These are not happy times for Thailand's environment
movement. It is split as never before
by the introduction of a draft Community Forestry Bill.
On one side are the defenders of the present bill, a
group we can call “the social scientists”, made up largely of rural development
groups, along with anthropologists and other academics, active in the North.
While concerned with protecting the forest, their first priority is to defend
the rights of villagers.
Calling for changes
in the bill are “the natural scientists” or “conservationists”, who are
probably smaller in number but whose influence is growing. Made up largely of ecologists, biologists
and wildlife experts, their first concern is to make sure that some pristine forest
remains to serve as vibrant watersheds and a habitat for biodiversity.
This nomenclature is not great, of course, but it is
better than the rather “fruity” epithets being hurled behind the scenes.
The social scientists are occasionally accused of being
“watermelons” for being green (ie, environmentalists) on the outside, but red
(is, leftists) on the inside their preoccupation with politics is said to have
blinded them to the reality that the activities of the rural poor have a
serious impact on the environment.
The natural scientists, meanwhile, are sometimes
derided as “bananas” for being yellow (Asian) on the outside, but white
(Western) on the inside - the protection of wilderness being considered a
preoccupation of yet a third type of “fruit”, the farang, particularly the
American variety.
Onlookers have watched this dispute in dismay. In a way, however, the split was inevitable
because protecting the rights of local people and protecting the environment -
while usually going hand in hand - are sometimes conflicting goals. This division has occurred in environmental
movements everywhere, and it has happened later in Thailand rather than sooner.
The whole episode can be seen in a positive light,
since it shows that the environment movement in Thailand now has some
influence, and its members are trying to use this power responsibly. Nor should it forgotten that the two groups
were once allies and will be in the future.
In the meantime, however, they are locked in a
dispute whose resolution will have a profound affect on the Thai countryside.
While virtually everyone agrees that the new law is necessary to create a legal
basis for villagers managing their local forest resources, the issue now being
debated is how extensive these rights should be.
As the bill stands, community forests could be set up
anywhere, even in conservation areas such as wildlife sanctuaries, national
parks and watershed zones. Provincial
committees chaired by the governor would approve of what can be considered as,
and supervise as well, community forests, while the Royal Forestry Department
must approve of the groups managing them.
Once a community forest is established, the bill
states, villagers would be allowed to collect forest products there, cut down
trees in order to construct public buildings, hunt, grow crops (subject to
ministerial regulations) and raise livestock.
Community forests can also be expanded in the future.
The law adds that the villagers should also “conserve
the forest”. But this is left as a
vague goal, and one that will be hard to accomplish considering the pressures
of population growth and demand for greater consumption.
The only mechanism
provided for enforcement is the provincial committee’s right to revoke a
community forest, but given Thailand's record of law enforcement and the
political pressures bound to arise from local villagers and vested interests -
it may not be used very often.
Defenders of the present bill contend that villagers’
activities will be restrained by their own traditions and their own
communities, along with public oversight. They are right, in some cases.
But in-other cases, that is merely wishful
thinking. Certainly, these mechanisms
have not proven very effective at halting encroachment so far.
Giving villagers a legal stake in local resources
will provide an incentive for better management, and in most cases they can
probably do a better job than a Royal Forestry Department which is overly
politicised and riddled with vested interests.
But the bill does not quite do a proper job of
balancing people’s rights with the need to protect the forest from human
disturbance. The rules governing
community forests are fine for less sensitive zones, but offer too much leeway
for human activity in forests’ that need to be kept more pristine.
Some conservationists have proposed restricting
community forests to areas outside of, say, wildlife sanctuaries and the most
important watershed zones. But that
would not be fair because in many cases the villagers lived in these places
before they were declared conservation areas.
So the natural scientists have proposed that
different classes of community forests should be set up under the law. In the most important watersheds,
conservation oriented community forests would restrict activities to, say,
collecting forest products. Villagers
would still be able to carry out conservation work in these areas, both for
their own benefit and for that of the whole country. Meanwhile, utility-oriented community forests with the full range
of activities allowed under the present law would be allowed in less sensitive
areas.
This seems a fair compromise as it would allow
greater flexibility in the establishment of community forests. However, it has
so far been rejected by the social scientists who seem content to say the
present bill, while imperfect, is the best that Thai society can agree upon
right now.
That argument will not do. The land reform scandal last year showed that even programmes with the best of intentions -
helping the rural poor - can be abused if loopholes are left in the law.
It may not be possible to close every loophole, but
certainly more can be done. If the bills defenders don’t like the compromises
suggested so far, it is now up to them to show good bargaining faith by coming
up with their own.
And they should hurry up. For while this dispute
continues, other sectors who do not want to see the bill passed at all may be
marshalling their forces to scrap it altogether. That would be a pity.