Failed Forest Management Strategies in Thailand

The Need for Community Forest Management

Billy Lee and Jaime Webb

1

Table of Contents

A. Global Context 1. Introduction 2. Shrinking Forests 2.1 Global Forest Trends 2.2 Significance of Tropical Forests 2.3 Curbing Tropical Deforestation 2.4 Ineffective Management Strategy 3. The Case for Community Forest Management (CFM) 3.1 Forest Preservation and Conservation 3.2 Forest Preservation with Human Rights Perspective 3.3 Case Study: Guatemala 4. Conclusion B. National Context 1. Introduction 2. Current Situation: Politics and Human Rights 2.1 Current Thai Political Situation 2.2. Human Rights in Thailand 3. The Forestry Master Plan: Implementation and Incentive 3.1 The Forestry Master Plan 3.2 Master Plan Implementation 3.3 Master Plan Incentives 3.4 Master Plan Goal and Effects 4. Documented Impact Areas to date 4.1 North of Thailand Impacts 4.2 South of Thailand Impacts 5. Response 5.1 United Nations Response 5.2 Community Response to Master Plan C. Isaan Context 1. Introduction 2. Isaan History of Deforestation 2.1 Economic Impact 2.2 Social Impact 2.3 Health Impact 3. Case Studies 3.1 Baw Kaew 3.2 Jatrabiab 4. Impact in Isaan Region 5. Conclusion D. Solutions 1.Strategy Shift 2. Recommendations 3. Immediate Action

2

Global Context

Shrinking Forests

Global Forest Trends

Since 1990, global forest cover has decreased from 31.6 percent of total land area to

30.6 percent, with more dramatic deforestation warded off by the regeneration of secondary

forests and a sharp increase in the amount of planted forest. Promisingly, the net annual rate of

forest loss slowed over the course of the last quarter century, from 0.18 percent in the early

1990s down to 0.08 percent during the last five years. The losses, however, haven’t been

distributed equally across the globe; net forest area has actually increased in temperate

countries, while most deforestation has taken place in the tropics.

Significance of Tropical Forests

Accounting for just twelve percent of land area on earth, tropical forests harbor more

than half of the world’s species, as well as the foundation for scores of current and probably yet-

to-be-discovered medicines. Furthermore, tropical forests are sometimes referred to as the

‘lungs of the planet’ for their capacity to sequester carbon dioxide and pump out oxygen, making

them imperative to combating climate change. According to 2009 estimates from UNFCCC, “the

current rates of deforestation, including tropical deforestation in South America, Africa and Asia,

contribute to more than 20% of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions” (United Nations).

Curbing Tropical Deforestation

Given their crucial importance--and their continued susceptibility to deforestation--

tropical forests have garnered significant international attention in recent years. Still, despite

global efforts, deforestation in the tropics is proceeding at an alarming rate. According to recent

estimates from UNEP, Southeast Asia is losing around 1.2% of its remaining forests each year.

3

Effectively tackling this critical issue demands a reevaluation of management strategies that

have thus far failed to adequately protect tropical forests.

Ineffective Management Strategy

A common image of effective conservation is the United States’ majestic Yellowstone

National Park, established in 1872 and dubbed “the first ‘modern’ protected area” by the World

Resources Institute (WRI). The Yellowstone model defines protected areas as fenced-off

sanctuaries, free of human settlement. Of course, the pure, ‘wild’ notion of Yellowstone is itself a

myth. Before the arrival of well-armed foreigners, Native Americans called the park home for

centuries.

Still, the park has protected its borders for nearly a century and a half, preserving a

relatively untouched wilderness: no small feat. However, many developing nations—where the

world’s remaining tropical forests are concentrated—do not have the capacity to defend similar

protected areas from illegal encroachment, evidenced by the continued deterioration of these

forests.

The Case for Community Forest Management (CFM)

Forest Preservation and Conservation

A mounting body of evidence suggests that in order to protect the dwindling forest area

in the tropics, forest authorities must develop a partnership with the indigenous communities

that live in and depend on them.

In 2011, a study from Forest Ecology and Management, titled “Community managed

forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across

the tropics,” analyzed 40 protected areas and 33 community managed forests from peer

reviewed literature. The study determines that on the whole, “community managed forests

presented lower and less variable annual deforestation rates than protected forests.”

