| Abstract: | As part of a 1987 program to develop land use management plans and activities that meet local needs while complying with the objectives of national resource management, this study traces migration and settlement patterns in the Thai village of Huai Muang, which was created by squatters in part of the Dong Lan Reserved Forest on land which had been reserved since 1964. In addition, the effect of the settlement patterns on land use and the willingness of settlers to accept social forestry activities are explored. Data were collected through observation and interviews with key informants from the 347-household village. Migration occurred in four phases. Group 1 migrants came from nearby villages starting in 1959 and claimed large plots of land. When ordered to leave in 1964, no one complied. In 1968, 6 more households joined the village. No one had legal title to any land. In 1975, 17 households of Group 2 migrants followed a logging road to join the settlement. During the next two years, 10-20 additional households joined the group from other provinces in the northeast. Members of this group bought land from Group 1 migrants, and they also cleared more of the forest. The third and largest group arrived in 1978-81, claimed the least desirable land, and swelled the settlement size to 150 households. This group also purchased land but do not have enough to support their families and must work as laborers. The last group of less than 30 households arrived after 1981 and were unable to acquire much land. By this time, further clearing was prevented. In 1989, the settlement received official recognition as a village. Group 1 originally lived near the forest, collecting forest products, hunting, and grazing livestock. All of these settlers have left the village. Group 2 and 3 migrants farm maize, rice, and soybeans. The only dependence on forest products remains in the landless Group 4, but many of their activities, such as making charcoal, are illegal. The social forestry intervention consists of promotion of silkworm cultivation, the development of household nurseries of fruit trees, planting trees in a local temple area, and demonstrating nursery techniques. Participation in this project was limited because the activities were unsuitable for those without land (who were most in need) and because of a lack of community cohesion. Many questions remain about equitable land reallocation and policies to reduce deforestation. |
