Jailing local wildlife poachers will not help deliver environmental justice: Thai judge Suntariya Muanpawong

Valued at more than US$2 million on the black market, the illegally-transhipped animals were found to be native to Madagascar. Thai royal police said arrests made during the major bust would have an impact on the ability of a transnational wildlife trafficking network operating in Thailand, with linkages stretching across Asia, Africa and South America. 

The seizure, the latest in a string of illegal wildlife trade busts, has raised questions among experts about the severity of the problem of wildlife poaching and trafficking in the nation. It also points to the cross-border nature of such crimes, which can complicate law enforcement efforts. 

Justice Suntariya Muanpawong, a longstanding wildlife conservation advocate and a judge serving on a regional Court of Appeal in Rayong, on the east coast of Thailand, believes that the courts are often only equipped to deal with minor cases involving local wildlife poachers or loggers who encroach on both public and private land, rather than large networks or those behind organised crime. “In Thailand, people say prisons are for the poor. The issue of discrimination and the lack of distributional justice is a real problem,” she said. 

Thai police seized 48 lemurs and 1,076 star tortoises at a hotel in Khun Krating sub-district, Muang Chumphon district, Chumphon Province, on May 2024. Image: Royal Thai Police

Overcrowding continues to plague Thai prisons, with 112 (78 per cent) of Thailand’s 143 correctional facilities operating above their official capacity, according to the International Federation for Human Rights. Muanpawong tells Eco-Business that the law should be the backbone to combat wildlife trafficking and conserve the environment, but at the same time, judges and the courts need to be responsive and sensitive to human rights and social conditions.

They need to be attuned to “the suffering of people” and look beyond minor wrongdoings to understand the predicament that people might be in, especially if the punishment meted do not address the root cause of the problem, she said. 

“We need more judicial innovation so that we can strike a better balance between delivering environmental justice and social justice,” she said, adding that the idea of valuing both at the same time is still new to Thai judges. “There is a need to learn and draw reference from the courts in other jurisdictions,” she suggested.

Muanpawong is part of a growing group of Southeast Asia’s women judges who are committed to environmental jurisprudence and advocates for more collaboration and exchanges across the region. In 2015, she worked on the development of the Asean Handbook on Legal Cooperation to Combat Wildlife Crime, and is now a regular speaker at training programmes for Asia’s judges.

In an interview with Eco-Business, the “reluctant judge” who says she grew up wanting to be an educator, shares why she thinks judges in Southeast Asia should learn more from each other. As a staunch Buddhist, she also discusses how spirituality can come into the picture when one is trying to appreciate nature and animal conservation at a deeper level. 

“

When the people have no land or rights to agriculture, they might end up encroaching on public land. It is a case of distributive injustice, where the poor end up being punished more when they are sent to jail. I believe it is one of the biggest problems in Thailand. 

You have been a steadfast advocate for eco-justice and human rights. Yet you have argued that there are limits to the law and that prisons should not only be for the poor. Can you tell us more about how the law works in Thailand to curb environmental violations? 

In Thailand, some of the key environment-related cases that the Supreme Court as well as the provincial courts rule on are related to illegal logging and the encroachment of protected nature areas. And in most of these cases, the plaintiffs are very poor. 

Thai law also does not support the relationship that Indigenous peoples have with their lands, consequently ignoring their rights to lands and forests. There is no good system to evaluate whether these communities can be given rights and even land titles, and most of them are unable to prove with documentation that they have been living on the land for a long time, and risk getting kicked out at any time. 

So in many instances, we see the laws that deal with illegal logging and poaching being directed unequally at these poorer communities. When the people have no land or rights to agriculture, they might end up encroaching on public land. It is a case of distributive injustice, where the poor end up being punished more when they are sent to jail. I believe it is one of the biggest problems in Thailand. 

But do judges sometimes take into consideration the socio-economic status of the plaintiffs before decisions are made and sentences meted out? 

We should be trying our best to prove who the “real party” encroaching on the land is. We have a duty to do so. Sometimes we can do it and sometimes it is not easy. 

In Phuket and Koh Samui, two of the tourist islands in Thailand where there are many expensive and beautiful houses by the beach, there are instances when the rich and the foreigners are illegally encroaching on land too, but the law hardly deals with them. So discrimination is a real problem. 

