Survivors of the Sea, Lost on Land

The Social Role and Challenges of Marine Protected Areas as Conservation Tools:The Moken People of Mo Koh Surin National Park in Thailand

Andrea ArriagaPOLS 675EFall 2006

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Linking Cultural and Biological Diversity and Conservation 4

The Need for Coral Reef Conservation 5

Marine Protected Areas as an Ecosystem Approach to Conservation (Focus on Social Aspects) 7

History of National Parks and MPAs in Thailand 8

Mo Koh Surin National Park & Moken Case Study: History of Surin Park & Moken People

Socio-Economics

Park Conflict

Moken identification

Community and Household Relationships

Spirituality and Cosmology

Traditional ecological Knowledge (TEK)

Education

Physical and Mental Health

The Promotion of Conservation and Ecosystem Integrity through Tourism?

Sustainable Livelihoods for the Moken

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

21

Conclusion 22

Bibliography 25

2

My name is Don. I was born in Sai-En village on North Surin Island. My family belongs to a group of sea gypsies (“Chao Lay” in Thai Language) called the Moken….In 1981, the Surin Islands were designated a National Park. We were no longer allowed to collect sea cucumbers and some species of shellfish…now, my father no longer has a kabang. I do not know where the Mergui Archipelago is where my grandparents come from.  I was born in the Surin Islands, but I am not a Thai citizen.  I still speak Moken, the language of my parents and grandparents, but I am not as fluent in it.  I am learning Thai but educational facilities for my friends and I are limited.  I also do not have Thai friends as none lives in the village. Sometimes I wonder who I am …

From UNESCO produced children’s book, The Moken Story

Introduction

Cultural and Biological diversity are inherently linked and should be valued and

addressed as co-dependent issues. The degradation of cultural and biological diversity

has occurred at a rapid rate throughout the last century. Coral reefs and indigenous

communities are both unique due to their diversity and are both under serious threat from

the pressures of our increasing globalized world. Mo Koh Surin National Park, in

Thailand offers a unique example of the coexistence and co-dependence of the

indigenous Moken people on the coral reef ecosystem. The site and context specific

political economy and social roles and challenges of marine protected areas as

conservation tools used to maintain ecosystem integrity are analyzed through a case-

study based on a 3 week field observation in Mo Koh Surin National Park during the

Spring of 2004 and an intensive literature review of the Moken and Mo Koh Surin

National Park. The establishment of the Park was proposed under the objectives of

sustainable conservation, yet ultimately the Park has resulted in the degradation of the

areas natural resources and has taken a toll on the cultural and physical integrity of the

Moken. The Moken once revered survivors of the sea, now seem lost on land.

Linking Cultural and Biological Diversity and Conservation:

3

The disastrous consequences of globalization and greed, such as mass

over-consumption and destructive environmental practices have led to a widely

recognized immediate need for effective conservation of biological and cultural diversity

(IUCN, 2004). Currently ecosystems are being degraded while at the same time unique

cultural traditions that are part of our collective heritage are disappearing at rapid rates

(UNESCO 2001 & UNESCO 2002). The associated losses of biological and cultural

diversity are disasters that are ultimately interdependent issues that can be more fully

understood through larger processes of globalization and political economy.

Process such as migration, urbanization, and industrialization have led to the mass

global commoditization, consumption, and degradation of natural resources. This

degradation may be exemplified by vast forests that have been replaced by clear-cut

lands, rivers that have been turned into cesspools, wetlands that have become mass

commercial developments, or coral reefs that have been blasted by dynamite. As these

processes have occurred indigenous peoples have maintained unique cultural traditions as

they have remained marginalized and often distanced themselves or have been forced

along the peripheries of societies socially, politically and geo-physically (UNESCO 2001

& UNESCO 2002). Often indigenous communities are located into the most seemingly

uninhabitable environments of the planet. As urban sprawl and natural resource

exploitation have degraded the integrity of nature, these remote locations have become

unique commodities of wilderness and hotspots of biodiversity.

The biodiversity and seemingly pristine states of nature found in areas where

indigenous communities live have led to increased efforts by environmentalist to protect

these ecosystems (IUCN, 2004). Currently national efforts and policies intended to

conserve biological diversity are often exclusive of the local communities that have

managed to keep the ecosystem in tact and depend directly on the natural resources of

their embedded environments (Arunotai, 2002 & IUCN 2004). Furthermore, national

governments may use the issue of conservation as pretext to reap profits from tourism

(Wong, 2003). Thus, conservation efforts must be questioned and contextualized as they

may ultimately result in the cultural degradation of indigenous communities and possibly

degrade the integrity of the ecosystem under the guise of dominant western conservation

paradigms that are intended to improve the quality of life and healthy functioning of

ecosystems, which are ultimately inclusive of humans (Whittiingham, 2003). Coral reef

4

ecosystems provide an excellent example of this scenario through highlighting the social

roles and challenges of using marine protected areas as conservation tools in Thailand,

and the associated loss of cultural diversity and degradation of biological integrity that

may result from ‘protected’ status.

The Need for Coral Reef Conservation:

The conservation movement to protect coral reefs in order to maintain ecosystem

functioning, protect biodiversity, and to ultimately sustain the services that coral reefs

provide to human communities has exploded within the last few decades. It is estimated

that over half a billion people live within 100 kilometers of coral reefs and are either

directly or indirectly dependent on the ecosystem services that coral reefs provide

(Whittingham, 2003). Communities directly dependent on coral reefs may be considered

inclusive of the ecosystem. The inclusion of marine dependent communities into policy

for managed areas has largely focused on the outsiders goal of local compliance and

purely economic factors related to ensuring sustainable livelihoods, yet coral reefs have a

diversity of values to human communities, which may lay outside the box of socio-

economics (Arunotai, 2002).

Coral reefs are extremely important to human well being, as they provide

economic, social, cultural and environmental services to millions if not billions of people

(Whittingham, 2003). Ecosystem services provided by coral reefs are inclusive but not

limited to nourishment, economic livelihoods, education, protection, healing, cultural

services, climate, waste, and water regulation, raw material, genetic resources, and

recreation. According to NOAA the value of these services is estimated at 8,400 billion a

year, yet the use of coral reefs for consumptive purposes, such fishing or coral mining,

are only estimated to be less than 5% of this value. The above figures demonstrate that

the intangible and often unquantifiable natures of many of the services provided by coral

reef ecosystems make establishing an economic valuable extremely difficult and calls to

question theoretic models of ecosystem valuation used to defend marine protected areas

or determine them as social successes or failures, which are primarily based on economic

modeling.