4

Another study, “Protected areas and local communities: an inevitable partnership toward

successful conservation strategies,” published in the journal Ecology and Society in 2012,

sought to uncover the factors that lead to better compliance with PA (protected area)

conservation policies. Following a meta-analysis of 55 published case studies from developing

countries, the authors find “that local community participation in the PA decision-making process

was the only variable that was significantly related to the level of compliance with PA policies. In

general, the higher the level of participation, the higher the level of compliance. This has

important implications for PA management and suggests that greater inclusion of local

communities in management should be a key strategy for ensuring the integrity of PA.”

Again, a 2014 report from the World Resources Institute--“Securing Rights, Combating

Climate Change,”--reaches the same conclusions. The study of 80 forest areas in South Asia,

East Africa and Latin America observes “that deforestation rates inside community forests with

strong legal recognition and government protection are dramatically lower than in forests

outside those areas.”

Forest Preservation with Human Rights Perspective

In the same World Resources Institute study, the authors state, “community-owned and

managed forests have delivered both superior community benefits and greater carbon storage.”

Indeed, community forest management is not only about protecting the environment, but

defending community rights. The study from Ecology and Society elaborates:

Many protected areas (PAs) have followed the conventional and exclusionary approach

applied at Yellowstone in 1872. As such, many parks have failed to fully integrate other

important factors, such as social, cultural, and political issues. In some cases, this has

triggered adverse social impacts on local communities, disrupting their traditional ways

of living and limiting their control of and access to natural resources

The sentiment is echoed by the extensive 2011 study in Forest Ecology and

Management. “After decades of expanding protected forest areas,” the authors proclaim, “the

5

necessity of integrating human-rights concerns and equity into management objectives is now

unquestionable.”

Case Study: Guatemala

Case studies from around the globe demonstrate the benefits of employing community

forest management. A prime example is Guatemala's Maya Biosphere Reserve (MBR), the

largest protected area in Central America, spanning 2.1 million hectares and containing about

180,000 inhabitants. From 2000-2013, roughly one quarter of the MBR was delegated to local

communities in the form of concessions, certified by the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council).

A 2014 study conducted by the Rainforest Alliance, CONAP and the Wildlife

Conservation Society found that during this 13-year period, the deforestation rate within the

community concession areas was close to zero, while deforestation rates in government-

managed parkland outside the community zones suffered the most deforestation.

The paper concludes that community concessions “effectively conserved forest cover in

about a quarter of the MBR, while also producing significant socioeconomic benefits for local

communities--and that community concessions can conserve forest at least as well as protected

areas.”

“Those who can secure a living from the forest, often by harvesting valuable hardwood

trees, have an incentive to protect it,” observed The New York Times in a piece covering the

study. “And that can create a far stronger line of defense than what governments can muster.”

Conclusion

A mounting body of evidence suggests that protecting the world’s remaining tropical

forests requires empowering local communities that have incentive to do so, rather than relying

on forest authorities in developing nations with limited resources. From a purely environmental

standpoint, community forest management is the best path forward.

6

The environmental argument for CFM, however, can be coupled with an equally

important human component. The tropics’ protected forests have millions of indigenous

inhabitants whose livelihoods are threatened not only by illegal commercial encroachment, but

by protected area policies themselves. CFM provides a more effective means of preserving

forest land and ensures community members with their right to livelihood. Providing formal land

titles to these communities, who often face persecution by forest authorities and industry, is a

matter of human rights.

In Thailand, an unelected military government is moving in the opposite direction.

National Context Introduction

Since the 1980’s, the Thai government has expressed the goal of increasing the nation’s

forest cover. In working to do so, however, the Thai government has taken the wrong approach,

violating the rights of Thai citizens and failing to consider the benefits community forest

management can provide in conserving forest. Never has the government’s commitment to

traditional protected areas been so consequential, however, as in the last year and a half, in

which an unelected military government has sidelined human rights in the pursuit of forest

reclamation.

