Voices from the Margin - WordPress.com...There are an estimated 1.14 million families in slums throughout Thailand, equaling about 5.13 million people. Of the 3,750 slum communities,

Voices from the Margin

Khon Kaen SlumsEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights in Northeast Thailand

ESCR Mobilization Project

Khon Kaen Slums

By: Lane Eisenburg, Dan Masciello, Sara Saavedra, and Max Weisman

Cities serve as monuments to progress. They are centers of commerce, culture, and opportunity. Currently, more than half of the world’s population lives in cities, and due to trends of industrialization, development, and modern-ization cities are rapidly growing.

Many families who come to the city in search of the urban ideal, however, find a very different city. Whereas in the countryside families do not need to use much money – a family bases its way of life on its land and labor – in the city a family becomes rich or poor. If a family has money, it can afford to choose what to eat and live in a middle-class house, surrounded by other middle-class families. If a family does not have money, it begs for food. Unable to pay for housing and with no land to which it can return in the countryside, the family moves into a slum. If neighbors scavenge for trash, the family will probably scavenge as well, because it does not have a choice. In the city, the money a family earns determines its way of life. For many slum dwellers, human rights violations are incremental, slowly chipping away at the lives of a vulnerable population. Slum residents have few choices and little legal protection. Slums in Khon Kaen, Thailand are no excep-tion. Slum residents face many issues of discrimination due to their status as trespassers on State Railway of Thailand (SRT) land, compounding problems of low income, high debt, high cost of living, and threat of eviction. With thousands of people moving to cities in the world every day, Thailand is one of many countries that will need to reconsider its policy towards urban development and work towards ensuring the rights of its urban popula-tions. The United Nations predicts that by 2020 there will be 1.6 billion slum dwellers worldwide, one third of the urban population. For better or worse, the city is the future – the question remains what kind of city it will be.

ESC Rights Examined: Article 11.1: Right to Security of Tenure Article 11.1: Right to Affordable Amenities

Potential Number of People Affected: There are an estimated 1.14 million families in slums throughout Thailand, equaling about 5.13 million people. Of the 3,750 slum communities, 445 were either undergoing or had received word of eviction in early 2008. More than 17,000 households reside on SRT land nationwide. By early 2008, only 19 of 170 slum communities on SRT land had signed leasing agreements with SRT.

Findings: Due to the State’s unwillingness to fulfill Khon Kaen slum residents’ right to security of tenure, namely by approv-ing leasing agreements on SRT land, residents also lack basic components of adequate housing. These components include equitable and affordable water and electricity services. Such discrimina-tory policies have caused slum dwellers in Samakkhee Pattana and Theparak One to suffer low income and high debt, thus inhibiting their ability to improve their standard of living.

Khon Kaen Slums

Overview

VOiCES fROM ThE MaRgiN

The Right to food

The Right to CultureThe Right to Self Determination

Humanity speaks many languages, but there is one that unites us all – the language of human dignity.

Voices from the Margin is an examination of issues concerning the compromise of human dignity through the exploration of an Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ESCR) framework. As an international cov-enant whose language illustrates each human’s inher-ent needs, the framework bridges perceived divides between nations, ethnic groups, classes, genders, ages, and cultures. The rights included in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) are unique in their universality and capacity to embrace all diversity, allowing for the shared lan-guage of human dignity.

Regardless of signatory status, no State has fully real-ized the rights detailed in the ICESCR. In every exist-ing political, economic, and social structure, there are people who, despite being equally deserving of human dignity, have their rights exploited and overlooked by the State.

Thailand is no exception. Against the backdrop of rapid development and industrialization that has im-proved the lives of some, lies a myriad of individuals whose ability to live with dignity has been severely compromised. As a signatory to the ICESCR since 1999, Thailand pledges to actively fulfill the Economic,

Social, and Cultural Rights guaranteed for its citizens. These rights, however, are merely words on paper, often remaining unrecognized by the State in practice.

Non-compliance by the State with ICESCR is evi-dent in the Northeastern region of Thailand, more commonly known as Isaan. Predominantly rural, with the lowest regional per-capita GDP in Thailand and an ethnic makeup that is generally Lao rather than Central Thai, Isaan is geographically, economically, and cultur-ally marginalized. Due to both the region’s potential for industrial growth and its untapped natural resources, the people of Isaan have experienced the impacts of numerous development schemes and initiatives formu-lated by the central government.

Voices from the Margin is a pilot project intended to grow and replicate. The project is meant to illustrate that the ESCR framework can be used as a powerful tool for social and political mobilization. Currently, the project consists of six reports focusing on the rights of Isaan communities to self-determination, specifically regarding struggles surrounding chemical agriculture, HIV/AIDS, the damming and dredging of rivers, and urban slums.

The human voice behind these issues brings them to life: A mother and her child suffer from severe health problems after herbicides are sprayed on a nearby field

The Right to Work

The Right to healthThe Right to Security of Tenure

The Right to Water

COMMON A

LaNguagE

KhON KaEN SLuMS

The Right to Culture The Right to healthThe Right to Water

The Right to healthThe Right to Sustainability

The Right to adequate Standard of Living

The Right to housing

The Right to Security of Tenure The Right to affordable amenities

and drift into her small convenience store. A woman loses her husband and father after being displaced by a dam and still finds the strength to fight for her lost livelihood. A mother goes to Bangkok to work, because she can no longer support her family through farm-ing due to the dredging of a river. A man finds out he is HIV positive, and after overcoming depression and discrimination, works with other HIV positive people inspiring them to live again. A grandmother comes to the city for a better life and ends up in a slum, with the continual threat of eviction. A father can no longer catch enough fish to provide for his family because of a dam and so must watch his children leave the com-munity to find work.

Although these voices tell the stories of individu-als’ struggles, they speak for thousands of others whose voices are not heard. Despite different backgrounds and obstacles, these individuals share the common ex-perience of marginalization inflicted by State policies. These marginalized people find solidarity in the com-mon language of human dignity, a language harnessed by the ICESCR in order to foster an understanding and respect of universal human rights. An ESCR framework not only fosters understanding of human rights amongst individuals, but also works to hold State actors accountable for their actions and inac-tions. Individuals, groups, and movements across the

world have taken matters into their own hands and pre-sented ESCR cases against their governments. As global trends indicate, people from all over the world are con-necting and building solidarity in a struggle to defend their ESC rights. Therefore, the ESCR framework has tremendous potential as a mechanism to ensure the ef-fective provision of human rights. Due to the universal-ity of ESCR, a diversity of people affected by distinct issues can take ownership of the framework in a com-mon pursuit for self-determination . The framework is a means to facilitate communication between the State and the people by amplifying the people’s voices.

The ICESCR is powerful because it gives form to dignity and provides a language by which marginalized people can build understanding and solidarity. ESCR does not create dignity, but rather affirms that dignity is inherent to all people. Differences in nationality, eth-nicity, class, gender, age, and culture are perceived bar-riers that can be overcome through this common lan-guage. The versatility of the ICESCR encompasses all such differences, allowing us the opportunity to work together in solidarity for the economic, social, and cul-tural rights all human beings deserve – thus we mobilize for a social movement that is unhindered by borders.

