CRITICAL NATURE: Building Positive Peace from the Local Level Up in Northern Thailand

by Andrew Stone*

[Thai version available here]

The Mekong River demarcates the Thai-Lao border for 97 km downstream from the Golden triangle of Myanmar, Lao and Thailand. Since the mid 1990’s riverside communities in Northern Thailand have created community-based conservation zones and social movements. They were responding to both already occurring as well as potential ecological, livelihood and socio-cultural impacts associated with various river development projects. These included plans for rapids blasting and large hydropower dams.

The politics of the Mekong River are well known both to Mekong scholars as well as the wider public. In this article I make an analysis applying the Positive Peace Index framework to offer new insights on the drivers of community responses to development and the positive and negative results of those actions.

Beyond business-as-usual policy formulation

Governments typically apply economic theory to formulate their development policy. Yet they often struggle to fully value and incorporate the interests and needs of local people in decisions that affect them. Human interdependence with the rest of the natural world is also notoriously difficult for policy to capture. It is increasingly recognized that water resource management and water conflict transformation must include more than water quantity, quality and allocation. For example, a water-energy-food nexus [i] approach has been considered in policy and planning for at least a decade. Meanwhile the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment [ii] on wetlands and water states that a whole system, cross-sectoral or ecosystem-based approach is more likely to produce sustainable results in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs) and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Consideration of systemic drivers of change should include:

production subsidies
climate change
nutrient loading
market failures
lack of stakeholder participation
unsustainable agriculture intensification
lack of transparent and accountable government and private-sector decision-making

Other research finds that pursuing the UNSDG’s requires understanding social-ecological systems [iii]. Understanding communities’ relationships with water, and the drivers and impacts of CBO actions requires a broad systems lens that values wild capture fisheries and other livelihood practices linked to historic seasonal flood pulse of rivers. This lens would also include cultural and spiritual traditions that reinforce seasonal ‘management practices,’ and that bind communities socially and to a place. It would assess resilience of local institutions in addition to state capacity.

Positive Peace Index

The Positive Peace Index [iv] (PPI) is a complementary lens to those above. It was created and is curated by The Institute for Economics and Peace. The index can help identify the drivers and outcomes of community-based policy efforts.

Positive Peace is more than lack of war. It is, “the attitudes, institutions and structures that create and sustain peaceful societies.” The PPI “shifts the focus … to the positive aspects that create the conditions for a society to flourish.”[v] A country may risk instability and violence due to corruption, inequality, abuse of human rights and other reasons. These conditions would result in a poor PPI score. A good positive peace score correlates with resilience to economic and natural disasters, better environmental outcomes, and higher scores for wellbeing and development goals.

The Institute for Economics and Peace compiles current data from over 24,700 indices, data sets and surveys to create and update the PPI. The eight PPI ‘pillars’ are summarized in Table 1. In the analysis to follow, a “(+P1)” note indicates an example of strength in pillar 1 (well-functioning government), while a “(-P1)” means that actors interviewed perceived a deficit in pillar 1.

Mekong country PPI scores, as determined by the Institute for Economics and Peace, are listed in Table 2. In the index scores are between 1 and 5. Higher scores correlate with a higher risk of violence, and a lower score indicates the opposite. In terms of global ranking the Mekong States ranked between 66 and 131 of 163 countries.

The PPI is not comprehensive. But one of its values is that it is cross-sectoral. Another is that it is grounded in mainstream economics and evidence-based data. This is consistent with approaches familiar to governments and makes the index easy to integrate into policy making. Although it is a state-level index it reflects aspects of day-to-day realities in communities. Importantly, it also overtly strives to provide a theory of social change[vi].

Community-based actions tend to both leverage strength in pillars and work towards improvement. Freedom to petition, protest or negotiate with government could reflect strength in pillars (+P1,P4,P6,P7). Communities may employ those strengths to address their perceived need for information (-P6), equitable livelihoods (-P3), meaningful participation (-P1), justice (-P4), or reduction of corruption (-P8).

