Paying
for progress
Their ancestral lands lost, their income and livelihood all but gone,
members of the Assembly of the Poor will discuss their plight today with
government representatives in an open forum at Thammasat University. In
the first of a two-part series, Outlook presents their concerns
Post Reporters, ฺBangkokpost
17 Aug 2000
Pha
Taem National Park
Story by Atiya Achakulwisut
Protest over the Pha Taem National Park
was inevitable for 68-year-old Kong Yotharat, from Nong Phue Yai village,
Ubon Ratchathani province. One day in 1941, the government declared the
lands, where he and his ancestors were born, a reserved forest, barring
the villagers from living there. "My family had about 100 rai of
land. We grew rice, tapioca and some jute. The produce was not excellent,
but enough for us to live on. The forest is also an abundant source of
food," the reserved villager recalled. The Nong Phue Yai village was
founded in 1930, more than 10 years before the announcement of the
government. "Later, the government granted a logging concession to
our [village] area. Our forest was cut down, the logs were transported to
the city. After that, the forestry officials declared the area a 'no-go
zone'," Kong said.
Since 1964, the villagers have had to live in semi-hiding. The village
consists of 200 houses, with more than 1,000 families. "The officials
tried to push us out of our lands. But we had nowhere to go. We had to
stay put, trying to sneak out to the farms when the officials were not
around," Kong said. At that time, the villagers were still allowed to
reside in the reserved area. The situation became worse in 1991, when the
area was designated Pha Taem National Park. This time, there was no
leniency from the officers. "As soon as the area became a national
park, they tried to oust us. The forestry officials and police came to
patrol the village every day. They pulled down our houses, too."
About 40 villagers were arrested for trespassing. "We had to pool all
the money we had, and even sold our cattle, to bail them out," Kong
noted. After that, the villagers joined the Assembly of the Poor and went
to Bangkok to air their grievance. "We have lived there for so long.
There was no problem at all until the government went in and took
everything. When we came here to protest, some people gave distorted
information about us. The government tried to beat us. It is just not
fair," Kong added. The villagers' endless protests seemed to bear
fruit in April 1996 when the Banharn government resolved to survey the
land and issue land rights documents, if it was found the villagers had
been living there before the declaration of the forest reserve.
The Chavalit administration carried out the resolution in 1997.
However, in 1998, the Chuan government overruled the previous resolutions.
The resolution of June 30 1998 stated that the villagers must be relocated
from the national park. According to Kong, the villagers there still face
prosecution. As far as he is concerned, the protest must go on until the
villagers' rights over their lands are restored.
Banthorn Commission's recommendations:
Revoke the June 30, 1998 resolution and
initiate a process of problem-solving that accommodates villagers'
participation. In response, the government refused to revoke the June 30
resolution, but agreed in principle to allow villagers' participation.
Chong
Mek
Story by Sanitsuda Ekachai
Though a native of the Northeast,
Yiamporn Polsoongnern, 42, never paid attention to the problems of evicted
Isan peasants-until she faced such problems herself.
"I was too busy working. I thought my life was going well with my
small business at the Chong Mek market," said the bespectacled
merchant.
"Then one fine day, I was told to pack up and leave my shophouse.
Only then did I realise the importance of getting organised to demand
justice."That is why Yiamporn and other Chong Mek merchants joined
the Assembly of the Poor as a way to fight for their rights.
Chong Mek became a thriving Thai-Laos border market about a decade ago
when the government encouraged merchants to do business there.
To promote border trade, the authorities set aside a piece of degraded
forest at the checkpoint and divided it into small plots for the
merchants.
"We put up public utilities ourselves. We paid taxes. Later on, we
had a school for the children. Before long, the community was upgraded to
a municipal area. The community became our home," she said.
Then a state-owned property development project came to Chong Mek.
"We were told only vaguely that the low-cost flats would be free for
anyone who wanted to move there.
"Then out of the blue, the authorities simply told us that our
shophouses must be dismantled and that we must pay a high fee to move to
the new commercial buildings.
"We could not afford to do that."She added: "We want to
stay in our homes. We want the authorities to issue us legal land rights,
and to improve public utilities there."Chong Mek's were among a
handful of demands by the Assembly of the Poor that got a nod from the
government. But Yiamporn has stayed put at the protest site.
"We're waiting for concrete action from the government to
implement its decisions," she explained.
