang Sinchai and Ban Nong Had. The market value of Eucalyptus
trees was also the major reason why the respondents of Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don
Gloy 17 liked the trees. The respondents who did not like Eucalyptus trees reported that
they were more concerned with the negative impacts than with market value. This may
be due to the fact that a number of villagers of Ban Don Gloy 6 and Ban Don Gloy 17
have their farmlands close to the woodlot. Some reported that their farmlands were
directly affected by the woodlot.

The community woodlot committees were also concerned about the negative
impacts of Eucalyptus. The chairman of the woodlot committee mentioned that he was
told in a community woodlot seminar at the district ofﬁce that the yield of Eucalyptus
decreases after the fourth generation. By that time, the soil quality may be very bad
because Eucalyptus consumes so much water and nutrients. It will not be easy to grow

crops or plant trees on the land once Eucalyptus has been planted. They now begin to

200
worry about the future of their woodlot. According to a conversation with a district
forestry ofﬁcer, there is no future plan for the Kok Peeba community woodlot.

Although the villagers of Ban Don Bark were directly involved in selecting the
tree species, only 55 per cent of the respondents reported that they liked the trees planted.
Among the four tree species planted, Eucalyptus and Acacia auriculiformis were the
most preferred because Eucalyptus is fast grong and Acacia auriculiformis makes good
fuelwood. The respondents who reported that they were unsure whether or not they liked
the trees planted were those who enjoyed the beneﬁts from Eucalyptus trees and
concurrently did not like their negative impacts. Very few respondents of Ban Don Bark
mentioned the market value of Eucalyptus. This might be due to the reason that income
from the Nong E-Jone woodlot has not been evident as compared to income from the
Kok Peeba woodlot. Regardless of the tree species planted, most villagers in Ban Don

Bark do like their woodlot due to its aesthetic value.

6.5 Summary

The beneﬁts from both community woodlots studied have been cash income,
employment, fuelwood, building materials, and food. Besides such beneﬁts, the tree
species planted, especially Leucaena leucocephala, Acacia auriculiformis, and Cassia
Siamea in Nong E-Jone woodlot also provide shade and beautify the village. However,
the major beneﬁt from Kok Peeba woodlot has been the cash income from the sale of
Eucalyptus trees, not fuelwood as planned by the RFD. Fuelwood turn out to be a by-
product because Kok Peeba woodlot was managed mainly for the sale of trees. In other
words, the Eucalyptus trees were not primarily managed for fuelwood supply. The
villagers were allowed to collect fuelwood in two occasions only: ﬁrst, after the trees

have been sold and cut down by the middleman, and second, when lopping of branches is

201
needed. In the Nong E-Jone community woodlot, cash income seems to be just equally
important to other beneﬁts because the income from the woodlot has not yet
overshadowed other beneﬁts. The villagers of Ban Don Bark enjoy not only the income
from the sale of Eucalyptus poles but also other beneﬁts from other tree species.

Generally, there were not many differences concerning the beneﬁts derived from
the woodlots among the respondents in different economic classes in both woodlot
projects. Most respondents in every economic stratum of the four villages in Kok Peeba
woodlot project got loans from the community woodlot revolving fund, and collected
fuelwood from the woodlot, except for Ban Nong Had, where only a small percentage of
respondents collected fuelwood. In Nong E-Jone project, almost every respondent
interviewed collected fuelwood from the woodlot. Only one respondent was found to
have received a loan from the community woodlot revolving fund.

Besides the beneﬁts in terms of cash income, fuelwood, building materials, and
food, both community woodlots also created undesirable impacts such as poor soil
quality, drying up of ground water, and no grass for cattle. Eucalyptus is perceived by
villagers to be a major cause of these negative impacts. However, it is still the most
popular tree species among the villagers in both woodlots studied, due to its market value
and fast growing characteristics.

The conclusion concerning the relationship between pe0ple participation and
development approaches must be drawn based on the types of participation. People
participation in decision making to adopt the woodlot project was found higher in the
Nong E-Jone than in the Kok Peeba projects. However, the involvement of villagers in
the decision making process did not necessarily make people participation in other stages
of project higher. People participation in project activities of Ban Yang Sinchai (Kok
Peeba project) was almost as high as of Ban Don Bark (Nong E-Jone project), though the

202

villagers of Ban Yang Sinchai were not involved in the decision making process to adopt
the project. The incentives for participation (hired labor or future beneﬁts) and the
management of woodlots must be taken into account to explain this relationship. It was
also found that participation in beneﬁts was quite high in every village studied, though
different development approaches were applied. The relationship between people
participation in project activities and Villagers' perceptions toward fuelwood shortage and
the need for a woodlot was not statistically signiﬁcant in most villages studied. In other
words, fuelwood shortage and the need for a woodlot were not major factors inﬂuencing
villagers to participate in woodlot activities in both projects.

No relationship between diversity of tree species and cash income from the
woodlot was found. Although four tree species were planted in the Nong E-Jone
woodlot, Eucalyptus is the only marketable species. Thus the assumption that if more
tree species are planted in the woodlot, more income will be generated is not true because
not all tree species are planted for the market. However, the amount of income generated
was found to be dependent on the size of woodlot. A conclusion can be drawn from a
comparison between the cash income from the sale of Eucalyptus poles from Kok Peeba
and Nong E-Jone woodlots that the larger the woodlot, the more income can be
generated.

For the villages to be self-reliant, the villagers should be able to rely more on
themselves ﬁnancially and be less dependent on external funds. The villagers should also
be able to rely on fuelwood supply from their woodlots as a major source of their
household energy. The ability of community woodlot committee of the Kok Peeba
project to manage the income from the woodlot on the revolving basis has made it
possible for all four villages to rely on themselves ﬁnancially. In contrast, Ban Don Bark,

in the Nong E-Jone project, is still dependent on external frnancial support for its village

203
development activities, though the community woodlot committee use the same
revolving fund basis as the Kok Peeba project. It can be concluded that income from and
size of the woodlot are determining factors of village self-reliance. But self-reliance of
the community would not be possible unless the community woodlot committee were
very effective in managing the woodlot.

A direct relationship between self-reliance on fuelwood supply from the woodlot
of villages and the effectiveness of community woodlot committees was not found
because the woodlot has been managed mainly for income generation for the villages.
However, the way the committee distribute fuelwood to the villagers seems to reﬂect
their effectiveness in controlling the amount of fuelwood to be collected. There was no
relationship between size of the woodlot and self-reliance on fuelwood supply. While the
fuelwood collected from the Kok Peeba woodlot lasted, on average, months longer than
that collected in the Nong E-Jone woodlot, fuelwood collected from the Kok Peeba
woodlot was still not sufﬁcient for most households.

The ecological complex framework has helped us to understand the interactions
between the social system and the environment in the context of a rural energy problem.
The ecological approach allowed us to carefully examine the relationships between
variables in the context of community woodlots discussed earlier. In the model, income
and employment were treated as population variables. In both community woodlots
income turn out to be a major beneﬁt for the communities. The villagers involved in both
woodlots have enjoyed income beneﬁt in various ways such as infrastructure
development and loans. In the Kok Peeba woodlot, villagers who were employed to work
in the woodlot also received additional income. In fact, income generated from the Kok
Peeba woodlot has been cited by the Royal Forestry Department as a major success of the

project.

204

Development approaches, community woodlot committees, people participation,
and self reliance were placed under organizational variables. Data showed that the
community woodlot committees were very capable in managing their woodlots
technically and ﬁnancially. People participation was also a fundamental factor in the
success of both Kok Peeba and Nong E-Jone woodlots. Participation was stimulated in
different ways. Some villagers participated in the project because they were hired. Some
participated because of tradition. Some participated because they were interested in the
potential beneﬁts of the project. Development approaches did not affect people
participation in the villages studied. Regardless their involvement at the initial stage of
the projects, villagers participated in the woodlot activities according to the above
mentioned reasons. Among the four organizational variables in the model, self-reliance
seems to be the most difﬁcult one to study, especially self-reliance on fuelwood supply.
Sometimes it was difﬁcult for the villagers to tell how much they relied on fuelwood
from the woodlots, because they normally collected fuelwood from many sources.
However, the four villages in the Kok Peeba woodlot were self-reliant ﬁnancially due to
the income from the sale of Eucalyptus.

The size of community woodlot and diversity of tree species were viewed as
technology proposed to the villages to help rural villagers meet their fuelwood need. The
size of woodlot was important for income generation. The bigger woodlots can generate
more income. Selection of tree species was dependent on the objectives of the project.
As a technology, the size of woodlot and tree species to be planted should be carefully
designed if the project objectives are to be met.

The Villagers' perceptions toward the need of a woodlot and availability of
fuelwood were considered as cultural variables. Although the villagers in both woodlots

had different perceptions toward their woodlots and fuelwood shortage, it did not affect

205
their participation. One of the reasons why villagers participated was that participation
belongs to village culture.

In this study, population, organizational, technical, and cultural variables were
analyzed in the framework of a bi0physical environment which was the condition of
forest cover around the village areas. From the ecological complex perspective, the
organizational variables, especially the woodlot committees, seem to play the most
important role in the success of both woodlots studied. The ecological perspective
showed how the villagers individually or collectively responded and organized
themselves to cope with the forest resource problems they were facing. This indicates
that no matter how good the technology is, the project success is dependent on the

Villagers' ability to organize themselves.

6.6 Conclusion

To say that the community woodlot issue is, in fact, an environmental issue is not
an overstatement. Fuelwood has long been the only major source of household energy for
most rural villagers in Thailand. The environmental destruction by human beings,
especially of forest resources, has led to a decrease in the fuelwood supply from natural
sources, which in turn, affects the lives of rural people. Community woodlots, as a
technology, were proposed to solve such fuelwood shortage problems. However, it was
not easy for most rural people to comprehend the proposed technology (community
woodlots) which was somewhat of a new concept for them. Thus a local organization
(community woodlot committees), as the representative of villagers, was needed to
handle such new technology so that they would be able to solve their environmental

problem (fuelwood shortage).

The review of literature in Chapter 2 suggested that people involvement in

206

woodlot projects could be affected by factors such as local organizations, land-use
conﬂicts, perceptions toward community property resources, gender, development
approaches, labor, political commitment, and local culture. This study has demonstrated
that local organizations play the most important role in community woodlot projects. The
community woodlot committee, as a local goal-oriented organization, is an essential
factor for project sustainability. Though the two projects studied were differently
initiated by different organizations, the community woodlot committees in both projects
have been capable for the most part in managing their woodlots socially and ﬁnancially.
The committees of Kok Peeba community woodlot have demonstrated their ability in
settling land-use conﬂicts among villages in the initial stage of the project, which ﬁnally
made people participation from every village involved in the project possible.

