Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104822

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean and Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

Explaining success in community based mangrove management: Four T

coastal communities along the Andaman Sea, Thailand
Chaturong Kongkeawa, Jawanit Kittitornkoola, Peter Vandergeestb,∗, Kongkiat Kittiwatanawongc
a
Marine and Coastal Resources Institute, Prince of Songkla University, Karnjanavanit Rd, Hat Yai, Songkhla, 90110, Thailand
b
Department of Geography, York University, 4700, Keele Street, Ross S900, Toronto, ON, M3J 1P3, Canada
c
Marine and Coastal Resources Research and Development Institute, Sakdidet Rd, Wichit, Mueang, Phuket, 83000, Thailand

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Community-based mangrove management (CBMM) in Thailand has been uniquely successful, so that efforts to
Community-based mangrove management promote CBMM elsewhere can potentially learn from the Thai experience. This qualitative research identifies
Coastal communities factors contributing to success of community-based mangrove management in four coastal communities along
The Andaman sea the Andaman Sea during 1980–2017. The emergence and consolidation of community-mangrove management
Thailand
took place in distinct phases including collective action with support by NGOs to address a degradation crises; a
shift to cooperation with government; and the stabilization and enhancement of sustainable management.
Factors explaining the emergence of successful community mangrove management include those internal to the
community, such as leadership, occupational change, experience, and capacity to organize into groups; and
those that are external to the community including NGO support in the initial phases, and increasing government
support and recognition in subsequent phases. The factors that help explain success have changed over time,
indicating the flexibility in what might facilitate successful CBMM elsewhere.

1. Introduction Thereafter, community forestry was promoted as part of a national

Community-based mangrove management (hereafter CBMM) has
been widely promoted as part of a broader movement in support of
community-based forest management. This approach has been posi-
tioned as an alternative to the failures of state forest management
(Alcala, 1998), as state forestry departments are often thought to be
incapable of being the sole forest resource conserver. Over the past
three decades, many countries have initiated policies and projects to
encourage local people to engage in community-based forest manage-
ment (Poffenberger, 1990). Many studies have found that forest man-
agement that includes local people and communities results in more
successful forest resource management compared management by state
agencies without community participation (Chhatre and Agrawal,
2009), as evident in lower levels of deforestation and forest degradation
in community forests (Poffenberger, 1990). In Thailand, as in other
developing countries, community forest management has recieved
considerable national attention (Salam et al., 2006).
Community-based forestry in Thailand was practiced informally for
hundreds years by local people. These practices began to be recognized
in 1985 when the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) launched a
community forest management project with Kasetsart University.
forest policy (Salam et al., 2006). At the same time, the growing Non
Government Organization (NGO) sector also initiated support for
community forestry (Rittibhonbhun et al., 1993; Vandergeest et al.,
1999; Chotthong and Aksornkoae, 2006). While the initial community
forests were terrestrical, we estimated based on reports by Chotthong
and Aksornkoae (2006) and Sudtongkong and Webb (2008) that the
movement had extended to mangrove forests by the mid-1990s.
During the initial phase, it was becoming evident that logging
concessions and shrimp farming were causing a mangrove forest de-
gradation crisis (On-prom, 2014; Sudtongkong and Webb, 2008;
Chotthong and Aksornkoae, 2006; Salam et al., 2006). In 1961 there
were over 352,000 ha (ha) of mangrove forests in Thailand (Depart-
ment of Marine and Coastal Resources, 2009—hereafter DMCR). By
1996, human activities had reduced mangrove forest cover to
160,0000 ha (Charuppat and Charuppat, 1997). In Southern Thailand,
where mangrove forests covered about sixty percent of all coastal areas
in 1961, this cover decreased by fifty percent in the subsequent three
decades (Thampanya et al., 2006). The causes included logging con-
cessions for charcoal production, human habitation, aquaculture or
shrimp farming, salt fields, mining, infrastructure development, agri-
culture, and urbanization (Huitric et al., 2002; Plathong and Plathong,

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: pvander@yorku.ca (P. Vandergeest).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.104822
Received 20 September 2018; Received in revised form 16 May 2019; Accepted 17 May 2019
Available online 24 May 2019
0964-5691/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Kongkeaw, et al. Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104822

Table 1
Factors contributing to the success in mangrove forest management.
Level Factors Past Present

Internal to Community Impact on community livelihoods ✓

External to Community
Awareness about conserving natural resources and ecologies ✓ ✓
Cooperation between community leaders and members ✓ ✓
Change in occupations and community livelihoods ✓
Decrease in direct utilization of mangrove forests ✓
Leaders' experiences in natural resource management ✓
Formation of many community groups ✓ ✓
Government policies
• Abolition of concessions in mangrove forests ✓
• Rehabilitation of mangrove forests ✓
• The 2015 Marine and Coastal Management Act mandates community participation ✓
• Support from local authorities
Decline in shrimp farming
✓
✓
Support from NGOs and other external organizations ✓ ✓
Social acceptance of community and community forest rights ✓
Social capital from participating in conservation networks ✓
Increases in bargaining power with the state ✓
Support derived from corporate social responsibility ✓

2004; DMCR, 2009). Ecosystems and human livelihoods in coastal
communities were severely affected.
In response, starting during the 1980s, villagers in a large number of
coastal communities took initiatives to manage their mangrove forests,
many doing so with the support of (NGOs). As communities took steps
to protect mangroves, the rate of loss of mangrove cover in Thailand
slowed dramatically, with a overall decline of only about 1% during
2000–2012 (Richards and Friess, 2016; Table 1). While this success can
be attributed to various factors as outlined below, including changes in
government forest policies toward a conservation emphasis, our re-
search demonstrates that community work to protect mangroves con-
tributed to the recovery and expansion of mangrove cover in commu-
nity mangrove areas.
