Scientific forest boundary demarcation or delineation of forest boundaries based on forest and land cover was introduced to Laos in the late 1980s. Since then, the government has developed institutions that not only mark the spatial boundaries of forests, but also define ways in which resources are managed. The Protected Areas System, introduced to Laos in 1993, is an example of state territoriality. As a case study, this paper examines the divergent interpretations of government policy on forest boundary delineation in Northwest Vientiane, which are conflicting with customary resource management practices. In particular this study investigates areas where access to natural resources is highly disputed due to the designation of protected areas.

抄録全体を表示

This study analyzes the role of Gunung Halimun National Park in the livelihoods of three communities living in and around or near the park, and the impact of the national park on the local people already living in or using resources from the area before it was designated as a national park. Local people practiced agriculture in the park area and collected forest products even within the park itself. Additionally, local people used a variety of plants, including trees, shrubs, herbs and vines, for food, construction, everyday implements, medicine, fuel and so on. Local people in the three villages frequently used domesticated plants, from swidden cultivation or gardens, as food. The use of fuelwood differed among the three villages. The people in the villages adjacent to the park and within an enclave inside the park had alternative places to gather fuelwood. They planted trees that were useful for fuelwood in gardens or took branches of clove or tea trees from neighboring plantation areas. However, as the amount of fuelwood from these resources did not meet their daily needs, they also gathered fuelwood from the national park forest. On the other hand, the fact that one village was located (illegally) within the park did not promote strong incentives for its people to manage domesticated plants for fuelwood; instead they depended largely on the park’s forest. It is concluded that the existence of the national park scarcely changed the relationship between local people and the surrounding environment, but that the presence of local people had fewer negative effects than other disturbing influences like illegal logging or conversion. Rather, the current lack of adequate monitoring has made it possible for customary use of resources and the ideology of nature conservation to coexist. The unclear relationships between the park management and local people may be effective for the ad hoc park management, but may not necessarily ensure biological conservation for the future. Integrated management of the protected areas can be achieved only when institutional arrangements are constructed, in which benefits from protected areas are distributed equally among related stakeholders, leading to effective collaborative management.

抄録全体を表示

インドネシアは日本の5倍の面積をもち、東南アジアの赤道部を広く占める国である。原生時代には国土のほとんどを森林が被っていただろうが、2000年の森林面積は国土面積の58%に過ぎず、さらに年に1.2%の割合で減少を続けている。その中で国立公園など保護区に指定されている地域は国土面積の7%を占めるに過ぎない。その保護区も、最近の政治的混乱の影響もあって荒廃が著しい。
熱帯林はインドネシアに限らず急速に減少し続け、ほとんど残らないのではないかと危惧されている。メソポタミア以来、文明の発達につれて森林が減少してきたことを考えれば、これはある意味では当然の帰結ともいえる。国土に占める森林の比率は、日本では64%と例外的に高いが、イギリス12%、フランス28%など先進国の多くが30%以下であり、開発途上国が先進国になりたいと考え、森林を農地などに変換することを止めることは難しいだろう。しかし、多くの地域が開発されるとしても、開発地域と保全地域を区別する必要があるだろう。開発地域に関しては、経済的な論理を原則に、農地、生産林、環境保安林、地球全体の炭素循環対策のためにバイオマスの確保が必要ならば先進国の援助による造林地などに、利用されることになるだろう。保全地域の森林は、単にバイオマスの確保にとどまらず遺伝子資源、多様性の保全が重要な課題になる。裸地化しても百年単位の時間で見れば森林の回復は可能だが、そのためには遺伝子資源が残っている必要があり、狭い面積でも天然林を残しておく意義は大きい。先進国の森林率も以前はもっと低かったのが最近増加しつつあり、熱帯地域でも22世紀まで考えれば森林面積が増加過程に転じることも夢とは言えないだろう。だが、現状のインドネシアでは保護区の管理が崩壊状態に近い場所もある。このような状況を改善することが、百年、二百年後の熱帯林を考えるとき、非常に重要であろう。

抄録全体を表示

専門家として強い責任感をもち森林を統制し操縦しようとするフォレスターの視座に基づく森林政策は、森林を持続的に管理することに失敗してきた。そこで、1970年代後半から地域住民の森林管理への参加が試みられてきたが、フォレスターたちは人々と協力して森林を持続可能なかたちで利用・管理するに際して多くの困難に直面している。それは、専門家による専制的な「統治」という従来の森林政策理念が温存されていたためである。
最近になってインドネシア共和国東カリマンタン州西クタイ県で注目すべき試みがなされている。地域住民、民間会社、行政、NGO、学者といった利害関係者が協働して問題を議論し、52の行動計画を提案し、県の条例案を作成したのである。このような地域の森林「協治」は今後の森林政策のあり方を考える上で重要なヒントを与えてくれる。
森林の「協治」は、森林政策の新しい理念であり、地域住民が閉鎖的にならずよそ者と協力しようとする「開かれた地元主義」、および森林の利用・管理への関わりの深さに応じた発言権・決定権を認めようという「かかわり主義」によって実のある仕組みとなるのである。

抄録全体を表示

In Asian Region, quite a few, only five countries had introduced National Parks and protected areas system before World War II including Japan, whose first National Parks, Kirishima, Setonaikai and Unzen were designated on March 16th 1934 as the first National Parks in Asian Region as well. Indonesia followed with the designation of Berbak National Park (Sumatra) in 1935, then India’s Corbett National Park (Uttar Pradesh) in 1936, Sri Lanka’s Ruhuna and Wilpattu National Parks in 1938, and Malaysia’s world famous Taman Negara National Park in 1939. These were all 14-18 years prior to gaining independent state-hold from former suzerain states of the Netherlands or the United Kingdom.
The National Parks Act, enforced in 1933, prescribed that the Director of the Forestry Service would be appointed to the authority of National Parks management in the Philippines, and the Government of Japan nominally designated National Parks in Taiwan prior to and during the period of World War II, however according to the present official records the Philippines established five Natural (not National) Parks in 1996-97 and Taiwan designated its first park, Kenting National Park, in 1982 followed by its second park, Yushan National Park, in 1985.
In terms of the first designation/establishment of National Parks, South-East Asian (ASEAN) countries can be divided into four groups excluding Singapore as a city-state: i.e. 1) prior to World War II; Indonesia and Malaysia, 2) in response to the 1st World Conference on National Parks in 1962; Thailand and Vietnam, 3) in response to the global trends of environmental issues during 1980s; Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Myanmar and the Philippines, and 4) still no designation/establishment; Lao PDR, with the exception of National Biodiversity Conservation Areas in response to the World Summit in Rio de Janeiro.
In relation to the ASEAN member countries with their earliest designation/establishment of National Parks and protected areas, this article attempts to analyze mainly the present state and perspectives on National Parks and protected areas in this particular sub-region, putting special emphasis on tropical natural and remaining forests using data on natural forest areas from 1995, and annual deforestation rates from 1981-1990 and from 1990-1995 by IUCN, among others.
Deforestation has continued steadily within ASEAN countries, except in Thailand. There might exist correlations among National Parks areas and all categories of Protected Areas in ASEAN countries. It should be pointed out that Thailand has remarkably high percentages of both National Parks area per natural forest area (47%), and of all categories of Protected Areas per natural forest area (76%). Particular emphasis on international cooperation should be considered and assistance should be given to Lao PDR and Myanmar (in quantity; establishment of protected areas), and Cambodia & Vietnam (in quality; management of protected areas).

抄録全体を表示