On 2 November 2025, the Forest Youth Voices public forum brought together researchers, Indigenous youth, civil society actors, and members of the public to explore how Everyday Environmental Heritage (EEH) can function as a pathway from community practice to environmental policy. Rather than treating conservation as a purely technical or legal matter, the event foregrounded lived experience, cultural knowledge, and youth-led media as practical tools for reshaping environmental governance in Thailand.

The program was deliberately structured to move from critique to practice. It began by examining the social and psychological consequences of top-down conservation policies, transitioned to public perceptions of inequality and participation, and concluded by centering youth storytelling as a form of environmental action.

From Research to Practice: Everyday Environmental Heritage in Action

The keynote address by Dr. Marco J. Haenssgen framed Everyday Environmental Heritage as a policy-relevant concept that links cultural practice, livelihood, and ecological stewardship. He situated the discussion within the recent controversy surrounding two draft Royal Decrees under the 2019 National Park Act and the 2019 Wildlife Conservation and Protection Act, which generated widespread fear among Indigenous highland communities of land dispossession after a 20-year tenure limit.

The keynote presentation on Phycological and Social Impacts of Top-Down Conservation Initiatives on Indigenous Communities: Lessons from the Announcement of two Royal Decree in Thailand

While these draft decrees were later revised following public backlash, they revealed a deeper governance problem: conservation policies that position Indigenous residents as potential trespassers rather than long-term stewards of the forest. Rather than responding to such policy threats solely through protest, the keynote argued for the strengthening of community resilience through practical, everyday interventions that make conservation socially and economically viable. Three pilot initiatives under the EEH framework were presented: 1) origin labeling for community products, 2) operational support for community-led conservation activities, and 3) youth media training.

Early findings indicated that these interventions helped sustain engagement during periods of policy uncertainty. Market testing showed that consumers were willing to pay a modest premium for products connected to place-based heritage, while participant feedback emphasized continuity, inclusiveness, and long-term support rather than short-term project cycles. Importantly, these initiatives were framed not as substitutes for policy reform, but as buffers that help communities remain connected to conservation when formal governance falters.

Market Testing and Evaluation Outcomes from the Everyday Environmental Heritage Pilot. 
Credits: Dr. Marco J. Haenssgen

Public Reflection: Inequality, Voice, and Policy Priorities

The second segment of the program shifted from research evidence to public perception, drawing on findings from a Public Opinion Survey on Indigenous Heritage, Youth Participation, and Climate Justice in Thailand. While respondents expressed strong support for cultural recognition, the survey revealed persistent concerns about fairness and participation in environmental governance.

The strongest areas of agreement were that schools should teach Indigenous culture and environmental wisdom (mean score 4.62) and that the government should support community-based tourism that values Indigenous heritage (4.71). By contrast, confidence that forest laws treat ethnic communities fairly scored much lower (2.88), and participation in environmental policymaking received the weakest rating among governance indicators (3.45).

These findings point to a structural gap: while public support for Indigenous heritage and youth participation is high, trust in the inclusiveness of environmental governance remains low. The issue, participants suggested, is not merely technical implementation but who holds voice, authority, and legitimacy in conservation decision-making.

Policy priorities identified by respondents reflected this concern. The most strongly supported pathways for reducing ethnic bias included equal rights and citizenship recognition, support for Indigenous youth through arts and media, and decentralization toward community-based forest governance. These insights set the stage for the panel discussion that followed.

What It Takes to Institutionalize Participatory Platforms

Panel Discussion on how can participatory platforms be successfully created and institutionalized so that research, community experience, and youth engagement meaningfully shape environmental and climate policy?

The panel addressed a central question: how can participatory policy spaces—particularly in the context of climate change—move beyond consultation toward durable, institutionalized forms of governance?

Dr. Mukdawan Sakboon emphasized that youth participation should not be narrowly defined through institutional or academic frameworks. Young people, she argued, already engage politically through everyday digital practices. Participatory platforms today are not limited to physical forums but increasingly take shape through online spaces where youth define agendas, not merely respond to them. As she noted, young people are often invited to participate, but rarely allowed to shape the conversation itself.

