Thai politics: Good deal for the landless, but will it harm our forests?

[webfact]

BURNING ISSUE
Good deal for the landless, but will it harm our forests?
Chularat Saengpassa
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- The government's plan was a piece of rare good news for the landless: some one million degraded forest plots will be rented cheaply to those without land.

But it may be hard for the plan to win approval from all in the community. Despite good intentions, the benefits could end up in the hands of the wealthy and may exacerbate deforestation in the Kingdom.

Over the past 20 years, Thai authorities have adopted stern measures to protect forest areas, which are dwindling fast in the face of population growth and economic expansion. In the process, forest boundaries have been redrawn, in many cases affecting land plots of farmers. The number of disputes has jumped, with numerous farmers pushed off their land.

The vicious cycle was established when authorities tried to solve this problem. Several governments attempted to distribute degraded forest areas to the landless. Sadly, this only encouraged more encroachment and deforestation. Some farmers cut trees for economic plantation crops, while some were hired by outsiders to this. Without trees, the land was degraded and ready for redistribution. In the end, the area of national forest was shrinking.

The land ready for redistribution is huge compared to the shrinking forest area.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, Thailand's forest area is now below 25 per cent of its total area of 513,115 square kilometres in 1998. The World Bank's data is more generous, estimating our forest coverage at 37.4 per cent. The FAO also estimated annual deforestation rates at over 3 per cent for much of the 1961 to 2004 period.

This data suggests that redistribution of degraded forest to provide land for poor farmers will harm efforts to boost or preserve forest areas.

First and foremost, Thailand needs to toughen its law enforcement. Since the coup, the military has joined forces with forest rangers in evicting people who have encroached on state land or built resorts in national parks. This joint effort by authorities should be continued, given the limited human resources at the National Resources and Environment Ministry. Penalties should also be harsher. Any person convicted of similar actions should face double the current punitive measures.

Second, governments should think about long-term solutions like systematic registration of farmers and their farming areas. This would keep track of farming areas. When farming land jumps in some areas, it may indicate serious forest encroachment.

Third, given continued population growth amid limited land availability, governments should start thinking about ways to help raise farming productivity. To grow 2 tonnes of rice, a farming household should not need four rai of land, as in the past. Farmers should be enticed to pay more attention to innovation rather than land expansion, which requires more manpower and does not guarantee better income.

Fourth, if degraded forest is in a watershed area, should we distribute it or revive the area?

Last but not least, the government needs a system to better define beneficiaries of land distribution programmes. The programmes should cover only those affected by the redefining of reserved forest areas in the 1970s.

Sasin Chalermlap, secretary-general of the Sueb Nakasatian Foundation, is seriously worried about the definition of beneficiaries. In an interview, he was of the view that to ensure true benefits of the programme, an iron rule must be in place: whenever allocated land changes hands, the land should be immediately taken back.

"Many farmers pledge their land right certificates for loans. Though they still farm the land, they're not the true owners," he said. As some of the beneficiaries may include those who are farming in reserved forest areas, he considered it was better to keep such people where they are but with better supervision to ensure no exchange of ownership.

Giving away land to the landless is easy, but the risk is that it will only lead to new problems. Farmers would further encroach on forest areas. Once getting certificates for the land years later, they can sell the rights to business people. Without any land, they would repeat the cycle.

This government's policy could be a good New Year gift to the landless, but it could turn into a nightmare for the nation in the years to come if problems are not addressed at their roots.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Good-deal-for-the-landless-but-will-it-harm-our-fo-30247469.html


-- The Nation 2014-11-11

[ramrod711]

Sasin Chalermlap, secretary-general of the Sueb Nakasatian Foundation, is seriously worried about the definition of beneficiaries. In an interview, he was of the view that to ensure true benefits of the programme, an iron rule must be in place: whenever allocated land changes hands, the land should be immediately taken back.