The Right to food

4

Amongst a jungle of makeshift homes made from old lumber, recycled corrugated metal, and cement blocks, sits Kaai Beyowgod’s house, a small, lofted room she has called home for over 40 years. Underneath the raised home, Kaai sits atop a bamboo platform and smiles widely at her granddaughter Yaajai Kaewphon as she returns home from work. Kaai sits near her family’s one, doorless bathroom and two sparsely-filled shelves that serve as the kitchen. The building shakes as Kaai’s great-grandchildren begin to play upstairs and as neighbors drive their motorcycles through the narrow street on their way home from work. Yaajai limps up to her grandmother to settle next to her. At 29 years old, Yaajai has a temporary job with the Khon Kaen municipality, cleaning the floors at the local bus station seven days a week. She is afraid to miss even one day of work. “If I don’t go, they might fire me,” she says. The municipality provides Yaajai with one of the few jobs she can handle due to her physical and mental condition. At the age of eight, Yaajai was hit by a bus while scavenging with her sister and hasn’t been the same since. Though Yaajai and her grandmother live with five other family members in their one bedroom home, they strongly rely on each other to get by. Yaajai brings home Bt2,000 a month from the municipality. It is not enough; this month she had to borrow Bt500 to pay for food for herself and Kaai. “If I had more money, I would buy food and give Kaai food, money, and clothes, especially a long-sleeved shirt for the cold,” says Yaajai. Yaajai and Kaai live in Theparak One, a crowded urban community and one of Khon Kaen’s many suppliers of low-income, informal laborers. Not only are the 128 houses packed closely together; the 620 residents are too. Yaajai and Kaai sleep outside to lend more room to the rest of their family. Kaai did not mean for her family to have such a difficult life. When she and her husband married, they decided to give Kaai’s rice fields, cows, and buffalo to her siblings in order to try for an easier life in the city. But when they arrived in Khon Kaen, their expectations were not met. Her husband started work pedaling a three-wheeled transportation cab, and eventually the family resorted to scavenging for

recyclable materials to sell. “The city was not easier,” explains Kaai, now 74 years old. In the countryside, food could always be grown and gathered, but “in the city, you even have to buy chilies!” she says. With all of the new expenses, Kaai had no choice but to move onto land owned by the State Railway of Thailand (SRT), where she and her family had to pay little, if any rent. Like the rest of Theparak One community, Kaai’s family still does not have a permanent housing registration number. In fact, the government considers Theparak One residents trespassers on SRT property. Without the necessary registration, Kaai’s family cannot access standard electricity or water from public services and instead, pays a higher price to access such amenities through third parties. “Sometimes we don’t have the money to pay for food, electricity, and tap water,” says Kaai. “We want permanent water and electricity, but we have no way to get it…Sometimes, the others can contribute money. Sometimes, they can’t,” explains Kaai as her daughter hands her Bt40.Kaai’s only other income comes from the Bt500 monthly pension she receives from the government. However, Kaai often has to use this money to pay off debt. This month, she will have almost Bt2,000 of debt by the end of the month, having only paid back interest on the Bt2,000 her neighbor lent her. Kaai’s family cannot access loans from legitimate lending agencies, because such agencies will not recognize her family’s home as collateral. Eventually, even if Theparak One community does sign a lease with SRT, Kai and her family will have to move so their home can be demolished. SRT policy forbids anyone from living within 20 meters of the railroad tracks. The family does not know where they will go, and given the pressure to pay off the bills, there is very little time to make plans for the future. “We don’t think about moving, because we have no idea how we’d pay for somewhere else…We want to die here,” says Kaai. After more than 40 years relying on what little she has been able to find in the city, going anywhere else seems difficult to imagine. With a determined nod, Yaajai smiles and agrees with her grandmother.81

Kaai Beyowgod and Yaajai Kaewphon

Voices

5

Khon KAen slumsEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights Report

Synopsis A growing trend in many cities is the emergence and expansion of informal settlements, commonly referred to as slums. As a fast-developing city in Northeastern Thailand, Khon Kaen is no exception to this trend. In 2003, the city had an estimated 30,000 slum residents in 18 slum communities.1 Located on state-owned land, these communities are classified by the State as “informal” or “invader” settlements. Older communities were established over 50 years ago, while more recent settlements have formed in the last five years. Some of the older communities were established during the years that the State Railway Authority of Thailand (SRT) built railways through Khon Kaen when manual laborers were encouraged to live near the tracks on SRT land for the sake of the project. Many slum residents came to the city from rural communities and other provinces in search of jobs. Once settled amongst pre-existing slum communities, many invited their families to join them. The number of slum residents in the city burgeoned from this steady stream of migrants.

Slum residents generally work in the informal sector as food vendors, scavengers, daily wage laborers, and other informal service workers. The average daily income of slum residents ranges from Bt100 to Bt300 (see Appendix for conversions). In 1999, slum communities demanded and obtained temporary housing registration numbers from the municipality in order to obtain basic rights: the right to vote, access to primary education, and access to the provincial health care plan.2 Presently, communities face many issues, ranging from drugs and violence to a lack of infrastructure and low levels of income.

Due to substantial financial losses over the past decades, there is growing pressure from the central government on SRT to increase its profits. As a “state enterprise,” SRT is expected to derive income from its activities. Running at a financial loss for a number of years, it is desperate to maximize its profits from its landholdings, much of which are along Thailand’s railways. SRT owns the 40 meters on each side of the tracks; the enterprise forbids any construction of permanent buildings in the front 20 meters on both sides of the tracks but can lease the back 20 meters. Many private investors and developers are will-ing to pay premium rent prices for SRT land in rapidly developing urban centers such as Khon Kaen. SRT’s plans threaten the tenure of those slum communities living next to the tracks, as many residents do not have the financial wherewithal to compete with the leasing offers of investors. Therefore, many communities have joined slum networks in order to negotiate leasing agreements with SRT. At present, six communities have secured leasing agreements while three others are in various stages of negotiation.3

Community ProfileSamakkhee Pattana Community Founded in 1988, the slum community of Samakkhee Pattana lays just outside the city limits. Infrastructure is poor; there is one dirt road running through the community that is often rendered useless by flooding in the rainy season. Of the 120 households, sources of income come from daily wage labor and scavenging; the average daily income of residents in 2007 was about Bt200.4 However, the recent plunge in the economy has hit scavengers hard, and many Samakkhee Pattana residents now make less than Bt100 a day.5

6


Residents of Samakkhee Pattana live on SRT land but do not have leasing agreements. According to Thai law, in order for a resident to have access to water, electricity, or the benefit of basic infrastructure, they must be able to prove land owner-ship.6 In order to gain access to water and electricity, residents must either pay to get temporary water and electricity meters installed, which often charge more than the customary rate, or tap the water system of a neighbor who sets whatever price they want. Community members cite a number of major problems, including a lack of basic infrastructure, such as cement roads and permanent electricity; flooding due to poor drainage; and debt due to gambling and the inflated cost of utilities.7

In order to improve their community and gain leasing agreements with SRT, the residents of Samakkhee Pattana have af-filiated themselves with the United Communities Network. In July 2008, all but two families in the community expressed a desire to start leasing.8 Community members are confident that the network, through its partnership with the Community Organization Development Institute (CODI), a government body, is in the process of negotiating leasing agreements. Of the community’s 120 households, 16 households will be relocated under a leasing agreement since they are located within 20 meters of the railroad tracks.9

Theperak One Founded before 1970, Theperak One is located in downtown Khon Kaen and is comprised of 168 families. The commu-nity has a thin concrete road that connects to the main roads through several small alleyways. There are 64 families within 20 meters of the railroad tracks and 104 families outside of the 20-meter mark.10 Most residents work as either day laborers or scavengers. Average daily incomes range from less than Bt100 for scavengers to Bt250 for skilled laborers.11

Similar to residents of Samakkhee Pattana, Theperak One residents have not obtained leasing agreements and conse-quently cannot receive water, electricity, or equitable infrastructure services from the municipality. In addition to expensive utilities and economic strain, Theperak One faces issues involving alcoholism, domestic violence, amphetamine addiction, and high debt to loan sharks.12

Theparak One is affiliated with the United Communities Network. However, its chairperson has not been very active in representing the community in the past seven years. It is unclear to community members at what stage the negotiations for leasing are. Many residents in Theperak One do not want lease agreements as it would require a sizeable number of homes to be relocated outside of the 20-meter zone near the railroad tracks.13 At present there is no clear plan that indicates where residents would be relocated.