But that's not all."We've made an oath that we won't forsake one
another until all our problems are satisfactorily addressed.
"Years of fighting together have bonded us. We cannot leave our
friends in need. We must keep our self-respect."Coming from a
middle-class family, Yiamporn said the struggle with the grassroots
movement has made her a new person.
"Before, I was like the middle-class in Bangkok. I was only
concerned with making money. I rarely read newspapers. I only watched
television after work, but mainly for entertainment. And any news I got
from TV, I always believed that it was true.
"Now I've learned first-hand how news and information are
distorted by the government bureaucracy and the state-controlled
media."She laughed at the accusation that protesters were being paid
by third parties to help destroy the government.
"Please come and observe how we organise our protests," she
urged.
Since protests can take years, she said, each group under the umbrella
of the Assembly of the Poor sends volunteers who take turns sitting in at
the protest site. This strategy allows each individual a break to work and
support themselves during the long struggle.
"The longer we fight, the more we see the glaring injustice of our
society," she said.
"This can be undone if local communities have a say in development
policies and if we have a right to choose our own way of life. It's our
constitutional right after all."
Banthorn Commission's recommendations:
Let the Chong Mek people stay during the
process to prove their land use.
Let the locals participate in land use planning and development
projects.
The government agreed to the proposals.
Lam
Dome Yai Dam
Story by Ukrit Kungsawanich
Boonchoo Sawisa lives on the lush land of
Na Jaruay district in Ubon Ratchathani. He is a farmer who owns 170 rai of
land which yields 500 kilogrammes of rice per rai annually.
All this will be inundated and washed away if the Lam Dome Yai Dam is
completed.
His story began five years ago when a town meeting was called at the
local temple, and the disastrous news was delivered.
"There was an officer from the Royal Irrigation Department (RID)
asking us questions like how much compensation would we need if our lands
were flooded because of the dam. But they never once asked us whether we
needed the dam or not," said Boonchoo.
The villagers were stunned and confused by this abrupt bit of news, but
decided they would not go down without a fight to save their livelihood
and their verdant land.
All the villagers signed a petition and sent a letter to the RID, but
their voices went unheard. The project continued.
"We never gave up though. We sent the petition to six Tambon
Administration Organisation offices. Again, nothing was done to prevent
this ill-advised project. So we moved up to the district level."The
only reply they heard-and too many times-was that the project was still
under scrutiny and there was no need for panic.
After getting the cold shoulder from the RID and the administration
offices, in 1996 the affected villages jointly organised a movement
against the Lam Dome Yai Dam and moved their protest efforts up to the
provincial level. "We went to MPs and asked for help. They promised
us they would try their best to get a good deal on compensation. But that
was not what we wanted-none of the villagers wanted anything, not even a
bottle of water. We just wanted to stay on our land."They learned
their lesson from the Huay Poon Reservoir project, which flooded almost
500 rai of land: the RID officers reportedly misinformed villagers as to
the effect the reservoir would have on their land. Consequently, they
signed a compensation agreement without knowing the real consequences, he
said.
"This time we will not let history repeat itself. We will not let
anyone fool us again."He added the RID had claimed that the dam had
to be built as a way to help the perceived failure of the Agricultural
Land Reform Office (Sor Por Kor). "That was a lie. Sor Por Kor came
in 1992 and since then, our lives have been improved tremendously. I would
call it a success, not a failure. Our ancestors settled in this village
many centuries ago and there is much evidence like ancient temples that
stands as palpable proof."Despite years of struggle, their protest
was ignored by the government, but they were determined to claim their
rights and save their land. They decided to expand their connections by
joining the Assembly of the Poor in 1996.
"There was a mass protest in Houng Yome district about another dam
and the news was broadcast on radio. All the villagers agreed that we
needed to join the protest."That event led them to recruit more
people to their crusade. In the year 1998, more than 2,000 people sat in
front of Ubon Ratchathani's city hall to bargain with the governor in an
effort to demonstrate the power of the people.
According to a government legislative act passed on April 29, 1997, the
RID could not continue the project unless an environmental impact
assessment (EIA) study proved conclusive.
Until now, there has been no study done on this dam, but the government
has already ap proved the project's budget of 83 million baht.
"The government actions contradict what is stated in the bill.
Some of the officers have already came to the village and started a land
survey. What does this mean?"Banthorn Commission's recommendations:
The RID should halt the project, including the drafting of detailed plans
for the dam, until the EIA study is finished. The government should
approve a budget for the EIA study and other social studies.