This study has also conﬁrmed that people participation, as suggested in most
literature, is one of the substantial factors contributing to project success in both
community woodlots studied. However, the study does not support the notion that totally
bottom-up participation is a must if the projects are to be successful. The villagers in Kok
Peeba project were not involved in the decision making process to adopt the community
woodlot. Moreover, they were paid for the contribution of their labor to most community
woodlot activities, which was an attribute of the woodlot project at that time. However,
the project has been quite successful in terms of people participation, and the woodlot
activities were continued quite satisfactorily without any external intervention. There
were also occasions when the villagers worked without pay in some activities, such as
lopping branches of trees and maintaining the woodlot. This can lead to the further
conclusion that people participation is not solely dependent on expecting beneﬁts from
the community woodlot. In Thai society, especially in rural areas, people participation is

in fact part of the culture. In most villages in Thailand, there is a tradition that when the

207

village headman asks for cooperation in developing the villages, each household is
supposed to contribute one laborer. It is often the case that villagers participated because
it is a tradition to do so. Sometimes they did not even think about what beneﬁts they
could derive from their contribution. This principle is veriﬁed by the observation of this
study, especially in the case of Nong E-Jone community woodlot. It was reported that at
present it is more difﬁcult to get people to work in the Kok Peeba woodlot even though
they are paid. This is because there are more job opportunities in the district area where
the villagers can get higher wages. This example suggests that incentives like hired labor
sometimes cannot induce people participation if the villagers can have access to other
sources of better income.

It has been mentioned that diversity of tree species and size of woodlot were
viewed as a proposed technology in this study. The choice of technology made either by
the outsiders or by the villagers created different impacts to the target villagers.
Eucalyptus is a good example of proposed technology that caused both positive and
negative impacts. It is not denied that Eucalyptus has provided an immense beneﬁt in
terms of cash income in the Kok Peeba community woodlot project. Concurrently,
Eucalyptus also caused perceived undesirable impacts. The magnitude of beneﬁts and
undesirable impacts seemed to have a positive relationship with the size of the
Eucalyptus woodlot. One cannot expect a huge beneﬁt from a large scale Eucalyptus
plantation without meeting with large scale negative impacts caused by the same
plantation. It seems that while trying to solve environmental problems by proposing a
new kind of technology, it was not realized that the proposed technology could harm the
environment as well.

This chapter described the roles of community woodlot committees, types of

people participation, and beneﬁts derived from both community woodlots studied. It also

208
discussed the relationships between variables in the research propositions based on an
ecological perspective. Finally it presented the impacts caused by the woodlots. The next

chapter discusses the conclusion and implications of these results.

CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter summarizes the study and its ﬁndings. Conclusions and implications
of this investigation are discussed. The limitations of the study and recommendations for

future research are also presented.

7.1 Summary of the Study

The rapid growth of population and the destruction of natural resources in many
developing countries have affected greatly the ecological balance of our natural
environment. An over-exploitation of forest resources by such means as shifting
cultivation, commercial logging, and fuelwood collection, has led to a decrease in
fuelwood supply from the natural forests, which have been the only major source of
fuelwood for rural villagers in most developing countries. Those rural dwellers, to
varying degrees, are now facing a problem of fuelwood shortage. Thailand is no
exception to this problem. The problem of fuelwood scarcity has been felt by both the
governmental and nongovernmental agencies. Among other rural energy projects,
community woodlots, under the social forestry scheme, are deemed one of the most
promising strategies to alleviate the problem of fuelwood shortage in rural areas, while
also generating income and employment for the rural households.

This study focused on community woodlots as a response to the rural energy
problem (fuelwood shortage) and their impacts on rural communities as well as rural
development. The general purpose of this study was to describe the beneﬁts of
community woodlots to local people and their communities. The study also attempted to
discover why and how community woodlots provided such beneﬁts, and what
contributions community woodlots have on rural development goals. For comparative

purposes, two community woodlots, which differed in size, the species of tree, and

209

210

development approaches were studied. Both community woodlots are located in the same
province of northeastern Thailand. The ﬁrst community woodlot, Kok Peeba, was
proposed by the Royal Forest Department (RFD). The second woodlot, Nong E-Jone,
was initiated by a nongovernmental organization, the Population and Community
Development Association (PDA). The ﬁrst woodlot is bigger in size with only
Eucalyptus camaldulensis planted. The second woodlot is smaller with four tree species
planted including Eucalyptus camaldulensis, Acacia auriculiformis, Leucaena
leucocephala, and Cassia siamea. The ﬁrst woodlot is shared among four villages, while
the second woodlot was used by only one village.

Because this study involved the relationship between people and the environment,
an ecological perspective was proposed as a framework . for analysis of research
questions. The ecological complex model is comprised of four major components:
population, organization, environment, and technology. Culture was added to the model
as a ﬁfth component. Based on the literature reviewed, the key variables concerning
community woodlot projects were identiﬁed to ﬁt the model. The population variables
referred to income and employment. Development approaches, community woodlot
committees, people participation, and self-reliance were considered as organizational
variables. The community woodlot deﬁned by size and diversity of tree species entered
this model as a proposed technology. The Villagers' perceptions toward the need of a
woodlot and availability of fuelwood were the cultural variables added to the model. This
study did not consider environment a variable in the model. Instead it deﬁned the
environment, i.e. degraded forest cover, as an explaining factor in promoting community
woodlot projects to the rural areas.

Five research propositions were examined in this study:

1. People participation is related to the Villagers' perception toward fuelwood

211

shortage and the need of a woodlot, and to their involvement in deciding to adopt

the woodlot project.

2. Income and employment from the community woodlot is related to the

diversity of tree species planted in the woodlot.

3. Income and employment from the community woodlot is related to the size of

the woodlot.

4. Self-reliance of villages on income and fuelwood from the community

woodlots is related to the effectiveness of community woodlot committees.

5. Self-reliance of villages on income and fuelwood from the community

woodlots is related to the size of woodlots.

The study describes the historical background of both community woodlot
projects in terms of their establishment, size of the woodlots, and tree species planted. It
also gives details of project implementation and management. In the analysis, the study
begins by describing the roles of the community woodlot committees and people
participation in both woodlots studied. Beneﬁts to the villagers in the ﬁve villages
derived from the two community woodlots studied are discussed. Analysis of the
relationships between variables hypothesized in the research propositions follows. These
variables are income and employment; people participation; community woodlot
committee; self-reliance; diversity of tree species; size of community woodlot;
development approaches; and Villagers' perception toward community woodlots and
availability of fuelwood. Finally, other impacts created by both community woodlots
studied are reported.

Cash income from the sales of Eucalyptus trees, fuelwood, and building materials
are the major beneﬁts in both community woodlots studied. The same principles of

woodlot management and distribution of beneﬁts have been used across the four villages

212

that share the Kok Peeba community woodlot. The villagers were hired to plant the trees
and maintain the woodlot. The woodlot committee members also received some wages
for their work. The income from selling Eucalyptus trees were divided into three parts:
(1) sub-district council development fund, (2) community woodlot maintenance fund,
and (3) community woodlot revolving fund. The ﬁrst two funds were centrally managed
by the six ofﬁcial community woodlot committee members, but the community woodlot
revolving funds were managed differently in each village, based on the agreement of the
community woodlot sub-committees of each village and their villagers. The revolving
fund has been used as a basis for managing the community woodlot revolving fund in all
four villages to maintain the amount of funds they have. The community woodlot
committee of Nong E-Jone woodlot also managed the community woodlot fund on the
revolving basis. No major differences in beneﬁts were found among the villagers in
different economic strata in all ﬁve villages in both woodlots studied.

In both woodlots, people participation in woodlot activities is not related to
Villagers' perception towards fuelwood shortage or the need for a woodlot. Pe0ple
participation in project implementation may be related to the involvement of villagers in
the decision making process to adopt the community woodlot project as in the case of
Nong E-Jone. However, this is not true in the case of Kok Peeba woodlot where villagers
were not involved in the decision making process. Nonetheless, people participation in
woodlot activities in some villages that share the Kok Peeba woodlot is almost as high as
people participation in the Nong E-Jone project.

The numbers of tree species planted in the woodlots are not related to the amount
of income generated because only Eucalyptus are marketable. The amount of income
generated rather depends on the size of woodlots.

The effectiveness of the community woodlot committee in managing the

213

woodlots partly inﬂuences the self-reliance of villages on income from their community
woodlots. The community woodlot committees of both Kok Peeba and Nong E-Jone
woodlots basically manage their income from the woodlots on the same revolving basis.
But only the villages in the Kok Peeba project are able to rely on themselves ﬁnancially,
due to the larger amount of income derived from the woodlot. This implies that self-
reliance of villages on income from the community woodlots is also related to the size of
woodlots. There is no relationship between self-reliance on fuelwood supply from the
woodlots, the effectiveness of community woodlot committee, and the size of woodlots.
Neither community woodlot studied has yet become the major source of fuelwood for
most villagers.

Both Kok Peeba and Nong E-Jone woodlots have created some undesirable
impacts to the project beneﬁciaries. These impacts include a perceived decline in soil
fertility, drying up of ground water, and decrease in grass for cattle as a result of planting
Eucalyptus. However, the community woodlots also provide aesthetic and recreational
value.

In summary, the analyses of the relationships among variables presented above
were made through the ecological complex model which included population,
organization, technology, and environment, with culture as an additional variable.
Income and employment were treated as population variables. Development approaches,
community woodlot committees, people participation, and self reliance were placed
under organizational variables. The size of community woodlot and diversity of tree
species were viewed as technological variables. The Villagers' perceptions toward the
need of a woodlot and availability of fuelwood were considered as cultural variables.
The degraded forest cover, as a biophysical environment, was used as a frame of the

study. The study indicated that organizational variables were very important for the

214

success of community woodlot projects.

7.2 Conclusions

A number of conclusions can be drawn from the results of this study. First, the
initiation of both community woodlot projects studied originated from outsiders,
governmental and nongovernmental agencies, who perceived fuelwood shortage and
environmental degradation as nationwide problems. Although these problems were also
felt by rural villagers, it was beyond their ability to establish a woodlot without external
ﬁnancial and technical support. Even if the villagers had been able to establish a woodlot
at their own cost, especially a large woodlot like Kok Peeba, it is doubtful whether they
would have been willing to do so. Some of the woodlot committee members reported that
it is not advisable for the villagers to invest in a project like a community woodlot
because the project needs a large ﬁnancial investment, and it takes a long time for the
villagers to receive an economic return. It seems that the future of this type of
community woodlot will still be dependent on an external ﬁnancial support for its
initiation.

Second, people participation in both community woodlots was not the self-
initiated type of participation, as deﬁned by FAO/SIDA (1987), because both projects
were proposed by outsiders. Based on the study of community woodlots by Foley and
Barnard (1984), the type of people participation in the initial stages of Kok Peeba
woodlot is considered passive because the government initiated the project and provided
technical and ﬁnancial support, and the villagers were hired without their involvement in
project formulation and decision making. In contrast, the villagers of the Nong E-Jone
community woodlot, though the project was proposed by outsiders, were consulted and

involved in project formulation and decision making. Some suggest that project

215
formulation and decision making is the most crucial element of participation (World
Bank:1988, Noronha:1982, Lohanizl980, Hoskins:1979). However, this study
demonstrates that people participation in the later stages of the woodlot project should be
encouraged regardless of Villagers' involvement in project formulation and decision
making as the case of Kok Peeba project shows.

