THAILAND
The fast-growing pulp and paper industry
by Chris Lang

previous page

The impact of the fast-growing pulp and paper industry, and its associated plantations, on the people and forests in Thailand has been severe. When forests and woodlands are converted to eucalyptus plantations, villagers lose a source of food, medicine and firewood. A 1995 report documents in detail the problems villagers faced as a result of the Australian-funded Tung Kula Ronghai project:

"The replacement of diverse native forests and other vegetation with eucalyptus monocultures has diminished the land's ability to support human and animal life. It has also reduced local water supplies on public lands in Kampaeng subdistrict [Roi Et province], where there had been permanent one-metre-deep natural pools or marshes (nong) on public (forested and nonforested) lands. Today water levels have retreated to 10 metres or more beneath the surface, and there is not enough water to use year round" (Jirawan et al 1995).

The report details what was lost to local economies as a result of planting up the land with eucalyptus trees:

"The destructive effects of this deprivation on the local economy are immediate and clear. For examples, we need only look at Kampaeng subdistrict villagers who had previously been able to earn 200-300 baht per day per individual from gathering and selling forest mushrooms; or who had grazed some 900 cows and buffalo, each carrying a price of 5,000-8000 baht, in local woodlands; or who had earned 3,000-4,000 baht per year by making charcoal from branches and fallen wood" (Jirawan et al 1995).

The report also notes that villagers have had to migrate to find work elsewhere. Rice fields have dried up. Water must be collected from further away. Villagers have been forced to sell their cows and buffaloes as they lost their grazing lands. Younger people have thus been deprived of an income, forcing them to look for alternative livelihoods and forcing families to split up (Jirawan et al 1995).

In 1989, a report funded by USAID and the Khon Kaen-based Rural Development Institute looked at the effect of eucalyptus plantations in several northeastern provinces. The report concludes that large eucalyptus plantations can deplete underground water sources; eucalyptus leaves decompose slowly and fall in greater numbers than other crops; toxins in the leaves inhibit the growth of other crops; and a eucalyptus plantation uses a higher overall volume of water than other crops (Usher 1990).

In 1990, a research team from the Thai Development Research Institute, led by Dr Dhira Phantumvanit, concluded, "the promotion of fast-growing trees, particularly the eucalyptus, will not help solve rural poverty nor improve distribution problems. Concessions for large-scale planters to grow commercial forests in degraded forests will aggravate rural poverty rather than easing it" (Bangkok Post 12 January 1991).

In the east of Thailand, the plantation boom caused by the proximity to seaports and roads led in turn to a land speculation boom. Businessmen sent representatives to buy up land from indebted villagers. Villagers may have been willing to sell for a variety of reasons: the land around them may already have been bought up, thus denying them access to their own fields; forestry officials may attempt to clear them off the land as "illegal squatters"; neighbours may have already sold their land and be temporarily well off; violence, threats and even murder may be used; and the fact that local officials collect bribes for issuing land documents means that establishing rights to land is easier for companies who can afford the bribes, than for villagers who cannot.

Once their land is lost, villagers have no choice other than to encroach on forests in other areas. Often they remain on their new fields only until the next wave of land speculation appears (Lohmann 1991: 8).

One of the pulp and paper industry's 'solutions' to problems of large-scale plantations, is to encourage contract tree farming, whereby farmers grow the trees on their own land. This has several benefits for the industry. Companies can secure raw material supplies, through contracts which prevent farmers selling wood to anyone else. Companies avoid the problem of renting state land that is already occupied by villagers (Lohmann 1991: 9). The company does not need to employ plantation workers, and therefore does not need to worry about social security or labour problems (Pearmsak and Mochida 1999: 55).

Contract tree farming effectively passes on risks associated with growing fast-growing tree plantations from pulp and paper companies to farmers. Pearmsak Makarabhirom, a forester with the Regional Community Forestry Training Centre in Bangkok, in a recent study of contract tree farming in Thailand argues "farmers have been facing many problems in every step of the operation, particularly in tree cutting, wood yield estimating or weighing, and transportation, in which farmer[s] are unable to negotiate for a reasonable cost, only receiv[ing] payment after all costs incurred are deducted" (Pearmsak and Mochida 1999: 86).

