Imagining Ethnic Communities: Resource Conflicts and Development in Thailand

Findings and Discussion 135

very few positive role models for the young generation since the few villagers
with degrees have chosen to leave the community.

The Urak Lawoi’ and Moken also face various forms of discrimination and
exclusion in the larger Thai society. The public often shares a deeply-rooted
bias and ethnocentric attitude towards the “sea nomads”, regarding them as
uneducated, irrational and materially poor (see, for example, Arunotai et al.,
2007). Their traditional cultures have increasingly disintegrated, their local
knowledge and languages are threatened, and they no longer sustain their
livelihoods in a traditional way. Due to an increasing market orientation,
the youth is no longer interested in preserving the culture of their forefathers.

It is important to note that the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken perceive the multiple
and dramatic social problems in their community as less important and
pressing than the land conflicts. For the future of their community, they
unanimously wish for land rights and titles, secure housing, and restricted
access to natural resources.

Community History and Development Context

1. Settlement of the Urak Lawoi’ and the Moken at Rawai Beach and
Transitions to a Sedentary Lifestyle (end of 19th century -1957)

Social scientists estimate the Urak Lawoi’ community in Phuket to be up to
200 years old (e.g., Wongbusarakum, 2007, p. 9). The Department of Special
Investigation (DSI) of the Ministry of Justice confirms that there is forensic,
historical and cultural evidence that the Chao Ley have lived in the area of
Rawai for hundreds of years - ancestral graveyards, human remains, and
aerial photographs (Tauli-Corpuz, 2016). According to the villagers, Chao
Ley have lived on the land around the beach for generations. At first, Urak
Lawoi’ stayed in temporary settlements between their fishing trips in the
rainy season. Some of the elder villagers recall stories from their grandparents
according to which the first group of Urak Lawoi’ permanently settled in
Rawai in 1871, on an area along the beach from Rawai Bridge seaport to the
Balai.

Around 1940, the first ethnic Moken arrived on wooden boats. At that time,
these Moken still led a semi-nomadic life and travelled along coastal areas
and islands during the dry season. Like the Urak Lawoi’, they used to build
shelters and stay at Rawai beach for some weeks, sometimes even months,
during the rainy season. Intermarriage between Moken and the already
sedentary Urak Lawoi’ began to increase, and more Chao Ley permanently

136

settled, which had certain benefits for them, e.g., access to health care and
education. They used a variety of resources from the forest and the sea for
subsistence living. Over time, the Chao Ley changed from marine hunter-
gatherers into sedentary fishermen. Chao Ley men used to harvest different
kinds of fish and aquatic products, e.g., sea cucumbers. Besides being in
charge of childcare and household chores, Chao Ley women collected
shellfish for domestic consumption. All Chao Ley women collected shells,
but Urak Lawoi’ women gathered them only on land, i.e. either picked them
from rocks or dug them out from the sand, while Moken women also used
to dive for shells with their husbands. The fish catch and aquatic products
were used for family consumption, and the surplus was exchanged with
taukay - middlemen, local Thai owners of grocery stores. The fish was
traded for goods from their shops, e.g., fruit, clothes, or coffee. Some families
also grew rice along the coastline and on Ko He, an island nearby.

During this period, interaction between the Moken and Urak Lawoi’ and
other ethnic groups was limited; they mainly kept to themselves. They used
to travel by boat to visit other Chao Ley communities, often in order to find
spouses. Contact with Thai people was largely restricted to exchanges with
the taukay.

2. Growing Connectivity: Missionary Settlement, King Rama IX’s Visit, and
First Wage Labor Arrangements in Rawai (1958-1981)

Before the late 1950s the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken had very limited exposure
to community outsiders, but over this period interactions with others began
to increase. In 1958, the first Christian missionaries, David Hogan and his
wife, Doreen, arrived in Rawai. They were able to communicate in Urak
Lawoi’ and hired a community member to translate the bible with them.

There is some evidence (e.g., photographs, written documents) from 1958
of around 15 to 20 Urak Lawoi’ and Moken families settling together on
Rawai beach, leading a traditional lifestyle. They lived in simple bamboo
houses with thatched roofs. Some houses were also built from wooden
planks. According to the villagers, the houses were not large, but rather
long, accommodating families with up to 15 members. If a villager wanted
to build a new house, relatives and friends collectively helped cutting wood
in the forest, and the women wove the roofs from coconut leaves.

All Chao Ley men worked as fishermen, catching various kinds of fish and
marine products, mainly sea cucumbers, shells, and turtles. Relatives used
to fish on boats together, sharing the catch. Fish and aquatic products were

Findings and Discussion 137

also exchanged for daily necessities. At the time, the sea was productive, and
a large variety of fish could be caught only a few hundred meters from the
beach.
In 1959, King Rama IX visited Phuket and Rawai and discovered that Urak
Lawoi’ and Moken were living along the beach. Nowadays, this visit is
considered a key event in the community, as evidence of their long-standing
presence. After the visit, Princess Srinagarindra (the Queen Mother) decided
to assign family names to the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken for the first time.

Figure 9: A picture of the King’s visit in Rawai at the entrance of the community

In 1967, the Sarasin Bridge, connecting Phuket Island to Phang Nga Province
on the mainland, paved the way for the emergence of one of the most
popular tourist destinations in the kingdom: Phuket became accessible by
land. Domestic and foreign tourists started visiting the island by bus in
growing numbers. The Tourism Organization of Thailand (TAT) began
promoting tourism on Phuket Island. During the 1970s, the first bungalows
were built, and in 1975, a number of hotels and restaurants were established
at beaches that are popular tourist spots today (e.g., Patong beach). In Rawai,
tourism began to flourish from the late 80s onwards.

138

Over this period, a number of Thai people started setting up houses next to
the Rawai settlement, and some Chinese opened a shop nearby. Urak Lawoi’
and Moken still regularly exchanged fish and seafood for daily necessities
with the Taukay. Some took goods from the shop owner first, and were later
unable to pay, e.g., because of a poor catch. In order to pay back their debts,
a number of them lost the land they had settled on to middlemen.

In the early 1970s, the first villagers started to look for work outside the
community. A first group found employment as money collectors in a public
bus company. They began to earn more cash income, albeit still in small
amounts, and a villager bought the community’s first motorbike. In the
mid-70s, families increasingly began working as laborers on nearby coconut
farms. The men’s task was to climb up the palms and drop the coconuts on
the ground. Women helped collecting and peeling the nuts. The income was
very small: around 15 THB for 100 coconuts141. In addition, women used to
weave roofs from coconut leaves and sell them, mainly to other Chao Ley,
also at a low price - coconut roofing sold for around 0.5 THB per piece.
Since the roofs were not durable, they had to be changed at least once a year,
so there was a continuous demand for them in the Rawai community.
Restaurants in the city bought them for decoration.

A few villagers were able to save income. For example, from 1975 onwards,
a Chao Ley man was hired to work as a specialist in fish species at the
Department of Fisheries, for around 2 hours per day, and 500 THB per
month. He was one of the first community members able to set money
aside. In 1981, he built the first two-storey cement and wood house in the
village, no longer with a coconut leaf roof. Other community members
followed his example and began to build houses from new materials.

Even though a number of Chao Ley started working as wage laborers in this
period, most men continued to work as fishermen. They relied on trapping,
hunting, and free-diving for aquatic life, e.g., fish, crabs, turtles, sea
cucumbers, squid and shellfish, for their own consumption, for trade and,
to a small extent, for sale. Fishermen harvested fish together with their
kinsfolk, and women collected crustaceans and shells along the beach. Some
Moken and Urak Lawoi’ used to harvest wild rice for their own consumption.

141. In 1970-1973, 1 USD equaled 20.8 THB.

Findings and Discussion 139

In 1976, a small Christian church was set up in one of the community
houses by the missionaries, together with a group of Urak Lawoi142. However,
at this time, the number of Christians among the Chao Ley was still very
small.

3. Infrastructure Development and a Growing Tourism and Fishery Sector:
Socio-economic and Cultural Changes in Rawai (1982-1988)

In the 1980s, the community consisted of 50 to 60 households. During this
period, further infrastructure development, particularly grid electrification,
had far-reaching social and economic impacts. Electricity was installed
around Viset Street, adjacent to the West-village, and a street lamp was
erected in 1982. The access to power attracted more local Thai people into
the area, some of whom decided to settle. A number of new buildings were
erected, among them the first hotel, which hired local Urak Lawoi’ and
Moken e.g., as cooks and cleaners. In 1984, power lines were laid within the
community. Community members began to buy rice cookers, and no longer
had to collect fire wood along the beach for cooking.

In the mid-1980s, tourism kept growing and more Chao Ley found
employment in the tourism sector, e.g., in restaurants and food shops. The
growing influx of Thai people and infrastructure development brought
various changes to the Chao Ley community. They started selling small
amounts of fish and sea food along the beach. At first, they fixed a plank
between two large palm trees on which they hung up their fish catch. Local
Thai people visited the community more frequently, some of them to buy
marine products and shells from the Chao Ley for resale. The price for fish
and sea food was still very low. Fish was also grilled, dried and exchanged
for clothes, rice or fruits with Thai people at the nearby temple (Wat
Chalong).

Some Urak Lawoi’ and Moken were hired by Thais to thresh rice in their
fields. As compensation they received rice which they used for household
consumption. Other essential items such as salt, shrimp paste, onion, garlic
or oil could be got from the grocery store. On their fishing trips, fishermen
traveled as far as Similan Island, Surin Island, Koh Phayam and Koh Lipe.
Each trip could take more than 7 days, and they stayed overnight on an

142. Some Urak Lawoi’ family members converted to Christianity after a child became
sick, and missionaries recommended going to the hospital and praying to god, which
was followed by a speedy recovery of the child.

140

island. They boiled and sun-dried sea cucumber on the islands to save
weight.

Chao Ley women recall that they began witnessing Thai customs and
traditions during work, and to adopt some of them in their communities
(e.g., wedding ceremonies, New Year celebrations).

Larger fishing boats, owned by Thais, were deployed to fish on fishing
grounds used by the Chao Ley. Some Rawai villagers also started working as
laborers on these vessels. The payment was low and the work risky. For
example, in 1988, during a fishing trip to Burma, 5 Chao Ley were arrested
because they did not have the required documents and permission to cross
the border. The villagers were kept in jail for several days, and one of them
got sick and died. This made the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken more wary about
wage labor on fishing vessels.

4. Booming Tourism, Protected Area Designation, and the Urak Lawoi’ and
Moken’s Diminishing Livelihoods Space (1989-2003)

Flourishing Tourism and High Returns for the Chao Ley: From the late 1980s
onwards, tourism developed with growing social, environmental and
economic impacts on the community. In particular, Ko He, an island some
30 minutes away from the community, became popular among Thai tourists.
A number of Chao Ley, mostly teenagers, found work there as cleaners and
waiters and commuted daily by boat from Rawai. Around 300 tourists
visited Ko He per day. With the rise of tourism, the sale of sea food and fish
along the beach shore also increased, as did the prices.

A few Chao Ley were able to create their own tourism businesses. For
example, an Urak Lawoi’ man from Rawai became the business partner of a
sea walking company on Ko Pipi Island in 1995. Sea walking had become a
popular underwater sport, allowing tourists to walk on the bottom of the
sea to observe marine life, with specialized equipment and accompanied by
professional instructors143. The business went well until 1999, when the Thai
government announced that sea walking companies needed to have a
license, to minimize environmental damage, and the business had to close
down because it lacked the required certificates.