The Villagers' decision to participate in project implementation seems to be
inﬂuenced by different incentives such as wages or potential beneﬁts from the woodlots.
In other words, people participation can be encouraged in different ways. The villagers
were hired to work in the woodlot in the case of Kok Peeba, whereas in the case of Nong
E-Jone, the villagers participated because they anticipated the future beneﬁts or were
inﬂuenced by tradition. The success of both woodlots, to some extent, was dependent on
people participation, regardless of the Villagers' reasons or incentives to participate. This
evidence suggests that involvement of local people in project formulation and decision
making is not compulsory for the projects to be effective and successful. The case of Kok
Peeba community woodlot demonstrates the possibility of hiring local villagers to
perform all kinds of woodlot activities under supervision of the woodlot committee. It
was presented in Chapter 6 that there were also occasions when villagers in Kok Peeba
project were willing to help develop their woodlot without getting wages. This explains
that the tradition of voluntary labor, in fact, does exist, and people participation is not
necessarily dependent on the expected beneﬁts.

Third, the study shows that people participation can be affected by the conﬂicts in
the use of public land as was the case of the Kok Peeba woodlot project, where seedlings
were uprooted by the villagers in Ban Don Gloy at the early stage of project
implementation. However, once the conﬂicts among villages had been settled and some

rules concerning beneﬁts sharing were set up, the villagers in every village involved in

216
the project were willing to participate.

Fourth, the study indicates that people participation can be encouraged if a local
organization like the community woodlot committee is strong. The committees of both
the Kok Peeba and Nong E-Jone community woodlots have been able to organize the
villagers to participate in various woodlot activities.

Fifth, the community woodlot committee, as a local goal-oriented organization,
plays a central role in community woodlot projects. The committee are the bridge
between project ofﬁcials and the villagers. Trained and advised by the project ofﬁcials,
the committee in Kok Peeba took over responsibility for managing the woodlot from the
project ofﬁcials after the projects had been completed. This study makes it clear that a
community woodlot committee is needed for the project to continue smoothly. However,
the committees are respected by their villagers only if they are honest and work
effectively. It is not always necessary to appoint a new committee to be responsible for
the community woodlot. The existing local organization, such as the village development
committee, could also be responsible for the woodlot if it is not too busy with other
village development activities and if it is closely supervised by the project staff.

Sixth, at the time of this study availability of fuelwood in the study areas was not
documented because the volume of fuelwood available had not been measured. The
Royal Forest Department indicates that natural forest no longer exists in the study areas,
which implies that the villagers of the villages studied have a limited source of fuelwood.
A study of the Kok Peeba community woodlot by Phutarapom (1983) indicated that the
villagers were aware of fuelwood shortage problem. This study also found that fuelwood
shortage did exist in both study areas. However, villagers perceived the degree of
fuelwood shortage differently due to many factors. Some villagers perceived the problem

as very serious because they were hardly able to ﬁnd fuelwood on their own farmlands,

217

and they had to travel to other places to collect fuelwood. Some did not perceive
fuelwood shortage as a serious problem because fuelwood is still available on their own
farmland. The Kok Peeba and Nong E-Jone community woodlots have become another
major source of fuelwood for the villagers, although both community woodlots have not
been able to fully supply fuelwood to most project beneﬁciaries. In the Kok Peeba
project, a number of villagers have been able to use the ﬁrelwood collected from the
woodlot as a year round energy supply for their households.

However, most villagers in the Kok Peeba project seemed to enjoy the beneﬁt of
the woodlot in terms of cash income more than fuelwood, due to the larger amount of
income generated and the use of such income for various development activities. Cash
income has played a crucial role in village development activities. This does not imply
that cash income is more important than fuelwood or other beneﬁts, but without this
income many village development activities would not have been achieved. Through its
income and the management of income, the case of Kok Peeba demonstrates the
contribution of the commrmity woodlot to rural development. The Nong E-Jone woodlot
reﬂected more on the beneﬁts in terms of environmental protection and aesthetic value.

Finally, Eucalyptus is a two-edge sword. While it provides beneﬁts in terms of
fuelwood supply and cash income to the villages, it also creates negative impacts to the
natural environment. These negative impacts have been proven by scientiﬁc evidence and
have been highly perceived by most villagers in the project areas. However, because
most villages cannot totally rely on government ﬁnancial support for their village
development activities, most villagers desire the income from their community woodlots,
and leave the problems of environmental degradation caused by Eucalyptus plantation
unsolved. Though most villagers realize the effect of Eucalyptus on soil infertility, some

have already started planting Eucalyptus trees on their own farmlands due to the

218
attractiveness of Eucalyptus in terms of cash income. This trend will probably continue
as long as the problem of poverty has not been solved and the Thai government gives

more importance to the economic value of Eucalyptus than to its severe negative impacts.

7.3 Limitations of the Study

This study is limited by the following factors. First, the study cannot be
generalized to all community woodlot projects in Thailand, because only two community
woodlots were studied. However, there were not many choices of community woodlot
projects available for the study. Only a limited number of community woodlot projects
have been implemented long enough to see the development of community woodlot
committees, their managerial ability, and the impacts of the projects. In addition, there
were different types of community woodlots implemented by different development
agencies, which made selecting projects for this study difﬁcult. More cases of
community woodlots should be investigated for the study to make generalization
possible.

Second, data about the amount of fuelwood collected from the woodlots, time
spent on collecting fuelwood, and employment in terms of wages for being hired to work
in the woodlot, could not be obtained. The community woodlot committee as well as the
villagers in Kok Peeba project could not provide accurate data for such questions because
they never kept records.

Third, the results of the study are limited by the nature of the propositions which
focused on income related beneﬁts. The proposition which focuses on self-reliance of the
community is very much related to the income generated by the woodlots. The income
related beneﬁts are probably over-emphasized due to the fact that cash income from

selling Eucalyptus poles in both woodlots studied, especially Kok Peeba, is the most

219
tangible beneﬁt as compared to others. It is also one of the major factors that make the
Kok Peeba woodlot sustainable.

Finally, the author was not able to witness the woodlot activities, though many
visits were made to the villages. The problem was that there was no ﬁxed schedule for
woodlot activities such as the sales of Eucalyptus trees, the maintenance of woodlots, and
the collection of fuelwood. These activities were undertaken at different times of the
year. Due to this limitation, the author had to rely solely on the data provided by the
villagers and the community woodlot committee without data from personal
observations. This limitation especially affected the issue of fuelwood distribution which

remains somewhat unclear.

7.4 Study Implications

Several implications can be drawn for the planners of community woodlot
projects from the results of this study.

First, project planners should bear in mind that the concept behind community
woodlots is to involve rural people in all woodlot activities. This study shows that people
participation in the later stages of the project was not necessarily affected by the
involvement of villagers in the decision-making process as in the case of Kok Peeba
project where the villagers were hired. This implies that people participation is not
necessarily limited to free labor. Hiring the villagers to work for the project appears
acceptable and appropriate in some situations. But project planners should also keep in
mind that not all the woodlot projects have enough budget to hire the villagers. If budget
is the project constraint, free labor participation could be the solution. Free labor
participation could be encouraged only if the villagers were informed clearly about the

nature and objectives of the proposed projects. This can be achieved through the

220
involvement of villagers in the early stage of project, as in the case of Nong E-Jone
community woodlot.

Second, project planners must not overlook the roles of community woodlot
committees in managing the woodlots. For community woodlot projects to be successful,
the roles of community woodlot committees should be strengthened by the agencies
which promote the woodlots. Training and supervision on the management of woodlots
should be provided at the early stage of the project so that the woodlot committee
members may clearly understand the objectives of the projects and be able to explain it to
the villagers. Post-project monitoring and supervision should also be provided to assist
the woodlot committees when needed.

Third, project planners should remember that the tree species to be planted in the
community woodlots should be carefully selected to meet the objectives of project. This
means selecting the right technology to solve a particular problem. Multipurpose tree
species like Acacia auriculiformis and Leucaena leucocephala might be appropriate for
projects that aim to produce fuelwood and restore soil fertility, while Eucalyptus might
be good for the projects that aim to generate income and provide fuelwood and building
materials. Both market and non-market values of the trees species introduced to the
communities must be considered. In addition, Villagers' perception towards negative
impacts of a particular tree species should also be taken into account because this may
inﬂuence Villagers' decisions in adopting the project.

In the current situation in Thailand where the problems of fuelwood shortage and
environmental degradation are almost equally important, the tree species promoted in the
community woodlots should be good enough to provide fuelwood, while being
environmentally sound. The project planners should consider the Eucalyptus controversy

seriously because it provides a lot of beneﬁts in terms of cash to the rural dwellers, but

221

concurrently creates a tremendous impact on the environment.

A ﬁnal implication involves the future plan for Eucalyptus community woodlots.
While project planners are satisﬁed with and most rural villagers have been enjoying the
beneﬁts from Eucalyptus woodlots, there is no clear—cut policy concerning the long term
impacts of Eucalyptus woodlots. The policy makers in the forestry sector and the project
planners who are involved in community woodlot projects should not ignore the fact that
the beneﬁts from Eucalyptus woodlots can be reaped only for a certain period of time.
After that period, productivity declines, and the quality of soil in such woodlots may not
be good enough for other crops or trees. The policy makers and the planners should
develop a future plan for Eucalyptus community woodlots and decide what should be
done after the woodlot can no longer yield any products. They should also communicate

with the local villagers about their future plans.

7.5 Future Research Recommendations

There are many interesting issues concerning community woodlots in Thailand
that are raised by this study. First, non-market values of the tree species planted in
community woodlots is recommended because this would allow us to see the beneﬁts of
woodlot from another perspective besides income. Second, a study of beneﬁts such as
increase in soil fertility and biodiversity as a result of planting more tree species in the
same woodlot is also recommended. The same kind of study should also be conducted in
a Eucalyptus woodlot to measure its biophysical impacts. This would be very useful to
address the balance between beneﬁts and impacts of Eucalyptus plantation, and to
compare its beneﬁts and impacts with the multiple species woodlot.

Third, a large scale survey of community woodlots would be useful for a

generalization of the results and impacts of the woodlot projects. The variables to be

222

investigated could be the same as in this study, but the conclusions of the study should be
drawn based on the different woodlot implementation agencies. This would provide a
clearer picture of the differences and similarities of the results of community woodlots
implemented by the different agencies. In addition, comparing community woodlot
projects initiated or implemented by the same development agency would help answer
the question, If the same approach were used in the different woodlot projects, would the
projects yield the same result?

Finally, a detailed study of the amount of fuelwood generated from the
community woodlots and how much it helps supply rural household energy demand is
recommended. This kind of study needs a longer time frame and requires an
anthropological participant observation method to be able to record accurate data. The
results of this research would help project planners plan future woodlots for communities
where the problem of fuelwood shortage is the top priority.