For example, I often ask law enforcers how they prioritise their work. I ask them: Who do you prosecute first? Which cases do you work on first? And often they say the poor villagers and locals are the easiest to get because they do not have lawyers to represent them. Most cannot even speak or read Thai. There is also racial discrimination involved, with the Indigenous peoples thought of naturally as culprits for poaching or logging. Judges have a direct impact on the lives of poor people every day, yet the problem of socio-economical judicial bias hasn’t been solved. So poor people are always bumping into the law.  

What can be done to change the situation? 

Firstly, the court needs to strive to understand the problems in our country. These include social problems, such as what I’ve mentioned earlier, that the poor cannot own land. 

In some instances, we need wiser jurisdiction and focus on non-criminal measures such as rehabilitation of former poachers or loggers who are from the local communities. Don’t directly send them to jail. Get them to work on reforestation initiatives, give them education and help them find alternative livelihoods.

In short, we need more judicial innovation so that we can strike a better balance between delivering environmental justice and social justice. This idea is still very new to Thai courts and judges, so there is a need to learn and draw reference from the courts in other jurisdictions. 

Secondly, the judiciary should be working closely with other experts, and not push these initiatives on our own. We need to collaborate with scientific experts, for example, who know the right methods for reforestation and land restoration, planning and management. We need to listen to the people who have problems, and we need to work with other agencies. 

But cross-agency collaboration is difficult in Thailand due to legacy systems. When the Constitutional Court of Thailand was created under the 1997 Constitution, the country had wanted a clearer separation of powers and an emphasis on judicial independence, to prevent instances of the executive branch or the Minister of Justice exerting control over the courts. But somehow that has translated into judges mostly working in isolation and keeping too far a distance from the other agencies. When I used to run the judicial research institute under the office of the judiciary, we tried hard to invite people from outside the judiciary to come together for conversations but were criticised. Some in the judiciary ask: Why do we have to talk to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) or representatives of local communities? Why do we have to work with the forest rangers or the national parks? These mindsets need to shift for change to happen.

There have been instances when the courts rule in favour of villagers and local communities in environmental cases, but you often also talk about how enforcement can become an issue, resulting in delayed justice. Can you share more about that? 

One example is Thailand’s delay in cleaning up Klity Creek. For the longest time, the residents of this place known as Lower Klity Creek village in the province of Kanchanaburi, known for its scenic waterfalls, had to patiently fight cases against polluters such as a lead-processing factory which was built upstream from where they lived. In 2013, Thailand’s supreme administrative court handed down a judgment which found Thailand’s Pollution Control Department to be negligent for being too slow to clean up the creek, leaving people exposed to hazardous lead in their water for a long time. The plaintiffs suffered from the symptoms of chronic lead poisoning and some of their children have severe developmental disabilities such as mutated fingers. 

But even this judgment did not really help. Because after that, the remediation steps were quite limited and there were delays. Most of the time, the court and the judges believe that as long as the judgment is handed down, that is enough, and everything else after that is not part of our duties. In some cases, the company or factory involved in pollution goes bankrupt and the government agencies responsible need to draw from the fiscal budget to provide remedies and it becomes a problem. 

The first case that I worked on was in Rayong, and it was about illegal land reclamation. As a junior legal officer, we worked with the public prosecutor and tried to find ways to prosecute the companies that encroached on at least 50 acres of land. But I can tell you that these companies are still there and nothing has happened. So it shows how problematic it is, and how hard it is to deliver justice. 

You have been involved in projects to enhance legal cooperation to combat wildlife crime since for at least 10 years. How did you become interested in this cause? 

Back then, there were very few wildlife trafficking-related cases in our courts. These cases would be about the illegal sale of wild birds in Chatuchak Market in Bangkok or the selling of protected wild snakes. Nothing too major, so the judges, including myself, were quite ignorant about the topic. 

But after working more with organisations such as the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crimes (UNODC) [Muanpawong facilitated a workshop that developed an Asean handbook to combat wildlife crime with the law, which the UNODC was involved in] which actively discussed the transboundary nature of wildlife trafficking, I started developing a new understanding of the issue. Wildlife trafficking does not only involve local poachers or sellers, it is a much bigger problem. Of course, Thailand was also coming under a lot of international pressure. So we started paying more attention to the illegal wildlife trade.