Between 1998 and 1999, then Prime Minister General Chavalit Yongchaiyudh
promoted tourism under the slogan “Amazing Thailand”, an initiative that
helped attracting a large number of tourists from Europe and Russia to

143. Usually, 10 to 15 tourists walk in a group, guided by 6 to 7 professional sea walkers.

Findings and Discussion 141

Phuket and its surroundings. Along with this development, the value and
price of sea food increased dramatically. For example, the price for a lobster
increased from 25 THB to 400-500 THB144.

More and more tourists were flocking into Rawai. At the same time, the
number of tourist boats along the coast grew substantially, causing conflicts
and competition among the Thai boat owners. Some of them formed an
interest group and made it obligatory for boat owners to acquire a license to
operate in the area145. During high season, boat owners were able to earn
around 100,000 THB per month, enough for the rest of the year. A number
of community members managed to earn well in the tourist boom. The
income for sea walkers, for example, was around 300 THB per day. If tourists
took photos, the Chao Ley could get an additional commission, sometimes
adding up to an income of more than 1,000 THB per day, far more than
they earned with traditional fishing. Business owners realized that most of
the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken had good free diving skills (diving without
scuba gear), and that they easily passed the required diving tests. Many
invited the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken to work for them. From 2000 onwards,
the sea walker business flourished. Other tourist services opened along
Rawai beach, among them an elephant camp and a shooting range, which
hired a number of the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken as laborers. Work as speed
boat drivers for a local tourism company gained popularity. The monthly
salary of some community members was as high as 1,000 THB per day146.

Designation of the Marine National Park and Livelihood Restrictions for the
Urak Lawoi’ and Moken: At the same time, designation of large parts of the
sea area around Rawai as a Marine National Park in 1993 brought drastic
restrictions to the lives, traditional livelihoods and use of resources of the
Urak Lawoi’ and Moken. The protected zone covered areas that they
previously used as foraging grounds, for example, the sea around the islands
of Similan, Surin, Ko Bua and Ko Kao. Due to new rules and regulations the
Chao Ley were no longer allowed to conduct any kind of activity within the
National Park, including the collection of marine and aquatic resources, and
trees and wood could no longer be cut. The Urak Lawoi’ and Moken were
allowed to fish only in designated areas. Park offices were set up at various
locations and the authorities began to patrol protected areas. It got more

144. Between 1998 and 1999, the exchange rate between THB and USD fluctuated between
41.3 and 37.8.

145. One Urak Lawoi’ woman from Rawai purchased a license and became a member of
the group. The price for the license, called RL, was around 300 THB.

146. In 2000, 1 THB was around 0.040 USD.

142

and more difficult for the Chao Ley to find fish, due to tourism development,
growing industrial fishing, national park regulations, and increasingly
restricted livelihood space. The construction of infrastructure and tourist
facilities further contributed to the destruction of natural resources and
increasing environmental pollution. A growing number of Chao Ley men
turned away from their traditional occupation as fishermen and started
looking for work as wage laborers, particularly in the tourism industry.
More and more Chao Ley women began to give up their traditional
livelihood activities, collecting shells, for employment in the tourism and
hotel business.

State Development Initiatives in the Rawai Community: The government
attempted to address environmental issues and improve living conditions in
the Rawai community. At that time, many households did not have toilets
and most of the villagers used the adjacent beach and sea for their needs. In
1995, the health station nearby the community, supported by a private Thai
company, built 4 public toilets in the Middle village, and the local government
agreed to provide the required water supply. However, the latrines were
rarely used and the fee for cleaning and maintenance was often not paid.
The local government soon decided to cut off the water supply. The local
health station describes this project as a big failure.

In 2001, the government of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra enacted the
“30 THB Health Care Scheme”, a universal coverage program guaranteeing
that patients did not have to pay more than 30 THB per medical treatment.
However, at that time, a number of the Chao Ley of Rawai did not yet hold
Thai citizenship, so they did not benefit from the new policy. This attracted
attention when tourists reported that some Rawai villagers were severely
sick, but had no ID card and were thus unable to access health care. The
Ministry of Interior increased efforts to register people in Rawai without ID
cards, partly to counteract a negative image of the tourist hotspot among
visitors. The news of the registration spread quickly among the Urak Lawoi’
and Moken population in Thailand, and many traveled to Rawai from other
areas. The Urak Lawoi’ and Moken of Rawai were able to register and obtain
citizenship. After one year, the government stopped issuing citizenship for
Chao Ley in Phuket as there were too many applicants.

Findings and Discussion 143

5. In the aftermath of the 2004 Tsunami Disaster: the Urak Lawoi’ and
Moken’s Mounting Struggle for Land and Resources (2004-2010)

The 2004 Tsunami Disaster and Effects for the Community

The beginning of this period was marked by an unprecedented environmental
disaster with massive impacts on the coasts of Thailand and other countries
in South and Southeast Asia: the 26th December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.
The Urak Lawoi’ and Moken community of Rawai experienced comparatively
limited impacts because the islands off the coasts protected the beach zone
from the waves. Some houses were slightly damaged, but only one was
destroyed, and there were no casualties. The villagers were able to repair
most of the fishing boats that had been damaged. Nevertheless, the tsunami
marks a turning point in the community because it brought a number of
dramatic changes to the Rawai Chao Ley. Numerous emergency relief and
aid projects, initiated by NGOs, INGOs and the Royal family, represented
by the daughter of His Majesty King Rama IX, began providing support to
affected communities in Phuket, including the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken in
Rawai, even though they had experienced little damage. The villagers
received large amounts of money and food, including a whole year’s rice
supply. According to the community leader, Lung Ngeem, the villagers
found themselves in the role of passive recipients with limited sense of
agency or participation, and became used to relying on outside support and
financial assistance.

Through the tsunami disaster, the Chao Ley also became known among the
wider Thai public and beyond because the Moken had recognized the
withdrawal of the sea and changes in animal behavior and anticipated the
tsunami, taking refuge on higher ground to survive, as well as saving the
lives of tourists. Their survival due to their great knowledge of the marine
ecosystem attracted attention from national and international media.

A Sharp Rise of Land Conflicts: More importantly, after the tsunami, land
conflicts sharply increased. The value of land, particularly along the beach,
increased dramatically and created great demand and interest among
investors. In 2005, the tourist company Ban Raya start claiming plots of
community land in the East village, affecting 10 houses of Urak Lawoi’. The
company held land titles over the disputed land, while no-one in the Rawai
community owned any legal title deeds at all. In the past, the Urak Lawoi’
and Moken in Rawai did not have any knowledge of land titles or formal
registration processes. Many of them were illiterate. They had never applied
for formal land titles. There is evidence, however, that the area was fully

144

inhabited when some of the first land titles were issued147, but at that time
no-one had properly investigated the situation on-site. With the help and
support of an NGO, Chumchon Thai Foundation, a group of 10 villagers
were selected and trained as leaders, including three key leaders, all of them
Urak Lawoi’, “Uncle” Ngeem, Nilan Yangban and Sanit. The conflict with the
Ban Raya Company was taken to court for the first time. The Chumchon
Thai foundation began to play an increasing role as an advisor for the Chao
Lay, e.g., through training in land rights, and preparations of the Urak
Lawoi’ and Moken prior to court hearings.

Increasingly Confined Fishing Space: Besides the adverse impacts of the
tsunami, over this period the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken faced more difficulties
in finding fish and other aquatic products. With their fishing grounds
increasingly restricted by National Park regulations and commercial fishing,
more and more Chao Ley men gave up their work as fishermen and turned
to the tourism industry for employment, mainly as sea walkers, divers, or
speed boat drivers.

The Post-tsunami Recovery of Tourism: The economy of Phuket was strongly
affected by the 2004 tsunami; numbers of visitors dropped between 2004
and 2006. However, soon after the disaster substantial efforts were made to
repair damage and rebuild the island. Within the next 3 years infrastructure
was largely recovered, and tourism was booming again. The number of sea
walkers in the community rose from 10 to 50 people. While most of the
women stayed at home, some worked in resorts and hotels as cleaners,
waitresses, cooks, or dishwashers.

On 2nd June 2010, the Cabinet Resolution for the restoration of the traditional
livelihoods of the Chao Ley was adopted. As a consequence, the local
municipality began supporting the organization of annual Urak Lawoi’ and
Moken activities, such as celebrations at the Balai and the Lobong, and local
authorities provided some financial support and fishing equipment.
However, the villagers reported that the Cabinet Resolution was not
effectively implemented and has had barely any effect on their lives.

147. According to the Department of Special Investigation the Chao Ley had built houses
at Rawai beach prior to a notification of occupation in 1955. The Regional Office of
Fine Arts 15, Institute of Forensic Science, has found evidence from the excavation
of 2 human skeletons that the Chao Ley Rawai had lived on disputed land in Rawai
for at least 60 years. There is also some evidence from 1955 that were about 30 Chao
Ley students in the Wat Sawang Arom School adjacent to the Rawai community.

Findings and Discussion 145

6. Mass Tourism, Shrinking Natural Resources, and Escalating Land
Conflicts (2011-Present): Deteriorating Living Conditions and Growing
Social Problems

Revived Mass Tourism and Adverse Impacts on the Community: While the
advertising campaign “Amazing Thailand” had mainly attracted tourists
from Europe and Russia, now more and more Chinese tourists began to
discover the area of Rawai and the islands nearby, particularly Ko He. Some
80% of the men in Rawai were working in the tourism sector, with only 20%
continuing to work as fishermen, mainly men over 50 years old. Even
though many villagers found employment in tourism businesses, the large
streams of visitors brought many adverse impacts to the community.
Pollution on the beaches and along the shores got worse, with some
restaurants and boats dumping waste directly into the ocean. The Chao
Ley’s traditional fishing practices148 were impeded as tourist divers frequently
destroyed fish traps on the bottom of the sea to free the fish, causing loss of
income and investment for the fishermen. Because of the big crowds of
tourist divers in the area, the Chao Ley were no longer able to set their traps
within 10 meters under the sea around Ko He Island. Instead, they had to
place their traps at a depth of 20-30 meters which greatly increased the risk
of health problems. A growing number of Urak Lawoi’ and Moken men
suffered from decompression sickness, or barotrauma, with detrimental
effects, such as numbness, confusion, hearing loss, or paralysis.

At the same time, more Thai people saw a chance to profit from the lucrative
tourism business. Starting in 2011, more and more food shops and
restaurants were set up along the beach. The Chao Ley owned 10 simple

148. They choose a place where they dive to the bottom of the sea to set the trap, remembering
the spot by memorizing the features of the shore, e.g., trees or rock formations. On
the sea floor, the trap is held in place with stone ballast. It is made from wire, nets,
acacia wood, rattan, nails and rope. Each trap will be used for around 4 months.
Traps come in 3 sizes: small (2 x 3 meters); medium (3 x 4 meters); and large (4 x
6 meters), placed at depths of around 15m, 20m and 30m respectively. The trap is
left on the floor for 1-2 weeks, the fishermen going back from time to time to check
the catch. At first, small fish are caught, then bigger fish will enter to catch the small
fish so that no further bait is needed. To collect the fish, men will dive down, using
a diving mask attached to an oxygen delivery device on their boat, open the window
of the trap, and then use nets to catch the fish as they pour out. Ornamental fish
and other protected species will be released, and only edible fish will be kept. Back
on the boat, the catch will be stored in ice, the products will be marked and mainly
sold at the Chao Ley fish stalls. Income will be shared among the boat crew: people
working on the boat will get 1 share each, the divers 2 shares, and the owner of the
boat 3 shares.

