The Socio-political Process of the Community Forest Bill Controversy in Thailand

The Community Forest Bill was finally passed by the Thai legislative assembly 17 years after it was introduced. This article examines what transpired during those 17 controversial years by analyzing the notions and behaviors of the actors and how they led to changes in the draft bill. The bill provides for 1) conditions and procedures for the establishment and abolition of community forests; 2) regulations on the resource use and management of these forests; and 3) organizational procedures for implementation. The bill aims to achieve sustainable forest management by local people with the assistance of NGOs and the government. It institutionalizes its own decision-making system based on this tri-sectoral collaboration, not through existing administration organizations. Among the bill's provisions, the conditions and regulation of community forests in protected areas was the most controversial issue. The question was whether community forests could be established even within protected areas. The forest department has accepted the idea of community forests in protected areas since 1996, but nature conservationist NGOs have opposed the policy. During the whole 17 years, there have been only a few occasions when nature conservationists and social activists supporting local peoples directly discussed the draft bill. Activist groups and their local partners negotiated with party politicians, while conservationists issued public statements and utilized connections with and/or influence over relatively conservative senators who did not belong to political parties. Since the Senate resolution of 2002, which disallowed community forests in the protected areas, there have been more occasions to discuss the bill directly. But the various political actors could not reach an agreement, prompting them to resolve the issue by voting. This resulted in a bill accepting community forests in protected areas under certain conditions. This politically plural decision-making process led to drastic changes to the draft bill, foremost of which was the total denial of community forests in the protected area by the Senate in 2002. Moreover, the role played by informal political influence and under-the-table negotiation in reaching a resolution caused a strain in the otherwise good relations between local communities, NGOs and the government. If this bill moves to the implementation phase, more transparency is needed in order to reach a common understanding about the principles of the bill in society as a whole