The Impacts of Thailand’s Forestry Master Plan in Sakon Nakhon Province, Thailand

By: Elizabeth Goodwin and Anne Bevis

Introduction

In August of last year, the Thai National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO)

introduced the Master Plan, a land reform program that sought to increase forest cover in

Thailand. As a result of the implementation of this program, many small-scale farmers

had their land seized and were arrested for charges of trespassing or encroachment. Ten

months after the plan’s implementation, villagers have experienced disproportionate

economic penalties, including a complete loss in livelihood and massive amounts of debt.

These economic consequences have lead to long-term social and personal impacts,

including mental and physical health problems, as well as familial and community

divisions. The Master Plan has caused great despair to one of Thailand’s poorest

populations.

Background of Forestry Master Plan Policy

In June 2014, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) of Thailand

announced Order 64, enabling government agencies to put an end to deforestation by

removing any encroachers on national reserve lands.

Shortly after implementing Order 64, the Thai government released Order 66,

which states that a supplemental directive government operation must not impact the poor

and landless that had lived on the land before the enforcement of Order 64. Order 64 is

intended to target commercial investors, who are considered to be largely responsible for

deforestation, and their exploitation of Thailand’s natural resources. Order 66 was

enacted to protect those that are not investors.

Two months later, the Internal Security Operations Command and the Ministry of

Natural Resources and Environment of Thailand enacted their forestry “Master Plan,”

which aims to “resolve the problems of forest destruction, trespassing of public land, and

sustainable management of natural resources.”1

The three stated objectives of the Forestry Master Plan include: stopping forest

degradation and reclaiming illegally used forest lands within one year; establishing

efficient, effective and sustainable forest management systems within two years; and re-

establishing healthy forests in the country during the next 2-10 years.2 The goal of the

Master Plan is to “increase the forest cover” in Thailand from its current level of 33% of

the country (17.1 million hectares) to 40% (20.5 million hectares) within 10 years.3

In order to increase the land designated as forests, the Forestry Master Plan

targets provinces that they have labeled as ‘crisis zones,’ which are considered to be

provinces that have had many cases of forest encroachment and cutting of trees. Northern

Thailand, where many small-scale farmers live, contains many of these ‘crisis zones.’

However, while the NCPO has claimed to be targeting those with large plots of

land, they have repeatedly identified many impoverished villagers who have lived in the

forest for decades as “investors.” As a result, these villagers have lost the protection of

Order 66 and are facing upwards of four years in prison.  

Overview of Master Plan in Jatrabiab Village

1 "Thailand: NCPO Approves Forest Protection Plan." Asia Inter Law News. Asia Inter Law, 06 Aug. 2014. Web. 13 May 2015.2 Ibid.3 Ibid.

The Master Plan and Order 64 have directly affected forest communities in the

Isaan region of Thailand. In Jatrabiab village alone over 440 rai have been seized without

compensation. Currently, thirty-seven cases have been brought upon thirty-four villagers

in Jatrabiab. The charge they face is trespassing on newly reserved government land.

Four of these thirty-four villagers have been sentenced and are in prison facing jail time

up to two years, with the other thirty villagers facing sentences of up to four years.

These villagers are small-scale rubber or cassava farmers, with four to forty rai of

land. After the enactment of the Master Plan, military officials came through the village

posting warnings that villagers were no longer allowed to access their land. Regardless of

if they returned to their land or not, thirty-four villagers were charged with trespassing on

state land. The first four villagers to be charged were told that if they pled guilty they

would receive a lighter sentence, which included no jail time. All four that were tried lost

their land and are serving two years in jail.

When the state filed charges, the amount of rai villagers were accused of farming

on was often much higher than what villagers actually used or own. This has been

particularly devastating for small landowners who depend on their land as their primary

income.

Now the farmers that have become landless are falling behind on their loan

payments, searching for work out of the village, suffering from mental and physical

health problems, and losing education opportunities.