Regional and National Context

Slums along the railway tracks in Khon Kaen first formed during the 1950s and 1960s when SRT employed workers to carry wood to supply fuel for the trains and assist with the loading and unloading of goods. Khon Kaen was an ideal place for employees to settle as it was situated on a major transport line. Workers were encouraged to set up informal settlements by the tracks so they would be nearby and so that transportation to the worksite would not be an issue.14

Since then, Thailand’s focus on urban and industrial development has brought many from the countryside to seek out a life in the city. Most of the migration into Theperak One and Samakkhee Pattana took place during the early 1980s when farmers were forced to find alternative employment opportunities in urban centers like Khon Kaen, due to failing agricultural practices or the attraction of higher paying employment opportunities.15 However, the cost of living in the city was more expensive. In rural areas, people generally obtained basic necessities such as food and water directly from natural resources. In the city, however, basic necessities must be purchased. These additional costs cause many migrants to slip into poverty, and a lack of affordable housing causes many to resort to squatting on SRT-owned land.16

The National Housing Authority of Thailand launched the first government slum upgrading program in 1977. Recogniz-ing slum residents as legitimate citizens with needs was an important step forward for the country’s urban poor communities. During the 1980s, between 30,000 and 50,000 households were able to make home improvements under this program.17 Before then, slum “improvement” programs were limited to pushing slums and squatter settlements out of the city.

However, while infrastructure such as roads, drains, and walkways was periodically provided, the legal status of these communities remained vague at best. The government did not take steps to fully accept slum communities as viable urban settlements by providing legal security of tenure. Comprehensive security of tenure and fair access to affordable household necessities remained unaddressed.

KhON KaEN SLuMS

7

1960s: The first Khon Kaen slum communities begin to emerge.

Late 1960s: Theperak One settles on SRT land.

1986: The community of Nong Wang (now Samakkhee Pattana) is established.

Mid-1998: SRT profits have remained stagnant for 30 years, and the enterprise has continuously decreased in value. The government demands that SRT relieve its fi-nancial losses by attempting to profit from its land.

December 1998: SRT announces a countrywide land auction.

1999: Khon Kaen slum residents receive temporary hous-ing registration numbers.

February 1999: Flyers posted at the Khon Kaen train station announce that auctioning will begin on March 9, 1999. Slum residents whose homes would have been af-fected by the auction did not receive notices.

March 2, 1999: Approximately 1,200 villagers protest in front of SRT at Khon Kaen, and 300 from the Four Re-gions Slum Network protest in front of SRT in Bangkok.

March 9, 1999: Auction begins during a protest by about 500 villagers, including 70 from Khon Kaen.

May 1999: The Deputy of the Ministry of Transport and the SRT Board discuss concerns with a Four Regions Slum Network representative.

July 1999: People Love Home Club is established, which eventually becomes two networks, the Khon Kaen Slum Network and the United Communities Network.

September 2000: SRT Minister Suthep Tauksuphan signs an MOU with the Four Regions Slum Network.

Early 2002: The Khon Kaen Slum Network holds meet-ings in communities to organize and propose leases for Theparak (Lang Farm) community and Theparak Five community. These communities, along with four others, are granted leases throughout the next six years.

2003: Thaksin approves the CODI-run Baan Mankong Project. 2005: United Communities Network begins pursuing lease agreements with SRT.

November 2008: The United Communities Network procures an MOU with SRT to open the floor for leasing negotiations.

There are an estimated 1.14 million families in slums throughout Thailand, totaling 5.13 million people. Almost all of the country’s 3,750 slum communities lack security of tenure and 445 are either undergoing or have received notices of eviction. More than 70 percent of slum inhabitants cannot afford conventional housing through the market, nor through conventional government housing programs. It is estimated that 17,000 households are on SRT land.18

In 1992, the Thai government set up the Urban Commu-nity Development Office (UCDO) to support community organizations with loans for new housing, housing improve-ments, settlement upgrading, and income generation. In 2000, UCDO merged with the Rural Development Fund to form CODI, a government organization that helps fund and organize community projects across Thailand. Since 2003, CODI has overseen a project that aims to upgrade the hous-ing, environmental conditions, and security of tenure of ur-ban poor communities throughout the country.19 Khon Kaen slum communities have frequently worked with CODI on the Baan Mankong Project.

A major issue with leasing and other negotiations related to housing on SRT-owned land has been the difficulty of work-ing with separate government agencies - CODI and SRT - and the ministries under which they function, the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security and the Ministry of Transport, respectively. CODI’s goal is to act as an intermedi-ary between SRT and slum communities by signing leasing agreements with SRT and then sub-leasing to communities.20 Coordination between policies of the two ministries, however, has been negligible. In fact, slum dwellers have speculated that SRT is more skeptical of signing leasing agreements with CODI than it would be with a non-government organiza-tion.21

CODI policy encourages communities to work within a network to access CODI funding and leasing agreements. These networks help communities organize themselves, set up the savings groups required to negotiate leasing, and support community members through negotiations with CODI, SRT, and when necessary, the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security.

There are currently two major slum networks in Khon Kaen – the Khon Kaen Slum Network and the United Com-munities Network. Originally united under one name, the networks split in 2000 over disagreements between network leaders.22 As a result, communities have at times struggled and been divided over deciding with which network to align.

Chronology

8


Legal ReferenceState Railway Authority of Thailand Originally named the Royal State Railways of Siam in 1894, SRT came to be under the control of the Ministry of Trans-port on July 1, 1951.23 It is the largest state enterprise in the country of Thailand, employing over 26,000 people. SRT rail-way lines stretch from the southern border at Sungai Kolok to as far north as Chang Mai and Nong Khai. SRT railway lines serve nearly every major urban center in the country. SRT typically owns 40 meters of land on each side of the track, which adds up to about 432 square kilometers nationwide.24

In the last few decades, SRT has failed to be a profitable transportation enterprise. In early November 2008, SRT an-nounced plans to hire a private firm to commercially develop and manage its land. SRT governor Yuthana Thapcharoen says the state agency must develop unused land for commercial purposes to expand its revenue base.25

If the Cabinet approves the plans, SRT will begin to develop land around 125 train stations in Thailand and offer con-tracts to the private sector to build shops and residential units on its land.26 Although it is unclear whether SRT plans to lease property currently inhabited by slum communities, a representative of the United Community Network stated that construction company officials have already approached her threatening to lease land currently occupied by a community.27 It is expected that 3,000 households in slum communities along the railway will be adversely affected by the proposed new railway development project.28

CODI and the Baan Mankong Project The Baan Mankong Project was set up to support programs designed and managed by low-income communities and their affiliated community organizations and networks. These communities and networks work with “Urban Committees” made up of representatives from local governments, professionals, universities, and NGOs, which work to survey and identify poor communities in need. Once identified, the committee helps communities organize a community committee, draft a community upgrade plan, establish a savings group, and carry out a community survey.29 After such prerequisites have been fulfilled, the committee may request funds from its local CODI office, and CODI’s central office may approve allocation of funds to the community. With the allocation of funds, CODI aims to aid and inspire communities to improve living condi-tions within three to four years.30

CODI’s goal with the Baan Mankong Project is to impose as few conditions as possible on urban poor communities’ ef-forts to design their own program that suits their specific needs. In addition, CODI hopes to achieve community-driven development.31

While the goal of community-oriented upgrading is a step forward, there are limitations in the execution of CODI’s mis-sion. For example, Samakkhee Pattana has funds in CODI’s bank, specifically allocated to their community. As a community, members decided they wanted to use the funds to build a cement road and drainage system and install permanent electricity wires. However, even though such funds were approved by CODI, the community cannot use the money because the instal-lation of such infrastructure on SRT-owned land is illegal.32

Process Required in Order to Gain Legal Security of Tenure from SRT In order to enjoy permanent electricity and water or equitable access to community development funds, households must acquire a permanent housing registration number.33 In the case of slums on SRT-owned land, the first step is signing a lease with SRT. In regards to the six communities in Khon Kaen that have already obtained legal security of tenure from SRT, the process has been the following:34

• CODI signs an agreement with SRT.• CODI signs an agreement with the Community Committee.• The Community Committee signs an agreement with each family in the community.• The Community Committee works with the Khon Kaen Slum Network to send a budget proposal to CODI for infrastruc-ture and construction projects.• Blueprints are drawn up for the community, and eventually permanent registration numbers are assigned.

