Harm or Help? Hidden Consequences of the World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility

Forced into the spotlight, Nittaya Muangklang is unexpectedly emerging as the voice for her community. Ms. Muangklang is among fourteen individuals from Sab Wai–and over twenty five thousand nationwide–charged with encroachment on Sai Thong National Park’s forested land on grounds of violation of Thailand’s Forest Reclamation Policy in 2016. Her recent court verdict found her guilty with a suspended sentence, showing how her fight against injustice is far from over.

Funded by the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF), the Forest Reclamation Policy intends to reduce carbon emissions by preventing land misuse by large corporations. Based on the aim to realize REDD+ readiness, the World Bank’s partnership intends for countries “to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and foster conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.”

Thailand’s policy intends to end land encroachment, misuse of land by businesses and private firms, to conserve natural resources, and to increase national forest area by up to 40%. Motivated by the decrease in forest lands from 51% to 31% since the 1960s, the policy, at surface level, seems like an effective measure to combat deforestation. Additionally, a supplemental Order was issued in 2014 to explicitly protect the poor and impoverished from being impacted by the policy. In practice, however, Thailand’s policy has been used as grounds to evict poor and local people from their lands.

For the case of Sab Wai, locals living in the Sai Thong National Park area were arrested for alleged trespassing on forest lands despite living in the area for all their lives. National Park officials harassed locals into signing a consent to return their lands to the government, and some were reportedly carrying guns, all of which contradicting Thailand’s Civil Code.

One individual reported that, “It took more than 3 hours until my wife agreed to sign it. She had to sign because she was scared of getting a court warrant; she had to sign in tears.”

Throughout the five year court case, compensation and relocation measures have not been provided to affected individuals, worsening their economic situation and driving some into poverty. The lack of compensation for affected individuals and the ongoing charges against them have had severe economic consequences for these locals, as they greatly depended on forest lands for their source of income.

As outcry began to rise domestically, the government issued the National Parks Act of 2019, permitting original inhabitants who live near national park areas to use some of the park resources. Once again, the policy seems, at surface level, to remedy some of the adverse effects of the original forest reclamation plan. However, the caveats render this Act ineffective in helping the livelihood of local communities. Firstly, National Park officials have full jurisdiction over whether or not to allow individuals to use park areas. The Act also severely restricts the amount of land allowed to be harvested, and the use of natural resources must be approved by the government. But most significantly, the Act imposes extremely strict penalties of imprisonment, not exceeding twenty years, and fines, not exceeding two million baht, for those convicted of land encroachment. Local communities, many of whom are farmers and indigenous peoples, do not have the means or resources to submit a proposal for natural resource use to the government.

The purposes of these restrictions and Thailand’s exploitation of the poor, it seems, can be found in the economic benefits derived from using park areas as tourist sites. By taking land away from original inhabitants, government officials advertise forest lands for tourism purposes to the well-off middle-class and foreigners.

As noted by Reuters, “denying forest dwellers land rights deprives them of their livelihood, their tradition and dignity, while these parks are opened up for city dwellers and tourists to enjoy.”

But what role does the World Bank play?

Though some may argue that national implementation of the policy remains out of their jurisdiction, the World Bank needs to be held accountable for not holding the Thai government accountable for poor policy implementation. Thailand submits readiness plans and progress reports to the organisation, and the World Bank has not inquired into the charges filed against those originally inhabiting these forest lands. The harmful implementation of Thai policies intended to reduce poverty and carbon emissions has not deterred the World Bank from providing funding or continuing to partner with the Thai government, despite the harmful effects they have played.

Reports on the World Bank’s website still praise the progress of FCPF funded programs while turning a blind eye on victims like Ms. Muangklang and the Sab Wai villagers. If left unchecked by the international community, the harmful effects of World Bank sponsored activities will lead to adverse results that contradict the organisation’s mission to reduce poverty.