Forest sector liberalisation plan for AEC postponed

[webfact]

Forest sector liberalisation plan for AEC postponed
PRATCH RUJIVANAROM
THE NATION

Five-year delay follows warnings of disputes, inequality

BANGKOK: -- THE controversial plans to liberalise forestry-sector investment and to allow foreign investors - other than those from Asean countries - to be given the same investment rights as Asean nationals have been postponed by another five years.

There is widespread concern that forest liberalisation would cause more disputes and inequality in relation to land and natural resources.

After a meeting yesterday at Government House of a committee of the body overseeing Thailand's preparedness for the full implementation of the Asean Economic Community (AEC), Deputy Prime Minister MR Pridiyathorn Devakula said it was agreed to postpone the two contentious proposals under the Asean Comprehensive Investment Agreement (ACIA) scheme.

The second proposal involves excluding foreign-owned Asean-based interests from investing in Thailand. "These proposals had been delayed several times in the past. This time we needed to have a good excuse to postpone the proposals again," he said.

"We have acknowledged concerns that people will be affected by liberalisation and the committee thus decided to delay the proposals for another five years."

Pridiyathorn added that the proposals could not be withdrawn as Thailand was part of the ACIA.

Before the meeting, Natural Resources and Environment Minis-ter General Dapong Rattanasuwan warned Pridiyathorn that the plan to allow foreign investment should be halted, liberalisation's pros and cons studied and opinions considered.

National Farmers Council director Prapat Panyachatrat warned that if the government allowed foreigners to invest in logging enterprises, it would lead to greater conflict and inequality over land and resources.

Many people, especially farmers, would directly suffer from liberalisation, he said.

Biothai Foundation director Witoon Lianchamroon said he was relieved the proposals were postponed, but remained concerned they could eventually be adopted.

"There is no representative on the committee for the people who would be directly affected by the liberalisation," Witoon said.

"The committee's decision-making process is also not transparent and has no public involvement. Therefore, I am concerned that the committee may approve the proposals secretly in the future."

The proposals were first postponed for 10 years in 2000.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Forest-sector-liberalisation-plan-for-AEC-postpone-30256379.html


-- The Nation 2015-03-20

[Srikcir]

"Many people, especially farmers, would directly suffer from liberalisation"

And this is why Thais with their zenophobia cannot adjust to being part of the ASEAN Community. Fear overrides economic well-being.

This liberalization is to allow foreign companies to rent lands over long-terms needed to plant, grow, and harvest (either trees themselves or byproducts from trees like rubber) as a renewable resource valuable but common Thai trees. To achieve a sufficient economy of scale, very large tracts of land are required. The typical tree farmer holds small tracts. Those tracts would be purchased and accumulated by Thai investors who can them offer large tracts to foreign investors.

Competitive market value is paid to the small farmers willing to sell. Those who sell get the benefit of potentially large capital gains from properties from which they may get little or no profit from their personal use. Those small farmers then become first-listers for employment by the large foreign lessees, gaining long-term and steady wage income. Where is the suffering?

The suffering is MENTAL.

Foreign land renters will contribute substantially to Thailand's tax base, provide modern and effective cultivation of mismanaged natural resources, provide efficent distribution and marketing of the resources to maximize revenues and profits, contribute to wages and benefits, etc. Foreign investors who fail to sustain their agricultural enterprises for profits will have to return use of the land back to the Thai lessors.

But none of these benefits of liberalization of land use are meaningful because the Thai small farmer no longer is a landowner. Welcome to the 20 million other Thais who rent in cities to make a living. As a nation Thailand loses nothing, takes little or no risk, and maximizes use of its natural resources with expertise it does not have.

[JOC]

Xenophobic Thailand raises its ugly head again!!

[BigBadGeordie]

Xenophobic Thailand raises its ugly head again!!

Never noticed it keeping it's head down!

[LuckyLew]

I am sure we will be reading many more stories like this in the next few months

Wonder how Thailand will few when other ASEAN countries start do similar

[Puwa]

Xenophobia is certainly a problem, and will be an obstacle in realizing the AEC, but I am not sure it's the only factor in opposing this plan.

Srikcir does a good job of outlining how the program would work in theory. However, Thailand's record of poor enforcement and corruption in natural-resource management has shown time and again that what looks good on paper often screws the little guy. The twin losers are always smallholders and the environment. So when Witoon points out that there was no consultation with farmers and a lack of transparency in making policy, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt before accusing him of xenophobic protectionism.