Comments on: Information about village evictions in northern Thailand

By: Jean-Philippe Leblond

Jean-Philippe Leblond — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:58:47 +0000

Could the displacement of population out of legal forest lands be more frequent in the future? Since sept 2006, there have been several eviction/relocation plans (some voluntary) and at least 47 new protected areas. It would be very interesting to know if state officials were able (or will be able) to implement the plans for relocation and if the newly demarcated areas involved eviction or relocation.

Some recent relocation plans
1) Sept 06 [before the coup]: DNP announced the relocation of 88 hh people out of Ta Phraya NP. The population is strongly opposed. Late September 2006: officials announced that there’s nothing they can do at the moment to force them to move out.
sources: Anon (2006) and Paengnoy (2006)

2) Expansion of the Tenasserim Corridor (an Asian Development Bank project)
2004: Project to expand PA made public. It has already been approved by Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suvit Khunkitti, who ordered a survey of the region.
Dec 2006: Director of DNP announced that no evictions will occur as part of this expansion.
Aug 2007: The expansion of Sai Yok and Chalerm Rattanakosin NP is announced. This will enclose 34 villages. Contrary to the previous statement, it is said that people residing in watershed areas will be evicted (but not other villagers).
[According to the DNP website, the expansion has not occurred yet]

Sources: Wipatayotin (2006), Chongcharoen (2004 & 2007), on the villages involved see the ADB project document.

3) June 2007: The Queen expresses her wish that the residents of 8 villages in Mae Hong Son and Tak agree to move to “borderwatch villages”. Justification: fight against drug traffic; protect forests. The project under the motto of “people and forest can live together ”

4) Omkoi voluntary relocation
More than 200 karen individuals from Omkoi district have reportedly accepted to be relocated in the lowlands (5 rai of agricultural land per househod). Official Justification: villagers reside in watershed area as well as the need to fight against encroachment and drug production.
source: Meesubkwang (2008)

New PAs (NP + WS only)
There was only 1 new PA between 2001 and 2006 ( it occurred at the beginning of Thaksin’s premiership). Since his departure: 7 new PAs were demarcated in 2007 and at least 18 so far in 2008 (but perhaps as many as 40). Did land confiscation and population displacement occurred in those newly demarcated areas? Anyone?

The number 40 comes from: total number of NP in 2008 according to Anon (2008) – total number of NP in 2007.

Source: Anon (2008) and Chiangmai Mail reporters (2008). See Anon (2008) for the name of 17 new PA. To those add Phu Sooi Dao NP .

References:
Anon (2006) Families to be moved away from parklands. The Nation, (September 14).

Anon (2008) Services at National Parks to Be Upgraded. Tivarati News, (Sept 4).

Chiangmai Mail Reporters (2008) Chiang Mai national parks to host private businesses. Chiangmai Mail, 7 (37 (sept 9-setp 15)).

Chongcharoen P (2004) 300,000 rai of forest reserves to be declared national parks. Bangkok Post (27 septembre).

Chongcharoen P (2007) Big addition to national parks. Bangkok Post, (August 29).

Meesubkwang S (2008) Concern expressed about forced relocation of Karen villagers. Chiangmai Mail, 7 (40).

Nanuam W & Charoenpo A (2007) Queen urges voluntary hilltribe resettlement. Bangkok Post (June 30).

Paengnoy A (2006) We’re staying put, residents proclaim. The Nation (October 4, 2006). ;

Wipatayotin A (2006) Asian experts in bid to link fragmented forest Bangkok Post (12 décembre).

By: Leif Jonsson

Leif Jonsson — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 03:39:17 +0000

There were a number of settlements in the higher forest areas of Kamphengphet in the late 1970s. These appear to have been facilitated by some section of the Thai armed forces, in an effort to conquer the forest (and thus preclude insurgent camps from the CPT). Mien and Hmong people were there well into the 1980s but were evicted or at least seriously harassed during the 1980s and at least until 1990. Villages were not “official” and it is hard sometimes to get village names. The reasons for eviction were a combination of the political (after CPT surrenders, there was no need for this human shield or whatever to call it), the geopolitical (a good number of the Mien at least were from Laos and had come over in 1973, people who arrived in 1973 were in many cases not accepted in refugee camps, “nothing was happening in Laos at the time”), ecological (you people are destroying trees with your farming methods), and border-work (some Hmong had shot at the Thai military, some people got killed, and road-work stalled. The settlement at the end of the road was known as Thang-Sut, those still further were considered in the forest — so, both extension of national control and an attempt to weed out people from Laos). The closest I have come to identifying villages is that many were considered part of Khlong-Lan, which is now a municipality (Khlong-Lan-Phatthana) and I think also the name of a district. So, somewhere around ten to twenty villages (for sure, perhaps a lot more), that had been officially accommodated and then through the 1980s were largely erased. Many of the inhabitants are in the US (as refugees). Evidence in the public domain: interview p.91 in Prasit Leepreecha, Yanyong Trakanthamrong, and Wisut Leksombun (2547) Mien: Lak-lai Chiwit Jak Khun-khao Su Muang. Chiangmai: Social Research Institute. That interview says there was a mass migration from all over Thailand to this area in 2524-25 (1981-82) when the gov’t coulde guarantee people’s safety after CPT surrenders, and evictions in ‘27 (1984). From what I have learned, people started moving in much sooner, and it was officially encouraged.