Various researchers (Chotthong and Aksornkoae, 2006;
Sudtongkong and Webb, 2008; Datta et al., 2012) have observed that
CBMM in Thailand has been highly successful; indeed, Datta et al.‘s
(2012 pp. 85–86) overview of CBMM globally singles out Thailand as
having the highest number of successful CBMM initiatives, and as being
truly community oriented, including recognizing community ownership
of mangrove resources. Nevertheless, research and analysis has not
taken a systematic or comprehensive approach to explaining this suc-
cess. Authors who have writen about CBMM in Thailand generally cite a
select set of factors but do not attempt an general explanation. Nor has
this research examined the historical process through which community
mangrove management emerged and was stabilized in Thailand.
This objective of this study is to elaborate the key factors that help
explain the success of CBMM in four coastal communities located on the
Andaman (west) coast of Thailand. Identifying the pathways by which
CBMM emerged and was stabilized in Thailand, and the reasons for the
success of CBMM, will be instructive for proponents of CBMM in other
countries as they seek to build community capacity and shape policies
in ways that facilitate the conservation of mangroves through partici-
pation by resident communities.
2. Key concepts
Factors mentioned as explaining success in published studies of
CBMM in Thailand and elsewhere can be summarized as follows: clear
community rights over resources (Pagdee et al., 2006); the establish-
ment of effective community institutions (Abdullah et al., 2014; Pagdee
et al., 2006); appropriate community incentives (Aheto et al., 2016;
Cagalanan, 2015; Pagdee et al., 2006); effort and commitment among
community leaders and members (Abdullah et al., 2014; Kumsap and
Indanon, 2016; Pagdee et al., 2006); and financial and human capital
support (Pagdee et al., 2006), especially support from NGOs (Abdullah
et al., 2014; Brown, 1998). Successful community-based biodiversity
conservation programs link social processes with ecological systems,
and connect local wisdom to scientific knowledge (Armitage, 2003;
Berkes and Folke, 1998; Brown, 2003; Mackinson and Nottestad, 1998;
Turner et al., 2000). Other factors mentioned in the literature involve
the physical characteristics of the resources, community characteristics,
participation, technology, market influence, and government policy
(Pagdee et al., 2006). We will explore the significance of these factors,
as well as those that emerged through an empirical study of four
community mangrove forests in Thailand.
Based on how success is described in the research cited above, we
define successful CBMM as including: 1) community capacity to protect
and restore mangrove fertility; 2) social recognition of CBMM by re-
levant government agencies and other organizations; and 3) the ex-
tension of community conservation practices to other communities.
We do not assume that rural communities are pre-existing pri-
mordial rural entities or actors. Rural communities are the outcome of
interacation among multiscale processes, including sustained collective
action by rural residents, state administrative practicies that define the
modern territorial village (Vandergeest and Peluso, 1995), and the
action of other organizations such as NGOs that shape capacity to or-
ganize and act collectively. Communities are also important dis-
cursively, as a language that can be compelling to states and other
actors when making claims to resources and territory (Li, 1996). Be-
cause communities are produced in part through sustained collective
action (Vandergeest, 2006), CBMM contributues to creating commu-
nities, usually by drawing on pre-existing repertoires of collective mo-
bilization. Groups that engage in many different kinds of sustained
collective actions are more likely to be strong and resilient commu-
nities. Collective action, and thus communities, are also produced in
part through the financial, technical, and organizational support they
recived from NGOs, government, and other entities.
A comprehensive explanation of the successes of CBMM thus needs
to account for factors that are both internal and external to the com-
munities, especially NGO and state support. These factors are not in-
dependent—we will show that external agencies can contribute to
shaping communities, while communities can contribute to shaping the
external institutional environment. Different state agencies have dis-
tinct mandates and institutional cultures, and these mandates and
cultures can also change over time, sometimes as a result of community
action. For example, a forestry department may be concerned with
forests and mangroves either as resources that they can allocate as
concession to private sector actors, or as an ecology that should be
conserved, and this can change over time. If the latter, they may have
provisions for allowing local residents to use the resource or not, and

2
C. Kongkeaw, et al.
Fig. 1. Location of research sites.
participate in conservation or not. Additional state agencies that can
shape CBMM include resource management agencies for fisheries or
coastal management, and local and central government units who
might support community development (Satumanatpan et al., 2017).
NGOs are similarly differentiated—some may take a more exclusionary
approach to conservation, and others a more community-based ap-
proach. The involement of community-oriented NGOs is often vital,
especially for funding group activities, providing information about
community rights, encouraging the villagers to claim rights, and bro-
kering long-term relationships with relevant government agencies and
other stakeholders (Benson, 2012; Chotthong and Aksornkoae, 2006;
Johnson and Forsyth, 2000; On-prom, 2014; Pagdee et al., 2006;
Sudtongkong and Webb, 2008; Wittayapak and Vandergeest, 2010).
3. Methodology
3.1. Research sites
The four research sites are located in three provinces in the
Andaman sea, as shown in Fig. 1. They include:
1) Ban Pa Klok, Pa Klok subdistrict, Thalang district, Phuket province
2) Ban Klang, Bangtoey subdistrict, Mueang district, Phang Nga pro-
vince
3) Ban Tha Sanook, Ma Rui subdistrict, Thap Put district, Phang Nga
province and
3
Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104822
4) Ban Thung Tasae, Thungkrabue subdistrict, Yan Ta Khao district,
Trang province
The criteria for selecting these sites was that communities had de-
monstrated successful CBMM. Drawing on the definition of success,
they should have 1) more than 20 years of success in protecting and
restoring their mangrove forests; 2) formal and informal recognition by
government organizations, academic institutions, and other external
agencies; and 3) activities to extend community conservation strategies
to other areas.
3.2. Field research analysis
The first author of this paper conducted semi-structured interviews
with ninety-four people during the period November 2015 to January
2017, to produce qualitative data regarding the history of community
involvement in mangrove management, as well as current activities.
