¹ See, for example, Maffi, L. (ed.) (2001), On biocultural diversity (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press)Google Scholar or Haverkort, B. and Rist, S. (eds) (2007), Endogenous development and bio-cultural diversity (Leusden: COMPAS)Google Scholar.

² See Buergin, R. (2013), Contested rights of local communities and indigenous peoples in the context of the biocultural turn in environment and development discourses (University of Freiburg, SEFUT Working Paper 16): http://www.freidok.uni-freiburg.de/volltexte/9346, [accessed 4 February 2015].

³ American Anthropological Association (1947), ‘Statement on human rights’, American Anthropologist, 49:4, pp. 539–543CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴ See Brems, E. (2001), Human rights: Universality and diversity (The Hague: Kluwer)Google Scholar or Donders, Y. (2010), ‘Do cultural diversity and human rights make a good match?’, International Social Science Journal, 61, pp. 15–35CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

⁵ Cowan, J. K., Dembour, M.-B. and Wilson, R. A. (eds) (2001), Culture and rights: Anthropological perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ For example, Lerner, N. (1991), Group rights and discrimination in international law (Dordrecht: Nijhoff)Google Scholar or Bisaz, C. (2011), ‘The concept of group rights in international law’, PhD thesis, University of Zürich.

⁷ Niezen, R. (2003), The origins of indigenism: Human rights and the politics of identity (Berkeley, California: University of California Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸ United Nations (2007), Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (New York: UN General Assembly)Google Scholar.

⁹ For example, Kingsbury, B. (1998), ‘“Indigenous peoples” in international law: A constructivist approach to the Asian controversy’, American Journal of International Law, 92:3, pp. 414–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar or Jentoft, S., Minde, H. and Nilsen, R. (eds) (2003), Indigenous peoples: Resource management and global rights (Delft: Eburon)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ See, for instance, Buege, D. J. (1996), ‘The ecologically noble savage revisited’, Environmental Ethics, 18:1, pp. 71–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Fottrell, D. and Bowring, B. (eds) (1999), Minority and group rights in the new millennium (Dordrecht: Kluwer)Google Scholar; Deveaux, M. (2000), Cultural pluralism and dilemmas of justice (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press)Google Scholar; Minde, H. (ed.) (2008), Indigenous peoples (Delft: Eburon)Google Scholar.

¹¹ See, for example, Brokensha, D. W., Warren, D. M. and Werner, O. (eds) (1980), Indigenous knowledge systems and development (Washington, DC: University Press of America)Google Scholar; Cernea, M. M. (ed.) (1985), Putting people first (New York: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar.

¹² See Williams, N. M. and Baines, G. (eds) (1988), Traditional ecological knowledge (Canberra: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies)Google Scholar or Berkes, F. (ed.) (1989), Common property resources (London: Belhaven)Google Scholar.

¹³ For example, Ostrom, E. (ed.) (1990), Governing the commons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)CrossRefGoogle Scholar or Bromley, D. W. (ed.) (1992), Making the commons work (San Francisco, California: Institute for Contemporary Studies)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ See Cornwall, A. and Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2004), ‘Putting the “rights-based approach” to development into perspective’, Third World Quarterly, 25:8, pp. 1415–1437CrossRefGoogle Scholar or Uvin, P. (2007), ‘From the right to development to the rights-based approach: how “human rights” entered development’, Development in Practice, 17:4–5, pp. 597–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Regarding Thailand, see Johnson, C. and Forsyth, T. J. (2002), ‘In the eyes of the state: Negotiating a “rights-based approach” to forest conservation in Thailand’, World Development, 30:9, pp. 1591–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁵ For instance, Agrawal, A. (1995), ‘Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientific knowledge’, Development and Change, 26:3, pp. 413–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nederveen Pieterse, J. (1998), ‘My paradigm or yours?’, Development and Change, 29:2, pp. 343–373Google Scholar; Briggs, J. and Sharp, J. P. (2004), ‘Indigenous knowledges and development’, Third World Quarterly, 25:4, pp. 661–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Meuleman, L. (2013), ‘Cultural diversity and sustainability metagovernance’, in Meuleman, L. (ed.), Transgovernance (Berlin: Springer)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁶ In this framing, non-modern rural or ‘traditional’ people living in or close to protected areas were frequently either conceived of as candidates for modernization and a possible threat to ‘nature’, or were virtually identified with ‘nature’ as ‘primitive people’ and as such determined to vanish but possibly even worthy of conservation as long as declining development.