Coral reefs are of immense value across the globe as they occur in over one

hundred countries and are estimated to cover some 600,000 squared kilometers globally

(Whittingham, 2003). Due in large part to the dependent and exploitive nature humans

5

have with the environment, it is not surprising that sixty percent of these reefs are

considered threatened by human activity (Ferguson, 2005). Human activity has led to the

degradation or destruction of coral reefs in over 93 countries (Bryant, 1998). If

destructive trends continue at their current rates it has been predicted by ecologists that

only one-third of coral reefs will remain by the middle of the twenty-first century

(Hughes, 2003).

Southeast Asia is of particular importance as the region contains more coral than

any other part of the world (Burke, 2002). Coral reefs of Southeast Asia contain some of

the highest coral biodiversity on the planet, and are of immense importance to the region

for economic, social, and cultural values. More than 350 million people in the region are

estimated to live within 50km the coastal zone, most all of which are directly or indirectly

dependent on the ecosystem services that coral reefs provide (Burke, 2002). According

to Reefs At Risk, coral reefs in Southeast Asia are the most threatened in the world

(2002). An estimated eighty percent of the regions reef ecosystems are considered under

threat, while 56% of those are considered at high risk (Burke, 2002). The alarming

percent of reefs under the threat and the associated dependence of the Southeast Asian

population on their services make the preservation of reef ecosystems in the region an

imminent issue of human and national security.

Coral reef threats include both natural and anthropogenic disturbances (Ferguson,

2005). Natural disturbances may include single occurrence disturbances, such as

typhoons, tsunamis, or earthquakes, global climate change, and disease (Burke, 2002).

Although the threat of natural disturbances may result in severe ecosystem degradation,

in many instances natural disturbances cannot truly be segregated from anthropogenic

disturbances because the resilience of an ecosystem or species to cope with natural

disturbances may be greatly altered by human induces stresses (Nystorm, 2000).

Anthropogenic attributed stress may compound the effects of natural disturbances, for

example reefs may be experiencing increased rates of disease due to weakened immunity

caused by exposure to human wastes or by increased water temperatures that have been

perpetuated by human activities that emit vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the

atmosphere (Nystorm, 2000 & Wilkinson, 1996).

Anthropogenic disturbances are the main threats to reef ecosystem biodiversity

and health in Southeast Asia and across the globe (Burke, 2002). The mass increase in

6

human populations and the associated economic activities have led to severe marine

ecosystem habitat destruction (Ferguson, 2005). According to Reefs at Risk the main

human induced disturbances in Southeast Asia include coastal development, marine-

based pollution, sedimentation, over-fishing and destructive fishing, all of which can be

viewed as interrelated and have compounded effects (2002). Land-use changes such as

coastal development and agricultural practices have resulted in increased pollution,

toxicity and sedimentation. The accumulated effects of pollution, toxicity, and

sedimentation degrade the functioning of coral reefs ecosystem and the health of species,

inclusive of humans, resulting in coral reef bleaching, disease, and even death (Bellwood,

2004).

The greatest direct threat to coral reef and human health in Southeast Asia is the

exploitation of marine species through over-fishing and destructive practices (Burke,

2002 & Chou, 2002). These practices not only greatly reduce the population sizes of

specific species that may play key roles in the functioning of the ecosystem, they also

may kill the reef itself if practices such as dynamite blasting or cyanide fishing, which are

common in Southeast Asia, are employed (Burke, 2002 and Chou, 2002). In order to

negate the threats that place reefs and ultimately humans at risk, reefs have become target

ecosystems to be placed under conservation management (Chou, 2002).

Marine Protected Areas as an Ecosystem Approach to Conservation

(Focus on Social Aspects):

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are one of the most widely used tools for marine

and coral reef conservation (Burke, 2002). MPAs are inclusive of a broad array of

regulations and terms, for example, they may be classified as national parks, marine

reserves, or no-take zones (IUCN, 2003). In general, a MPA is a designated area that is

specified in attempt to exert some sort of management over marine resources within the

area. Although MPAs may be established with various specific goals, such as fisheries

management, or promotion of tourism, the underlying goal of conservation efforts that

attempt to manage marine resources is, or should be, the preservation of the ecosystem

(Mascia, 2001).

MPAs are a unique form of management due to their ecosystem approach. Rather

than focusing on a single species a MPA attempts to protect the functioning of the

ecosystem as whole (Mascia, 2001) . Although there has been an ongoing debate over the

7

biological vs. social goals of a MPA, if MPAs are touted as an ecosystem approach to

natural resource management, given the interdependency of human and coral-reef

functioning, humans and their associated social systems and behaviors cannot be

excluded from MPA resource management (Kareiva, 2006). In the past humans have

been viewed by conservation scientists as external to the ecosystem, but now it is more

widely recognized that including local communities in the approaches and policies

regarding MPAs results in increased biological and social success (Christie, 2004).

Under an ecosystem approach to resource management, marine protected areas,

that encompass marine dependent and or indigenous communities, should be inclusive of

maintaining or promoting both biological and cultural diversity and integrity. Attempts

to address human well-being and cultural integrity have primarily focused on purely

socio-economic indicators to determine whether or not protected areas have resulted as

social successes (Gjersten, 2005). Although socio-economic monitoring can be useful in

understanding and addressing social complexities, social factors including conflict,

political obstacles, daily routines, family and community social roles and relationships,

gender, religious and spiritual activities and beliefs, traditional ecological knowledge,

education, and other health related aspects are all components of cultural integrity and

human well-being that may not be effectively addressed or thoroughly understood

through economic monitoring alone (Christie, 2004). Thailand’s Mo Koh Surin National

Park and the indigenous Moken, who reside in the park, offer an extraordinary example of

the social roles and challenges of sustaining biological and cultural diversity and

integrity, through the establishment of a marine protected area.

History of National Parks and MPAs in Thailand:

Thailand is home to a diversity of ecosystems, species, and indigenous cultures,

many of which are at risk of being severely degraded, possibly to the point of extinction.

