The Thammasat University Libraries have acquired a book examining the history and possible future of the Kingdom’s forests.

Thai Forestry: A Critical History by Ann Danaiya Usher discusses the way a European idea of how a forest should be maintained spread to Asia. Ms. Usher, a Thai-Canadian journalist, explains how in Germany, the concept of a standard forest requires only a few species of trees being allowed to thrive. These trees should be spaced in a regular way, based on the needs of the logging industry. Over a century ago, a forest was seen as a place to find trees to cut down and sell. These ideas traveled throughout Europe and into Southeast Asia as part of the legacy of colonialism.

Only recently have scientists realized how wrong it is to try to reduce the diversity of all living species. Also, what forests bring to a nation’s health, quality of life, and economy has become clearer after the forests are exploited. In 1990, after over a century of standard foresting, German forests were severely damaged by a windstorm that knocked over millions of trees. Had they been allowed to grow in less regular patterns, many of these would have survived. Following the past trend, Thailand has focused on growing three main commercial species of trees: teak, pine, and eucalyptus. Deforestation in the Kingdom is a problem that has become obvious in recent years. The widespread clearing of trees for farming has caused serious problems for all Thai people. Local populations who rely on forests to earn a living continue to pose a challenge. Previously these populations were simply moved away from the protected forest areas, with mixed results. Understanding that these populations can also be motivated to preserve the health of forests is a recent development.

Thailand’s beautiful forests.

The Kingdom’s trees have long been admired by other countries. As early as 1885, England and France began to bid for logging rights. Even before then, the British were logging in the Kingdom of Chiang Mai. European countries urgently needed wood because in their own forests, most oak trees had already been cut down, and these were essential for the transportation industry of the time, especially shipping and railroads. There was such demand for teak from Siam that in 1896 the Siamese Royal Forestry Department (RFD) was established. It campaigned against cutting down trees that were not above a certain height. When in 1897, HM King Chulalongkorn (Rama V) visited Sweden, he took the opportunity to learn about the local forestry approaches.

As a result, Rama V ensured that by 1906, a new law went into effect, requiring logging companies to plant teak trees to replace the ones that were cut down. Unfortunately, this law was not obeyed. Since 1900, the population of Thailand has grown from just over 6 million people to around 67 million today. During this time, forest area has diminished from 75% to under 20%. In 1900, there were 1000 trees for each Thai person, while now there are only 25. Dr. Eric Danell, a Swedish botanist who is director of Dokmai Garden, a private botanical garden in Chiang Mai, remains optimistic in part:

The good news is that from an annual population growth rate of 3%, Thailand is now down at 0.5%. The disappearance of poverty will lower the population size which in turn will lower the pressure on nature, and with widespread education the concern for nature will increase. The children of the forest dwellers will have better education than their parents and they will not accept hard work for 200 Baht a day, and so they will move out of the forest villages, just like in the west. This is a promising development, but we need to assure that today’s 2 million forest dwellers ([Ms. Usher’s] data) do not damage the very vulnerable fragment that is left.

The Wildlife Conservation Act in 1960 and The National Parks Law of 1961 showed that more attention was being given to preserving whatever resources still remained. combined protection with ecotourism in designated areas. The Kingdom received advice from many experts, including the American naturalist George Ruhle (1900-1994), who stated:

Thai people seemed to think of national parks as amusement parks, or resorts for drawing huge money-spending crowds.

Fighting this tendency were such distinguished Thai naturalists as Dr. Boonsong Lekagul and Seub Nakhasatien. Mr. Nakhasathien (1949–1990) was a conservationist who worked to save the Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary and Chiew Larn. Soon after he died, his fellow conservationists launched the Seub Nakhasathien Foundation to continue the struggle against destruction of nature. In 1989, a logging ban was instituted and the first community forest was officially recognized at Huai Kaeo, near Chiang Mai. More recently, in 2007, a community forest bill was passed, permitting communities on government land to manage forests, without cutting down trees for profit. National parks are currently being misused, and their forests not sufficiently protected, so there is still much work to be done.

Thai forests are currently governed by the Royal Forest Department; the National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department; and the Department for Marine and Coastal Resources. About 20 million Thai people depend on forests to earn a living. Around 11,000 villages manage community forests and over 5,000 villages have registered community forestry programs, covering 1.2 million rai. This small-scale local management helps maintain diverse species, rather than vast areas of very few crops. This in turn helps in the ongoing challenge of climate change. In 2009, Professor Elinor Ostrom, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, stated at a conference in Denmark:

Far more effective are approaches that gain the trust of forest communities, respect their rights, and involve them in forest use and monitoring, practices that are positively associated with maintenance of forest density.

Comparable conclusions were reached last month at a Bangkok forum on forest and land management presented by the Thailand Research Fund. As The Nation reported,  only forestry reforms will end conflicts. Dr. Itthiphon Srisalwalak, the forum’s coordinator, noted:

The current forestry laws focus on keeping the people out of the forests and do not promote public participation in forest management. We need a rethink so that forest management is about the participation of all stakeholders, not only the government. Therefore, the forestry laws should be amended to let the communities and local authorities manage the forests together, or switch the government’s duty to that of just a regulator…. Many governments tried so hard to protect the forest areas but the forests are still being steadily reduced. Why don’t we let the people in the forests look after the forests for us by granting them the right to live on their land and protect the community forest…The government may support the private sector growing the forestry plantations on this empty land and also encourage the people to grow and protect the forests by paying them money. If we pay the corn farmers more money than they will gain from selling corn, they will not encroach on the forests to expand their fields.

Earlier this month, as The Nation also reported, a meeting was held in Bangkok to debate forest issues in preparation for the XIV World Forestry Congress, to be held in South Africa in September.

There too, the consensus was that forest communities and local people are essential for maintaining sustainable forests. The approach of reclaiming land for forests while evicting local farmers, which has received much media attention, may meet the Thailand Environment Institute Foundation’s goal of increasing Thailand’s forest area to 40 percent by 2017. Yet the social cost and long-term effectiveness of such an approach remains to be fully measured.

(all images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)