From a legal perspective, Kittisak Rattanakrajangsri stressed the importance of anchoring participation in existing formal mechanisms. He pointed to newly proclaimed legislation on the protection and restoration of ethnic peoples’ livelihoods as a potential institutional space through which communities and youth can collectively articulate concerns. Participation, he argued, becomes durable not through dialogue alone, but through legally recognized platforms that redistribute power and enable collective action.

Dr. Prasit Leepreecha further underscored the need for a rights-based and community-centered approach. He argued that affected communities must be recognized as primary actors and problem owners in conservation policy. Many ethnic community members today occupy roles as teachers, school administrators, and local professionals, positioning them to actively shape policy at the local level. Translating Indigenous knowledge—ritual practices, ecological wisdom, everyday ways of living—into publicly legible policy language, he suggested, is essential, particularly in areas such as ecotourism and environmental education.

Reflecting on the broader challenge of institutional change, Dr. Haenssgen cautioned against direct confrontation with state institutions that have historically been resistant to listening. Instead, he advocated working through emerging legal frameworks while simultaneously transforming public discourse. Youth-led storytelling, Indigenous media networks, and social media platforms, he argued, are critical for producing counter-narratives that challenge dominant representations of conservation and Indigeneity.

Taken together, the panel concluded that participatory platforms become institutionalized not through a single mechanism, but through an ecosystem of legal, social, and communicative spaces—where youth-driven digital arenas are recognized as political, community participation is grounded in rights, and inclusive narratives reshape how conservation is understood.

Forest Youth Voices: Media as Environmental Action

The youth media screening marked a deliberate shift from policy analysis to lived experience. Rather than presenting films as advocacy outputs, the session foregrounded youth reflections on storytelling as a process of learning, responsibility, and self-representation.

Several youth presenters emphasized that the environmental issues depicted in their films were not abstract or distant. One youth participant, Mr. Sarayuth Sitthimahasakul (Bank), explained that the forest was portrayed as part of everyday life, noting that “this is not just about nature disappearing somewhere else—it affects our water, our food, and how our families live every day.” This framing positioned environmental degradation as a lived responsibility rather than a future crisis, reinforcing the idea that conservation begins with daily relationships between people and place.

Other reflections focused on the cultural and spiritual dimensions of environmental loss. Responding to the theme “What happens when the spirits grow hungry?”, youth presenters described the forest as inseparable from belief systems, rituals, and intergenerational ties. As Bank reflected, “when the forest is damaged, it’s not only trees that disappear—traditions and respect between generations also weaken.” These reflections challenged narrow ecological definitions of conservation, highlighting that environmental harm also disrupts cultural continuity and social meaning.

A recurring concern raised by youth was misrepresentation. Several presenters noted that forest communities are often spoken about in policy debates and media narratives but rarely allowed to speak for themselves. One youth, Mr. Wichit ThechaLertpana (Toa), described making the film as a way to counter this imbalance, stating that “people usually see us as the problem, but through the film we wanted to show how we actually live with the forest.” In this sense, media production was framed not as awareness-raising alone, but as an act of self-representation that contests dominant stereotypes surrounding Indigenous and highland communities.

Importantly, youth reflections also pointed inward. Beyond communicating messages to outsiders, presenters described how the process of making films changed their own perspectives. Toa shared that “before doing this, I didn’t think much about my role, but after making the film I feel more responsible for protecting what we still have.” Media-making thus emerged as a formative process—building confidence, agency, and a sense of long-term responsibility rather than delivering a one-off message.

Taken together, the youth reflections revealed why creative media matters in environmental governance. Youth did not frame their work in the language of policy or climate targets. Instead, they articulated environmental concerns through lived experience, cultural meaning, and personal transformation. These reflections underscored the session’s broader argument: when young people are given the tools to tell their own stories, participation shifts from symbolic inclusion toward sustained engagement, laying social and cultural foundations that formal conservation policy alone cannot provide.

Recognition as Movement-Building

The event concluded with a popular vote and awards ceremony recognizing youth as environmental knowledge-holders and cultural communicators. More than a celebratory gesture, the closing ritual reinforced a key message: conservation is sustained not only through laws and institutions, but through recognition, pride, and intergenerational continuity.

By centering Everyday Environmental Heritage and amplifying youth voices, Forest Youth Voices illustrated how bottom-up conservation can move from lived practice to policy relevance, without losing sight of the communities and relationships that sustain the forest in everyday life.