• 
• 

Published on November 18, 2007

The National Legislative Assembly will vote on the community-forest bill on Wednesday, a move that could end an 18-year-long conflict between rural citizens and bureaucrats over forest management.

However, community-rights activists and academics warn that citizen groups could be defeated once again if a majority of assembly members yield to pressure and favour the so-called "bureaucratic" version of the bill.

At issue is whether the bill sanctions community forests in conservation areas, and if so, will those communities be the beneficiaries or not.

Last week, an assembly committee endorsed the so-called grass-roots version 14 votes to 11.

Lawyer Pairoj Pholphet of the Union for Civil Liberties said the law-making record of the assembly was in favour of the bureaucracy, but it was possible it could be different this vote.

Member Tuanjai Deetes said the "grass-roots" version had won by just three votes in committee.

Such a small margin is no guarantee it will pass in the full assembly, she added.

"The assembly is split almost in two, and if the committee fails to convince the majority, the assembly might approve the bureaucrat version," she said.

Anthropologist Prof Anand Kanchanaphan of Chiang Mai University said that if the grass-roots version won, the NLA should be remembered for helping solve a decades-long conflict in forest management, essentially between rural citizens and state officials, especially those at the Forestry Department.

"Today, thousands of community-forest areas are being used by rural people, and if the assembly approves the bureaucrat version, all of them will be illegal and face action from the authorities."

"Imagine how chaotic it will be. On the contrary, if the grass-roots version wins, villagers will be allowed to conserve certain forest areas under terms and conditions that will be monitored by a national community-forest committee.

"This should be better for society, especially in terms of democracy, decentralisation and public participation in forest management. In fact, rural communities have been doing this for generations.

"It's time to give them legal sanction," he said.

Activist Decho Chaithap, coordinator of the Northern Community Forest Network, said some 200 villagers would arrive in Bangkok on Wednesday for the vote.

"This law is good for our country and has gained support from various sectors, even though it has been submitted to national assemblies four times already," Decho said.

In 1989, the community-forest concept was first recognised in the wake of a conflict between local villagers in Chiang Mai's Huay Kaew community and a private company that leased forest from the department.

The villagers fought for their rights to the forest. The state argued it should be leased to the private company.

This led to widespread debate over who should have rights to forest, and it certainly challenged the conventional wisdom that the department has the last word in forest management.

Academics later concluded that community-forest conservation based on local wisdom was better than Western methods that Thailand was implementing.

The concept later developed into the first bill in 1995, beginning an intensive political debate.

Ten Cabinets, eight prime ministers and four parliaments have considered the bill.

"To believe that all villagers will protect forests is too optimistic and idealistic," said Panas Thassaneeyanont, a former senator who opposes the concept.

Another former senator, Jermsak Pinthong, disagreed, saying the debate reflected how the middle class, including bureaucrats, was biased against the grass roots and non-governmental organisations.

"Both sides share similar good intentions to preserve our remaining forests, but without this bias it is clear the grass-roots communities have the potential to preserve forests efficiently and at the least cost to the country," he said.

The concept was later recognised nationally and internationally, including by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation.

Despite its earlier rejection, the department later agreed to the principle of community forests - that communities should have the right to conserve forest - but rejected communities living in forests.

Villagers and academics opposed the department stand and sought the chance to prove that people could live in forests and look after them at the same time.

This led to the current conflict and the two versions of the bill.

Villager Anan Duangkaewruen said the bureaucratic version of the bill, if enacted, would be an obstacle to forest conservation.

"It's also better to have no law than have the bureaucratic version," he added.

The grass-roots version of the forest bill was one of the first submitted directly to Parliament by citizens after gathering the support of 50,000 people or more.

Under the current charter, bills can be submitted directly by citizens if they have the support of 10,000 voters.

Kamol Sukin

 The Nation