Huai Hee village Huai Hee is an old Karen village that was founded 170 years ago and has a population of about 200 (Sahlin, 2000) or a population density of 12 people/km2. It became officially registered with the Department of Local Administration (DOLA) in 1983 as key village No. 8, yet was recently still listed as a class 2 village with only a potential for permanent settlement (DLD, 1994). The village is bordered to the west by the Nam Tok Surin National Park established in 1981, which covers one third of the Tambon. In the past Huai Hee villagers farmed within the national park boundary, but due to pressure from the Forest Department (RFD) this land had to be abandoned, a process that was monitored by the TG-HDP. When interviewed about why the village does not have an outer boundary (Diagram 3), the village committee first replied that they forgot to demarcate it, but when pressed further mentioned the controversies over a proposed agreement with the forest department on land for agroforestry use by the village, which was never implemented. The insecurity over which land villagers are allowed to cultivate persists; hence an outer user boundary does not have that much significance for farmers, as the consequences of a village boundary remain unclear. The village area is 1,700 ha (given by the TAO office), of which 1,151 ha are conservation forest (64%), while 32% of the land is used for agriculture as well as residence. Of the total agricultural area of 466 ha, only 5% on average have been used during the last three years. Fruit trees play a minor role with 7 ha under cultivation, as fruits are only grown for home consumption due to the lack of a market and road access. There is an inconsistency in the pattern of land use in that some upland area lies outside the demarcated agricultural area, an indication that fixed areas are not yet part of the villagers‘perception of land use planning. Aggregation at Sub-District Level In Tambon Huai Poo Ling the ten village maps were aggregated on a sub-district map (see Diagram 4), and the white areas indicate villages that lie outside the TG-HDP project area. It is interesting to note that Pa Kaa village lies outside the Tambon boundary (in neighbouring Pai district in fact), if the data provided by NNCO are correct. To date there exist no reliable maps from the Royal Survey Department indicating Tambon boundaries and work is in progress to produce this data, yet the provincial office gives the total area of Huai Poo Ling as 37,152 ha. As far as land use planning is concerned it is important to note that there are overlapping areas claimed by adjacent villages (marked in pink), which may lead to conflicting claims over its use. In most cases this land lies in conservation forest areas, which means that the total forest area claimed by each village is actually less when aggregated to Tambon level, so that village maps can be deceiving when examined from a higher level. The total upland area of 6,200 ha makes up some 17% of the whole Tambon area, or with perennial crops paddy, fields and land used in the last three years amounts to 7,600 ha or 20% of the Tambon. The total mapped forest area amounts to 14,700 ha or 40% of the Tambon, but as only 22,500 ha of the Tambon have actually been mapped, the fact that 65% of it is conservation forest is more significant. This by far exceeds the target of 25% protected forests set by RFD nationwide. It is obvious that the aggregated data has a relatively high level of inaccuracy, but the most important relation for planning purposes is that between conservation forest and upland area, and the figures show that the forest cover in Huai Poo Ling is very high. Now that these villages are registered and leaders are members of the Tambon Administration Organisations (TAO), they reiterate their hope of obtaining land rights at communal level. However, as long as the Royal Forest Department (RFD) and the Department of Land Development (DLD) are not represented at TAOs and in the District Hill tribe Committee, it is very difficult to obtain the commitment from farmers for planning if two key agencies are absent in the decision-making bodies.  
|