Plea For A Village

[JurgenG]

To understand what follows, people should know that there is a conflict going on between the forest department and the inhabitants of Wang Nam Khieo because of a disagreement on the boundaries of the National Park. Under the 1981 announcement, part of Wan Nam Khieo district is in the National Park, while the 2000 boundary survey considers all of Wang Nam Khieo is outside of the National Park.

Last week I called a friend in Wang Nam Khieo to enquire about the situation. He told me they try to stay optimistic but the situation is not getting any better. His caretaker has two daughters with young kids, the two daughters have been jobless for quite a while now and they have recently left with their husband to find a job in Bangkok, leaving the caretaker with two young kids, 1 and 3 years old, so the situation has been a bit chaotic lately.

This month a local association invited a couple of members of parliament to explain them the situation and to tell them their side of the story. The press came as well. The locals worst frustration is that so far the press has been very much one sided in favor of the forest department and never made the effort to air their views.. People even tell of trying to send SMS during TV shows about the area but they never appear on the screen. They really have the feeling to be the victims of some form of censure from some higher authority in Bangkok. Unfortunately it seems it’s not only a feeling, but we will come back on that later

My friend told me the local associations will now intensify their action with the parliament and the press in order to inform them about the reality of the situation in the area, which is very much different from what the PR office of the forest department wants us to believe.

So we decided to play our part as well.

[JurgenG]

First with a little demonstration.

We decided to start from one of the resort that the forest department claims to be in the national park. You can see one of the local representative giving an interview to the press with the big brown sign in the back ground being the claim from the forest department that the resort is on forest ground.

From there, we will take the road to what we believe is the real border of the National Park.

It seems it’s not going to be a short trip, there is a long road in front of us.

The sign on the side of the road is telling us we are in the right direction but obviously we are not yet there.

There we go. On the way we pass the obotor house

Then the old flower market

A village ....

Then we have to drive a couple of kilometers along cultivated fields

Then after 9 km, we finally arrive at the official gate of the National Park

9 Km ! 9 km between the resort that is supposed to encroached on forest land and the official gate of the national park. And in between, we haven’t seen much forest, have we ?

[JurgenG]

Now on the way back, we are going to ride our bicycle on dirt roads parallel to the road we have just followed.

All these pictures have been taken in an area that the forest department claims to be forest ground and belongs to the national park.

There isn’t much of a forest, isn’t it ? Difficult to imagine tigers and wild bears roaming the area at night, right ?

Is it what you imagined when you were reading the press ?

Someone is clearly misleading the public. Why isn’t the press doing its job and shows us the reality on the ground ?

_

[JurgenG]

Because there are consequences. Huge human consequences.

Here is the flower market today.

And how it was less than one year ago

It’s easy to find, it’s just next to the obotor house. Or was just next to the obotor house …

Within 50 km of where we took thes pictures, the area is quickly becoming an economic desert with people leaving “en masse” to find a job in the city. The local school has lost between 50 to 100 kids compared to last year. And then we have the people who left their kids with their grand parents …

We are not talking about a few rich resort owners who have to close door, we are talking about hundreds of people and maybe more who suddenly become jobless and have no other choice than to join the ranks of the unemployed in the big cities. Losses are estimated at more than 300 millions for the low season alone. Is it really what the government has been elected for ?

But the biggest frustration comes from what local resident perceived as a big bias from news organization. And unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be paranoia. With well connected friends we have contacted a number of newspapers and TV stations and it seems there is a will to silence any opposite view of the official version of the forest department.

Why ?

[krisb]

Why? because thats how it goes sometimes.

[whistleblower]

Are there no trees along the routes you took and pointed out because they were chopped down to make room for illegal resorts maybe??

[DP25]

There isn’t much of a forest, isn’t it ? Difficult to imagine tigers and wild bears roaming the area at night, right ?

If they've been encroaching on park land for decades of course there won't be much forest left

[robblok]

There isn’t much of a forest, isn’t it ? Difficult to imagine tigers and wild bears roaming the area at night, right ?

If they've been encroaching on park land for decades of course there won't be much forest left

Plus if they kick out all the resort owners and encroachments this can revert back to jungle or act as an buffer.

[JurgenG]

Are there no trees along the routes you took and pointed out because they were chopped down to make room for illegal resorts maybe??

The forest was cut down 40 years ago by government orders, 10 years before the establishment of the national park.

I don't know if you looked at all the pictures. There are big roads, a village, even an obotor house. A whole village with all its administration.

It's not a few resorts , it's a whole village with thousands of people.

[JurgenG]

There isn’t much of a forest, isn’t it ? Difficult to imagine tigers and wild bears roaming the area at night, right ?

If they've been encroaching on park land for decades of course there won't be much forest left

Again, the forest was cut down 40 years ago by government order as it was a hideout for communist insurgent that was a bit too close to Bangkok for comfort.