Current Situation: Politics and Human Rights

Current Thai Political Situation

When the military seized power in the May 2014 coup, it acted swiftly to ban public

gatherings of more than five people, a harbinger to the squeezing of civil society—and crushing

of political dissent—that has marked the junta’s nineteen-month reign. The junta promptly

7

suspended the 2007 constitution. This was claimed as only a temporary measure, but the

NCPO soon introduced an interim constitution, granting the military broad power and

abandoning vital protections for Thai citizens. Activists, journalists, politicians, academics and

others have been jailed under the ‘National Council for Peace and Order’ (NCPO), the military

government, for a wide range of activities, including human rights activism. Additionally, the

NCPO used authority provided under Martial Law to summon 751 people to report for ‘attitude

adjustment,’ (Human Rights One Year After the 2014 Coup). According to the 2015 World

Report from Human Rights Watch, the coup “sent Thailand’s human rights situation into free

fall.”

Human Rights in Thailand

There has been significant international attention given to a handful of human rights

issues in Thailand since the onset of military rule. In particular, the deportation of two Uyghur

activists to China and the recent deaths of two detainees in a Bangkok army prison sparked

United Nations condemnations. The European Union has honed in on labor abuses in the Thai

fishing industry, and will soon decide whether to ban fish imports.

Compared to the aforementioned cases, there has been relatively little attention given to

the ongoing land rights crisis--propelled by the junta’s Forestry Master Plan (FMP)--which has

the potential to impact an estimated 3 million people in Thailand, many of them poor.

The Forestry Master Plan

The Forestry Master Plan (FMP) was issued by Thailand’s Internal Security Operations

Command and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment on July 31, 2014. The stated

goal of the FMP is for Thailand to have “abundant Forest Resources which is the base in the

sustainable development of the country” (Forestry Master Plan). In practice, this means

increasing national forest cover from 33% (17.1 million hectares) to 40% (20.5 million hectares)

within 10 years. The stated objectives of the Master Plan include preventing forest degradation

and reclaiming illegally used forest lands within one year, establishing efficient, effective, and

8

sustainable forest management systems within two years, and re-establishing healthy forests in

the country during the next two to ten years.

Increasing forest cover had been an agenda of previous governments, but has become

a doctrine under coup government. The NCPO issued order 64/2557 on June 14, 2014,

instructing government agencies nationwide to stop deforestation and encroachment on forest

reserves. A subsequent order, 66/2557, was issued on June 17, stating that operations carried

out on the basis of order 64 must not impact the poor, people with low incomes, and landless

peoples who had previously lived on the land prior to the issue of the order. However, military

units operate under adherence to order 64 without regard for the presence of order 66 (Focus

Web). NCPO Order 64 grants the military totalitarian-style power in managing the Thailand’s

forest resources.

Under the FMP action plan, the Royal Forestry Department (RFD)--the government arm

responsible for forest management--designated ‘crises zones,’ or areas where large numbers of

forest encroachment cases and illegal logging have occurred. However, these ‘crisis zones’ that

determine encroachment on protected land are based on outdated and insufficient aerial

surveillance maps. Such maps are meant to indicate encroachment by ‘investors’--wealthy

landowners exploiting the forests for personal gain who are purported target of of the FMP.

Investors, in turn, are designated by the number of rai owned by an individual or group (note: 1

rai is equal to 0.16 hectares). However, there is no consistent standard that indicates the

amount of rai that constitutes an investor. For example, according to one interview with the

RFD, an investor is an individual who owns 50 rais of land, while figures from Ministry of Natural

Resources and Environment suggested that an investor is someone using over 25 rais of land.

The Board of Investment works under the Prime Minister's Office and is the principal

government agency responsible for encouraging investment. Their general objective is to

encourage both Thai and foreign investors to locate their projects in Thai provincial areas. In

this investor-friendly climate, over 50% of land seizures have targeted villagers rather than

9

investors, contradicting the stated policy barring impacts on the poor.(The Impacts of Thailand’s

Forestry Master Plan).

The implementation of NCPO order 64 has led to the destruction of crops planted in

disputed areas. In violation of international standards, some communities are evicted from land

without alternative land provided or compensation.

Master Plan Implementation

The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment is responsible for carrying out the

Master Plan. According to the 2015 Bureau of the Budget, 7.5 billion baht was spent on forest

reclamation in the past year.

According to the Forestry Master Plan, the important methods to cease the destruction

of natural resources are as follows:

● Rely on the colored aerial photos between 2001-2002 from the Ministry of Agriculture

and Agricultural Cooperative

● Immediately arrest trespassers

● Immediately find and punish the offenders by using the swift and intense legal cases.