It is the only way, peoples greed knows no bounds. Allow farmers a plot of land that belongs to the state, but never allow the sale of the land.

[simondan]

Degraded forest areas offer the only hope for ever clawing back lost forest habitat. And they often provide vital buffers between more pristine forest and human activities.

And despite being 'degraded' (how is that defined anyway?), they will offer vital ecosystem services such as soil protection and binding, food resources for fauna, seed stock and renewable resources for people (if utilised sensibly).

When the present and potential future benefits of these services are compared to a measly 2 t of rice a year per family (or whatever), I have to ask - <deleted>?? Putting a money value on the ecosystem services of forest and comparing it to the farming value offered is usually a sobering exercise.

Of course, its usually the political value that speaks loudest, which is why farmers get another shot at desecrating natural areas.

Its a no brainer.

Unless they get serious about saving these more marginal forests, forest and its fauna in general in Thailand (and sadly throughout the world) will continue to die the death of a thousand cuts.

[chainarong]

Do the landless want this anyway, giving away without a price is like hand outs they will do nothing ruin the place and leave, there needs to be a great input from the lands , environmental and agriculture departments to ensure that all aspects of farming are adhered to , there's a whole heap of requirements that make farming viable, just giving without any idea, leads to massive environmental damage , Thailand knows all about that, rice farmers live with it everyday.

[seajae]

time to enforce the laws instead of back peddling all the time. These poor farmers have been given many chances but always keep selling off the land for a quick buck then start clearing more protected areas to farm. They need to be removed, the sales negated and the land handed over to a farmer that will work the land and not have any rights to sell it. Allo the land needs to remain in the ownership of the govt and not allowed to change hands to anyone else except a subsistence farmer that lives on and works the land. The govt needs to come down on all those that are involved in these sales, the farmers, the wealthy and the govt officials that allow it, jail time and big fines/seizure of wealth is the only way this will be stopped.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

time to enforce the laws instead of back peddling all the time. These poor farmers have been given many chances but always keep selling off the land for a quick buck then start clearing more protected areas to farm. They need to be removed, the sales negated and the land handed over to a farmer that will work the land and not have any rights to sell it. Allo the land needs to remain in the ownership of the govt and not allowed to change hands to anyone else except a subsistence farmer that lives on and works the land. The govt needs to come down on all those that are involved in these sales, the farmers, the wealthy and the govt officials that allow it, jail time and big fines/seizure of wealth is the only way this will be stopped.

I believe what has been sold is the farmer's right to operate on state-owned property. But if transfer of such rights were to be null and void without approval from the state (and now community-controlled land in the current plan), farmers cannot abuse their gift of land use. But obviously, given the history of corruption in Thailand, state and community government approval would be under intense pressure from graft to allow transfers. Start small and clean house until there is a cultural change.

[WitawatWatawit]

rickirs and seajae, you are both right. But there is another issue that comes into play here with land distribution, and I'm afraid it's not a popular one. That is the complete opposite of decentralisation. Completely remove the power to define boundaries and decide ownership from local authorities. These issues should be decided by a committee of far-removed technocrats who have no immediate link to any community (after all, it's technical issues that are involved, not emotional). Let's not forget that land reform is often a highly sensitive political issue and is often used by the notorious to quieten the restless rural folk. Not much can be done about that, but at least the technical side can be totally taken away from vested interests.

Edit: Sorry, infact there are emotional issues involved, but these can be allayed to a great extent by placing barriers against the unscrupulous.

Edited November 11, 2014 by WitawatWatawit

[finnomick]

Probably not because this being Thailand, they'll allocate land so far away from where the people live they'll never see it

[MexicanFarang]

A friend of mine married a Chinese woman he met in Thailand. She was an English teacher, 555.

He takes her hiking in many beautiful wilderness areas in America.

I'll willing to bet when she sees a wilderness area, she is thinking about how much money she could make if she built a shopping mall and high-rise condos there, 555...