Chapter 1 1

INFORMATIONAL BASIS OF POLICYJUI)GMENTS: TIIE CASE OF THE ROYALFOREST DEPARTMENT OF THAILAND
JlnSatoGTladuate School ofFrontier Sciences, The UniversityofTokyo

1.

I. 1

INTRODUCTION

0bjective

This report presents a preliminary analysis of policy formation in山e area of forest

management in Thailand. Despite its remarkable record of industrialization andeconomic growth, the country still has a large agrlCultural populationthat is in dailyinteraction withthe naturalenvironment･ With the maJOrlty Of people living in the
countryside, policies on land use have a slgni丘cant impact, not only on血e conservationof biodiversity but also on the welfare of localpeople･ Because of bothan increasing
scarcity of land and也e emphasis on forest protection fb∫ me conservation of

biodiverslty, forest land has become a Hpoliticized spaceH over which local people,

government, and private industry strive for control (Sato 2000)i Any initiative regarding

land use must･therefore, be plannedwithinthis context; otherwise, the policies adopted
will be neither socially nor ecologically sustainable.
It is often claimed that sound policies must rely on accurate infわrmation. In thiscontext, many socialscientists tend to think that more information is betterthan less.
But this claim has to be examined carefully, since we often see reports that are neverread･ with papers piled up in corners of也e library that are written Just fbr血e sake ofwriting them･ We need to examine how information is connected to policy processesI In
other words, Some form of "strategy" needs to be built into the research kamework to

make it relevant, not only ln COnneCtionwith science and logic, but in its utilization andimpact on policy.

M･ lnoue and H･ Isozaki (eds･), People and ForesトtPoLLCy and Local Reality in Southeast Asia,(he Russz'an Far Ea.Tl and Japan, 1691185.
㊨ 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers. PrlnEed l'n the Netherland.T.

Informational Basis of Policy Judgments: Thailand

170

This study examinesthe role of information provision in such policy decisions･Work in血e social sciences on policy formation in developlng COuntries tends to rely on

171

Sa to

was able to morethan double its budget and its staff during the "loss" period. One way
to explain this mystery lS tO redefine the centralmandate of the forestry department.

documents and records, such as laws, cabinet resolutions,ministerial

Desplte the dramatic loss of forests,the RFD still has direct control overalmost halfannouncements, and so on. But these policy documents are in fact worded vaguely,

the land area of Thailand, as "forest lands," and remains powerful, desplte OCCaSional

leavlng much room for differing lnterPretations･ Weknow very little of the patternS･ if

challenges by non‑government organizations (NGOs) and localpeople. This is because

any, of interpretation of ambiguous information and its translation into policy outcomes･

control of land itself is as important asthe control of forests; and the loss of forests can

The aim of this study is, therefわre, to determine, by systematic analysュs, the degree ofalso serve as a lever for increased funding. Of the territory under RFD control, forests

official

freedom that exists in policy formulation at various levels of governmental authority

with(i.e., local, district, provincial, and regional1evels),and to investigatethe manner in

representlng about 15percent of total1and area, are directly under the control of thewhich information is transferred from one level toanother. Inthe process we may

RFD (RFD 1997)･ It is therefore clear

identifythe informationalbases of policy generation･ andthis may contribute to a more

implications, not only for biodiversity but also forthe welfare of farmers living in thosestrateglC utilization of natural sciences research

forestareas.

relatively rich biodiversity (i.e., nationalparks andwildlife sanctuaries),that RFD operations have significant

This paper is primarily a case study of the Royal Fores廿y Department (RFD) of

Specifically,this studyaims to (1) identifypolicy‑relevant and policy‑irrelevant

Thailand･l Although Thailand was known as the "Kingdom of Forests," it had･ in fact,

information, witha focus onthe work offrontline forestry officers who operate in thelost much of its natural forest assets by the late 1980S･ Figure 1 illustratesthe decreaslng

field; (2) identify "policy‑relevant information" in relation to other factorsthat havean

forest cover since the early 1960Sand the increaslng efforts of the government toimpact on policy formulation, such as politics and也e bureaucratic culture, in various

situations of decision‑making;and (3) suggestanagenda for future research which will

expand protectedareas･

have immediate policy implicationsI Finally, I attempt toanswerthe apparently
obvious, yet seldom investigated question: Where does policy come from?
300()00