Participants included fifty-six leaders and members of mangrove forest
management groups, seventeen villagers, twelve NGO staff members,
and nine government officials. The lead author also did field observa-
tions in the research sites, including mangrove management activities,
and participated in meetings with other stakeholders including gov-
ernment departments and NGOs. Finally, the authors have worked with
NGOs and government on policy advocacy, policy formation, and policy
studies on topics related to coastal resource management in Southern
Thailand for many years, which provides important background
C. Kongkeaw, et al.
knowledge in support of our observations about government policies
and NGO activities.
Data on key steps involved in the emergence of community man-
grove management and factors leading to success were collated for
analytic induction and typological analyses. Data triangulation was
achieved by comparing interviews with different groups of stake-
holders, such as community leaders and core-team members, NGO staff,
and government officials. Finally, the authors examined reports and
documents that outline the history of community forestry and CBMM in
Thailand.
4. Results
4.1. History of community-based mangrove forest management
The creation of stable CBMM during 1980–2017 was the outcome of
interactions of multiple factors that were both internal and external the
community. We begin by summarizing the histories of successful CBMM
in each of the four communities according to the criteria specified
above, and then provide a more detailed account of the factors that led
to success.
4.1.1. Ban Pa Klok, Pa Klok subdistrict, Thalang district, Phuket province
This community had been largely self-sufficent for many decades,
based on abundant marine and coastal resources. By the 1970s self-
sufficiency was in decline largely due to government policies enabling
resource exploitation including allocating mangrove forests as logging
concessions, and promoting destructive fishing gears such as trawlers
and push nets. Degradation reached its peak in 1984–1992 as the li-
velihood resources in the sea and mangrove forests were increasingly
damaged by shrimp farming as well as trawlers and logging conces-
sions. An important event that provoked villagers to initiate CBMM in
this village was their blockade of dredging trucks invading their man-
grove forest to build shrimp farms.
This was also the time period when NGOs appeared to work in the
village, the first of which was the national NGO World Wildlife Fund
Thailand (an offshoot of the WWF), under the patronage of H.M. the
Queen. Their information about community forest rights encouraged
villagers who were seeking long-term solutions to the degradation of
their resource-based livelihoods. This led to the community mobiliza-
tions, including organizing conservation groups and conservation ac-
tivities within broader community-based networks at provincial, re-
gional and national levels. Increasing cooperation with official agencies
through these networks subsequently brought about penalties for
trawlers who illegally fished inside 3 km exclusion zone for commercial
fishing boats; an expansion of Phang-nga Bay conservation area; pro-
tection from mangrove invasions; mangrove rehabilitation; releases of
marine species; and the registration of a community mangrove forest.
The mangrove forest was considered rehabilitated by 1993, and regis-
tered in 2005.
4.1.2. Ban Klang, Bangtoey subdistrict, Mueang district, Phang Nga
province
Already by the late 1950s this community's mangrove forest had
been damaged by charcoal concessions, but most villagers who relied
on fishing and wood cutting were not yet seriously affected. During the
1980s, 160 ha of their mangrove forest were turned into sand by tin
mining. Moreover, mining pollutants that were discharged into the sea
degraded coastal ecological systems and cased turbidity of sea water.
Mining ceased in 1990 due to a decline in the price of tin, and shortly
thereafter in 1992, staff members of the national NGO, the Thai
Volunteer Service Foundation, arrived to work in the village. This NGO
promoted awareness of community mangrove management approaches,
and supported mangrove rehabilitation in the former tin mining area.
After many years of rehabilitation effort, the community recovered
about 96 ha of mangrove forest. Their community forest was registered
4
Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104822
in 2011, and their success brought them national attention, including
national prizes.
4.1.3. Ban Tha Sanook, Ma Rui subdistrict, Thap Put district, Phang Nga
province
Compared to the other communities, Ban Tha Sanook started later
in developing CBMM, due to the timing of the threats to the mangrove
forests. Like the other three villages, the first charcoal concessions did
not seriously affect the community as there were abundant natural re-
sources for a relatively small population But by 1997 they had started
rehabilitating mangrove forest in these concession areas. However, the
major cause for community collective action for mangrove conservation
was an invasion of shrimp farming in 2001. Like Ban Pa Klok, the WFT
Thailand was the first NGO to work in the village, and with their as-
sistance they registered a community mangrove forest in 2011.
4.1.4. Ban Thung Tasae, Thungkrabue subdistrict, Yan Ta Khao district,
Trang province
This was the first community to take action to conserve mangroves
among the four study communities. Community action began during
the mid-1980s as opposition to charcoal concessions in a mangrove
forest important for livelihood uses. The villagers consulted a local
NGO, the Yadfon Association, on how to reclaim their community
mangrove forest. By then the Yadfon Association had developed ex-
perience collaborating with villagers in another site (Ban Laem Makam,
Sikao district, Trang) on gaining government recognition for a com-
munity mangrove forest. NGO staff members and village leaders also
learned from the experience of successful community forests in the
northern and northeastern regions of Thailand. Following the approach
developed in these cases, community leaders and Yadfon Foundation
worked together to approach the provincial Department of Forestry
office in Trang to demarcate a community forest separate from the
forest concessions. This led to the reclaimation of more than 320 ha of
community forest, out of a total mangrove area of 800 ha. Thereafter,
the community continued to work on a variety of mangrove re-
habilitation activities. After the charcoal concession ended, persistent
community efforts resulted in restoration of all of the forest area, and by
1998 they considered the mangrove forest rehabilitated, although they
have not formally registered the forest with the government. Due to the
active enforcement of rules and regulations in the mangrove forest,
regular reforestation activities, the release of marine species, and net-
working activities with outside agencies, the community and its leaders
were recognized nationally with awards for conservation successes.