146

shops, while Thai people opened 20 bigger and more stable shops. While
Thai shops were able to sell a large variety of fish and sea food from other
fishing grounds, the Chao Ley could only offer a very limited selection of
sea products from their local fishing area. From 2013 onwards, the seaside
area adjacent to the community became packed with seafood stalls and
restaurants.

Rising Living Costs and Growing Debts in Rawai: Some Chao Ley working in
the tourism industry managed to earn substantial income, particularly
during high season. At the same time, many of them became indebted.
Living costs in Rawai were increasing, e.g., expenses for electricity and
water. Their lifestyle has become ‘modern’, with increasing desires for
modern consumer goods and technology. Many Chao Ley had to take loans
from private lenders or relatives, and became trapped in a debt cycle.

While mass tourism had reached Phuket Island and Rawai, and regulations
of the National Park continued restricting the livelihood of the villagers,
increasing land conflicts, legal disputes and tenure insecurity began to
dominate the everyday life of the villagers. At the same time, social problems
began to increase sharply, including drug and alcohol abuse, and domestic
violence.

The Chao Ley’s Shrinking Restricted Access through National Park Regulations
and Private Ownership: In this period, the declaration of protected zones
continued to severely affect fishing activities and the use of natural resources.
Chao Ley still working as fisherman frequently came into conflict with the
regulations of the National Park. When they transported their fish catch in
the vicinity of the Park, they were afraid of being accused of illegal fishing
and of being arrested by park officials, even though the fish had been
lawfully caught. In January 2018, a number of Chao Ley stopped their
fishing boat in Sirinad National Park on their way home because one of the
divers suffered from decompression sickness149. A park official filed a case
against them for invading the National Park. The case is currently still
pending in the Court of First Instance.

Over the past years, private ownership and restrictions imposed by various
resorts also affected the traditional occupations of Chao Ley women who
were no longer allowed to collect sea shells along the beach. A group of
Urak Lawoi’ women digging for seashells were accused of destroying the

149. The fishermen were trying to help the affected diver with in-water recompression.
The Chao Ley were accused of illegal fishing even though they had caught fish only
in designated fishing zones.

Findings and Discussion 147

beach by a resort owner, and were banned from the area. The sea area
around Rawai beach was declared a Wildlife Sanctuary so that additional
regulations for the protection of marine life were issued. At the same time,
there was an increase of large-scale commercial fishing and exploitation of
the fish population and aquatic life in designated areas, to cater for the
growing demand for seafood in the tourist industry. Fishing became less
and less profitable for the remaining fishermen: fuel costs increased, income
had become unpredictable, and investment was needed in fishing equipment.

Due to the rules and regulations of the National Park, many of the traditional
fishing practices of the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken were prohibited, e.g., battue
fishing150. However, some of the families still secretly practiced this kind of
traditional fishing, usually at night or early in the morning. Some families
also still harvested forbidden aquatic products and fish. The Department of
Fishery have been informed by outsiders that illegal fishing is still going on
a small scale, but they are unable to identify who is involved.

While conflicts with the National Park authorities lingered, staff of the
Department of Marine and Coastal Resources initiated a number of nature
conservation projects in collaboration with the villagers, e.g., monitoring
aquatic life, planting and preserving corals, and collecting garbage from the
sea. Since the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken have an in-depth knowledge of the
ocean and good diving skills, the Department often consults them before
launching a project. Also the local health center has initiated several projects
with the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken, in particular to create awareness and
increase knowledge of health risks, such as mosquito-borne diseases.

Escalating Land Conflicts with Companies and Private Individuals: Most
importantly, during this period conflicts between the villagers and companies
and private individuals began to intensify. The villagers faced more than
two dozen cases related to encroachment of land, both on their housing area
and public land. On conflicted land they were not allowed to build, renovate
or repair anything, or even to construct proper drainage systems.

The community members set up a community fund for court cases, with
each household contributing 100 THB per month (around 3 USD), although
a number of households refused to contribute. After the villagers faced more
and more court cases and eviction threats, the role and position of the

150. Battue is a practice of hunting where the fish are driven into large nets spanned
between two boats. It was classified as being detrimental to coral reefs. Also protected
fish species are liable to be caught.

148

community’s spiritual leader diminished, while the secular leaders significantly
gained in importance.

One dispute gained large national and international media attention: the
private land developer, Baron World Trade Co. Ltd., currently owning land
titles over the public beachfront, decided to build luxury villas for tourists
on the shore. The beach front is of great importance for the Chao Ley as
they use their ancestral land to moor and unload their boats, to dry their
catch, to repair and erect their fish traps and other equipment. It’s also a
playground for their children. Most importantly, they perform traditional
ceremonies on their ritual site and the Balai in this area. At the beginning of
2016, around 100 men hired by Baron blocked access to Rawai beach with
rocks. This culminated in a violent clash between the two sides, leaving
huts, spirit houses and fishing equipment of the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken
destroyed, and at least thirty injured, among them women. Baron staff filled
up the canal that drained flood water into the sea, leading to heavy flooding
so that the villagers had to constantly pump out flood water. In 2016,
representatives of the Chao Ley submitted a petition to the Ministry of
Justice to urge the authorities to take action in the land dispute. Some Chao
Ley filed a claim for damages. In response, Baron tried to reclaim the
disputed land and to sue the villagers for encroachment. The court dismissed
the lawsuit on the grounds that the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken had settled on
the land before the Land Department issued the land titles to the company
in 1965. The villagers have submitted the case to the Administrative Court.

The community also faced land disputes with private individuals, e.g., the
heirs of Mr. Tanmukdee, a Thai citizen holding legal title deeds over
community land in the West village and public land on the beach front,
including several fish stalls. In 2016, his heirs claimed that in the past their
grandfather had owned a coconut garden and hired Chao Ley to work there.
The heirs sued for 8 villagers to be evicted from their houses. The villagers
won the case in the Court of First Instance, but at the time of the study, was
pending in the Court of Appeal. The dispute also involves rental fees for fish
stalls along the beach. In the past, the heirs had collected a small rent, but in
2018, the “sea nomads” were suddenly asked to pay high fees: 6,000 THB
per month per stall151, with an increase of 1,000 THB every 3 years. The
villagers could not afford this - they were unable find fish in the sea every
day. They took the case to the civil court which ruled in their favor. The
Department of Special Investigations (DSI) and academics were acting as

151. 1 THB was around 0.032 USD.

Findings and Discussion 149

witnesses in court. The heirs of the businessman were planning to appeal to
a higher court.

The community continued to face conflicts on both housing and public land
with the Ban Raya Company. In January 2018, the court ruled in favor of the
company, and 9 Chao Ley households were asked to move out of their
houses by the end of January 2018. Following the verdict, the villagers
resisted the eviction and they still remain in their houses: after the
announcement they removed all the house numbers so the authorities could
not identify the houses concerned; and when officers entered the community
the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken gathered in a large group to protect the houses,
with women and children at the forefront. Affected families also prepared to
leave the disputed houses and to live for several days on the beach in order
to escape enforcement.

Deteriorating Living Conditions and Growing Social Problems: Over the past
decade, living conditions in the community have deteriorated due to
increasing population, and pollution. Large heaps of undisposed garbage
have accumulated as the municipality collects only a limited amount of
household waste on only a few days per week. Tourists often leave their
rubbish in the area. The large piles have attracted rats, other vermin and
insects, bringing more diseases to the community. Waste water has led to a
rise of sanitation-related and mosquito-borne diseases. Many households
purchase water for their daily needs (e.g., showers, dish washing) from a
truck, storing the water in 3 to 5 200 liter tanks next to the houses, providing
another ideal breeding ground for mosquito larvae.

In recent years, most Chao Ley women stay at home. Many began to gamble
while husbands were working, at first only for cashew nuts, but later for
cash. Even young children were participating in the gambling, since many
did not attend or dropped out of school. According to the village head, some
better-off families spent much of their income on alcohol and drugs.
Community members also reported that premarital pregnancies among
girls aged 15 to 19 increased, along with drug abuse and trafficking,
particularly among the youth. More outsiders began selling drugs to people
in the community until the area gradually turned into a drug dealing
hotspot. According to some of the villagers, domestic abuse and family
violence also became more frequent.

150

B. Economic Livelihood Activities in the Study Site

Currently, three main types of occupation can be found in the community:
workers in the tourism industry, fishermen/fish vendors, and wage labor.
Most of the Chao Ley are employed in marine tourism businesses (tour
companies, travel agencies, speed boat services). Only around 25% of them
still work as fishermen, and only a few own a fishing boat. A number of
Chao Ley work as daily wage laborers (e.g., garbage collectors, construction
workers, security guards). Women mostly stay at home; a few sell seafood
and decorative seashells, or work in hotels and beach resorts (e.g., as maids,
housekeepers and cleaners).

Table 3: Summary of the main occupations in the Rawai Community (2017-2018)

Men Tourism Industry General
Fishermen Labor
Boat Drivers Employment General
Trap fishing, hook and for Tourist in Tourist Labor in E.g.,
harpoon fishing, shell Company non-sea Construction
and clam diving related Worker or
(Boat owner Sea walkers, tourism Security
Guard
needs RL) Divers Elephant
Camp,
Shooting
range

Women Fish Seller Collecting Vendors of Tourism
Housewives Seashells
Vending fish Food or Other Industry-
Child care. Some caught by Mainly
participate in illegal their Moken Goods General labor
gambling (cards or husbands women dive
lottery) and dig for In the Restaurants,
shells community Hotels, local
food and government
grocery (e.g., as
shops maids,
waitresses,
dish washers
and cleaners)

Findings and Discussion 151

Table 4: Income for men and women in different occupations in 2017-2018

Occupation Income (average)
Fishermen 4,000-7,000 THB per month; around 150 to 300 THB per day
Tourist Boat Drivers 40,000-60,000 THB per month (high season); 15,000-25,000 THB
per month (rest of the year)
Employees at Tour 50,000 THB per month (high season), 15,000-25,000 THB per
Company Nontasak month (rest of the year)
Elephant Camp/ 12,000-15,000 THB per month
Shooting Range
Housewives No income, some receive around 300 to 800 THB from their
husbands per day
Fish seller 200-300 THB per day, or 4,000-8,000 THB per month
Food sellers 200-300 THB per day, or 4,000-8,000 THB per month
General Labor 200-300 THB per day, or 4,000-8,000 THB per month
Collecting shells 100- 300 THB per day

Fishing

Only around 25% of the Chao Ley still work as fishermen. Moken still catch
fish, shellfish, sea cucumbers etc. in a traditional way, and collect sea
cucumbers, lobsters, and shells along the shore, but mostly work as crew
members in trap fishing on the larger fishing boats of the Urak Lawoi. Only
a few Urak Lawoi’ are still fishermen. They mainly rely on scuba diving and
trap fishing, which is still of significance as one catch can usually support a
large number of people, up to 6 families. The fishing season lasts only 5
months, from January to May. During the rainy season, June to December,
they will go out to sea only weather permitting. When the number of tourists
is low, the Urak Lawoi’ use the boats that usually serve as sightseeing boats
as fishing boats.

