Thailand - Context and Land Governance

^{Rice terraces in a Karen community, Doi Inthanon, northern Thailand, photo by Pierre Pouliquin, .Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic license}

The 2021 population of Thailand stood at 71.6 million people and is rapidly aging. Although Tai peoples comprises the majority of the population (around 95%), there are up to 70 ethnic groups found within the country. Minority groups include ethnic Chinese who migrated to Bangkok from the early nineteenth century onwards and occupy key positions in commerce. There are Malay peoples found to the south, groups such as Karen found through forest and mountain regions in the west and north, and Khmer in the east. Many minorities have limited rights short of full citizenship² , which together with their presence on state forest land and protected areas prevents them from having secure land tenure.

Historically, the historically named Siam was ruled through a series of royal dynasties, with Bangkok becoming the capital at the end of the eighteenth century. Absolute monarchy was abolished in 1932, reverting to a constitutional democratic monarchy, and then with Siam renamed as Thailand in 1939. Political power has subsequently swung between civilian-led government and army rule. There have been nineteen military coups since 1932.

Thailand has negotiated a transition to modernity more efficiently than its immediate neighbours. It is the second largest economy in ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) behind Indonesia. High growth between 1960 and 1996 was achieved on the back of a strong export-oriented economy.³. Yet despite achieving an upper-middle income status according to World Bank measures, Thailand has failed to match Asian Tigers such as South Korea and Singapore. Instead, it has fallen into a middle-income trap through reliance on low-wage and unskilled labour⁴. The situation is unaided by political volatility, economic blows such as the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis⁵, and environmental disasters such as the 2011 floods.

There are two historical contexts which contrast Thailand from its neighbours and support an understanding of the present land system in land. Firstly, the country was never formally colonised even if unequal trade treaties gave extra-territorial sovereignty to foreign powers⁶. Secondly, Thailand did not undergo a socialist revolution. As a result, the country has a long-standing continuity to its legal framework with a significant amount of its land held under private titles.

Land legislation and regulations

Since 1932 and the abolition of absolute monarchy, Thailand has enacted 20 separate constitutions, the majority following military coups. The present constitution from 2017 promotes the right to immovable property (Section 37), and the fair distribution of land to meet the livelihood needs of the people, including farmers (Sections 72 & 73).

There is a strong legal base on land in Thailand stretching back over one hundred years. As a precursor to a legal framework embracing private land ownership, the 1901 Land Law acted as a response to population growth and the growing commercialisation of the agricultural sector⁷. It provided land titles by registration, primarily issued in the central plains of the country, using the Australian Torrens system giving legal priority to the owner of the title (indefeasibility). The 1954 Land Code then set out the basic forms of privatised land titles that are preserved today⁸.

• NS-4 (‘Chanote’): fully unrestricted rights allowing sale, rental, division, inheritance, and mortgage of land.
•  NS-3 (and NS-3K from 1972): a transitional title towards NS-4, yet with a similar bundle of rights.
• NS-2: a temporary deed of five years that would theoretically be upgraded to full rights upon its renewal.
• SK-1: a claim on a land parcel based on occupation prior to 1954, which might later be upgraded to NS status.

In parallel to legal qualifications on private land ownership, there are laws concerning state forestland. The 1941 Forest Act states that forests represent all land not belonging to any individual by law, and under state ownership (thereby little to do with actual forest cover)⁹. The 1964 National Reserved Forest Act designated 45% of national land as state-owned forest, attaching terms of designation and rules for usage¹⁰. As a means to provide state land to landless farmers, the 1975 Land Reform Act formalised settlements in forest reserve areas, allowing both leaseholds and the full allocation of ownership rights¹¹.

In 2019, around the time of a general election, a series of laws were promulgated that impact upon the presence of communities on state land and use of its resources.

• The Community Forestry Act (which follows a 2007 Community Forestry Bill that was annulled two years later¹². ) clarifies the rights of local people to establish, use, and manage community forests, although this can only be applied outside of protected areas.¹³.
•  The National Park Act formalises the ability of local people to set up projects conserving and using natural resources in a national park. However, the Act also introduces heavy punitive measures against offenders using resources without permission¹⁴.
•  The National Land Policy Committee Act formalises actions around a ‘common land registration’ scheme, also known as Kor Tor Chor. For further information on this, see the Land Governance Innovations section.
•  The Land and Buildings Tax aims to counter land concentration and facilitate land productivity. It is in particularly applicable to second homes or first homes with a high value, agricultural land with a high value or owned by a company, or land kept idle. However, the tax has been criticised for setting its ceilings too high to have any significant impact¹⁵.