I would be at regional meetings sitting among my Asean and African counterparts, discussing the work that involved police and public prosecutors. It might feel that it does not have much to do with us, but I thought the conversations were very interesting. Judges also need to know this problem well so that we have a better grasp of it when cases come to us in the courts. That is why I try to champion better understanding of wildlife crime and encourage my peers in the judiciary to participate in workshops and learning activities. For example, we should be learning from Malaysian courts about how to set sentencing guidelines on wildlife law, as well as draw references from international examples. 

Muanpawong speaking to judges at a judicial training programme from Asia co-organised by ClientEarth on judicial remedies and the importance of looking into inequality in law enforcement. Image: ClientEarth

As we recognise the transboundary nature of wildlife trafficking cases, especially major ones, or even with regards to cases of dams being built that are causing impacts on riverine communities, we should establish mechanisms across Asean countries to better deal with these problems. There must be exchanges and these need to be formalised and institutionalised. There could be a research centre or small tribunal made up by Asean judges involved in environmental cases. 

How can cross-agency collaboration or working with external experts help the courts? 

In Thailand, there was the notorious case which involved the poaching of a black panther by Thai construction tycoon Premchai Karnasuta in 2018. The tycoon and three of his associates were arrested by park rangers, and found with the carcasses of poached animals, including a black panther. The case generated public pressure over accountability to the law of the wealthy and influential. 

Then, there was a lot of debate over the value of the black panther. The national parks valued it at about 12 million baht (US$331,000) but when the case was put in front of the courts, the police prosecutor only asked for three million baht (US$82,700) in compensation. After a series of appeals, a final judgment by the Supreme Court in December 2021 found the tycoon and his associates guilty and they were given prison sentences up to three years and nine months and ordered to pay two million baht (US$55,200) in damages. So the way nature is seen and valued is very different and because of the lack of knowledge about wildlife preservation, a lot of this talk is arbitrary and there isn’t a deeper discussion about how we should properly quantify the damages. In these cases, having scientific and biodiversity experts would help, and the courts should have access to these resources. 

Is the younger generation in Thailand more aware about and concerned for wildlife conservation? What are your observations?

I don’t think so. High-profile cases like the one on the black panther are rare. They might raise some awareness, but these cases come and go. 

The conversations also need to be had at a deeper level. Pakistan’s Supreme Court Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, a good friend of mine, once suggested that when we discuss wildlife conservation, it is not just about law. We have to talk about spirituality.

Justice Shah is Muslim, so he is well-versed in Islamic principles and obligations to protect animal and plant life, and to preserve the environment by not cutting trees, and not polluting the water. I am Buddhist, so I know that the Lord Buddha also teaches us to protect ecology. 

I have also been reading this book on navigating climate change in the Anthropocene by Andrew Fellows, on the concept of Gaia and deep ecology. It asks us to see intrinsic value in other species and ecosystems, which have value not just because of any utility they might provide to human beings, and I think it has given me greater appreciation of what nature conservation should be about. 

I think young people should also spend more time in nature, in the forests. There needs to be a more interdisciplinary approach to teaching and learning about conservation. We need to also think deeply about how we commit to education on nature. For example, I recall that there was a big case of illegal logging in Northern Thailand and when it concluded, a lot of the messaging was not on reforestation efforts in the village which lost all the trees, but on a new museum in Bangkok which would display all the logs for learning purposes. There is nothing wrong about that, but it shows that there is not much attention paid to what we should actually be focusing on. 

Do judges need to be empowered by education on these topics too? 

Many judges are trained on intellectual property rights law and tax law, but they are not very familiar with environmental law. If they want to work on environmental cases, they need to wear two lenses. They need a pair of “green” lenses to understand eco-rights, as well as a pair of “red” lenses to understand social rights and inequality. For example, we need to think about how to get people to protect nature and the climate, within the boundaries of what they can afford. You need to understand the realities of Thai society, that there are different socio-economic strata. There are those who are poor and those who are rich. You have the minority ethnic groups and you have foreigners. Only if they understand the intricacies of the topic, can they deliver on environmental justice.