The villagers explain that fishing in the past was very different from what it
is today. Previously, around 200 kg of fish could be harvested from one trap,
but today the amount is much reduced. There are more and more outsiders
fishing with modern equipment, and larger and more close-meshed nets,
which means that the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken have to take their boats
several kilometers out to sea before they can find fish. The declaration of
large areas around Rawai as Marine National Park, prohibiting the Urak
Lawoi’ and Moken to enter and fish in certain areas, has added to the
problems. The growing number of tourists and divers has greatly increased

152

environmental pollution; tourist divers often demolish fish traps; and
speedboats are destroying coral reefs by spilling oil into the sea. Moreover,
an increasing number of fishermen suffer from decompression sickness and
have had to give up fishing.

There are two fish stalls and one restaurant on the shore, operated by
Moken, where Chao Ley fishermen can sell their catch to visitors.

Tourism

Working in a tourism company on the other hand guarantees a certain
salary, and that is what today’s young people prefer. Most of the Chao Ley
(around 70%), particularly the Urak Lawoi’152, now work as employees in
local marine tourism businesses, mainly as divers, speedboat drivers and sea
walkers. Company staff often recruit Chao Ley due to their reputed good
diving skills and knowledge of the aquatic environment. Those who own a
boat use it as a sightseeing boat for tourists and offer round trips and fishing
excursions. Tourists often prefer to book boat trips with Chao Ley, because
they know a lot about the area, and good fishing spots. Some Chao Ley also
sell diving equipment and souvenirs on the boat. Some make use of their
traditional knowledge and skills as sea walkers. The majority of Chao Ley
are able to earn a higher income in the tourism sector than by fishing.

Wage Labor; Vending

The remaining villagers (5%) work as daily wage laborers (e.g., in
construction or as security guards). They frequently have no formal
contracts, lack access to basic health and safety insurance, and are poorly
paid. From these low wages they have to pay for daily expenses, leaving
many of them poor and without ways to save or improve their situation.
General wage laborers usually make not more than 200-300 THB per day
(around 5.9-8.9 USD).

Around 80% of Chao Ley women are housewives and stay at home; around
10% sell seafood caught by their husbands, and shells, at the fish stalls;
around 5% join their husbands on the beach to collect shells while the men
are diving; few work in the 5 small shops within the community (3 food
shops, 2 grocery shops), or walk around in the village selling food; or work

152. Many Moken are illiterate or unable to read and write Thai, which denies them many
options. For example most restaurants in the area prefer to hire Burmese people who
can read and write.

Findings and Discussion 153

as general laborers (e.g., in hotels, beach resorts or restaurants, as maids,
waitresses, dish washers and cleaners).

According to traditional Urak Lawoi’ and Moken culture, men keep only
20% of their income and leave the remaining 80% with their wives who are
in charge of the family budget. However, this practice has been changing
over recent years; many women engage in illegal gambling and expensive
shopping, and more men have taken control over household finances.

Most of the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken have debts and financial problems,
even those working in tourism with higher earnings. Community members
have faced rising living costs, electricity became expensive, and several
households had to buy water for daily use (e.g., showers) as they had no
access to tap water. Prices for fuel and fishing equipment increased too (see
section A for Rawai). Villagers had to purchase rice and vegetables since
there was no space for farming; more and more villagers led a “modern”
lifestyle, with TVs, fans and mobile phones, motorbikes, internet, and
changing dietary patterns - the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken no longer caught
fish for their own consumption, but purchased food, with increasing
consumption of expensive processed food from convenience stores.

Men working in the tourism sector often have to support all members of
their large families. Most are forced to borrow money to cover their general
living costs or to purchase consumer goods, and are now encumbered in
debt, some trapped in a debt cycle. Most loans are from private lenders
charging high interest (around 20%), or from relatives or close friends,
under established conditions (e.g., some fishermen are obliged to deliver a
certain proportion of their catch to the lenders).

Work in the tourism sector is highly dependent on the season, and is
susceptible to crises and disasters. An example is the 2018 Phuket boat
tragedy153, which caused a significant drop in tourist arrivals and massive
cancellations of hotel bookings, with losses of employment in the sector.

Over the past five years, there has been an increasing class differentiation
within the community, also due to differences between villagers in the
acquisition of skills and income in the tourism industry. The data show that
those working as employers in the sea-related tourism industry (mainly
boat drivers or sea walkers) are getting considerably higher returns than
those employed in these or other tourism sectors. Men and women working
as food sellers and wage laborers have a significantly lower income.

153. In this accident, a tourist boat capsized on the Phuket coast and 46 Chinese died.

154

Fishermen and women collecting shells have the lowest income in the
community, mainly the Moken (making up a quarter of the overall resident
population) who still harvest fish in a traditional manner. In the community,
the Moken form the economically weakest group. Since the Urak Lawoi’
were the first to settle down in Rawai, they were also the ones to first
establish relations with Chinese traders, and thus to establish connections
and networks. The Urak Lawoi’ and Moken thus differ in their socio-
economic status, with the Urak Lawoi’ being economically better off, and
thus able to invest, e.g. in boats and engines. According to the villagers,
these disparities contribute to tensions and segregation between the two
ethnic groups. Moken villagers state that the Urak Lawoi’ are the dominating
group that controls the decision-making in the community.

There are no finance, credit or saving groups in the community, and the
small community fund is used exclusively in connection with the law suits.
The Urak Lawoi’ and Moken traditionally bartered and did not deal much
with money, but after becoming engaged in the tourism industry they
suddenly acquired cash incomes and, not being used to holding and saving
money, immediately spent most of what they got - a trend that continues
until today.

In the community, urbanization processes and economic change have
contributed to a decline of collective livelihood activities and social support
systems. For example, engagement in the tourism industry does not require
collective action and mutual support. According to the village headman
Lung Ngeem, family cohesion and bonds between relatives in the community
are increasingly weakening. However, even though collective activities are
getting less, they still exist to some degree in the community. There are still
fishermen, Moken and Urak Lawoi’, who fish in groups together, who share
the catch and income, and who show a considerable degree of unity and
mutual support.

Also, while cohesion and unity are low in daily life, and tensions persist
between groups, community members show situational solidarity, i.e. in
face of crisis, particularly the land conflicts, where they appear and act “as a
unity”, including between the two ethnic groups. A stronger social support
system is also present among the Christian group in the community (see
section D for Rawai).

In sum, the Rawai community has faced increasing modernity, improved
access to goods and services and urbanization processes over the past
decade. The far-reaching socio-economic changes have affected all aspects
of the villagers’ lives and are also reflected in their changing patterns of

Findings and Discussion 155

spending behavior and consumption. Government policies did not protect
them; instead, their traditional livelihood systems were regarded as
threatening the environment. Growing interest in and value of land, and
state laws to conserve natural resources, have been pushing the Urak Lawoi’
and Moken further away from their traditional way of life and contributed
to an erosion of their traditional practice and knowledge, worsening living
conditions and increasing social conflicts. Through their economic
livelihood activities, community members are attempting to meet their
needs and to establish some kind of security and well-being. The Urak
Lawoi’s and Moken’s efforts to cope with changing economic landscapes and
the tourism boom, however, are of limited success; even though work in the
tourism sector is relatively well-paid, many Chao Ley have become trapped
in a debt cycle, like the Dara-ang in Nor Lae. The villagers’ shared intentions
and imaginations, their imagining community (Tanabe, 2008) center on the
defense of their land against various external threats, to win the court cases,
to put an end to the land conflicts that affect all areas of community life, and
to obtain secure rights to land and livelihoods (see section A for Rawai).

C. Adaptive Strategies and Responses to Development Challenges

Facing pressure from various sides, the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken in Rawai
are not only denied access to their traditional livelihood area, but also the
quality and biodiversity of their environment have been heavily compromised.
Forest and marine resources are rapidly degrading, and traditional fishing
grounds are no longer accessible to them. The villagers are facing multiple
conflicts on land and resources that have brought about adverse long-term
socio-economic and ecological impacts to individuals, households, and the
community as a whole (see section A for Rawai). Without secure land rights,
community members live under the persistent threat of eviction, and a sense
of insecurity and despair is increasing among the villagers. Over recent
years, social problems have sharply increased, including high incidences of
illegal activities, inter-ethnic conflict, and domestic violence.

In addition, the community is struggling with extremely adverse slum-like
living conditions that negatively affect the physical and mental health of the
residents. Despite the manifold challenges the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken face
in their highly contested and marginalized environment, they have been
trying to find ways, grounded in their imagining community (Tanabe,
2008), to secure their land and resources, and to contest being affected by
development and state policy.

156

Diversification of Income Sources and Accommodation of Tourism

Traditionally, the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken had an intimate relationship to
the ocean and remarkable sea-related skills, e.g., fishing and diving (see
chapter 1). Nowadays, the Rawai villagers lack access to resources or are
unable to make a living from them. As outlined in section B, however, many
villagers have found ways to adapt to the changing socio-economic
circumstances and the large influx of visitors into Rawai. They are able to
engage in income-generating activities, i.e. to take advantage of the rapidly
growing marine tourism industry in the area by offering services sought by
visitors. For example, most of the Chao Ley have turned their fishing boats
into sightseeing boats for tourists (see section B for Rawai). They have
additionally developed business ideas, e.g., the sale of swimming accessories
or souvenirs to tourists during boat trips, e.g., sunglasses, snorkel masks or
decorative shells. In this way, they can earn considerable extra income
during the winter season. Some villagers have managed to make use of some
of their traditional knowledge and skills and to earn income in the tourism
sector, e.g., as sea walkers and divers. A few Chao Ley have found work as
local tour guides, but they work outside the Rawai community. Those
working in tour companies or speed boat services are able to achieve high
returns during the winter season.There are two fish stalls and one restaurant
on the shore, operated by Moken, where Chao Ley fishermen can sell their
catch to visitors. Thus, the villagers are able to develop ways to cater to the
needs and interests of the tourists in their area. Tourism businesses in Rawai
also often prefer hiring Chao Ley because of their knowledge on the sea and
its biodiversity

However, the efforts of the Moken and Urak Lawoi’ to cope with changing
economic landscapes and the tourism boom in the area are of limited
success. Even though the income from work in the tourism sector is quite
high, many Chao Ley have become trapped in a debt cycle, like the Dara-
ang in Nor Lae (see section B for Rawai).

Community Structures and Organization

Unlike the Karen, the Moken and Urak Lawoi’ are no longer able to rely on
common property and communal resource management, and only a limited
number of Chao Ley still harvest fish and seafood together. While traditional
systems of labor sharing and collaboration still exist to a limited extent, the
villagers have described a gradual erosion of social cohesion and support
systems, weakening of familial bonds and networks, and a decline of
knowledge transmission, in line with the changing socio-economic landscape.

Findings and Discussion 157

With increasing urbanization, the influx of tourism and new economic
opportunities, it has become less necessary for the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken
to work in groups. The Urak Lawoi’ and Moken also have no formalized
system of self-governance in the sense of local self-management, nor any
formal community structures and processes that allow collective decision-
making by all community members. However, the situation in the
community at large is complex, and while an overall trend of declining
social cohesion and weak solidarity in every-day life has been described by
the villagers, cohesion among different groups of residents can be observed,
e.g. among fishermen (see section B). These informal groupings establish
loose connections between the persons involved, although they are not
formal organizations with regular meetings. At the same time, there is no
voluntary community organization for the maintenance of infrastructure
and public and shared facilities, and cooperation between community
members to care for their surroundings appears to be low, leaving the area
and pathways in the community flooded with indiscriminately dumped
garbage and litter.