The threats to ecological and cultural diversity within Thailand have made conservation

management a critical issue of ecological and national security. In 1960 the Wild

Animals Reservation and Protection Act was established allowing for the creation of

wildlife sanctuaries. In 1962 Khao Yai was established as Thailand’s first national park

under The National Parks Act of 1961. Today Thailand has over 100 national parks and

over a thousand protected areas (Chettamart).

8

By 2002 twenty-six areas were designated marine parks yet only twenty-one of

the parks were legally recognized as marine protected areas (Sethapun, 2000). Thailand is

estimated to be home to 357 species of coral that cover some 1,800 km2 (Burke, 2002).

These coral ecosystems of Thailand are home to tens of thousands of reef dependent

species. A large part of the Thai population is also reef dependent including but not

limited to thousands of traditionally semi-nomadic seafaring indigenous peoples of the

Moken, Moklen, and Urak Lawoi tribes, collectively known as the Chao Ley and

commonly referred to as the Sea Gypsies (CUSRI). Thailand’s marine national parks

include over fifty percent of all coral reefs in the region (Sethapun, 2000). Although

reefs in protected areas are in a comparably better state than nearby reefs that are not in a

MPA zone, the overall health of reefs in MPAs has degraded in the last 10-15 years,

according to Reefs at Risk tourism and other population pressures can be held

accountable for this decline (Sethapun, 2000 & Burke, 2002). Despite the status that over

half of Thailand’s reefs hold as ‘protected’, according to Reefs at Risk threat index, an

estimated 77% of the nation’s reefs are at medium or higher threat (2002)

The Royal Forest Department (RFD) has had the primary responsibility for the

management of marine national parks in Thailand. A subdivision within the RFD

known as the Marine National Park Division became responsible for marine national

parks in 1993. This department and the Department of Fisheries are responsible for

enforcement of coral reef protection, yet laws are often unclear and issues of regulation

are extremely complex (Burke, 2002). Due to the limited capacity and complexities of the

Thai government to effectively manage MPAs, NGOs have taken a large role in

involving local communities to foster improved social and biological MPA success. Yet

even with effective management and compliance, unless the park has authority over the

associated terrestrial area, coastal development, and waste management, overall MPA

effectiveness may be very difficult to achieve.

While specified goals for distinct MPAs may be established, the primary

objectives for all Thai national parks are as follows: (Khomkris, 1965 Faculty of

Forestry, 1987 in Chettamart):

- To preserve and maintain the ecosystem integrity, biodiversity, and scenic

beauty for use by the present and future generations without compromising

them;

9

- To provide the general public as a ground for education and research;

- To provide the general public the opportunities for nature tourism and

recreation, which are compatible with the park ecosystem and its carrying

capacity.

Although these goals set up a foundation which encourages the use of parks for tourism,

which ultimately serves the government economically, based on the ecosystem approach

to management and the above objectives, tourist activity and park rules and regulations

can not be justified on economic incentives or the ability of the park to cater to tourists, if

the biological or cultural integrity within the park is being degraded. The case study

below attempts to highlight how the establishment of Mo Koh Surin National Park has

ultimately not been effective in maintaining ecosystem integrity as cultural and possibly

biological integrity have been degraded through National Park management, which has

been inclusive of a focus on tourism.

Mo Koh Surin National Park & Moken Case Study:

History of Surin Park & Moken People

On July 9th, 1981 Mo Koh Surin was established as the 29th national park in

Thailand (Sudara & Yeemin). The park is located about 50-60 km off of Thailand’s west

coast in the Andaman Sea and is situated in the southern edge of the Mergui Archipelago,

near the southern border of Myanmar and the northern boarder of Thailand (Chou, 2002).

The park is composed of five islands, 2 large and 3 small, and encompasses forests,

seagrass beds, mangroves and beautiful coral reefs. Distance of the islands from the

mainland accompanied by the presence of deep water currents and healthy forests that

prevented accumulated sedimentation allowed the islands to maintain healthy coral and

seemingly pristine ecological conditions, which ultimately led to their declaration by the

Thai government as a national park (Arunotai, 2002).

The indigenous Moken people are traditionally a semi-nomadic group who have

been foraging in and co-evolving within the Surin ecosystem for centuries (UNESCO,

2001) . Several decades ago, in part due to geo-political boundaries that made the

Moken’s traditional nomadic lifestyles increasingly difficult several groups of Moken

decided to settle within the archipelago (UNESCO, 2001). Despite the Moken’s

traditional and long-established uses of the areas natural resources, before the

establishment of the park, the Moken had left no signs of damage, exploitation or

10

degradation to the areas resources (UNESCO, 2001). Currently about 150 Moken live in

the Surin National Park.

Initially establishment of the Park allowed Moken to stay within park boundaries,

but reduced their territory by forcing them to settle within one location in the park, rather

than allowing them to continue with their semi-permanent subsistence strategies

(Arunotai, 2002). The current ecosystem degradation within and surrounding the park can

largely be attributed to exploitive and illegal practices by commercial Thai fishers and

reef damage that has resulted from park tourism, no current evidence of destructive

fishing techniques such as dynamite or cyanide use have been attributed to the Moken

(UNESCO, 2001). Although many of Thailand’s reefs have suffered from exploitive

practices, coral bleaching and disease, reefs surrounding the Surin Islands managed to

maintain a seemingly pristine and healthy state of being (Burke, 2002). Despite the

Moken’s long established record of using marine resources while simultaneously

maintaining the integrity of the ecosystem it is feared that forced sedentary practices may

ultimately cause the Moken to have a greater impact on the natural environment and

natural resources on which they are dependent (Djajanto, 2006).

Socio-Economics

Along with losing access to their traditional territory, due to national park

regulations, the Moken have also lost access to natural resources on which they

traditionally were dependent upon (Arunotai, 2002). Although the Park confined the

Moken to one area of land on which they could build traditional shelters, the Moken were

allowed to continue with their traditional foraging strategies due to their limited

environmental impact (UNESCO, 2001). The Moken’s traditional way of semi-nomadic

life on the sea included temporary sedentary periods on land and did not enable the

Moken to consume more than they could carry or store for small periods of time. These

traditional patterns led to small dependence on market goods (Arunotai, 2002). With the

loss of nomadic life and increasing dependence on sedentary lifestyles the Moken are

becoming increasingly dependent on income & market goods (UNESCO, 2001). These

accumulated factors perpetuated by the establishment of the Surin national park are

causing the Moken to loose their traditional culture and livelihoods, thus ultimately

degrading their well-being, which goes against the objective of the Thai National Park

System to maintain ecosystem integrity.