^{Phu Thok mountain in Loei province, northeastern Thailand, CC0 Public Domain license.}

Land tenure classifications

At the beginning of the twentieth century, all land in Siam belonged to the king, from which people could lay claim to provide for their family¹⁶. Local land use was arranged around customary systems of tenure, with forest areas regarded as commons¹⁷. The administration of land focussed on tax collection while trade agreements with foreign powers permitted extraterritorial control.

Following the creation of the Thai nation-state, land relations have settled into two principal forms of tenure. Thailand has the largest proportion of land held under freehold in mainland Southeast Asia. This is partially because the country never underwent experimentations in socialist governance as its neighbours, but also because the offer to recognise private rights was a means to stave off communist insurgency¹⁸. The Thai Land Titling Programme from 1984-2004 was a key means to distribute titles on a mass scale (see Land Innovations section for further information).

Land under state ownership (nominally known as forestland despite much of this land not containing any forest cover) includes protected areas and national forest reserve. Some of this land (primarily forest reserves) has been leased for commercial plantations. Several degraded areas have been subject to land reform. There are three types of reform land (agricultural, community and private sector), the vast majority being agriculture (97.4% in 2023)¹⁹. This entailed the re-allocation of land to farmers under temporary usufruct certificates. In 1981, 5-year STK certificates were handed out, in 1993 replaced by SPK-4.01 certificates once the initial programme expired²⁰. Customary forests are also permitted on state forest lands (but not in protected areas according to the 2019 Community Forestry Act). In 2021, such forests took up 6,295,719 rai (10,073 km2) involving 13,028 villages²¹. Many community forests are set up on public utility land (Nor Sor Lor land), which is state land made available for shared public use. As well as community forests, other uses include farming, cremation sites, marshland, and highways.

A further form of state land is Ratchaphatsadu land. This involves land for government use (with reserves), to lease, and for reasons of national security. Examples of such land include commercial leaseholds, public parks, social housing, industrial areas, and land held for Special Economic Zones (see Land Investments section for further information on SEZs).

The image of land use and tenure provided here is a simplified version. In reality, there are several other classifications, making for much ambiguity and frequent overlaps in land designations. For example, communities reside within national forests, often lacking formalised rights. These include ethnic minorities living in mountainous areas of Thailand, many within protected areas, who manage their land through a customary system of rights. A 1990 study estimates 1.2 million families living in forest reserves²² , and the issue is far from resolved in the present day.

Table 1 quantifies different types of land in Thailand. The coverage reaches over 100% of national land and this reflects the uncoordinated collection of data between different government departments, public availability of data from different years, and the ambiguity surrounding boundaries of different land classifications. In particular, the general term of national forest reserve land has been used including protected areas under the jurisdiction of the National Parks authority. But not all protected areas are part of national forest reserves. There is also much reporting of degraded forest land being reallocation to farmers yet also retaining its protected status²³. Therefore, the data here should be taken as merely indicative.

^{Table 1: Land classification types in Thailand, the managing government department, and their size}

NB. This table takes inspiration from an exercise by Duangmanee Laovakul²⁴. The updated information uses publicly available data taken from the corresponding government department websites, as well as the National Statistics Office. The total surface area of Thailand is taken to be 513,120km².

Land use trends

Table 2 offers the most recent collation of land use data, as put together by the Office of Agricultural Economics in Thailand. It should be noted that the calculations use a newly revised total surface area for Thailand which is at odds with the commonly recognised figure of 513,120 km².

Table 2: Land utilisation in Thailand, 2020 preliminary data (source: Office of Agricultural Economics)²⁵.

Type of land Size in rai Size in km2 % of national land Total land 323,528,699 517,646 100% Forest land 102,353,485 163,766 31.6% Agricultural land use 149,251,940 238,803 46.1% Non-agricultural land use 71,923,274 115,077 22.2% Taken separately from state-owned forest reserves, forest land here refers to satellite guided projections of forest cover. The figure of 32% compares to 66% forest cover before the onset of the Second World War²⁶. The Royal Forestry Department was formed in 1896, at this stage more to manage exploitation than conservation, and in particular to limit the monopolisation of the teak trade by foreign powers. Only since the 1960s have minimum thresholds of forest cover been set, with commercial logging banned in 1989. After seizing power in the most recent military coup of 2014, the National Council for Peace and Order restated a target of 40% forest cover. A forest reclamation policy resulted in forced evictions in the name of conservation, with many voices claiming this represented an attempt to boost state control of land and natural resources²⁷.