Community Mobilization in the Face of Land Conflicts

In general, the Moken and Urak Lawoi’ share a sense of belonging to another
ethnic group than the Thai majority population. They perceive themselves,
the Chao Ley - whether Moken or Urak Lawoi’ - as being different and
distinct from Thai people, and both groups are aware that they face similar
vulnerabilities and are concerned about the land they have lived on for
generations which also includes their sacred sites. In other words, they share
a sense of belonging to the place as well as the people – the Chao Ley, be it
Moken or Urak Lawoi. Despite the existing conflict between the two groups,
towards outsiders that jeopardize their group and their land, i.e. toward
‘external threats’, the Chao Ley demonstrate their belonging to one group,
and they speak in one voice. In particular, the villagers have engaged in
collective action in the context of the land conflicts, often supported by the
NGO Chumchon Thai (see section D for Rawai). In the court cases, they
have shown a remarkable unity, with often almost the whole community
taking part in the process. For example, to submit documents to the
administrative court in Nakhon Sri Thammarat, and to receive final court
decisions, they usually appear as the entire community, although only a few
of them actually join the court hearings. Their united presence has also
enhanced their visibility among the wider public (see section D for Rawai).

158

Community Fund

From 2005 onwards, the villagers began facing more and more land conflicts.
As a consequence, they have set up a community fund to deal with the
costly court cases. Each household is required to contribute 100 THB per
(around 3 USD) month, plus occasionally 500 THB (around 15 USD) to
cover extra costs for special expenses, e.g., transportation costs. A number
of families, however, have been refusing to contribute to the fund. The key
village leaders have decided that those households will not receive any help
if they face difficulties154. While the Karen in Hin Lad Nai have set up
community funds which contribute to the maintenance, protection and
sustainable use of the forest, the shared fund in Rawai is only used for the
litigation.

Over recent years, however, the mutual support and common spirit related
to the lawsuits have been decreasing in the community, because experiences
with the court cases have been greatly demoralizing and stressful for the
villagers. In the majority of cases, the villagers have won in the first instance,
but then their opponents have appealed to a higher court. Thus, the land
conflicts have developed into a never-ending, wearing process over the past
two decades, and many Urak Lawoi’ and Moken state that they have lost
hope and no longer believe in success.

Religious (Christian) Organization

Within the community, the only active group which regularly holds meetings
is the Christian youth group. The Christian community places an emphasis
on education and organizes many kinds of activities for the children (e.g.,
youth camps). An increasing number of villagers has converted to
Christianity, particular in the “West”-village. A number of villagers explained
that these conversions were mainly because a Catholic missionary group
from Malaysia offers Christian villagers access to different services and
benefits, e.g., health care. At the Balai and Lobong, some of the villagers still
provide offerings and perform traditional worshipping, but there is no
systematic organization in place. Besides the Christian group, there is thus a
very limited number of informal groups within the community, and no
formal representative bodies and community internal rules and regulations
(see section D for Rawai).

154. These households will neither get help if they face land issues themselves, nor get a
share of potential compensation or even land titles if the court rules in favor of the
community.

Findings and Discussion 159

In sum, while the villagers’ shared desire and aspirations, their imagining
community (Tanabe, 2008), center on securing land rights and tenure
security, they have very limited natural, physical, and social capital. Due to
their lack of assets and the multiple forms of marginalization they face, the
Urak Lawoi’ and Moken are greatly restricted in their ability to cope with
their land and resource conflicts and growing livelihood insecurity. In
every-day life, they are struggling to secure their livelihood and their basic
needs, and have been pre-occupied with long-standing land conflicts,
leaving them little room and capacity to address other pressing problems in
the community, e.g., drug and alcohol abuse. These social issues impact the
villagers’ ability to sustain cultural traditions and to build unity and
reciprocity among themselves. They mainly rely on survival strategies in
face of the overwhelming land and resource conflicts, rather than being able
to develop adaptive strategies and effective ways to address or cope with
development-related threats, to strengthen community-internal resilience,
community spirit and solidarity, or to revive traditional knowledge.

D. Negotiation Strategies with State Actors

Within their marginalized environment, the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken have
been largely unable to develop community-internal strategies and adaptive
responses to development threats, and social cohesion and solidarity in
everyday life are weak. Within their restricted scope of possibilities, however,
the community has undertaken efforts, mainly with the help of an NGO, to
fight for their land in the justice system, to resist state power, and to diminish
risks. As outlined in the previous chapters, the villagers’ imagining
community (Tanabe, 2008) centers on access to, ownership of, and control
over land and land security.

Building Coalitions and Networks with NGOs, CSOs and academia

The NGO Chumchon Thai Foundation has trained the villagers in land and
community rights and legal proceedings. Many villagers have acquired a
thorough knowledge of community and land rights and court practices, and
have learned and developed legal skills and negotiation techniques, as well
as the confidence to raise their issues in public. They have also collaborated
with universities, for example, academics from Chulalongkorn University155,
Chiang Mai University, and Rangsit University156.

155. in particular, Dr. Narumon Arunotai
156. in particular, Dr. Khomsang Phokhong who gave legal education and training, helped

gather evidence, and provided testimony in court cases.

160

The Chumchon Thai Foundation has also supported the community in
finding proof of their establishment on Rawai beach prior to the issuance of
land titles. They have mobilized academics and different government bodies
to find scientific (e.g., archaeological, forensic) evidence to substantiate that
the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken have lived in Rawai for a long time. The
Department of Special Investigations (DSI) under the Ministry of Justice,
the Central Institute of Forensic Science (CIFS), and the Right and Liberty
Protection Department (RLPD) found that the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken
have occupied the disputed land for more than a century and confirmed the
legitimacy of the existence of the Chao Ley community in Rawai based on
archaeological and forensic evidence; and the Ministry of Justice
recommended the Department of Lands to revoke the title deeds held by
several businessmen. In February 2016, the National Human Rights
Commission Thailand (NHRCT) reaffirmed the long-term existence of the
Chao Ley community in Rawai (e.g., Bangkok Post, 2016). However, the
companies and individuals who claim the land hold legal documents while
the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken have no official paperwork, so the scientific
evidence was not strong enough to bring the cases to an end.

The Urak Lawoi’ and Moken usually refer to the visit of HM the King Rama
IX in 1959, during which pictures and a film were shot, as further proof that
the community existed in the late 1950s, prior to the titling process. At the
village entrance there is a photograph of the late monarch being welcomed
by the Chao Ley. The picture was also used as key evidence during court
cases. Similar to the Nor Lae community, the Rawai villagers refer to King
Rama IX to create some form of symbolic protection, support and legality
by virtue of being authorized by a key figure of morality, generosity and
compassion.

Chumchon Thai has helped to create and strengthen networks with other
Moken and Urak Lawoi’ communities in different provinces across Thailand.
Since 2010, the Rawai Urak Lawoi’ and Moken have joined the annual Chao
Ley day (in Thai: ngan ruam yaat- the annual gathering of Chao Ley
kinsmen) which is held at different places on rotation.

The Chao Ley have joined networks with other social groups, e.g., the Poor
People’s Rights Network for Development in Phuket in 2005, the People’s
Movement for a Just Society (P-Move) in 2007, and the Network of Ethnic
Groups and Indigenous Peoples Thailand in 2010. They regularly take part
in the yearly Indigenous Peoples Day in August. With P’Move, they have

Findings and Discussion 161

joined demonstrations and protest marches to create awareness of land
issues and to raise their concerns with the central government157.

On 2nd June 2010, the Abhisit Vejjajiva government passed a cabinet resolution
on restoring traditional livelihoods of the Chao Ley, lobbied for by academics
and CSOs (see section C for Rawai). However, according to the Chao Ley in
Rawai, the resolution has not been put into practice, partly due to a lack of
understanding of its meaning on the part of the local authorities (see section
A for Rawai). Since the adoption of the resolution, the villagers have received
some financial support, but the Cabinet Resolution has neither recognized
nor strengthened the Chao Ley’s rights as a community nor reduced their
political, social and economic marginalization.

Collaboration with Government Agencies

Besides building the capacity of the villagers, Chumchon Thai has played a
vital role in linking the community with government agencies such as the
DSI and the Office of Fine Arts, and in facilitating interaction between
them. The NGO also played a crucial role in the creation of the Committee
to Solve the Problem of the Chao Ley under the Office of the Prime
Minister158.

The Chao Lay have established good relations with some local government
agencies, particularly the Department of Fisheries and the Department of
Marine and Coastal Resources, and have cooperated with these departments
in different projects. For example, the Department of Fisheries has been
organizing conservation activities together with Chao Ley because of their
local knowledge and traditional fishing practices. The Department issues
regulations regarding marine products which can be harvested and
equipment that is legal to use. If there are new rules, a community member
will be invited to take part in a meeting to inform Chao Ley fishery workers.
A village representative will occasionally be called to meetings with the
Department of Fisheries to comment on projects on coral reef conservation
and protection. The Department has supplied fishery tools and equipment
to the community. The Department of Marine and Coastal Resources has

157. However, after the military coup in Thailand in 2014, they have not taken part in
protests anymore.

158. The Committee was formed under the Office of the Prime Minister to address issues
of the Chao Ley communities in the South. However, this body has met irregularly
and lacks power and human resources to implement decisions at the local level. The
National Human Rights Commission Thailand (NHRCT) has helped finding proof of
the existence of the Chao Ley community in Rawai before the land titles were issued.

162

initiated nature conservation projects in collaboration with the villagers,
e.g., monitoring aquatic life, increasing certain fish populations, conducting
research on fish species, planting and preserving corals, creating awareness
among boat owners of the vulnerability of coral reefs, and collecting garbage
from the sea159. Their collaboration and contacts with these two departments
contrast with their conflict-ridden relationship with the Department of
National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP)160.

The Urak Lawoi’ and Moken have tried to create understanding for their
situation in the local government, e.g., by seeking dialogue and by sharing
information with the officials. As government staff in Thailand rotate every
3-4 years, they have to constantly rebuild relationships. A number of other
government agencies have initiated projects in the community, e.g., the
Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, and the Provincial
Culture Office under the Ministry of Culture161. However, there has been
little coordination and collaboration among the different agencies and
organizations involved.

Since the 1970s, the local health station162 has initiated a number of projects
within the community to create awareness and increase knowledge of health
risks. The center has put a lot of effort into working in the community, but
their success remains limited.

159. The Department of Marine and Coastal Resources is also working with the TAT Tourist
Authority Thailand. The latter has to consult with the former before promoting an
area as a tourist destination.

160. The first concern of the Department of National Parks is the control of protected areas
and conservation of natural resources. Rules and regulations issued by this agency
continue to have a strong impact on the lives and livelihoods of the Chao Ley. The
department staff are mainly soldiers with little knowledge of the Chao Ley and their
particular cultures, and often conflicts arise over the use of natural resources between
them and villagers.

161. The Provincial Culture Office under the Ministry of Culture has occasionally engaged in
projects to promote the languages of the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken as well as to support
their traditional dancing and costume. The Municipality supports the organization
of annual Chao Ley activities, such as celebrations at the Balai and the Lobong, i.e.
activities in line with the Cabinet Resolution of 2nd June 2010 on the restoration of
the traditional livelihoods of the Chao Ley.

162. The local health station, established in 1973 near the community, has been actively
maintaining relations with the community over the years in providing basic health
care and health education. The larger Vichara Phuket Hospital (around 17 km far
from the community) has bought a decompression chamber, an essential life-saving
tool for the Moken and Urak Lawoi’.