According to the legislative act in 1997, all the information on the
project should be made available to the public.
The government agreed with all three recommendations.
Pak Moon
Dam
Story by Supara Janchitfah
What most people have come to think of as
the "Pak Moon Dam Protest" is actually a collection of different
groups-15 in all-each protesting for a different reason, with most of the
protests revolving around the negative effects that government-led
development programmes have had on the lives and livelihoods of the
villagers affected.
The 12-year protest by Pak Moon villagers, for example, continues to
show the negative effect of development without general participation or
local consultation.
Somkiat Ponpai is a landless fisherman who has never asked the
government for anything-he has enough to feed his family. However, his
self-sufficient livelihood disappeared when the Pak Moon Dam was built.
"My three children had to drop out of school as I no longer had
enough money to send them," Somkiat said.
Villagers began to protest early in 1992, upon learning that the dam
would be built. In 1995, he and other protesters had to accept the
government compensation scheme.
"The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (Egat) and the
government asked us to wait and see, for three years, whether the dam's
con struction would affect our livelihood," said Somkiat. "If we
did not agree, they would have said we were being stubborn."Villagers
signed an agreement to accept 30,000 baht in cash and 60,000 baht to be
put into a cooperative fund. This total sum of 90,000 baht was to
compensate the villagers for fishing opportunities lost over the ensuing
three years.
After the three years were over, 3,084 families were forced to protest
again, under the umbrella of the Assembly of the Poor, as there were no
more fish in the Moon River.
"Officials asked us why we don't raise fish," said Somkiat.
"I would like to ask them whether they have studied the return on
investment. It is not that we are lazy but because we tried it and
received nothing. All our money went into fish feed," said Somkiat.
"Fishery officials said they can breed fish and return them to our
river, but why don't they breed local species? They can't. Now they are
just releasing pla ninnf (tilapia fish), which was not the type of
fish we used to catch in the Moon River."Somkiat insists that the Pak
Moon protesters have not received additional compensation, although Egat
claims it had compensated the protesters many times and "these people
are too demanding and their motive for protesting is just to get more
compensation.""Egat may have given compensation to other groups
of people such as those with village headmen and subdistrict chiefs, but
not to us, the 3,084 families," said Somkiat.
"We are not too demanding. We are only asking for what we deserve
according to the agreement we made with the government," he said.
The agreement was signed between the 3,084 families who proved they
were affected by the dam's construction, and the government, represented
by signatory Arkom Aienchon, assistant secretary to the Prime Minister in
1995. "The agreement states that after three years of the Pak Moon
Dam's operation, if the villagers could not catch fish, the Egat would
provide 15 rai of land to compensate them for the loss of their
livelihood," said Somkiat.
But when the time came, the Egat said there was no land available for
them. The Egat offered money to buy land at 35,000 baht per rai instead.
The Chuan Cabinet, however, passed a resolution on April 21, 1998, that
cancelled the plan by a previous government. The decision was based on the
concern that retroactive compensation programmes would set a precedent for
other projects.
The latest protest began last year on March 24, and continues today,
more than 500 days later.
In response to the accusation that they were hired troublemakers,
Somkiat asked, "Who would be able to hire more than 5,000 protesters
to protest for more than 500 days?"We feel sorry that the Egat tried
to mobilise some fellows in our villages to protest against us. We don't
blame them-they needed the money. They just came for a day or two and
left."Somkiat points out that the villagers were not happy to be
protesting. "We are so sorry that we, ordinary villagers, had to
become victims of this development programme. We are now divided. We feel
sorry that we have no means to help the public understand our side. The
Egat has spent taxpayer money to buy space in newspapers to tell their
side of the story and attack us.
"Why can't the Egat study the real effects of the dam on us?
Instead, they try to make society angry at us, and blame us for the rising
cost of electricity. "But I hope society knows that the price
increases have little to do with us," said Somkiat.
Hydroelectricity comprises only 13 percent of Egat's total capacity.
The Pak Moon Dam generates an average of only 40 megawatts of electricity,
compared to the 2,738 megawatts of the other 19 dams in Thailand. Other
sources of energy, such as thermal or gas-and-oil combine cycle power
generation, produce about 12,143 megawatts.
"We are not asking for compensation anymore, as the money would be
gone in a few years. But please, give us back our source of income, our
lives, our free-flowing river-Mae Moon," said Somkiat.
Banthorn Commission's recommendations:
All the eight sluice gates must be opened
from May to August.
There must be a multilateral committee to study the environmental
impact over the period of one year. The long-term resolutions include
setting up a multi-party committee in charge of river basin management.
- The government decided to allow the dam's sluice gates to open from
May to August, but remained silent on the other recommendations. done.
have questions for hub-jp
Lam Khan
Choo Dam
Story by Vasana Chinvarakorn
Khampian Srithanual used to dream that a
new dam next door would help him harvest his rice at least twice a year.
Instead, the Chaiyaphum villager has been living in fear the Lam Khan Choo
Dam might collapse any day, and inundate the two districts near its
reservoir.
"When the Royal Irrigation Department (RID) started the project in
1989, we didn't protest," Khampian recalled. "We believed the
government's promise that it was a wonderful programme that would provide
us farmers with water year-round, that from now on we would be able to
live and eat well.
"But since the dam was completed, in 1996, those promises of
irrigation canals have never materialised. The only available irrigation
service in the area goes to a flour factory."For the 39-year-old
farmer, the dam's uselessness is not as bad as the threat of havoc it
poses if millions of cubic metres of water suddenly gush out through the
cracks that lace the dam.
Khampian said the first time the people in his village learned of the
safety problems with the dam was through a television programme in
November 1998. The Channel 7 documentary revealed several serious fault
lines along the embankment of the dam. Since then, worried Chaiyaphum
villagers have filed complaints to a number of state agencies.
After some time, two groups of inspectors were sent to check up on the
dam, and both insisted there needn't be any worry. The construction
materials have just shrunk a little bit on the surface, the surveys
reported, explaining it as a natural process that should not threaten the
rest of the concrete structure.
Khampian and other villagers are doubtful of the accuracy of the
inspectors' feedback, however. The reports, they assert, are full of
discrepancies. Moreover, there were attempts by state officials to cover
up the cracks and holes on the dam prior to the inspections.
"And nobody dares to promise that they will give us compensation
if the dam ever collapses," said Khampian. "When a dam in Chiang
Mai collapsed in 1994, it flooded several villages and one farmer was
drowned; the only help his family received from the government was a token
sum of 5,000 baht and a dispatch of tractors to clear up the mess. That's
about all. We don't want similar things to happen here.
"Now, every time there's a heavy rain, those living downstream
can't get to sleep."One fundamental problem of the Lam Khan Choo dam
stems from the fact that it was commissioned without an environmental and
social impact assessment (EIA) study, having been built before the 1992
Environmental Act.
Khampian and other villagers who joined the Assembly of the Poor
believe a retroactive assessment is required. The Lam Khan Choo dam, they
say, has permanently submerged the community forest that once served as a
public market for the Isan people. What if an EIA study found the people's
loss and environmental degradation far outweigh the dam's benefits?The
Cabinet's July 25 resolution, however, shot down the assembly's request,
arguing it's an old project that has already been completed. Khampian is
also frustrated by the government's evasive response to the issue of
irrigation services. The resolution said it "expects" the
construction could be started in the next fiscal year, but no details of
how to realise the plan have been laid out.
Nor has the Chuan Leekpai Cabinet responded to the complaints by two
Chaiyaphum villagers of unfair compensation. Khampian said one man has not
received a single baht for his 14 rai of farmland, while the other has
only been paid for half of the land inundated by the dam. The government
says it will only give the first man compensation for 10 rai, and the
second will receive no more money.
"In fact a number of villagers have been cheated during the
construction of the dam. They had been led to believe there wouldn't be
any compensation, so many have sold their land to outsiders at an
extremely low price.
"Now we just want to reclaim our self-sufficient way of life.
Before, the land was fertile and we didn't need to use fertilisers at all.
We had our forest to supply us with food. So if a study found the dam
totally useless and harmful to people and nature, why can't we have it
decommissioned and restore the forest? Then all of us will be able to
enjoy both nature and our traditional culture again."
Banthorn Commission's recommendations:
Study the dam's safety.
Full compensation to the two villagers.
- Conduct an environmental and social impact assessment study.
- Implementation of irrigation services. The government says the safety concerns are not warranted, nor is a
retroactive EIA study, and it will give only partial compensation to the
two villagers. It agreed to the need for irrigation canals but did not
provide details of how to put them in place. |