In 1999, Pitaya Petmark, an official at the RFD, told the Bangkok Post, "To me, between eucalyptus and rice, it's better to grow eucalyptus because they grow fast and need no care. Northeasterners may disagree because of their old-fashioned thinking that they should be able to reap their crop every year" (Onnucha 1999a). Samran Udonsak, a former eucalyptus grower who has uprooted his trees in favour of rice, explains some of the problems he faced trying to live off income from eucalyptus trees, "It's better to grow rice because we can sell it right away or keep it for our own consumption. Growing eucalyptus, we must wait three to four years before they are big enough to cut. What will eat while waiting for the trees?" (Onnucha 1999b).

The RFD appears oblivious to these problems and has never produced a study of the environmental impacts of eucalyptus plantations on an area larger than 160 hectares (Tunya 2000).

Since the mid-1980s, villagers and NGOs have protested the development of the pulp and paper industry and the fast-growing plantations associated with it. Villagers have petitioned government officials, held rallies, spoken out at seminars, given television interviews, blocked roads, marched on government offices, ripped out eucalyptus seedlings, chopped down trees, stopped bulldozers and burned down nurseries and equipment. They have planted fruit trees, regenerated community forests on land reclaimed from eucalyptus plantations and explained to journalists the methods they use to preserve patches of community forests between their fields (Lohmann 1991: 4) (Casson 1997: 11).

A chronology of some of the protests against fast-growing tree plantations gives an indication of the scale of the problem (although this chronology is by no means complete):

September 1985: More than 2,000 villagers in Si Sa Ket province dug up eucalyptus sapling, burnt nurseries and asked the government to stop the eucalyptus planting at the Nonlan Forest (Suda 1989).

February 1987: Villagers from Ban Namkam in Roi Et province grouped together with eight other

villages to sign a letter to the provincial authorities asking for companies to stop cutting forests for eucalyptus plantations (Suda 1989).

May 1987: Villagers of Tambon Yangkam in Roi Et requested that officials prevent companies from buying forest at Dongbang Forest (Suda 1989).

April 1987: Villagers from Tambon Kaampia in Ubon Ratchathani requested the authorities to stop companies planting eucalyptus and asked the government to give them land-use rights (Suda 1989).

June 1987: Villagers from Tombon Ponsai, Roi Et province asked officials to stop companies planting eucalyptus and to stop land eviction (Suda 1989).

July 1987: Villagers from Ban Tuey, Tambon Tung Kula Ronghai in Roi Et, held demonstrations and asked for an end to eucalyptus planting on their land (Suda 1989).

February 1988: Villagers from 15 villagers in Surin province demonstrated at the provincial office demanding land-use rights, after the Tambon council made an agreement to stop planting eucalyptus (Suda 1989).

March 1988: Villagers cut down eucalyptus trees at a village forestry office in Pakhaam District, Buriram province (Lohmann 1990).

March 1988: 2,000 villagers in Nong Khai province protested at Buengkan district office against eucalyptus planting companies who were attempting to buy their lands to plant eucalyptus. The authorities gave no response. Finally, villagers cut down 400 eucalyptus trees and burnt saplings in a nursery (Suda 1989).

June 1988: Villagers of Ban Nongka, Surin province, dug up eucalyptus trees, arguing that they wanted the land to plant other crops (Suda 1989).

June 1988: In Surin province, during a protest on 2 June 1988, villagers set fire to eucalyptus leaves and branches outside Tha Tum district police station. Police had issued arrest warrants for two villagers accused of cutting eucalyptus trees planted by the forestry office (Bangkok Post 4 June 1988).

June 1988: About 3,500 villagers in from Tambon Namsab and Tambon Sabsomboon in Prachinburi province burnt down forestry officials' houses in a protest against the government's eucalyptus policy. The villagers also set fire to a garage, two motorcycles, a home made truck, two greenhouses, a water pump and a dynamo (The Nation 14 June 1988).

August 1990: Representatives from more than 200 Thai NGOs announced their refusal to participate in the Jaakko Poyry led-Thai Forestry Sector Master Plan until it was completely separated from current government forest policy (Lohmann 1991: 16).

1991: The former monk Phra Prachak Kuttjitto, led villagers in Buriram province in opposing eucalyptus plantations. Among the tactics used was that of "ordaining" trees to prevent them from being cut down (Kulcharee 1997). The Pa Kham district of Buriram province was a special target of repression under the Khor Jor Kor campaign. Villages were surrounded by troops, houses dismantled, leaders detained and Phra Prachak Kuttjitto and others were attacked and arrested (Lohmann 1991: 17).

