Peter Vandergeest

Territorialization and state power in Thailand

Weber and many other theorists have defined the state as a political organization that claims and upholds a monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force in a given territory.1 Writers who draw on this Weberian approach have devoted considerable theoretical attention to political organization, legitimacy, and physical coercion in the making of modern states. Until recently, however, the meaning of territory as a key practical aspect of state control has been relatively neglected by many theorists of the sources of state power. Territorial sovereignty defines peoples political identities as citizens and forms the basis on which states claim authority over people and the resources within those boundaries.2 More important for our purposes here, modern states have increasingly turned to territorial strategies to control what people can do inside national boundaries. In this article, we aim to outline the emergence of territoriality in state power in Thailand, formerly called Siam. In particular, we examine the use of what we call internal territorialization in establishing control over natural resources and the people who use them.

Genealogies of the political forest and customary rights in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand

How have national and state governments the world over come to “own” huge expanses of territory under the rubric of “national forest,” “national parks,” or “wastelands”? The two contradictory statements in the above epigraph illustrate that not all colonial administrators agreed that forests should be taken away from local people and “protected” by the state. The assumption of state authority over forests is based on a relatively recent convergence of historical circumstances. These circumstances have enabled certain state authorities to supersede the rights, claims, and practices of people resident in what the world now calls “forests.”

Land to some tillers: development-induced displacement in Laos

Development in all its forms is inherently a spatial activity. From the most grandiose megaproject employing armies of development experts, to the smallest scale community-based resource management plan, all development projects involve reorganising the meaning and control of space. Even the provision of basic infrastructure such as roads, health services, schools, or credit is a spatial activity – some areas gain access to these services, and others do not...

Mapping nature: Territorialization of forest rights in Thailand

In Thailand, as elsewhere, the administrative definition of forest has changed from one based on classification by species to one based on territory. This process was an important facet of the more general process by which the central government claimed a monopoly on the administration of property rights to natural resources. The process took place in three stages: First, the government declared that all territory not claimed by permanent cultivators or other government agencies was forest under the jurisdiction of the Royal Forestry Department. Second, it demarcated the forests into reserve and protected forests. Third, it mapped all forest land as well as nonforest land according to land use classifications, which became the basis for policies to control occupation and use. These strategies did not allow for local input into land use planning. As a result of this lack of state capacity, and interbureaucratic competition, the Thai government failed to control rural land use.

Certify Sustainable Aquaculture

Certifications limited contribution to sustainable aquaculture should complement public and private governance. Aquaculture, the farming of aquatic organisms, provides close to 50% of the worlds supply of seafood, with a value of U.S.

Rice Paddy or Shrimp Pond: Tough Decisions in Rural Thailand

125 billion. It makes up 13% of the worlds animal-source protein (excluding eggs and dairy) and employs an estimated 24 million people (1). With capture (i.e., wild) fisheries production stagnating, aquaculture may help close the forecast global deficit in fish protein by 2020 (2). This so-called “blue revolution” requires addressing a range of environmental and social problems, including water pollution, degradation of ecosystems, and violation of labor standards.

Political Ecologies of War and Forests: Counterinsurgencies and the Making of National Natures

Abstract Thailand is the world’s largest producer of cultured shrimp. Despite problems with poor environmental conditions and outbreaks of disease that have led to the large-scale abandonment of culture areas along the coast, production has remained high. A primary factor has been the establishment of marine shrimp farming in Thailand’s rice growing Central Plain. This paper describes the development of inland shrimp farming in Thailand, and discusses the environmental concerns that have arisen. We then examine the evolution of the government’s response to inland shrimp farming and assess the capacity of the state to implement a proposed ban. We conclude by arguing that other countries with irrigated agriculture need to be proactive in prohibiting this activity before it is entrenched in ways that are difficult to reverse either ecologically or politically.

Racialization and Citizenship in Thai Forest Politics

We examine the significance of a specific type of political violence—counterinsurgency—in the making of political forests, providing a link between literatures on the political ecology of forests and the geographies of war. During the Cold War, particularly between the 1950s and the end of the 1970s, natures were remade in relation to nation-states in part through engagements with “insurgencies” and “emergencies” staged from forested territories. These insurgencies represented alternative civilizing projects to those of the nascent nation-states; they also took place in historical moments and sites where the reach of centrifically focused nations was still tentative. We argue that war, insurgency, and counterinsurgency helped normalize political forests as components of the modern nation-state during and in the aftermath of violence. The political violence also enabled state-based forestry to expand under the rubric of scientific forestry. Military counterinsurgency operations contributed to the practical and political separation of forests and agriculture, furthered and created newly racialized state forests and citizen-subjects, and facilitated the transfer of technologies to forestry departments. The crisis rhetoric of environmental security around “jungles,” as dangerous spaces peopled with suspect populations, particularly near international borders, articulated with conservation and other national security discourses that emerged concurrently. Counterinsurgency measures thus strengthened the territorial power and reach of national states by extending its political forests.

Property rights in protected areas: obstacles to community involvement as a solution in Thailand

The first part of this article argues for the usefulness of the concept of racialization in understanding the intersection between identity and resource politics in Southeast Asia. The production of space through cadastral mapping, forest reservation, and community forests has all been racialized to the degree that these spaces are also associated with naturalized and essentialized ethnic identities. The second part explores the tension between racialization and citizenship in Thailand. Racialized ethnic minorities have used community forestry as a vehicle for claiming both more secure resource rights and for formal and substantive citizenship rights. The community forest movement in Thailand is not exclusionary on the basis of ethnic or indigenous identity, because of how it is based in expanding citizenship rights. Reliance on environmental stewardship criteria to justify resource rights could mean that upland peoples are subject to limits not experienced by lowlanders, whose activities have tremendous impacts on the environment.

Empires of Forestry: Professional Forestry and State Power in Southeast Asia, Part 1

Conflicts between local people and managers of protected areas (PAs) have often undermined conservation goals in Asia. Since the 1970s, conservation planners have tried to address these problems by incorporating rural development into PA planning. More recently, many conservationists have argued for increasing community involvement in PA management, and for allowing traditional resource uses inside PAs. Based on research in Thailand I make three arguments regarding obstacles to implementing the new approach. In Thailand, laws governing Wildlife Sanctuaries and National Parks enacted in the early 1960s were premised on the idea that human use and nature preservation were incompatible. Rapid expansion of these PAs in recent years has produced endemic conflict with rural people claiming resources inside PAs. To address this problem, the Thai Royal Forestry Department has cooperated with NGOs providing development assistance to rural people living in buffer zones outside of some PAs. I argue that this approach has met limited success because the main source of conflict is not poverty but claims on resources inside PAs. The second argument is that the Forestry Department has resisted changes to laws making local use inside PAs illegal because these laws are important for consolidating the Departments control over territory and in justifying increasing budgetary allocations. In addition, by redefining itself as an organization devoted to strict defence of forests, the Department has obtained the support of many urban environmentalists. The third argument is that the community forest approach taken by a recent draft Community Forest Bill is an important first step in that it implicitly recognizes community property. At the same time, this approach will also fail to address key problems because it is based on a notion of the traditional village, and does not allow for the commercial nature of rural forest use or the household-based nature of forest tenure. I suggest that the new expansion of PAs be halted, that land claimed by rural households be taken out of PAs, and that the government recognize community management rights in areas that remain classified as protected. More generally, the goals of conservation would be better achieved by replacing an approach based on the rapid expansion of PAs with one promoting conservation outside PAs.