¹⁷ For example, Wells, M. and Brandon, K. (1992), People and parks (Washington, DC: The World Bank)Google Scholar or IUCN and McNeely, J. A. (eds) (1993), Parks for life (Gland: IUCN)Google Scholar.

¹⁸ See West, P. C. and Brechin, S. R. (eds) (1991), Resident peoples and national parks (Tucson: University of Arizona Press)Google Scholar or Western, D. and Wright, R. M. (eds) (1994), Natural connections (Washington, DC: Island Press)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ For example, McNeely, J. A. and Pitt, D. (eds) (1985), Culture and conservation (London: Croom)Google Scholar or Oldfield, M. L. and Alcorn, J. B. (eds) (1991), Biodiversity: Culture, conservation, and ecodevelopment (Boulder, Colorado: Westview)Google Scholar.

²⁰ For example, Brechin, S. R. et al. (eds) (2003), Contested nature (Albany, New York: State University of New York Press)Google Scholar or Brockington, D. and Igoe, J. (2006), ‘Eviction for conservation’, Conservation and Society, 4:3, pp. 424–470Google Scholar.

²¹ See, for example, Kramer, R., Van Schaik, C. and Johnson, J. (eds) (1997), Last stand (New York: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar or Vermeulen, S. and Sheil, D. (2007), ‘Partnerships for tropical conservation’, Oryx, 41:4, pp. 434–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²² Brundtland, G. H. (1987), Our common future (Oxford: Oxford University Press)Google Scholar.

²³ UNCED (1992), Agenda 21 (Washington, DC: UNCED)Google Scholar.

²⁴ See, for instance, Stevens, S. (ed.) (1997), Conservation through cultural survival (Washington, DC: Island Press)Google Scholar or Stone, R. D. and D’Andrea, C. (2001), Tropical forests and the human spirit (Berkeley, California: University of California Press)Google Scholar.

²⁵ For example, Loh, J. and Harmon, D. (2005), ‘A global index of biocultural diversity’, Ecological Indicators, 5:3, pp. 231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gorenflo, L. J. et al. (2012), ‘Co-occurrence of linguistic and biological diversity in biodiversity hotspots and high biodiversity wilderness areas’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109:21, pp. 8032–8037CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

²⁶ See Oviedo, G. T., Maffi, L. and Larsen, P. B. (2000), Indigenous and traditional peoples of the world and ecoregion conservation (Gland: WWF)Google Scholar or Maffi, L. and Woodley, E. (eds) (2010), Biocultural diversity conservation (London: Earthscan)Google Scholar.

²⁷ For example, Whaley, L. J. (2003), ‘The future of native languages’, Futures, 35:9, pp. 961–973CrossRefGoogle Scholar or Lempert, D. (2010), ‘Why we need a cultural red book for endangered cultures, NOW’, International Journal on Minority and Group Rights, 17:4, pp. 511–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ See, for instance, Shiva, V. (ed.) (1997), Biopiracy (Boston, Massachusetts: South End)Google Scholar or Stepp, J. R., Wyndham, F. S. and Zarger, R. K. (eds) (2002), Ethnobiology and biocultural diversity (Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press)Google Scholar.

²⁹ See Ceballos-Lascuráin, H. (ed.) (1996), Tourism, ecotourism, and protected areas (Gland: IUCN)CrossRefGoogle Scholar or West, P. and Carrier, J. G. (2004), ‘Ecotourism and authenticity’, Current Anthropology, 45:4, pp. 483–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ For instance, Colchester, M. (2008), Beyond tenure (Washington, DC: Rights and Resources Initiative)Google Scholar or Shrumm, H. and Jonas, H. (eds) (2012), Biocultural community protocols (Cape Town: Natural Justice)Google Scholar.