There are no laws or policies that formally detail a leasing process that SRT is required to follow. The process outlined above is one that SRT demands, as it refuses to negotiate directly with communities or individuals. Its leasing process con-

KhON KaEN SLuMS

9

ICESCR Analysis The State’s lack of a comprehensive approach to help slum dwellers’ realize their human rights to legal security of tenure and affordable and equitable amenities violates Article 11.1 of the ICESCR.41 More specifically, the government’s inability to coordinate the activities of the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, and slum communities has caused numerous delays in the acquisition of leasing agreements for the majority of slum communities in Khon Kaen. In the meantime, slum dwellers have been deprived of equitable access to water and electricity, which is a key component of the right to housing as outlined in the ICESCR.

Right to Security of Tenure General Comment 7.9(a) (Art. 11): State parties use “all appropriate means,” including the adoption of legislative measures...[to] provide the greatest possible security of tenure to occupiers of houses and land.

Although the government set up CODI as a public or-ganization in order to address housing issues in Thailand, the government’s current strategy to solve housing issues in-volves no comprehensive legislation which could facilitate coordination between CODI and SRT. Consequently, SRT has been allowed to determine the process by which it han-dles slums currently existing on its land; however, SRT has not taken adequate steps to uphold ESC rights as outlined in the ICESCR. The enterprise has not formulated a plan that takes into consideration families currently residing on SRT land and has not provided adequate information about negotiating lease agreements.

The ICESCR explicitly states that the Thai State is obligat-ed to have clear laws on evictions that provide the “greatest possible security of tenure to occupiers of houses and land.”42

These laws should “guarantee legal protection against forced eviction, harassment, and other threats…notwithstanding the type of tenure [rental (public and private), accommo-dation, cooperative housing…and informal settlements].”43 The State has failed in its obligation to fulfill slum dwellers’ rights by not ensuring that housing laws and regulations are in line with the ICESCR. As informal settlements, Thai law provides no recourse for Khon Kaen’s slum communities to protect themselves from forced eviction, harassment, or other threats.44 The lack of recourse allows SRT and wor-

trasts with those requested from other large, state landowners.35 In addition, a leasing agreement cannot be signed for a sole household; leasing agreements must be obtained in blocks of households or full communities.36

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - Agreement between Four Regions Slum Network and SRT An MOU signed between SRT and the Four Regions Slum Network, of which the Khon Kaen Slum Network is a member, has so far enabled six communities in Khon Kaen to rent SRT-owned land. The MOU between the Four Regions Slum Network and SRT was signed in fall 2000. According to the MOU, SRT will grant a 30-year lease to those families whose dwellings are off the 40 meters through which the railway runs, on the condi-tion that land utilization is worked out jointly between SRT and residents.37 Those living in the back 20 meters of the track may be granted three-year leases. At the end of three years, SRT has the option of reclaiming the land if it has specific plans to develop it. Evicted residents must then be given a new plot of land within five kilometers of their original land. Before SRT will lease land to a community, the community is required to move all families living within the first 20 meters of the tracks, either by fitting those families’ houses into the back 20 meters or by finding them land elsewhere. Finally, the MOU stipulates that rental agreements will be drafted according to input from the Four Regions Slum Network and according to fairness and appropriateness.38 Samakkhee Pattana and Theperak One work with the United Communities Network. Currently, no community under the United Communities Network rents from SRT, partly because the United Communities Network did not begin working on leasing issues until 2005.39 In addition, the network was unable to sign an MOU for negotiating lease agreements with SRT until early November.40

10


ried slum network leaders to spread rumors and warnings of eviction throughout the communities.

As the area surrounding SRT land continues to be devel-oped by eager investors, the communities of Theparak One and Samakkhee Pattana are not exempt from the threat of eviction. These threats, coupled with the existing legality of evictions for state-owned land, have jeopardized commu-nities’ security of tenure. As a result, many households are afraid of eviction and eager to procure a lease with SRT.

SRT currently has complete control over who it can evict from its land, and can decide the manner in which evictions will be carried out. In deciding to auction off its land, SRT has failed to fulfill the right to security of tenure by not “in-creasing the access to land by landless or impoverished seg-ments of society.”45 Additionally, the Ministry of Transport has not “constituted a central policy goal” ensuring security of tenure to slums on any significant percentage of SRT’s 432 square kilometers of land. In fact, observers of the situ-ation have said that SRT “has always been one of the most difficult public landlords.”46

Presently, SRT has plans to lease private parties a conces-sion to develop and rent its land. No plans exist in order to protect slum residents currently residing on its land before this plan is implemented. Nor has any other ministry re-lated to housing and tenure issues sought to draft legislation to protect slum residents on SRT land. Without legislation from other ministries, the fate of residents on SRT land will be controlled entirely by the SRT board.

In the Ministry of Transport’s failure to fulfill housing rights to thousands of slum residents, the State has not ful-

filled its obligation to “[take steps] to ensure coordination between ministries and regional and local authorities in or-der to reconcile related policies…”47 The State has not used legislation or other means to ensure coordination between SRT, under the Ministry of Transport, and CODI, under the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security. Though CODI is a state agency with the declared respon-sibility of facilitating security of tenure, the SRT board has delayed or refused to take the necessary steps to fulfill its responsibilities. It was not until 2006 that CODI was able to sign an MOU with SRT, and then only in regards to 14 of the vast number of slum communities located on SRT land.48 As mentioned previously, there is no existing legislation to determine the process of gaining security of tenure on state property. Not only has there been a lack of oversight of conflicting policies emerging from the Ministry of Trans-port and the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, but SRT has had held total control over the steps slum communities must take to obtain a lease. Rather than taking any clear, “immediate measures aimed at conferring legal security of tenure upon those persons and households currently lacking such protection,” the SRT has created bar-riers for slum residents to obtain legal security of tenure. These barriers have made it impossible for affected groups to exercise “self-help” when striving for legal security of tenure, creating an “information deficit” within communities.49 For example, SRT has chosen to sign an MOU with the Four Regions Slum Network but until recently, declined to sign an MOU with the United Communities Network.50 Thus, until recently, SRT has left several of Khon Kaen’s slum com-munities out of negotiations for obtaining legal security of tenure, including Samakkhee Pattana and Theparak One.

Unable to afford the cost of living anywhere else, Galaya Noipangnok moved to Samakkhee Pattana community in 1986. She was one of the six original inhabitants of the area. Once settled, Galaya and her family found work constructing the Khon Kaen University hospital. Once the hospital was finished, they began working on an assembly line at a cake factory. On some days at the factory, Galaya and three of her four kids would work from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. the next morning. In 2005, however, the cake factory closed, and Galaya turned to scavenging for recyclable materials to sell. Galaya’s husband cannot work because of vision problems associated with diabetes.

Recent economic trends have driven down the market price of recyclable goods. As a result, Galaya is finding it difficult to bring home even Bt100 per day. Of her daily earnings, she spends Bt50 a day on gas for her occupation and Bt42 a day on rice. With her son-in-law earning their only other income, Bt200 a day, Galaya and her current family of 11 can only hope to save enough every month for water and electricity.

Galaya hopes that her community will have the opportunity to rent land from SRT. She knows that only then will the water and electricity bills change to standard rates. She looks forward to local infrastructure and finally seeing the small road leading to the school being improved. Only then will her grandchildren be able to go to school when it’s raining. Galaya strongly believes that when her community starts renting, her family will be able to have a better life.82

Voices Galaya Noipangnok

KhON KaEN SLuMS

11

Right to Affordable AmenitiesArticle 11.1: The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of inter-national cooperation based on free consent.