25()()00

1.2≡ 20nOOn.ユ∠□ protected areaq)

完15()OO()■ forest area

コ

Literature Review

Thereare broadly two strands of scholarly tradition from which this study can beseen to depart. First is the study of bureaucracy and administrative behavior ingovernment (Simon 1958･, Kaufman 1960; Allison 1971; Wilson 1989). This group of(コ∽ 100000

work focuses on decision‑making structures in public administration and the conditions

under which certain courses invite certain outcomes. This study relies particularly on

50000

two sources. One is the classic work by Kaufman (1960), The Forest Ranger. Kaufman
いexamines how policy decisions, made at the top level of government, overcome
t962 1965 1972 1975 I()7R 1981 】()R4 19R7 19()0 1()93 1()95

year

centrifugal tendencies towards organizational fragmentation, and are translated into
coherent action by forest rangers in the field. Kaufman's work is especially useful,because, althoughdealingwiththe Forestry Department of the United States of
Figure 1 : Decrease in forest cover and expansion of protected areas･
Source: Royal Forestry Department (1 997)･

One may wonder how the RFD has been able to financially sustain itself･ or evenstrengthen itself, desplte the dramatic loss of forests under their responsibility･ The RFD

America, it employsananthropologlCalapproach tothe study of bureaucratic behavior.
The other is a more recent work by Feldman (1989), Order Without DesignI
Information Production and Policy Making. In the context of the Energy Department of
the U.S. government, Feldman asks why bureaucratic analysts persist in producing
documents and information that are seldom used by policymakers. These studies

indicatethe complexity Of organizational behavior, which defies easy analogy with theprocesses of individual rationality.

nailand went through a major reStruCtunng Of its govemment in October 2002,and the Royal
Forest Department was split into two groups‑One responsible for conservation and the other
responsible for production. The former groups were absorbed into the newly established

Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment･ The answer to whether the new govemment

structure has completely changed the decision‑making processes described in this paper or not
requlreS further investigation.

The second strand of scholarship on which山is study relies is specialist work on

Thailand. Siffin (1966) and Riggs (1966) published pioneering studies of the Thaibureaucracy, and some more recent contributions examined are by Yoshida (1985),

Tamada (1992), and Hashimoto (1998). This work illuminates the historicaldevelopment of山e bureaucratic polity in Thailand and its structural problems, such as

772

Informational Basis of Policy JudgmentsI Thailand

comptlOn･ However,血e question "Where does policy come丘om?M is not really

addressed.
In addition, there are documents and reports concerned with forest policies in

Sato

2.

173

BACKGROUND OF FORESTRY POLICIES OF

THAILAND

Thailand thatare not necessarily academic, yet contain some useful information.
Despitethe relatively abundant published materialon forest law and administration,
there are few systematic analyses. Very few Thai scholarsare working on issues related

2･l Introduction to the Royal Forestry I)epartment

to land and forests from the viewpoint Of the socialsciences･2 why few academies workon the issue of land tenure and forest policies is an interesting question in itself, andBefore reportingthe core matter of this study, it will be helpful to outline the basic

deseryes explanation One possible reason for仙e pauclty Of study may be山at thefeatures of forest policies in Thailand･3 In Thailand, forest policies are implemented

nature of the subject falls between the cracks of traditionaldisciplines. The faculty ofunder the direction of the RoyalForestry Department (RFD), established in 1896 by theforestry has not concerned itself with the socialaspects of forest management; policy‑

related subjects are not considered "science," and aretherefore felt to be inappropnate

British･ Themission of the RFD atthattime was to regulate and control the logglng
businesses･ which had been dominated byfeudalchiefs, inthe northern region Of

contenders for university resources, Second, it is a politically hot subject, which makes

Thailand. Centralized control bythe RFD made it easy forthe British andthe Siameseit difficult to couect sufficient empirical data･ This has left the NGOs asthe prlnCiple
agents of critlque Of forest and land policy.

govemments to profit from valuable timber such as teak･ The major task of the RFD inthe early days, then･ was to negotiate withthe feudal chiefs in order to gain COntrOl of
fわrest resources in the no血.