The issues of population growth, forest resource degradation, and rural energy
will continue until the turn of the century and after. Rural energy crises and the condition
of forests in many countries are worsening day by day. Governments in many countries
have tried various forestry development concepts to solve rural energy and forest
resource problems. Reforestation programs are launched and new forest management
approaches are tried. However, reforestation is much slower than forest destruction.
Non-conventional forest management approaches like participatory forest management
and joint forest management are still in a state of trial and error. Some are successful and
some fail due to the many social and biophysical factors involved. Community woodlots
are one of the attempts to solve rural energy and forest degradation problems. To date,
community woodlots are appreciated or criticized by different groups of people for

different reasons and views. Whatever view one holds, community woodlots should not

223
be regarded as having only positive or negative impacts to rural people. The complexity
of the relationships between social and biophysical factors or variables must be taken into

account when studying their impacts and discussing their utility.

APPENDIX A

Household Survey Questionnaire

224
Respondent's number ......

A Household Survey Questionnaire

on

Community Woodlots and Their Impacts
on Rural Households' Fuelwood Supply and Rural Development

Respondent's name ...........................................................................................................
Address ............................................................................................................................
Village name and number ..................................................................................................
Sub-district .......................................................................................................................
District .............................................................................................................................
Province ...........................................................................................................................
Interviewer's name ............................................................................................................

Date of interview ..............................................................................................................

225
1. Respondent's Ideographic Data

1.1 Respondent's identity

1) head of household 2) spouse of household head
3) child of household head 4) parents of household head/spouse
5) other relation 6) other

1.2 Respondent's sex
1) male 2) female

1.3 Respondent's age ............... years

1.4 Respondent's educational status
1) no schooling

2) lower than grade 4 3) grade 4

4) grade 5-7 5) grade 8-10 (MS.1 - MS.3)
6) grade 11-12 (MS.4 - MS.5) 7) technical school

8) religious school 9) others (specify).

1.5 Marital status
1) single
2) married, living together
3) married, spouse working off-site
4) married, staying separately (without legal divorce)
5) divorced
6) widowed

1.6 Were you born in this village?
1) yes 2) no

1.7 How long have you been living in this village?
......................................... years

1.8 Respondent's major activity
1) agriculture
2) civil servant (teacher etc.)
3) trader or merchant
4) on-farm labor
5) waged labor
6) self employed, artisan
7) others (specify)

226
1.9 Household Members.

to
Household head

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

_‘
O

 

Sex: 1 = male 2 = female

Relationship to head of household:

1 = household head 2 = spouse of household head
3 = child of household head

4 = parent of household head/spouse

5 = son or daughter in law

6 = grandson or granddaughter

7 = other relatives

1.10 Total number of household members ................
2. Migration History

2.1 Have you ever migrated to other places?
1) yes 2) no

If no, go to section 3.

227

If yes:

 

When: Reason Where: Accompanied:
Enter Enter: Enter: 1 = alone
exact 1 = employment 1 = Bangkok 2 = w/family
year 2 = marriage 2 = within the province

3 = education 3 = other regions

4 = others

2.3 If migrated for employment, please specify what kind of employment.
1) construction work 2) factory work
3) housekeeper 4) others (specify ..... )

2.4 Will you still migrate for outside employment?
1) yes 2) no

2.5 If yes, why

3. Landuse and Land Holding.

228

 

Upland Fruit
ﬁeld trees
(rai) (rai)

Types of Paddy
landuse ﬁeld
(rai) (rai)

Forest
reserves

(rai)

stead

Home-

(rai)

Fish
pond
(rai)

others

(rai)

 

. owned

. operated

. rented out

. rented in

. land let
by other
to use
without
charge

6. ownership

title
7. total land
holding

MAWNH

 

Ownership title: 1. Chanode 2. Nor. Sor.3 3. Sor. Kor.1

4. Others (Specify) ........

Total land holding = l+4+5+-3

4. Livestock Production and Cost Over the Period of Last Agricultural Year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Types of no. owned no. bought total price no. sold total price
animal (baht) (baht)
Cows '
Buffs
Hogs

 

 

229
5. Loans and other ﬁnancial beneﬁts from the community woodlot.

5.1 What beneﬁts have you received from the village revolving fund from selling
Eucalyptus trees?
1) cash 2) fertilizer
3) Water jar 4) 1+2
5) 1+3 6) 2+3
7) l+2+3 8) never

5.2 If yes,
cash .................................. baht
fertilizer ............................. baht
water jar ........................... baht

5.3 How long have you owed the money?
................................... month

5.4 for what purposes did you borrow the money?
1) buy fertilizer 2) buy water jar
3) household consumption
4) other (specify)

5.5 Do you pay interest?
1) yes 2) no
If yes,

5.6 How much do you pay in interest per month?
........................................ baht

5.7 It the village fund were not available, What would be another source you can
get loan?
1) Commercial bank
2) Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC)
3) neighbors
4) relatives
5) businessman
6) will not get any loan, because it is not really needed

5.8 According to the source of loan you mentioned in 5.7, how much interest
you have to pay? ................................... baht/month

230
6. Household's Energy Consumption

6.1 How many times a day do you cook?
1) once 2) twice
3) three times

6.2 Does the number of times of cooking per day change seasonally?
1) yes 2) no

6.3 If yes, describe how it changes

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

6.4 What kind of fuel do you use for cooking and heating?

1) fuelwood 2) charcoal
3) gas 4) 1+2
5) 2+3 6) 1+3
6.5 If fuelwood, do you
I) collect
2) buy
3) both collect and buy
6.6 If collect, who in the household does most of the fuelwood collection?
1) male household head
2) spouse of male householdhead
3) female householdhead
4) male children
5) female children
6) all share equally
7) others (specify)

6.7 What parts of tree do you normally collect for fuelwood?
l) fallen branches/leaves
2) lopped branches
3) felled trees
4) any parts of trees found
5)1+2

231 .
6.8 From where do you normally collect fuelwood? (rank the most important 3
sources)
..... 1) homestead area
..... 2) your own paddy ﬁeld
..... 3) other people's land
..... 4) public land, other than village woodlot
..... 5) natural forests
..... 6) reserved forests
..... 7) village woodlot

6.9 For the fuelwood source ranked 1, in question 6.8

- Species of trees collected ....................................................................

- Distance ....................................................................................... km.

- Means of transportation .......................................................................

- Time spent for traveling (round trip) ............................................. hours
- How often do you collect fuelwood per month? ....................................

6.10 Have you ever collected fuelwood from village woodlot?
1) yes 2) no

6.11 If yes, how often do you collect fuelwood from your village woodlot?
1) every year after the trees have already been sold
2) some years after the trees have already been sold
3) only once since the presence of village woodlot

6.12 What fuelwood did you collect from village woodlot?
1) Eucalyptus 2) Acacia auriculiformis
3) Leucaena leucocephala
4) 1+2 5) 1+3
6) 2+3 7) l+2+3

What are the advantages and disadvantages of the trees you used for fuelwood mentioned
in 6.12?

6.13 Eucalyptus
Advantages ...................................................................................
Disadvantages ...............................................................................

6.14 Acacia auriculiformis
Advantages ..................................................................................
Disadvantages ..............................................................................

232
6.15 Leucaena leucocephala
Advantages ..................................................................................
Disadvantages ..............................................................................

6.16 How many months can each collection of fuelwood from village woodlot be

used for?
....................................... months

6.17 To what extent do you think the fuelwood collected from village woodlot
can lessen the problem of fuelwood shortage of your household?
1) very little 2) a lot

6.18 If you buy fuelwood
- How often do you buy fuelwood a year? ..........

- From where .....................................

- Distance ................................... km.

- Time spent for traveling ............. hours.

- Cost of transportation .................... baht.

- Amount of fuelwood buy each time ........... kg.
- Price .......................... baht/kg.

6.19 Do you make charcoal yourself?
1) yes 2) no

6.20 If yes, what is the major source of wood for making charcoal? (rank the
most important 3 sources)
..... 1) homestead area
..... 2) your own paddy ﬁeld
..... 3) other people's land
..... 4) village woodlot
..... 5) public land, other than village woodlot
..... 6) natural forests
..... 7) reserved forests
..... 8) others...........................

6.21 What tree species do you usually use for making charcoal?

233
6.23 Is the charcoal made yourself sufﬁcient for household use all year round?

1) yes 2) no
6.24 If not sufﬁcient, do you buy charcoal?
1) yes 2) no
6.25 In what season do you usually make charcoal?
1) dry season 2) rainy season
3) cold season 4) any season

6.26 Why do you like to make charcoal in such season?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

6.27 Does the type of energy used for cooking change seasonally?
1) yes 2) no

6.28 If yes, how?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

6.30 Price of charcoal per kilogram .............................. baht

6.31 Annual expenditure for buying charcoal
.................................................... baht

6.32 Besides using trees from village woodlot for fuelwood and making charcoal,
what other purposes do you use trees for?
1) fodder
2) fruit/food tree crops/mushroom
3) fences/poles
4) timber/construction materials
5) medicines
6) grazing
7) handicrafts/cottage industry

7. Opinions Toward Trees and Village Woodlot.

7.] Generally, do you think trees are important for your living?
1) very important 2) not very important

234
7.2 If very important, why?
1) trees provide shade
2) trees provide fuelwood
3) trees provide construction materials
4) trees cause regular rainfall

7.3 If not very important, why?

7.4 Did you have any idea what exactly village woodlot is when you ﬁrst heard
that a woodlot project will be implemented in your village?
1) yes,
2) no, did not have any knowledge about village woodlot
3) knew a little bit about village woodlot

7.5 Were you interested in planting trees in village woodlot at the very
beginning?
1) yes 2 no
3) indifference

7.6 If yes, because
1) expected fuelwood from village woodlot
2) expected cash from selling the trees
3)1+2

7.7 If no, because

7.8 Do you know who proposed woodlot project to your village?
1) yes 2) no

7.9 If yes, specify the name(s)

7.10 Before the implementation of village woodlot, did you agree to adopt this
project?
1) yes 2) no 3) indifference

7.11 If agreed, because

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

7.13 Do you think your village really needs a woodlot?
1) yes 2) no

7.14 If yes, because

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

..........................................................................................

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

7.16 Initially, what beneﬁts did you expect from village woodlot? (specify 3
beneﬁts)
1) fuelwood
2) food/fruits/mushroom
3) income and employment
4) timber/poles/construction materials
5) soil and environment protection
6) expected nothing
7) others (specify)

7.17 Did you get the beneﬁts from village woodlot as expected?
1) yes 2) no

7.18 If yes, what beneﬁts did you get? (rank the most important 3 beneﬁts)
1) fuelwood
2) food/fruits/mushroom
3) income and employment
4) timber/poles/construction materials
5) soil and environment protection
6) others (specify) ...............

236
7.19 Do you perceive fuelwood shortage as a problem in your village?
1) yes, seriously 2) to some extent only
3) no, not at all

7.20 How do you think about the availability of fuelwood in your village?

I) still plenty
2) still available, but not plenty
3) scarce 4) not available at all

7.21 How many years do you expect the existing natural sources of trees used for
................. years

7.22 What kinds of rights do you have on using the trees in community woodlot?
1) fallen branches/leaves
2) lop branches
3) fell trees

4) others (specify) ......................

