In a world where nature is continually being degraded, there is growing impetus for everyone to protect the environment more. Yet, “nature conservation” today is a broad term whose meaning varies by person, and approaches to environmental protection differ, sparking endless social debate from past to present. Humans rely on finite natural resources, and protecting the environment partly aims to preserve these resources so they do not decline further and are left for future generations. But this global mission faces many obstacles that require broad cooperation to address. Recently, Sai Scott (ทราย สก๊อต), also known as Sirunat Scott (สิรณัฐ สก๊อต), a seas-loving Thai conservationist and the owner of the nickname “Mermaid,” announced his resignation as an adviser to the director-general of the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, and posted a concluding video. In the video, Sai Scott warned foreign tourists who displayed racist behavior by greeting staff with “Ni Hao” while visiting the sea in southern Thailand, a moment that propelled the issue into widespread social-media discussion across multiple fronts: racism, tourism, and environmental conservation.
Although criticisms of individuals—such as focusing on content creation or overstepping duties—are drawing online attention, this case also reflects several deep-seated issues about environmental conservation in Thailand that remain entangled with bureaucratic systems. These systems enable officials to operate in an orderly, systematic way, but simultaneously constrain their ability to perform duties to protect the environment, such as park officers’ low salaries and welfare, which clash with the risks of the job, or the limited scope of authority. This helps explain why Thailand’s environment continues to deteriorate. Environmental advocates or civil-society groups are increasingly stepping in to contribute to conservation with greater agility and seriousness, but at times such approaches clash with state policy and with traditional community livelihoods, leading to ongoing tensions. Even though all parties share the goal of protecting nature, the diversity of conservation approaches may require serious dialogue about how to conserve the environment. Nature touchable (or not)? Traditionally, humans depended on nature as a crucial source of livelihood, but these ecosystems have since been repurposed as important income sources for communities through tourism, fishing, and agriculture. Another hard question the government has long faced is “conserving the environment together with communities,” given misunderstandings and laws that complicate livelihoods. Today, controlling these factors remains necessary, but it must be fair to all sides, including the environment. Because overreliance on those natural resources can lead to degradation, yet adopting a stance that no human should touch nature—while appealing to urban perspectives—may be impossible in practice, as it would threaten food sources and incomes. This conflict forces the government to weigh impacts across all stakeholders. Presently, partnering with communities to conserve the environment while preserving their traditional livelihoods is one way to reach consensus, though in some cases overexploitation persists; nonetheless, the existing state system is designed to manage such issues on a case-by-case basis. Can we truly rely on the bureaucratic apparatus to conserve nature? The system has advantages, such as enforcing laws against environmental destruction and implementing projects and research to restore ecosystems. But its drawbacks include central policies and modes of operation that constrain local officials, as well as corruption and interference by powerful figures who become influential themselves. In many locales, ecosystems and natural resources differ; for instance, protecting marine life requires substantial budgets—equipment, research, and specialist personnel—yet the reality is that these officials are paid less than 10,000 baht per month and receive no hazard pay. The government has not yet increased funding for environmental protection. Moreover, various influence networks seek to profit from natural resources, creating loopholes in enforcement and hindering officials’ ability to work effectively. When these cases persist without clear solutions and junior officials lack decision-making authority, delays in action mount and the overall capacity for environmental governance weakens.
In addition, the work of private-sector actors or civil-society organizations engaged in conservation must operate within the governmental system. That means, whatever an individual’s conservation approach may be, we are all preserving within the same system. Yet diverging conservation approaches become another source of conflict, causing the various efforts to collide with one another, while the system itself faces a range of problems that require resolution and support. Consequently, nature conservation in Thailand has yet to advance meaningfully.
Therefore, regardless of the approach anyone adopts to conserve nature, we ultimately confront the same obstacles and must work together to resolve the issues to achieve everyone’s goal: conserving nature.