International Workshop on Politics of Natural Resources in Asia and Latin America
Oct. 11, 2019 Kyoto University

Recentralization throughDecentralization-national forest governance inThailandPhD Student, The University of TokyoKei Kurushima

1Summary of today’s presentation
 Previous research on recentralization caused by decentralization
policies focused on what kind of power was taken away fromlocal communities
 The real effects of recentralization cannot be understood without
the observation of how local people receive these policies
 This presentation will show how recentralization became
effective for the local communities
2

Framework of PhD Research The purpose is to understand the movement of powerfrom the perspectives of the local communities
 How is the diffusion and concentration of power innatural resources interpreted by the local communities?

3

Today’s Presentation
 How did the decentralization policy of forest
management in Thailand become recentralized ?
 Why did local communities choose to participate in thispolicy?

4Politics of NR Management in SEAs
 Centralized management established in 19th century
 In globalized society, power spreads to other actors shifting from
centralized “government” to multi-level “governance”  Rhodes 1996,Giddens 1999, Khramann2003, Lemos & Agrawal 2006 

 In previous research, one-way diffusion of power was observed,especially at the local and global level. (Inoue & Shivakoti 2015, Larson & Ribot 2004,etc.)5

Previous Research on Decentralization
 Extensive research on power that local actors receive Research on power taken away from states (Schnedier 2003)
 Power that states receive in the process of decentralization⇒ “recentralizion” (Oyono 2004, Mutebi 2004)
 Recentralization is regarded as having negative effects for local actors
Focus on effects of recentralization on local actors
6

Figure: Power transfer

StateUpward

downward
diffusion
decentralization

recentralization
concentration

Local actors
7

Decentralization policies of forestmanagement
 Two types of decentralization in forest management(Fisher1999)

 Decentralization from central to local government
ex. Indonesia and the Philippines Decentralization from central government to local community
ex. Community forest in Thailand
8

Decentralization policies of forest
management in Thailand
Administrative decentralization (2000~) Establishment of Sub-district Administrative
Organization (SAO) Central, provincial, and local administration(Chardchawarn2008

SAO

9

Methodology
1. Policy Review
 Comparison of private cultivation rights and community titles deeds⇒How did forest management policy become recentralized?
2. Field study
 Research on the effects of community title deeds on a local community⇒Why did local people participate in the policy?
10

Fieldwork site: Mae Tha Sub-district
 Total 57 days of fieldwork in2015 + interview in 2018
 Household

surveyon

economic situation
 Interviews

aboutpeople’s

impressions of the policy
11Case study: farmlands in “forest”“forest”

 20% of conserved forest is

Other forests

agricultural land Krasuang Mahathai 1993

Conservedforest

Agriculturalland

Protectedforest

Communityforest

 Cultivation in “forest” is illegal
 Conflicts and trade-offs between
the government and local people

12

Private Cultivation Rightsfrom 1979 ~1990s
 Cultivation rights were given individually No ownership rights
 Users have autonomy against their utilization

 Lands that are not approved also continued to be cultivated, andofficials gave silent approval
13Community Title Deeds
2010~present Implemented in 2010
 75,000 ha of lands were approved (34% of targeted land) by 2019
 SAO became an important actor
 Community-based management
 Local People cannot freely utilize the land
14

Results Policy Analysis

Characteristics of Community Title Deeds
1. SAO as the middle actor
2. Complicated Local Management System
3. Temporal utilization rights given to communities
4. Prohibition on selling rights to outsiders
5. Land Bank System
15

Results Policy Review

Comparison of Rights

Private CultivationRights
Community Title
Deeds

Ownership

ManagementUtilizationState

PrivatePrivateState

Communitybased

Private16

Results Policy Review

Comparison of Power Transfer
Private Cultivation Rights

Community Title Deeds
Central Government

Central Government
Province
Province

decentralization

recentralization

TAO
SAO
Local Community
Local Community

17

Results Effects on local communities

Land assurance
 Formal land certificates were given to 79% of the agricultural lands in“forest” that were illegal in the past
 All lands in the sub-district are occupied by local people

18

Results Effects on local communities

Economic benefits
 Some people started new businesses by mortgaging the land
 Increase in property values Products can be sold to large companies

19Conclusion and Implication
How did decentralization policy of forest management inThailand become recentralized ?
ØTraditional customary rights were abandonedØNot much power given to SAO
ØThe government intends to decrease agricultural lands and increase forestlands

From conflicts to cooperation between government and local communities
20

Conclusion and Implication
Why did local communities choose to participate in this policy?
ØTrade-offs between the government and local communitiesØPositive effects for the local communities

The change in lifestyle gave incentives for the local people to participate

21References Fisher, R. J. (1999). Devolution and decentralization of forest management in Asia and the Pacific. UNASYLVAFAO-, 3-5.
 Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway World: How Globalisation is Reshaping Our Lives, London: Profile.
 Inoue, M., & Shivakoti, G. P. (Eds.). (2015). Multi-level forest governance in Asia: concepts, challenges and the way
forward. SAGE Publications India.
 Krahmann, E. (2003). National, regional, and global governance: one phenomenon or many. Global governance, 9,323.
 Larson, A.M. and Ribot, J.C., 2004. Democratic decentralisation through a natural resource lens: an introduction.
The European Journal of Development Research, 16(1), pp. 1-25.
 Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review Environmental Resources, 31,297-325.
 Mutebi, A. M. (2004). Recentralising while decentralising: Centre-local relations and “CEO” governors in Thailand.
Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 26(1), 33-53.
 Oyono, P. R. (2004). One step forward, two steps back? Paradoxes of natural resources management decentralisationin Cameroon. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 42(1), 91-111.
 Rhodes, R. A. W. (1996). The new governance: governing without government. Political studies, 44(4), 652-667.
 Rondinelli, D.A., 1981. Government decentralization in comparative perspective: theory and practice in developing
countries. International review of administrative sciences, 47(2), pp. 133-145.
 Schneider, A. (2003). Decentralization: Conceptualization and measurement. Studies in comparative international
22development, 38(3), 32-56.