11

Tourism, dive boats and commercial harvesters were largely absent from the Park

prior to its establishment. By the late 1980’s the establishment of the National Park had

succeeded in becoming a popular tourist destination (UNESCO, 2001). The Moken

collected shells for to make a livelihood off the tourist, from the late 1980’s until 1996

when the park management decided to ban the Moken from the seashell trade (Arunotai,

2002). Subsequently the park established the Moken Fund in order to seek outsider

donations that would ultimately serve to provide a comparable livelihood for the Moken

(UNESCO, 2001). The national park management rather than the Moken community

determines how the donated money is spent (Arunotai, 2002).

The Moken have been denied Thai citizenship so they cannot be employed with

the use of government funding to work within the Park, thus much of the Moken Fund

trust is used to employee the Moken within the Park (Arunotai, 2002). The Park provides

limited working positions for the Moken (UNESCO, 2001). Primarily they are employed

as garbage collectors, women can usually be seen cleaning bathrooms and tourist areas a

few young men are employed to drive the boats that take tourist on snorkeling

adventures. Additionally, although the Moken are restricted to building traditional

shelters for themselves, in the village that is a marked a designated location for tourist to

visit, they are frequently employed to build modern park infrastructure for tourists.

Park Conflict

Conflict between the Moken and Park staff has arisen as Park authority has

banned the Moken’s traditional patterns of subsistence and livelihood within the Park

boundaries (UNESCO, 2001) . The Surin Park Master Plan for 2000-2005 made no

mention of the Moken’s traditional use of the island’s resources. The Moken were only

addressed briefly by the Park’s Master Plan in the section regarding tourism (Arunotai,

2002). Given the lack of information provide by Park authorities to Park staff on the

Moken culture and history and the lack of effective communication between Moken and

the Park staff (Moken speak an unique unwritten language, and only a few Moken adults

speak Thai) clear communication and a lack of understanding add to conflict within the

Park (Lundquist, 2004). Another issue adding to the conflict between the Moken and the

Park staff is the staff is often very temporary and do not establish friendly social

relationships with the Moken. In part due to the to the limited capacity and often

temporary nature of the Park staff, they are frequently inconsistent in enforcing

12

regulation and communicating with the Moken, which may ultimately add to issues of

mistrust, miscommunication and division between the Park staff and the Moken

(Arunotai, 2002).

A UNESCO-supported initiative entitled the Andaman Sea Pilot Project has been

created with the intention of mending the cultural and communication gaps between the

Park authority, the Moken, and other stakeholders, yet inadequate social monitoring has

been produced to determine the efficacy of this project. A UNESCO sponsored project

also attempts to use a conflict resolution tool known as WISE practice agreement that

seeks to benefit and include all stakeholders in decision-making processes while implying

the common goals of sustaining biological and cultural diversity within the Park

(Djajanto, 2006). Although no literature has been published that discusses conflict

between the Moken and the tourists who visit the Park, it may be assumed that economic

and social disparity between the Moken and tourists, as well as the priority that the Park

places on tourism and limited priority given to the Moken may create additional conflict

within the park boundaries

Moken Identification.

Another huge issue of conflict is the political and social identification of the

Moken. Although the Thai government has claimed that they will grant Moken living

within the Park Thai citizenship, this has yet to occur (Arunotai, 2002). It is believed by

academics that the Thai government is hesitant to grant the Moken citizenship because

they are fearful that the political situation in Myanmar and the Moken’s traditional

patterns of crossing international boundaries over seas will lead to Moken from Myanmar

crossing the Thai border in order to gain a national identification, thus in the eyes of Thai

officials jeopardizing national security (Djajanto, 2006). Academics also fear that the

Moken will adopt an even more sedentary mode of life based on the hopeful notion that

they may have more chance of being nationally recognized and granted citizenship

(Djajanto, 2006). If this occurs it may benefit the Moken in providing them with Thai ID,

but the subsequent loss of cultural diversity is a threat to the Moken and global heritage.

Prejudice towards indigenous peoples may also be hindering the Moken from

receiving national identification as government officials at the national level may not

recognize the status or rights of the indigenous, and the public at large may carry

13

preconceived notions that they are superior to the indigenous who may be viewed

through the lens of traditional stereotypes as primitive, lazy, backwards or just not Thai.

Without ID cards the Moken’s employment and social standing within the park may be

viewed as inferior to and from government paid Park staff. With Thai ID the Moken

would theoretically be able to secure government funded jobs and social rights, such as

the right to property ownership within and outside of the Park boundaries (Vater, 2005).

Political and economic issues may come into play here as increasing empowerment to the

Moken community may ultimately slow tourism within the Park.

Today only three Moken living in Surin Park are Thai citizens, reasons for this are

not given but it may be assumed because they have married into the tribe. Moken who

marry Thai citizens are also denied the rights to Thai citizenship because their marriage

cannot be legally recognized without national ID (Arunotai, 2002). Currently due to their

lack of national ID the Moken cannot readily gain access to employment, health care, or

property ownership and they most likely cannot open bank accounts, receive credit or

loans, or purchase anything beyond the means of their cash savings. They most likely

also must incur civil and social harassment due to their refugee status. All of these

compounded social and political issues lead to the intuitive conclusion that Moken

identity, culture and health are being degraded in part due to the political economic

context and establishment and management of the Surin National Park.

Community and Household Relationships

On top of the issue of national identity, issues of community and self-identity are

being forcibly changed through the social changes that the Park establishment and

regulation perpetuate. Traditionally Moken families traveled on the sea in village groups

by nuclear family units of five to six individuals on their traditional kabangs (Moken

boat) (UNESCO, 2001). Interdependence on the family and community for survival

undoubtedly created strong social bonds and sense of self amongst Moken groups that are

currently being degraded through changes in lifestyle that include migration and time

spent away from the home for work.