Master Plan Incentives

The Mekong River Commission (MRC): has the goal of preventing and protecting the

forest area along the Mekong River basin, including Thailand. Biodiversity Conservation

Corridors Initiative (BCCI) has similar goals to the MRC in developing the economy and the

preservation of the environment.

Some suggest another major part of the government’s desire to increase forest cover is

to prop up the low price of rubber by reducing the number of areas it is grown.

Internationally, the Thai government touts forest conservation as part of their work to

combat the global warming crisis. At COP-21 in Paris, Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha cited

stemming forest encroachment as a key component of the country's climate mitigation strategy,

but the FMP’s ability to sustain the country’s forests in uncertain at best. Some have even

10

suggested the forest reclamation push is in reality a land grab by officials looking to take

advantage of the military’s current hold on power.

Master Plan Goal and Effects

Currently, there are an estimated 101 million rais of forest in Thailand. In order for the

Master Plan to reach its goal of increased forest cover to 40%, 26 million more rais of land must

be claimed as protected area. If 26 million rais of land is divided evenly between each of the 77

provinces in Thailand, each province must sacrifice 200,000 rais, consequently evicting an

estimated 3 million people. Under military rule, 55,000 hectares of land have been confiscated

in 68 provinces. To date, about 40 villages have been impacted, including 93 households in the

North, 354 households in Isaan, and 234 households in the South amounting to a total of 681

households.

Documented Impacted areas to date:

North of Thailand

1. Huay Mok village, Moo 5, Muang Haeng sub-district, Wiang Haeng district, Chiangmai. 2. Lao Hu village, Moo1, Muang Haeng sub-district, Wiang Haeng district, Chiangmai. 3. Mr. Amae Amaw, a villager from Huay Nam Teun village, Pong Tao sub-district, Ngao

district, Lumpang. 3,200 rubber trees cut down and charged for having 80 rais of land in the national reserve forest.

4. Huay Hoi village, Moo 19, Mae Win sub-district, Maw Wang district, Chaingmai. – 3 plots of land, 14 rais total. This area is in the process ofgetting a community land title according to the Prime Minister Office regulations in 2010 and had already gone through the investigation of land ownership process.

5. Huay Pook village, Sanian sub-district, Muang district, Nan. 5 villagers 6. Sob Maw village. Moo 4, Sobpaad sub-district, Mae Maw district, Lumpang. 7. Pornsawan village, Khuang Pao sub-district, Jomthong district, Chiangmai. – 47

households 8. Huay San village, Husy Chomphoo sub-district, Muang district, Chiangrai. 9. Mae Aw village, Moo 8, Mae Na sub-district, Chiang Dao district, Chiangmai. 31

villagers 10. Soblerm village, Baan Pao sub-district, Mae Taeng district, Chiangmai. 11. Pangsa village, Moo17, Pateung sub-district, Mae Jun district, Chiangrai – The area is

in the community land title process. South of Thailand

1. Thapkua village, Moo 1, Chong sub-district, Nayong district, Trung. 3 families 2. Khao Banthat Wildlife Sanctuary, Lam Khanoon village, Moo 4 and 8, Na Choom Hed

sub-district, Yaan Ta Khao district, Trung. – Mr. Uthai and his wife was sued for

11

1,468,652.68 baht for trespassing on the reserve forest land and the wildlife sanctuary land.

3. Noppharatthara Beach-Phi Phi Islands National Park, Klong Sai Din Daeng village, Moo 6, Nong Talae sub-district, Muang district, Krabi. – 11 plots of land, 11 households, 13,940 rubber trees cut down, 4 houses damaged, 181 rais of land.

4. Toong Thub Kwai community, Moo 13, Wang Hin sub-district, Bang Khun district, Nakhon Srithammarat. – 185 households who are members of the Association of Southern Farmers.

5. Santiparp Pattana community, Moo 6, Bang Sawan sub-district, Phra Saeng district, Suratthani. -- 85 households who are members of the Association of Southern Farmers. 212 rais under the agricultural land area and 1,274 in the forest area.

6. Permsap community, Moo 1. Saithong sub-district, Chaiburi district, Suratthani. – 39 households who are members of the Association of Southern Farmers.

7. Khuraburi community, Khuraburi district, Pang Nga. 8. Malikaew community, Ratchada sub-district, Muang district, Phuket. – 18 households. 9. Khlongsaipattana community, Moo 2, Saithong sub-district, Chaiburi district, Suratthani.