Findings and Discussion 163

Strengthening Leadership and Governance

Chumchon Thai Foundation has selected and trained a group of 10 leaders,
including the three key community leaders, Lung Ngeem, Nilan Yangban
and Sanit Saezua. Before the tsunami, the community’s spiritual leader
played a lead role in all community affairs. However, as land conflicts, court
cases and eviction threats began to dominate the lives of the Urak Lawoi’
and Moken, his role and position diminished, while the secular leaders
gained importance; with the support of Chumchon Thai their duties and
responsibilities were greatly enhanced. Even though the role of the traditional
spiritual leader has changed, he is still respected by the community members;
he is vocal and has the courage to speak in behalf of the community. The
key community leaders and the spiritual leader have been asked to join
regular meetings with the municipal governor, e.g., on development
planning.

There is no formal community committee, and no regular meetings of
community members, only the 10 lead representatives trained by Chumchon
Thai. The main strengths of these leaders are the representation and support
of the villagers in the context of the court cases and towards outsiders. In
the face of various external influences that lie beyond their control, they
have been unable to revive malfunctioning structures of mutual support and
social cohesion, or to solve social problems. There are no bodies, committees
or sub-groups in charge of village maintenance and infrastructure (see
section C).

Avoiding Enforcement of Judgments and Concealing Strategies

Warning and Communication System: The villagers have set up a
communication and surveillance system to protect the community from
intruders. This serves as a warning system when landowners, police or
soldiers enter the area. Some villagers have close contacts with some
individual police officers who will inform the leaders if the police plan to
visit.

Withdrawal to Evade Eviction: If the court has ruled that some households
are to be evicted on a specified date, family members prepare their things
and leave the house and to stay at the beach for a few days. When authorities
enter the community to execute the judgment they are unable to as they
can’t find the family concerned.

Disguising Disputed Houses: The villagers have removed all house numbers
in the community. Since the area is overcrowded with houses, police officers

164

or soldiers who enter with e.g., an eviction order are unable to identify the
houses concerned.

Human Barriers (Women, Children): On another occasion when representatives
of the Raya Company, who had won their court case, entered the community
in order to evict people, the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken gather in a large group
in front of the disputed house. Students in their school uniforms and young
children were seated to protect the building, holding up pictures of King
Rama IX. Here, again, photos of the king were used to point to the long-
term existence and legitimacy of their community.

Children are often taken to demonstrations or court hearings. A number of
villagers stated that their children’s involvement in the protest movement is
more helpful for the community than sending them to school. Women also
participate. For example, during the violent clash with Baron Ltd., the
villagers placed women at the frontline of the disputed area because they
assumed that company workers would not harm them, although in the end
also female villagers were attacked.

Use of New Technology and Social Media

Through the support of Chumchon Thai, the Rawai villagers have also
gained skills in using technology to make their situation known and to
protect themselves from infringement by outsiders. The younger generation
in particular is skilled in using mobile phones and the internet as protection
mechanisms whenever they face disputes with community outsiders, e.g.,
staff of the Department of National Parks; the villagers take video clips and
pictures and share them through social media, or newspapers and TV.
During the clash with the Baron Company in 2016, they were able to
document with their phones the violence they experienced. They have also
recorded their traditional dances in their ethnic costumes in order to present
them in the media, and a number of documentaries have been produced on
the situation and culture of the Chao Ley.

Exerting Pressure on Local Government

Tourism is important to the local economy. Between 2017 and 2018, the
Phuket Shelter for Children and Families Shelter under the Ministry of
Social Development and Human Security organized various kinds of
activities with the Moken children in the “West-village” (e.g., creative
activities, information events and trainings of the youth) to stop them
begging in the area, to counteract a negative image of the area among

Findings and Discussion 165

tourists. When tourists were upset at the sight of Chao Ley who were sick
and not getting medical attention, the authorities took steps to bring all the
Chao Ley into the 30 THB health care scheme.

Over the past years the Chao Ley have organized large protests in front of
Phuket City Hall. The local government expressed great concern about a
potential poor public image of the popular tourist destination and thus, a
loss of visitors, due to the unrest. According to the villagers, they explicitly
threatened the local government with sharing a negative view of Rawai
beach in social media. In this way, the villagers were able to underline their
demands, to increase their influence, and to exert pressure on the
municipality, so that some of their requests were answered163.

The villagers ask for support at provincial or central government level,
knowing that when they pass the orders down to the municipality there is
more likelihood of requests being followed up.

To negotiate with the officials in charge, the Chao Ley usually appear as a
large group. For example, in the case of an unanswered request for an update
on information related to land conflicts, the Chao Ley visited the responsible
officer in a crowd of more than 50 people. This enhances their visibility to
the public and gives their demands a greater weight. However, their unity is
very limited in everyday community life, and remains mainly restricted to
the land conflicts.

In sum, the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken have tried, to some degree, to resist the
state, investors and private developers, to oppose eviction and destruction of
their homes and spiritual space, and to use legal strategies and their
settlement history to legitimize their claim of land ownership. Their
strategies in dealing with the government and private investors can best be
described as defensive, avoidance or resistance strategies, mainly centering
on how to defend their community members and households against forced
removal and homelessness. Since the lives of the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken
are dominated by various external influences over which they have limited
control, in particular the land conflicts, it is hardly possible for them to
develop proactive strategies to foster community resilience, cooperation or
the revival of traditional knowledge. Pushed into a corner, their tactics
mainly focus on how to avoid or minimize negative impacts of the numerous

163. For example, some villagers had borrowed money from illegal lenders, but were
unable to pay it back. As a consequence, they were threatened and attacked by the
lenders. The Chao Ley asked for support and protection from the local government.
Another larger protest was organized against water bills.

166

conflicts they are facing, rather than being able to act as agents, actively
initiating and participating in changes in their community. Overall, their
scope for action and agency seem severely limited, and they lack choices
and opportunities to exert influence and control over their lives. Almost all
initiatives regarding the creation of coalitions have been taken by the NGO
Chumchon Thai. Rapid changes in the socio-economic landscape, combined
with the villagers’ experiences of being powerless, excluded and
disenfranchised in the face of the all-dominant land and resource conflicts
have, according to the village head, led to their becoming rather passive
recipients of outside support, lacking in initiative. The fast pace of change
has led to increasing semi-individualism and a reduction of collective
agency in decision making, e.g., compared to Huay Hin Lad Nai, also
because there is no longer a need for collaboration as there was in their
traditional livelihood activities. The remarkable unity they show as a
community in face of the land conflicts mirrors their shared wish and desire
for secure land rights and housing.

4

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In the past, ethnic populations in periphery areas of the Thai state did not
receive much attention and had little interaction with the central government
and the majority population. Rather, they were considered as insignificant,
strange, primitive and uncivilized others (Laungaramsri, 2002, 2003).
However, due to the emergence of various factors, such as increasing
national security concerns and conservation ideology, ethnic populations
came to the attention of the state (Nawichai, 2008). The so-called hilltribes
were labeled as threats to security, based on their alleged communist
sympathies, opium cultivation and trade, and as threats to the environment
through their allegedly harmful shifting cultivation practices (Buergin,
2000; Ganjanapan, 2000; Hayami & Darlington, 2000, p. 137; IFAD et al.,
2013, p. 46; Kampe, 1997, Laungaramsri, 2003; p. 23; Luithui & Lasimbang,
2007; McKinnon, 2005, p. 32; Pungprasert, 1989; Tomforde, 2006;
Trakansuphakon, 2010, p. 51).

National security threats and forest and nature conservation became major
issues that shaped Thai policies towards ethnic groups, mainly to secure
control and integration of these groups into the state system, and to prevent
deforestation and environmental destruction. Policies included the
designation of protected areas, such as national parks, forest reserves, or
watershed areas, and the exclusion of ethnic groups, such as by forced
eviction, from conservation zones (e.g., Buergin, 2000; Ganjanapan, 1997).
In the conservation discourse, ethnic communities’ traditional agricultural
practices and natural resource utilization and cultivation (e.g., collecting sea
products, practicing shifting cultivation) have been labeled as environmentally
harmful and are thus prohibited in certain areas. While such state regulations
severely affect the livelihoods of resource-dependent ethnic communities,
authorities have often neglected the negative impacts (Nawichai, 2008).

168

At the same time, upland development programmes and government
policies aiming to improve the economic conditions and living standards of
ethnic communities have promoted changes from their traditional
subsistence agriculture into commercial crop production. Concerns have
been voiced about the sustainability and benefits of this change, because of
consequent environmental pollution from chemical pesticides and fertilizers,
soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, indebtedness of farmers, and the disruption
of traditional cultures (Tipraqsa & Schreinemachers, 2009; Trébuil, Ekasingh
& Ekasingh, 2006).

Growing pressure on land and natural resources, in particular due to the
expansion of conservation areas and the expansion of cash crop production,
has further reduced the availability of farmland in the uplands. The
competition over land and resources, insecure land rights, unclear
boundaries and disputed customary land rights have frequently been causes
for conflict between local communities and the authorities (Hares, 2009).

All three communities under study - Huay Hin Lad Nai, Nor Lae, and Rawai
- have been attempting, to a greater or lesser degree, and with varying
success, to find ways to cope with the constraints and restrictions they face
due to changing socio-economic and political environments, increasing
territorialisation of the state, agricultural transition, increasing market
integration, environmental degradation, and prejudices against ethnic
minority groups held by the authorities and wider public. They have been
struggling to find means of removing themselves to some degree from the
confines of the state, and to develop ways to adapt and live within these
restrictions. Since their land and resources have been incorporated into the
domain of the state and are controlled by state mechanisms and laws, these
communities cannot chose to “not be governed”, but they have attempted to
develop ways and strategies of living within state power while resisting,
avoiding or liberating themselves from it to a certain extent. More or less
efficiently, they have sought ways to create “within-state space”, or “despite-
state space” - rather than “non-state space” (Scott, 2009) which these days is
not an option.

The research in the three study sites has illustrated that all three communities
are spaces of struggle and negotiation, with people trying to create and to
arrive at something they aspire to and strive for, a certain state of their
community which they have not yet achieved: their imagining community
(Tanabe, 2008). Through their everyday struggles, grounded in their
imagining community, they are attempting to contest being affected by state

Summary and Conclusion 169

policy, development, and outside power, and to protect their rights to land,
livelihood and natural resources.

All three study sites are communities squeezed by different external forces:
the Huay Hin La Nai community is facing threats from conservation law,
particularly the plan to subsume their community into the National Park,
growing market orientation, agrarian transformation and modernization. In
Nor Lae the villagers are trapped between state forest conservation and
protected areas; in addition, they face constraints due to the commercialization
of agricultural production and contract-farming arrangements, and in
particular, lack of Thai citizenship. The Rawai community is facing pressure
from many directions, including the declaration of protected areas, growing
market influence, private investment, modernisation and urbanization
processes, environmental destruction and discrimination by the majority
society.

In the face of these external influences, the three communities greatly differ
in their ability to develop strategies to deal with emerging development
threats and land conflicts, and to negotiate with those in power for their
community rights.