The shift from exploitation to conservation is also seen in the expansion of protected areas in Thailand, which cover over 20% of the country (Table 3). Rules for such areas are stringent, to the detriment of those who have found themselves residing in newly formed borders. Indeed, protected areas prove highly contested areas for multiple interest groups, including conservationists, investors, and farmers who lost access to previously cultivated land. The latter includes self-identifying indigenous groups, who are asserting their rights to live and utilise natural resources through sustainable practices.

Table 3: Natural Conservation and Recreation in Thailand, 2021 (source: Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment)²⁸.

 The 2013 Thai Agricultural Census accounted for 5.9 million land holdings, with nearly 3.4 million households possessing a single parcel²⁹. Paddy rice occupies nearly half of agricultural land and Thailand is the world’s second largest exporter of the crop. Thailand is also the largest global producer of rubber, a key sugarcane producer for both sugar and biofuel markets, and a significant producer of maize, cassava, and palm oil.

^{Thai rice field and temple Wat Tham Suae in Kanchanaburi, photo by Chainwit, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.}

According to the World Urbanisation Prospects, in 2020 51.4% of the population resided in urban areas, with the proportion projected to rise to nearly 70% by 2050³⁰. Bangkok is a primate city. The Bangkok Metropolitan Region, including Bangkok and its surrounding areas, houses around 15 million people and land use reflects this through concentrated infrastructure for housing, commerce and urban services. It is a pointedly congested area with high land prices compared to the rest of the country. With the promise of higher wages, migrants from around Thailand and beyond seek work in industry and services. Yet with their land under a secure bundle of rights, migrants are holding onto rural parcels. With a younger generation tending to migrate, agriculture employs an aging population³¹.

^{View over Bangkok from Baiyoke Sky Hotel, photo by David McKelvey, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license}

Land investments and acquisitions

Thailand has a long history of land utilisation and resource extraction in the name of commercial ventures. The Bowring Treaty of 1855 liberalised trade in the country, facilitating the movement of commodities such as rice and teak, albeit also allowing British subjects to own land in Siam³². In the present day, land ownership by foreigners in not permitted unless it is located in government-approved industrial estates. In 2022 the government proposed allowing foreign land ownership upon a guaranteed investment of 40 million baht (over US$1 million) into the country, to which civil society has responded with significant concern³³.

In the last 50 years, there have been relatively few large-scale agricultural land investments in the country compared to its neighbours. This is partially due to a predominance of smallholder agriculture rather than a movement to economies of scale³⁴. Forest concessions ended formally in 1989, coinciding with a national ban of logging. There have been attempts to capitalise degraded forest land into large plantations, but these have encountered opposition from both farmers and conservationists³⁵. In contrast to the domestic situation, Thailand has undertaken significant large-scale cross-border investments into land³⁶. These include agricultural concessions in crops such as rubber and sugarcane in Laos and Cambodia. There are also Thai hydropower projects along the Mekong River in Laos, where power is generated and then transmitted back across the border.

Rather than creating large domestic plantations, since the 1960s, smallholder farmers have been inserted into vertically integrated commodity value chains commanded by large agribusinesses, producing for both domestic and export markets. Therefore, while Thailand’s largest company Charoen Phokphand (CP) has significant ownership of valuable real estate, its agribusiness ventures utilise smallholder production rather than take control of the land itself³⁷. Recently the Thai government put forward the economic model of Thailand 4.0, promoting the concept of mega farms pooling at least 30 farmers to cultivate a single product³⁸. Yet such attempts misunderstand the value of land to owners beyond its mere production value, and there is little buy-in to such schemes.

There has been a more successful effort to pool domestic land for industrial developments. Since 2015, the Thai government has set up 10 Special Economic Zones (SEZs) in border provinces around the country. The aim is to profit from emerging markets through the ASEAN Economic Community, access cheap cross-border labour and promote trade and investment through economic corridors moving between regional countries. Land has been acquired from national forest reserves, state properties and private land to cater to demand, and as of July 2020, 82 SEZ projects were approved, gathering a total investment of US$17.6 billion³⁹. The three eastern provinces of Chonburi, Rayong, and Chachoengsao have been designated as the Eastern Special Development Zone (ESDZ) for industrial and urban activities. Yet the provision of land for such activities has led to complaints of compulsory land acquisitions without adequate consultation⁴⁰.

