Local agriculturists have become victim to wrong ideas and are being fleeced unfairly by a state agency for allegedly damaging natural resources, while industries - the worst polluters - are getting away with "murder", a key figure said yesterday.
Member of the Sanya Dharmasakti Institute for Democracy, Teerayut Bunmee, said the damage assessment methods used by the Department of National Park Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNPWPC) were adapted from the West and not based on scientific principles, adding that farmers and orchard owners were being wrongly fined.
He was speaking at a seminar held to discuss the calculation of fines for pollution, its academic significance and judicial process, which was held at Chulalongkorn University by Thai Land Reform Network (TLRN).
TLRN revealed that DNPWPC had filed 131 criminal and civil cases against 500 agriculturists - 30 of whom will end up facing fines totalling Bt17.5 million for allegedly causing global warming and damaging natural resources.
Since 2005, DNPWPC has been filing civil cases under Article 97 of the Environment Protection and Conservation Act BE 2535. Under this Act, agriculturists have to pay Bt68,243 per rai for damaging forested area and up to Bt150,000 per rai for damaging water resources.
Initially, they also faced criminal charges for allegedly trespassing wildlife sanctuaries, national parks and national reserves.
"Most of them are able to prove that their ancestors owned that land for many years before DNPWPC earmarked it for conservation. They face legal action just because they have no official documents to prove their ownership, even though they've been working on this land for years," Sangchai Ratanaseriwong, a lawyer who has been fighting for agriculturists for years, said.
He said it was not fair that this group of individuals be forced to pay for environmental damage and global warming even though larger landowners and industrialists caused more environmental damage.
Khlao Yuthong, 45, and his wife Diam are one of the many farmers in Trang province facing such an unfair case. Their case is currently under legal execution after a court ordered them to pay DNPWPC more than Bt540,000 for ruining natural resources, even though they only grow fruit, rubber and vegetables on their four rai.
"We are worried. We don't have enough money to pay DNPWPC and I don't think my agricultural activities can cause global warming. We don't use pesticide or chemical fertilisers," he added.
TLRN revealed its finding proved that the DNPWPC was using the wrong damageassessment methods. The research - conducted with agriculturists in Chiang Rai, Phetchabun and Trang over the past four months - found that farming did not raise the temperature as alleged by DNPWPC. It also found that green community areas could absorb 72 to 99.92 per cent of carbon and only emit 0.08 to 28 per cent of the same. It also found that locals had set up regulations to sustain forests, and had taken steps to reduce soil erosion and water loss.
One of the 16 defendants in Phetchabun said she saw some hope in the future, since these findings would be presented in court early next month.
-------------------------
Problems with the assessment
Kasetsart University's Faculty of Economics lecturer Dejrat Sukkamnerd, pointing out flaws to the damageassessment methods used by the Department of National Park Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNPWPC), said the agency did not conduct onsite tests to collect real data on weather, loss of water and soil nutrients.
He said agriculturists caused very little damage to the climate and the water resources than industries and people in urban areas.
Calculating damages using only five main variables - location, type of forest, crosssection of trees, their average height and the aspect of damaged area or soil - was not enough. He said the DNPWPC only calculated damages by studying the farming area, without taking into account the holistic way of life followed by agriculturists.
Calculating the cost of damage on the amount of electricity an airconditioner would use to bring temperatures in large agricultural areas down to a level similar to one in forests is not commonly used. Also, doubling the damage cost is another problem.