-- members of the Association of Southern Farmers. – 1,051 rais.

Response

United Nations Response

Recognizing the human impact of the junta’s forest reclamation policy, the Office of the

United Nations High Commissioner for Human rights recommended in a March 2015 press

release that the Constitution Drafting Committee retain sections 57,58, 66, and 67 of the 2007

Constitution, which provided protection for community rights including active participation in

policy directly affecting them. The OHCHR recommended the Royal Thai Government halt or

postpone the implementation of the NCPO Orders 64 and 66. Furthermore, the OHCHR urged

the Constitution Drafting Committee to support the National Human Rights Commission, which

supports the human rights approach to land issues. While the March release was a good step,

military action against villagers has continued, and more intervention is needed to protect

human rights.

Community Response to Master Plan--Resistance and Push for CFM

While their ability to organize is hindered by military rule, villagers and NGOs continue to

coordinate for a remedy to the flawed Forestry Master Plan, networking with international land

rights organizations for non-violent action. Community members are also advocating for a

12

community land title system that would cover ownership of land and natural resources and

would include sustainable forest management. The wealth of research on effective forest

management strategies indicates that this method is the best path forward.

Isaan Context

Introduction

Isaan is the relatively rural Northeast reach of Thailand, a comparatively poor region with

an agriculture-based economy. The military’s current plan is to reclaim at least 900,000 rais of

land in the Isaan region alone (Land Rights Network).

Isaan History of Deforestation

Ironically, the Thai government once endorsed large-scale deforestation in Isaan as a

means of development. “After the Second World War, the Thai government began promoting

the colonization of the highlands, encouraging lowland landless farmers, agribusinesses, and

logging companies to colonize and deforest the highlands,” (Deforestation in Northern

Thailand). The military sponsored the clearing of forests in the region during 1970’s as a way to

flush out communists it suspected were based in the area. In the 1980’s, however, “the Thai

government declared the closure of the frontier and gave the Royal Forest Department (RFD)

the role of protecting the nation's forests and reforesting the denuded areas.”

Isaan had been settled, but the government now wanted to reclaim forest. The borders

of reserve forests, national parks and other protected areas, which the government mandates

must be free of human settlement, were drawn with people’s livelihoods inside them.

Economic Impact

By seizing villagers’ land, the junta leaves community members without access to work

and thereby the most direct economic impact is a 50 to 80% decrease in income. In search of

income, individuals seek employment as a day laborer, often a taking a 300 baht per day salary

13

that fails to cover living expenses. Furthermore, many farmers do not have the opportunity to

seek outside labor because many must attend court up to 130 times a year (The Impacts of

Thailand’s Forestry Master Plan).

In terms of collective community economic impact, an average village pays 8,000 baht

for required lawyers and court proceedings, plus travel and food costs for court visits, totalling

15,000 baht each day in court (The Impacts of Thailand’s Forestry Master Plan).

This economic impact is especially significant because over 85% of the villagers are in

debt to the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives, which charges 5% interest.

Debts range from 16,000 to over 350,000 baht among charged villagers.

According to per capita averages gathered from the 2014 village survey in Sakon

Nakhon province, total monthly expenses and court fees are approximately 8,072 baht per

family for villagers charged with encroachment. Calculating based upon the best-case-scenario

of villagers attaining an additional 300 baht per day job, (15, 25, and 30 work days per month)

monthly income ranges from 4,500 baht to 9,000 baht. The scenario of 15 workdays results in

42,000 baht of extra debt per year. Even the 30 workdays scenario results in an excess of only

928 baht per month, meaning it would take no less than 9 years to pay back a loan of 100,000

baht. These numbers do not account for sickness, education costs, or unexpected damages

meaning payback times could be longer than calculated.

Not only is this a great economic impact for farmers themselves, but choosing to go after

many small-scale, poor landowners rather than a few large investors puts stress on the prison

system by asking prisons to take in more inmates. This increases costs, diverting tax money

from useful projects like education or infrastructure. Farmers in prison will not contribute to

national growth or the local economy.

Social Impact

Geographic space is crucial for farmers and shapes their identity, social networks,

physical and mental health and is a determinant for their livelihood. Many farmers view

14

themselves as intrinsically linked to their land since it has been passed down for generations.

