National Parks: Good for the Environment, Bad for the People

It cannot be denied that humans are slowly destroying the ecosystems around us with industrialization and exploitation of resources. Action needs to be taken to mitigate this issues and the international community needs to establish policies that will both protect the rich environment that has yet to be manipulated by human needs and to reestablish any destroyed areas. Naturally, the concept of national parks seemed like the perfect solution to this problem. They create the sacred aura around preserving nature and promote its importance and keep beautiful areas beautiful. Politically, it shows the people that the government is putting efforts and funding into preserving the environment and righting the wrongs committed by big industry. However, in the beautiful picture of scenic landscapes and glistening rivers, one does not consider the people of the land that were forced to sacrifice their homes for the country's luxury. 
 It is rather common that richly bio-diverse areas tend to be populated by the poorest communities, most likely because they do not have extra money to develop the area or the funds to live in more industrialized areas. These people tend to live off the land and rarely have property rights. During my study abroad experience in Thailand, we had a home stay with villagers who had been kicked off their native land that their families had lived on for years in order for the government to establish a national park in the area. 
This was in reaction to a huge logging movement throughout the 1980s to push industrialization to make the Thai economy more competitive. Though these efforts did help Thailand economically, it gave the country a bad representation in the international community because of the poor environmental practices. This prompted the move towards national parks that was actually based on the US establishment of parks.
            However, Thai society is very community based and land rights are not established in the same way as in the United States. Rural Thai citizens pay taxes on the land, but usually do not technically own the land that they live on. The land belongs to the community or traditionally to the King. In this circumstance, government officials took villagers’ tax papers to return with “more official documents” and ended up telling them they needed to move with no compensation.
            Since these villagers usually do have anywhere to go, they would typically move close by and continue to farm. The government officials proceeded to gradually take more farmland from them or to charge them for “increasing global warming” if they stepped into the unmarked boundaries of the national park.
            Obviously, this is not a good solution to the problem. On the surface, the idea of preserving natural lands seems like the government is moving in the right direction, but few know who pay the price. Uddhammar makes the important point in the reading that some believe the revenue created by the parks can benefit the local economy, but this money rarely reaches the people.   

            Another issue discussed in class was the issue of blaming the local people for the environmental degradation issues in the area. While indigenous communities may have some practices that do not promote environmental conservation, governments tend to focus on the small-scale issues of poor environmental practices rather than the large industrialization issues impacting the country as a whole. This reinforces the idea that the economy drives motivation behind conservation efforts, just as was discussed during the World Trade Organization discussion. Overall, I think this issue shows that governments will remain solely motivated by economic gains or losses when it comes to environmental issues, so shifting the focus is the first step to creating an international discussion about sustainable and socially conscious ways to preserve the environment.