May 1992: A broad-based popular movement overthrew the military junta and resistance to fast-growing tree plantations continued. Following protests including blockades of major highways and long negotiations with farmers' leaders, the government scrapped Khor Jor Kor, the military eviction programme, and imposed a maximum area of 8 hectares on any type of commercial tree plantation (Carrere and Lohmann 1996: 237).

1993: Villagers at Dong Kheng forest began to pull up eucalyptus saplings and trees, established as part of the Australian-funded Tung Kula Ronghai project. In April 1994, villagers drew up a forest restoration and conservation plan, including setting aside 240 hectares as conservation forest, on land recovered from eucalyptus plantation (Jirawan et al 1995).

September 1993: About 300 villagers from Tambon Sen Suk destroyed more than 1,000 rai (160 hectares) of eucalyptus trees in Phanom Phrai district, Roi Et province (Bangkok Post 21 September 1993).

April 1994: About 200 villagers from Kanthararom district in Si Sa Ket province rallied in front of the provincial hall to protest at the FIO's proposed pulp mill (Bangkok Post 19 April 1994).

March 1995: Villagers in Si Sa Ket sent a letter to the FIO, the Science Ministry, the Office of the Prime Minister's Secretariat and to the provinces nine MPs, asking the government to reconsider FIO's planned pulp mill (Walakkamon 1995).

February 1996: Around 1,700 villagers protested against eucalyptus plantations at the provincial office in Roi Et. At the time the Minister of Agriculture was out of the country. Villagers decided to continue their sit-in until the Minister met with them on his return to Thailand (PER 1996).

1997: From the mid-1990s, the Assembly of the Poor, a coalition of local organisations and villagers, held a series of protests in front of Government House in Bangkok. In 1997, the Assembly held a 99-day protest, which won a series of concessions from the government. However, after the economic crisis, the government changed and the new government under Chuan Leekpai refused to acknowledge the previous government's agreements with the Forum.

April 1999: A protest lasting two weeks, involving a total of around 40,000 farmers from the uplands of northern Thailand, took place outside the provincial office in Chiang Mai. The farmers, many from ethnic groups, demanded citizenship for ethnic groups and a reduction in reforestation. Approximately 500 Police and 1,500 forestry officials broke up the protest on 19 May 1999 (Forsyth 2001: 140) (Northern Farmers Network et al 1999).

September 1999: NGOs organised a seminar entitled "Eucalyptus and the Failure of Thai Forestry". The China-Advance Agro project was the focus of much of the discussion (Krungthep Thurakij 21,22,26 September 1999).

March 2000: RFD director Plodprasop Suraswadi threatened 1,000 families in Somdej district of Kalasin with eviction if they did not move voluntarily. A few months earlier, in a protest about the government's failure to find them new land to live on, the villagers felled most eucalyptus trees in a plantation established by the FIO about 26 years ago (Uamdao and Ploenpote 2000).

April 2000: The Thai Society of Environmental Journalists visited Tha Takiab subdistrict. Kamnan Thawee Sathuchart told the journalists that a number of villages were against the project. Another villager pointed out that local people had been trying for decades to get ownership papers for the land, but had failed (Kamol 2000).

July 2000: 10,000 people converged on Sanam Luang in Bangkok as a show of support for the Assembly of the Poor, which was once again protesting outside Government House in Bangkok (Supahatra 2000).

October 2000: The Chachoengsao Provincial Administration Organisation (PAO) filled a petition with the cabinet protesting the Sino-Thai plantation project. Somchai Asschaisophon, president of the Chachoengsao PAO stated that people living in Takiab district and provincial councillors opposed the project (Bangkok Post 4 October 2000).

As a result of these protests villagers have won some concessions from the government, and have in several instances regenerated their community forests on land previously planted up with eucalyptus. In Nong Yak village in Surin province, eight communities grouped together to re-establish community forest on land reclaimed from an FIO eucalyptus plantation. The forest has regenerated and today provides many services and products to villagers. In addition to such success stories, villagers have also, in association with academics and NGOs, attempted to influence the policy-level debate in Thailand.

In November 1997, Thailand's new constitution was passed, which allows communities the right to manage their natural resources. Despite such a progressive constitution, state institutions, especially the Royal Forest Department, continue to threaten villagers with eviction to make way for fast-growing tree plantations.