Furthermore, families have been divided by imprisonment, labor migration, and mental illness

due to the effects of the Master Plan. As many families experience extreme debt due to the

Master Plan’s damage to human capital, many children are forced to drop out of school due to

inability to cover school expenses. Older children often leave school to work to support their

family as parents attend court hearings. As a result, the Master Plan strips children from the

opportunity to gain skills to better their future and increase their standard of living.

Health Impact

Villagers have suffered from health problems such as depression, sleeplessness,

hopelessness, hospitalization, and aneurysms in response to the Master Plan. As many

villagers have begun to experience negative stress-induced health problems, they put pressure

on the healthcare system. Many villagers are hospitalized monthly for serious mental health

conditions due to the stress on their families during court cases. Thai society is also responsible

for covering health care costs. It is clear that the allocation of tax money would be better served

compensating farmers from their land lost.

Case Studies

Case Study: Baw Kaew

In 1978, the FIO (Forest Industry Office) evicted villagers living inside Samphaknam

Mountain Reserve Forest. The government seized the land and planted eucalyptus trees to be

used by the paper pulp industry over the homes of villagers and agricultural land.

In 2004, the villagers of Baw Kaew created a committee team with the leader of the

committee as the head of the Forest Industry Organization to demand for their land. The

government seized 4,100 rais of land. in response, the community is demanding for only 1500

rais after measuring the land and planning how to balance the need for forest cover with the

need for agricultural land. The area is divided into community forest, public area, communal

farming area, and each member with 4 to 5 rai for housing.

15

The villagers petitioned letters to the NCPO, the Secretary of the People’s Democratic

Reform Committee (PDRC), the Office of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand

(NHRC), the Chaiyaphum Provincial Governor, and the Commander of the Second Regional

Army. Over 80 percent signed the petition, which indicates a cancellation of eviction and

recognition of right to land.

Instead the of giving recognition, the military is using martial law powers, threats, and

arbitrary arrest to evict more than a thousand villagers in Buri Ram province. In July, the village

was attacked by 40 armed men in all black surrounding the community and threatening the

villagers. After this attack, the community moved on July 17th 2010. The villagers participated in

the “thanking the river festival” and the forestry officer violently fought with the youth of the

community. He hit the children and many were injured. The villagers filed a complaint and

International human rights NGOs at the time voiced concern to the Thai government.

July, 2009, the village of moved to Khon San Forest Project, in Baw Kaew. In August, 31

villagers were sued for trespassing and damaging the plantation with 30 days left to live on the

land. The village continued to live on the land because they had nowhere else to go. Then, the

court judged them, guilty.

Mr. Pramote, local lawyer regarding land rights issues in Isaan, estimates that as many

as fifty communities across the Northeast are vulnerable to the military’s new eviction policy.

Case Study: Jatrabiab

The Master Plan has directly affected Jatrabiab village by seizing over 440 rai of land

without compensation. Currently, 37 cases have been brought upon 34 villagers for trespassing

on newly reserved government land.

In July 2012, Thai authorities arrested 34 Jatrabiab villagers — largely rubber farmers—

for trespassing in a reserve forest. The villagers say their arrests are a severe injustice. By their

account, they have owned the land in question for decades, and have the tax records to prove

it.

16

In a narrative difficult to substantiate, villagers claim that the RFD agreed to provide

them with land titles in 2012. It turned out to be a deceptive ploy, they allege, as the RFD

collected and submitted their signatures to the police. The police then arrested all those listed

as ‘trespassers’.

Prosecutors’ initially lacked the willpower to take substantive action against the accused.

The villagers’ court cases lay dormant for some time, but were revived after the 2014 military

coup thrust into power an active junta bent on pushing its master plan at any cost.

Nearly all of the villagers pled guilty to avoid harsher sentences. On October 21, 2015,

nine villagers--the final crop of the 34 arrested--showed up to provincial court in Sakon Nakhon

Province for sentencing.

For six of the nine villagers, the verdict was disheartening. Each must abandon their

land, pay a fine ranging from 10,000 to 20,000 baht, and submit to a form of probation for at

least a year. Still, they fared much better than three of their neighbors.

Mrs. Kong Phongsakbun, Mr. Bunsom Phongsakbun, and Mrs. Surat Srisawat share 40

rai of land in an area the government has deemed “reserve forest.” For working on this land,

Mrs. Kong and Mr. Bunsom received a sentence of three years in prison, while Mrs. Surat

received two and a half years.

