Archaeological evidence indicates that human habitation of Southeast Asia dates back one million years or more. More abundant findings from 10,000 to 40,000 years ago tell us of cave-dwelling communities that hunted a broad range of animals in the tropical forests along the coast of Vietnam, the Malay Peninsula, and Sumatra (Note 1). In northern Thailand, at a site known as the Spirit Cave, anthropologists have found a variety of tree crop seeds including candlenut, canarium nut, butternut, betel nut, terminalia nut, chestnut, and mango, as well as seeds, bushes, and vegetables. Scientists speculate that inhabitants of the area may have cultivated small gardens in the forest between 6,000 and 12,000 years ago.

According to Karl L. Hutterer, "the natural vegetation cover of Southeast Asia has been affected by a long history of often intensive human interference predating colonial influences by thousands of years." (Note 2) At the same time, he concludes that forest-foraging communities were too small to have had a great impact on forest ecosystems. Population densities throughout the region remained quite low until the beginning of the current millennium, with small isolated bands roaming through the dense forests that cover most of the region. Survival strategies, including hunting practices and foraging methods, varied widely, depending on local environments. "In all," says Hutterer, "the animal bones reflect a hunting pattern that exploits a very broad range of animals found in the rain forest and along its fringes, a pattern that is shared by most contemporary hunting societies in Southeast Asia." (Note 3)

Six thousand years ago, most forest-dwelling peoples of peninsular and insular Southeast Asia subsisted through nomadic hunting and gathering, semi-sedentary fishing and gathering, or semi-sedentary cultivation of wild plant species such as yams, bananas, and coconuts. The presence of words like "yam," "taro "banana," and "coconut" in the Proto-Austronesian vocabulary indicates that these cultigens were very important in the lives of people in insular Southeast Asia over 5,000 years ago (Note 4). Small settlements would create openings in the forest to establish swidden fields. Forest clearings and enriched soils around settlements provided an environment for light-loving plants that allowed humans to identify useful species. Indigenous forest trees like durian, breadfruit, banana, and coconut were identified in the forest and domesticated near houses and in swidden fields.

Evidence from Thailand indicates that rice and other cereal crops were cultivated 5,000 years ago, reflecting an intensification of agriculture. Communities that developed cereal production systems became less dependent on the forest. Since agricultural land for cereal production took time to develop, and as cereal could be stored for long periods of time, a migratory existence was replaced by sedentary life. Some anthropologists note that, "populations engaging in permanent field agriculture have essentially 'locked themselves out of the forest' conceptually (Note 5). Among such societies the forest became fearful and dangerous, as reflected in some cultural mythologies, while forest-dependent communities continued to relate to it as a source of livelihood and protection. Even today, forest dwelling communities like the Semang of the Malay Peninsula seek out the forest because it is "cool" and therefore "healthy," while neighboring Melayu and Temair people regard it as disease-ridden and "too cold". (Note 6)

Although inscriptions from the early kingdoms indicate that vast areas of forests were under the control of ancient rulers, they may have been written simply to enhance the prestige of the kings, as there is little evidence to suggest that they ever really controlled the land they claimed. According to Hutterer, "the principal means of demonstrating economic wealth and political influence of leaders were the ostentatious display of expensive foreign trade goods and the espousal of foreign religious ideologies." (Note 7) The monumental remains of Angkor Wat, Pagan, and Borobudur bear witness to the massive human and material investment used to aggrandize the ruler in the eyes of god, the court, and local farming communities. Alternatively, rulers invested in irrigation and drainage projects that increased the area of productive agricultural land. By contrast, we have no reason to believe that similar investments were made in raising large armies to gain control over the people of the forest or their land.

Even in lowland areas, most farming communities were probably relatively autonomous; as distance from the royal court increased, central authority weakened. In the case of the Javanese kingdom of Mahajapahit, one historian notes: "One can easily envisage the situation in which the entire (state) pyramid disappears, but the village continues to function. This was actually the case with large parts of Southeast Asia, where there simply did not exist any effective central authority (Note 8).