Case study 1: Mekong River Rapids Blasting

The Agreement on Commercial Navigation on the Lancang-Mekong River was signed in 2000 between the governments of China, Myanmar, Lao, and Thailand[vii]. China planned major channel modifications for large barge passage including blasting, dredging, and channel modifications along the mainstem Mekong. This included the 97 km northern Thai-Lao border.

That same year Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security created the Community Organization Development Institute (CODI). It offered greater small grant access to Community-based Organizations (CBOs) including those active in Northern Thailand[viii]. This is an example of a government policy supporting several PPI pillars (+P1,P4,P7).

For most of the past two decades local people living next to the river reported their exclusion from decision-making (-P1) and a lack of navigation project details in the public domain (-P6). Upstream dams in China had already impacted seasonal flow[ix], riverbank gardens, and fish ecology. People feared river-dependent traditional livelihood practices would be further impacted (-P3,P4). Possible economic competition from Chinese barges and investment (-P2) and increased access for Chinese navy ships were also concerns (-P5).[x]

Throughout this period Thai CBO’s developed projects that focused on the rights of people and their interdependence with natural systems. In 2017 they also organized against the proposed Pak Beng Mekong hydropower dam that had been proposed in Northern Laos. Aspects of the dam plan overlapped with the navigation proposal and directly affected many of the same communities. A meeting was proposed between the Chinese state-owned dam engineering company, Lao and Thai government representatives, and local village leaders. CBO’s drew on their social and political power (+P7) to insist on meeting as peers in an open-air space on the shore of the Mekong River. This process reinforced good government (+P1) and local rights (+P4).

At the meeting regional academic experts contributed data and opinions, and local and international media covered local people’s perspective (+P6). Local officials and security sector workers (military and police) also witnessed the meeting. While this meeting was a remarkable regional first, this type of multi-sector, multiple actor engagement that sought to redress power asymmetries and amplify the local perspective was typical of the overarching strategy of the CBOs’ 20-year campaign. For example two prior peace walks along the 97 km Thai-Lao border also linked local communities, officials, spiritual leaders, and numerous ethnic and other stakeholder groups from the same geographic area.[xi]

In January 2019, after decades of pressure, the Thailand government held public meetings about the navigation project at the three affected District’s offices (+P1,P6).[xii] Public opinion was strongly against the project and was publicized internationally.[xiii] In early 2020 Thailand cancelled the blasting and dredging project though the broader navigation agreement remained in place.[xiv] It seems likely that the decision was based at least in part on internal government concerns and therefore public opposition had been appropriate and beneficial (+P1,P7).[xv]

Case study 2: Local conservation initiatives

The Ing River is a major tributary to the Mekong in Northern Thailand that flows through Phayao and Chiang Rai Provinces. Several local conservation zones and the Ing River People’s Council were established by CBO’s in the Ing River basin during the past two decades to encourage local participation in sustainable allocation and conservation along the Ing River(+P7).[xvi] Watershed-level issues, such as irrigation and land use practices, were identified as contributing to negative impacts for farmers and fisherpeople including the seasonal dewatering of the Ing River (-P3).

During the same period Mekong River trade with China, a new 2013 road bridge to Laos, and other factors led the Thai government to designate a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the three Mekong border districts of northern Chiang Rai Province (P2). Typically SEZ’s include a fast-track review and waive regulations while also offering other investment incentives. Simultaneously communities in Northern Thailand felt pressure to intensify their agriculture and find additional income for a range of reasons linked to national agriculture policies, population growth, and degradation of fisheries (-P1,P3).[xvii]