As noted previously, the procurement of a lease is the first step to the fulfillment of the right to adequate housing in terms of security of tenure. In addition, the possession of a lease allows one to obtain a permanent housing registration number. State policy requires citizens to have a permanent registration number in order to enjoy access to water and electrical utilities in their home. The right to water and a sustainable source of lighting is a key component to hav-ing adequate housing and an adequate standard of living. However, slum residents currently must go through the dif-ficult and obstacle-filled process of obtaining a lease before they can achieve equitable access. The ICESCR clearly states that the core “obligations of non-discrimination should take immediate effect.”56 Therefore, the State has a responsibility to fulfill “non-discrimination based on property...[and the] equal enjoyment or exercise of the right to water.”57 Current State policy, which discriminates against slum dwellers on the grounds of property ownership, makes legal, consistent, affordable, and standardized access to water and electricity impossible and thus causes a violation of slum dwellers’ right to “economic accessibility” of said utilities.58

The ICESCR clearly requires the State to take steps to en-sure that “the percentage of housing related costs is, in gen-eral, commensurate with income levels.”59 In terms of water, State policy is discriminating and has contrarily caused slum households to be “disproportionately burdened with water expenses [in comparison] to richer households.”60 Due to the lack of access to permanent water meters, most residents are forced to access water by installing pricier, temporary me-ters or paying fees determined by third parties. For example, most residents of Samakkhee Pattana access water through a community-owned, coin-operated machine.61 The cost of water through this machine is a fixed Bt16.67 per 1,000 liters.62 The average Thai family, on the other hand, pays Bt10.20 to Bt16.95 per 1,000 liters, according to consump-tion levels.63 Many slum families, both in Samakkhee Pat-tana and Theaparak One, access electricity through neigh-bors with permanent registration numbers. These neighbors often charge inflated prices in order to make a profit.64

As these prices and different methods of accessing water might indicate, slum residents are at a distinct disadvantage

Even if a community is part of a network that has signed an MOU with SRT, there remain significant barriers and conditions to obtaining legal security of tenure. Most no-tably, there is a lack of “genuine consultation with affected persons and groups.”51 SRT negotiates solely with CODI and other organizations. It will not negotiate with individu-als or representatives from a community. Thus the process required to obtain legal security of tenure for Khon Kaen slums has so far not directly involved the opinion, or some-times even the notification, of community members until the final stages of obtaining a lease. There is no policy in place to ensure that CODI representatives or the commu-nity chairperson act responsibly in conferring with com-munity members. In fact, residents have claimed that the current chairperson of Theparak One community and for-mer chairpersons of Samakkhee Pattana community have not provided genuine consultation or complete information concerning leasing matters.52

A further barrier for slum dwellers is the cost of rent. In order to gain security of tenure, CODI must sign a leasing agreement with SRT. The leasing agreement requires that each family give the community chairperson or accountant Bt50 that is then deposited in a savings group each month. At the end of the year, the money is used to pay rent. This

requirement has been the reason some slum communities have not pursued leasing agreements. The nature of day-to-day income generation and usage makes it difficult for people to save in this fashion. Additionally, depending on the final cost of leasing, savings do not necessarily add up to enough money to pay rent at the end of the year.53 Commu-nities such as Theparak One struggle to pay for basic needs such as water and electricity. In order to save enough money to meet CODI requirements, Theparak One residents who are financially stable end up saving for those who are not.54

Therefore, despite current pricing exceptions for slum com-munities, the State has not fulfilled the right to security of tenure “to all persons irrespective of income or access to eco-nomic resources.”55

Due to the State’s unwillingness to fulfill Khon Kaen slum residents’ right to security of tenure, namely by ap-proving leasing agreements on SRT land, residents also lack basic components of adequate housing. For slum residents on SRT land, fair and equitable access to water and electric-ity and the legal right to fight eviction could be achieved through the obtainment of a lease. Thus, the right to legal security of tenure is the first step towards achieving adequate housing and an adequate standard of living for slum com-munities.

12


when attempting to access water. The application and instal-lation process for obtaining a temporary meter requires time and money that many slum dwellers do not have.65 The daily average income of the residents of Samakkhee Pattana and Theparak One currently range from Bt100 to Bt200 a day. The high fees for water usage thus comprise a large portion of a household’s daily expenses. For example, a family in Samakkhee Pattana uses approximately 900 liters of water a day from the coin-operated machine, and thus pays Bt15 a day. That household’s daily income is Bt100; therefore 15 percent of its household income is spent on water.66

As the government is withholding equitable access to water utilities, it is also not providing for “those who do not have sufficient means with necessary water and water facilities.”67 In reality, the government should pay “special attention to individuals and groups who have traditionally faced difficulties...including internally displaced persons, and deprived urban areas (informal human settlements).”68 The low-income level of Theperak One and Samakkhee Pat-tana residents, especially those who are scavengers, certainly places them in the aforementioned group of those needing special attention. However, rather than giving them special attention, the State is adding to the hardships of these slum residents through discriminatory policies.

The same discriminatory policies affecting slum commu-nities’ right to water also affect their access to electricity. Ac-cording to the ICESCR, “All beneficiaries of the right to ad-equate housing should have sustainable access to natural and common resources, safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting...”69 Sustainable access to energy en-tails use of electricity. However, slum residents are hindered from this access, once again, by their status as informal resi-dents on SRT-owned land.

Like the permanent water meter, the government requires citizens to have a permanent housing registration number in order to gain access to a permanent electricity meter. The usual cost of electricity from a temporary meter is a fixed Bt4.31 per kilowatt, whereas the cost of electricity using a permanent meter is Bt1 to Bt3 per kilowatt, depending on the rate of consumption.70 However, in Samakkhee Pattana community, the majority of families obtain their electricity through a communal temporary meter, with a rate of Bt7 per kilowatt.71 The monthly electricity costs for residents of Samakkhee Pattana can range from Bt200 to Bt600.72 However, it is difficult for community members to find time to petition the municipality or earn the money to pay instal-lation fees for a temporary electricity meter.73 As a result, many residents of Theparak One resort to connecting to their neighbor’s electricity source. Using this method, some families pay up to Bt1,000 a month.74 Other families have obtained permanent meters by bribing local officers.75

Thus, the cost of obtaining electricity for lighting in Khon Kaen slum communities is not “at such a level that the attainment and satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised.”76 In both Samkkhee Pattana and Theparak One communities, it is common for a fam-ily to have a monthly income of no more than Bt5,000.77 Scavenger families, the majority of families living in both of these communities, spend up to 50 percent of their in-come per day on gasoline for their occupation and up to 42 percent per day on rice.78 An additional cost of 10 to 30 percent of a family’s monthly earnings for electricity is unsustainable. Attempting to save this money every month compromises other basic needs.

As a result, residents of Samakkhee Pattana and Theparak One often resort to taking out loans to cover their monthly expenses. However, due to a lack of permanent housing regis-tration, legitimate lending agencies such as banks do not rec-

Dokcho Inkangong resides in Theperak One community with her husband and three children. Her grandparents gave up their land in the countryside and settled on SRT land more than 40 years ago. If forced to leave, Dokcho does not know where her family would go. Her husband brings in the family’s main source of income by earning Bt250 a day driving a delivery truck at night. Meanwhile, Dokcho brings in what she can through scavenging, an occupation she acquired when she was 10 years old.

Recently, Dokcho decided to buy a motorcycle so she could scavenge more efficiently. In order to afford the down payments, she borrowed Bt6,500 from a local loan shark. The loan shark gave her the money immediately; however, he requires she pay Bt120 per day for 82 days, totaling Bt8,840 before she will be out of debt. When she cannot pay on time, she and her children go into hiding, as the loan shark is known to stick a gun to the head of those who do not pay. She says that it is like hell while being alive. But, she says, it is almost over, with only 22 more days to go, and she is thankful to have the motorcycle.83

Voices Dokcho Inkanong

KhON KaEN SLuMS

13

General Recommendations Taking into account the aforementioned violations, this report recommends that the State take the following steps to re-dress the issues facing the population of slum dwellers on SRT land in Khon Kaen city:

• Revoke the policy that denies slum residents equitable access to water and electricity. Replace this policy with one that will extend government water services to urban slum households. Such a policy should force the State to install public pipelines through all slum communities, regardless of leasing status. In addition, it should provide subsidies and services to families who cannot pay for the connection of their household to the community’s main water pipeline. The State should inspect communities to ensure that the fair pricing of water is safeguarded and prevent any potential abuse by third-party provid-ers.

• Expand the focus of the “Electricity for the Poor Project” to include both rural and urban slum areas.80 This project must be extended and actively promoted in poor, urban areas, focusing on collecting funding for electricity installations in poor households. In addition, such a program should actively engage the State in installing poor households with meters, and providing light bulbs, cords, and electricity wires. The State should inspect slum communities to safeguard the fair pricing of electricity and prevent any potential abuse by third-party providers.