1.3

Research Methods

Control over valuable timber soon madethe RFD realizethe importance ofcontrolling land. Although the idea of demarcating "forest reserves" was present from

The prlmary method of this investigation was a series of interviews with RFD

the first years of the RFD's establishment, the actualPolicies did not materialize as theofficials in Bangkokand in selected reg10nS･ Former RFD officials and universlty

Forest Conservation and Protection Law until 1938. This law forthe rlrSt time madeacademies were interviewed as well･ Three provinces were selected for case study,

clearthe government's intention that certain Hareasn were government property, which

Uthaithani, Nakorn Sawan, and Ubonrachatani, because of their comparatively richshould not be invaded･ This policy was further strengthened bythe designation of"permanent forest" in 1961and the NationalForest Reserve Act of 1964. Both acts areforests and the many conservation proJeCtSthat have taken place there･
The initial research was conducted in the Lansak and Ho主 Rot districts of theprovince of Uthaithani, interviewlngfrontline forestry officials who work inthe field inorder to investlgate the way ln Which these officers interpret policy･ The interviews

were conducted inthe Thai1anguage without the use of interpreters, withone research
assistant who was able to help me recordthe interviews･ Formats for making reports

andthe minutes of monthly meetings Were Obtained whenever possible･

still current. But conflict withlocalpeople who lived inside the boundaries of thedesignated areas became intense･ and land disputes between people and government

increased dramatically asthe population grew･A well‑publicized conflict wasthe years‑long street demonstration by the"Assembly of the Poor" (Baker 2000). In March 1996, morethan10,00O farmers fromall over血e country rallied on the street in血･ont of the parliament･ Among山e demands

the assembly made,the most vital was concerned with rights to forest and land use.
There were numerous violent conflicts between the RFD and localpeople overthe rightto stay on public land, land on which people had o鮎n resided prior to its designation aspermanent forest･ Farmers seldom had officialdocumentation to provetheir residence,
however,and therefore facedthethreat of evictionfromtheir homeland.

Although42 percent of land in Thailand is at present designated as forest reserve,
most of that area is already occupied by farmersI There is farming even inareas where

protection activities are stricter, such as national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. How todealwithpeople inside RFD territory lS One Of the most pressing lSSueS, not Only for the
RFD, but also fわr the government of Thailand.

2 ¶1is does not mean that there are no studies on the subject. Sayamon (1995), for example,

3 one shouldalSo note that forest policy lS One Of the least studied areas, withno dedicatedlooked at the historical development of the RFD, the structure of power in land administration,

academic staff even in the forestry school at Kasetsarl University, the only Institution offeringand various master's thesesthat are relevant tothe subject.

higher degrees in forestry･Informational Basis of Policy Judgments: Thailand

174

2.2

Levels of uPolicy"

Sato

175

years･ Upon completing his appolntment, a DG often proceeds to血e rank of permanent

secretary‑general of the Ministry of Agriculture･ depending on age and political"Policies" inthis discussion are interpreted as "ways of exertlng power, Of getting

people to do what they otherwisemight not do" (Stone 1997)･ Therefore, policy, by
definition, is not neutral; it makes a claim to rearrange power and authority over certain
resources,andalways results in an unequal distribution of costs and benefits･ Official

government policies often takethe form of "documentsH that must be interpretedand

populanty withthe government･ Becausethe DG holds enormous power, especiallywith regard to promotions, informalPolicies orlglnating with the DG playaninfluential
role inside the RFD.7

Sub‑legalpolicies such asthese, geared tothe operational level, together withtheirfrequent ambiguity, CanSerVe tO resolve inherent contradictions among the higher‑level

then translated into action. At the highest policy level,there is the Constitution, andpolicies･ They provide the Hworking prlnCiples" for &ontline officials･ Before moving

below it there are several royaldecreesand laws that define legal and iuegal activities

on tothe analysis Of information now･ let us step back a little to take in a wider picture

related to forests･ The multiple layers of policies are not always consistent with oneof land administration in Thailand.

another, thus causlng COnfusion･4

At present, six royal decrees (praraChabanyat) govern forest administration.

