Thailand’s Community Forest Bill: Who does the military government think it’s good for?

 

The National Legislative Assembly (NLA), set up after the military coup in Thailand last year and due to be disbanded following the general election on 23 December, has, in its dying breaths, approved the long awaited Community Forest Bill. Rather than consolidating the constitutional rights of all communities to manage their forest areas however, the NLA chose instead to exclude the rights of communities who are living outside the “conservation zones” to take part in forest management.

 

In a denial of the truth that communities in Thailand now have 18 years of experience in community forest management since the logging concession ban, most politicians and members of the NLA still see villagers as forest destroyers. One-sided information, news and analysis drawn from a superficial understanding of the problems, has created fear and suspicion amongst the general public in Thailand. This perspective only posits two ways to resolve problems of forest destruction. The first is to declare conservation areas (article 3) in which people are not allowed to live. “Conservation zones” mean “National park, Wildlife Sanctuary, No Hunting Zones, as regulated by the respective laws or other areas which are watershed or other areas which have environmental value and are required to be conserved according to the ministerial regulations”. The second is to pass laws which give monopoly power to the state officials to issue fines for forest destruction.

 

Despite these out of date perspectives, nowadays communities have learned from the crisis of the degraded forests which created serious problems for their livelihoods, in a context where agricultural communities must depend on nature. Communities who were involved in forest destruction in the past have come back together to preserve the forest. It is clear that these communities can only manage the forests effectively if society acknowledges their role and if communities can determine their own economic, social and political choices. On this basis they will be able to manage the forest using both formal and informal mechanisms depending on the nature of the areas and the condition of the group and the community. A learning process is being promoted by several external groups which includes learning about problems faced by the community or learning between communities, including information and news from outside the community.

 

Community forest management is not best served by a legal approach which seeks to determine the boundaries of various types of forest to make it easier for the state to manage, by dividing management zones according to different government units’ responsibilities. On the contrary, the management of community forests does not strictly distinguish between farm areas, housing areas, forest areas nor does it strictly separate to whom the land and the forest belong.

 

The management of community forests in Thailand began with communities inside and outside the conservation forests. This reflects a growing awareness that the effective management of forests depends on a learning and strengthening process within the community. Communities have capacity and are ready to manage forests within a boundary which has been assessed together with the community according to their local social and environmental, economic and political conditions.

 

The concept in drafting the version of the Community Forest Bill proposed by the people comes from drawing the lessons from community forestry in practice. Community forest management deserves support to increase the area of natural forest in Thailand instead of commercial tree plantations in the national reserve forest areas, also to reforest degraded forest areas, or public lands, and wetland areas that are being destroyed for a variety of development projects. Community forests should especially be allowed in conservation forest areas which are at risk of destruction every day from illicit logging with collusion of officers and wealthy individuals. These areas have remained out of sight of the law and under the dark shadows of corruption by state officials forever looking out for their own profits. Did the NLA consider the fact that the communities who are established inside and outside the conservation zones have had an important role in protecting the nearby forests in conservation zones and that many community leaders were murdered in protecting the forest in many areas?

 

The expansion of the conservation areas by the state into the remaining fertile forests are precisely the areas that have been protected by communities. Instead of rewarding communities with trust, the draft Community Forest Bill has instead cut their rights to manage the community forests, on the basis that they are settled outside the conservation zone. The fact of the villages’ location outside the conservation zone in almost every area is the result of negotiation between communities and the state. People demanded that the government exempt their long-established villages and farmlands from being zoned as conservation areas, while conceding that their community forest areas be designated within the government conservation zones. This was done with good intention, people hoped that their community forests could be well looked after jointly by the community and the state. This matter caused considerable suffering for the communities, having handed their community forests over to the “conservation zones”, they found that the forest was destroyed even more quickly. The community had no power to stop the loggers, and at the same time were unable to use their forests.

 

This closing of social space for managing forests by the communities will create more severe conflicts between the state and communities. In the end, Thai society and communities will see increased forest destruction from the  investors groups and government officials who are ready to exploit their chances to gain profits from forest. In future, communities must face severe poverty from being cut off from the forest on which they depend. Who is going to take responsibility for this after the military government sends the Community Forest law to the old-boy politicians who will return after this weekend’s election?

 

By Sayamol Kaiyoorawong. The author has been working to support the people’s draft of Community Forest Bill. She is currently the Director of Environmental Awareness Building based in Trang province, Southern Thailand. This article first appeared in Thai in the Prachataam News Network in December 2007 (www.newspnn.com).