Land markets in urban and peri-urban areas of Thailand are highly dynamic. Land becomes a fully commodified good for investment, traded for the potential added value of built-up infrastructure. In a crowded city such as Bangkok, many migrants end up living in slum areas under insecure land tenure, with little access to urban services, and under the threat of eviction from further developments⁴¹. With a lack of integrated land planning, intensified land use is compounding environmental risks in cities, such as in the example of flooding in the north-eastern Thai town of Khon Kaen⁴².

^{Urban slum facing the business district of Chong Nonsi, Bangkok, photo by Marcel Crozet / ILO, Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic license}

Women’s land rights

Thai statutory law asserts equal rights for women and men over the ownership, use and inheritance of private property⁴³. In one respect, this works to the detriment of women, since Thailand has a traditional matrilocal system of land tenure. Nevertheless, the number of agricultural women landholders has increased significantly over the past 20 years, both in absolute and relative terms. According to the 2013 Agricultural Census, 36.3% of landholders were women compared to 27.7% in 2003 and 15.4% in 1993⁴⁴. The proportion of permanent women agricultural workers decreased from 63.2% in 1993 to 44.5% in 2013. This reflects a diversifying workforce rather than a wholesale exit from agriculture. In the formal administration, joint titling is permitted in land ownership between spouses. However, data in the public domain is unclear on this point, so many more women may have their names on land titles that are otherwise recognised under the husband’s name as the head of the household.

Adding to the explanation above, there are several case study examples of women landholders and women making the decisions over the use of their land. However, despite anecdotal evidence, gender and land rights in Thailand is an under researched topic. There remains a significant knowledge gap both in terms of data availability and analysis.

Land governance innovations

Thailand has a reputation as a success story in terms of land titling. The Thai Land Titling Programme (TLTP) took place from 1984 to 2004. Under funding from the World Bank, technical assistance from AusAID, and with implementation supported by Land Equity International, the programme was the largest of its kind globally. The aim was to improve administrative mechanisms to speed up the titling process, with the aim to promote investment in land, productive land use, access to formal sources of credit, and taxation⁴⁵. This included a decentralisation of responsibilities from the Department of Land to sub-provincial levels. It is claimed that the programme issued 13 million titles during its implementation cycle, which compares to only 4 million issued titles in total when the TLTP first commenced⁴⁶. Upon completion of the programme in 2004, it received the World Bank’s highest award of excellence, recognised as a model to other nations. However, the improvements in land rights through titling did not extend to those occupying areas subsequently designated as being state-owned land⁴⁷.

It is also worth reporting on the lobbying of civil society for land rights for farmers and ethnic minority groups on state forest reserves and in protected areas. While the outcomes are as yet unsatisfactory for these groups, it is interesting to see how the voice of civil society has impacted upon the partial enactment of progressive policies. Protests influenced the formation of the Community Forestry Bill, which passed in 2007, but only finally enacted in 2019⁴⁸. A later influence is highlighted by the land reform network P-Move promoting the ‘4 laws for the poor’ as a solution to rural poverty. These four laws looked to community land titling, a national land bank, a progressive land tax, and a justice fund. In 2009, the Democratic Party-led government of Abhisit Vejjajiva piloted a Community Land Titling scheme. However, only four titles were initially awarded, and the scheme lapsed under the following government⁴⁹. After taking control in 2014, the military junta set up the National Land Policy Committee bringing in their own scheme of ‘common land registration’, also known as Kor Tor Chor⁵⁰. The first recipient of land use permits was the village of Mae Tha in Chiang Mai province, northern Thailand. Yet despite legal formalisation in 2019, the scheme has seen little action, and dynamic policy is still needed to engage community residency and land use in areas designated as state land.

^{Members of various peasants' organisations protest in front of the UN office in Bangkok, photo by P-Move. Used reproduced with permission of the author.}

Where to go next?