2.3

ClassirlCation of Forest Lands

Cabinet resolutions are numerous and canbe revoked when a new cabinet takes overfrom the old one. Althoughthe resolutions have no legally binding power,they often

One important dimension that makes the study of policy in Thailand so difBcult iscarryanauthority that is equivalent to law･ A well‑known one concerning forestry was

the complexlty Of land and forest classification･ The roots of this complexity can be

the Wang NamKiaw cabinet resolution of 1997, which permitted farmers to live inside

traced tothe definition of "forestsH in Thai law･ According tothe Forest Law of 1941,

protected areas, but only whenthey could prove prior reSidence･ Becausethe method of

Still in effect today: HForests are pleCeS Of land thatare yet to be occupied by individuals

proof was not clearly defined,the Chuan administration revokedthis resolution inthe

according to land law･H Since only about 20 percent of farmers have officialproperty

followlng year.

rights, this allowedthe RFD to claimthe maJorlty Ofthe land as under its control.

The formation of cabinet resolutions normally follows decisions of the National

Actual forest (tree) cover has nothing to do withthe definition.

Forestry Policy Committee (Kanakamakaan Nayobaai Paamai Hengchaat), held bi‑

Followlngthe togging ban in 1989,the RFD initiated a zoning Project forall forestsmonthly, and composed of representatives of forest‑related departments in theinside the forest reserves to identify potentialareas for plantation, degraded foreststhat

government･5 This coITunittee was formed in 1985 when the government issued the

could begiven to landless farmers (economic zone lE]), land suitable for agriculture

NationalForestry Policy that continues to serve as the basis for forestry development(A),and landthat should be strictly under state protection (conservation lC]).
Policies on zonlng Of foresttherefore have significant implications for land use andand conservation･ It states that 40 percent of the country's forests should be conserved

andthat 25percent will be strict conservation forests, whilethe remaining 15 percent
will serve as forests for economic production･ The object of the bi‑monthly meetings Of

the welfare of localpeople inruralareas,andthis is the central reason why, when we
look at forest policies, we must examine other land‑use policies at the same time.

the corrmittee is, therefore, to discuss the detailed steps towardthis goaland to

Amongthe categories of forest land, wildlife sanctuaries, national parks,and forest

overcome obstacles･ The agenda of the committee is normauy provided by the director

general (DG) of the RFD, andthe secretariat is provided by the RFD's planningreserves each have their own legislation; Other areas are protected by cabinet resolutions
orministerial and departmentalregulationsI This not only gives national parks anddivisi0m.6

wildlife sanctuaries higher status, it also prlVilegesthe RFD who have direct control

The DG of the RFD isalsothe source of less formal, but often more influential,

overthese lands with little interference from provincial governments.
Figure 2 illustrates the anatomy of forest land classification in Thailand. In 1961,

policiesI The present DG, for example, published a booklet for officials in thedepartment entitled Policies 101 Points immediately after his appointment aS DG inthearea of permanent forest (the outer boundary, 50percent of totalland) was

1998. The duration of the appolntmentS Of DGs has varied from a few months to threedemarcated based onthe policies established by the Land Classification Committee inq Some experts critiCalof forest policies in Thailand claimthat cabinet resolutions areintentionally framed to be broad and vague so that enoughroom remains for the power 61ites toexercise influence in their interests.

5 rITle COmmittee is chaired by the deputyminister of agncultureand the secretariat is the RFD

1957･ To accelerate legalization of this area as forest,the NationalForest Reserve Act
was promulgated in 1964･ Because of the time lag betweenthe two, however,the area
covered by this law had become much smaller than in the orlginal plan･ It should be

notedalsothat some forest was leftoutside the permanent forest boundary･ This forest
category lnCludes prlVate forests and fわrest on public land under仙e control of仇e Land

(Planning Division). The committee is composed of representatives of departments andacademiCsI The departments include the Department of Land, the Department of Land
Development, the Agricultural Land Reform Office,and the Department of Local

Department･ There is also an area of dual authority (depicted by the gray a汀OWS in the

figure) where wildlife sanctuaries and national parks overlap with forest reserves.

Admini strati on.

6 In addition, the annual NationalForestry Meeting pnmarily focuses on research, rather thanpolicy.

7 TTle DG･s policy is clearly stated in lheannualreport of the RFD.