Although during some parts of the year Surin Island Moken still forage throughout

the archipelago on their kabangs, this practice is decreasing and sedentary periods are

becoming longer (UNESCO, 2001). One reason for the decline of this practice is that

villagers are no longer to cut down trees or extract resources from within the Park to

14

build their kabangs. As the villagers become increasingly sedentary not only do they lose

a sense of self and cultural identity established through nomadic life, their sedentary

lifestyle also includes the new social structures and accompanied community and

household relationships incurred through changes in livelihoods. As new forms of work

are sought by the Moken, some Moken are allowed to work for the park while others are

not additionally some may be some may be migrating to the mainland for work and

spending more time away from home (UNESCO, 2001). It may also be assumed that

working for a livelihood within and outside of the park is affecting traditional gender and

social roles that may be leading to changes in Moken culture that are assimilating them to

the mainstream and ultimately may lead to a loss of cultural diversity inflicted in many

ways by the Park rules and regulations.

Spirituality and Cosmology

The Moken have also managed to maintain a unique spiritual identity that ties

them to their traditional environment. The Moken are animist, who with no written

language, have passed on their cosmology, myths, history and religious beliefs through

oral traditions and rituals (CUSRI). Moken believe that their embedded environment is

alive with spirit, spirits that have sustained them and protected throughout their history.

The spirits of nature are inclusive of the spirits of the Moken ancestry, which are

metaphorically represented through totem poles known as lobongs that the Moken have

placed within a sacred site in the Surin Park forest (CUSRI). The Moken who reside

within and outside the National Park join as they together in Surin Park annually to

celebrate the spirit of their ancestors and to ask for protection for the coming year

(Arunotai, 2002).

This ceremony is of extreme importance to the Moken and their sense of unity and

security. The National Park has allowed the practice to continue, yet have not effectively

prohibited outsiders from disrupting the celebration. According to a UNESCO

publication, at the 2005 celebration NGOs, politicians, and local news crews arrived to

record and witness the ancient rituals, yet this year the ceremony was limited as many

Moken from outside areas did not arrive and others within the community chose to gather

around the newly donated solar powered TV and watch pornography donated by NGO

volunteers rather than their ancestors shrines (Vater, 2005). While larger issues of

globalization and human desire come into play here, the bottom line is that the Park has

15

not sought to protect or promote the Moken’s spiritual traditions for the benefit of the

Moken people, which logically would be inclusive of promoting and sustaining the

integrity of their culture.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK)

The Moken have survived life on the sea for centuries due to their traditional

ecological knowledge (TEK). Moken wisdom, rituals, and behaviors are deeply

embedded in their experiences with the natural environment. Examples of the Moken’s

unique and specialized relationship with the environment are evident by their cultural and

biological survival and have recently been highlights through the publishing’s of

academic researches and popular literature (Arunotai, 2002 & Gislen, 2003).

The Moken’s amazing ability to see underwater without the use of adaptive

technology that was verified when a Swedish scientist proved that the Moken can see two

to three times as well underwater than European children (Gislen, 2003). This incredible

ability can be considered a form of TEK as it is a learned technique. National Geographic

also reported that the Moken have the learned ability to swim to depths as far as 75 feet

without technological devices as they have learned to lower their heart rate in order to

stay under water for extremely long periods of time (Handwerk, 2003).

Not only have the Moken learned adaptive techniques to survival on the sea and in

the forest, their knowledge of species-specific behavior and ecosystem processes,

including indicators of natural disaster is impressive. The Moken of the Surin Park

demonstrated and showed the importance of TEK during the December Tsunami that

struck Southeast Asia in 2004 (Holland, 2004). Despite their lack of scientific

technology it was the Moken rather than the Surin Park staff who were initially

responsible for gathering the 400 Surin tourists and Park management to the highest peak

on the island. Although the living Moken had never experienced a tsunami their oral

histories, songs, myths, and knowledge of local ecosystem processes resulted in

traditional wisdom that saved the lives of all but three tourists and one Moken, who was

report ably left behind.

The modern utilization of TEK exemplified by the case of the tsunami illustrates

the value of reliance on human and cultural capital. Although scientific technologies

allow humans in many ways to survive, the value of TEK for survival, cultural identity,

and pride, cannot be underestimated. TEK should not simply be stored and placed on a

16

shelf, rather it should be utilized to benefit the ecological management of the park and in

turn give the Moken pride and influence over the Park’s policy and management.

Education

TEK has been acquired amongst the Moken from centuries of experience and

should be maintained and valued, but this is not to devalue the benefits that Moken may

gain from more modern and new learning techniques, such as education within the

classroom. There is a small Marine Fisheries Conservation Unit located in the Surin

Islands, the main concern of this unit is to prevent destructive practice from occurring

within the marine ecosystem of the Park (UNESCO, 2001). In 1994 the concern over

marine conservation prompted the establishment, by the Fisheries Conservation Unit, of a

one-room school that was intended to teach the local Moken children about the

importance of marine conservation (UNESCO, 2001). Although the Moken know the

value of the sea as they have subsided on it for centuries, western conservation ethics and

ideologies may be completely foreign to the Moken children and community.

Although the Khuraburi school district approved a special designed curriculum

for Moken children, the national and local government agencies play virtually no role in

educating the Moken. The government does not supply the Moken school with teachers,

notebooks, uniforms, or other supplies (UNESCO 2001). Teachers are volunteers or

provided by external groups and supplies are received via donation (UNESCO, 2001).

Additionally if children want to pursue upper elementary school they must go to shore

and be able to manage socially and economically away from home. The Park

management has no role or policy towards providing the Moken with an education and

the district that approved the school’s curriculum does little more than provide the Moken

children who attend school with supplies of milk, which although maybe based on good

intentions seems somewhat inappropriate as it is unlikely that Moken children are able to

digest milk based on traditional patterns of Moken diet and subsistence.

Physical and Mental Health

Since the establishment of the Park, the diet of the Moken has been dramatically

altred, possibly degrading their physical state of being. Traditionally Moken foods

included wild yams, shoots, sea cucumbers, fish, and other natural produce from the sea

and forest (UNESCO, 2001). Although the Moken in limited amounts consumed rice it

was a unique commodity as it was bartered for. After the Moken began increasingly

17

involved in the cash economy through the seashell trade, due to Park restrictions on

traditional territory and subsistence, along with increased contact with tourists, rice

became the staple food as it was easy to store and access. It is unknown if this change in

subsistence led to an increased caloric or nutrient intake.

Today Moken still consume products from the sea, yet they also are becoming

addicted to daily dosages of processes foods, limited in nutrients and high in additives.

