1 / 36

DOI MAE SALONG, NORTHERN THAILAND Applying the Forests-Poverty Toolkit

DOI MAE SALONG, NORTHERN THAILAND Applying the Forests-Poverty Toolkit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * IUCN’s “Livelihoods and Landscapes Programme” and RECOFTC, 28 th Feb-2 nd March 2008. Preparing in Bangkok.

bly
Download Presentation

DOI MAE SALONG, NORTHERN THAILAND Applying the Forests-Poverty Toolkit

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. DOI MAE SALONG, NORTHERN THAILAND Applying the Forests-Poverty Toolkit **************************** IUCN’s “Livelihoods and Landscapes Programme” and RECOFTC, 28th Feb-2nd March 2008

  2. Preparing in Bangkok

  3. The team worked with villagers from three adjacent villages – Hae Ko, Loh Yo, and Ruam Chai, all founded about 30 years ago. We based the work in Loh Yo.

  4. The area has seen steady unplanned immigration by hill-tribes from other parts of northern Thailand, from China and from Myanmar over an extended period. This migration is still continuing, and the landscape is a highly dynamic and chaotic one, with much potential for positive improvement in the future. The problem

  5. After a preliminary meeting with villagers, in which their leaders showed us some of their own maps of land-use in the area, we set out with them to look at the landscape around the three villages, as a prelude to working with the toolkit. The Hill Development Foundation (HADF) showed us where villagers were already taking decisions to sort out the landscape – planting or enriching hilltop forest, and clustering agriculture and tree-crops on lower flatter land. TOOL 2:Landscape situation analysis

  6. Beginning to sort out land-use

  7. Some sites planted with farmer tree crops (lychee here)

  8. Tea terraces

  9. Some highly degraded sites have been selected by villagers for restor-ation later this year

  10. We ranked the 44 households in Hae Ko,the 57 households in Loh Yo and 80 households in Ruam Jai with village leaders, sorting them into wealthy, average, poor and very poor groups. We then selected some participants from each village to take part in the toolkit process. We ended up with two men’s groups and two women’s groups, one of each an average/wealthy group and one of each a poor/very poor group. TOOL 1: Wealth ranking

  11. Each village set its own timeline of key events over the last 30 years, and noted trends against it. We have amalgamated their similar results. It is striking that agriculture is already in dramatic transition, with no room for traditional rotational agriculture, and new demand for fertiliser and pesticide in its place. Participatory land-use planning for agriculture and forests, in continued collaboration with villagers, is a high priority: the Hill Development Foundation has laid the groundwork already. Tool 3: Timeline and Trends

  12. In Tool 4 we asked each of the participants in the 4 groups to brainstorm, individually and in the group in three steps: (i) To list all the key sources of cash in their income (agricultural crops, forest products and other sources of cash) and to rank them (ii) To list all their key sources of non-cash income (agricultural crops, forest products) and to rank them (iii) To suggest what proportion of their house-hold’s annual income comes from cash, and what from non-cash sources. Using step (iii) as a ratio, we were able to assess the total contribution of forests etc to the household’s annual income. The results from the four groups are as follows: Tool 4: Livelihoods

  13. Tool 4: Livelihoods Combined cash and non-cash incomes by group

  14. The results from tool 4 also give us a ranking, by each group of what they reckon to be the most important forest products for cash and non-cash purposes. The lists vary by gender and by wealth-level, and it is clear that any planning for forests futures must take these products and their importance into account. Tool 5 : key forest products

  15. Variation by gender

  16. Variation by gender

  17. Thatch for roofing

  18. Fuelwood, timber and bamboo baskets

  19. Mushrooms and honey

  20. In tool 6, group participants brainstorm the main problems they feel exist. We get them to focus mainly on forests and natural resources including agriculture, but inevitably other problems which are related are mentioned as well. Having got a list, the members of the group place their beans to rank the problems, and the top 6 or so are discussed in more detail. Villagers are asked to suggest solutions, and to suggest, as well, organisations which might help them solve the problems. In this case, the four groups were concerned with similar issues, so we reproduce the ides of one group – the poor men. Tool 6 : Forest problems and solutions

  21. In the final plenary, the information gathered, especially from tools 4 and 6, is presented back to the participants, plans for next steps are made, and the exercise ends. Tool 7 : Final Plenary

  22. Representatives from both HADF and the Army took part in the meeting.

  23. Next steps clearly involve participatory land-use planning for the entire landscape, area by area – for which we need the participation of the villagers, the Hill Development Foundation (HADF) which has already pioneered some of this work the Military, which is responsible for the whole region Other government agencies. Next steps

More Related