Jaruwan Kaewmahanin, Somsak Sukwong and R.J. Fisher1
Forest management activities were undertaken in a mangrove forest in Thailand by the Pred Nai Community Forestry Group. The village of Pred Nai is located in Trad Province near the Cambodia border. Although the mangrove forest is technically under the authority of the Royal Forest Department (now part of the Ministry of the Environment), this has not prevented community action.2
The community in Pred Nai is trying to ensure that the local forest (one of the last remaining mangrove forests on Thailand’s eastern seaboard) is managed sustainably. Villagers in Pred Nai have been concerned with the degradation of marine resources, which they consider is mainly due to the destruction of mangrove forests.
In 1985, villagers became concerned when nearby logging concessions over-harvested the mangrove and prohibited villagers from harvesting crabs, shellfish, fish and other resources in the concession areas. Other local interests converted degraded mangrove areas into shrimp farms and built a gate to block seawater, which further damaged the mangrove ecology. In 1986 the villagers formed a group to stop the logging and shrimp farming. Their efforts were successful and the gate was destroyed. Commercial logging was also halted.
Even after the concessions stopped, it was difficult to prevent outsiders, from both nearby villages and farther away, from harvesting or destroying resources within the mangrove area. Local leaders were fearful of any harvesting and did not allow anyone to fish in the mangrove conservation area. This affected the poorest villagers and fishers, whose livelihoods depended on the mangroves.
In response to these events, the villagers began to develop a management plan for the mangrove forest. This involved resource mapping and forest patrols. Pred Nai villagers drew upon the strengths of local traditions and village elders and, with the support of a respected monk, urged people to contribute to a village savings fund that provided a base for their efforts.
As the first management activity, the villagers planted trees in the denuded mangrove area; some stands began to regenerate naturally under strict village protection. Harvesting regulations for the grapsoid crab (Metopographus sp.) were developed in 1997. These involved closing the harvest during the breeding period in October. These small crabs are collected mainly for sale. For the other economically important species, mud crab (Scylla serra), villagers set out to increase production by starting a “crab bank.” People who caught egg-bearing crabs were asked to put them in one of the cages established by the management group in the canals.
The villagers also took action to prevent destructive fishing practices. They are also experimenting with thinning the dense natural stands of Ceriops. The villagers exchange ideas with fishery researchers to help with monitoring methods and collecting relevant data. The process and results are analysed and reflected in the subsequent planning cycle. This conscious learning process is an important aspect of the group’s success.
Through exchanging information and experiences, the villagers have learned from their successes and failures.
The villagers realized that the people of a single community could not implement successful and sustainable forest management, especially since boundaries were not demarcated and there were no regulations on forest use. A mangrove network developed among a number of other local villages. The idea of networking was initiated and facilitated in those villages that shared boundaries with Pred Nai; it later expanded to many other villages. The communities all became members of the Community Coastal Resource Management Network, Trad Province. Through exchanging information and experiences, the villagers have learned from their successes and failures. Their collaboration has allowed them to initiate new ideas and practices that respond to community needs.3
For some of the villagers the mangrove ecosystem is a valuable source of income; for the village as a whole it is the basis of a way of life. The village is not particularly poor, but crab collecting is mainly carried out by relatively poor members of the community. (Not all poor villagers are involved and those involved are not necessarily the poorest.4) For the people involved, crab collecting is very important for income and livelihood security. The management initiative has helped to ensure that the environmentally and economically important mangrove area is managed sustainably. Local management efforts have also spurred other community development activities.
According to information provided by villagers, the income level of some villagers involved in crab collecting has almost doubled as a result of improved catches of grapsoid crab. Other statements suggest that the level of income has remained about the same. While exact figures on income are not available, data suggest that the poorer villagers engaged in crab collection could earn 600-700 baht (USD 15-18) per day. It is clear that collectors can now collect the crabs much more quickly as a result of greater availability, particularly in the low season; this provides opportunities for additional economic activity. In this way the increased availability of crabs has enhanced livelihood security.
According to information obtained in 2004, the average daily harvest of grapsoid crab has increased since 1998 from 8 to 15 kg per collector per day. The Pred Nai community is now developing a marketing system, processing crackers made from mangrove plants and producing local wine.
Increased mud crab harvests, resulting from the innovative introduction of crab banks, have also been reported. Artificial fish “houses” (made from blocks of used car tires) are now being installed in canals. According to villagers and outsiders, this means that less time is needed for fish harvesting. Pred Nai villagers are now trying to restore the seacoast within a 3000-metre conservation zone and protect it from destructive fishing practices such as the use of push nets and trawlers.