4.2. Summary of development of CBMM over the four sites
The development of the four CBMMs can be classfied into four
(overlapping) periods as follows:
4.2.1. Crises and coping with mangrove degradation (1980s – early 1990s)
This was the time when the communities began to be significantly
affected by mangrove destruction caused by charcoal and mining con-
cessions, shrimp farming, infrastructure development, and more. In part
due to the sharp decline in catches of marine animals that villagers
attributed to mangrove degradation, some villagers had to migrate to
work in cities. NGOs were crucial during this time period in assisting
villagers to understand how they could claim collective forest man-
agement rights and protect mangroves from loss and degradation.
4.2.2. Formation and progress (1990s to early 2000s)
During this period, villagers in the four study sites made claims on
the right to participate in managing mangrove forests, worked with
NGOs to develop conservation activities, and organized community
groups for marine and mangrove management. Some collective activ-
ities were confrontational. In Ban Pa Klok, community activities during
1992–1996 included blockading shrimp farmers who were attempting
C. Kongkeaw, et al.
to build farms in mangroves. But many were less confrontational, as
communities became more involved in managing mangroves. Thus in
Ban Pa Klok, community members pursued the demarcation of com-
munity and concessionary forests, and engaged in mangrove refor-
estation. In Ban Klang, the main activities were related to mangrove
reforestation; in Ban Tha Sanook the community devoted most of their
efforts to reclaiming the mangrove forest; and in Ban Thung Tasae, the
community focused on demarcating the traditional community forest as
well as requesting officials to demarcate a boundary between conces-
sions and community forests. These community mobilizations were
undertaken in the same period across these four sites, as they experi-
enced the same crises. NGO support was important for facilitating the
exchange of ideas, knowledge and experience across different com-
munities. With the assistance of NGOs, community leaders visited not
only other community forests not only in the South of Thailand, but also
in northern and northeastern regions.
4.2.3. Cooperating and networking (Mid-1990s to late 2000s)
Nationally, this was a time of increasing cooperation among NGOs,
government agencies, and communities. The four communities in this
study also expanded cooperation during 1992–2005 to involve a variety
of governmental agencies, as well as networks of conservation and
natural resource management groups at provincial, regional and na-
tional levels. Community leaders participated in government-related
committees at both local and governmental levels, and most commu-
nities registered their mangrove forests as community forests.
Registration legitimized forest conservation and utilization, and
brought in some financial support. The villages became popular study
sites for visitors from all over the country, and the communities, their
leaders and youth groups were recognized by various awards.
Overall in Thailand, the network of community mangrove forests
was expanded to the provincial, river basin, regional and national le-
vels. A wide range of organizations cooperated and subsidized the
mangrove forest management activities.
4.2.4. Enhancement of management for sustainability (2000s - 2017)
The most recent period has been one of consolidation, stability, and
sustainability in community mangrove forests. Some villages have fo-
cused on conducting community or mangrove research by cooperating
with other agencies. Most communities started to promote eco-tourism
based on their community forests, and some have become well-known
local and national learning centers. Communities turned to conserving
other natural resources, particularly shellfish and marine fishing.
Leaders continue to be recognized for their mangrove forest manage-
ment achievements, including honorary degrees from universities. In an
indication of deepening cooperation with government, many leaders
were appointed as consultants for government organizations, who have
continued to support decentralized community mangrove management.
4.3. Factors contributing to the success of mangrove management
The key elements of successful mangrove management in the four
communities are based in the criteria we outlined above. They include
the ability to stop mangrove invasions, rehabilitate forests and recover
forest fertility, create management plans for sustainable forest use,
provide for long-term protection from deforestation, and provide sup-
port for other communities seeking to conserve mangrove forests.
Success can be comprehensively explained in terms of factors that
are both internal and external to the community, within two time
periods: the past (1980–2000) and the present (2001–2017) as sum-
marized in Table 1. In this section we elaborate on these factors.
4.3.1. Factors internal to community
The communities initiated their involvement in mangrove man-
agement because their livelihoods were affected by invasion and de-
struction of their mangrove forests. Government logging and mining
5
Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104822
concessions resulted in loss of access to mangrove resources, declines in
marine fisheries, and degradation of other aquatic resources. These
phenomena were common in most coastal communities in Thailand
during the first phase of CBMM (Chotthong and Aksornkoae, 2006; On-
prom, 2014; Salam et al., 2006; Sudtongkong and Webb, 2008).
The success in mangrove forest management in all four communities
was based on the active involvement, responsibility, and commitment
of community leaders. Leadership required skills in group organizing,
mangrove forest management, conflict resolution and legal issues. In
the initial phases (during the 1980s and 1990s), the formation of
community groups for mangrove management was facilitated by the
participation of community leaders in national networks for community
forestry and other community initiatives where they learned how to
organize community-based management. Leaders were also successful
because they involved villagers throughout the process of protecting,
planting, rehabilitating, preserving and managing the forests. This
factor was significant in enhancing mangrove management in all
communities (Kumsap and Indanon, 2016).
The question of leadership will be a challenge for the future of
CBMM. Most current leaders are over fifty years old, while the number
of potential leaders among younger generations is limited. After the
retirement of the current leaders, it is likely that the future mobilization
of community mangrove management will change.
Collective involvement of community members in mangrove man-
agement process was also sustained by the formation of many other
community groups such as savings groups, fishing-gear fund groups,
and supplementary income generating groups. NGOs provided support
for the activities involved in establishing and operating the groups
during the earlier phases of CBMM, while more recently the govern-
ment has provide financial resources for community groups as part of
broader decentralization of rural development (Vandergeest, 2012).
The significance of a dense network of community groups was heigh-
tened after the crisis of mangrove invasion were resolved. At this point,
it became necessary to generate commitment to CBMM as an ongoing
activity. This was facilitated by having other community organizations
as forums in which community members interacted and shared in-
formation or problems concerning mangrove forest management. The
savings groups played an especially important role in bringing villagers
to monthly meetings for financial planning, which then created op-
portunities for mangrove forest management team to meet at the same
time.
