A study on intervention activities of external agents in forest dependent communities and their effects on livelihoods and the state of the forests in Northern Thailand.

Abstract

Studies on the commons have mostly been focusing on how communities themselves can overcome collective action dilemmas, but a lot of communities still find it difficult to effectively self-govern their commons without external intervention. External actors have been trying to help forest dependent communities through intervention activities for decades to manage their forests sustainably and help create institutions to do so. These interventions could have potential to effectively assist forest dependent communities who are not yet able to self-govern their forest. However, there are no convincing studies yet that show that these external actors contribute to a significant improvement to the forest as well as the livelihoods of these communities. It is not certain what the best approach for external actors would be, as it has been proven difficult to design interventions that are both trying to improve biodiversity conservation as well as improving livelihoods of forest dependent communities. Therefore, the objective is to make recommendations to external actors on how to improve such intervention designs. To achieve this, an analytical, practice-oriented research is conducted in which a comparison is made between two forest dependent communities in Northern Thailand of which only one has received external intervention. A qualitative approach is chosen in which interviews and household surveys are conducted on site. In the analysis, the livelihood portfolios and the ability to deal with collective action dilemmas are studied, as well as which institutions are present and which activities of the external actor are directed at these. To be able to get a nuanced understanding of these complex and dynamic interrelationships. an integrated analytical framework is tested which has proven rather useful for the purpose of this research. The findings of this research confirm what is already stated in the current literature as this is yet another example that shows that external intervention did not bring any significant change or improvement. In other words, it is again not clear if, how, and to what extent external actors can actually make a difference. This study is highly relevant as it contributes to the existing literature and debates, by clarifying the used approach in this case, to what extent it works or not, and what would be advised to do differently in order to become more effective. Together this contributes to accumulating knowledge in order to improve interventions designs for external actors.