The early kingdoms of Southeast Asia were influential in formulating the concept of state domain and establishing administrative systems in areas under their limited control. They also supported private ownership and the sale of agricultural land. From the beginning of the first millennium CE, there is documentation that forest products made up the bulk of trade goods and were a key element in the economics of the early kingdoms. Roman coins, as well as Indian artifacts, have been found near the coastal village of Oc-Eo in southern Vietnam at what may have been the site of the ancient kingdom of Funan. These finds date to the second and third centuries CE and were likely used in part for trade in forest products like wild spices such as cardamom, nut- meg, and clove, and other goods like lacquer, aromatic woods, hides, rhinoceros horn, and ivory. The high-value, low-bulk forest products were collected or caught by the inhabitants of the forest, who received coins and goods in return. (Note 9)

However, hunting and gathering and swidden agricultural communities continued to manage their resources independently in the upland and interior forests removed from the influence of the royal court. Until recently, communal systems of tenure were common, especially for less intensively managed resources like forests, lakes, and streams. The community administered forestlands used for long-rotation swidden farming. Farmers were given temporary use-rights extending through the agricultural rotation. Many forest-dwelling cultures in Southeast Asia viewed their lands as resources held in trust for future generations and as legacies of their ancestors. The lands were considered inalienable, and homelands were to be held in perpetuity. This custodial role of forest tribes is reflected in the words of a tribal elder from Irian Jaya: "The ancestors made these goods (the land) at the beginning of time... and their descendants must be handed these goods in unimpaired condition in the future." (Note 10)

The sixteenth and seventeenth century Europeans visiting Southeast Asia were in search of valuable trade commodities that were both light in weight and able to withstand long sea voyages. Spices, gums, resins, and aromatic woods fetched high prices in Europe, as they had in China and Rome for over a thousand years. European colonists initially relied on pre-existing collection and marketing systems. For their forest products European traders paid in gold and silver as well as in cloth, matches, metal tools, mirrors, and other goods, while Chinese traders used tahil (gold), gongs, and dragon jars. The depleted forests of Europe led colonial powers to increasingly depend on Asia for materials for ship repair and construction. The first forests set aside by Europeans were designated as sources of timber for boat building. By 1677, the Dutch were already negotiating contracts with Javanese rulers to secure access to the rich teak forests of the northern coast. (Note 11)

In Indonesia, the Dutch colonial administrators brought German foresters to Java in 1849 to establish a modem system of forest management and, in 1860, the governor-general formed a committee to formulate forest laws for Java and Madura. (Note 12) In Thailand, modern forestry began in 1896 with the creation of the Royal Forest Department (RFD). Although Thailand successfully maintained its independence through the colonial period, King Chulalongkorn was concerned that European traders were depleting the country's teak forests. British timber merchants operated freely throughout Thailand and Burma during the second half of the nineteenth century, bribing government officials to gain control of concessions that were virtually unregulated. Much of the southern portions of Burma and Thailand were heavily logged during this period. In response, the King of Thailand hired H. Slade, a British forester who had been based in colonial India, to train Thai staff and establish a forestry department. Some Thai also studied at the Indian forestry school at Dehra Dun (Note 13). The act of establishing a specialized agency to take operational control over the national forests in Thailand was seen as an important step in unifying the country. A late nineteenth century observer noted:

In organizing the Department, Slade naturally met with a good deal of opposition from the local northern chiefs on whose preserves he had naturally to encroach ... after a hard fight, he won his battle, and this victory weakened the position of the chiefs, who never regained their former prestige. (Note 14)

Yet, while governments succeeded in establishing forestry agencies and gained some control over forests in coastal areas and lowland plains, much of upland Southeast Asia and the interior of the Indonesian archipelago remained outside any effective government administration prior to World War II. Recognizing the vast forest area and limited staff capacity within the agency, one Dutch colonial forester noted in 1937 that the "best solution is joint management by the forest service and the communities." (Note 15) Indigenous land laws provided the only functional mechanism controlling land access at the community level. According to Colin MacAndrews, "from colonial times to 1960, it is estimated that less than 5 percent of all land in Indonesia was titled under the Western titling system, leaving more than 95 percent of the land in the country untitled yet recognized under adat (customary law) ownership and control." (Note 16) From the 1960s on, however, the political and economic influence of Southeast Asian governments began to reach farther into the region's remote forest areas, placing more strain on forest communities.