While this study focusses on four communities, we can add that
community organizations for a range of collective activities are present
in almost all communities with CBMM in Thailand (Chotthong and
Aksornkoae, 2006). Community leaders set up community organiza-
tions as a strategy to urge the government to recognize community
capacity and rights, to create forums for mobilizing community activ-
ities, and to build partnerships with external organizations.
In the present period, changes in occupations and community live-
lihoods have led to decreases in direct utilization of mangrove forests,
so that the goals of management have shifted from sustainable use to
conservation. There are now many options for materials for house
construction, so that the villagers do not need much wood for house
construction from the mangrove forest. Almost all households have
replaced charcoal and fuelwood stoves with gas stoves for household
cooking. Shifts in livelihoods have also resulted in a reduction of wood
cutting for fishing gear. For example, in the 1990s there were over
thirty fishing households in Ban Pa Klok, which dropped to only three
in 2017, due to depletion of fisheries and the diversification of occu-
pations with the growing economy in Thailand. The turn to purchased
food has led to a decrease in the number of livestock raised for meat,
leading to further reduction of forest use. This has changed the in-
centives for managrove conservation: villagers are less interested in
protecting resources for income and livelihood purposes. Thus con-
servation for other reasons—tourism, awareness of environmental re-
sponsibility, protection from ocean storms and tsunamis—are now
C. Kongkeaw, et al.
more important. It remains to be seen if these are sufficient to sustain
community management.
The above-mentioned factors internal to communities are necessary
for community-based natural resource management, as they lead to
community participation, as well as promoting community ownership
and enhancement of capacity to act collectively in an ongoing fashion
(Salam et al., 2006; Siri and Chantraprayoon, 2017). As our description
shows, however, these internal factors are also enabled and shaped by
external factors. External factors were in turn re-shaped by the actions
of strong communities in the latter phases, as they sought to influence
government policies and enlist allies in different sectors.
4.3.2. Factors external to the community
As already indicated, support by NGOs and other external organi-
zations was a key reason for the success of CBMM in Thailand. In the
early phases of CBMM, villagers were restricted by their skills, living
conditions and financial resources from undertaking important actions
such as communicating with external organizations, advocating for
community involvement in mangrove management policies, and soli-
citing funds for community activities. During this phase, NGOs pro-
vided the necessary skills and resources for these activities. The role of
NGOs as bridging organizations was significant, as they connected local
knowledge with scientific knowledge, and acted as managers for
sharing knowledge, building trust, learning, collaborating both hor-
izontally and vertically, and conflict resolution. The NGOs also worked
as catalysts and facilitators between different levels and types of gov-
ernance (community, government), and between different systems of
knowledge and resources (Berkes, 2009).
NGO support was made possible during the first phase of CBMM by
the way that international development donors channeled significant
funding to NGOs engaged in community-based development starting
during the 1980s. It was common during this period for NGOs active in
supporting CBMM to employ as many as twenty staff members. But as
Thailand's economy expanded and incomes rose during the 1990s,
many international donors withdrew development funding from
Thailand. By the second phase, international funding for NGOs had
mostly dried up. Some of this funding was replaced by government
support (Shigetomi, 2006) as government agencies turned to NGOs to
help them with community development. But government funding did
not fully compensate for the loss of international donor funding, while
many government agencies also started to bypass NGOs to fund village
development groups directly. This shift was facilitated by the way that
many villagers developed skills in financial management, writing pro-
posals and so on, enabling them to take over many of the tasks pre-
viously accomplished by NGOs. NGOs have experienced a decrease in
funding, and typical staffing levels have dropped to three to five people.
Changes in government policies, priorities, and mandates have been
a second key factor in enabling sustained CBMM. There are a number of
aspects to the government role in the success of CBMM. At a broad
level, CBMM was enabled by a policy shift away from forest exploita-
tion toward forest conservation, which for mangroves happened in a
way that did not exclude communities from access to mangrove forests.
The national turn to managing forests for conservation began during
the 1980s, as reserve forests were reclassified as conservation areas
(primarily National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries). The shift became
permanent when the government abolished logging concessions in
1989 (Vandergeest and Peluso, 1995), in all forests except mangroves.
In terrestrial forests, rural communities who lived in and near con-
servation areas were largely excluded from legal participation in forest
management in conservation areas. The Department of Forestry and
some conservation NGOs blocked successive draft community forest
bills that would have allowed for community forests in conservation
zones. This was in contrast to mangrove forests, which like terrestrial
forests had been classified as reserve forests to be managed for ex-
ploitation through logging concessions, but were not demarcated as
conservation zones. Among the reasons that mangroves were not
6
Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104822
demarcated as conservation areas was that the 1989 ban on logging did
not apply to mangroves, although both charcoal and tin mining con-
cessions were eventually abolished as well (Salam et al., 2006). At the
same time, as we indicated in the introduction, the Department of
Forestry had a program to register and support community forests
outside of conservation zones. It defined a community forest as a
community-organized forest management system applied to a demar-
cated area of forest. This enabled coastal communities formulate
management plans, demarcate parts or all of their mangrove forests,
and obtain recognition from the Department of Forestry.
The transfer of mangrove forests from the jurisdiction of the
Department of Forestry to a newly formed Department of Marine and
Coastal Resources (DMCR) in 2002 (Satumanatpan et al., 2017) was
also conducive to government support for CBMM. The DMCR has de-
monstrated openness to recognizing and supporting a community role
in mangrove management. Most officials in this new department were
transferred from the Department of Fisheries, which had more experi-
ence in working with fishing communities than the Department of
Forestry. The DMCR's mangrove rehabilitation policy exemplifies this
openness, as it has supported community involvement in mangrove
planting activities in almost all coastal areas in Thailand. The DMCR
has also played a bridging role by bringing in private sector actors to
support community mangrove planting projects, as corporations de-
velop corporate social responsibility programs (CSR). This enabled
villagers to diversify funding sources and networks, helping to com-
pensate for the decline in NGO support. Meanwhile, public relations
activities promoting community mangrove management provided by
private companies are significant in raising social acceptance of the
community initiatives.
