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

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.