The author's suggestion for further reading includes two books. For a historical perspective on land relations and how nation state-building has promoted smallholder land rights to support economic growth, we recommend Tomas Larsson’s fascinating work Land and Loyalty: Security and the Development of Property Rights in Thailand⁵¹. Secondly, Powers of Exclusion: Land Dilemmas in Southeast Asia by Derek Hall, Philip Hirsch and Tania Murray Li provides a compelling analytical framework on the political economy of land relations, using the experiences of mainland Southeast Asia, including Thailand⁵². There are two further useful online sources of information. The Mekong Research Land Forum has an extremely useful online resource, pulling together quality research on land that includes studies on Thailand which are tagged under 14 key themes of land governance. Open Development Mekong dedicates part of its online site to Thailand, with land one of its key topics.

Timeline - milestones in land governance

1901 – Promulgation of Land Law

Introduced land titles by registration using the Australian Torrens system.

1941 – Promulgation of Forest Act

States that forests represent all land not belonging to any individual by law and are under state ownership.

1954 – Promulgation of Land Code

Introduced forms of land titles that are preserved today.

1964 – Promulgation of National Reserved Forest Act

45% of national land designated as state-owned forest.

1975 – Promulgation of Land Reform Act

The Act provided legal means to provide state land to landless farmers.

1984-2004 – The Thai Land Titling Programme

13 million titles were issued during the programme cycle.

2015 – Announcement of 10 Special Economic Zones SEZs promoted in border areas, then seeking land acquisition.

2020 – 51.4% of the population reside in urban areas

The primate city of Bangkok, with around 15 million people living there, has concentrated land use for housing, commerce and urban services.

References

[1] World Bank. (2023). World Bank Open Data. The World Bank: Working for a World Free of Poverty. https://data.worldbank.org/

[2] Morton, M. F., & Baird, I. G. (2019). From Hill tribes to Indigenous Peoples: The localisation of a global movement in Thailand. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies, 50(1), 7–31. https://landportal.org/library/resources/hill-tribes-indigenous-peoples-localisation-global

[3] Asia Perspective. (2022, April 15). Sourcing & Manufacturing in Thаilаnd—An Introduction. Asia Perspective. https://www.asiaperspective.com/thailand-manufacturing-sourcing/

[4] World Bank. (2022). The World Bank in Thailand. World Bank. https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/overview

[5] Phongpaichit, P., Pornchep, B., Kanapathy, V., Hazri, H., & Burke, A. (2014). Middle-Income Trap: Economic Myth, Political Reality. Case studies from Malaysia and Thailand. The Asia Foundation.

[6] The Asian Financial Crisis was instigated by the bursting of a Thai real estate bubble.

[7] Larsson, T. (2012). Land and Loyalty: Security and the Development of Property Rights in Thailand. Cornell University Press.

[8] Sato, J. (2000). People in Between: Conversion and Conservation of Forest Lands in Thailand. Development and Change, 31(1), 155–177.

[9] Hayward, D. (2017). Community Land Titling in Thailand: The legal evolution and piloting of titling policy (Thematic Study Series No. 7). Mekong Region Land Governance (MRLG). https://landportal.org/library/resources/community-land-titling-thailand-legal-evolution-and-piloting-titling-policy

[10] ibid

[11] Fujita, W. (2003). Dealing with contradictions: Examining national forest reserves in Thailand. Southeast Asian Studies, 41(2), 206–238. https://landportal.org/library/resources/dealing-contradictions-examining-national-forest-reserves-thailand

[12] Gine, X. (2005). Cultivate or rent out? Land security in rural Thailand. https://landportal.org/library/resources/oaiopenknowledgeworldbankorg109868477/cultivate-or-rent-out-land-security-rural

[13] Hall, D., Hirsch, P., & Li, T. M. (2011). Powers of Exclusion: Land Dilemmas in Southeast Asia. University of Hawaii Press.

[14] Fisher, R. (2011). Thailand’s Forest Regulatory Framewok in Relation to the Rights and Livelihoods of Forest Dependent People. In H. Scheyvens (Ed.), Critical Review of Selected Forest-Related Regulatory Initiatives (p. 136). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). https://landportal.org/library/resources/critical-review-selected-forest-related-regulatory

[15] RECOFTC. (2021). Thailand’s Community Forest Act: Analysis of the legal framework and recommendations. RECOFTC. https://landportal.org/library/resources/thailand%E2%80%99s-community-forest-act-analysis-legal

[16] Nation Newspaper. (2019, June 3). Relief for forest dwellers. The Nation Thailand. https://www.nationthailand.com/in-focus/30370497

[17] Pobsuk, S. (2020). Annual Country Reviews 2019-20: Thailand. Mekong Land Research Forum. http://www.mekonglandforum.org/sites/default/files/Annual%20country%20reviews%202019-20.pdf

[18] Feder, G., Onchan, T., Chalamwong, Y., & Hongladarom, C. (1988). Land policies and farm productivity in Thailand. A World Bank Research Publication (USA). http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US8936349

[19] Lohmann, L. (1993). Land, power and forest colonization in Thailand. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 3(4/6), 180–191. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2997768?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[20] Larsson, T. (2012). Land and Loyalty: Security and the Development of Property Rights in Thailand. Cornell University Press.