The 1997 Constitution, which mandated recognition of community
rights and decentralization of development funding, has been influen-
tial in how government agencies work with communities. While the
1997 Constitution was repealed in 2006 following a coup, provisions
concerning community rights were maintained in subsequent con-
stitutions. The influence of the 1997 Constitution was apparent in the
formation of the 2015 Marine and Coastal Resources Management Act.
Sections 5 and 6 of this Act require the inclusion of representatives of
coastal communities in national and provincial committees for coastal
and marine resources policy and planning. Section 16 requires the
DMCR to promote the participation of local communities and local
authorities in managing, planting, maintaining, conserving, re-
habilitating and utilizing marine and coastal resources. The Marine and
Coastal Resources Management Act also provides communities with a
high degree of freedom to take charge of rehabilitating, conserving and
managing their forests. To our knowledge no study has yet assessed
how coastal communities may be empowered by the implementation of
this policy, but our data show that this law provides the communities
with negotiating power with government agencies in maintaining
community control of mangrove management activities.
A decline in pressure on mangroves from private sector extractive
industries has also facilitated CBMM. We mentioned above the abolition
of mining and logging concesions. In addition, shrimp farming has not
posed a major threat to mangrove conservation efforts in recent years.
As we indicated above, shrimp farming was a major cause of loss of
mangroves with significant impact on community livelihoods (Huitric
et al., 2002; Chotthong and Aksornkoae, 2006). Over the past 10 years,
however, shrimp epidemics have led to a major decline in shrimp
farming, which stopped new mangrove invasions, while many existing
shrimp farms were deserted (Stevenson and Burbridge, 1997). These
deserted shrimp farms have became important targets for community
efforts to rehabilitate mangrove forests.
While we have emphasized external factors shaping the success of
community forestry, the influence also worked in the other direction, as
communities have had success in shaping the external environment to
their advantage. For example, CBMM communities joined the nework of
small-scale fishery communities in cooperating with DMCR, and
C. Kongkeaw, et al.
campaigned for community-oriented mangrove forest management
policies. They pushed for the transfer of mangrove forest registration to
the DMCR from the Department of Forestry, as community leaders
preferred cooperation with DMCR over working with the Department of
Forestry. Their campaigns also helped produce the community-oriented
provisions in the 2015 Act.
A more recent external factor influencing CBMM is support from
other external organizations such as universities and private business,
as mentioned above. This includes funding, public relations for com-
munity activities, and volunteers to work with the villagers in orga-
nizing conservation activities. It is too early to assess the influence of
private sector actors in support of CBMM.
As we indicated in the introduction to this paper, CBMM in Thailand
has been successful when compared to most other countries.
Accordingly, we have so far emphasized success and factors that helped
produce success. But the success of CBMM and of mangrove conserva-
tion in the future is not assured. Future threats include 1) emerging
government policies; 2) new sources of mangrove invasions; 3) water
and soil pollution; and 4) the continued inadequacy of enforcement of
fishing regulations.
1) Recent legal decisions under the military government that came to
power in 2014 have found that mangrove forests are still owned by
the government, which reserves the right to manage them or to
permit conversion to other uses. Examples of conversion include
infrastructure such as roads and ports, and large-scale development
projects such as powerplants and industrial estates. Communities
who claim and manage mangroves will need to negotiate these
challenges.
2) Related to the first threat are new invasions of mangroves by large
private sector actors. Although there has not been an attempt to
occupy mangroves in four research sites, the government has issued
documents permitting large private development projects in areas
that include mangrove forests in nearby villages.
3) Soil and water quality is deteriorating in the coastal zones due to
land use changes elsewhere, negatively impacting mangrove forests.
For example, upsteam flooding has caused soil erosion and sludge in
the mangrove forest at Ban Tha Sanook, killing some of the forest.
4) The lack of control over fisheries in the mangrove forests may not
directly affect the stability of mangrove forests, but the fact that
many communities do not strictly enforce or enhance fishing man-
agement through provisions such as control of fishing gear, estab-
lishing a pro hibited season for fishing, and restrictions on taking
juvenile fish, can result in reduced diversity and abundance of
aquatic animals (see also Hoq, 2007 on similar problems in the
Sundarbans in Bangladesh).
5. Discussion
The success of CBMM in Thailand can be explained a confluence of
both internal and external factors, while overcoming challenges that
did not support success. The factors explaining success changed over
time, indicating that there is no single approach that is necessary for
successful CBMM, although we would suggest that some factors are
more important, such as a relatively supportive external environment,
and the development of community capacity to manage the technical
and financial aspects of CBMM. We might add that our findings are
consistent with research on community participation in the manage-
ment of other kinds of resources. For example, Pomeroy et al. (2001)
suggest that contributing factors to successful co-management in fish-
eries can be classified into external factors including supporting roles of
external organizations, law and policy; internal factors including the
sense of ownership and the roles of leaders; and individual factors in-
volving incentives to participate for livelihood reasons.
In the initial phases, CBMM needed to overcome significant chal-
lenges, as communities needed to oppose private sector actors who
7
Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104822
were degrading or destroying mangroves, and who were supported by
government agencies. They were able to overcome these challenges
with the help of national networks of NGOs. Over time, the influence of
NGOs declined, but this was compensated by the increased capacity of
communities to act collectively; by increased government recognition
and support for community activities; and by a broader policy turn
away from extractive activities to conservation. These observations are
consistent with the finding that active participation by NGOs and
government support are necessary for good mangrove governance in
Africa (Cagalanan, 2015; Feka, 2015 p. 349), but we can add that not
all of these factors are necessary at any given time.
