Yesterday I received an exciting package in the mail. It was a copy of the just released book that Tim Forsyth (of the London School of Economics) and I have authored on environmental politics in Thailand (Tim Forsyth and Andrew Walker. 2008. Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyers: The Politics of Environmental Knowledge in Northern Thailand. University of Washington Press.) The book is a critical discussion of debates about deforestation, hydrology, erosion, chemical use and biodiversity in northern Thailand. (I have taken up some of these issues in previous posts on New Mandala). Here is a brief extract from the Conclusion (pp. 226-227).
This book has sought to illustrate how environmental politics in [northern Thailand] has become dominated by environmental beliefs that are simplistic, misleading, and highly selective. Since at least the 1960s, a variety of observers have claimed that the upland zones of northern Thailand are in a state of urgent environmental crisis. While environmental problems do exist, and interventions are required, the common belief that upland agriculture is causing immense damage to uplands and lowlands is simply not supported by available evidence. Yet, despite this lack of evidence, the narrative of upland crisis is widely popular and highly persistent. In Thailand, newspapers, television, government statements, and books regularly refer to the belief that population growth, deforestation, and commercialization are causing water shortages, soil erosion, declining biodiversity, and agrochemical contamination. The message is underlined by roadside signs in the north, installed by the government, which report in matter-of-fact terms that deforestation causes drought and undermines agricultural livelihoods. In the streets of Bangkok, colorful murals outside schools repeat this message with stark images of deforested hillsides, desperate farmers, threatened wildlife, and contaminated streams.
This vision of upland crisis is used to support very different approaches to the management of the uplands. On the one hand, conservationists and state regulators have used the language of rigorous science and uncontested certainty to argue that urgent steps are required to protect fragile upland catchments from further degradation. On the other hand, people-oriented proponents of community development have drawn on the language of indigenous knowledge to argue that local residents have the traditional skills to manage this fragile landscape, provided they are shielded from the disruption of both state regulation and commercialization.
This book proposes that this has become an unproductive debate between those who hold that upland residents are “forest destroyers” and those who see them as “forest guardians.” What makes this debate unproductive is that, ultimately, it is based on a shared assumption of upland crisis, born of a series of questionable beliefs about environmental processes in the uplands. The conclusions that emerge from the previous chapters are stark:
· Popular explanations of upland degradation in northern Thailand are highly simplistic and contested by research both inside and outside Thailand.
· Land-use policies claiming to address problems such as water shortages, soil erosion, and biodiversity loss may not address their underlying causes, and might even exacerbate problems.
· Local livelihoods in the uplands are restricted because of a range of official land-use controls that are often based on prejudicial views of upland agriculture and questionable assumptions about its environmental impacts.
· Alternative solutions favoring local livelihoods have played an important role in countering official prejudice, but they frequently rely too heavily on simplistic representations of traditional upland lifestyles and too readily assume that commercial agriculture results in ecological degradation.
· Many of the participants in the debate about environmental management in northern Thailand have been aware of research criticizing these positions for years, but have not acknowledged these insights, nor generally changed their approaches accordingly.
If you want to read more (you should!) you can order the book from University of Washinton Press or from Amazon.

Andrew – Congratulations. I look forward to reading it.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Sounds great. Do University of Washington Press books usually make it to Thailand? I hope so. I know other university presses such Univ of Michigan’s have problems in this regard. (Aside: Too bad authors can’t play a greater role in the distribution of their books, to make them more widely available in places where they are important)
Quality comment or not?
0
0
A PhD research at Melbourne University also confirms this entrenched attitudes. In this context, will the public ever learn the truth of real environmental health up in the northern forests? From the excerpt Andrew provided, I am certain that this invaluable book goes a long way to shedding light on this issue. I hope to read it when it is available here.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
from 3 months in a White Hmong hill tribe last year I can confirm that they have little idea about conservation or looking after the forest. Indiscriminate tree felling, killing of anything that moves, stoveless cooking fires … plus the over use of pesticides and windowless homes with open fires indoors – all points to a people who do not know how to look after themselves or nature. The Royal projects have taught them to produce cash crops, which being hard working people, they are rather good at. This results in more ground clearing and planting, without permission or planning.
Still, the resulting hillsides become adequately maintained farmland, even if no longer forest.
There were regular inspections, and advisory visits from agricultural specialists both Western and Thai , and doctors who took blood samples to assess chemical and dietry caused ill health.
Quality comment or not?
1
0
andrew, just ordered it and can’t wait to read it after a long, busy semester.
congratulations to you and tim!!
nancy
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Andrew Walker in “Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyers” from above: “… the common belief that upland agriculture is causing immense damage to uplands and lowlands is simply not supported by available evidence. … newspapers, television, government statements, and books regularly refer to the belief that …. deforestation… causing water shortages ….roadside signs in the north, installed by the government, which report in matter-of-fact terms that deforestation causes drought and undermines agricultural livelihoods.”
Today in Bangkok Post (12-03-12) Nan River basin faces drought crisis threat
“…Sujarit Koontanakulvong, a water engineer from Chulalongkorn University, has expressed his concern over land use changes in the river basin, saying the transformation of natural forest land into mono-crop plantation could lead to a reduction in rainfall volume in the region. The Nan River basin covers five provinces _ Nan, Uttaradit, Phitsanulok, Phichit and Nakhon Sawan. Mr Sujarit said most of the forest zone in the river basin had been replaced by maize and rubber plantations.”
Certainly, would be interesting to hear the experts who are thoroughly familiar with the scientific evidence, weigh in on this issue.
Quality comment or not?
1
0
Thanks Jon, have a look at 100-year rainfall data (some graphs provided in the book). Forest cover has certainly declined during the period, but has rainfall? The relevant chapter in Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyers reviews a lot of the scientific evidence. The key fact, as stated on page 101, is that “the rain that falls in northern Thailand is predominantly monsoonal and derives not from evapotranspiration in northern Thailand itself but from marine sources to the west.” AW
Quality comment or not?
3
0
Species are being lost at an unprecedented rate. The biosphere is in crisis. People rich and poor need to get out of what is left of its forests, wherever they are. The science is in: there is no alternative. The most humane, probably the only solution, is jobs in town.
Quality comment or not?
0
0
Andrew Walker: “The relevant chapter in Forest Guardians, Forest Destroyers reviews a lot of the scientific evidence. The key fact, as stated on page 101…”
Thanks. I brought your book to work today and was reading exactly that section a couple of minutes ago. Seems like the research cited in the newspaper article lacked adequate scientific peer review perhaps? Given the importance of climate related phenomena recently (floods, droughts) this research area certainly has a new relevance for people’s lives.
[Note: This whole thing is also interesting from the perspective of Burmese history also because one the stock truisms claimed without proof is that all the trees were cut down in ancient Pagan and then the climate became dryer (or something roughly like that). Historian of Burma Victor Lieberman deals with long-term climate patterns in his book Strange Parallels. Will have to look at this again.]
Quality comment or not?
0
0