The community forestry project has also encouraged the villagers to initiate other economic activities. A savings management group, formed in 1995, had more than 600 members and a fund totalling nearly six million Baht (about USD 72,000) in 2004. Other community organisations were established, such as a women’s group, a youth group and a network of people from various villages who use the mangrove area. The management initiative has also encouraged other villages to set up community forests.
The project began with restoration of the mangrove forest through plantation and protection, which led to the regeneration of mangrove trees. After 16 years of community action faunal biodiversity has increased; villagers report that stocks of crab, shellfish and fish have also grown. Many water birds like the Painted stork (Mycteria leucocephala), Parphyris poliocephalus, Purple heron (Ardea purpurea), Grey heron (A. cineria), Dendrocygna javanica and Brahminy kite (Haliastur indus) are returning and macaques (Macaca fascicularis) have been reported as coming back after moving away during the logging period. “Hoy lod” or Razor clams (Solen strictus Gould.), absent for 20 years, have reappeared.
After a couple of years of protection and some conflicts over the use of forest resources, villagers are now trying more proactive methods of management; they are emphasising sustained use rather than more passive conservation. One of the most valuable local species is the mud crab. It is especially prized because of its rarity, due to the fact that so few mangroves remain. Some villagers who were interested in cultivating the mud crab formed a group in order to increase production. They exchange ideas among themselves and are in contact with fishery researchers who specialize in crab aquarium breeding.
There is a debate in conservation literature about whether sustained use and conservation of biodiversity are compatible (see, for example, Robinson 1999). In the case of Pred Nai, and no doubt in many other cases of community-based conservation, previous use had severely affected biodiversity. This community-based initiative has led to both increased income and improved biodiversity. The community activity did not so much “conserve” biodiversity as reintroduce it.
Education is another important factor. Villagers have collaborated with the schools and village elders to teach school children about mangrove ecology and coastal resources, using the mangrove community forest as a learning laboratory. Boys and girls join adult villagers in the planting programme and the forest thinning experiment. The villagers have also constructed a walkway in the mangrove for educational purposes.
The Asia-Pacific Economic Community (APEC) sponsored a group of school children from various countries to attend an environmental camp and carry out fieldwork at Pred Nai in July 2003. The students learned about mangrove and coastal resources, leading to a real sense of pride in the community.
The self-taught approach is a major factor in the success of Pred Nai. Villagers started with reflection, and then developed their abilities to solve problems, learning new ways to manage the resources, their village and their own lives.
The success of the initiative depended not just on managing the mangrove area, but on managing the people who use the mangrove. Management activities incorporated innovative partnerships and a wide range of participants.
After the mangrove concessions ended and a management group was set-up, local users who depended on the area were not allowed to harvest any products. This caused resentment and conflicts. After discussions with community members, however, the villagers slowly began experimenting with less restrictive management and the committee became more inclusive.
Partnerships needed to be established with people from other villages who wished to use the resources. Villagers set up a People’s Mangrove Forest Network, which meets in different villages on a rotating basis.
Villagers have gained experience in working collaboratively with outsiders such as fishery experts, foresters and other institutions. Since some problems are beyond the scope of village action, these relationships with other institutions are important. They include networks with other villages, collaboration with other institutions, such as government forestry and fishery departments, police patrols and politicians. Religious institutions, such as temples in the Eastern Gulf region, have also been important partners.
The other main participants are the local officials. Although local management efforts are not legally recognized by the national government, local officials have provided technical and moral support. The provincial governor became an active supporter of the community forest and the mangrove network after he saw what local efforts had achieved. An important lesson is that legal recognition is not always essential if there is a collective interest and vision in managing resources.
The initiative operated at the local level and increased the learning capacity of community members. They also learned to communicate and collaborate with outsiders. In the early days of community action, villagers contacted the ministerial level of government for help; when problems arose within the community or in the vicinity, they initiated local solutions. The villagers’ success has become so well known that many study tours from abroad have come to visit them. Ecotourism is also being discussed. Both of these outcomes have potential benefits and risks.
The initiative operated at the local level and increased the learning capacity of community members.
Pred Nai is a good example of innovation in natural resource management and in using income savings for village development. Not just the forest but the broader landscape (including orchards, canals and the sea) is being managed, conserved and sustained.
Local efforts will be sustained as long as there are economic, environmental and cultural interests in managing the mangrove area. A potential threat to the initiative is restrictive and intrusive national legislation, which usurps the rights and efforts of the local villagers in the name of the national interest.
In 2002, Pred Nai Community Forest was awarded a prize by the Royal Forest Department. This is ironic given the fact that legislative support for local management efforts has been debated for more than a decade in Thailand.