The decline of the NGO role in bridging different constituencies will
be a challenge for the future (Berkes, 2009). It is possible that local
government could replace or supplement the NGOs’ role, but govern-
ment agencies are often constrained by lack of personnel and limited
expertise in the promotion of community participation in mangrove
management. If the state does not provide active support, it remains
necessary that it at least formally recognizes CBMM, following the
findings of scholars such as Ostrom (1990, 1999) and Salam et al.
(2006). Our analysis also explains why the government in Thailand has
been relatively supportive of community involvement in mangrove
forest management, while opposing community forests in conservation
forests on land.
CBMM was initially sparked by the need to defend mangroves
against extractive activities. However, CBMM was sustained over time
because of a facilitating shift in government policy from extraction to
conservation. The significance of the turn to conservation can be
highlighted by a comparison with neighbouring countries such as
Indonesia, where extractive activities and forest conversion to com-
mercial uses such as shrimp farming continue to take precedence over
conservation (Ilman et al., 2016). The turn to conservation is not a
sufficient condition; successful CBMM is also conditional on conserva-
tion policies that are open to substantial community participation. Fi-
nally, the turn to conservation was also apparent at the community
level, as community use of mangroves for livelihood purposes de-
creased. We can contrast Thailand with cases where this transition has
not occurred such as Africa, where research shows that utilization of
mangrove forests remains at a high level, contributing to a lack of
success in mangrove conservation (Feka, 2015; Datta et al., 2012). At
the same time, the decrease of livelihood uses presents potential chal-
lenges in terms of maintaining commitments to mangrove conservation
given the reduced livelihood incentives.
6. Conclusion
Success in CBMM cannot be predicted by a formula that can lifted
from the Thai case and applied elsewhere. The usefulness of this study
lies in how it identifies the factors that may facilitate success in other
places, while at the same time showing that there is flexibility in how
success can be achieved. Some of the key lessons include the observa-
tion that building community capacity to act collectively is crucial, but
this capacity cannot be isolated from how CBMM interacts with other
community groups and how these groups also contribute to creating
communities. In addition, while strong NGO support can be central to
initiating CBMM, in the long run a supportive government that allocates
communities strong participation rights is also important.
Despite the current stability of CBMM, the communities have to
cope with many future challenges including climate change and un-
predictability, urbanization, fewer young residents, reduced reliance on
mangrove resources for daily life, changes in community bonding re-
lationships, aging community leadership, reduced NGO support, new
encroachment threats, and limited involvement of local authorities.
Consequently, there are challenges to how future mangrove manage-
ment will be able to rely on community collaboration with government
agencies and other organizations. Despite these challenges we remain
optimistic. Some factors supporting continued success include the
C. Kongkeaw, et al.
growing capacity villagers to organize and lobby government agencies
on their own without NGO support; continued support for CBMM from
main government department in charge of mangrove forest conserva-
tion; a public that is strongly supportive of conserving mangroves in
part because of the future role in climate change adaptation; and the
growing involvement of private sector actors in supporting community
mangrove rehabilitation and conservation.
Funding
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Grant
Number 435-2014-1407 enabled Peter Vandergeest to participate in
this research..
References
Abdullah, K., Said, A.M., Omar, D., 2014. Community-based conservation in managing
mangrove rehabilitation in perak and selangor. In: Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, vol. 153. pp. 121–131.
Aheto, D.W., Kankam, S., Okyere, I., Mensah, E., Osman, A., Jonah, F.E., Mensah, J.C.,
2016. Community-based mangrove forest management: implications for local liveli-
hoods and coastal resource conservation along the Volta estuary catchment area of
Ghana. Ocean Coast Manag. 127, 43–54.
Alcala, A.C., 1998. Community-based coastal resource management in the Philippines: a
case study. Ocean Coast Manag. 38, 178–186.
Armitage, D., 2003. Traditional agroecological knowledge, adaptive management and the
socio-politics of conservation in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Environ. Conserv. 30,
79–90.
Benson, C., 2012. Conservation NGOs in madang, Papua New Guinea: understanding
community and donor expectations. Soc. Nat. Resour. 25 (1), 71–86.
Berkes, F., 2009. Evolution of Co-management: role of knowledge generation, bridging
organizations and social learning. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 1692–1702.
Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sus-
tainability. In: Berkes, F., Folke, C., Colding, J. (Eds.), Linking Social and Ecological
Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 1–25.
Brown, D., 1998. Development bridging organizations and strategic management for
social change. IDRC Rep. 10 (3), 26.
Brown, K., 2003. Three challenges for a real people-centered conservation. Glob. Ecol.
Biogeogr. 12, 89–92.
Cagalanan, D., 2015. Governance challenges in community-based forest management in
the Philippines. Soc. Nat. Resour. 28 (6), 609–624.
Charuppat, T., Charuppat, J., 1997. Using Landsat-5 (TM) satellite imagery for mon-
itoring of mangrove forest changed in Thailand. In: Proceeding of the 10th National
Mangrove Ecosystem Seminar. National Research Council of Thailand, Bangkok,
pp. 1–9.
Chhatre, A., Agrawal, A., 2009. Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage and
livelihood benefits from forest commons. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, vol. 106. pp. 17667–17670.
Chotthong, B., Aksornkoae, S., 2006. Sustainable Community-Based Mangrove
Rehabilitation in Thailand. Thailand Environment Institute, Bangkok, Thailand.
Datta, D., Chattopadhyay, R.N., Guha, P., 2012. Community based mangrove manage-
ment: a review on status and sustainability. J. Environ. Manag. 107, 84–95.
DMCR (Department of Marine and Coastal Resources), 2009. Strategic Plan for Mangrove
Forest Management in Thailand. Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment,
Bangkok, pp. 31.