7.23 Are villagers from other villages allowed to use trees in village woodlot?
1) yes 2) no
3) for some uses only 4) do not know

7.24 If yes, what uses of trees they are allowed?

7.25 Are there any conﬂicts among villagers caused by the unfair distribution of
beneﬁts so far?
1) yes 2) no

7.26 Are you satisﬁed with the way the beneﬁts from village woodlot are
distributed or managed/used presently?
1) yes 2) no

7.27 If no, because

7.28 Suggestions on how the beneﬁts from village woodlot should be better
distributed or managed?
1 ...................................................

7.29 Have your family ever used the public land that is now being used for
village woodlot?
1) yes 2) no

7.30 If yes, for what purposes?
1) growing rice
2) growing cash crops
3) growing vegetables
4) grazing
5) others (specify) ..............

7.31 How did you deal with the loss of rights in using such public land?
1) accepted the loss of rights and moved out of the public land.
2) protested against the government agency who wanted the public land for
implementing village woodlot.
3) formed a group and negotiated with the government agency concerned.
4) destroyed seedlings in village woodlot

) others (specify).

7.32 In case conﬂicts occurred, who played the role in settling such conﬂicts?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

7.33 Problems caused by the loss of rights in using such public land?
1) .............................................
2) .............................................
3) .............................................

7.34 Have you or any of your household's members have ever participated in
village woodlot activities?
1) yes 2) no

7.35 If yes, how did you or your household's members participate in village
woodlot project?
1) decision making in accepting village woodlot
2) selecting tree species
3) planting the trees
4) taking care of village woodlot
5) distributing of beneﬁts
6) evaluating the village woodlot project

238
7) being a village woodlot committee
8) others (specify) ............................

7.36 How many of your household's members participated in village woodlot
activities?

7.37 Why did you or your household's members decide to participate in village
woodlot activities?
1) were hired to plant trees in village woodlot
2) voluntary or followed the neighbors
3) expected to receive beneﬁts from village woodlot in the future
4) were forced to do so

5) others (specify) ...............................

7.38 If you or your household's members never participated in any woodlot
activities at all, why?
1) not informed by the village headman or woodlot committees
2) not satisﬁed with the village woodlot project
3) do not have enough labor

4) others (specify) ...........................

7.39 Do you like the tree species planted in your village woodlot?
1) yes 2) no
3) indifference 4) 1+2

7.40 If yes, specify the species you like and reasons
1. Eucalyptus ..................................................
because ......................................................
2. Acacia auriculiformis ...................................
because ......................................................
3. Leucaena leucocephala ...............................
because ......................................................
4. Cassia siamea ............................................
because ......................................................

7.41 If no, specify the species you do not like and reasons
1. Eucalyptus .................................................
because .....................................................
2. Acacia auriculiformis ..................................
because .....................................................

239
3. Leucaena leucocephala ..............................
because .....................................................
4. Cassia siamea ...........................................
because .....................................................

7.42 If you have had the choice, what species will you select to plant in village
woodlot? (maximum 5 species)

7.43 Have you ever practiced agroforestry (growing some crops like cassava,
maize, etc. mixed with or in between trees) in village woodlot?
1) yes 2) no

7.44 If yes, what did you grow?
1) rice
2) cassava
3) maize
4) groundnut
5) others (specify) ..............

7.45 Did you get a good yield from crop mentioned in 7.4
1) yes 2) no

7.46 If you never practiced agroforestry, why?
1) not interested
2) not allowed to do so
3) did not have time
4) did not have labor
5) did not have land in village woodlot before
6) already have enough land

7.47 Are you one of village woodlot committees?
1) yes 2) no

7.48 Do you think the village woodlot committees are working effectively?
1) yes 2) no

240
7.49 If no, what are the problems?

7.50 Do you think the villagers could manage the village woodlot without the
committees
1) yes 2) no

7.51 In your opinion, who plays the most important role in the village woodlot
project? (not necessarily the village woodlot committees)

7.52 Do you know what agency/agencies engaged in woodlot project in your
village?
1) Royal Forestry Department (RFD)
2) Population and Community Development Association (PDA)
3) Others (specify) .......................

7.53 Have you ever received any advice/helps about village woodlot activities
from the ofﬁcials in charge?
1) yes 2) no

7.54 If yes, what advice did you received?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

7.55 From what agencies did you receive advice?
1) forester
2) extension worker
3) Population and Community Development Association
4) Others (Specify) ................................

7.56 Generally, are you satisﬁed with the woodlot project ofﬁcials' performances?
1) yes 2) no

7.57 If no, because

241
7.58 Did you notice any impacts you believe they are caused by the presence of
village woodlot?
1) yes 2) no

7.59 If yes, what impacts?
Positive impacts

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

APPENDIX B

Guideline Questions For Community Woodlot Committees

242
Guideline Questions For Community Woodlot Committees

A. Pre-implementation Phase of Community Woodlot Project.

1. How and why the community woodlot was proposed to the village?
By whom?

2. What were the reasons for adopting community woodlot project?
- ﬁrelwood shortage
- need source of food/fruits
- need source of poles/construction materials
- environmental problems
- others.

3. Were there any conditions or commitments the villagers have to conform
when agreed to adopt community woodlot project? If yes, what conditions or
commitments?

4. Did the village get any support from the agency who proposed community
woodlot project in terms of money, seedlings, fences, advice, etc.? How?

5. What were the steps in adopting community woodlot project in terms of
planning, decision making, implementation, and involvement of villagers?

6. Were there any problems or conﬂicts in adopting such community woodlot
project?

If yes, what problems or conﬂicts?
7. How the problems or conﬂicts were settled?
8. Who played a major role in the management of conﬂicts?
9. Were the poor, landless, and women consulted during the adoption process of
community woodlot project?
If yes, how?
Did they agree in adopting the project?
If they did not agree, why?

10. Were the villagers consulted on selection of tree species to be planted in
community woodlot?

243

B. Implementation and Management of Community Woodlot?

1.

Who were involved in the implementation of community woodlot in terms of
preparing the land, planting the trees, fencing, weeding, care taking, etc.?

. How was the rate of seedlings survival for each cycle of tree planting?
. What were the factors affected the rate of seedling survival?

. How the villagers, especially the poor, landless, and women participated in the

implementation of community woodlot?

. Were there any constraints in calling for people participation in community

woodlot project? If yes, what?

. Were there any agroforestry practices in community woodlot? If yes, what

crops were planted?
Who were and were not allowed to do so?
Number of years allowed?

. Are villagers in other villages allowed to reap beneﬁts from the community

woodlot?
If yes, what beneﬁts? How?

. Are there any beneﬁts exclusively reserved for the poor, landless, and women?

If yes, what?

. How the community woodlot committee was formed?

Did the villagers participate in selecting the community woodlot committees?

10. What are the responsibilities of community woodlot committee?

11. Are there any other local groups/organizations involved in community

woodlot activities? if yes, how?

244

C. Beneﬁts from the Community Woodlot.

l.

2.

3.

How many volume of trees have already been harvested so far? In what year?
How the harvested trees were utilized?

How is the market of Eucalyptus?

. Where does the village normally sell Eucalyptus poles?

. Are you satisﬁed with the market price of Eucalyptus?

. How much income the village has made from selling Eucalyptus trees so far?
. How the income is distributed to the villagers?

. How did the village woodlot committee come up with the idea of the way the

income is now being distributed? Who initiated this idea? Why?

. Has the committee ever got any other income from village woodlot, besides

selling Eucalyptus poles?
If no, does the committee has any plan to make money out of the community
woodlot, besides selling Eucalyptus poles? If yes, what plans?

10. What are the trees in community woodlot mainly used for?

D. Opinions Toward Community Woodlot and F uelwood Shortage and Rural
Development.

1.

2.

3.

4.

Did the village woodlot committee/village leaders perceive fuelwood shortage
as problem in their village? If yes, how serious?

Are there any environmental problems, e. g., soil erosion, ﬂood, drought, etc. in
your village?

How do the village woodlot committees value village woodlot in solving
problems of household energy needs and environmental degradation, and in
contributing to the well-being of households and community as a whole?

Are there any obvious social and environmental impacts caused by the
presence of community woodlot?

245
If yes, what impacts, positive or negative?

5. Did the community woodlot really solve the problems of fuelwood shortage,
environmental degradation, rural poverty, and unemployment, etc., as
expected? If yes, how? If no. why?

6. What do you think how your village would be, if a community woodlot has not
been proposed and implemented in your village?

E. Information on other village development projects.

1. Besides village woodlot project, what were the major village development
projects in the past 10 years?

2. Were there any major changes caused by those village development projects?
If yes, what changes, and caused by what development projects?

3. Do you think there are any differences between village woodlot project and
other village development projects in terms of project planning, decision
making, implementation, and people participation?

4. How do you value the beneﬁts of village woodlot project as compared to other
village development projects?

BIBLIOGRAPHY

246
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abasiekong, M. 1982. Integrated Rural Development in the Third World : Its Concept.
Problems and Prospects. Exposition Press, Smithtown, New York.

 

Agarwal, Bina. 1986. Cold Hearths and Barren Slopes: The Woodfuel Crisis in the
Third World. Zed Books Ltd. London.

Allen, B. 1979. Energy and Economic Growth in the United States. Cambridge: MIT
Press.

Allen, Julia C., and Douglas F. Barnes. 1985. "The Causes of Deforestation in
Developing Countries." Annals of the Association of American Geogpaphers.
75(2).

Altman, Irwin. and Martin Chemers. 1984. Culture and Environment. Brooks/Cole
Publishing Company. Monterey, California.

Anderson, J. N. 1973. "Ecological Anthropology and Anthropological Ecology." in J .J .
Honingman (ed.), Handbook of Social and Cultural Anthropology. Chicago:
Rand McNally.

Arnold, J.E.M., and J. Falconer. 1987. "Income and Employment, forestry and Food
Security." Background paper for the Expert Consultation on Forestry and Food
Production/Security, Bangalore, India, February 14-20, 1988. RomezFAO.

Auerswald, E. H. 1968. Interdisciplinary vs. ecological approach. Family Process,
September, 202-215.

Baker, PT. 1958. The Biological Adaptation of Man to Hot Deserts. American
Naturalist. 922337-57.

Barker, R. G. 1963. "On the Nature of the Environment." Journal of Social Issue 19: 17-
38.

Barness, Douglas R, Allen, Julia C., and Ramsay, William. 1982. Social Forem in
Developing Nations. Discussion Paper D-73F. Energy in Developing Countries
Series. A Discussion Paper from the Center for Energy Policy Research.
Resource For the Future/Washington, D.C.

247
Barney, Gerald O. 1982. The Global 2000 Report to the President. Volume 1. Penguin
Books, New York.

Baxendell, RB. 1984. "Energy in the 2000's." in Energy Policy a_nd Third World
Development. Pradip K. Ghosh. editor. Foreword by Gamani Corea, Secretary-
General of UNCTAD.