[21] ALRO. (2023). ผลการจัดพื้นที่ทั้งประเทศของที่ดิน 3 ประเภท (เกษตร,ชุมชน,เอกชน) (National classification into 3 types of reform land (agriculture, community, private sector). Agricultural Land Reform Office. https://lookerstudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/1b80a28a-82a8-4689-8605-bade66cd24e7/page/p_dvy2by2lsc

[22] Gine, X. (2005). Cultivate or rent out? Land security in rural Thailand. https://landportal.org/library/resources/oaiopenknowledgeworldbankorg109868477/cultivate-or-rent-out-land-security-rural

[23] RFD. (2023). Forest Information. กรมป่าไม้ (Royal Forest Department). https://forestinfo.forest.go.th/

[24] Hirsch, P. (1990). Forests, Forest Reserve, and Forest Land in Thailand. The Geographical Journal, 156(2), 166–174. https://www.jstor.org/stable/635324?origin=crossref

[25] Hall, D., Hirsch, P., & Li, T. M. (2011). Powers of Exclusion: Land Dilemmas in Southeast Asia. University of Hawaii Press. [26] Laovakul, D. (2015). Concentration of Land and other Wealth in Thailand. In P. Phongpaichit & C. Baker (Eds.), Unequal Thailand: Aspects of Income, Wealth and Power. NUS Press.

[27] NSO. (2023). Statistical data. National Statistics Office of Thailand. http://statbbi.nso.go.th/staticreport/page/sector/en/index.aspx

[28] Lohmann, L. (1993). Land, power and forest colonization in Thailand. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 3(4/6), 180–191. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2997768?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

[29] NSO, & MICT. (2013). 2013 Agricultural Census Whole Kingdom. National Statistical Office, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. https://landportal.org/library/resources/2013-agricultural-census-whole-kingdom

[30] UN. (2020). World Urbanization Prospects 2018. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Dynamics. https://population.un.org/wup/

[31] Chankrajang, T. (2012). The effects of rural land right security on labour structural transformation and urbanization: Evidence from Thailand (No. 2012/41). WIDER Working Paper. https://landportal.org/library/resources/mlrf1864/effects-rural-land-right-security-labour-structural-transformation-and

[32] Hirsch, P. (2022). Movement, Countermovement, and Regionalization of Capital: The Dynamics of Land Relations in Thailand. In P. Hirsch, K. Woods, N. Scurrah, & M. B. Dwyer (Eds.), Turning Land into Capital: Development and Dispossession in the Mekong Region. University of Washington Press.

[33] Sattaburuth, B. P. P. C. (2022, November 4). Govt defends foreign land ownership proposal. Bangkok Post. https://www.bangkokpost.com/thailand/general/2429230/govt-defends-foreign-land-ownership-proposal

[34] Rigg, J., Salamanca, A., & Thompson, E. C. (2016). The puzzle of East and Southeast Asia’s persistent smallholder. Journal of Rural Studies, 43, 118–133. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0743016715300395?via%3Dihub

[35] Ingalls, M. L., Diepart, J.-C., Nhu Troung, Hayward, D., Neil, T., Phomphakdy, C., Bernhard, R., Epprecht, M., Nanhthavong, V., Vo, D. H., Dzung Nguyen, Phong A Nguyen, Saphanthong, T., Inthavong, C., Fogarizzu, S., Hett, C., & Tagliarino, N. (2018). State of Land in the Mekong Region. Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern and Mekong Region Land Governance. https://landportal.org/library/resources/doi107892boris120285/state-land-mekong-region

[36] Hirsch, P., & Scurrah, N. (2015). The Political Economy of Land Governance in the Mekong Region. Mekong Region Land Governance. https://landportal.org/library/resources/political-economy-land-governance-mekong-region

[37] Hirsch, P. (2022). Movement, Countermovement, and Regionalization of Capital: The Dynamics of Land Relations in Thailand. In P. Hirsch, K. Woods, N. Scurrah, & M. B. Dwyer (Eds.), Turning Land into Capital: Development and Dispossession in the Mekong Region. University of Washington Press.

