Page 1 of 6

CULTURAL BIOREGIONALISM: TOWARDS A NATURAL BALANCE

For more than 20 years Chatchawan Thongdeelert has worked with village people, the monkhood, academics, business people and civil servants at the local level in Northern Thailand. Says Chatchawan, "The thinking and experience which is recounted below does not spring from the writer's experience alone, but rather from a process of practice and learning within the Northern Thai NGO movement in conjunction with movements in other regions of Thailand. "

by Chatchawan Thongdeelert

Between 1986 and 1988 Northern Thai NGOs cooperated in seminars bringing together leaders from each province in the upper North to exchange views and experience. It was hoped that a network of regional leaders would result. In fact, however, after such seminars had been held for three or four years, the result was that when leaders came together to exchange knowledge and understanding and came to know leaders from other regions better, there remained limitations in their ability to travel across provincial boundaries to continue 'follow up' discussions and activities.

Discussions began about how a more sustainable network of leaders could be fostered. It was suggested that forums for leaders at a lower level should be encouraged on the basis of cultural bioregions.

It was at this time that the Group for Chiang Mai was assembling local people, including academics, monks, business, NGOs, students, and ordinary locals in opposition to the construction of the Doi Suthep Skyway which would take tourists to the top of the mountain which overlooks the city to the west. The Group succeeded in stopping the project.

In 1987, meanwhile, Lamphun province residents, including NGOs, government officials, and monks, began organizing under the auspices of the Lamphun Discussion Group. This approach to Organisation at the local level began to be promoted and to expand to other local areas as well. Eventually, a number of groups came into being, including the Love Nan Group, the Phayao Environmental Group, the Directions for Chiang Rai group, the Phrae Nature Conservation Club, and the Mae Hong Son Problem Discussion Group.

This Organisation around local awareness had a basis in history and culture which helped the groups come together in a powerful dynamic appropriate to the local situation. The emergence of a community which attempted to struggle and conserve forests in the form of community forests - Thung Yao in Lamphun province - and of a local struggle to restore forest in Huay Kaew sub district of Chiang Mai led to the 'discovery' by researchers of 151 communities preserving local forests in 1991.

By 1994, 277 such community forests had been surveyed by NGOs and by 1995, a total of 406 such forests had been documented. These communities expanded their activities following the line of river valleys. They used the same water-courses and had met the same problems. In addition, they had a common basis in cultural relations through kinship and friendship, and often shared traditional muang faai irrigation systems, as well as Buddhist temples which were linked to each other through long -standing mutual support systems. Among the organisations formed were networks in the Wang and Thaa river valleys, a community forest conservation club in Chiang Rai province, a Khaa Mountain Area Natural Resource Conservation Committee in Nan province, a Kwaan Phayao Watershed Conservation Committee, and a Natural Resource Conservation Committee in Lamphun province.

Village organisations also cooperated with the state sector, particularly the Watershed Conservation Division of the Royal Forest Department in the Doi Saam Muen Highland Development Project. Here communities participated in planning and resource management and developed networks along small river valleys in the Taeng river watershed in Chiang Mai and the Paai River watershed in Mae Hong Son province.

The Love Nan Group meanwhile conducted life-extending rituals for the Nan River under the leadership of a senior monk in the course of mobilising sentiment around protection and restoration of watershed forest. Hundreds of communities who derive benefit from the Nan River and its tributaries were linked together through their participation, including monks, civil servants, and NGOs, as well as interested people from other provinces. Page 2 of 6

The logging of a natural pine forest of 240 square kilometres in Wat Chan, a sub district inhabited by Karen people, was meanwhile opposed by an alliance of many groups in the relevant watershed, that of the Chaem River. Monks, villagers, and even local officials from a radius of 79 kilometres joined together under the auspices of the Love Mae Chaem Group to protect the threatened trees through, for example, a "tree ordination" ceremony during which monks' orange robes were wrapped around trunks, a phaa paa khaaw ceremony, mobilising material support for local Wat Chan protesters, and so on.

Such collective leaning processes clarified the thinking associated with the emerging cultural bioregionalism approach, and suggested how the approach could manifest itself concretely in geographical units consisting of river valleys.