Bennett, J. W. 1976. The Ecological Transition: Cultural Anthropology and Human
Adaptation. New York: Pergamon Press.

Bennett, J.W. 1986. "Summary and Critique: Interdisciplinary Research on People-
Resources Relations." in Natural Resources and People: Conceptual Issues in
Interdisciplinary Research. edited by Kenneth A. Dahlberg and John W Bennett.
Westview Special Studies in Natural Resources and Energy Management.
Westview Press/Boulder and London.

Berry, B.J.L. 1973. "A Paradigm for Modern Geography." in Directions in Geoggaphy.
R.J. Chorley (ed.), London: Methuen.

Berry, John W. 1976. Human Ecology and Cognitive Style: CompaLative Studie_s_ip
Cultural and Psychological Adaptation. SAGE Publications. Halsted Press
Division: John Wiley & Sons.

Berry, B.J.L. and JD. Kasarda. 1977. Contemmm Urban Ecology. New York:
Macmillan.

Berry, Leonard, and Johnson, Douglas L. 1986. "Geographical Approaches to the
Environmental Change: Assessing Human Impacts on Global Resources." in

Natural Resources and People: Conceptual Issues in Interdisciplinag Research.
edited by Kenneth A. Dahlberg and John W Bennett. Westview Special Studies

in Natural Resources and Energy Management. Westview Press/Boulder and
London.

Blair, Harry W., and Olpadwala, Porus D. 1988. Foregy in Development Planning :
Lessons from the Rural Experience. Westview Press, Boulder & London.

Blomstrom, Magnus. and Hettne, Bjorn. 1984. Development Theogy in Transition.
Zed Books Ltd.

Board on Science and Technology for International Development. 1981.

Workshop on Energy and Agriculture in Developing Countries. National
Academy Press. Washington DC.

248
Board on Science and Technology for International Development. 1982. Diffusion of

Biomass Energy Technologies in Developing Countries. Ofﬁce of International
Affairs National Research Council. National Academy Press.

Boulding, Kennth. 1934. "The Application of Pure Theory of Population Change to the
Theory of Capitals." Quarterly Journal of Econonrics 48:645-66.

Brechin, Steven R., and West, Patrick C. 1982. "Social Barriers in Implementing
Appropriate Technology : The Case of Community Forestry in Niger, West
Africa. " Humboldt Journal of Social Relations - Vol. 9 No. 2 -
Spring/Summer 1982.

Brokensha, David. and Castro, Alfonso Peter. 1984. Fuelwood. Agro-forestrv.§nc_l
Natural Resource Maﬂgement : Th_e Deve10pment Signiﬁcance of Lapd Tenure
and Other Resource Management/Utilization Systems. Working Paper No. 12.
Agency for International Development.

Bromley, Danial W. 1985. "Natural Resources and Agricultural Development in the
Tropics: Is Conﬂict Inevitable?" Paper presented at the International Conference
off Agricultural Economists, Malaga, Spain.

Bromley, Daniel W., and Szarleta, Ellen. 1986. "Resources and People: An Economic
Perspective." in Natural Resources and People: Conceptual Issues in
Interdiscipling Research. edited by Kenneth A. Dahlberg and John W Bennett.
Westview Special Studies in Natural Resources and Energy Management.
Westview Press/Boulder and London.

Browder, John O. 1989. "Development Alternatives for Tropical Rain Forests." in
Environment and the Poor: Development Strategies for A Common Agenda. H-
Jeffery Leonard and Contributors. U.S. Third World Perspectives, No.11
Overseas Development Councils.

Brown, Harrison. 1982. "Introduction:Shiﬁing Regional and Global Relationships." in
Critical Energy Issues in Asia and the Ppciﬁc the Next Twenty Yea_rsp Fesharaki,
Fereidun., Brown, Harrison, Siddayao, CoraZon M., Siddiqi, Touﬁq A., Smith,
Kirk R., and Woodard, Kim. A Westview Special study.

Brunswik, E. 1957. "Scope and Aspects of the Cognitive Problem," pp. 5-31 in A
Gruber (ed.) Cognition: The Colorado Symposium. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard
University Press.

249
Bryant, Coralie and Louise G. White. 1982. Managing Development in the Third
World. Westview Press.

Burch, William R. Jr. 1976. "The Peregrine Falcon and the Urban Poor: Some
Sociological Interrelations." in Human Ecology: An Environmental Approach.
Peter J. Richardson and James McEvoy, Duxbury Press. North Scituate,
Massachusetts.

Burch, William R. Jr. 1984. "An Interpretation of Discussion at A Workshop on The
Human Factors Affecting Forestry/Fuelwood projects: An Agenda for Research
and Development. " Washington, DC. Working Paper, Tropical Resources
Institute, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Burch, William R. Jr. 1986. Curriculum Development in Social Forem at Kasetsart

Universigy, Thailand. Integgating Socio-economic Concepts into Forem."
SIDA/FAO and Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok,

Thailand.

Buttel, F. H. 1978. "Social Structure and Energy Efﬁciency: A Preliminary Cross-
national Analysis." Hum. Ecol. 6:145-64.

Buttel, F .H. 1979. "Social Welfare and Energy Intensity: A Comparative Analysis of
Developed Market Economies." inSociopolitical Effects of Energy Use and
Policy. ed. C. T. Unseld, D.E. Morrison, D.L. Sills, C. P. Wolfe. pp. 297-327.
Washington: Natl. Acad. Sci.

Buttel, F. H. 1986. "Toward a Rural Sociology of Global Resources: Social Structure,
Ecology, and Latin American Agricultural Development." in Natural Resources
and People: Conceptual Issues in Interdisciplinary Research. edited by Kenneth
A. Dahlberg and John W Bennett. Westview Special Studies in Natural Resources
and Energy Management. Westview Press/Boulder and London.

Cadwell, L. K. 1970. Environment: A Challenge to Modern Sociey. New York: Natural
History Press.

Cernea, Michael M. 1981. "Land Tenure Systems and Social Implications of Forestry
Development Programmes". World Bank Staff Working Paper No. 452, April.

Cernea, Michael M. 1985. "Alternative Units of Social Organization Sustaining
Afforestation Strategies." in Putting People First: Sociological Variables in Rural
Development. A World Bank Publication. Oxford University Press.

250
Chirarattananon, Surapong. 1984. "Analysis of Rural Energy Development in
Thailand." in Rural Energy to Meet Development Needs Asisn Villsgp
Approach. edited by M.Nural Islam, Richard Morse, and M. Hadi Soesastro.
Westview Special Studies in Social, Political, and Economic Development.

Chatterji, Manus. 1981. Energy and Environment in the Developing Countries. John
Wiley and Sons.

Chavangi, N.A., R.J. Englehard and V. Jones. 1985. "Culture as the Basis for
Implementing self Sustaining Woodfuel Development Programs." The Beijer
Institute, Nairobi, Kenya.

Chiras, Daniel D. 1985. Environments] Science : A FraymeworlLfor Decision Making.
The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company. Inc.

Chirarattananon, Surapong. 1984. "Analysis of Rural Energy Development in

Thailand." in Rural Energy to Meet Development Needs: Asian Village
Approaches. edited by Nural Islam, Richard Morse, and M. Hadi Soesastro.

Westview Press/Boulder and London.

Chowdhry, Karnla. 1985. "Social Forestry : Who Beneﬁts?" in Commng F orestyy :
Socio-Economic Asxcts. edited by Y.S. Rao, Napolean T. Vergara, George W.
Lovelace. Regional Ofﬁce for Asia and the Paciﬁc (RAPA) Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Bangkok.

Cohen, Y. 1968. Man in Adaptation. Chicago: Aldine.

Conklin, Harold C. 1969. "An Ethnoecological Approach to Shifting Agriculture." in
Environment and Cultural Behavior. edited by Andrew P. Vayda. Garden City:
The Natural History Press.

Compton, N. and Hall, 0. 1972. Foundation of Home Economics Research: A Human
Ecological Approach. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing.

Cook, E. 1971. "The Flow of Energy in An Industrial Society." Sci.Am. 224:134-47.

Coon, C.S., S.M. Gran, and J.B. Birdsell. Races: A Study of the Problems of Raps
F orrnation in Man. Springﬁeld, IL: Thomas.

CUSRI, 1984. Village Woodlots A Baseline Survey Report in Thai.

251
Dahlberg, Kenneth A. 1986. "The Changing Nature of Natural Resources." in Natural
R_esources and People: Conceptual Issues in Interdisciplinary Resgarch. edited by
Kenneth A. Dahlberg and John W Bennett. Westview Special Studies in Natural
Resources and Energy Management. Westview Press/Boulder and London.

deLUCIA, Russell J ., and Jacoby, Henry D. 1982. Energy Planning for Developing
Countries : A Study of Bangladesh. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Baltimore and London.

Dixon, John A. and Louise A. Fallon. 1989. " The Concept of Sustainability: Origins,
Extensions, and Useﬁrlness for Policy." Society and Natural Resources. Vol. 2,
Number 2.

Douglas, James J. 1983. A Re-appraisal of Foregy Development in Developing
Countries. Martinus Nijhoff/Dr. W. Junk Publishers, the Hague.

Dove, MR. 1986. "The Practical Reason of Weeds in Indonesia: Peasant vs. State
Views." Human Ecology 14(2): 163-190.

Duncan, 0. D. 1959. "Human Ecology and Population Studies." in The Study of
Population. P. M. Hauser and O. D. Duncan (eds.) Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Duncan, 0. D. 1961. "From Social System to Ecosystem." Sociological Inguigy. 31(2):
140-149.

Duncan, 0. D. 1969. "The Ecosystem Concept and the Problem of Air Pollution." in
Environment and Cultural Behavior. edited by Andrew P. Vayda. The Natural
History Press, Garden City, New York.

Earl, DE. 1975. Forest Energy and Economic Development. Clarendon Press,
Oxford.

Eckholm, Erik., Foley, Gerald., Barnard, Geoffrey, and Timberlake, Lloyd. 1984.
Fuelwood : The Energy Crisis that Won't Go Away. An Earthscan Paperback,
International Institute for Environment and Development.

Ellen, Roy F. 1979. "Introduction: Anthropology, the Environment and Ecological
Systems." in Social and Ecological Systems. edited by RC. Burnham and RF.
Ellen. Academic Press.

252
Ellis, William N. and Ellis Margaret McMahon. 1989. "Cultures in Transition; What the
West can Learn from Developing Countries." The Futurist. March-April. Vol.
XXIII, No.2.

Erasmus, C.J. 1977 In Search of the Common Good: Utopian Experiments Past and
Future. New York. Free Press.

ESCAP. 1982. Proceedings of the ESCAP/FAO/UNEP Expert Group Meeting on

Fuelwood and Charcoal, Energy Resources Development Series No. 24.
Economic and Social Commission For Asia and the Paciﬁc, Bangkok, Thailand.

Evans, J. 1983. Plantstion Forestry in the Tropics. ESBS and Clarendon Press, London.