³¹ See, for example, Campese, J., Sunderland, T., Greiber, T. and Oviedo, G. (eds) (2009), Rights-based approaches to conservation (Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research)Google Scholar.

³² For example, Peet, R. and Watts, M. J. (eds) (1996), Liberation ecologies (London: Routledge)CrossRefGoogle Scholar or Escobar, A. (2001), ‘Culture sits in places’, Political Geography, 20:2, pp. 139–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ See, for example, Bodley, J. H. (1975), Victims of progress (Menlo Park: Cummings)Google Scholar; Wolf, E. R. (1982), Europe and the people without history (Berkeley: University of California Press)Google Scholar; Burger, J. (1987), Report from the frontier: The state of the world's indigenous peoples (London: Zed Books)Google Scholar; Wallerstein, I. M. (2006), European universalism: The rhetoric of power (New York: New Press)Google Scholar.

³⁴ The comprehensive data and on-site experiences on which this article is based were mainly gathered in the context of an anthropological field research in 1996/97 and are accessible in Buergin, R. (2002), ‘Lokaler Wandel und kulturelle Identität im Spannungsfeld nationaler Modernisierung und globaler Umweltdiskurse’, PhD thesis, University of Freiburg, and Buergin, R. (2004), Umweltverhältnisse jenseits von Tradition und Moderne (Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag)Google Scholar.

³⁵ The Tai chronicles and travel reports of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries refer to the residence of the Karen governor as ‘Kyaukhaung’, ‘Chau Kaun’, or ‘Kienk Khaung’. While Renard supposes that this place was located at the place of the historical ‘Sangkhla’ and contemporary ‘Sangkhlaburi’ (see Renard, R. D. (1980), ‘The role of the Karens in Thai society during the Early Bangkok Period, 1782–1873’, Contributions to Asian Studies, 15:1, pp. 16–17)Google Scholar, a careful reading of the travel reports of British officers and missionaries as well as local lore indicate that the administrative centre of the Karen principality was located at the same place or close to the present-day Karen village, Sanepong. See Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 85–91.

³⁶ See Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 83–100. Regarding the history of the western border areas, see also Renard, ‘The role of the Karens in Thai society’ and Winichakul, Thongchai (1994), Siam mapped (Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press)Google Scholar.

³⁷ See Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 220–232, 270–274. On the origin and history of the sect, see Stern, T. (1968), ‘Ariya and the golden Book’, Journal of Asian Studies, 27:2, pp. 297–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Ewers Andersen, K. (1976), ‘The Karens and the Dhamma-raja’, MA thesis, University of Copenhagen.

³⁸ The term ‘Tai’ is used to refer to linguistic or ethnic categories, while ‘Thai’ indicates aspects of formal nationality and citizenship.

³⁹ Regarding the complex dynamics of these changes, see Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 269–322, and Buergin, R. (2002), Change and identity in Pwo Karen communities in Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary, a ‘global heritage’ in Western Thailand (University of Freiburg, SEFUT Working Paper 11).

⁴⁰ To date, the data collected in 1996/1997 (see Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 203–292) is the most detailed and reliable data available. More recent demographic and economic data regarding the Western Forest Complex (WEFCOM) was collected in 2003/2004 by public authorities in rapid socio-economic surveys and were compiled in the context of the GMS Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative of the Asian Development Bank. See Asian Development Bank (2005), The Tenasserim Biodiversity Conservation Corridor: Western Forest Complex—Kaeng Krachan Complex, Thailand: GMS Biodiversity Conservation Corridors Initiative: Annex 3–4 (Manila, Philippines: ADB), pp. 8–11Google Scholar. According to this data, the mean annual income in Subdistrict Lai Wo (which comprises most of the Karen communities in Thung Yai) was around US$ 263 per household or US$ 53 per person, while the figures for Lai Wo in my survey in 1996/1997 were US$ 271 per household and US$ 57 per person. Population data for 2004, giving a total of 3,319 Karen people living in the Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary, likewise indicate that basic socio-economic data such as population size and incomes have not changed significantly.