Daily favorites include munching on dried noodles, candy and chips, and soda. Mother’s

can also be seen nursing their infants with bottles of sweetened condensed milk. The

Moken most likely do not have any knowledge of western-based concepts of nutrition and

associated health benefits and risks, as traditionally food was consumed for the sole

purpose of survival.

The Park plays a large role in the Moken’s unhealthy dietary habits due to

regulations on their traditional ways of life and the influx of tourism that the Park

promotes. Tourist who visit the Moken village or come into contact with the Moken in

the Park will often feed them candies and unhealthy treats as they are not educated on

Moken health or subsistence, and often consume the processed foods themselves. Also

the Moken have only recently begun to gain experience with cash earning. Many Moken

do not have the experience or capacity to accumulate their earnings and can be seen, after

a day’s work in the Park, buying the new dietary goods from the Park restaurant intended

to service the tourists. Common signs of malnutrition and infection can be observed

among the Moken population who reside in the Park. In this way the Park has not only

created policy that alter the Moken’s health, they are also making a profit off the Moken

in doing so.

Along with increased addiction to chemicals found in processed foods, Moken are

becoming increasingly addicted chemical substances such as tobacco, alcohol, and other

narcotics (UNESCO, 2001). It can be assumed that these obviously unhealthy changes in

diet and changes in lifestyle are effecting dental health, heart disease, diabetes, cancer,

STDs, and mental illnesses. These assumptions although logical, are difficult to validate

due the limited knowledge of the current and past statues of Moken health. Although it

may be assumed that the Park has perpetuated the degradation of Moken health, the Park

plays no role in attempting to improve the Moken’s physical well-being, which may

ultimately be viewed as inclusive of promoting the Surin Island’s ecosystem integrity.

18

Although the Thai Malaria Control Unit comes once a year to test the Moken and

to spray the village with insecticide, the ability of the Moken to receive allopathic

diagnosis of treatment for illness is extremely limited as there are no other health

outreach programs for the Moken provided by the government (UNESCO, 2001). The

difficulties in gaining access to care are compounded by the fact that the Moken don’t

have Thai identification and thus incur difficulties when trying to receive medical

treatment on the mainland. Moken do have a system of traditional healing yet access to

biomedical care could undoubtedly improve the lives of the Moken.

The Moken’s traditional system of healing is done by the village shaman, who

acts as mediums between the material and spiritual world. Shamans commune with the

spiritual world to facilitate curing and healing and rely on TEK by using several types of

herbal remedies extract from forest and marine resources. The Moken also rely on

midwifes to attend to all of the births in the village. As TEK is lost and new ways of life

are learned the Moken may have less knowledge about herbal plants and healing than

they did in the past, thus placing an even greater importance on the need for access to

public health services.

Not only does the Park or Thai government play no role in providing the Moken

with public health services, they also fail to provide the Moken with basic public health

infrastructure or education (UNESCO, 2001). Although, the tourist designated areas of

the Park have running water, electricity, and a system for the disposal of sewage and

solid wastes, this cannot be said of the Moken village within the Park, which lacks all of

the above amenities. Logically it can be assumed that the government’s establishment,

regulations, and goals of the Park along with the associated changes in Moken’s

relationships with the environment, tradition, lifestyle, physical health and increasing

disparity that has occurred through increasing contact with often elite groups of tourists

are having profound and compounded effects on Moken Psychological well-being. If the

Park’s objective is to maintain the integrity of the ecosystem, which is inclusive of the

Moken, and they are in part responsible for degrading Moken health, then as a limited

effort Park management and policy should at least take some responsibility for attempting

to improve the health infrastructure and population health status within the Moken

village.

The Promotion of Conservation and Ecosystem Integrity through Tourism?

19

According to UNEP the main objectives of the Surin park at the time of

establishment were to “(1) preserve and conserve natural resource and the environment in

a condition whereby they can provide sustainable benefits to society and (2) to provide

opportunities to the public for education, research and recreation that is within the park’s

carrying capacity” (Sudara & Yeemin, 2). If the Moken are included as members of

society and inclusive of the Park’s ecosystem and all Thai national parks have the of

primary objective of preservation and maintenance of the ecosystem integrity,

biodiversity, and scenic beauty for use by the present and future generations without

compromising them, then Surin National Park can largely be viewed as a social failure.

The social failures of the Park are due primarily to the priorities the Park has placed on

servicing and generating economic benefits from tourists at the cost of Moken cultural

integrity and health.

Although there is limited baseline data regarding Moken health or the status of

Surin’s coral reefs, the known impacts of increased tourism, which has been prompted by

the establishment and management of the park, have likely degraded not only the

ecosystems cultural integrity, but the biological integrity of the Park as well (Wong, 2003

and Worachananant). It seems as though in the case of Surin National Park, conservation ethics and goals have been used as a guise to promote economic development for the Thai government rather than ecosystem health (Worachananant). The political economy of marine national parks in Thailand can be useful in illustrating this seemingly obvious point.

Within Thailand coral reefs are not only important economically for the ecosystem services they provide, they are of extreme value to Thai economic development (Wong, 2003). It is estimated that 70% of tourism-generated income in Thailand are derived from marine tourism and related activity. Tourism is difficult to blend with conservation as tourism stresses the natural ecosystem through increased demand and pressures on natural resources and indigenous communities, increased development of infrastructure, and increased wastes within the park (Ferguson, 2005). In Surin tourist boats that transport the visitors to the Park from the mainland, as well as daily tour operators, who take

20

the tourist on marine excursions, are creating increased stresses and degradation to the Parks coral reef habitats (Wong, 2003). Damage from anchoring as well as increased pollutants and toxins such as sewage, wastewater, and oil are also consequences of tourist vessels that damage the health of the marine community and thus threaten the reef ecosystem (Sethapun, 2000 & Worachananant). Additionally, tourism development in areas nearby the Park place additional stresses on the local and regional ecosystems.

Tourism in Thailand has accelerated at a rapid rate, therefore parks such as Surin are often unable to adapt policies and management plans that can benefit both the Thai economy and the integrity ‘protected’ area (Lundquist, 2004 and Wong, 2003). Generally economic development may take precedence over conservation objectives even if this means exceeding the physical or environmental carrying capacity, which can clearly be seen in Surin Park on Thai national holidays when campsites and public restrooms are overflowing with wastes, and crowds of snorkels on reefs and visitors in park areas barely have room to move due to the overcrowding. In this sense again tourism within the Park has not been managed to be compatible with the Thai national park primary objects that states, that parks should provide for nature tourism that is compatible with the park ecosystem and its carrying capacity (Chettamart & Worachananant).