The Karen villagers in Huay Hin Lad Nai have managed to achieve a high
degree of relative local autonomy in using land and forest resources,
maintaining their local knowledge of how to use the forest and how to
exploit nature sustainably. They have adopted a market approach that is
based on social entrepreneurship values and concepts, and, at the same
time, continue their traditional shifting cultivation practices as a sustainable
and self-sufficient model to ensure food security in their community. The
Karen community has been able to negotiate their rights as “people co-
existing with the forest”, including their rights to manage land and resources
in the forest. They were able to create and make use of social and cultural
capital, to mobilize social networks and to construct a counter-discourse,
and to demonstrate to the authorities and the wider public that their lifestyle
in the forest is sustainable and does not harm nature. In terms of their
imagining community, the community members of Huay Hin Lad Nai try
as much as they can to maintain their traditional way of life and their relative
local autonomy, i.e. their right to use land and resources in line with
customary law and practices, while remaining largely independent of the
outside market and economic pressure. This embraces much more than
being declared as a Special Cultural Zone: the Karen wish to maintain their
subsistence economy, and to obtain community land titles, official
recognition of their customary rights and the right to culture, including

170

their traditional shifting cultivation practices and shared labor system. In
this way, they aspire to ensure community food security and sovereignty in
food production, and to continue to secure income from forest products in
a sustainable way. They struggle to escape the threat of being included in
protected areas and of being evicted from the forest. Their community
resembles a utopian island within a capitalist and authoritarian state.

The Dara-ang’s migration to Thailand was an act of state avoidance, to
escape exploitative practices (e.g., forced labor, war) in Myanmar, allowing
them to withdraw from the reach of a repressive regime, and offering them
refuge and protection from violent conflict. However, in their new location
on the Thai side of the border, they became submerged under the Thai
state’s restriction and control of migrants, and unable to evade the power of
their host state, represented by various agencies. In contrast to the Huay Hin
Lad Nai community, the Dara-Ang have been less able to develop effective
strategies within their limited scope of options. Most of them face debts and
economic hardship due to their contract farming arrangements which have
aggravated their vulnerable and insecure position as rather new migrants to
Thailand. Compared to the Huay Hin Lad Nai community, they are
increasingly facing loss of self-determination and sovereignty over land and
natural resources. Besieged by national conservation laws, citizenship
regulations, military control and arbitrariness, they have little say in their
own economic development, land use and resource governance. At the same
time, the Dara-Ang, in particular the youth, have been trying to find
alternative sources of income and to free themselves from the constraints
and influence of the agricultural cooperative. These attempts, however, have
been of limited success. In face of their insecure legal situation due to their
lack of citizenship, the Nor Lae villagers have adopted diverse strategies that
can be best described as attempts to achieve “outside” acceptance and to
demonstrate to the state and the wider public that they are “good” residents
of Thailand. In terms of their imagining community, the majority of the
younger generation wish to obtain better opportunities in life, to be able to
choose their own economic future and careers, and to be free from the
oppression and coercion they feel from the agricultural cooperative. Across
generations, the Dara-ang’s imagining of their community centers on their
rights to livelihood and subsistence, and their rights and freedoms as
citizens, including improved access to social services, such as education and
health care.

Finally, squeezed between a restrictive environment and modernization
processes, and degrading natural resources, the former self-sufficient
subsistence lifestyle of the Moken and Urak Lawoi’ has changed to increasing

Summary and Conclusion 171

market orientation. Various forces, in their combination, including market
development, private investment, and state conservation laws have
contributed to an erosion of their traditional way of life. In contrast to the
other two communities, the community has been largely unable to develop
internal strategies to manage the adverse impacts of development. Over
time, the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken community has developed into an
alienated, demoralized and uprooted community. Tourism has provided
alternative sources of income to replace their vanishing fishing and resource
harvesting practices, but many are indebted and disheartened, partly because
of the land conflicts which dominate all spheres of their lives; the Chao Ley
were able to win in the courts of first instance but cases drag on as opponents
lodge appeals. In their interaction with the government, the villagers have
mainly adopted defensive or avoidance strategies, aiming to reduce negative
impacts of the various threats they are facing. While the Chao Ley have
been trying to avoid state activities and to defend their living space, in their
highly contested and marginalized environment they have barely any choice
but to deploy escape or resist strategies to avoid the executive power of the
state. They defend and hold on to their land as much as they can to survive
under the tsunami of economic changes from tourism. With the help of an
NGO, the Rawai villagers - Urak Lawoi’ and Moken – show solidarity and
unity in their struggle to win court cases and to obtain secure land rights.

Unlike the Karen in Hin Lad Nai, the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken of Rawai have
not been able to free themselves from the influence of the state in a way that
secures some kind of local autonomy for them to create their community as
they desire it. Putting an end to the land conflicts and obtaining secure land
rights remain the first priority for the community members, even in the face
of community-internal tensions and other pressing social problems.

The study has shown that the three communities are exposed to various
degrees of external influences, with Rawai experiencing the most rapid
changes and a multitude of impacts from various sides, and that the three
study sites greatly vary in their physical, cultural and social capital. For
example, the communities differ substantially regarding their access to social
capital: the Karen have strong group cohesion and commitment within their
community, rooted in a common history, familial bonds and ethnicity.
Moreover, they were able to accumulate and strengthen their social capital
over time through the creation of alliances and networks with different
social forces, including NGOs, CSOs and academia, to promote the
recognition of their relative local autonomy and rights to land and resources.

172

A number of studies have described how upland people in Thailand have
started to make use of civil society and NGOs for their issues in the late
1990s and early 2000s (e.g. Buergin, 2003, p. 59; Jonsson, 2005 p. 129;
McKinnon, 2003, p. 83), as well as examples of successful negotiations of
Karen communities in Thailand based on cooperation with NGOs, e.g. in
case of the Klity Creek lead contamination (Sitthikriengkrai & Porath, 2017,
2018). Moreover, Karen communities in Northern Thailand have undertaken
various efforts to legitimize their claims to community rights based on the
sustainability of their customary land management and their cultural
identity as Karen. Hayami (1997) highlights how Karen have used the
revitalization of certain concepts, such as communality and customary land
ownership, as tools to strengthen their bargaining power in negotiations
with the government. Laungaramsri (2003) outlines how Karen groups
within their movement have developed the ability to convey their knowledge
to the authorities and wider public through dialogue in which they make
use of elements understandable to outsiders. Moreover, in the wider Thai
society, the Karen enjoy a rather positive reputation as benign stewards and
protectors of the forest, as environmentalists living in harmony with nature,
producing for subsistence rather than for the market (e.g., Hares, 2009;
Laungaramsri, 2002; Walker, 2001, Laungaramsri, 2003, pp. 22, 34, 36).
Supported by NGOs and academics, Karen groups in Thailand have
successfully contributed to and strengthened the construction of this
positive image as conservation- and subsistence-oriented forest guardians,
as a means to support their claims over land and forest rights (Hares, 20009;
Santasombat, 2004; Walker, 2001). The creation of this favorable perception
has, for example, also included the use of religious strategies and the
symbolic representation of Buddhism to legitimize land and natural resource
use, such as the tree ordination ceremony (Hares, 2009), a strategy which
has also been used by the Huay Hin Lad Nai community. For example,
Hayami (1997) describes how local Karen claimed their rights to forest and
land by making use of the tree ordination ritual as a means to stop a
government project. Through various legitimation strategies, Karen groups
in Thailand have been able to establish their own counter discourse since
the early 1990s, particularly on shifting cultivation, which emphasizes the
environmental friendliness of rotational farming and distinguishes the
Karen’s rai mun wian from environmentally destructive “slash and burn”

Summary and Conclusion 173

practices164 (Hares, 2009; Laungaramsri, 2000). The positive attributions
associated with the Karen as forest protectors have been described as a tool
for this group to legitimize their claims over land and natural resources165
(e.g. Walker, 2001). The Huay Hin Lad Nai Karen have been contributing to
the high regard of the Karen in Thai society, mirrored in the numerous
awards the community has won, and they were able to make use of alternative
discourses on their traditional way of life established and fostered through
networks and movements of Karen and their allies.

In contrast to the villagers of Huay Hin Lad Nai, neither the Dara-ang of
Nor Lae nor the Chao Ley in Rawai have been able to create and make use
of social and cultural capital to a similar extent. The Nor Lae community is
composed of Dara-ang who have migrated at different times from different
parts of Burma. The community is largely heterogeneous and lacks cohesion
and unity, intensified by their individualistic mode of cash crop production.
The Dara-ang have been unable to create strong alliances and networks with
social forces, and lack a favorable discourse and a positive public image in
the wider Thai society similar to the Karen. For example, due to their relative
late arrival in Thailand, the Dara-ang are often labeled as illegal migrants,
and are frequently associated with forest destruction (Ayuttacorn, 2019).
Even though a number of Dara-ang in Thailand have been able to obtain
citizenship by now, this has not always led to inclusion in the national
community, but rather to their continuing to be perceived as “hilltribes”,
second-class citizens, and a non-Tai ethnic minority group (Ashley, 2013, p.
7). The community has joined networks with other Dara-ang and allied
with some NGOs, mainly concerned with Dara-ang culture rather than
citizenship and land rights, with lèse majesté laws making it impossible to
question existing land use rights. However, through adherence to Buddhism,
the Dara-ang in Nor Lae can make use of some institutional support through

164. Or the repeated cultivation of the same area for a long time, followed and by a long
fallow period, Rai Luan Loi. Rai Mun Viang and Rai Luan Loi are different from
each other, even though both agricultural system include burning and cultivating
a rotational field. While Rai Luan Loi means that the same area will be repeatedly
cultivated for years and abandoned for a long time, Rai Mun Viang means a short-
term cultivation of the same area, followed by a long recovery period (Laungarmsri,
2002).

165. Walker criticized the depiction of the Karen as nature-loving forest resource managers
as an idealized and simplistic ‘Karen Consensus’. In his view, this is restricting the
Karen in their economic and development options (Walker, 2001). However, other
scholars have argued that the Karen elders themselves generated the image of the
Karen, which provided them with social and cultural capital against threats in the
name of national interest (Santasombat, 2004).

174

religious networks, for example, as avenues to education in the community.
Buddhism is one of the few spheres where most of the Nor Lae residents
share a common interest and solidarity. Ashley (2013) describes how Dara-
ang people in Thailand make use of Buddhism to counter dominant negative
and homogenizing constructions of highland ethnic identity, and to obtain
access to education. The author also describes how the story of the Dara-
ang’s acceptance by the Thai King, and the role of Buddhist symbols in the
narrative remain significant among Dara-ang communities for the
legitimization of their presence in Thailand (Ashely, 2013).

Among the Rawai villagers, social and cultural capital remain low. Mutual
support and unity in the community are limited to situational solidarity, i.e.
unity and mutual support in face of crisis, but with the fast pace of social
and economic change further reducing the need for collaboration. The Chao
Ley have low social status among the Thai population and authorities who
share a deeply-rooted prejudice against the ethnic “sea nomads” and regard
them as uneducated, homeless, and materially poor, a mindset that is often
based on a lack of knowledge and understanding of the Moken and Urak
Lawoi’’s traditional lifestyles and cultures (Arunotai et al., 2007, p. 358).
Even though the Chao Ley community has set up networks with an NGO
and other ethnic groups, the long-standing land conflicts are dominating all
spheres of their life, and limit, in combination with other external forces, the
villagers’ agency and control, so that they have become rather passive
receivers of support from the outside. Due to constraints and restrictions
posed by external influences that lie beyond their control, they have not
been able to make their in-depth knowledge on natural resource management
and conservation known and understood among the wider public, and their
indigenous knowledge remains neglected and misunderstood as backward
and primitive (Arunotai, 2006; Arunotai, 2008a, p. 76). Nawichai (2008)
describes how development programmes in a Moken community mainly
provided material support, making the Moken dependents used to asking
for outside help, while their traditional knowledge and skills were not
considered as central components of the interventions.