⁴¹ See, for example, Sato, J. (2002), ‘Karen and the land in between’, in Chatty, D. and Colchester, M., Conservation and mobile indigenous peoples (New York: Berghahn Books), pp. 277–295Google Scholar; Buergin, R. (2003), ‘Shifting frames for local people and forests in a global heritage’, Geoforum, 34:3, pp. 375–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vandergeest, P. and Peluso, N. L. (2011), ‘Political violence and scientific forestry’, in Goldman, M. J., Turner, M. D. and Nadasdy, P., Knowing nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 152–166Google Scholar; Sturgeon, J. C. et al. (2013), ‘Enclosing ethnic minorities and forests in the golden economic quadrangle’, Development and Change, 44:1, pp. 53–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a more comprehensive account, see Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 101–200.

⁴² On the history and policies of the Royal Forest Department, see Usher, A. D. (2009), Thai forestry (Chiang Mai: Silkworm)Google Scholar.

⁴³ See Buergin, R. (2003), ‘Trapped in environmental discourses and politics of exclusion’, in Delang, C. O., Living at the edge of Thai society (London: RoutledgeCurzon), pp. 43–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Protected Area System was devised in detail in the ‘Thai Forestry Sector Master Plan’ 1993 (TFSMP), without a stated timeline. While the Thai Forestry Sector Master Plan as a whole was never approved by the Thai government, the objective to designate 27.5 per cent of Thailand's terrestrial area as ‘protected areas’ had already been adopted in 1992.

⁴⁴ See FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (2009), Thailand forestry outlook study (Bangkok: FAO Regional Office), pp. 18–19Google Scholar, and Usher, Thai forestry, pp. 173–175.

⁴⁵ See Buergin, R. and Kessler, C. (2000), ‘Intrusions and exclusions’, GeoJournal, 52:1, pp. 71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁶ See, for example, Santasombat, Yos (1992), ‘Community-based natural resource management in Thailand’, Asian Review, 6, pp. 78–124Google Scholar, and Ganjanapan, Anan (1996), From local custom to the formation of community rights (Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ See Brenner, V. et al. (1999), Thailand's community forest bill (University of Freiburg, SEFUT Working Paper 3); Weatherby, M. and Somying Soonthornwong (2007), ‘The Thailand Community Forest Bill’, RECOFTC Community Forestry E-News, December 2007; Usher, Thai forestry, 2009.

⁴⁸ Officially the term covers nine distinct tribal peoples: the Karen, Hmong, Lisu, Lahu, Akha, Mien, Khamu, Lua’, and H’tin, each with a distinct language and culture. It does not differentiate between those who have lived on their customary lands for generations, pre-dating the Thai state, and those who migrated into the Thai state at a later date.

⁴⁹ Buergin, R. (2000), ‘Hill tribes’ and forests (University of Freiburg, SEFUT Working Paper 7).

⁵⁰ McKinnon, J. M. and Vienne, B. (1989), ‘Introduction’, in McKinnon, J. M. and Vienne, B., Hill tribes today (Bangkok: Golden Lotus), pp. xix–xxviiGoogle Scholar.

⁵¹ In a time of great political unrest, the poaching incident became a focal point for the prevailing discontent with the military rule, triggering public protest and demonstrations that finally led to the fall of the Thanom-Prapas regime after the uprising of 14 October 1973 and the establishment of a new democratic government. After the military had taken power once again in October 1976, many of the leaders and activists of the democracy movement fled into the peripheral regions of the country that were under control of the Communist Party of Thailand. Many of them sought refuge in the western forests and among the Karen people living in the sanctuaries. For commercial hunters, logging companies, and state authorities, vast areas of the western forests became inaccessible until the beginning of the 1980s, one of the reasons why they have remained largely undisturbed until today.

⁵² Most outspoken in this regard were Veeravat Thiraprasat, then chief of the Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary and supporter of the Karen in Thung Yai, and Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, founder and former president of the World Wildlife Fund. Just before the Nam Choan Controversy reached its peak, Thailand had ratified the World Heritage Convention in December 1987. During a visit to Thailand in February 1988, Prince Bernhard had raised his concerns about the dam project in the wildlife sanctuary, emphasizing particularly the interest of the World Wildlife Fund in having the area declared a World Heritage Site, which would require giving up the dam project. After the project had been shelved, student groups, NGOs and academics continued to push the idea, fearing the dam project might be revived—something that seemed to be less probable in a World Heritage Site.