By: Johpa Deumlaokeng

Johpa Deumlaokeng — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 17:03:37 +0000

My own observations over the past 25 years is in agreement that eviction is not a high risk for highland folks, but that the hill folks probably have the same risk as other rural inhabitants when the intersection of local politics and greed conspire to create economic opportunity for specific individuals who are far higher up the food chain.

I remember one case of an Akha village being emptied and the inhabitants being trucked to the Burmese border back in the mid 1980s. The village was inside Chiang Rai province, north of the Kok River. I was living in the nearby Amphoe Thaton, Chiang Mai Province at the time. I apologize I do not remember the name of the settlement, the names of the Akha settlements often being the name of the titular village headman.

What was notable was that the eviction occurred around October, the harvest season. The Akha inhabitants were simply loaded into trucks and taken to the border and ordered to walk into Burma. The evictors, enabled by Chiang Rai’s provincial governor, were not military per se, but members of local village defense forces, in other words Thai villagers, who had been well fortified with lao khao (cheap Thai whiskey) and were the ones who made off with the fruits of the harvest and the few household goods as payments for their efforts, along with the free drinks.

On the other hand, similar Akha villages at that time did not get evicted. I do not know what motivated the governor of Chiang Rai to evict that specific village. And, at about the same period of time, the Thai government established an Akha refugee village at the small Forestry Camp of Huai Sala, along the main road from Thaton to Mae Salong, not far from the well studied Shan village of Mok Cham along the Kok River.

Look around the highway outside of Thaton going towards Mok Cham and you see many citrus orchards where there once were but small farmers who were similarly evicted from their admittedly poorly documented lands. I have no proof, but I believe the brutal murder of my friend, the former Thaton district head, Kamnaan Seng, was connected to these land issues.

Where there are land issues, where there is local politics and greed intersecting, then evictions, the Thai version of eminent domain, seem to occur, but I have not seen this happen systematically.

By: Jean-Philippe Leblond

Jean-Philippe Leblond — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:24:23 +0000

As I said previously, it’s a great idea, especially if dams are included. RID and EGAT can displaced much more people per intervention than RFD and DNP (35 000 people for the Pasak Cholasit Dam alone)

I’m completing a similar review of literature. I define a “case” by the year and area affected (so there are 2 cases for Thung Yai Naresuan). For the period 1986-2008, I’ve got so far 22 cases where relocation/eviction/rapatriation occurred (excluding RID, EGAT, etc. projects) and 9 where plans were drawn but (a) were later abandoned or (b) I couldn’t confirm they were actually implemented.
Total displaced people is at least 27 000 people (assuming 4 pers by hh).

There are two clear leaders among Thailand’s PM. Out of the 22 relocation/eviction cases I am aware of, Prem was the PM in 9 cases ( 41%), Chuan in 8 cases (36%), Thaksin, Banharn and Chatichai each in 1 case (5%). In 4 cases, there was no clear dates and I couldn’t determine under whose PM the decision was taken. These results nicely illustrate the fact that “pressure of conservation” was reduced during the Thaksin era.

The compilation and analysis is not perfect yet. By Oct 10 I’ll have my excel table translated and all sources well listed.

By: Nicholas Farrelly

Nicholas Farrelly — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 03:13:14 +0000

Thanks Matthew,

We understand that you have been following these Akha cases for a long time, and we certainly appreciate your input. What we are really interested in is the specifics of these cases you mention. How many people were relocated? When? Do you have a map that plots out the relevant areas? What reasons were given for the evictions (counter-narcotics, environmental, etc, etc)?

Where villages have not been relocated, but where land has been confiscated, we would also be keen to see more data. How much land in each case? Which specific villages (or even land-holders within the villages)? How was this justified?

Best wishes to all,

Nich

By: Matthew McDaniel

Matthew McDaniel — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 02:18:26 +0000

The list that you mention in regards to the Akha up above is WAY underestimated.

In 13 years I documented massive village forced relocations. Many many villages. The cases you mentioned about villages being burned are around Mae Chan I believe in the early 90’s or late 80’s. There was video made of the events. But the forced relocations and compromised land rights are massive and effect nearly every village out there. Even villages that now are in the same place lost massive amounts of land that was then put into mono crop farms of one kind or another by Royal Thai forestry.

In the case of Hooh Yoh the Queen of Thailand took 5,000 acres in one swoop, almost the entire land base of three villages and 1500 people.

But the land around Doi Tung was a massive land grab as well, in the early 90’s it was Akha and Lisu and Lahu and it has all been taken, heavy penalties levied for using forest products and villagers reduce to small labor people on what now is a massive royal estate.

Joh Hoh Akha.
Huai Kaew Akha
Hooh Yoh Akha
Pah Nmm Akha
Soi Ah Kah Akha
Pai a Pai Akha
Bpah Mah Hahn Akha and Lahu
Hua Mae Kom Akha
Hooh Mah Akha
Hooh Yoh Lisa Akha
Mae Chan Luang

These are just a few who lost all of their land or a large portion of it or were forcibly relocated, there have to be at least 100 villages affected in this method. Anywhere you see pine now, that land was taken from the hill tribe and hill tribe were forced to plant pine on their own land and then leave the area.

The list goes on and on and on. The Thais depend on no one being back on these dusty tracks with a GPS marking the old village lands, where the villagers are not at, and what reductions and poverty happened. We are talking tens of thousands of acres of rice and farm lands.

Matthew McDaniel
The Akha Heritage Foundation
Ride for Freedom