The two most striking features affecting relationships between humans and natural forests during the modern era in Southeast Asia has been first, the implementation of greater government control over forest resources and, secondly, the expansion of logging throughout the region. Both trends undermined the role of forest-dependent peoples as resource managers. Led by Japan, but with strong participation from Korea and Taiwan, the expansion of East Asian economics in the 50 years since the end of World War II created strong regional markets for Southeast Asian timber. Japan imported over one-half of the whole logs exported during the timber booms in the Philippines (1964-73), Sabah (1972-87), Indonesia (1970-1980), and Sarawak (1993-95). Rapid, unsustainable rates of logging, driven by expanding market demand, resulted in the depletion of timber stocks in one Southeast Asian country after another. As logs became scarce in the Philippines, traders moved into Sabah and Indonesia. When Indonesia banned whole log exports in 1980, followed by a ban in Sabah in 1993, Japanese traders turned to Sarawak, Papua New Guinea and Cambodia as sources of whole timber. The economies of East Asia have also shifted increasingly to plywood imports. From 1990 to 1995, Japan imported 20 million cubic meters of tropical plywood, largely from Indonesia, and over three times more than China, the world's second largest importer. (Note 17)

Peter Dauvergne, in his study of the politics of timber in Southeast Asia, argues that concession operators were wary of political upheavals that threatened their tenure rights. As a consequence, they had little incentive to invest in long-term sustainable logging (Note 18). In many countries, powerful patron-client relationships developed, allowing state forestry agencies to be captured by vested interests, "perverting policies and debilitating state capacity to enforce regulations. (Note 19) Efforts to shift the timber industry from whole log exports to plywood and pulp and paper manufacturing had a perverse impact on natural forests. Governments pressured companies to replant and establish large timber plantations rather than regenerate natural forests.

The post-World War II era also dramatically redefined the political relationships between government, forest-dependent communities, and other cultural groups within the Southeast Asian region. Nationalism transformed the diverse societies of the Asian colonial states into new independent countries. According to Toby Alice Volkman, ethnicity, as well as "class, religion, gender, and access to political and economic elite and international power structures have shaped the lines of cleavage and struggles of local peoples of Southeast Asia." (Note 20) In explaining the diverse mix of ethnicity and politics, Ben Anderson notes that "minorities came into existence in tandem with majorities and, in Southeast Asia, very recently." (Note 21)

At present, Southeast Asia is estimated to have 30-plus ethnic groups with over 1 million people. Most nations have one or more dominant cultures that play major roles in defining national ideology, policies, and development priorities. Typically, the dominant cultures, be they Javanese, Malay, Thai, or Kinh, are lowland peoples, originally wet rice farmers who are increasingly moving into urban environments as well as into upland watersheds. By contrast, there are between 150 and 200 groups with 50,000 to 1 million people and some 800 to 1,200 small groups with populations of less than 50,000 (see Box 1). (Note 22) Smaller groups tend to be upland dwellers, forest-dependent peoples, or coastal dwellers (see Figure 2). While the rights and traditions of minority peoples are recognized under the constitutions of most nations, these groups are often viewed as backward and primitive by the dominant culture and even by the government.

Minority groups often have only minimal political representation. National land laws, often statutes carried-over from colonial days, fail to recognize communal tenure or ancestral domain claims, and as a consequence minorities are simultaneously losing control over their resources and becoming culturally disempowered. Early national land tenure legislation in Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines deviated little from the laws and statutes that were in effect during the colonial administration. The laws generally recognized the private land rights of sedentary farmers, typically members of the lowland majority culture. In most nations, however, tenure rights were not extended to minority peoples who practiced long-rotational agriculture within natural forest environments. As recently as 1985, the Indonesian Ministry of Forestry clarified the situation by stating that "the activities of shifting cultivators only degrade forestlands, destroy forest timber, and interrupt the activities of concessionaires." (Note 23) Most of the region's land laws mandate that unless land is documented through title or lease agreement, it is considered public domain, regardless of how long it has been cultivated or occupied.

Since the late 1970s, forest-dependent communities have received increasing attention from national governments and donor agencies. The World Bank and other development agencies began supporting social forestry programs in the 1970s under poverty alleviation initiatives and in response to fuelwood shortages. Approximately one-half of the $1.2 billion lent to the Asian forestry sector from 1979 to 1990 was directed towards social forestry (Note 24). This however, led to financing the establishment of woodlots with fast growing plantation species and did not address some of the underlying causes of deforestation, such as tenure insecurity.