資源環境問題と地域研究の貢献

藤田渡『森を使い、森を守る』、倉島孝行『タイの森林消失』を手がかりに

抄録

This article aims to identify the types of contributions that area study specialists can offer based on the author’s reviews of two recent books published on Thai forests: Fujita, Wataru,Conserving the Forests by Using the Forests: Forest Conservation Policy and Locals’ Livelihood in Thailand (Kyoto University Press, 2008), and Kurashima, Takayuki, Deforestation of Thailand: Democratization in the 1990s and Political Mechanism (Akashi Shoten, 2008).
In the United States, social scientific studies of natural resources are mostly conducted within the bounds of traditional disciplines (e.g. political science, geography, and anthropology). In Japan, however, area specialists play key roles. The two books reviewed in this article attempt to examine the social effects of resource management and policies in the Thai context. They are welcome additions to the literature and help to illuminate the politics of resource use and control.
Fujita’s work, which is based on anthropological fieldwork in a northeastern village, examines not only the villagers’ perception and daily use of forest resources but also that of the local government officials. He argues that “soft protection” based on flexible local discretion characterizes the Thai way of resource management and is a realistic option for Thai society in managing its forests.
Kurashima’s work, on the other hand, looks at policy change in the 1990s by asking why the Royal Forest Department (RFD) of Thailand failed to implement policies on forest encroachment by villagers despite their capacity to do so. He argues that the wave of democratization facilitated land reform and the transfer of forest reserves to “illegal” farmers residing in those forests. This process reduced the power of the RFD which was based primarily on the control of land.
These two works demonstrate not only the variety of methods one can use in approaching resource problems, but also the unique strengths of area specialists who can provide “pre-analytic vision”.The article further highlights three specific contributions that area specialists can offer: (1) discovery of internal diversity beyond the usual categories such as “villagers” and “government”; (2) examination of the processes of subject formation that traces the emergence and changes of agents that are often treated in a static way; and (3) setting of the agenda as a worthwhile subject for investigation. The article concludes by discussing how knowledge of the specific can be meaningfully linked to a more holistic understanding of problems, and the nature of natural resources that forces researchers to transcend conventional barriers.