For the past ten years, villagers, NGOs and academics have worked together to produce a Community Forest Bill, which recognises communities rights to manage their forests. The Bill has been stalled by the RFD and their supporters in some nature conservation NGOs, and currently six versions of the Bill are awaiting a cabinet decision.

Although these protests and discussions about forests and plantations, are widely reported (in the English and Thai press), and are an expression of the serious problems faced by villagers threatened with losing their land to tree plantations, such protests are either ignored or simply dismissed by plantation proponents, and the forestry consultants acting as the hired guns of the pulp and paper industry.

For example, Jouko Virta, President of Jaakko Poyry's consulting division, although aware of the level of debate in Thailand about Poyry's proposed Forest Master Plan attempted to marginalise protests. He claimed that protests and criticisms of the plan were a result of only two or three "extremist individuals", and added "I think they are anarchists" (Carrere and Lohmann 1996: 245).

When employees of the Soon Hua Seng (SHS) subsidiary Suan Kitti were arrested in 1990, for clearing forest to make way for eucalyptus plantations, the resulting uproar prompted then-Prime Minister Chatichai Choonhaven to prohibit all commercial plantations in National Forest Reserves. Rather than facing up to the issues raised, SHS attempting to dodge public debate, by renaming its proposed pulp and paper mill "Advance Agro", instead of the originally proposed name, "Suan Kitti Pulp Mill". SHS then hired the Finnish-owned, Bangkok-based Presko public relations firm for advice on minimising any further environmental criticism (Sonnenfeld 1999: 35).

Although protests eventually led to the cancelling of Shell's proposed plantations in Thailand, Shell Company of Thailand's Managing Director, Sarisdiguna Kittiyakara, attempted to confuse the issue, claiming that the objections to the proposed plantations originated with tapioca mill owners whose land would be subsumed under Shell's project. He also accused Thai environmentalists of being co-opted by Western paper-producing countries that felt threatened by the prospect of a local paper industry (Usher 1989).

In a similar vein, a consultant with Vientiane-based Burapha Development Consultants, claimed that protests in Thailand against eucalyptus plantations started when a Thai-Chinese pulp importing company launched a "smear campaign" against eucalyptus plantations. According to the consultant, the campaign was an attempt to safeguard its position as a pulp importer and to prevent Thailand from developing its own pulp producing industry.

Throughout the 1990s, the then-management of Phoenix Pulp and Paper alleged that accusations of pollution from the Phoenix mill in Khon Kaen were simply part of the campaign to take over the company. Sudhir Mittal, Phoenix's Deputy Managing Director told Watershed magazine in 1998, after the mill had been closed for polluting the Phong River, "The closure is in the name of environment, but it is not because of environment. There has been a lot of pressure on the Phoenix management – there is a certain group of people who want to take over the company" (Watershed 1998b: 55).

In October 2000, Chittiwat Silapat of FIO argued that today there are few protests about eucalyptus, "Because it is not so bad as they [villagers] said" (Chittiwat 2000a). Chittiwat appears oblivious to the ongoing discussion about the proposed Sino-Thai plantation project. He is also apparently unaware that Prasit Puaktow, the head of the FIO and Chittiwat's boss, six months earlier announced publicly, "nobody here is happy with the project because all the 200,000 rai [32,000 hectares] of degraded forests have owners" (Uamdao 2000b).

Clearly, villagers will continue to protest what is a serious threat to their livelihoods. Sa-ad Koonchat, spokesperson of Nong Yak village's community Forest Recovery Committee in Surin province, sums up the problem well in an interview in Watershed magazine:

"We began to protest when we realised that a eucalyptus plantation is not a forest. Before, the natural forest was very important for us. We gathered mushrooms, bamboo shoots, insects and herbs for food. There was water, and there were animals and birds. The forest was cool and peaceful. Eucalyptus plantations gave us no benefits, there was nothing to eat. . . .

"For fifteen years, we lived with the eucalyptus, protesting against it. We went to the subdistrict council, to the district chief, to the provincial government, and then to Bangkok. We told them the problems. They said they understood the problems, but couldn't see a solution. They said they would solve the problems, then they did nothing. For 15 years we had this problem. I wondered, were they stupid? They could not see simple solutions.

"Most of the officials have never been in a forest, so they don't know the important benefits of a forest. They have never seen a eucalyptus plantation and don't understand the problems. They only know it makes paper and money. If there's no forest, we can't live" (Watershed 1998a: 35).

next page