Forest, water and people: The roles and limits of mediation in transforming watershed conflict in Northern Thailand

Abstract

This study focuses on watershed management in Northern Thailand, where conflict over forest, land and water-use is a prevailing problem. A characteristic of watershed conflicts is that they are often multifaceted and involve multiple stakeholders with different interests and values, consequently requiring conflict management approaches that are sustainable in their outcomes, including addressing the underlying causes of the conflicts. Drawing from a case study in Mae Tia Mae Tae watershed in Northern Thailand, this study explores how mediation by external third party can contribute to the transformation of conflicts in the watershed and how the broader institutional contexts in which the conflict is embedded shapes the mediation outcomes. The study suggests that co-creation of mutual understanding and recognition of each party's socio-cultural differences, including land-use practices, are critical in building trust and in how conflict transformation processes moved forward. Moreover, the ability of the mediator in facilitating the establishment of a deliberative institution (i.e. a watershed network committee) and agreed rules on forest utilization were also critical in maintaining long-term collaboration in the watershed and potentially preventing other conflicts arising in the future. Some issues, however, may threaten the continuity of the cooperation and sustainability of peace in the watershed, including the lack of structural reform that formally recognizes local people's rights, insecure land tenure, and the absence of legal recognition for the watershed network committee as a legitimate mechanism for watershed decision making. The paper discusses these findings by comparing it with those from our previous studies in other locations (Cambodia, Indonesia and Western Thailand) to strengthen the insights from Northern Thailand. Finally, the research puts forward some recommendations for reforms and to strengthen the use of effective mediation, to achieve transformative outcomes, in conflicts of this nature.

Local Perspectives on Ecosystem Service Trade-Offs in a Forest Frontier Landscape in Myanmar

“…A large part of the negative trade-offs from oil palm conversion is thus because local people are prevented from entering the lands and using it for multiple purposes, such as growing subsistence crops or rearing livestock. Several studies proposed that negative trade-offs can be mitigated if forest-dependent communities participate in decisions and are actively engaged in land management [60], if people's access to ES is ensured [61], if forest land regulations are simplified [62], if land management rules are negotiated with all stakeholders [63], and if strategies and policies are directed towards a minimization of ES trade-offs in the landscape [64].…”

Transformative conflict mediation in multi-faith schools in South Africa

“…Lastly, research suggests that during the negotiation process, a protracted destructive conflict often generates mistrust, fear, hostility and other emotions that deter actors from taking part and that often result in failure of the process (Katila, 2014). Contrary to this, Dhiaulhaq et al (2017) point out that within the mediation field, transformational approaches are increasingly prominent for practitioners and scholars.…”

“…The transformative approach is often put in contrast with a "problem-solving" or "settlement" approach, which emphasises generating a "resolution" in order to settle the conflict. In contrast, the transformative mediation model does not put resolution or consensus as the immediate priority (Dhiaulhaq et al, 2017). Instead and, as put by Bush and Folger (1994), for transformative mediation to reach "settlement of conflict" is only at most an incidental success measure.…”

“…Conflict could have a positive and a negative effect on the policy implementation depending on the way it is led (Okotoni & Okotoni, 2003). It becomes negative (destructive) when it draws attention away from other important activities, undermines morale or self-esteem, polarises people and groups, reduces cooperation, increases or sharpens difference and leads to irresponsible and harmful behaviour, such as fighting, name-calling and so forth (Dhiaulhaq et al, 2017;Yasmi et al. 2013).…”

“…However, almost all principals in this study opted for conflict transformation with an understanding that the core aspect that they needed to transform was changes at the micro level (i.e. intrapersonal and interpersonal relationship) (Dhiaulhaq et al, 2017). Furthermore, in an attempt to transform conflict, change agents use a number of approaches including negotiation, mediation, arbitration, adjudication and coercion (Yasmi et al, 2011;Engel & Korf, 2005).…”