People, Land and Poppy: the Political Ecology of Opium and the Historical Impact of Alternative Development in Northwest Thailand
Versions
- 2017-04-27 (2)
- 2017-04-27 (1)
Thailand’s near-total elimination of opium poppy cultivation is attributed to “alternative development” programming, which replaces illicit crops with licit ones. However, opium poppy cultivation was not drastically reduced because substitute crops earned the same income as opium: nothing can equal the price of opium to smallholder farmers, especially those without land tenure. Thailand’s reduction in poppy cultivation was achieved by the increased presence and surveillance capability of state security actors, who, year by year, were able to locate and destroy fields, and arrest cultivators, with increasing accuracy. This coercion was also accompanied by benefits to cultivators, including the provision of health and education services and the extension of roads; both stick and carrot constituted the encroachment of the Thai state. The provision of citizenship to hill tribe members also gave them a vested interest in the state, through their ability to hold land, access health care, education and work opportunities, amongst others. These initiatives did not occur without costs to hill tribe cultures for whom a symbiotic relationship with the land was and remains disrupted. These findings indicate that alternative development programming unlinked to broader state-building initiatives in Afghanistan, Myanmar and other opium poppy-producing areas will fail, because short-term, high-yield, high value, imperishable opium will remain the most logical choice for poor farmers, especially given the lack of a farmer’s vested interest in the state which compels them to reduce their income whilst offering them no other protections or services.
Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Anderson, B., Tan, T.Y., Woodcock, S., and Jongruck, P. (2016). Thailand’s Last Opium War: Governance and Illegality in a Highland Periphery. National University of Singapore Governance Study Project.
Asia Indigenous People’s Alliance. (2012). Drivers of Deforestation? Facts to be considered regarding the impact of shifting cultivation in Asia. AIPP. Retrieved from http://ccmin.aippnet.org/attachments/article/956/Driver_%20of_Deforestation.pdf in June 29 2016.
Bruun, T. B., De Neergaard, A., Lawrence, D., & Ziegler, A. D. (2009). “Environmental Consequences of the Demise in Swidden Cultivation in Southeast Asia: Carbon Storage and Soil Quality.” Human Ecology 37(3), 375-388; ASB-Indonesia Report Number 4, Bogor.
Erni, C.. (2009). Shifting the Blame? Southeast Asia’s Indigenous Peoples and Shifting Cultivation in the Age of Climate Change. Paper presented at Adivasi/ST Communities in India: Development and Change, Delhi, August 27-29.
Hinton, P. (1983). Why the Karen do not Grow Opium: Competition and Contradiction in the Highlands of North Thailand. Ethnology 22(1): 1-16.
Hutheesing, O. K. (1989). Emerging Sexual Inequality among the Lisu in Northern Thailand: The Waning of Dog and Elephant Repute. Leiden: Brill.
Irrawaddy. (2016). KNU Signs Forestry Memorandum with WWF. November 9. Retrieved from http://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/knu-signs-forestry-memorandum-with-wwf.html. in January 4, 2017.
Jantakad, P., & Carson, S. (1998) Community Based Natural Resource Management from Villages to an Inter-Village Network: A Case Study in Pang Ma Pha District, Mae Hong Son Province, Northern Thailand. International Workshop on Community-Based Natural Resource Management, World Bank, Washington, USA.
Jongruck, P. (2012). Network Governance through Resource Dependence Theory: a Case Study of Illicit Drug Policy in Thailand. PhD dissertation, University of Manchester (UK).
Landes, D. S. (1998). The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. New York: Norton.
Laungaramsri, P. (2005). Swidden agriculture in Thailand. Myths, realities and challenges. Indigenous A airs 2/05. Copenhagen: IWGIA.
Leach, E. (1954). Political Systems of Highland Burma: a Study of Kachin Social Structure. London: Anthlone Press.
Lintner, B. (1999). Burma in Revolt: Opium and Insurgency since 1948. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
Lintner, B. (2000). An Overview of the Golden Triangle Opium Trade. Chiang Mai: Asia-Pacific Media Services.
McCoy, A.W. (1973). The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. New York: Harper and Row.
ONCB. (1995-2015). Opium Cultivation and Eradication Reports for Thailand.
Ongprasert, P. (2011). "Forest Management in Thailand." Participants Reports on Forest Resources Management: 151.
Race, J. (1974). The War in Northern Thailand. Modern Asian Studies 8/1, pp. 85-112.
Renard, R.D. (2001). Opium Reduction in Thailand, 1970-2000. Chiang Mai: Silkworm Books.
Scott, J.C. (1998). Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Scott, J.C. (2009). The Art of Not Being Governed: an Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. New York: Yale University Press.
Siriphon, A. (2001). Opium and the Hmong: Dynamism, Diversity and Complexity of Identifies of a Marginal people. Master’s Dissertation, Chiang Mai University, Unpublished.
Smith, M. (1994). Burma: Insurgency and the Politics of Ethnicity. London: Zed Books.
Tilly, C. (1985). “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime”, in Evans, Peter, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, and Theda Skocpol. Eds. Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Schendel, W. (2002). Geographies of Knowing, Geographies of Ignorance: Jumping Scale in Southeast Asia. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 20: 647–668.
Washburn, W. E. (1998). Against the Anthropological Grain. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Winichakul, S. (1994). Siam Mapped: a History of the Geo-Body of a Nation. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
This is an open access journal which means that all contents is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. An article based on a section from a completed graduate dissertation may be published in Forest and Society, but only if this is allowed by author's(s') university rules. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Forest and Society operates a CC-BY 4.0 © license for journal papers. Copyright remains with the author, but Forest and Society is licensed to publish the paper, and the author agrees to make the article available with the CC-BY 4.0 license. Reproduction as another journal article in whole or in part would be plagiarism. Forest and Society reserves all rights except those granted in this copyright notice