An Approach to the Management of River Valleys by Popular Organizations

A river valley is a basic resource unit containing both a core river and sub-units organised around tributaries. Its advantages for management are as follows:

It fits existing bases of community culture. The old Lanna Kingdom of the Up per North of Thailand has long had its own language, culture and administrative system. In 1996 it is, officially, 700 years old. About 60 per cent of the land area consists of highlands, 30 per cent of foothills and uplands, and only 10 percent of river valley bottoms. It is thus an important catchment area for many rivers: the Kok and Ing, which are tributaries of the Mekong River; the Paai and the Yuam, which are tributaries of the Salween River; and the Ping, Wang, Yoni, and Nan, flowing into the Chao Phraya River, which feeds Thailand's central region's agriculture and thus the country's major cities.

Northern Thai communities take the form of clusters of houses along smaller or larger valley bottoms, but out of the way of flooding on small rises. Karen and Lua peoples, who are very long-term residents of what is now Thailand, as well as ethnic groups who arrived more recently such as Akha, Muser, Lisu, Man, and Hmong peoples, live close to tributaries in the highlands. On the whole, lowland Thai, Karen, and Lua peoples will clear land for wet rice fields in river valleys and swidden fields on hill slopes. Further up are community forests for use ( paa chai sooi ) and watershed community forests ( paa ton nam ). The other ethnic groups open swidden fields, again with community use forests and community-protected watershed forests above those.

The production systems of the community with fit the local ecosystem. Lowland wet rice will be supported by communally constructed and managed muang faai traditional irrigation systems, which distribute water according to local agreement. Rotating agriculture further up, with each family cultivating six to eight fields, is managed to allow the soil periods of regeneration which also protect against erosion. The community forest further up meanwhile yields food and medicines, building wood, tools, and fodder. Each type of forest — watershed, use forest, or ceremonial forest — has conservation practices connected with it and is regarded as naa muu , or communal property belonging to everyone.

A diversity of goods is produced, together forming a balance with the community, its surroundings, and their mutual relationship. The community creates attitudes of respect and humility toward nature which take the form of explanations involving phii or spirits around which each year ceremonies are organized. For example, all users of the water of a particular stream will regularly come together to pay respect and show their humility toward the relevant phii khun nam , or spirit which looks after the stream. There are also spirits of the irrigation system, spirits of the forest, spirits of the rice fields, spirits of the swidden fields, and so on.

From all this, it is clear that Northern communities have management systems for soil, water and forests alike, as well as for production, and build cultures of value connected with these systems. One constant here has been the stewardship of watersheds through networks of cooperation.

Community movements to protect livelihoods and bioregions include:

1986-1988: a protest against a forestry concession at Ban Nahong, Chiang Mai province. Ban Nahong villagers formed a coalition with villagers from Ban Thaprai. The concession was stopped after the 1939 logging ban.

1986-1987: a protest by villagers from Ban Huai Koeng, against a plantation as part of the Royal Forestry Department's agreement with timber companies to reforest logging areas. Villagers have now retaken the land for their own use. Page 3 of 6

1992-1993: a lignite mining concession was cancelled by Chiang Mai provincial authorities after protests by villagers from Chaeng Khoeng village, Amphur Mae Chaem.

1992-1993: a Royal Project Resolution shelved the proposed logging of pine forest after protests by villagers from Ban Chan village, Chiang Mai province. The sawmill associated with the project has been dismantled.

1992-1993: villagers from Ban Pong Na Kham protested against the proposed Mae Kok darn in Chiang Rai province. EGAT's plans still exist, but no clear policy decision has yet been taken to build the dam.

Working in river valley bioregions helps one view both problems and their solutions holistically, including problems connected with soil, water, forest, minerals, and agricultural production, with relationships within communities, community organisations and networks, with women and children, and with drug addiction, prostitution and AIDS.

Villagers will tend to discuss all these issues together. For example, one village leader in the Wang river valley explained that,

"in the beginning, when the forest was good, the activities of wild animals resulted in thousands of little pools all over the forest. Small animals like frogs and birds would live together, and the animals' activities made the forest moist so that water would constantly flow down into the streams, where there were lots of crabs, fish, and other water creatures. Swimming back and forth, they helped keep the channels open. Villagers could use the water for their rice fields and at the same time could find food in the forest and the streams. Today things are much less fertile, and if we are to bring things back to the way they were the whole village has to get together. And we can't work only. Within one village, either, but have to join many others. And we have to pass our understanding on to the younger generation so that they can continue the work."