• Set up low-interest loan programs for low-income families to protect slum residents who have yet to sign leasing agree-ments, who do not yet have a permanent registration number, or who lack access to affordable loans. These lending programs should provide loans at a 15 percent or less annual interest rate. The State should set up such loan programs in as many slum communities as possible and promote such programs actively in all communities. It should also comprehensively enforce laws against predatory lending.

• Frequently and thoroughly survey all existing and emerging slum communities in Thailand, particularly in Khon Kaen city and its surrounding areas. Such surveying is necessary in order to ensure that all communities and families’ rights to adequate housing, including legal security of tenure and equitable access to water, electricity, and infrastructure, are fulfilled. Frequent surveying will be necessary to monitor low-income populations and the increasing number of slums.

• Implement educational programs to raise awareness of the different options slum residents face when pursuing legal secu-rity of tenure. The dissemination of such programs should be consistent and thorough, ensuring all families understand the full implications of staying on land without legal security of tenure. Educational programs should also be participatory and build the capacity of slum dwellers to be active in each phase of decision-making processes.

• Write and follow through on a five-year plan in order to provide slum residents with long-term, legal security of tenure. This plan should include a mandate by the State that requires SRT to collaborate and negotiate directly with slum commu-nities. Collaboration should also involve the monitoring of community chairpersons. If a community’s chairperson causes avoidable setbacks or delays in reaching the goal of collaboration with all community members, the State should pay special attention to that community. The plan should also require collaboration between the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security and the Ministry of Transport to facilitate the creation of policy that does not cause setbacks or delays in either ministry.

ognize the land and homes of slum residents as collateral and refuse to lend to them. Therefore, many residents in Samak-khee Pattana and Theparak One have incurred debts to third parties that charge exorbitant amounts of interest. Local loan sharks often charge up to 20 percent interest per month and employ scare tactics when collecting payments.79

Through its discriminatory policies preventing the per-manent use of utilities, the Thai State has deprived slum resi-

dents of their right to equitable and affordable access to wa-ter and electricity. This lack of access has additionally driven many residents to incur debts with high rates of interest in an attempt to achieve all of their basic needs. The financial struggles of residents serve as indicators that the key com-ponents of adequate housing, and subsequently an adequate standard of living, are not being realized.

14


• Pass legislation in line with all stipulations of the ICESCR by clarifying leasing procedures and the process to gain legal security of tenure for current and future slum dwellers. The State should also pass legislation that clearly declares when and how forced evictions are legal. This legislation should also be in line with all stipulations of the ICESCR and should ensure current slum dwellers legal security of tenure in the case that they are forcibly evicted from their households by SRT or other state agencies.

KhON KaEN SLuMS

15

Appendix:Thai Measurement and Currency Conversions:

35.7 Thai baht = 1 US dollar (December 2008)40 Thai baht = 1 US dollar (December 2005)36 Thai baht = 1 US dollar (December 1998)53 Thai baht = 1 US dollar (January 1998)25 Thai baht = 1 US dollar (December 1995) 45.3 Thai baht = 1 euro (December 2008)45 Thai baht = 1 euro (Average for December 2001 - 2005)39 Thai baht = 1 euro (Average for December 1998 - 2001) 1 rai = 1600 square meters1 acre = 2.147 rai1 wah = 4 square meters or .0025 rai1 hectare = 6.25 rai or 10,000 sq. m.

Relevant ICESCR Articles and General Comments:

To access the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:United Nations General Assembly, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Resolution 2200A (XXI), Decem-ber 16, 1966, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_cescr.htm.

To access all General Comments of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights:Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comments, 1996-2007, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/comments.htm.

Relevant Articles and General Comments to the Right to Adequate Housing:Article 11.1:The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take ap-propriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect that the essential importance of international cooperation based on free consent.

General Comment 4.7:In the Committee’s view, the right to housing should not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense which equates it with, for example, the shelter provided by merely having a roof over one’s head or views shelter exclusively as a commodity. Rather it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. This is appropriate for at least two reasons. In the first place, the right to housing is integrally linked to other human rights and to the fundamental principles upon which the Covenant is premised. This “inherent dignity of the human person” from which the rights in the Covenant are said to derive requires that the term “housing” be interpreted so as to take account of a variety of other considerations, most importantly that the right to housing should be ensured to all persons irrespec-tive of income or access to economic resources. Secondly, the reference in Article 11.1 must be read as referring not just to housing but to adequate housing. As both the Commission on Human Settlements and the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000 have stated: “Adequate shelter means ... adequate privacy, adequate space, adequate security, adequate lighting and ventilation, adequate basic infra-structure and adequate location with regard to work and basic facilities - all at a reasonable cost.

General Comment 4.8:Thus the concept of adequacy is particularly significant in relation to the right to housing since it serves to underline a number of factors which must be taken into account in determining whether particular forms of shelter can be considered to constitute “adequate housing” for the purposes of the Covenant. While adequacy is determined in part by social, economic, cultural, climatic, ecological and other fac-tors, the Committee believes that it is nevertheless possible to identify certain aspects of the right that must be taken into account for this purpose in any particular context. They include the following:

(a) Legal security of tenure. Tenure takes a variety of forms, including rental (public and private) accommodation, cooperative hous ing, lease, owner-occupation, emergency housing and informal settlements, including occupation of land or property. Notwithstand ing the type of tenure, all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced evic tion, harassment and other threats. States parties should consequently take immediate measures aimed at conferring legal security of tenure upon those persons and households currently lacking such protection, in genuine consultation with affected persons and groups;

16


(b) Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure. An adequate house must contain certain facilities essential for health, security, comfort and nutrition. All beneficiaries of the right to adequate housing should have sustainable access to natural and com-mon resources, safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities, means of food storage, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services;

(c) Affordability. Personal or household financial costs associated with housing should be at such a level that the attainment and satis-faction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised. Steps should be taken by States parties to ensure that the percentage of housing-related costs is, in general, commensurate with income levels. States parties should establish housing subsidies for those unable to obtain affordable housing, as well as forms and levels of housing finance which adequately reflect housing needs. In accordance with the principle of affordability, tenants should be protected by appropriate means against unreasonable rent levels or rent increases. In societies where natural materials constitute the chief sources of building materials for housing, steps should be taken by States parties to ensure the availability of such materials;

(d) Habitability. Adequate housing must be habitable, in terms of providing the inhabitants with adequate space and protecting them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, structural hazards, and disease vectors. The physical safety of occupants must be guaranteed as well. The Committee encourages States parties to comprehensively apply the Health Principles of Housing prepared by WHO which view housing as the environmental factor most frequently associated with conditions for disease in epide-miological analyses; i.e. inadequate and deficient housing and living conditions are invariably associated with higher mortality and morbidity rates;

(e) Accessibility. Adequate housing must be accessible to those entitled to it. Disadvantaged groups must be accorded full and sus-tainable access to adequate housing resources. Thus, such disadvantaged groups as the elderly, children, the physically disabled, the terminally ill, HIV-positive individuals, persons with persistent medical problems, the mentally ill, victims of natural disasters, people living in disaster-prone areas and other groups should be ensured some degree of priority consideration in the housing sphere. Both housing law and policy should take fully into account the special housing needs of these groups. Within many States parties increasing access to land by landless or impoverished segments of the society should constitute a central policy goal. Discernible governmental obligations need to be developed aiming to substantiate the right of all to a secure place to live in peace and dignity, including access to land as an entitlement;

(f ) Location. Adequate housing must be in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools, child-care centres and other social facilities. This is true both in large cities and in rural areas where the temporal and financial costs of getting to and from the place of work can place excessive demands upon the budgets of poor households. Similarly, housing should not be built on polluted sites nor in immediate proximity to pollution sources that threaten the right to health of the inhabitants;

(g) Cultural adequacy. The way housing is constructed, the building materials used and the policies supporting these must appropri-ately enable the expression of cultural identity and diversity of housing. Activities geared towards development or modernization in the housing sphere should ensure that the cultural dimensions of housing are not sacrificed, and that, inter alia, modern technological facilities, as appropriate are also ensured.

