1,300 people win the right to live in Nan forest areas

By Stanley Bennet 
The Nation

 

Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha is welcomed by supporters while he visits and makes merit at Wat Phumin in Nan yesterday, after he granted land-use permission in the province.

 

Prime minister asks people to 'live harmoniously' whit nature.

 

THE Prime Minister has given more than 1,300 people in Nan the right to live in forestland in an effort to encourage people to live harmoniously with nature and tackle deforestation.

 

Prime Minister General Prayut Chan-o-cha visited Ban Nam Pak in Tha Wang Pha district yesterday to host a land-use permission ceremony for people who live in the preserved forest.

 

Full story:  http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/30302755

 

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2016-12-24

It is true that good news doesn't sell.

 

6 hours after the first post and I am the first response.

 

Good for the PM I say.

 

Now if the post was about the PM invoking article 44 and banning these 1.300 people the would be dozens of posts condemning him.

 

Because bad news sells and good news doesn't. If there are any responses to good news post you can be sure the will be about 50% condemning the post and/or the posters as well.

 

Hey b766 that makes 2 of us , I have to agree with my TW as well as she is an arboreal from Nan.  altogether " If you go down to the woods today , your sure of a big surprise "

29 minutes ago, toofarnorth said:

Hey b766 that makes 2 of us , I have to agree with my TW as well as she is an arboreal from Nan.  altogether " If you go down to the woods today , your sure of a big surprise "

An arboreal what?

3 hours ago, piersbeckett said:

An arboreal what?

An arboreal is a tree dweller , sloping foreheads , knuckles scraping the ground , tongue shoots out when a dragon fly passes.  Not told my TW yet though. 

17 hours ago, billd766 said:

It is true that good news doesn't sell.

 

6 hours after the first post and I am the first response.

 

Good for the PM I say.

 

Now if the post was about the PM invoking article 44 and banning these 1.300 people the would be dozens of posts condemning him.

 

Because bad news sells and good news doesn't. If there are any responses to good news post you can be sure the will be about 50% condemning the post and/or the posters as well.

 

 

If you think this is good news I suggest you think again. Letting 1300 people loose in "protected" forest land is a sure and certain recipe for destruction of the environment.

I wondered where the extra smoke was coming from.

14 hours ago, toofarnorth said:

An arboreal is a tree dweller , sloping foreheads , knuckles scraping the ground , tongue shoots out when a dragon fly passes.  Not told my TW yet though. 

I thought it was an adjective as in arboreal rodents.

1 hour ago, Farang99 said:

 

If you think this is good news I suggest you think again. Letting 1300 people loose in "protected" forest land is a sure and certain recipe for destruction of the environment.

The article does not state the status of the areas in question, neither legal status nor state of the forest.

 

For example, at the pinnacle of protected areas under Thai law, you have National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. These do not permit permanent residence, construction of houses or any form of land ownership.

 

There are lower forms of conserved areas such as community forests, usually smaller areas with levels of degradation. Sustainable harvesting of forest products is permitted under the governance of a local council.

 

There are also lower levels of land ownership that do not permit transfer of the land.

 

So, in summary, it is essential to understand what is being permitted here to what kind of forest. If the forest were pristine, I cannot believe such a move would be permitted.

 

Illegal forest destruction occurs where powerful players such as local politicians, military officers, forestry department officials and police officers are able to act as an organised crime ring and simply ride roughshod over the law.

7 hours ago, Farang99 said:

 

If you think this is good news I suggest you think again. Letting 1300 people loose in "protected" forest land is a sure and certain recipe for destruction of the environment.

 

Really? Who do you think lived there for many decades before the government declared it a protected area, after which much of the land got deforested by the rich people? If they are helped by this government they will replant and repopulate the forest and protect it as they and many other people before them did before the government threw them off.

 

Forest dwellers can live off the land. It is the rich city people who destroy the environment all for the sake of money.

On 24/12/2016 at 1:26 PM, billd766 said:

It is true that good news doesn't sell.

 

6 hours after the first post and I am the first response.

 

Good for the PM I say.

 

Now if the post was about the PM invoking article 44 and banning these 1.300 people the would be dozens of posts condemning him.

 

Because bad news sells and good news doesn't. If there are any responses to good news post you can be sure the will be about 50% condemning the post and/or the posters as well.

 

 

If you think this is good news I suggest you think again. Letting 1300 people loose in "protected" forest land is a sure and certain recipe for destruction of the environment.

 

“The land-use permission for the people in five areas in Nan will associate with the land management method ‘planting three types of forest, getting back four benefits’, which was initiated by HM King Rama IX, in order to let people live sustainably with the forest and decrease deforestation by 90 per cent within the next 20 years,” Prayut said.

 

I am sure you will be able to show the decrease in deforestation as a result of this!

I can’t speak for other areas but where we live it is definitely the locals who encroach on forest land.  There are no mysterious rich city people coming to destroy the environment here.