National policy protected steep hillsides (+P1). Intensive farming practices already occupied lowland areas. As a result policymakers focused on traditional community forests and seasonal wetlands as the only remaning ‘open’ spaces for economic development (P2). In 2015 an industrial park was proposed in a seasonal wetland forest in the Ing River catchment near Boon Rueang. This became a high profile case. The area had been a source of fish, mushrooms, and other wild capture and commons-based livelihoods (+P3). Though the site had also already been under local development pressure for wood extraction and conversion to farmland the proposal for an industrial park was met with local skepticism. Villagers questioned the potential economic benefit (P2) and equity in distributing it (P3). After significant opposition to the SEZ plan, a community forest conservation agreement was formalized instead. In 2020 the Boon Rueang forested seasonal wetland received a UNDP Equator Prize recognizing the value of this achievement. And the surrounding communities considered seeking status for Boon Rueang conservation zone as a wetland of global significance under the international Ramsar convention.[xviii]

Conclusion: Local contributions to positive peace

Since the mid-1990s Thailand has experienced several major financial crisis, two military coups, two constitutional changes, and other factors that contributed to political and social instability and conflict. It may seem paradoxical that actively dissenting groups like the CBOs in Northern Thailand contributed to positive peace - especially in a context where there was a real risk of violent conflict in some cases. Yet through the analysis above I conclude that they have levered strengths in PPI pillars to create more political space and capacity for local participation, and even received some funding support from the state via CODI. This might appear to contradict the imperatives of top-down policy makers. However the combination of these actions sustained over decades likely countered destabilization by supporting local conditions, national policy, and local relationships with national government that correlate with a good PPI score.

These CBO’s have also pushed for new ways of thinking about policy. They highlight interdependent relationships between people and nature in policy discussions. And they propose approaches such as including the Rights of Nature in policy.[xix] Academic and organization reports and conferences add further legitimacy to those concepts. As the scholar Joanne Barker observes, water “teaches us to think about knowledge in continuous movement,” and, “brings our attention to the connectivity and interactions between water, land, and air, between humans and other-than-humans.” [xx]

Reframing policy and drawing on a systems perspective is important. Establishing rights for nature and democratization of management in law and culture requires sustained effort. If policy is to create the conditions for a society to flourish [xxi] then the approach to policy must also facilitate understanding of and address assumptions about 1) power, i.e. respect for the human; and 2) the nature of relationships, i.e. respect for ‘the natural’ and humans interdependence with the rest of the natural world. Informed and empowered CBO’s have raised these points and others that relate to the water-energy-food nexus[xxii] and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment recommendations.[xxiii]

Applying the PPI as a framework for policy analysis results in acknowledgement of the value of CBO’s significant contributions to a stable, equitable society with high human capacity and positive relationships. Those CBO actions might otherwise be perceived by policy-makers as obstructions to attaining planning priorities determined at the national level. The PPI does have some gaps that require further evolution as a tool or concurrent application of additional analyses. Subjective valuation, non-cash economy and spiritual values do not appear overtly in the PPI framework. And PPI terms like ‘human capital’ do not fully reflect local people’s understanding of human capacity and relationships. Yet the PPI can help clarify for policy makers what drives community actions. And its application illuminates and acknowledges the important role played by CBOs in building Positive Peace from the local level.

——-
*Andrew Stone is a systems ecologist, educator and Rotary Peace Fellow. Based in the Columbia River basin in the USA, he has spent 3 months annually since 2011 in lower Mekong countries supporting community-based organization’s and networks with a focus on water and development.

[i] Simpson, G. and G.P.W. Jewitt (2019, February). The Development of the Water-Energy-Food Nexus as a Framework for Achieving Resource Security: A Review. Front. Environ. Sci., (8). https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00008

[ii] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005). Ecosystems And Human Well-Being: Wetlands And Water Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf (Accessed 20 November, 2020.)

[iii] Masterson, V. A., R. C. Stedman, J. Enqvist, M. Tengö, M. Giusti, D. Wahl, and U. Svedin. (2017). The contribution of sense of place to social-ecological systems research: a review and research agenda. Ecology and Society 22(1):49. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08872-220149

[iv] Institute for Economics & Peace (2019). Positive Peace Report 2019: Analysing the Factors that Sustain Peace. IEP, Sydney. https://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PPR-2019-web.pdf (Accessed 16 February, 2020.)