Capacity to mange tourists’ activities and zoning within the Park also creates problems in obtaining Park stated objectives. Tourist activity is often limited to specific sites within the Park, for example Surin Park has designated areas for tourist to stay and to snorkel, the pressures from tourism are thus localized and compounded at these designated sites (Worachananant). Another issue related to management capacity, tourism and conservation, is the efficacy of Park rangers to control and educate the public (Worachananant). Tourists from all over the world, who may have no knowledge of marine ecology or Moken culture, come to visit Surin Park

21

(Chettamart). Often Park staff is insufficiently trained to educate or communicate with visitors on the local ecosystem and inappropriate tourist behaviors. Sustainable Livelihoods for the Moken

It seems that one way empower the Moken community economically and socially

while at the same time addressing the temporary nature and inadequate knowledge of the

Park staff would be to train and employ the Moken as not only Park guides and nature

interpreters, but as Park managers who could serve as co-managers with National Park

rangers. According to UNESCO Moken defined goals include park employment (2001).

Co-management of the Park could provide the Moken with livelihoods that were

dependent on preserving the biological integrity of the Park, while at the same time forest

cultural pride through the incorporation of Moken TEK and participation within the Park

(McClanahan, 2006 and Wildlife Conservation Society, 2006). Additionally Moken

could be trained and employed to do ecological research, monitoring, survey and

mapping within the Park (Hill, 2004). Linking cultural and ecological restoration by

combining activities that simultaneously address health promotion and cultural and

biological integrity of the Surin ecosystem through effective management of coral reefs

may be best accomplished through community-based conservation projects and locally

managed marine areas (UNESCO, 2001).

Obviously the Moken will not be able to gain a recognized stake or management

position within the Park, and will continue to be disenfranchised due to their limited

ability to benefit from the establishment of the park or from tourism generated revenues,

without gaining Thai citizenship or without additional subsidizing or recognition from

the Thai government. NGO sponsored activities that may serve to promote resource

conservation while at the same time improving the lives and maintaining the cultural

dignity of the Moken include, the idea to facilitate giant clam mariculture or to employee

the Moken through sea turtle conservation projects in which the Moken could be trained

to build hatcheries, maintain records, and assist in raising and releasing the turtles into the

wild. The Moken could also draw on their unique culture to produce arts and crafts,

music, literature, and cultural programs through which they could market.

One must be wary of who benefits when cultural identity is marketed. In one

exploitive scenario Belgian television producers recently were reported to have paid the

22

Moken 50,000 baht to take 12 Moken from their families and record them for a reality

based TV show (Vater, 2005). By the time the Moken returned to the village the cash

paid by the producers to the village chief had been spent. Although commoditizing

cultural may have serious draw backs in term of exploitive consequences, with

appropriate help, marketing, and local benefits it seems as though some forms of

promoting Moken culture through the arts could also foster cultural pride and help to

maintain TEK without negatively effecting the integrity of Moken culture or the

biological diversity of the Park.

Conclusion

Under the parks future management plans the only mention of the Moken is listed

under the section entitled community programs in which the only goal stated is

“economic incentives program for sea gypsies” (Sudara & Yeemin: 3). While economic

livelihoods are of extreme value and importance to the Moken, based on the Park

objectives it is also important to assess how income and lifestyle changes resultant of

livelihoods are effecting local cultural and physical integrity (Kareiva, 2006). The

establishment of the Surin National Park has adversely effected the Moken and solutions

to rectify their degradation should be addressed by a radical shirt in Park management

priority that stresses the importance of biological and cultural diversity, integrity and

health over economic development and tourism.

The associated threats of biological and cultural diversity loss cannot be put aside

if ecosystem integrity is an objective of conservation based projects, such as marine

national parks (Kareiva, 2006). In the case of Surin National Park, the Thai government

should be held accountable for using the degradation of coral reef ecosystems and

conservation based objectives as a blanket to exploit natural and cultural resources and

gain economic incentives. Through accountability the Government should recognize and

support the importance of collective national heritage and cultural diversity within Surin

National Park and aim to establish effective policy that is geared towards the stated

objectives of maintaining ecosystem integrity rather than exploiting it. The consequences

of management and policies in Surin National Park related to user conflict, management

capacity, “…and controversial priority settings that place more emphasis on tourism than

conservation” highlight issues regarding challenges and social obstacles of marine

national parks throughout the nation (Burke, 2002: 42 and Arunotai).

23

Although all social issues within MPAs are site and context specific, in general it

may be concluded that MPAs when used as an ecosystem approach to conservation must

take into account marine dependent communities and the effects of MPA management on

the integrity and well-being of the resource dependent users (Kareiva, 2006). The

immediate threats to biological and cultural diversity are intimately linked in the case of

Surin Park and in other terrestrial and marine managed areas throughout the world.

Effective management of cultural and biological resources is critical to the integrity,

health, and sustainability of regional and global ecosystems. The case of the Moken and

the often ignored social impacts of ‘protected’ areas, call for increased socio-cultural

monitoring within protected areas that is inclusive of soico-economic evaluations as well

as measures of public health and cultural integrity (Gjertsen, 2005). As of yet the

establishment of Mo Koh Surin National Park has failed both socially and biologically in

achieving it’s stated goals, yet with increased understanding of the complex issues it is

hoped that effective measures will be taken to benefit the diversity of life that is

contained within the Park ecosystem.

24

Bibliography

Arunotai N NOAA: Survey of SocMon-Related Sites (Sites Conducting Socioeconomic

Monitoring related to the Global Socioeconomic Monitoring Initiative) Draft results for

the Surin Islands National Park, Thailand.

http://ipo.nos.noaa.gov/socioeconomic/site_monitoring/SM_Surin_NOAA.PDF.

Arunotai N (2002) Moken Livelihood in the Surin Islands National Park: UNESCO.

Bellwood DR, Hughes TP, Folke C, and Nystorm M (2004) Confronting the Coral Reef Crisis.

Nature 429:827-833.

Bryant DG, World Resources Institute., International Center for Living Aquatic Resources

Management., World Conservation Monitoring Centre., and United Nations Environment

Programmed. (1998) Reefs at risk : a map-based indicator of threats to the world's coral

reefs. Washington, D.C.: World Resources Institute.