The land was then distributed between the original inhabitant of the place and landless farmers.

[whistleblower]

There isn’t much of a forest, isn’t it ? Difficult to imagine tigers and wild bears roaming the area at night, right ?

If they've been encroaching on park land for decades of course there won't be much forest left

Again, the forest was cut down 40 years ago by government order as it was a hideout for communist insurgent that was a bit too close to Bangkok for comfort.

The land was then distributed between the original inhabitant of the place and landless farmers.

But did the landless farmers get accompanying paperwork to say the land was theirs??

If they did I cant see them having a problem.

[JurgenG]

There isn’t much of a forest, isn’t it ? Difficult to imagine tigers and wild bears roaming the area at night, right ?

If they've been encroaching on park land for decades of course there won't be much forest left

Again, the forest was cut down 40 years ago by government order as it was a hideout for communist insurgent that was a bit too close to Bangkok for comfort.

The land was then distributed between the original inhabitant of the place and landless farmers.

But did the landless farmers get accompanying paperwork to say the land was theirs??

If they did I cant see them having a problem.

They have papers. That's why they asked members of the parliament and the press to come, to show them they are not forest encroachers. They didn't cut any trees, that's a lie.

There are some issues, it's true. The main problem being the land, as it was decided in the 70's (date of the original titles), is for farming purpose. But in the 70's who could have predicted the rise of eco tourism. For people who was there in the 70's, tourism in Thailand was still in its infancy. So as it has already been discussed in other threads, the problem is a zoning problem, not encroachment. And that makes a big difference, people in Wan Nam Khieo are not these evil forest encroachers as they are described in the press.

That's for the facts. And that's what the villagers ask for, that the press relays their side of the story. They're ready to show the press their documents, to show them they are not encroachers, that's why I posted so many pictures. It's quite clear when you visit the area that something is wrong in the story that is told by the press.

Edited August 21, 2012 by JurgenG

[whistleblower]

Im not on either side here but i did read somewhere that if donated land was not used for farming then it could be taken back.

[1bbcd5]

Think I may be in love with this.

[loong]

If land was allocated to persons solely for farming, then this will be stipulated on the papers that the villagers hold.

If land is subsequently used as resorts, or sub-divided to build dwellings then the purchasers should have realised that they were getting cheap land, but with a risk factor.

However, if the situation has been allowed to continue for a number of years, I would hope that the villagers would be allowed to invoke squatters' rights, especially if they are also farming some of the land.

[GuestHouse]

I cycled around the Wang Nam Khieo area for a week in the early 90s - it was quite fabulous.

But like everywhere else in Thailand that was quite fabulous, it's been ruined by greed and corruption.

The OP is fortunate to find any real locals, when I visited Wang Nam Khieo last year (for the wedding of the son of the people I visited 20 years ago), I was told by the people I was visiting that any and every bit of land has been bought up by people from Bangkok for resorts and home-stays. The joke about most of the home-stays being that very many of the 'homes' are owned by people who don't nor never have lived there, while the 'families' people stay with are in truth 'employees' of the absent landlords.

Nevermind - Wang Nam Khieo - ruined, let the search continue for the next place to wreck with greed.

Edited August 21, 2012 by GuestHouse

[JurgenG]

If land was allocated to persons solely for farming, then this will be stipulated on the papers that the villagers hold.

If land is subsequently used as resorts, or sub-divided to build dwellings then the purchasers should have realised that they were getting cheap land, but with a risk factor.

However, if the situation has been allowed to continue for a number of years, I would hope that the villagers would be allowed to invoke squatters' rights, especially if they are also farming some of the land.

I would say that at the moment more than 75% of the lands are still used for farming. The resorts are mostly concentrated on the main road because during the rainy season the "inland" is too difficult to access with a city car.

[JurgenG]

I cycled around the Wang Nam Khieo area for a week in the early 90s - it was quite fabulous.

But like everywhere else in Thailand that was quite fabulous, it's been ruined by greed and corruption.

The OP is fortunate to find any real locals, when I visited Wang Nam Khieo last year (for the wedding of the son of the people I visited 20 years ago), I was told by the people I was visiting that any and every bit of land has been bought up by people from Bangkok for resorts and home-stays. The joke about most of the home-stays being that very many of the 'homes' are owned by people who don't nor never have lived there, while the 'families' people stay with are in truth 'employees' of the absent landlords.

Nevermind - Wang Nam Khieo - ruined, let the search continue for the next place to wreck with greed.

The OP is not fortunate, the OP knows quite well the area and his inhabitants for visiting the area on a regular basis (almost monthly) for the past 5 years.

Mr Expert spent a week there 20 years ago and 3 days for a wedding last year .... No further comment.

[JurgenG]

Following George's advise, thread has been moved and will continue there :