⁵³ See Buergin and Kessler, ‘Intrusions and exclusions’.

⁵⁴ Seub committed suicide on 1 September 1991. Belinda Stewart-Cox commented on his death by reproaching his superiors at the Royal Forest Department: ‘Seub's death was suicide—an act of despair—but it might as well have been murder. When he needed the support of his superiors to do the job they had asked him to do—stop the hunting and logging that was rampant in Huai Kha Khaeng at that time, master-minded by police and military officials—it was withheld. A terrible betrayal.’ Stewart-Cox, B. (1998), ‘Forests too precious for Seub legacy to be lost’, The Nation, 23 September 1998.

⁵⁵ Nakhasathien, Seub and Stewart-Cox, B. (1990), Nomination of the Thung Yai—Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary to be a U.N.E.S.C.O. World Heritage Site (Bangkok, Thailand: Royal Forest Department), pp. 44–45Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Jørgensen, A. B. (1996), ‘Elephants or people’ (Honolulu, Hawai‘i, 48th annual meeting of the Association for Asian Studies, 11–14 April 1996).

⁵⁷ Eudey, A. A. (1989), ‘Eviction orders to the Hmong of Huai Yew Yee village, Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, Thailand’, in McKinnon and Vienne, Hill tribes today, pp. 249–59Google Scholar; MIDAS Agronomics Company (1993), Conservation forest area protection, management, and development project: Pre-investment study (Bangkok: MIDAS Agronomics Company)Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Kutintara, U. and Bhumpakkapun, N. (1988), [Draft management plan for the Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary] (in Thai) (Bangkok: Department of Forest Biology, Kasetsart University)Google Scholar; Kutintara, U. and Bhumpakkapun, N. (1989), [Draft management plan for the Thung Yai Wildlife Sanctuary] (in Thai) (Bangkok: Kasetsart University)Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Seub and Stewart-Cox, Nomination of the Thung Yai, p. 45; Thailand (1991), Thungyai—Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary: Nomination of natural property to the World Heritage List Submitted by Thailand (Paris: Thailand Office of the National Environment Board)Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ IUCN's Advisory Body Evaluation notes that, ‘There is a policy to remove the remaining illegal settlements in the reserve and several have been relocated to date.’ See IUCN (1991), World Heritage Nomination—IUCN Technical Evaluation 591: Thung Yai—Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary (Thailand) (Gland: IUCN), p. 70Google Scholar. The World Conservation Monitoring Centre datasheet from March 1991, which is attached to the IUCN Evaluation, states: ‘Some 3,800 tribal people live within the sanctuary. There are still four Hmong villages . . . Since 1987, 2–3 Hmong villages have been moved each year . . . By 1991 all villages will have been closed. Sixteen Karen villages (1,826 people) are still resident [in the sanctuary complex], but there are plans to resettle them.’

⁶¹ UNESCO (1991), Nomination of natural property to the World Heritage list: Submitted by Thailand: ThungYai—Huaikhakhaeng Wildlife Sanctuary (Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Committee), p. 29Google Scholar.

⁶² Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 175–186.

⁶³ MIDAS, Conservation forest area protection. The proposed project was to have a timeframe of five years, beginning in 1994. The total project cost was estimated at US$ 96 million to be covered by a grant of US$ 20 million from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a US$ 40 million loan from the World Bank, and funds from bilateral aid donors and the Royal Thai Government.

⁶⁴ The study had argued against resettlement in the specific case of the Karen villages in Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary, albeit in a rather ambivalent way and under strict conservation reservations. The detrimental effects of the villages and risks to the sanctuary were assessed as relatively low, while their resettlement would supposedly be costly and cause considerable difficulties.

⁶⁵ The project was halted after grant funds from the GEF were made conditional on ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in July 1994, which Thailand had not yet ratified. In the controversy about the project, the representative of the Bank had tried to exert moderate pressure, indicating that the limited funds of the GEF might be assigned to other countries if the ratification of the CBD was delayed.