General Comment 4.10:Regardless of the state of development of any country, there are certain steps which must be taken immediately. As recognized in the Global Strategy for Shelter and in other international analyses, many of the measures required to promote the right to housing would only require the abstention by the Government from certain practices and a commitment to facilitating “self-help” by affected groups. To the extent that any such steps are considered to be beyond the maximum resources available to a State party, it is appropriate that a request be made as soon as possible for international cooperation in accordance with Articles 11.1, 22 and 23 of the Covenant, and that the Committee be informed thereof.

General Comment 4.12:While the most appropriate means of achieving the full realization of the right to adequate housing will inevitably vary significantly from one State party to another, the Covenant clearly requires that each State party take whatever steps are necessary for that purpose. This will almost invariably require the adoption of a national housing strategy which, as stated in paragraph 32 of the Global Strategy for Shelter, “defines the objectives for the development of shelter conditions, identifies the resources available to meet these goals and the most cost-effective way of using them and sets out the responsibilities and time-frame for the implementation of the necessary measures.” Both for reasons of relevance and effectiveness, as well as in order to ensure respect for other human rights, such a strategy should reflect extensive genuine consultation with, and participation by, all of those affected, including the homeless, the inadequately housed and their repre-sentatives. Furthermore, steps should be taken to ensure coordination between ministries and regional and local authorities in order to reconcile related policies (economics, agriculture, environment, energy, etc.) with the obligations under Article 11 of the Covenant.

General Comment 7.9:Article 2.1 of the Covenant requires States parties to use “all appropriate means,” including the adoption of legislative measures, to pro-mote all the rights protected under the Covenant… Such legislation [against forced eviction] should include measures which (a) provide

KhON KaEN SLuMS

17

the greatest possible security of tenure to occupiers of houses and land, (b) conform to the Covenant and (c) are designed to control strictly the circumstances under which evictions may be carried out.

Relevant Articles and General Comments to the Right to WaterGeneral Comment 15.12(c)(ii):

Accessibility: Water, and water facilities and services, must be affordable for all. The direct and indirect costs and charges associated with securing water must be affordable, and must not compromise or threaten the realization of other Covenant rights.

General Comment 15.13:The obligation of States parties to guarantee that the right to water is enjoyed without discrimination (Art. 2, para. 2), and equally between men and women (Art. 3), pervades all of the Covenant obligations. The Covenant thus proscribes any discrimination on the grounds of race, colour, sex, age, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth, physical or mental disability, health status (including HIV/AIDS), sexual orientation and civil, political, social or other status, which has the intention or effect of nullifying or impairing the equal enjoyment or exercise of the right to water. The Committee recalls paragraph 12 of General Comment No. 3 (1990), which states that even in times of severe resource constraints, the vulnerable members of society must be protected by the adoption of relatively low-cost targeted programmes.

General Comment 15.15:With respect to the right to water, States parties have a special obligation to provide those who do not have sufficient means with the necessary water and water facilities and to prevent any discrimination on internationally prohibited grounds in the provision of water and water services.

General Comment 15.16(c):Rural and deprived urban areas have access to properly maintained water facilities. Access to traditional water sources in rural areas should be protected from unlawful encroachment and pollution. Deprived urban areas, including informal human settlements, and homeless persons, should have access to properly maintained water facilities. No household should be denied the right to water on the grounds of their housing or land status.

General Comment 15.17:While the Covenant provides for progressive realization and acknowledges the constraints due to the limits of available resources, it also imposes on States parties various obligations which are of immediate effect. States parties have immediate obligations in relation to the right to water, such as the guarantee that the right will be exercised without discrimination of any kind (Art. 2, para. 2) and the obligation to take steps (Art. 2, para.1) towards the full realization of Articles 11, paragraph 1, and 12. Such steps must be deliberate, concrete and targeted towards the full realization of the right to water.

General Comment 15.27:To ensure that water is affordable, States parties must adopt the necessary measures that may include, inter alia:

(a) use of a range of appropriate low-cost techniques and technologies; (b) appropriate pricing policies such as free or low-cost water; and (c) income supplements. Any payment for water services has to be based on the principle of equity, ensuring that these services, whether privately or publicly provided, are affordable for all, including socially disadvantaged groups. Equity demands that poorer households should not be disproportionately burdened with water expenses as compared to richer households.

18


Notes:1. Khon Kaen Slum Network Brochure (Khon Kaen, Thailand, 2003). According to the Community Organization Development Institute (CODI), there are presently 19 slum communities in Khon Kaen. However, the exact number of communities can be hard to determine due to zoning changes, which occur frequently within Khon Kaen slum communities. According to the Khon Kaen Slum Network there are now 22 communities.2. Tomrong Malasee, Khon Kaen Slum Network, discussion with author, December 2, 2008.3. Kovit Boonjear, discussion with author, November 10, 2008.4. Community Organization Development Institute, Slum Community Information for the Baan Mankong Project Survey, Samakkey Pattana Commu-nity, (Khon Kaen, Thailand: CODI 2007).5. In the month of September the price per kilo of plastic was Bt17, in October it went down to Bt5 per kilo. Most recently in the month of November, it is down to Bt2 per kilo. Thus, the price went down 89 percent in three months.6. According to the Act Promulgating the Land Code B.E. 1954 (2497), to prove land ownership one must acquire a “title deed…the document showing ownership of the land and includes land title deed with map, pre-emption title deed and pre-emption certificate stamped ‘ALREADY PUT TO USE.’” This Act also recognizes that, “Land which is not vested in any person shall be deemed the property of the state.” However, in practice, one requires documentation to prove that land is vested. Finally, limitations are placed on individuals, but not on the State.7. Meesak Panboon, discussion with author, November 11, 2008.8. Community Organization Development Institute, Slum Community Information.9. Meesak Panboon, letter submitted to Sila Subdistrict, 2007.10. Sawat Udom, notes on community demographics given to author, November 16, 2008.11. Lomgot Promenin, discussion with author. November 11, 2008.12. Ibid.13. Ibid.14. Tunya Sukpanich, “The Plight of Khon Kaen’s Urban Poor,” Bangkok Post, April 24, 1994, Page 24.15. Sawoy Seanamhuat, discussion with author, November 13, 2008.16. Kaai Beyowgod, discussion with author, November 15, 2008.17. Somsook Boonyabancha, “Baan Mankong: going to scale with “slum” and squatter upgrading in Thailand,” Environment & Urbanization 17. 1 (2005), 21-46.18. Leaders and Organizers of Community Organization in Asia, Urban Land Reform in Areas of the State Railway of Thailand, http://www.locoa.net/home/?doc=bbs/gnuboard.php&bo_table=p_co_training&wr_id=25 (Nov. 30, 2008).19. Baan Mankong Handbook: Implementing the Baan Mankong Community Upgrading Program in Thai Cities (Community Organization Development Institute, April 2004).20. “50 Community Upgrading Projects,” CODI Update 5 (March 2008), 7.21. Mati Ruangsriman, Khon Kaen Slum Network, discussion with author, November 24, 2008.22. Tomrong discussion, Dec. 2, 2008.23. State Railway of Thailand Act B.E. 1951 (2494).24. State Railway of Thailand, History, http://www.railway.co.th/English/History.asp (Nov. 19, 2008).25. Amornrat Mahitthirook, “SRT Plans to Develop Land It Owns,” Bangkok Post, November 3, 2008. 26. Ibid. 27. Mali-on Konggantow, United Communities Network, discussion with author, November 17, 2008. On November 17, Central Company, who is building a mall near Mitrapap Road in Khon Kaen, told Mali-on they would give the community of Mitrapap two weeks to decide whether or not to lease. Otherwise, the company says they will begin to rent the land where Mitrapap residents now live.28. http://www.locoa.net/home/?doc=bbs/gnuboard.php&bo_table=p_co_training&wr_id=25.29. Kovit Boonjear, discussion with author, November 25, 2008.30. Baan Mankong Handbook.31. Ibid.32. Meesak discussion, Nov. 11, 2008.33. Provincial Waterworks Authority, How to Make Water Application? http://en.pwa.co.th/service/faq/0001.html (Nov. 29, 2008). Provincial Electricity Authority, Electricity Tariffs – Schedule 1 Residential, http://www.pea.co.th/th/eng/page.php?name=Residential (Nov. 29, 2008).34. Nopporn Poomsawat, Khon Kaen Slum Network, phone conversation with author, November 8, 2008.35. “50 Community Upgrading Projects,” 7.36. Kovit discussion, Nov. 10, 2008.37. Amornat Mahitthirook, “Railway agrees to lease land to squatters,” Bangkok Post, September 14, 2000.38. http://www.locoa.net/home/?doc=bbs/gnuboard.php&bo_table=p_co_training&wr_id=25.39. Tomrong discussion, Dec. 2, 2008.40. Mali-on Konggantow, discussion with author, November 13, 2008.41. Article 11.1, ICESCR. For the full text refer to Appendix.42. General Comment 7.9, ICESCR.43. General Comment 4.8(a), ICESCR.44. The definition being used for informal settlements is: “areas where groups of housing units have been constructed on land that the occupants have no legal claim to, or occupy illegally.” United Nations, Glossary of Environment Statistics, Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 67 (New York: UN 1997). 45. General Comment 4.8(e), ICESCR.46. “50 Community Upgrading Projects,” 7.47. General Comment 4.12, ICESCR.48. “50 Community Upgrading Projects,” 7.49. General Comment 4.10, ICESCR.50. According to Mali-on Konggantow, the SRT refused to sign an MOU with the United Communities Network because they did not understand that Khon Kaen has two networks. Mali-on discussion, Nov. 13, 2008.