[v] Ibid, 10.

[vi] Ibid, 10.

[vii] Agreement on Commercial Navigation on Lancang-Mekong River among the Governments of the People’s Republic of China, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the Union of Myanmar and the Kingdom of Thailand (April 2000). https://www.jcccn.org/images/rule/Agreement.pdf (Accessed 16 February, 2020.)

[viii] Community Organizations Development Institute (date unknown). Finding new ways for government to support communities at scale. https://en.codi.or.th/about/history-of-codi/ (Accessed 20 November, 2020.)

[ix] Lu, X.X. and R. Y. Siew (2006). Water discharge and sediment flux changes over the past decades in the Lower Mekong River. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 10, 181–195, 2006. Retrieved from https://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/10/181/2006/hess-10-181-2006.pdf (Accessed 23 November, 2020.)

[x] AFP (2020). The 97km that frustrate China's mastery of the Mekong. Bangkok Post. https://www.bangkokpost.com/world/1832839/the-97kms-that-frustrate-chinas-mastery-of-the-mekong (Accessed 16 February, 2020.)

[xi] Author interviews with Noparat Lamun (local organizer), Dr. Apisom Intralawan (MaeFahLuang University), and Dr. Carl Middleton (Chulalongkorn University) in November 2020 supplemented by personal field notes and prior interviews from 2009 to 2020.

[xii] Deetes, P. (2019, January 4). Sudden Public Hearing on Mekong “Rapids-Blasting” Project Catches Community Group by Surprise. CTN News. https://www.chiangraitimes.com/featured/sudden-public-hearing-on-mekong-rapids-blasting-project-catches-community-group-by-surprise/ (Accessed 16 February, 2021.)

[xiii] Stone, A. (2019, January 28). Chinese company consults locals over Mekong blasting. China Dialogue. https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/11040-Chinese-company-consults-locals-over-Mekong-blasting (Accessed 20 November, 2020.)

[xiv] Thepgumpanat, P. (2020). Thailand scraps China-led project to blast open Mekong River. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-china/thailand-scraps-china-led-project-to-blast-open-mekong-river-idUSKBN1ZZ1T6 (Accessed 16 February, 2020.)

[xv] Author interviews.

[xvi] Wajjwalku, S. (2019). Chapter 6 Civil Society and Water Governance in Northern Thailand: Local NGOs and Management of Mekong’s Tributaries in Chiang Rai. In K. Otsuka (Ed.), Interactive Approaches to Water Governance in Asia (1st ed., pp. 123-154). Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2399-7.

[xvii] Author interviews.

[xviii] RECOFTC (2020, June). Boon Rueang Wetland Forest Conservation Group of Thailand wins global environmental award: The Equator Prize. https://www.recoftc.org/press-releases/boon-rueang-wetland-forest-conservation-group-thailand-wins-global-environmental (Accessed 26 November, 2020.)

[xix] Author interviews.

[xx] Barker, J. (2019). Confluence: Water as an Analytic of Indigenous Feminisms. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 43:3. https://doi.org/10.17953/aicrj.43.3.barker

[xxi] Institute for Economics & Peace (2019).

[xxii] Simpson (2019).

[xxiii] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005).

Figures, Tables, Photos

Figure 1: Product of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database, College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. Additional information about the TFDD can be found at: http://transboundarywaters.science.oregonstate.edu. Retrieved from https://transboundarywaters.science.oregonstate.edu/database-and-research/galleries/asia- gallery (Accessed 16 February, 2021.)

Figure 2: Basemap data from Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA FSA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, swisstopo, and the GIS User Community.

Tables 1 - 2: Institute for Economics & Peace, Positive Peace Report 2019.

Publications