⁶⁶ When these events became public, the director general of the Royal Forest Department downplayed his role in the incidents, at first denying any military actions at all. In contrast to the director general, the commander of the military troops involved seemed rather proud of their achievements. He declared the operation a ‘pilot project’ of the new alliance between the military and the Royal Forest Department agreed upon in May 1998, and exemplary in their joint efforts to prevent forest destruction.

⁶⁷ For details and references regarding evictions and oppressions in Thung Yai, see Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 159–200.

⁶⁸ Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 305–309.

⁶⁹ Even from an external utilitarian conservation perspective, the resettlement of the Karen and the prohibition of their subsistence-oriented swidden system is unreasonable. Assuming a mean fallow period of 10 years, the total agricultural area in the sanctuary, including fallow areas, accounts only for about 1 per cent of its area.

⁷⁰ Robert Steinmetz, personal communication, February 2002.

⁷¹ Thailand (2003), ‘Thailand: Thungyai—Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuaries’, in UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Summaries of Periodic Reports Submitted by States Parties (Paris: UNESCO), p. 234Google Scholar.

⁷² See Buergin and Kessler, ‘Intrusions and exclusions’.

⁷³ See, for example, Walker, A. and Farrelly, N. (2008), ‘Northern Thailand's specter of eviction’, Critical Asian Studies, 40:3, pp. 373–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar. In their ‘specter of eviction’ they reasonably point to discrepancies between the extent of actual relocations of upland people in Thailand since the 1980s (which is low in their perspective) and the importance of the issue of relocation in public discourses as well as administrative regulations and policies. Unfortunately, their paper in large part reads like a bashing of socially concerned academics who have taken a position on societal disputes without dismissing their scientific ethos and reasoning. Even worse, the paper tends to ‘obscure’ the very real fears, hostilities, restrictions, and violations experienced by the people who are scheduled for eviction according to administrative objectives, even though the probability for ‘real eviction’ may be low. However, I share their reservations regarding stereotypes of ‘benign environmentalists’ and ‘noble savages’. While I fully agree with their objective to empower communities in the uplands and to reassess disadvantages, I would feel much less comfortable if this was supposed to be imposed in the context of another stereotype, namely that of the ‘underdeveloped rural poor craving modernity’.

⁷⁴ See Buergin, ‘Trapped in environmental discourses’.

⁷⁵ Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 305–309.

⁷⁶ For a more comprehensive account of the religious and cognitive dynamics in the late 1990s, see Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 220–232, 270–275, 297–302. For a broader historical context of this ethical and ideological attitude with regard to millenarian movements among the Karen in the Thai-Burmese borderland, see also Gravers, M. (2012), ‘Waiting for a righteous ruler’, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 43:2, pp. 340–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Hayami, Y. (2011), ‘Pagodas and prophets’, Journal of Asian Studies, 70:4, pp. 1083–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁷ Buergin, ‘Shifting frames’.

⁷⁸ Buergin, R. (2009), ‘Konflikte um biokulturelle Diversität in Thailand’, Asien, 112–113, pp. 9–30.

⁷⁹ World Bank (2004), ‘UN indigenous forum: Paper trail’, World Bank Press Review, 2004.

⁸⁰ Colchester, M. (2001), Global policies and projects in Asia (Washington, DC: WWF)Google Scholar.

⁸¹ See Lerner, Group rights and discrimination; Bisaz, ‘The concept of group rights’.

⁸² For example, United Nations, Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

⁸³ See, for example, Kingsbury, ‘Indigenous peoples’; Erni, C. (ed.) (2008), The concept of indigenous peoples in Asia (Copenhagen: IWGIA)Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 74–200. Such ‘cultural’ legacies of the violating expansion of modern societies and their ‘culture of modernity’ together with concomitant endeavours of people at the edge of modern societies worldwide to conceive of and identify themselves in relation and distance to ‘modernity’ may even serve as a distinguishing attribute of the concept of ‘indigenous peoples’.

⁸⁵ See Kingsbury, ‘Indigenous peoples’.

⁸⁶ See, for example, Turton, A. (ed.) (2000), Civility and savagery: Social identity in Tai states (Richmond: Curzon)Google Scholar, and Connors, M. K. (2003), Democracy and national identity in Thailand (London: Routledge)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁸⁷ See Buergin, Hill tribes and forests.