[38] Bhandhubanyong, P., & Sirirangsi, P. (2019). The Development of Agricultural Tools in Thailand: Case Studies of Rice and Maize. In S. Sakata (Ed.), New Trends and Challenges for Agriculture in the Mekong Region: From Food Security to Development of Agri-Businesses. JETRO Bangkok/IDE-JETRO. https://landportal.org/library/resources/development-agricultural-tools-thailand-case-studies-rice-and-maize

[39] Aggarwal, A. (2022). Special Economic Zones in the Indonesia-Malaysia-Thailand Growth Triangle: Opportunities for Collaboration. Asian Development Bank. https://landportal.org/library/resources/special-economic-zones-in-the-indonesia-malaysia-thailand-growth-triangle

[40] ICJ. (2020). The Human Rights Consequences of the Eastern Economic Corridor and Special Economic Zones in Thailand. International Commission of Jurists (ICJ). https://landportal.org/library/resources/human-rights-consequences-eastern-economic-corridor-and-special-economic-zones

[41] Archer, D. (2012). Baan Mankong participatory slum upgrading in Bangkok, Thailand: Community perceptions of outcomes and security of tenure. Habitat International, 36(1), 178–184.

[42] Beringer, A. L., & Kaewsuk, J. (2018). Emerging Livelihood Vulnerabilities in an Urbanizing and Climate Uncertain Environment for the Case of a Secondary City in Thailand. Sustainability, 10(5), Article 5. https://landportal.org/library/resources/emerging-livelihood-vulnerabilities-urbanizing-and-climate

[43] FAO. (2023). Gender and Land Rights Database Country Profiles. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. http://www.fao.org/gender-landrights-database/country-profiles/en/

[44] NSO, & MICT. (2013). 2013 Agricultural Census Whole Kingdom. National Statistical Office, Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. https://landportal.org/library/resources/2013-agricultural-census-whole-kingdom

[45] Rattanabirabongse, V., Eddington, R. A., Burns, A. F., & Nettle, K. G. (1998). The Thailand land titling project—Thirteen years of experience. Land Use Policy, 15(1), 3–23.

[46] Bowman, C. (2004, May 25-27). Thailand Land Titling Project. In Scaling Up Poverty Reduction: A Global Learning Process and Conference, Shanghai. World Bank. https://landportal.org/library/resources/thailand-land-titling-project

[47] Hirsch, P. (2011). Titling against grabbing? Critiques and conundrums around land formalisation in Southeast Asia. International Conference on Global Land Grabbing, Brighton, England. https://landportal.org/library/resources/titling-against-grabbing-critiques-and-conundrums-around-land-formalisation

[48] Lamb, V. (2015). Thailand Country Study: Review of Existing Literature. In SRI-LMB, Access to Productive Agricultural Land by the Landless, Land Poor and Smallholder Farmers in the Four Lower Mekong River Basin Countries (pp. 1–94). System of Rice Intensification, Lower Mekong River Basin. http://www.mekonglandforum.org/node/3148

[49] Fisher, R. (2011). Thailand’s Forest Regulatory Framewok in Relation to the Rights and Livelihoods of Forest Dependent People. In H. Scheyvens (Ed.), Critical Review of Selected Forest-Related Regulatory Initiatives (p. 136). Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES). https://landportal.org/library/resources/critical-review-selected-forest-related-regulatory

[50] Hayward, D. (2017). Community Land Titling in Thailand: The legal evolution and piloting of titling policy (Thematic Study Series No. 7). Mekong Region Land Governance (MRLG). https://landportal.org/library/resources/community-land-titling-thailand-legal-evolution-and-piloting-titling-policy

[51] RECOFTC. (2020). รายงานศึกษานโยบายกฎหมายและ สถานการณ์การถือครองที่ดินป่าไม้ของ เกษตรกรรายย่อยในพื้นที่ป่าสงวนแห่งชาติ. RECOFTC. https://landportal.org/library/resources/recoftclawandpolicyonforesttenureinthailand

[52] Larsson, T. (2012). Land and Loyalty: Security and the Development of Property Rights in Thailand. Cornell University Press.