Burke L, Selig L, and Spalding M (2002) Reefs at risk in southeast Asia. Washington, D.C.

London: World Resources Institute ;Kogan Page.

Chettamart S Ecotourism Resources and Management in Thailand. Department of Conservation.

25

Chou L, Tuan V, Yeemin T, Cabanban A, Suharsono A, and Kessna I (2002) Status of Southeast

Asia coral reefs. Status of Coral reefs of the World: 2002:123-152.

Christie P, McCay BJ, Miller ML, and Lowe C (2004) Towards Developing a Complete

Understanding. Fisheries 28:22-26.

CUSRI The Moken: Sea Gypsies of Surin Islands.

http://www.cusri.chula.ac.th/andaman/web_mokan/history/index.html.

Djajanto W (2003) Wise Coastal Practices, ASEAN's Small Islands Raise their Voices. In

UNESCO and CSI Environment and Development in Coastal Regions and in Small

Islands (eds.): UNSECO, pp. 1-3.

Djajanto W (2006) Wise Coastal Practices, ASEAN's Small Islands raise Their Voice.

Ellis R (2003) The empty ocean : plundering the world's marine life. Washington, DC: Island

Press/Shearwater Books.

Ferguson C (2005) Are the world's coral reefs threatened? Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Gislen A, Dacke M, Kroger R, Abrahamsson M, Nilsson D, and Warrant E (2003) Superior

Underwater Vision in Human Population of sea Gypsies. Current Biology 13:833-836.

Gjertsen H (2005) Can Habitat Protection Lead to Improvements In Human Well-Being?

Evidence from Marine Protected Areas in the Million. World Development 33:199-217.

Handwerk B (2004) Sea Gypsies of Asia Boast Incredible Underwater vision. National

Geographic May.

Hatcher B, and Hatcher G (2004) Question of Mutual Security: Exploring Interactions between

the Health of Coral Reef Ecosystems and Coastal Communities. EcoHealth 1:229-235.

26

Hill J, Wilkinson CR, and Australian Institute of Marine Science. (2004) Methods for ecological

monitoring of coral reefs. Townsville, Qld.: Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Holland J Tsunami Update: Saved by Knowledge of the Sea. National Geographic Online Extra

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0504/feature4/online_extra.html.

Hughes T, Baird A, Bellwood D, Card M, and Connolly S (2003) Climate Change, Human

Impacts, and the Resilience of Coral Reefs. Science 310:929-933.

IUCN (2004) Mobility, Livelihoods and Conservation,3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress

Bangkok, Thailand : People and Nature - Only One World. Sponsored Workshop under

the theme “Health, Poverty and Conservation”

IUCN The World Conservation Union (2003) Draft Case Study: Marine Protected Areas

Categories: Cardiff University.

Kareiva P (2006) Conservation Biology: Beyond Marine Protected Areas. Current Biology

16:R533-R535.

Lundquist C, and Greek E (2004) Strategies for Successful Marine Conservation: Integrating

Socioeconomic, Political, and Scientific Factors. Conservation Biology 19:1771-1778.

Mascia M (2001) The Human Dimension of Coral Reef Marine Protected Areas: Recent Social

Science research and its Policy Implications. Conservation Biology 17:630-632.

McClanahan T, Marianne MJ, Conner JE, and Keene WE (2006) A Comparison of Marine

Protected Areas and Alternative Approaches to Coral Reef Management. Current Biology

16:1408-1413.

Moss DE (2004) Conservation Health. The Environment Magazine 15.

NASA (2006) Satellite Images reveal State of World's Coral Reefs. NASA/Goddard Space Flight

27

Center:2.

Nystorm M, Folke C, and Oberg F (2000) Coral reef Disturbance and Resilience in a Human

Dominated Environment. TREE 15:413-417.

Sandier PA, Holland F, A., Rowels TK, and Scott GI (2004) The Oceans and Human Health.

Environmental Health Perspectives 112:A454-455.

Sethapun T (2000) Marine National Parks in Thailand. http://www.dnp.go.th/parkreserve/e-

book/Marine_Park_Th_Tsunami.pdf.

Sudara S, and Yeemin T Demonstration Site Baseline Assessment Report: Mud Koh Surin

National Park, Thailand. UNEP/EAS/ICRAN/WS www.icran.org

.

UNESCO The Moken Story. http://www.cusri.chula.ac.th/andaman/th/way/The%20Moken

%20Book(landscape).him.

UNESCO (2001) Indigenous People and Parks. The Surin Islands Project. Coastal region and

Small Islands papers 8, Paris 63pp.

UNESCO (2002) Cultural Diversity: Common Heritage, Plural Identities.

UNESCO (2006) Small Island Voice: The word on the street: UNESCO, pp. 1-20.

UNESCO, and CSI Environment and Development in Coastal Regions and in Small Islands

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (passed on 10 December 1948, Paris, France):

Coastal Region and Small Island Papers 11, Annex VI: UNESCO.

UNESCO, and CSI Environment and Development in Coastal Regions and in Small Islands

(2003) A Place for Indigenous People in Protected Areas, Surin Islands, Andaman Sea,

Thailand: UNESCO.

28

Vater T ( 2005) The Last days of the Moken: UNESCO,

http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/natural_science/articleEnglish/

Moken_article_by_Tom.pdf.

Whittingham E, Campbell J, and Townsley P (2003) Poverty and Reefs-Volume 1 and 2: Poverty

and Reefs. France: DFID-IMM-IOC.UNESCO, pp. 260pp.

Wienstien MP, and Reed DJ (2005) Sustainable Coastal Development: The dual mandate and a

recommendation for "commerce managed areas". Restoration Ecology 13:174-182.

Wildlife Conservation Society (2006) Marine Protected Areas: It takes a village, study says.

http://www.sciencedaily.com.

Wilkinson C (1996) Global change and coral reefs: impacts on reefs, economies and human

cultures. Global Change Biology 2:547.

Wong PP (2001) Trends in Coastal ecotourism in Southeast Asia. Industry and Environment:

ecotourism and sustainability 24:20-24.

Worachananant S, Carter R, Hockings M, Reopanichkul P, and Thamrongnawasawat T Tourism

Management in Surin Marine National Park, Thailand.

http://eprint.uq.edu.au/archive/00001359/01/worachananant.pdf.

29