Mr. Phakdi Srisawat, 51, the husband and son-in-law of the trio facing jail time, asserts

his wife’s parents had lived on their land for at least 34 years. Bail totaled more than one million

baht ($27,830), a daunting task for Mr. Phakdi, who was left without a job or land to leverage,

since his land was also confiscated.

RFD officials emphasize that the target of the reclamation policy are investors: wealthy

landowners exploiting the forests for personal gain. Furthermore, NCPO Order 66 requires that

poor or landless people living on reserve land prior to June 2014 not be adversely affected.

However, evidence suggests policy implications are the reverse.

17

Even considering Thailand’s ever-changing political system, the legal definition of an

“investor” is remarkably inconsistent. In an interview earlier in October, Sakon Nakhon RFD

officials stated that those with more than 50 rai of land qualify as investors. Some villagers claim

it is 30 rai. For the judge in the latest case in Sakon Nahkon, it was 25 rai.

“What law does the judge use to send people to jail for 25 rai of land?” said Mr. Laothai

Ninnuan, an advisor to the Isaan Farmer Association who has worked with the Jatrabiab

community for over 30 years. “The law states that they can have 50 rai. The judge just made

that law up,” he claimed.

Following Wednesday’s hearing, all but one of the 34 villagers involved, a juvenile at the

time of his arrest, have received sentencing. Most of those facing jail-time are in varying stages

of the appeals process.

While distressed about the fate of her arrested grandparents and mother, 27-year-old

Ms. Saowalak Srisawat fears most for her father. “Without my mother, my father is broken-

hearted,” she said. “In this way, he suffers more than my mother.”

Impact in Isaan Region

1. Kok Yao village, Toong Lui Lai sub-district, Khon Saan district, Chaiyaphum. -- around 1,500 rais of land.

2. Baw Kaew village, Moo 2, Tung Phra sub-district, Khon Saan district, Chaiyaphum. – 4,401 rais of land.

3. Huay Rahong and Huay Gon Tha village, Pak Chong sub-district, Lomsak district, Petchaboon.

4. Kok Yao village, Nam Nao district, Petchaboon. – 22 households, 400 rais. 5. Land in the Phu Phan National Reserve Forest, Sam Chai district, Kalasin. 6. Jode village, Na Thun sub-district, Kham Muang district, Kalasin; Som Sawat village,

Pha Sook sub-district, Wang Sam Maw district, Udonthani; Nong Koong village, Song Dao sub-district, Song Dao district, Sakhonnakhon; Nong Waeng village, Waritchaphum subdistrict and Don Som Hong village, Kho Kaew sub-district, Waritchaphum district, Sakhonnakhon.

7. Land in Dong Phu Phan – Dong Kracheu reserve forest. 8. Sum Phak Nam village, Moo 11, Na Nong Thum sub-district, Chumpae district, Khon

Kaen. – 107 families, 2,500 rais of land. 9. Nong Jaan village, Moo 11, Na Nong Thum sub-district, Chumpae district, Khon Kaen. –

48 households, 1,810 rais of land. 10. Tad Fah Dong Sa Kran village, Moo 7, Wang Sawap sub-district, Phu Pha Maan district,

Khon Kaen. -- 165 housholds, 5,500 rais of land.

18

11. Wang E Miang community, Moo 7, Srithan sub-district, Phu Kra Deung district, Loei. -- 34 households, 628 rais of land.

12. Kok Pa Daeng public land 13. Kok Nong Sim 14. Toong Sum Siew public land

Conclusion

In 2002, a study on deforestation in Northern Thailand concluded that not only was the

RFD’s reclamation policy ineffective in stopping deforestation, but it resulted “in the harassment

of the resident ethnic minorities, who are held responsible for the negative effects.” In 2015, the

military junta has taken the flawed reclamation policy to the extreme, streamlining the court

process against villagers. The poor of Isaan are feeling the brunt of the impacts.

Solutions

Strategy Shift

On December 1, Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha delivered a speech to the

UNFCCC. Before the assembly of ministers gathered in Paris for COP-21, Chan-ocha

reaffirmed Thailand’s commitment to cutting its greenhouse gas emissions by at least twenty

percent from business-as-usual (BAU) levels by 2030. Chan-ocha touted curbing forest

encroachment as a key element of the country’s climate mitigation strategy.