⁸⁸ See UN Commission on Human Rights (2004), Human rights and indigenous issues: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2004/80/Add.1, 6 February 2004), p. 18.

⁸⁹ UNESCO (2001), ‘WHIPCOE on Stage’, World Heritage Newsletter, 31 (July–August–September 2001), p. 2.

⁹⁰ See, for example, UN Commission on Human Rights (2003), Human rights and indigenous issues: Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, submitted in accordance with Commission resolution 2001/65 (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2003/90), para. 22; UN Human Rights Council (2008), Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, S. James Anaya, Addendum: Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received (UN Doc. A/HRC/9/9/Add.1), para. 464 ff; UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2006), Consideration of reports submitted by states parties under article 44 of the convention: Concluding observations: Thailand (UN Doc. CRC/C/THA/CO/2). Also see UN (2008), Resource kit on indigenous peoples’ issues (New York: Secretariat of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues), pp. 8, 28Google Scholar.

⁹¹ See, for instance, UNCED, Agenda 21 (CBD, Art. 8(j)); IUCN, WCPA and WWF (1999), Principles and guidelines on indigenous and traditional peoples and protected areas (Gland: IUCN)Google Scholar; UN (2004), Decision VII/16 (Akwé: Kon Guidelines): Seventh Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 9–20 February 2004 (Kuala Lumpur: Working Group on Article 8(j)).

⁹² For example, when the World Heritage Committee voted to support customary law and customary management by ‘traditional’ or indigenous peoples as a sufficient basis to guarantee the protection of natural World Heritage sites, Thailand disassociated itself from the decision. See UNESCO World Heritage Committee (1999), World Heritage Committee: Twenty-second session Kyoto, Japan, 30 November–5 December 1998: Report, World Heritage Report (WHC-98/CONF.203/18, Paris, World Heritage Committee), pp. 26, 56.

⁹³ See, for example, Disko, S. (2010), ‘World Heritage sites in indigenous peoples’ territories’, in Offenhäußer, D., Zimmerli, W. C. and Albert, M.-T., World heritage and cultural diversity (Bonn: German Commission for UNESCO), pp. 167–77Google Scholar; Hay-Edie, T. et al. (2011), ‘The roles of local, national and international designations in conserving biocultural diversity on a landscape scale’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17:6, pp. 527–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁴ For example, UNESCO World Heritage Centre (2003), Cultural landscapes (Paris: UNESCO)Google Scholar; Taylor, K. and Lennon, J. (2011), ‘Cultural landscapes’, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 17:6, pp. 537–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁹⁵ The closure of the Tribal Research Institute in 2002 may be seen as a significant marker of this shift. See Buadaeng, Kwanchewan (2006), ‘The rise and fall of the Tribal Research Institute’, Southeast Asian Studies, 44:3, pp. 359–384Google Scholar. Since then it has become increasingly difficult to find any official statistical data regarding ‘hill tribe’ ethnic minority groups in Thailand.

⁹⁶ See, for example, Toyota, M. (2005), ‘Subjects of the nation without citizenship’, in Kymlicka, W. and He, B., Multiculturalism in Asia (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 110–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Keyes, C. F. (2008), ‘Ethnicity and the nation-states of Thailand and Vietnam’, in Leepreecha, Prasit, McCaskill, D. and Buadaeng, Kwanchewan, Challenging the limits (Chiang Mai: Mekong Press), pp.13–54Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ In 2002, about 370,000 ‘hill tribe’ people in Thailand were denied citizenship. This is the number according to official statistics but human rights groups estimated the figure to be more than 600,000. See Toyota, M. (2008), ‘Ambivalent categories: Hill tribes and illegal migrants in Thailand’, in Rajaram, P. K. and Grundy-Warr, C., Borderscapes (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press), pp. 91–116Google Scholar. UNHCR statistics for 2013 account for 506,197 stateless persons in Thailand in 2013 (besides some 85,000 refugees and another 15,000 asylum seekers), who are supposed to predominantly belong to hill tribe groups. See UNHCR (2013), 2013 UNHCR country operations profile—Thailand: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e489646.html, [accessed 27 January 2014], and Van Waas, L. (2013), Reflections on Thailand (1): A protracted and neglected situation of statelessness: http://statelessprog.blogspot.de/2013/02/reflections-on-thailand-1-protracted.html, [accessed 27 January 2014].

