The Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) plans to submit two draft laws to Thailand’s cabinet next week, seeking to enhance conservation efforts in national parks and wildlife reserves. However, the People’s Movement for a Just Society (P-Move) warns the legislation could jeopardize local communities’ rights to their ancestral lands.
DNP chief Attapon Charoenchansa announced the completion of the bills, which are designed to align with the National Park Act and the Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act, mandating regulations and protections for activities in these protected areas. According to Attapon, the proposed laws aim to secure residents’ right to live in forest areas, as well as provide access to essential services, compensation for low agricultural yields, and permission to harvest trees they’ve planted.
While previous policies—such as a 1998 cabinet resolution and a 2014 order from the National Council for Peace and Order—recognized communities within forest zones, no legislation yet guarantees these rights. The DNP’s bills are meant to address this gap, supplementing the 2019 National Park and Wildlife Preservation and Protection Acts. These bills, however, face a deadline for passage by Nov. 27.
As part of the groundwork for the bills, the DNP surveyed 224 conserved forest areas covering 4.25 million rai, establishing boundaries for approximately 4,042 communities to be covered by the decrees.
P-Move has voiced concerns that the proposed laws could undermine local land rights, insisting that residents should retain constitutional rights to live and cultivate their traditional lands. The bills impose limits on farming, restricting it to 20 rai for a maximum of 20 years and only for individuals meeting specific criteria, such as Thai nationality, lack of alternative land ownership, and no criminal record. The measures recognize individual rights but omit guarantees for broader community rights.
P-Move has called on the government to withdraw its support for the bills, threatening legal action if the legislation moves forward. The organization argues that without stronger protections, the laws could erode communities’ long-standing land rights and access to resources.
