Governance and Micropolitics of Traditional ... - IPRsonline.org

espect the rights of such groups to be informed and consulted about research access to their
resources and knowledge. The guidelines are intended to facilitate participation by a broad
range of stakeholders.
In Situ Biological Resources
Due to extensive commercial logging (primarily teak) and clearing for agriculture during the
past two centuries, the central plain of Thailand has been virtually devoid of forest since the
1950s. In recent decades, the northeast region has been most affected by deforestation: with
60% of forest lost on average between 1973 and 1995. In the North, very extensive stretches
have been cleared of their forest cover around the valleys and in the intra-mountain plains
(more than 1.5 million ha for Chiang Mai, Chiang Rai and Nan combined), but this represents
only a little more than 30% of the area considered as forest (Kermel-Torres, D. 2004).
For the 1990s, the estimates of forest cover vary between 15% to almost 30% of the total area,
so great are the divergences on defining what is considered as ‘forest’ (Kermel-Torres, D.
2004). To conserve plant and animal resources, the government brought out laws at the
beginning of the 1960s creating national parks and wildlife sanctuaries (an area officially
covering 15% of the country), before setting up the principle of ‘forest reserves’, to be
managed commercially. Since the survival of populations settled in these areas long before
the reserves were created is compromised, the application of these measures raises strong
opposition from farmers, indignant because of the concessions made to industry (replanting
with eucalyptus or bamboo for the paper pulp factories) or tourism (installations within the
perimeter of parks) and anxious about the repercussions of the major infrastructure planned
(dams) (Kermel-Torres, D. 2004).
The degradation of biological resources, particularly tropical forest resources in Thailand has
been regularly documented and criticised. Thailand has had considerable difficulties
balancing the ‘conservationist’ drive to secure land that is separated from humans in the style
of western designed national parks, and the recognition of the rights of communities to comanage
or fully manage forest areas where they have historically resided.
As countries around the world continue to emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, primarily
carbon dioxide, a parallel concern has heightened which is the conservation of the world’s
tropical forests which represent a large carbon sink. The conservation of these forests has thus
become a priority to see reductions in the rate of global warming. Although the developed
countries also have a long history of deforestation, they have sought to pressure developing
countries that have extensive forests into conservation programs – largely of a western design.
The primary means are the establishment of national parks and reserves. It is important to
note that in the establishment of ‘nature reserves’, in a country like Thailand where there has
been a long history of community forestry, the separation of such communities from their
traditional environments may in fact have deleterious effects on both these communities and
the local environment. A ‘global’ environmental ambition for the preservation of carbon sinks
may effectively be compromising the self-determination and rights of local communities, the
maintenance of local biodiversity, and the continuation of associated knowledge, skills and
techniques.
The hypocrisy of this situation will be understood by many. Global warming is constructed as
a ‘global’ problem for all to solve, despite developed countries representing the highest per
41