Viewing oneself as situated in a river valley and (as a result) as dealing with similar problems and sharing the same fate as others in the valley results in cooperation and an approach to the problems of the river valley in which everyone benefits. The situation today encourages communities to work in isolation from each other. City dwellers see country people as forest destroyers. Lowlanders see hill people the same way. Conflict rather than cooperation is the result. But when forums a-re arranged in which dwellers in the same river valley who depend on the same forests and streams can meet together and talk, the difficulties of each side will become better understood. People will be able to cooperate and understand different groups better, and will find in their hands more powerful tools for grasping and analysing problems.

To view river valleys as bioregions is to lay stress on people's survival and ecological balance rather than administrative boundaries. Jawni Odochaw, a village elder of the Wang River valley, has criticised the narrow view of geography as a matter of administrative boundaries:

"We can't tell only upland people to preserve the forest if people who live in the lowlands and the cities don't also help preserve it. That way, no one's problems will be solved. Different sides must help restore natural fertility at all points. I, who live on the mountain, like eating mackerel. If I can't eat it I'll get goitre. Or, if the mountains don't have enough rice to eat, we have to get it from the lowlands where there are a lot of wet rice fields. Yet at the same time, I don't think people who live on the sea are going to be able to drink sea water. They have to drink fresh water like everybody else. Lowlanders who have a lot of wet rice fields also need a lot of fresh water. Here in the mountains we have a lot of fresh water. We help look after the watershed forests. People who live by the shore have to look after the mangrove forests. People who live in Bangkok and the central region, by the same token, ought to help conserve areas in which forest is re-grown. That way, we'll all survive."

Community knowledge of resource management

Today NGOs have collected knowledge and experience and mix different approaches in their work process. Page 4 of 6

Results are clearer. For example, in addition to information and dissemination work, campaigns and pressure on the government to change its policies, it is engaging village raise people who practice mixed agriculture in the Northeast or North, or community forestry in all regions, and coordinating with many different groups in order to expand the results of local wisdom in solving problems through information work or mass media publicity, seminars, or links between producers and consumers through alternative markets.

Village organisations themselves meanwhile continue to link up through networks which are growing ever larger. For example, the agricultural network committee of the North, and regional networks such as Assembly of Small-Scale North-eastern Farmers, the Assembly of northeastern Farmers, and the Association of Small- Scale Fishers of the South.

The cultural bioregionalism approach starts from community knowledge of resource management, which in turn is founded on coexistence with local ecosystems over many generations. It develops the strength of localities who are joining hands to reduce Bangkok -fostered centralisations of power over resource management. In doing so, the approach takes a stand against both the excessively business oriented resource development championed by the state, and against the expansion of conservation areas and the eviction of communities from forests, which together constitute the chief reasons behind degradation of ecosystems and worsening social problems.

At the same time, the cultural bioregionalism approach helps create local communities and restore natural balance, linking various forces through local awareness in a quest for sustainable ecosystems and mutual survival. It will be an important force for struggle in the future.

Cultural Bioregionalism: The concept and practical approaches Montree Chantawong is North Thailand coordinator for Project for Ecological Recovery (PER), and has been working with NGOs and local communities in the region for more than 10 years. "This article was written in the hope that it would lead to deeper link ages between ecosystems, communities, and each one of us as well", say Montree .

A watershed work strategy is a process of linking problematic issues occurring within the geographical area and human communities of a watershed, so as to facilitate an integrate approach to confronting these problems based on local knowledge. Within the same process, common responsibilities of local communities in the management of watershed resources are encouraged and strengthened.

A watershed work strategy has essentially the same meaning as 'cultural bioregionalism'.

On the concept

In 1993, the concept of watershed work strategy was well-accepted by participants in the environment Conference in Northern Thailand. Titled the "Watershed Management by People's Organizations" work plan, it was considered to be a move away from a focus on the activities of one group, the problems of another, and the official government administrative zones, towards a framework of cooperative management of common resources of the communities living within the watershed.

Overall, the action resulting from the work plan gave much support to community zoning, and expanded coalitions of communities within watersheds. However, NGOs (including PER) who had adopted the work plan were not able to clearly describe the major concepts of a watershed work strategy during discussions and work with local people, and the optimism of the newly-formed coalitions of watershed communities was gradually reduced. Within a few years, the term 'watershed strategy' was seldom mentioned, and only a few activities in the field remained.