Feka, Z.N., 2015. Sustainable management of mangrove forests in West Africa: a new
policy perspective. Ocean Coast Manag. 116, 341–352.
Hoq, M.E., 2007. An analysis of fisheries exploitation and management practices in
Sundarbans mangrove ecosystem, Bangladesh. Ocean Coast Manag. 50, 411–427.
Huitric, M., Folke, C., Kautsky, N., 2002. Development and government policies of the
shrimp farming industry in Thailand in relation to mangrove ecosystems. Ecol. Econ.
40, 441–455.
Ocean and Coastal Management 178 (2019) 104822
Ilman, M., Darguscha, P., Dartc, P., Onrizalda, 2016. A historical analysis of the drivers of
loss and degradation of Indonesia's mangroves. Land Use Policy 54, 448–459.
Johnson, C., Forsyth, T., 2000. In the eyes of the state: negotiating a ‘‘Rights-Based ap-
proach’’ to forest conservation in Thailand. World Dev. 30 (9), 1591–1605.
Kumsap, K., Indanon, R., 2016. Integration of community forest management and de-
velopment activities: lessons learned from Ubon Ratchathani province. Kasetsart J.
Soc. Sci. 37, 132–137.
Li, T.M., 1996. Images of community: discourse and strategy in property relations. Dev.
Change 27 (3), 501–527.
Mackinson, S., Nottestad, L., 1998. Combining local and scientific knowledge. Rev. Fish
Biol. Fish. 8, 481–490.
On-prom, S., 2014. Community-based mangrove forest management in Thailand: key
lesson learned for environmental risk management. In: Kaneko, N., Yoshiura, S.,
Kobayashi, M. (Eds.), Sustainable Living with Environmental Risks. Springer, Tokyo.
Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: the Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 280.
Ostrom, E., 1999. Self-governance and Forest Resources. Occasional Paper No. 20. CIFOR,
Jakarta, Indonesia. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/000536, Accessed date: 14 May
2019.
Pagdee, A., Kim, Y., Daugherty, P.J., 2006. What makes community forest management
successful: a meta-study from community forests throughout the World. Soc. Nat.
Resour. 19 (1), 33–53.
Plathong, S., Plathong, J., 2004. Past and Present Threats on Mangrove Ecosystem in
Peninsular Thailand. Department of Biology, Prince of Songkla University, pp. 13.
Poffenberger, M. (Ed.), 1990. Keepers of the Forest: Land Management Alternatives in
Southeast Asia. Kumarian Press, West Hartford, Connecticut.
Pomeroy, R.S., Katon, B.M., Harkes, I., 2001. Conditions affecting the success of fisheries
co-management: lessons from Asia. Mar. Policy 25, 197–208.
Richards, D.R., Friess, D.A., 2016. Rates and drivers of mangrove deforestation in
Southeast Asia, 2000–2012. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 113 (2), 344–349.
Rittibhonbhun, N., Chansanoh, P., Tongrak, S., Suwannatchote, R., 1993. Community-
based mangrove rehabilitation and management: a case study in Sikao district, Trang
Province, Southern Thailand. Reg. Dev. Dialog. 14 (1), 111–122.
Salam, M.A., Noguchi, T., Pothitan, R., 2006. Community forest management in Thailand:
current situation and dynamics in the context of sustainable development. N. For. 31
(2), 273–291.
Satumanatpan, S., Moore, P., Lentisco, A., Kirkman, H., 2017. An assessment of govern-
ance of marine and coastal resources on Koh Tao, Thailand. Ocean Coast Manag. 148,
143–157.
Shigetomi, S., 2006. Bridging Non-governmental Actors into the Policymaking Process:
the Case of Local Development Policy in Thailand. Institute of Developing Economies,
Chiba, Japan Discussion Paper No 69.
Siri, R., Chantraprayoon, O.S., 2017. Local community participatory learning with a
nature interpretation system: a case study in Ban Pong, Sansai district, Chiang Mai,
Thailand. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 38 (2), 181–185.
Stevenson, N.J., Burbridge, P.R., 1997. Abandoned Shrimp Ponds: Options for Mangrove
Rehabilitation. Intercoast Network, Coastal Resource Center, USA, pp. 13–14
University of Rhode Island.
Sudtongkong, C., Webb, E.L., 2008. Outcomes of state- vs. community-based mangrove
management in southern Thailand. Ecol. Soc. 13 (2), 27.
Thampanya, U., Vermaat, J.E., Sinsakul, S., Panapitukkul, N., 2006. Coastal erosion and
mangrove progradation of Southern Thailand. Estuar. Coast Shelf Sci. 68, 75–85.
Turner, N.J., Ignace, M.B., Ignace, R., 2000. Traditional ecological knowledge and
wisdom of aboriginal peoples in British Columbia. Ecol. Appl. 10, 1275–1287 (h).
Vandergeest, P., 2006. CBNRM communities in action. In: Tyler, S.R. (Ed.), Communities,
Livelihoods and Natural Resources: Action Research and Policy Change in Asia.
International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, pp. 321–346 (Chapter 16).
Vandergeest, P., 2012. Deagrarianization and Re-agrarianization: multiple pathways of
change on the sathing phra peninsula. In: Rigg, J., Vandergeest, P. (Eds.), Revisiting
Rural Places: Pathways to Poverty and Prosperity in Southeast Asia, pp. 135–156.
Vandergeest, P., Peluso, N.L., 1995. Territorialization and state power in Thailand. Theor.
Soc. 24, 385–426.
Vandergeest, P., Flaherty, M., Miller, P., 1999. A political ecology of shrimp aquaculture
in Thailand. Rural Sociol. 64 (4), 573–596.
Wittayapak, C., Vandergeest, P. (Eds.), 2010. The Politics of Decentralization: Natural
Resource Management in Asia. Silkworm Books.