Thailand’s environmental policies should target investors rather than small, poor

landholders, and must consider human rights. Additionally, a change in the forest policy to

incorporate local communities would enable Thailand to better preserve its forests. United

Nations projects should reflect this shift in policy.

For example, In 2010, UNDP launched a 5-year, $3.3 million project aimed at

strengthening Thailand’s protected area system, recognizing that “while the government, non-

governmental organisations, and other partners have focused much effort through the existing

19

protected area system and other conservation initiatives in Thailand over the past few decades,

the loss of habitat and biodiversity continues.”

Only small mention, however, was made of the need to integrate the participation of

local communities into the protected area management strategy. Furthermore, local inhabitants

were only considered in order to “reduce existing conflicts and negative impacts of resources

used by communities.” Almost no mention was given to the beneficial role those communities

could play in sustainably managing forests.

Lawyers, NGOs and villagers have tried to push a community forestry bill through the

Thai government, but thus far the government has not responded to their demands. Still, some

pilot villages have gone ahead and adopted a community forestry model without legal

recognition from the government.

Recommendations

The United Nations is in position to do the following:

1) Defend human rights:

At present, the junta is moving forward with the Forestry Master Plan, pushing cases

against villagers charged with encroachment through the Thai courts. The OHCHR

expressed concern over the forest policy in March, but impacts have not subsided since.

Human rights are being violated. There must be more public attention brought to the

issue, which the United Nations can provide without aggravating lèse-majesté laws.

Villagers emphasize that any intervention from international bodies like the United

Nations can halt or slow down the military’s forest reclamation effort.

2) Support the transition to community forestry:

Furthermore, the United Nations should embrace the wealth of research that indicates

community forest management is the most effective method to preserve forests in the

tropics and preserve the livelihoods inside them. It should also ensure that relevant

forest conservation funding should consider this ideology moving forward.

20

Suggestion for Immediate Action from the UN

Please write a letter of grievance to the Thai government concerning the situation in

Thailand following the implementation of the Forestry Master Plan under the NCPO.

WorksCited

21

A Judicial Process in Camouflage Under the National Council for Peace and

Order. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.

"An Econometric Study of the Causes of Tropical Deforestation: The Case of

Northeast Thailand. | POPLINE.org." An Econometric Study of the Causes of

Tropical Deforestation: The Case of Northeast Thailand. | POPLINE.org. Web. 14

Dec. 2015.

"Catalyzing the Sustainability of Thailand's Protected Area System."UNDP in

Thailand. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.

"Deforestation in Northern Thailand: The Result of Hmong Farming Practices or

Thai Development Strategies?" Latest TOC RSS. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.

"Junta Set to Evict Isan Villagers for Special Economic Zone." Prachatai. 11 Feb.

2015. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.

"Mekong River Commission." Home ». Web. 11 Dec. 2015.

"National Reserve Forest Act." Thai Laws. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.

"Press Statement Regional Office for Southeast Asia." United Nations Human

Rights. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.

“Sakon Nakhon Court Jails Villagers For Forest Encroachment.” The Isaan Record. 22 Oct 2015. Web. 14 Dec. 2015. "Statement on Arrests and Evictions of Forest Dwellers in Thailand."Statement

on Arrests and Evictions of Forest Dwellers in Thailand. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.

"Thailand: Activists Forcibly Returned to China." Human Rights Watch. 18 Nov. 2015.

Web. 14 Dec. 2015.

22

"Thailand Forest Information and Data." Thailand Forest Information and Data.

Web. 9 Dec. 2015.

"Thailand's Budget." In Brief Fiscal Year 2015. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.

"Thailand's Deforestation Solution." Thailand's Deforestation Solution. Web. 9

Dec. 2015.

"Thailand's New 'Forestry Master Plan': Same Old Strategy Dressed up in New

Clothes." Thailand's New 'Forestry Master Plan': Same Old Strategy Dressed up

in New Clothes. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.

"United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) - Home Page." United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP) - Home Page. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.

"United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change."United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.

"World Bank Group." World Bank Group. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.

"World Resources Institute | Making Big Ideas Happen."World Resources

Institute | Making Big Ideas Happen. Web. 11 Dec. 2015.

23