One of the reasons why the watershed strategy appears to have initially encountered difficulties of practical application in village level activities is because NGOs in the North did not look to the experiences of local communities as a way of thinking of and describing the strategy — a perspective of "common resources of the watershed". Instead, NGOs continued their emphasis on community forest management and zoning, equating this with a community coalition for watershed resource management

In fact, community forests would not strictly be a common resource for all the communities, so the basis of a coalition of communities within a watershed was undermined. Meanwhile, the watershed strategy was displayed as a 'jigsaw puzzle of community forests and zonings, with many other pieces of the puzzle missing. Page 5 of 6

For the past three years, the Royal Forestry Department has attempted to impose "Conservation Forest Areas" that include lands of local communities in every watershed in the North. The movement of village people has resisted eviction from their lands, Mile the NGOs have expanded their role in supporting the community movement against the "Conservation Areas."

The watershed work strategy was not considered important compared to directly supporting local activities.

On Expectations

There are three basic expectations of a watershed strategy:

To consider a watershed as a unit of an ecosystem, but not separate from local administration. There are shared histories, a process of developing inter-relationships within and between communities, and the ability to define linkages between common problems, while clearly locating social groups and positions within the watershed.

To view the capacity of local people to strengthen their ability to live on their land in the present and in the future, in relation to the constantly changing society, politics, economy, way of life and natural resources, and towards the recovery of a healthy and productive watershed.

To determine a concrete answer for the distribution of the State's authority within existing structures of inter-relationships. As communities understand the relationship between the watershed ecosystem and the impacts occurring on the ecosystem, communities will also understand their rights, that local communities can manage their resources directly, and that this represents the emergence of their political rights of the future.

On Practical Approaches

There are eight points to consider in approaching a watershed work strategy.

1. The 'geographical area' of the watershed includes its upper, middle and lower sections, and clarifies the units and size of the watershed, in comparison to the communities with activities in the watershed.

2. The 'relationship' between 'ecosystem' and 'natural resources' needs to be understood, along with on going impacts in the watershed area, including hydrology, the health and productivity of the ecosystems, and the interaction of the inhabitants of the ecosystem.

3. The 'locating of settlements' in the watershed, along both its mainstream and tributaries, indicates the ethnic groups and social organizations existing in the watershed.

4. The relationship between 'communities' and 'natural resources' indicates the interaction between community activities and natural resource management in the watershed. The interaction may be influenced by both internal and external conditions, including impacts arising from event in the past, present and future.

5. The relationship between 'common resources' and "common impacts' relates to the use of resources by one community which eventually must be used by another community (for example, in the North, water is the major common resource). When a moral/ethical system is established, the relationship between the virtue system and the common-use resource is the most important factor in forming a coalition of communities.

6. A 'decision-making power structure regarding resource management' is the relationship between formal (official regulation, law) and informal structures (belief, tradition, seniority system) at all levels, from local to national. The structure illustrates the past and present uses of watershed resources, including the accumulated impacts. Moreover, it indicates the local community's restricted freedom in managing its resources, meaning that problems with impacts on the community must be solved from the local level up to the national level of policy and law.

7. A 'measurement of ecosystem capacity' is required to determine the characteristics and extent of measurement can provide more detailed information for development work, particularly regarding activities with potential impact on water supply, access and use by local communities.

8. The 'equity of shared resource management' requires a moral/ethical system in the use of shared Page 6 of 6

resources, which is an important part in the equitable administration of management of the watershed's resources in its upper and lower sections. In this system, those living in the upper section of the watershed must use a restricted amount of water, even as those in the lower section have freedom to use much water. A recognition of equity issues should help communities understand and accept the respective rights and functions of communities living in different locations of the watershed, and build and strengthen cooperation between those living in the upper sections (constantly under pressure from forest 'conservation' laws) and the communities in the lower section, whose farmlands and water are not under threat of expropriation by the State.

In fact, all of the above points should be considered in relation to the complex social relations between communities of different ethnic heritage, particularly in situations Mere a lowland ethnic group has a large population and powerful political and economic influence compared to that of upland ethnic groups inhabiting different sections of the same watershed. These inter-community social relations offer one of the greatest challenges to those using the watershed work strategy in Northern Thailand.

A number of criteria can be put forward to assist in determining where the watershed work strategy may be appropriate:

The area/size of the watershed should correspond with the capacity of the moral/ethical system to manage common resources.

The capacity of a community to efficiently manage resources should be considered in relation to its (potential) impacts on the resources of neighboring communities.

The community's assessment of the sustainability of resource use occurs within the limitations of the resource system itself.

The points outlined above indicate a process to build understanding of diverse issues to enable more effective use of a watershed work strategy in a variety of situations