KhON KaEN SLuMS

19

51. General Comment 4.8(a), ICESCR.52. For example, in early November Mali-on was on her way to Bangkok for the third time in three months to try to obtain leasing rights with SRT for several communities, including Theparak One. When questioned, Therparek One villagers explained that they were unaware of this. They also said they were unaware of what the terms of such a lease would entail (such as pricing, zoning stipulations, etc.).53. Kovit discussion, Nov. 10, 2008.54. Mali-on discussion, Nov. 17, 2008.55. General Comment 4.7, ICESCR.56. General Comment 15.17, ICESCR.57. General Comment 15.13, ICESCR.58. General Comment 15.12(c)(ii), ICESCR.59. General Comment 4.8(c), ICESCR.60. General Comment 15.27, ICESCR.61. Community Organization Development Institute, Slum Community Information.62. Galaya Noipangnok, discussion with author, Nov. 14, 2008.63. Provincial Waterworks Authority, Water Rates By User Types (Satang per Liter), http://www.pwa.co.th/service/tariff_rate.html#tariff1 (Nov. 29, 2008).64. Community Organization Development Institute, Slum Community Information. Kovit Boonjear, discussion with author, November 29, 2008.Lomgot discussion, Nov. 11, 2008.65. Kovit Boonjear, discussion with author, November 23, 2008.66. Galaya discussion, Nov. 14, 2008.67. General Comment 15.15, ICESCR.68. General Comment 15.16(c,) ICESCR.69. General Comment 4.8(b), ICESCR.70. Provincial Electricity Authority, Electricity Tariffs – Schedule 1 Residential, http://www.pea.co.th/th/eng/page.php?name=Residential (Nov. 29, 2008). Provincial Electricity Authority, Electricity Tariffs – Schedule 8 Temporary Service, http://www.pea.co.th/th/page.php?name=TemporaryService (Nov. 29, 2008).71. SCommunity Organization Development Institute, Slum Community Information. Galaya discussion, Nov. 14, 2008. Actually, the community charges 2.69 baht more than the standard price charged by a temporary meter, which costs 4.31 baht per kilowatt.72. Galaya discussion, Nov. 14, 2008.73. Kovit discussion, Nov. 23, 2008.74. Lomgot discussion, Nov. 11, 2008.75. Tongpun Tongwitchai, discussion with author, November 13, 2008.76. General Comment 4.8(c), ICESCR.77. Community Organization Development Institute, Slum Community Information. Lomgot discussion, Nov. 11, 2008.78. Galaya discussion, Nov. 14, 2008.79. Dokcho Inkanong, discussion with author, November 15, 2008. 80. Provincial Electricity Authority, Electricity for the Poor Project, http://www.pea.co.th/th/project/project_meter.htm (Nov. 18, 2008).81. Kaai discussion, Nov. 15, 2008.82. Galaya discussion, Nov. 14, 2008.83. Dokcho discussion, Nov. 15, 2008.

© 2008 Peace and Human Rights Center of Northeast Thailand

ESCR Mobilization ProjectThe ESCR Mobilization Project was originally conceived on December 10, 2006 at a gather-ing of grassroots organizations in the Northeast of Thailand. This group formed the basis of the Peace and Human Rights Center of Northeast Thailand (PHRC). A disparate group of community organizations and networks determined that what unified them was the Interna-tional Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

With help from the Surin Farmers Support and Surin Rice Fund, a week-long research project produced two pilot reports in May 2007. For the month of November 2008, students from the CIEE Khon Kaen program at Khon Kaen University revisited participating communities in the Northeast to spend time with villagers, share in their lives, conduct interviews, and compile information needed for this report. As a result of a conference following the drafting of the reports, village leaders from five of the six target areas declared themselves as the Human Rights Network of the Northeast (Thailand) on December 2, 2008. The entire project has been carried out under the auspices of the Law Center for Society at Khon Kaen University, and cooperation with of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand.

The goal of the ESCR Mobilization Project is not merely to produce reports. The reports are intended to be but one component of a larger strategy, the core of which is to explore the possibility of using an ESCR framework to organize and mobilize grassroots organizations, to create greater awareness of ESCR, to develop a local, regional, national, and international strategy, and to pressure the Thai government to comply fully with its ESCR obligations and commitments.

For further details about the methodology employed in the project, materials for carrying out an ESCR report, news of the campaign’s progress, or more information please visit the Peace and Human Rights Center at: http://www.geocities.com/phr.center/index.htm.

PHRC Coordinator: Suvit Gulapwong

Contact the ESCR Mobilization Project at: [email protected]

Participating Organizations and Networks include: • Lampaniang Conservation and Restoration Group • Khon Kaen Slum Revitalization Network and United Communities Network • Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (TNP+ Isaan) • Committee of the Mun River Wetlands Conservation Network (CMRCN-Rasi) • The Mun River Basic Community Preservation Project (Pak Mun) • Surin Farmers Support and the Surin Rice Fund

The Acting Members of the ESCR Mobilization Project, who headed up and were responsible for the execution of this six-report series are:

Layout Editors: Lyndia McGauhey and Ilana Garcia-Grossman

Text Editors: Alvin Sangsuwangul, Allison Dulin, Eimon Htun, Katie Jenkins, Natacha Petersen

Photography Editor: Spencer Masterson

Project Coordinators: Philip Mangis, Michael Aguilar, Vanessa Moll, Krystle Lord-Keller

Project Facilitators: Adisak Kaewrakmuk, Arunee Sriruksa, Jintana Rattanakhemakorn, John Mark Belardo, and Kovit Boonjear

Project Advisors in Thailand: Sunee Chaiyaros, Commissioner of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand, Dr. David Streckfuss, Director, CIEE Khon Kaen, and Decha Premrudeelert, Senior Advisor, NGO Coordinating Committee on Rural Development (Northeast Thailand)

Project Advisor (International): Dr. Srirak Plipat, Director, International Mobilisation Team, International Secretariat, Amnesty International

Project Transportation Director: Suree Wongsak

Translators: Bunthawat Weemooktanondha, Ardcha Premruedeelert, Bennett Haynes

“A Common Language” by Eimon Htun

Cover Photo: Galaya Noipangnok and grandson Pek in Khon Kaen, Credit: Spencer Masterson

100 บาท/US $5

Documents

Voices from the Margin - WordPress.com...There are an estimated 1.14 million families in slums throughout Thailand, equaling about 5.13 million people. Of the 3,750 slum communities,