Economic Impact

The case that the state has brought against the thirty-four individuals is both

costly and time consuming for families. In order to assess the economic impacts of the

Master Plan, twenty-eight of the thirty-four families were surveyed. The most direct

impact has been a significant decrease in income. Farming was many families only

livelihood, and as a result there has been a per capita decrease in monthly income by 50-

80 percent. For seventeen of the thirty-four families, their baseline food and gas expenses

exceed their current reduced monthly income. Individuals are searching for work, but are

limited to a maximum of 300 baht per day salary as a day laborer, which does not pay for

living expenses. The dry season in Thailand is an especially hard time for families that

have turned to day labor, as there is not much work available.

Additionally, many farmers lose the chance to day labor when they attend court

days. As villagers are unfamiliar with court proceedings and have not been offered much

legal education, all involved families go to every court hearing to learn from each other’s

experiences. In total, the village will have to go to court over one hundred and thirty

times in 2015 alone. As land cases require specialized lawyers, the village pays eight

thousand baht for each day the lawyer comes to court. There are also transportation and

food costs for court days. In total the community estimates they collectively spend 10,000

- 15,000 baht each day they are in court.

Like many poor farmers in Isaan, over 85 percent of the village is in debt with

existing loans to the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) and

village funds. Debt ranges from 16,000 to over 350,000 baht among charged villagers.

Many families were planning to pay off debt through working their land and income they

expected to receive from para rubber investments. Now with little or no income, villagers

struggle to pay basic expenses and do not have the means to pay back their current debt.

Additionally, villagers face 5% interest rates on their loans. A villager with a 100,000

baht BAAC loan will owe an additional 5,000 baht after one year of missing loan

payments. In this situation, the debt will be extremely difficult to pay off.

Using per capita averages gathered from the village survey, the total monthly

expenses and court fees cost about 8,072 baht per family. Calculating monthly income

under three different 300 baht/day labor scenarios (15, 25, and 30 work days per month)

monthly income ranges from 4,500 baht to 9,000 baht. Anyone working less than 27 days

per month will never be able to cover their monthly expenses, driving them further into

debt. The scenario of 15 workdays results in 42,000 baht of extra debt per year. The

scenario of 30 workdays results in an excess of only 928 baht per month, meaning a

100,000 baht loan payback time is no less than 9 years. These numbers do not account for

sickness, education costs, or unexpected damages meaning payback times could be even

longer than calculated.

Personal Impact

Studies have shown that the geographic space in which farmers live and work

shapes their identity, social networks, physical and mental health and other wellbeing

determinants.4 In Sakon Nakhon province, the Master Plan has had countless negative

effects on the identity, family and community structure, and mental and physical health

of villagers.

Many farmers in Isaan think of themselves as intrinsically linked to their land and

consider their land a part of their identity; a farmer’s land is a part of who they are and

caring for their land is a part of caring for themselves. Their land holds their home and

their source of income. For many villagers, their farmland had been passed down for

generations; their grandparents farmed the same land, as did their parents before them. It

is the land they have grown up on and the land they hoped to pass on to future

generations. Seizing this land from the farmers is seizing the future from their children

and grandchildren.

Not only have villagers lost their land, but in many cases, they have lost their

family unit as well. Families have been divided by imprisonment, labor migration, and

mental illness. In the Todkaew family of Jatrabiab Village, both parents were arrested

under charges of trespassing and are serving a two-year sentence; leaving their three

children to provide for themselves, care for their ailing grandmother who had an

aneurysm as a result of the stress from having her children imprisoned, and take care of a

sibling who has suffered from serious depression and hospitalization.

4 Schirmer, Jacki, Helen L. Berry, and Léan V. O’Brien. "Healthier Land, Healthier Farmers: Considering the Potential of Natural Resource Management as a Place-focused Farmer Health Intervention." Health & Place 24 (2013): 97-109. Web.

Families have also been divided by labor migration. Since having their land

seized and losing their source of income, more than 50% of families charged in Jatrabiab

village have had a member move to either Bangkok or other industrial cities in order to

find work after being charged.

