Search

Conservation scientists increasingly recognise the value of Indigenous knowledge in conservation practice. However, studies of Indigenous knowledge and resource management systems have often tended to overlook the role and agency of more-than-human beings and ceremonial protocols in mediating human–environment relationships. This paper presents results from community-based research with Karen communities in the Salween Peace Park, an innovative Indigenous-led conservation initiative in the autonomous Karen territory of Kawthoolei, on the border between Thailand and Burma, or Myanmar. Our findings detail ways in which relations with more-than-human beings, including spirits, constitute environmental governance in Karen communities. These findings compel externally situated conservation biologists to take relational ontologies seriously, allowing local interlocutors' lived experience, knowledge, and theory to challenge culturally bound concepts such as resources, management, and conservation. In order to transform conservation biology through Indigenous perspectives, it is essential to pay attention to the relational world in which many Indigenous Peoples live. Doing so helps support a conservation practice attentive to the interdependence of all life in ways that uphold Indigenous Peoples' rights of self-determination, cultural identity, and social relations with their ancestral lands. We argue that attending to these relations is essential to building community-based conservation collaborations with Indigenous Peoples that are more effective, sustainable, and just. Conservation biologists increasingly recognise the value of Indigenous knowledge and resource management practices for conservation. Drawing on research with Karen communities, we argue that, in order for Indigenous perspectives to truly transform conservation biology, it is essential to pay attention to the relations between humans and more-than-human beings that shape Indigenous stewardship practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethnic politics are an important, but under-examined, dynamic in the restructuring of agrarian labour. This paper examines how the discursive construction of ethnic identity has facilitated the particular form of agrarian intensification and labour restructuring under way in the uplands of Thailand. Agricultural intensification, followed by the promotion of 'safe' and then 'organic' production, has relied upon the construction of Hmong farmers as environmentally destructive and in need of development, while Shan labour arriving from Burma are simultaneously constructed as 'illegal migrants' (as opposed to refugees), a social nuisance and hard workers, helping to make them into an available, willing and preferred labour force. We argue that the construction of ethnic identity in these instances enables the agricultural changes under way and, thus, the particularities of agricultural change cannot be understood without careful attention to ethnic politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forest resource management in Thailand bears the mark of its historical position on the margins of colonial power and its present position in a biodiversity hotspot. During the colonial era, British forestry in Burma and India had a fundamental influence on the knowledge and techniques used in Thai forest management. More recently, international conservation agendas and organisations have influenced the ways in which the Thai government regulates the forest within its boundaries. The treatment of forests as a national and international resource, defined in interaction with colonial neighbours and global partners, has resulted in legal constructs, spatially simplistic conservation mechanisms and a conception of nature ill-suited to managing forests as a local resource. This paper investigates the manifestation of Thailand's historical legacy in local park-people conflicts by drawing on research conducted in a region where the government is establishing a national park. It finds that the continued use of laws, tools and concepts derived from colonial and global influences undermines the forestry department's ability to address the contemporary challenge of managing forests as a local, as well as a national/global, commons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]