In essence, the Huay Hin Lad Nai community has been able to successfully
build and make use of various forms of capital in their pursuit of internal
strategies to create resilience towards development threats, as well as its
more outwards-oriented strategies to negotiate their rights and interests
with state actors. They can be seen as an example of a community that has
developed an “art of being governed”. For them, living under the control of
the state implies accepting certain state practices and, at the same time,
applying creative approaches to maintain their local autonomy. The villagers

Summary and Conclusion 175

have been successfully re-creating their relationship with the state, through
their struggle for a community as they desire it, and to oppose and move
beyond dominant state power and discriminating political discourse.

Across ethnic groups, networks and people’s movements have been
characterized as influential channels to make known the perspective of
ethnic groups, to influence decision-making and to negotiate with the
government, as well as, to some extent, improving the image of upland
groups, with connections to larger organizations and people’s networks
(such as the Northern Farmers Network) being influential in negotiations
(Hares, 2009). In this sense, local networks and cooperation are potential
tools to prevent and solve conflict, while improved dialogue and mutual
understanding between the authorities and upland minority people can help
to prevent dispute (Hares, 2009).

This study has further highlighted the great significance of rights and access
to lands, territories and natural resources for local and indigenous
communities, their self-determination and choice of development model.
Land and territories form the bases for their lives, culture and livelihoods,
and are the source of their cultural and social identity (IFAD, 2018). Their
knowledge of the ecosystem and natural resource management, as well as
their options to determine their own development path, are under severe
threat of erosion without secure access and rights to lands, territories and
natural resources, and without recognition of their traditional cultures,
traditional way of life, and their customary practices.

176

5

RECOMMENDATIONS

For Governments:

Develop Understanding
• Government officials need to make serious efforts to gain an in-depth

understanding and appreciation of the special characteristics of the diverse
ethnic communities in Thailand, including their local knowledge and
practices, in order to comprehend their particular concerns and needs.
This includes overcoming an ethnocentric bias, to develop positive
attitudes towards ethnic and indigenous groups.

Promote Rights to Land and Natural Resources
• The state has to protect, promote, and fulfil the rights of indigenous and

ethnic groups to the lands, territories and resources that they have
traditionally used or owned and with which they have an intimate
relationship, and to ensure that these rights receive legal recognition.
• In accordance with the Thai Constitution, local communities should have
the right to participate in the management of their environment and to
benefit from the resources that they help to conserve. The rights to live on
the land and to management practices of local communities should be
legally recognized to ensure community land tenure, e.g., through
community land ownership certificates.
• The state has to ensure the rights of ethnic communities to secure their
livelihoods, particularly those who manage and use natural resources in a
sustainable way, in order to reduce conflict and tension between

178

communities and forest/marine park officials. In case of deprivation of
their rights to land, territories and resources, these groups need to have
access to redress mechanisms that guarantee fair, just and equitable
compensation.

Recognize Knowledge and Natural Resource Management Skills

• The state has to recognize and respect the important role of local traditional
communities in natural resource management and the effectiveness of
community-initiated practices of resource management.

• Their local and traditional knowledge and practices of land and forest use,
e.g., related to traditional farming systems, rotational farming or
community forest management, and their role for biodiversity conservation,
should be acknowledged and promoted.

• Moreover, the state should recognize the rich tradition of community-
centered models of governance over land and natural resources, and
should ensure that ethnic groups and indigenous peoples are able to
choose their own development, means of subsistence, and economic
activities.

• Academia should be involved to play a key role in facilitating exchange
between different interest groups, and in providing scientific evidence for
the sustainability of the communities’ traditional ways of life.

Review Existing Laws

• In order to uphold the rights of communities as stipulated in the
Constitution, laws on protected areas should be amended and adjusted,
and new laws should be formulated to ensure the inclusion of community
rights and participatory resource management.

• Constitutional provisions relating to the right of local communities to
maintain their cultural traditions and to protect and manage natural
resources should become the framework for all laws, policies and programs
related to traditional communities and indigenous peoples.

• In order to solve problems for people living in conservation areas, such as
national parks, marine national parks, forest reserves, and areas of different
watershed quality classes, the current conservation laws need to be
revisited and amended to protect and promote community rights.

Recommendations 179

• Necessary and clear measures have to be provided to all relevant
departments regarding the implementation of Cabinet Resolution 2010
and Special Cultural Zones. Laws on protected areas (e.g., Forest Reserves,
National Parks) should be reviewed with the participation of affected
communities in order to work towards agreements that ensure sustainability
for both people and their environment.

• There is an urgent need for the Thai government to reconsider and change
demarcations as conservation areas of areas which overlap with land used
by ethnic groups for their livelihood and settlement and where there is
clear evidence that they have lived on the land before the protected area
declaration. This includes, for example, putting an end to the expansion of
National Park areas that deprive affected communities of their rights.

Improve Coordination and Participation

• Coordination, cooperation and integration of work among departments,
agencies and organizations needs to be improved to ensure a common
work direction. The shifts in government representatives in each legislation
period should be reconsidered, and the work of all officials involved
should be supervised and monitored by appropriate bodies.

• An integrative mechanism should be created to address and regulate
disputes over resource use and control between government and local
communities, which should include representatives of community members
and organizations and ensure their participation in decision-making.

• The state has to ensure consultation and cooperation with affected
communities prior to the implementation of projects. All stakeholders
have to be able to effectively and equitably participate in decision making
processes. In this way, long-term trusting relationships can be built
between traditional and state actors.

Case-specific Recommendations

For Huay Hin Lad Nai:

• Informed by relevant research, the government should promote the Karen
shifting cultivation system as part of a traditional culture which ensures
sustainable resource use and food security. The right and local autonomy
of Huay Hin Lad Nai community to perform their own community forest

180

activities should be recognized by the state in the form of community
forest or community land titles.

• While the community has been able to maintain their relative local
autonomy and customary land use practices, they need to prepare to deal
with upcoming challenges of changing socio-economic landscapes and
increasing pressure from various sides. The youth play a particularly
important role in the village, e.g., through their participation in resource
management and forest conservation, and through their interaction with
outside society. While they share an interest in their own culture and
traditional knowledge, they are not as politically active as the previous
generation. But in the long-term if they are to be able to deal with future
threats, e.g., the expansion of Khun Chae National Park, their capacity to
negotiate and defend their traditional lifestyle and culture has to be
strengthened against challenges from state policies and developments.
The young generation should be trained to collect and systematically
prepare data about the use of the forest, and their traditional knowledge-
practices and values towards nature and the environment. The youth
should also acquire the skills required to share their knowledge and best
practices widely in their networks, particularly to other ethnic communities
who face similar problems, and they should be encouraged to do so
frequently. In this way, other ethnic groups will have the chance to learn
from the example of the Karen community, while the youth will gain
confidence in demonstrating that the marginalization of their traditional
way of life has been based on false accusations.

• The Karen youth should also learn the skills needed to engage with
changing economic environments and the market economy, to be able to
continue to secure income in the long run. In that way, they can become
better trained in marketing their products efficiently, and in engaging
with middlemen, while maintaining their approach of a sustainable
economy and social entrepreneurship. As they do not reject technology
they could benefit from expanding the online sale of their products.

For Nor Lae:

• The state should develop and accelerate processes for the issuance of Thai
citizenship. This also includes the implementation of measures to
counteract discrimination and lack of goodwill among responsible
agencies.

Recommendations 181

• Since the community is increasingly facing difficulties in finding income-
generating opportunities, the villagers should set up a community welfare
system and develop mechanisms to share resources with each other, to
help and give support to people in need, particularly those facing financial
hardship, and elderly people. For example, Buddhist monks should
support the Dara-ang villagers in setting up a rice bank to help villagers
cope and protect them from food shortage, e.g., by giving out seeds; or by
creating a savings group to offer the possibility to borrow money at a low
interest rate, or a locally owned and controlled cooperative organization.

• Even though they have very limited arable land to use, the Dara-ang
should attempt to strengthen their land use to ensure their own food
security by growing certain space-saving crops for their household
consumption on a sustainable basis.

• The Dara-ang could benefit from an E-commerce capacity building
programme to enhance their skills and knowledge in the use of
e-commerce, with the aim of expanding their business and participation
in supply chains, and thus to improve their income in the longer run.
They should choose, insofar as possible, to grow crops which can achieve
higher income in the market.

• The Dara-ang women should get training to strengthen their capacity in
weaving and to improve the quality, designs, and color of their woven
fabrics as well as their understanding of market mechanisms, commerce
and customer preferences, so that they can achieve higher income from
the sale of textiles.

For Rawai:

• Chao Ley ownership over disputed land in Rawai needs to be secured in
cooperation with concerned authorities and the villagers. Where
investigation shows that a Chao Ley community was living on the land
before the land title deeds were issued, the deeds should be revoked, and
the community members should receive community land titles. Even
though secure land rights will not enable the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken to
farm on the land, or to use natural resources, they will allow a sense of
ownership and belonging to the area. It will enable them to improve their
living conditions, e.g., through renovation and construction of urgently
needed infrastructure which is impossible as long as the land is under
dispute. Not having to live with the constant threat and fear of being
evicted from their living place will also remove a great source of anxiety,

182

improve the Chao Ley’s overall psychological well-being and enable them
to address other pressing social problems in the community.

• The government should recognize the traditional culture, knowledge and
resource management practices of the Moken and Urak Lawoi’ as useful
for protected area management, and also make them more known among
the public. For Marine Park management, the participation and
consultation of all relevant stakeholders should be ensured. The rights to
access natural resources for the livelihoods and subsistence fishing
activities of the Urak Lawoi’ and Moken need to be respected, and
regulations should be revised accordingly.

• The Rawai community appears as an alienated, demoralized community.
Means have to be developed to boost and foster their spirit and morale.
This will require plans and projects initiated by actors outside of the
community, i.e. the government, at provincial or local level, or a Civil
Society Organization, in cooperation with the villagers.

• The Urak Lawoi’ and Moken, together with external supporters, should
turn the community into an attraction for visitors, a community of former
(semi-) nomadic ethnic groups. The area should be arranged and cleaned
accordingly, including the sacred areas, the balai and the lobong. As
outlined before (chapter 1.5.3), the Moken have gained international
popularity because they survived the tsunami due to their rich knowledge
of the marine ecosystem. A communal Moken/Urak Lawoi’ cultural center
should be established in which interested visitors, including tourists,
academics, and government officials could exchange knowledge with
community members and gain a deeper understanding of their traditional
cultures. The center should display the Moken and Urak Lawoi’s cultural
capital, i.e. their in-depth knowledge about the marine and coastal
ecosystems, including aquatic life, waves, and wind, and their sea-related
skills, such as deep sea fishing and navigation. In this way, the learning
center could also serve as a connecting point to create networks and
alliances with other social groups. In particular, tourists should get the
chance to learn about the livelihood and cultures of the Moken and Urak
Lawoi’ during their visits through e.g., photo displays, or guided walks.
The center should also help to generate some income for the community,
e.g., through entrance fees or the sale of souvenirs. The learning center
can also serve as a space to promote the transgenerational transfer of
knowledge within the community, to give the younger generations the
chance to learn from the elders about the marine environment. While
initially outsiders (government, NGOs) would be needed to launch the

Recommendations 183

center, to provide training, and monitor implementation, the villagers
should be in charge of the management of the center in the long-term. In
this way a greater sense of agency can be fostered among them. As an
attraction for visitors, the center can be beneficial for both the community
and the provincial government.

• Before setting up the center, the villagers should systematically document
their rich traditional knowledge on the marine ecosystem and their
sustainable practices of resource management, in close collaboration with
their network of Chao Ley across Thailand.

184