All of these negative consequences have coalesced into mental and physical

health effects among the villagers. Since the Master Plan has been implemented in Sakon

Nakhon, there has been an increase in the number of illnesses amongst those charged.

Many villagers consider their illnesses to be a result from the stress induced from losing

their land, home, income, and families. Villagers charged have suffered from health

problems such as depression, sleeplessness, hopelessness, hospitalization, and aneurysms.

These illnesses have made it difficult and prevented those affected from being able to

work. Their illness may result in days where they are not able to work at all or decreased

productivity.

Further, the hospitalization and subsequent medication as a result of these

illnesses is expensive and has added to the financial burden these families have incurred.

Many villagers have had to take loans from family and friends to pay for hospital bills,

leading to potential division amongst community members. These illnesses have reduced

the individual ability to contribute to family and community life, thereby negatively

affecting economic and social development. All of these effects lead to an unproductive

society.

Societal Impact

The negative effects of the Master Plan extend beyond individual villages. The

current implementation of the plan is costing Thai society money, as well as human

capital. According to the People’s Movement for a Just Society, over 50% of the land

seizures have occurred to villagers rather than investors. Choosing to go after many

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

system. The Thai people pay for prisons through taxes, and asking prisons to take in more

inmates increases costs, diverting tax money from useful projects, like education or

infrastructure. Not only are these farmers in jail a stress to the system, but for as long as

they are in jail they will not contribute to national growth, crop export, or the local

economy.

Additionally, as many villagers have begun to experience negative stress-induced

health problems, they put pressure on the healthcare system. As of November, 500

villages across Thailand have been charged with encroachment, and the number is now

estimated to be as high as 1,500. Court cases and land loss put stress on not only the

defendant, but their families as well. Some villagers have to go to the hospital multiple

times a month every month, or have spent long periods of time hospitalized with serious

mental health conditions. Thai society is also responsible for covering these costs under

the health care scheme. This allocation of tax money would be better spent compensating

farmers and keeping them healthy and out of hospitals.

The Master Plan also damages human capital. As families have fallen into debt,

students have lost their right to education. Young children have been forced to drop out

of school because there is not enough money to pay for school expenses. Older children

have had to leave school to work and help support their family. By limiting these

children’s educational opportunities, the Thai government is stripping them of the chance

of gaining skills or attending college in the future to better themselves and increase their

standard of living.

Implications for the Future of Jatrabiab Village

The negative consequences as a result of the Forestry Master Plan will continue to

affect Jatrabiab village’s social, economic, and human development for years to come.

The repercussions that the policy has on mental and physical health will continue

to cause emotional and financial burden to the village. The costs of hospital bills and

medications will continue to add to the debt that families have already accumulated.

Further, these illnesses will continue to affect the economic and social development of

the village, as the individual ability to contribute to family and community life will

continue to decrease. Fewer people will be able to work to support themselves. This will

continue to lead to an unproductive society.

In addition, Jatrabiab village will continue to face added emotional and financial

stress from their impending court dates. Collectively, villagers have over 100 court dates

to attend since being charged. Going to court frequently means that villagers have less

time to work to support themselves. Further, villagers must pay for lawyers,

transportation, and food every time they go to court. In the future, costs of court will

continue to contribute to the total debt of the village and the community's financial

burden will increase.

Further, with additional impending court dates, the community faces a possibility

of more villagers being imprisoned. An increase of people in prison would result in more

families divided. In addition, imprisoned family members cannot work, yet continue to

need financial support, adding to the financial burden families face.

Given the difficulty of finding work and the inability of some members of the

community to work, the collective debt of the village will continue to grow. Villagers

will continue to owe money to other community members, the Village Fund, and the

Village Savings Group. This will put a strain on the development of the village, as the

money from these funds will no longer be able to go towards improving education or

infrastructure within the village. In addition, the debt that villagers owe the BAAC will

continue to compound, with villagers owing an additional 28,000 baht in five years and

69,000 baht in 10 years.