⁹⁸ Buergin, ‘Trapped in environmental discourses’.

⁹⁹ See, for example, Chusak Wittayapak, The community culture revisited, Amsterdam, 7th International Conference on Thai Studies, 4–8 July 1999; McKinnon, J. M. (2003), ‘Community culture’, in Delang, C. O., Living at the edge of Thai society (London: RoutledgeCurzon), pp. 64–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Thailand, Secretariat of the House of Representatives (2007), Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand, B.E. 2550 (2007) (Bangkok: Bureau of Printing Services)Google Scholar. Section 66 states: ‘Persons so assembling as to be a traditional community shall have the right to conserve or restore their customs, local knowledge, good arts and culture of their community and of the nation and participate in the management, maintenance, preservation and exploitation of natural resources, the environment and the biological diversity in a balanced and sustainable fashion.’ Regarding community rights, see also Section 67 of the constitution.

¹⁰¹ See FAO Regional Office, Thailand forestry outlook study, pp. 19, 27.

¹⁰² According to government statistics, more than half of the area of northern Thailand—where most of the ‘hill tribes’ have their settlement areas—is covered with forests. Today this proportion is basically the same as it was in 1982, despite 30 years of stigmatizing ‘hill tribes’ as forest destroyers. The share of these northern forests with regard to the country's total forest area has even increased. While the forests of northern Thailand comprised 49 per cent of the total forest area of the country in 1961, this share had risen to 56 per cent in 2006. See FAO Regional Office, Thailand forestry outlook study, p. 100, and Buergin, Umweltverhältnisse, pp. 131–133.

¹⁰³ The cabinet resolution further made the following recommendations: ‘Repeal the declarations concerning protected areas, reserve forests and settlements of Karen people which already have the capability to prove that their settlement, living on and use of these lands has continued for a long time or since before the declaration of laws or policies that now cover these areas’; ‘Support and recognize the rotational farming systems which belong to the Karen ways of life and livelihood, and which support the sustainable use of natural resources and self-sufficiency’; ‘Support self-sufficiency or alternative agriculture instead of cash crop production or industrial agriculture’; and ‘Support and recognize the ways of using the land and the management of local traditional communities, for example through issuing communal land titles’. See Thailand (3 August 2010), Recovering the Karen livelihood in Thailand (Bangkok: Ministry of Culture, Cabinet Resolution of the Royal Thai Government).

¹⁰⁴ Steinmetz, R., Chutipong, Wanlop and Seuaturien, Naret (2006), ‘Collaborating to conserve large mammals in Southeast Asia’, Conservation Biology, 20:5, pp. 1391–1401CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

¹⁰⁵ Recent violations by the National Park staff and the Thai military against Karen people living in the Kaeng Krachan National Park in 2011 indicate that at least some state authorities are ignoring the resolution and still follow more familiar repression and resettlement policies. See Asia Indigenous Peoples’ Pact (2011), Statement from the Karen Network for Culture and Environment, AIPP and NGOs, government networks and academic institutions—Case of Human Rights Violations by the Head of the KaengKrachan National Park Against Ethnic Karen Villagers: http://www.aippnet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=594 [accessed February 2015].

¹⁰⁶ Evident, supposed or assigned differences between social groups are frequently highlighted and exploited in these struggles over resources, redistribution, identity, social status, and power. Not least, these struggles are significantly framed and negotiated in discourses about national identities and cultural diversity. See, for example, Keyes, C. F. (2002), ‘Presidential address: ‘The peoples of Asia’—Science and politics in the classification of ethnic groups in Thailand, China, and Vietnam’, Journal of Asian Studies, 61:4, pp. 1163–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Connors, M. K. (2005), ‘Ministering culture’, Critical Asian Studies, 37:4, pp. 523–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar, which unavoidably invoke disputed self-images of modern societies.