FAO. 1971. Agg'cultural Commodig Projections 1970 - 1980. Vol.1. FAO. Rome.

F A0. 1978. Forestry for Local Community Development. FAO Forestry Paper #7,
Rome.

FAO. 1982. Village Foresﬂ Development in the Republic of Korea: A Case Study.
FAO. Rome.

 

FAO. 1983. Fuelwood Supplies in the Developing Countries. FAO Forestry Paper #42,

Rome.

FAO/SIDA. 1987. Restoring the Balance : Women and Forest Resources. Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Swedish International

Development Authority.

F AO/SIDA. 1987. Planning Self-help Foreﬂy Projects in Asia. Based on the Workshop
on Planning Self-help Fuelwood Projects in Asia, Chiang Mai and Khon Kaen
Universities, Thailand. 2-13 February 1987.

Ferkiss, V. 1974. The Future of Technological Civilization. New York: George
Brasiller.

Foley, Gerald, and Barnard, Geoffrey. 1984. Farm and Communig Forem. Energy
Information Programme, Technical Report No.3 (London: Earthscan -
International Institute for Environment and Development).

Frake, CO. 1962. "Cultural Ecology and Ethnography." American Anthropologist 64
(February):53-59.

253
Frisbie, WP. and D. L. Poston, Jr. 1978. Sustenance Organization and Migpation in
Nonmetropolitan America. Iowa City: Iowa Urban Community Research Center,
University of Iowa Press.

Geertz, Clifford. 1965. "The Impact of concept of Culture on the Concept of Man." in
New Views on the Eture of Mg J .R. Platt, ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Ghosh, Pradip K. 1984. Energy Policy and Third World Development. Greenwood
Press.

Gibbs, J. P. and W. T. Martin. 1959. "Toward a Theoretical System of Human Ecology."
Paciﬁc Sociological Review 2(Spring):29-36.

Glantz, Michale H., and Krenz, Maria E. 1986. "Societal Constraints to Fisheries
Management: A Peruvian Case Study." in Natural Resources and People:
Conceptual Issues in Interdisciplinary Research. edited by Kenneth A.
Dahlberg and John W Bennett. Westview Special Studies in Natural Resources
and Energy Management. Westview Press/Boulder and London.

 

Goldemberg, Jose., Johansson, Thomas B., Reddy, Amulya K.N., and Williams, Robert
H. 1987. Energy for Development. World Resources Institute : A Center for
Policy Research.

 

Golley, Frank B. 1986. "Ecosystems and Natural Resource Management." in Natural

Resources and People: Conceptual Issues in Interdisciplinm Research. edited by
Kenneth A. Dahlberg and John W Bennett. Westview Special Studies in Natural

Resources and Energy Management. Westview Press/Boulder and London.

Goodenough, Ward H. 1989. "Culture: Concept and Phenomenon." in The Relevance of
Culture. edited by Morris Freilich. Bergin & Garvey Publishers.

Gregersen, HM. 1987. "Village Forestry Development in the Republic of Korea : A
Case Study." in Whose Trees? Westview Press.

Hammond, K. R. 1966. The Psychology of Egon Brunswik. New York: McGraw—Hill.
Hardesty, D. 1977. Ecological Anthromlogy. New York: Wiley.

Harris, M. 1971. Culture, Man and Nature. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell.
Harris, M. 1979. Cultural Materialism. New York: Vintage.

254
Harrison, G.A., J.S. Weiner, J .M. Tanner and NA. Barnicott. 1964. Human Biology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hawley, A. H. 1950. Human Ecology: A Theopy of Communig Structure. New York:
the Ronald Press.

Hawley, A. H. 1968. "Human Ecology." in D.L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia
of the Social Sciences. New York: Crowell-Collier-MacMillan.

Hawley, A. H. 1971. "The Structure of Social Systems." Department of Sociology
mimeo. University of North Carolina.

Hawley, A. H. 1972. "Population Density and the City." Demography 92521-529.

Hawley, A. H. 1986. Human Ecology: A Theoretical Essay. The University Of Chicago
Press, Chicago, London.

Hettne, Bjorn. 1982. Development Theopy and the Third World. Swedish Agency for
Research Cooperation with Developing Countries.

Hitzhusen, Fredrick J ., and Macgreger, Robert D. 1987. A Multidisciplinm Approach
to Renewable Energy in Developing Countries. Publishing Horizons, Inc.

Hoseir, R., O'Keefe, P., Wisner, B., Weiner, D. and Shakow, D. 1982. "Energy
Planning in Developing Countries." Ambio, 11(4).

Hoskins, Marilyn. 1979a. "Women in Forestry for Local Community Development" A
Program Guide, paper prepared for the Ofﬁce of Women in Development, AID.
Washington DC, September.

Hoskins, Marilyn. 1979b. Communig Participation in African Fuelwood Production,

TransfoMation and Utilization. Discussion Paper Prepared for Workshop on
Fuelwood and Other Renewable Fuels in Africa, Paris. Overseas Development
Council, AID, November 29-30

 

Hutterer, Karl L., Rambo, Terrry A. Rambo, and George Lovelace. 1985. Cultural
Values and Human Ecology in Southeast Asia. Michigan Papers on South and
Southeast Asia Center for South and Southeast Asian studies, The university of
Michigan. Number 27 .

 

255
Ingold, Tim. 1979. "The Social and Ecological Relations of Culture-Bearing Organism:
An Essay in Evolutionary Dynamics." in Social and Ecological Systems. edited
by PG. Burnham and RF. Ellen. Academic Press.

J.T. Thomson. 1980. Bois de Village (Niger): Report of An Investigation concerning
Socio-CulturaL and Politicgl- Economic Aspects of the First Phase of the Proiect.
Centre ﬁle 3-p-72-0095 (Montreal: Canadian International Development
Agency).

Kasada, John D., and Charles E. Bidwell. 1984. "A Human Ecological Theory of
Organizational Structuring." Sociological Humpn Ecology: Contemporm Issues
and Applications. Westview Press/Boulder and London.

Kemp, W.B. 1971. "The Flow of Energy in A Hunting Society." Sci. Am. 224:104-15

Kirchhofer, James. and Evan Mercer. 1984. "Putting Social and Community Forestry in
Perspective in the Asia-Paciﬁc Region." Working Paper. East-West Center.

Koppel, Bruce., and Schlegel, Charles C. 1981. "Sociological Perspectives on Energy
and Rural Development: A Review of Maj or Frameworks for Research on
Developing Countries." Rural Sociology. Vol. 46 No. 2 Summer.

Kunstadter, Peter., Chapman, EC, and Sabhasri, Sanga. 1978. Farmers in the forest :

Economic Development and Marginal Aggiculture in Northern Thailand. An
East-West Center Book from the East-West Population Institute.

Lee, RB. 1969. "Kung Bushman subsistence: An input-output analysis." in
Environment and Cultural Behavior. ed. A.P. Vayda, pp. 47-78. Garden City:
Natural Hist. Press.

Lee, Robert 6., Donald R. Field, and William R. Burch, Jr. 1990. Communig &

Foresﬂ: Continuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources. Social Behavior and
Natural Resources Series, Westview Press.

Leeds, Anthony. 1969. "Ecological Determinants of Chieftain Among the Yaruro
Indians of Venezuela." in Environment and Cultural Behavior. edited by
Andrew P. Vayda, Garden City: The Natural History Press.

Lenski, G. E. 1970. Human Societies. New York: McGraw Hill.

Linden, HR. 1975. Resource Economic and Historic Consideration Related to Issues
of Energy Policy. Chicago: Inst. Gas Techno].

 

256
Little, M. and G. Morren. 1976. Ecology, Energetics and Hum_an Variability Dubuque,
IA: W.C. Brown.

Lowderrnilk, Max and W. Robert Laitos. 1981. "Towards a Participatory Strategy for
Integrated Rural Development." Rural Sociology, Vol, 46, No.4, Winter 1981.

McDonough, Maureen. 1989. "Lecture on Social Forestry." Department of Forestry,
Michigan State University. Spring 1989.

Makhijani, A.B., Lichtenberg, A.J. 1972. "Energy and Well-being." Environment 14:
10-18.

Mazur, A., Rosa, E. 1974. "Energy and Life Style: Cross-national Comparison of
Energy Consumption and Quality of Life Indicators." Science 186:607-10.

Meadows, D.H., Meadows, D.L., Randers, J. and Behrens, W. (1972) The Limits to
Growth. London, Pan.

Micklin, Michael. 1973. "Introduction: A Framework for the Study of Human Ecology."

in Population, Environment, and Social Organization: Current Issues in Human
Ecology. M. Michael (ed.) Hinsdale, IL.:Dryden.

Micklin, Michael. 1977. "Population, Ecology, Scarcity." in Sociology: Basic Structures
and Processes. R Perrucci et al. Dubuque: W. G. Brown.

Micklin, Michael. 1984. "The Ecological Perspective in the Social Sciences: A

Comparative Overview." in Sociological Human Ecology: Contempprgy Issues
and applications. Westview Press/Boulder and London.

Micklin, Michael, and Choldin, Harvey M. 1984. "Research and Policy Issues in
Sociological Human Ecology: An Agenda for the Future." in Sociological Human
Ecolgy: Contemporﬁary Issues and applications. Westview Press/Boulder and
London.

Montague, M.F. 1951. An Introduction to Physical Anthromlogy. Second edition.
Springﬁeld, IL: Thomas.

Montalembert, M.R. de., and Clement, J. 1983. Fuelwood Supplies in the Developing
Countries. FAO Forestry Paper No. 42. Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations. Rome.

257
Moran, Emilio F. and Manihot esculenta Crantz. 1973. "Energy Flow Analysis." Acta
Amazonica 3(3):29-39.

Moran, Emilio F. 1982. Human Adaptability : An Introduction to Ecological
Anthropology. Westview Press.

Moran, Emilio F. 1986 "Anthropological Approaches to the Study of Human Impacts."
in Natural Resources and People: Conceptual Issues in Interdisciplingy Research.
edited by Kenneth A. Dahlberg and John W Bennett. Westview Special Studies
in Natural Resources and Energy Management. Westview Press/Boulder and
London.

NAS, 1980. "Firewood Crops, Shrub and Trees Species for Energy Production."
Washington DC, pp. xii and 237, Illustrated, 1980.

Netting, R 1977. Culturgl Ecology. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.
Norman, Colin. 1978. Soft Technology, Hard Choice. Worldwatch Paper 21. June.

Noronha, Raymond. 1982. "Seeing People for the Trees: Social Issues in Forestry."
Conference on Forestry and Development in Asia. held at Bangalore, India. 19-
23 April.

Noronha, R. and J.S. Spears. 1985. "Sociological Variables in Forestry Project Design.’
in Putting People First.

Odi. 1986 Socigl Forestry Research Issues: Preliminm Problem Identiﬁcation in Sisaket
Province. Northea_st Thailand. Social Forestry Network, Network Paper2b by
Napoleon Vergara, Charit Tingsabadh, Kersten Johnson, Varun Vidyarthi, and
Richard Bowen.