On the surface, the ingredients for cooperative management are all there: communities throughout Thailand are managing and protecting forests, and a flourishing democracy is governed by a Constitution that stipulates that local communities have the right to participate in natural resource management. On closer inspection, however, many obstacles still exist.
The policy reform process has stagnated and conflicts are becoming more acute. Local networks of community forestry groups are pitted against a powerful coalition of bureaucrats, academics and environmentalists who perceive rural people as destructive and their participation as a threat to national interests.
In recent years, people’s organisations and their supporters drafted a Community Forestry Bill. They submitted it to the Thai Parliament in early March 2000 after collecting 52,698 signatures. A parliamentary commission was set up to examine the bill and previous community forestry bills, but was cancelled after only three months, when Parliament was dissolved.
In response, a mass media campaign was initiated to lobby for changes to parliamentary regulations and more inclusive parliamentary commissions. After the new government was elected, a new commission was set up; one third of its members were peoples’ representatives. The commission finalized the drafted bill, which was then approved by the lower house of Parliament.
Unfortunately, the Bill’s intent and focus was drastically changed by the Senate upper house. The crucial part of the Bill, Article 18, states that those people settled in national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and watersheds prior to the date the forests were declared protected could continue to manage and make sustainable use of forest products. The Senate deleted this provision.5
There were various reasons for this. Some senators said they were afraid that if the villagers received rights to manage the forest, they would convert the fertile forest to grow cash crops; others felt that “outsiders” might abuse the bill by encroaching on protected forest and then claiming the right to manage it.
Community-based initiatives in general, and Pred Nai in particular, should not be romanticized. There have been differences of opinion and conflict within Pred Nai about mangrove management, including debate about preservation versus sustainable use. What is important is that the community members have managed this conflict themselves, through negotiation and dialogue.
Pred Nai shows that communities can work cooperatively and that community initiatives can lead to improved biodiversity. Although biodiversity had been compromised, largely as the result of outside commercial interests and government policies, it has improved immensely since villagers regained control. Pred Nai is an example of people empowering themselves through local initiative and organisation, demonstrating that confidence can be gained through small successes and that it can help improve livelihoods and alleviate poverty.
Confidence can be gained through small successes and it can help improve livelihoods and alleviate poverty
This paper is based on experiences gained in an action research project carried out in Pred Nai by the Regional Community Forestry Training Centre (RECOFTC) in collaboration with the community and funded by the Toyota Foundation. We wish to thank the people of Pred Nai for their cooperation and enthusiasm and Supaporn Worrapornphan for her continuing contribution to supporting the efforts of the Pred Nai community and for providing additional data in 2004. Somjai Srimongkontip and Michael Nurse also provided additional information based on field work carried out in November 2004. We also wish to thank Jim Enright for help in providing the scientific names of marine species and for advice on mangrove ecology.
This is a modified and condensed version of a paper prepared for distribution at the workshop a session on Community Conserved Areas (CCAs) at the World Parks Congress, 8-17 August 2003, Durban.
The Fisheries Department has no legal authority but assists with the management of mangrove aquatic animals.
A video in Thai and English, “A Community Coastal Resource Management Network in Trad Province” (RECOFTC 2002) has been produced about this networking activity. Pred Nai also appears in the .lm “Forests, Local Knowledge and Livelihoods”, IFAD/RECOFTC 2000.
Some students and other, more wealthy, members of the community collect crabs on a fairly casual basis for consumption.
By January 2005, a revised bill had been prepared (restoring the community-friendly provisions) and was to be resubmitted.
Robinson, John G. 1999. “The Limits to Caring: Sustainable living and the loss of biodiversity. Conservation Biology 7 (1). 20–28. [CrossRef]
Community-initiated conservation at Pred Nai helped improve livelihoods and increase incomes of the people involved in crab collection — generally the poorer members of the community.
In terms of the World Bank’s three dimensions of poverty and the DFID livelihoods framework, the community action addressed poverty through building assets for the poor (improving natural capital) and empowering people to take greater control over their own resources. This was achieved through building and applying social capital (the capacity to work cooperatively) and increasing skills and confidence (human capital).
Community action can sometimes protect resources where government agencies cannot. It may be able to alleviate problems caused by government agencies and policies (as with the charcoal logging concessions and shrimp farm promotion).
The biodiversity outcome of community action, though not perfect, was far better than what it would have been if previous state policies and practices had continued.
Adaptive community learning is important.
Legal recognition is not essential if there is community interest and vision.
The lack of supporting legislation and policy is potentially a major constraint to the sustainability of the community actions.