Forest project might be legal but is it right?

‘ People and forests can live in harmony.” I believe this saying is true and practical for guarding forests in a long run. Ironically, government officials have recently cited it in their defence of a new housing project for judicial officials that involved massive forest clearance.

Built on Treasury Department land at the foot of Doi Suthep National Park in Chiang Mai at a cost of about one billion baht, the resort-like project is mostly surrounded by a steep green forest. It will host 45 houses, 64 condominium units and offices of the Appeal Court Region 5. Judges and other judicial officials will soon live at one of the most visited mountains in Thailand with the spectacular view of one of the top tourist destinations — Chiang Mai city.

Since 2014, local people started to wonder what the land clearance on their spiritual mountain was for. When they realised that it was made for the housing project, they were furious, and called for its immediate demolition.

As protests grew, government officials including Chief Ombudsman Viddhavat Rajatanun have repeatedly used the saying, “people and forests can live in harmony”, to save the judges’ right to live in the once forested area.

For decades, the same saying has been used by poor forest dwellers who tried in vain to protect their right to live in forests which have been their homes for generations before the state designated them as national parks and conservation areas. But their call has been rejected by the state as authorities have considered them “illegal encroachers” who should be subject to eviction, arrest and imprisonment because they “have no land ownership documents”.

In contrast, the housing project has a happy ending because it is considered “legal” since the land is not part of the national park.

According to government spokesman Sansern Kaewkamnerd, the land was initially declared “degraded forest” some decades ago when it was owned and used by the army. Later on, it was transferred to the Treasury Department which gives “legal” permission to the Courts of Justice to use it.

Authorities including the ombudsman and the army chief have all agreed it is too late to demolish the project which is nearly complete. The suspension of the project will force its owner to break contracts with three construction companies, which would eventually lead to lawsuits.

Some judges circulated opinions on social media in supporting the project and its future residents. One of the reasons is that judges work for the people so they deserve decent accommodation.

The supporters of the project may be legal experts. But in this case, they miss the point. The public opposition is not about the legality of the project but justification of it. What I have seen in past weeks is the claim by the state actors to protect their “rights” and benefits, not the public’s interests.

Authorities have approved many projects such as mining, dams, coal-fired power plants and luxurious resorts in steep forests on the basis of their legality, while paying little consideration on their potential social and environmental impacts.

Trees and vegetation were felled and cleared to prepare a construction site for the controversial housing project located at the foot of the national park. There is concern that such land clearance would cause landslides and rapid runoffsduring the storm season affecting villages located in lower areas. Deforestation will also accelerate climate change.

In addition to the environment, the reputation of the judiciary, which is supposed to be on the side of justice, is also at stake. Instead of setting a good example of which is the right or appropriate thing to do, the judiciary is now claiming for its right to use the land.

The state including the judiciary have a duty to protect public benefits including people’s rights to live in a good environment. For example, early this month Colombia’s highest court ordered its government to take urgent action to protect the Amazon rain forest from rapid and rising deforestation.

The ruling was made after a group of 25 young plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the government in January demanding it to protect their right to a healthy environment.

The ruling recognises Colombia’s Amazon as an “entity subject of rights”, granting the rainforest the same legal rights that people have.

This Colombia case shows that Thai state actors must change the way they think.

Judges can keep the housing project claiming its legality and ignore environmental consequences. But they have an alternative to change their mind.