If the Thai government does not reconsider their Forestry Master Plan policy, they

will continue to see the well-being of the marginalized people in Thailand decline. The

country will face threats to their social, economic, and human development.

Policy and Implementation Recommendations

Given the severity and overwhelming negative impacts of Thailand’s Master Plan,

the government of Thailand must take steps in order to reform their forestry policy and

redirect its implementation to target investors rather than small landholders.

While the goal of “resolving the problems of forest destruction” stated within the

Master Plan is admirable, its implementation has been misdirected, inefficient, and a

violation of human rights. If the Thai government seeks to keep their policy, they must

rework their implementation. First, the government needs to focus on developing

accurate mapping and land surveying capacities. The Thai Royal Forestry Department

relies on outdated aerial surveillance maps to determine whether a

community has encroached on ‘state lands.’ These maps are inaccurate,

however the Thai government uses them as “evidence” to target small

landholders. Villagers are being charged for having more rai of land than they have

ever owned or farmed. In one case, a villager who only farmed 4 rai was charged with

trespassing on 54 rai of land. This is not an uncommon occurrence among farmers in the

Northeast of Thailand.

In addition, land should not be seized in the middle of production for rubber trees.

Currently under the Master Plan, cassava and sugarcane farmers will not have their land

seized until the end of that crop’s season. For para rubber farmers, however, the land can

be seized and trees can be cut down by the Thai military at any point in time. Rubber

trees take seven years to grow before they can be tapped and then can only be tapped for

a few years before becoming obsolete. It is a time intensive crop. Time is a factor that

should be considered in this policy and the trees should not be seized until after the trees

can no longer be tapped.

For the villagers that have had their land seized and are currently fighting in court,

the BAAC should put a freeze on their loans so they do not accumulate more debt when

the state has deliberately taken away their only method of paying back that same debt.

The state should reduce loan interests for these farmers and extend their repayment

periods.

Further, the Thai government should form a Government Regulatory Board to

oversee this policy. This board should include representatives from village communities,

as well as government and non-governmental officials. A government regulatory board

would oversee and review each individual case to ensure that no small landholders are

charged under the false pretenses of Order 66.

Finally, it is of the utmost importance that the Thai government compensates the

small landholders they have displaced. The government should return the rai of land

seized, as well as offer remittances for the para rubber trees or other crops they have cut

and the income that had been forfeited during the time the land had been taken.

The Master Plan should not be a “one size fits all” policy. The Thai government is

working under the assumption that this plan can be applied to each region of Thailand

equally. However, Thailand is diverse and each area needs to be addressed differently

within the Master Plan. What works for the South of Thailand has proven not to work in

the North. For ease of organization and implementation, the Master Plan should be

redrafted with varying policies that can be applicable for different regions.   

In order for the Master Plan, or any other policy implemented by the Thai

government, to be successful and have positive, long-lasting impacts, it is important for

the people to be involved in the decision-making process. The voices of the poor and

marginalized in Thailand must be heard and incorporated in policy. There should be more

people from different regions, as well as socio-economic classes, present as

representatives when redrafting and amending the Master Plan policy.

Conclusion

While Thailand’s forests are dwindling and need to be protected, the Forestry

Master Plan has been ineffective and its implementation has been inefficient.

Implementation of the Master Plan has caused insurmountable debt, leading to mental

and physical health issues, family and community divisions, and stress upon Thai society

as a whole. Further, the Master Plan has completely removed villagers from the

conversation on land tenure altogether, perpetuating a physical and political divide

amongst Thai society. Martial law and Article 44 of the Interim Constitution have

prevented any type of community organization and have silenced protests from people’s

movements. In order to show the illusion of progress, the Thai state has imposed policy

on a marginalized group of people. The poor were the first to suffer from the Master Plan

and they have suffered the most. The Thai government must reconsider their forestry

policy and its implementation, as well as compensate the villagers for their loss and

suffering in order for the country to move forward.