Sideways News

The government has abandoned plans to remove monks from their temples

The Thai government’s recent U-turn on its decision to remove monks in temples in environmentally-protected areas has once again underlined the conflicting ideologies over forest conservation in Thailand.

Last week, the Thai Natural Resources and Environment Ministry abandoned its plan to evict temples encroaching on protected forest. The eviction was fiercely opposed by the monks because of their long-standing tradition of meditating in the forest (a practice since the time of Buddha) and because they regard themselves as protectors of the area, unlike some government-approved commercial operations. 

Despite this, the monks - like forest villages - have no legal rights or recognition. Around 5,331 villages have registered their community forest programmes with the Thai Royal Forestry Department, but their entitlement, authority and use of the land is dependent on the liberalism of the regional RFD officer. 

Community spirit - not enough?
Pearmsak Makarabhirom, a former officer at the Regional Community Forestry Centre, who made proposals on the issue of forest monks more than 10 years ago, told Sideways News: “Thai communities have been so strong and tried their best to protect and manage forests without any legal support, but many cases are still being sent to court.”

"The RFD’s recent back down is admittance that, sometimes, strict law enforcement is not the answer", he said. 

To date, there has been no movement to ratify a Community Forest Bill to determine rights over land tenure, natural resources and management of protected forest areas. 

The issues and state policies
The main issue is whether human intervention should be allowed as long as it is controlled and regulated by the state (to serve the benefit of the country) or whether conservation can be trusted to the indigenous forest people, whose means of subsistence depends on sustaining the forest, its biodiversity and natural resources.

It’s not just in Thailand where these conflicts arise. Saskia Ozinga of NGO Fern told Sideways News, “I think in most countries the national policies are as much part of the problem as of the solution. To halt forest loss, national policies have to change. This is something we are working on with our partners in countries negotiating a Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) agreement with the EU.”

According to a lecturer at the Regional Centre for Social Science and Sustainable Development at Chiang Mai University Pinkaew Laungaramsri, the roots of state ideology on forest conservation can be traced back to policies implemented after logging throughout the 60s and 70s, during which time, forest cover declined from 60% to 25%. 

Such destruction resulted in devastating floods and the loss of local means of subsistence. In answer to public outcry, the Thai government eventually in 1989 approved a logging ban – still in force today.

Protected space
The idea of the national park – designated areas of undisturbed nature, protected from human intervention – emerged, but unfortunately, local villagers were included among the threats and obstacles to forest conservation. The government set park boundaries, without consultation. 

In her paper, On the Politics of Nature Conservation in Thailand, Laungaramsri argues that this thinking at state level prompted ambivalence between nature conservation and economic development. Many protected areas were approved for mining or dam operations. In 1982, around 16,080 hectares of Khao Sok National Park were flooded as part of the construction of a dam. 

Haste in restoring forest cover through monocultures also resulted in problems with biodiversity. The draining impact of fast-growing eucalyptus on natural resources like water was not fully considered. 

Community forest thinking 
Community forest management, however, as practiced unofficially by monks and villages, employs radically different thinking. Local people are regarded as a valuable part of the entire forest ecosystem. This can help solve problems of rural poverty and deterioration of environment, Makarabhirom told Sideways News.

“Local technical knowledge such as eco-geographical systems, plant and wildlife resource uses and management, should be documented, tested and incorporated into the management information support systems,” he said.

Dong Yai – a successful example
One such lauded community forest is Dong Yai in the north-east of Thailand. Under co-operation between the local community and liberal RFD officers, former kenaf fields have vigorously converted back to healthy indigenous forest. 

The Tambon Council granted responsibility to general village committees for small forest patches, and later this evolved to include management practices such as fire protection, prescribed burning, enrichment tree planting and controlled cattle grazing. Under local community management, forest biodiversity flourished to include six different types of forest, mushrooms, vegetables, four kinds of yam, ratten shoots, bamboo, reed, yang oil, rasin, firewood, edible insects and wood. By 2000, the forest was generating more than 20% of total household income for the community and surrounding areas. 

Although Dong Yai is exemplified by many NGOs and community forest advocates for land-use suitability, natural forest regeneration and incentives and social structures for community management, it remains unofficial. 

SIDEWAYS News for fresh perspectives