THE NEW National Park Bill will not solve the problems facing people living in the forest, land-rights campaigners have claimed.

The bill was approved by the National Reform Steering Assembly (NRSA) last Monday, prompting protests from environmentalists and land-rights activists who fear the new law may be used to legitimise large-scale forest encroachment by commercial enterprises and limit communal rights.

Some critics singled out the bill’s Article 52 as being particularly contentious. This will limit people who meet certain criteria to use forestland to no more than 20 rai (3.2 hectares) per family for no less than five years but not beyond 20 years.

Land-rights activist Kanya Pankiti, one of those affected by the government’s forestland reclamation policy, said the new law would just buy time in the conflict over land rights in the forest.

“What will they [the national parks] do when the permitted time for the people to live on their land is over? Will they drive us away? We are not sure that our children will be allowed to live on our land. We don’t have any assurance that we will not be forced to relocate again,” she said.

Kanya is a member of Khao Bantad Land Reform Network, which advocated for the land rights of people in communities within Khao Phu-Khao Ya National Park in Trang.

Local people have claimed they were pressured by national park officers to relocate from the area. Many of their rubber plantations were cut down under the forestland reclamation campaign, despite people’s insistence that they had lived in the area long before the national park was established.

“Article 52 sounded good for the people in the national park area at first, but if read carefully it ignores the communal rights to manage our land and leaves room for the national park to drive us away anytime. It is left up to the national park head to allow us to live on our ancestral land,” she said.

Sasin Chalermlarp, president of the Seub Nakhasathien Foundation conservation group, said the new national park bill would limit communal rights and did not promote the harmonious coexistence of a healthy ecosystem and sustainable communities in the forest.

“I am afraid that it will be very hard for this bill to solve the problems of the people in the forest, because the solution specified in this bill is very impractical,” Sasin said.

Meanwhile, Prayong Doklamyai, a prominent land rights campaigner from the People’s Movement for a just Society (P-move), voiced concern that the bill might be used to legalise forest encroachment by entrepreneurs, since the qualifications for eligible persons to be granted land rights in the forest was unclear.

“This bill also does not specify the type of activities that can be done on the granted land, so the land may be used in an inappropriate way by outside encroachers. The bill should specifically ban activities such as monoculture plantations and stipulate only local people will get the land rights,” Prayong said.

Meanwhile, Damrong Pidej, a member of the NRSA, argued that the bill would tighten efforts to preserve forest headwaters and help to solve the chronic problem of forest encroachment.

“This bill intends to tackle the problem of settlements within the national park areas, which has been left unsolved for many years. There are 3.6 million rai of land in the national park that have been occupied by people and we need to act now, or everywhere will be the same as Phu Tabberk, where the environment is severely degraded,” Damrong said.

He said settlements near forest headwaters would be relocated to restore the forest ecosystem, while other settlements in national parks will be allowed, but inhabitants would have to pay a rent to the parks to signify that they do not hold land rights in the forest.

‘Exclusively for poor people’

Meanwhile, communities that are allowed to stay inside national park areas will be staffed with forest rangers to make sure people do not further encroach on the forest.

“The land use allowance in the national park area, according to Article 52, is exclusively for poor people who have nowhere else to go. They are not allowed to transfer land rights and shift their land use to other activities, so everyone can be sure that outside investors cannot use this article to open resorts or do anything else in the national park areas,” he said.

Article 52 says that if the government needs to solve land-rights problems in the national park, the park head can grant land that will not affect its ecosystem-protection duty to people who meet certain qualifications and have a need to live there.

However, permitted persons cannot transfer land rights to other people and if they were to abandon their land for more than one year, their rights would be revoked.

The National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department also has a right to collect a land-usage fee from people in the forest.