Odum, H. P. 1971. Fundamentals of Ecology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders
Co.

Olsen, Marvin E. 1978. The Process of Soci2_rl Organization: Power in Social Systems.
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Pandey, J .F ., and Khana, P. 1990. "The Village Ecosystem: A Structural Modelling

Approach." in Environmental Modelling for Developing Countries. edited by
Asit K. Biswas, T.N. Khoshoo and Ashok Khosla. Tycooly Publishing, London

and New York.

258
Peterson, Nicolas. 1979. "Territorial Adaptations among Desert Hunter-Gatherers: The!

Kung and Australian Compared." in Social and Ecological Systems. edited by
PG. Burnham and RF. Ellen. Academic Press.

Poston, Dudley L. Jr., W. Parker Frisbie, and Michael Micklin. 1984. "Sociological
Human Ecology: Theoretical and Conceptual Perspectives." in Sociological
Human Ecology: Contemporary Issues and Applications. edited by Michael
Micklin and Harvey M. Choldin. Westview Press/Boulder and London.

Pragtong, Komon. 1988. "Social Forestry in Thailand." in Regional Training Course in
Community Forestry Development Techniques. March 27 - April 29, 1988
offered by the Royal Thai Government and the Government of Japan.

Rambo, AT. 1983. "Conceptual Approaches to Human Ecology." Research Report No.
14. Honolulu: East-West Environmental and Policy Institute.

Rao, Y.S. 1983. "The Concept and Practice of Social Forestry." FAO Regional Ofﬁce
for Asia and the Paciﬁc, Bangkok. February.

Rappaport, RA. 1968. "Pigs for the Ancestors: Ritual in the Ecology of a New Guinea
People. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Rappaport, RA. 1971a. "Ritual, Sanctity, and Cybernetics." American Anthropologist
73:59-76.

Rappaport, RA. 1971. "The Flow of Energy in An Agricultural Society." Scientiﬁc
American 224(3):] 16-32.

Rappaport, RA. 1976. "Adaptation and Maladaptation in Social Systems." in 11a
Ethical Basis of Economic Freedom. edited by 1. Hill. Chapel Hill, NC:
American Viewpoint. Pp. 39-82

Rappaport, RA. 1978a. "Maladaptation 11 Social Systems." in The Evolution of Social
Systems. edited by J. Friedman and M. Rowlands. Pittsburgh, PA: University of
Pittsburgh Press. Pp. 49-71.

Rappaport, RA. 1978b. "Normative Models of Adaptive Process: A Response to Anne
Whyte." in The Evolution of Social Systems. edited by J. Friedman and M.
Rowlands. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Pp. 79-87.

Rappaport, RA. 1979. Ecology, Meaning, and Religion. Richmond, CA: North Atlantic
Books.

259
Rappaport, RA. 1979b. "Ecology, Adaptation, and the Ills of F unctionalism." in
Ecology, Meaning, and Religion. by RA. Rappaport, Richmond, CA: North
Atlantic Books. Pp. 43-95.

Redclift, Michael. 1984. Development and the Environmental Crisis: Red or Green
Altemtives. London and New York: Methuen.

Redclift, Michael. 1987. Sustainable Development : Exploring the Contradictions
METHUEN London and New York.

RFD (Royal Forestry Department). 1984. The Village Woodlot: Its Implementation in
Thailand. Published by the National Energy Administration with funding from

the US. Agency for International Development. Bangkok, Thailand

Roberts, DP. 1953. Body Weight, Race and Climate. Amer. J. of Phys. Anthro.
11:533-58, 1953.

Rolston, Holmes. 1988. "Human Values and Natural Systems." Society and Natural
Resources. Vol. 1, Number 3.

Rosa, Eugene A., Machlis, Gary E., and Keating, Kenneth M. 1988. Energy and
Socieg. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 14:149-72.

Royal Forestry Department, 1986, 1990, 1993. Foregy Statistics of Thailand 1986.
Planning Division, RFD. Bangkok.

Ryder, N. B. 1964. "Notes on A Concept of Population." American Journal of Sociology
69 (March):447-463.

Saphasri, B. and K. Phraekthong, "Village Wood Project," in Thai, Memographed, p. 11,
1983.

Schipper, L., Lichtenberg, A.J. 1976. "Efﬁcient Energy Use and Well-being : the
Swedish Example." Science 194:1001- 13.

Schnore, L. F. 1961. "Geography and Human Ecology." Economic Geography 37 (July)
:208-217.

Schnore, L. F. 1961b. "The Myth of Human Ecology." Sociological Inquiry 31 (Spring)
:128-139.

260
Schurr, S.H., Netscheret, BC. 1960. Energy in the American Economy. 1850-1975.
Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press.

Shepherd, Gill. 1986. Forest Policies, Forest Politics. Social Forestry Network.
Network Paper 3a. Odi. October.

Skutsch, Margaret McCall. 1983. "Why People don't plant trees." Discussion Paper D-
73P. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.

Sly, D. F. and D. Tayman. 1977. "The Ecological Approach to Migration Re-
examined." American Sociological Review 42 (October):783-795.

Smith, Nigel. 1981. Wood: An Ancient Fuel with a New Future. Worldwatch Paper 42.
January.

Soesastro, M. Hadi. 1984. "Policy Analysis of Rural Household Energy Needs in Java."
in Rural Energ to Meet Development Needs Asian Village Approach. edited by
M. Nural Islam, Richard Morse, and M. Hadi Soesastro. Westview Special
Studies in Social, Political, and Economic Development.

Spears, John S., 1978. "The Changing Emphasis in World Bank Lending: A Summary
of Recent Experiences and Problem areas of Relevance to the Eight World
Forestry Congress Sessions concerned with 'Forestry for Rural Communities."
Paper for the Eight World Forestry Congress. Jakarta, Indonesia. October.

Sprout, H. and Sprout, M. 1965. The Ecological Perspective on Human Affairs.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Starr, C. 1971. "Energy and Power." Sci.Am. 224:36-49

Stern, P.C., Oskamp, S. 1987. "Managing Scarce Environmental Resources." In Hand-
boci of Environmental Psychology. Vol.2, ch 28, ed. D. Stokals, I. Altman. New
York: Wiley.

Steward, J. 1938. Basin Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institute Bulletin 120. BAE,

Steward, J. 1955. Theog of Culture Change. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Stockdale, Jerry. 1989. "Pro-Growth, Limits to Growth, and A Sustainable
Development Synthesis." Society and Natural Resources. Vol. 2, Number 3.

261
TDRI, 1990. Deforestation and Poveﬂ: Can Commercial and Social Forestry Brea_k the
Viciogs Circle? The 1990 TDRI Year-End Conference. lndustrializing Thailand
and Its Impact on the Environment. Research Report No.2. Session: Natural
Resources for the future. Sopin Tongpan, Theodore Panayotou, Songpol
Jetanavanich, Ketty F aichampa, and Charlie Mehl. December 8-9, 1990.

Thailand, 1987. The Sixth Natﬂ] Economic and SociaL Development Plan. The
National Economic and Social Development Board of Thailand. Bangkok.

Thaiutsa, Bunvong. 1988. "Community Plantation." in Regional Training Course in
Community Forestry Development Technique. Royal Forestry Department,
Bangkok, Thailand. March 27-April 29.

Thamrong Nawasawat, Thalemg. 1986. "Private Forestry and Rural Development:

Thailand" in Five Perspectives on Forespy for Rural Development in the Asia
Paciﬁc Region. PARA MONOGRAPH: 1986/1 FAO. Bangkok.

Thomas, RB. 1973. Human Adaptation to a High Andean Energy Flow System.
University Park, PA: Penn State Univ., Dept. of Anthropology.

Thomson, James T. 1980. "How Much Wood Would A Peasant Plant? Public Choice
Analysis of Institutional Constraints on Firewood Production Strategies in the
West African Sahel." Submitted for publication in Resources for the Future,
Clifford S. Russel, Publication in Resources for the Future. Clifford S. Russel,
(ed.).

Tingsabadh, Charit. 1987. "Fuelwood Development in a Rainfed Rice-growing area
Sisaket Province, Thailand" in Peoples' Institution for Forest and F uelwood
Development: A Report on Participatory Fuelwood Evaluations in India and
Thailand. East-West Center Resource Systems Institutes and Chulalongkom
University Social Research Institute.

 

Tiwari, K.M. 1983. Social Foregy for Rural Development. Published by Revendra Pal
Singh Gahlot. For Intemationa] Book Distributors, Dehra Dun. India.

Turnbull, CM. 1961. The Forest People: A Study of the Pygpjes of the Congo. New
York: Simon & Schuster.

Turnbull, CM. 1968. "The Importance of Flux in Two Hunting Societies." in Man the
Hunter. RB. I. DeVore (Eds.) Chicago: Aldine.

262
Vadya, Andrew P., and Rappaport, Roy A. 1976. "Ecology, Cultural and Non-cultural."
in Human Ecology: An Environmental Approac_h. Duxbury Press. North Scituate,
Massachusetts.

Warkov, 8., Ed. 1978. Energy Policy in the United States: Social and Belg/iota
Dimensions. New York: Praeger.

Washburn, S. L. 1951. The New Physical Anthropology. Mnsactions of the New York
Academy of Science. Series II, 13(7):298-304, 1951.

West, Patrick C. 1985. "Some Sociological Aspects of Forestry Community
Development Projects in Developing Countries." World Forestry Congress.
Westoby, Jack. 1985. "Forestry and Underdevelopment Revisited." A lecture for
the School of Forestry and Conservation, University of California, Berkeley,
November.

Westoby, Jack. 1987. "The Purpose of Forest, Follies of Development." With a
Foreword by A.J. Leslie Basil Blackwell.

White, Leslie A. 1975. The Concept of Cultural Systems: A Key to Understanding Tribes
and Nations. Columbia University Press. New York and London.

Whiting, J .W.M. 1973. "A Model for Psycho-cultural Reseach." American
Anthropological Association Annual Report: 1-14.

Wilson, ED. 1985. "The Biological Diversity Crisis." BioScience 35(11)

Wolf, GP. 1986. "Impact Ecology: An Assessment Framework for Resource
Development and Management." in Natural Resources and PeOple: Conceptual
Issues in Interdisciplinary Research. edited by Kenneth A. Dahlberg and John W
Bennett. Westview Special Studies in Natural Resources and Energy
Management. Westview Press/Boulder and London.

Woodwell, G.M., et a]. 1983. "Global Deforestation: Contribution to the Atmospheric
Carbon Dioxide." Science 222(4628).

 

World Bank. 1975. Rural Development. February.

World Bank. 1984. "Energy in the Developing Countries." in Energy Policy and Third
World Development. Pradip K. Ghosh, Editor. Greenwood Press.

263
World Bank. 1988. Rural Development: World ng Experience. 1965-86. The World
Bank, Washington DC.

World Bank. 1989. People and Trees: The Roles of Social Forestry in Sustainable
Development. editors: Han Gregersen, sydney Draper, and Dieter Elz.

CHIGRN STATE UNIV.

I: