10. Thailand

Foto:
Arquivo - Focus On The Global South
Access
to land is fundamental to the livelihoods of poor communities
in
rural areas. Land continues to serve as a means of providing
subsistence needs as well as of income generation. Holding
land enables family labor to be put to productive use, and
provides a safety net for family members who work in temporary
or insecure employment elsewhere. This was particularly evident
in Thailand during the economic collapse in 1997, when the
sudden jump in urban unemployment was mitigated by the absorption
of labor in the rural areas.
Agriculture
is still an important sector of the Thai economy, employing
around 54% of the workforce (out of a total workforce of 33.4
million people). The poorest sectors of Thai society are the
landless and near landless in rural areas. In 1995 the income
of the population working in agriculture was estimated to
be about 15 times lower than the income of the population
outside the agricultural sector. In 1999 the national average
household income was about USD $318 per month, whereas the
average income for farming households was no higher than USD
$24 per month. Land also provides important social functions
such as identification with family roots, cultural and community
identity.
The
Land Institute Foundation, an independent Thai research organization,
has estimated that over 30% of the 5.5 million households
in the agricultural sector have insufficient land to derive
a livelihood (in the Northern Region, this is considered to
be less than 1.6 hectares).
The number of landless families has grown during recent decades,
not only because of population growth, but also due to a range
of other factors. These include the somewhat artificial classification
of 50% of the country as national state forests in the 1960s,
including areas that were already used for agriculture prior
to classification. Large areas of agricultural land have also
been taken or kept out of production. This was particularly
evident during the high economic growth years of the late
80s and early 90s, when investors began to acquire land on
a massive scale, speculating on rising land prices. The Land
Institute Foundation estimated in 2000 that the annual economic
cost to the Thai economy of underutilized land (including
urban areas) to the country was approximately USD $3 billion.
Much
of this land was used as collateral to borrow huge sums that
were never repaid. Figures from the Bank of Thailand reveal
that the total value of non-performing loans could be as high
as USD $68 billion over the period of 1997 to 2000. The majority
of these loans were in the real estate sector. As a reaction
to the unfolding economic crisis in 1997, the Thai government
was compelled to bail out the creditors holding bad debt (especially
that owed in foreign currency) under the conditions of emergency
IMF loans. Thus the costs of imprudent private lending were
transferred onto taxpayers throughout the country.
World
Bank Policies
The
World Bank's discussions of land policy invariably begin with
the importance of access to land as a primary means of alleviating
poverty. The Bank's analysis of how to promote the access
of the poor to land is more controversial. Following its economic
approach in other sectors, the Bank's interest in land titling
stems from its objective of creating functioning land markets.
Although
the Bank says that the importance of such markets "has
long been realized by researchers and policy makers alike,"
there is a growing opposition to the Bank's land commodification
policies from local community organizations and civil society
representatives.
Local communities face a number of risks where free markets
in land are promoted through national policy interventions.
Transactions of land need not be harmful to local interests
or prejudicial to poorer sections of society, however it is
important to realize where the risks lie.
Firstly,
the playing field is far from level. Established actors in
the market have greater access to information about financial
opportunities, some have greater liquidity (have more cash
available for investment), and are more powerful than others.
This is particularly so where there is high economic inequality
on a regional or sectoral basis. For example, the purchasing
power of investors in the capital cities far exceeds that
of smallholder farmers in the rural areas. This imbalance
can provide a lucrative opportunity for metropolitan traders,
which incidentally pushes up the price of land, out of reach
for the landless, the poor and future generations of smallholder
farmers. The interests of investors and farmers in holding
land tend to differ substantially, and the acquisition of
land by the former purely as an investment for future use
can severely disrupt local development patterns, as has been
the case in northern Thailand.
Secondly,
contrary to Adam Smith's basic precept, the collective outcome
of market transactions is not necessarily socially desirable,
and State control for the public interest can be justified.
Finally,
the commodification of land has an impact not only on the
local economy, but also on the cultural and social relations
surrounding land. As pointed out above, in many rural societies,
the local value of land includes not only use value, but also
a range of other values, according to different contexts.
These may emphasize the heritage value of land (as a link
with family ancestors or descendants), the community importance
of a particular area, local ecological knowledge, and in some
areas, may include obligations within an ongoing relationship
with spirits associated with the place. These values cannot
easily be associated with an equivalent economic value, despite
efforts by environmental economists, and therefore risk being
lost under a centralized market. If this kind of cultural
transformation is what is intended, it would seem inappropriate
for it to be undertaken without engaging in a widespread consultation
or public debate, let alone for the process to be hurried
along, following the international agenda of a financial agency.
Land
Titling
The
Land Titling Program originated in the early 1980s in negotiations
on a structural adjustment loan between the government of
Thailand and the agricultural department of the World Bank.
Overall, USD $183.1 million was loaned by the World Bank to
cover the three initial phases of the project. To date, 8.7
million land titles have been issued. This is a substantial
number, but less than the number of titles targeted by the
program. However, this figure can be misleading and should
not be taken as evidence that 8.7 million farmers have "benefited"
from the program. Notably, the program did not set targets
for the number of beneficiaries. Each region has been covered
largely according to schedule. Delays were reported to have
occurred as a result of the difficulties of tracing absentee
landlords, as well as the imprecision of boundaries of national
forest reserve areas.
Although
the World Bank is congratulatory about a change in the land
law to permit faster titling, the authorities in fact provided
an ideal opportunity for investors and corrupt state officials
to abuse the system, particularly during the high economic
growth period.
The
Land Titling Program, while aimed at increasing land tenure
security for existing landholders, did not attempt to address
two critical issues of importance to low income farming groups
in Thailand. The first was the issue of forest tenure. The
Thai Land Titling Program dealt exclusively with "non-forest
lands". This is because all lands denominated as forest
are considered as state property whether or not communities
have been living and farming in those areas for several generations.
The state was ostensibly reluctant to offer secure rights
for fear of legalizing forest destruction. Consequently, some
of the poorest farming groups in the country, including Thai
farmers and ethnic minority groups who occupy forests, especially
in the highland areas, have been left in a precarious legal
position.2 They continue to be threatened with eviction or
forced restriction of their agricultural practices, and harassed
by officials. This prolongs the opportunity for politicians
to cast ethnic minorities as scapegoats for all types of national
problems. The Land Titling Program did not seize the chance
to 'regularize' the land rights of this large group of people,
many of whom have occupied their village lands for hundreds
of years.
The
World Bank recognizes that local land markets often exist
in an autonomous manner - that is, even where there is no
national land registry or even any need for formal titles.
This was the situation in Sritia, Raidong and other Thai villages
that have joined the community land reform movement. These
are communities that have occupied land, and where land transactions
occur without formal titles, but require the authorization
of the full community, based on networks of social obligations.
Of course transactions without formal titles can be considered
"less economically efficient," than those that occur
in formal land markets. On the other hand, community-mediated
transactions have been much more successful than formal land
markets at keeping land ownership in the community, and land
in the hands of small farmers.
The
basis of World Bank intervention in land policy of Thailand
was supposedly to guarantee secure access to land, especially
for the poor. However, according to an internal evaluation
from the Bank, land tenure in Thailand prior to the initiation
of the program was already "relatively secure and fair,"
based on solid traditions, and offered little justification
for placing a high priority on a project to regularize land
titles.
On-going
monitoring and evaluation of impacts on the poor should be
part of any process designed to "alleviate poverty."
But in the case of the villagers of Baan Hong, for example,
the Land Titling Program left them worse off than before.
Nevertheless, the Bank keeps on touting the virtues of land
markets. If the Bank truly dreams of a "world free of
poverty," then they should wake up to participatory forms
of guaranteeing access to land for poorer sectors of society.
In this perspective, land would not be understood as just
a commodity, but rather as a way of life for peasants, with
attendant social, cultural and environmental values.
Understandably,
villagers have not been very impressed by the various processes
which were intended to secure their land rights over the past
decades. It has taken a substantial amount of research on
the part of non-governmental groups and lawyers to identify
the current official owners of specific plots of land. Many
deeds have passed through several hands in the early 1990s,
increasing in value upon every transfer. In some cases, it
seems that the transfers have been deliberately obscured,
with properties returning to their original owners after seven
or eight transactions (though now registered in the name of
a company rather than an individual).
In
frustration at the lack of action by local officials to recover
the land, local people began to organize themselves and take
the matter into their own hands. In 1997, villagers in WiangNongLong
and Baan Hong Districts took the decision to occupy lands
that had been left abandoned for several years. Neighboring
communities, similarly desperate for land for subsistence,
also organized land occupations throughout the province and
elsewhere. Today, a total of 3,798 families have joined the
land occupation movement putting over 2,150 hectares of abandoned
land to agricultural use in 23 areas of Lamphun, Chiang Mai
and Chiang Rai provinces.
As
there is no provision under the Thai Land Code for common
property, the villagers decided to create their own community
tenure regime. Contributions were made by each family to pay
for a survey map identifying the boundaries of the entire
area and the dimensions of each individual plot. The villagers
have printed up their own 'titles,' which indicate the location
of the individual landholding, the neighboring plot holders,
the rights of the titleholder, and have four signatories.
Villagers explain that the main motivation behind their 'community
title' is to ensure long term access.
Text
based on LEONARD, Rebeca and ASYUTTHAYA, Kingkorn Narintarakul
Na - Land Titling Program in Thailand
11.
Zimbabwe
12.
Positions of Via Campesina
13.
Bibliography
14.
Table of Contents
|