An interview on forestry in Thailand with Mr Thalerng Thamrongnavasavat, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Thailand
This interview was conducted for Unasylva in Thailand on 10 duly 1985 by Farhana Haque, a freelance journalist based in Rome and the former English-language newsreader and commentator for Bangladesh national radio and television.
Mr Thalerng being interviewed by Unasylva
Thailand has a land area of 514000 km2 and a population of over 50 million, with almost 40 million people living in rural areas. One-fifth of the people live on land classified as forest. In 1943, forests covered 63 percent of the country, but rapid deforestation has now cut this figure in half, reducing forests to only about 30 percent, or 15.6 million ha. There are 45 national parks and 47 forest parks covering 2.0 million ha, while wildlife sanctuaries occupy 1.85 million ha.
All forests, except for some strips of coastal mangrove, are owned by the government and are under the control of the Royal Forest Department, established in 1896 and since 1925 a division of the Ministry of Agriculture. Technically, the Royal Forest Department has jurisdiction over approximately 25.6 million ha. It is headed by a director-general in charge of 21 divisions and 634 local forestry offices with a permanent staff of over 9000, of whom 6800 are professional or semiprofessional foresters.
The Forest Industries Organization (FIO) was established in 1956 as a State-owned entity under the Ministry of Agriculture. Headed by a managing director, it controls all forest industries and is involved in research, improvement and protection of forests. It owns sawmills, factories and all of Thailand's plywood companies; it also does most of the teak extraction. It retains 30 percent of its profits for further forestry development and contributes the other 70 percent to general government revenue.
Unasylva: One of the measures taken to control deforestation and to meet the needs of landless farmers has been the establishment of forest villages under both the Royal Forest Department and the Forest Industries Organization. (See "Thailand's forest villages" by Krit Samapuddhi in Unasylva, 27 [107]: 20-23, 1975. - Ed.) Are there significant differences between these programmes?
Mr Thalerng: Well, the main aim of both is to ensure that people who have already encroached upon national forests will stay put and not resort to slash-and-burn-type agriculture any more. The two types of villages are pretty similar. Both use the Burmese-based taungya system of crop planting between rows of trees, although the Industries villages tend to be smaller; they try to utilize local labour in their own plantations and do not give them title to land. The Forest Department is concentrating more on permanent settlements with lifetime land leases which can be passed on to descendants. However, 20 percent of the Department's villages are being reserved as forests not to be permanently settled. We hope that the programme, which began with Industries in 1968 and with the Forestry Department in 1975, will be successful as an interim measure. We do not see this as a long-term, expanding programme.
The first forest villages concentrated on planting teak under the taungya system; more recent ones included plantations of rubber trees. Do rubber trees offer special advantages?
In the depleted forests, people used to grow a few crops, maize and cassava in particular. This is bad both for the trees and the soil. But lately, in certain areas of the country like the south, people have moved in and started to grow rubber. The rubber tree is a sort of forest tree, but it is also commercially valuable. So where people have moved into depleted forests and have planted rubber, or sometimes oil palms, we let them remain. It is better to permit them to stay and grow these perennial trees than to evict them and cause the forest to return to wasteland.
What measures have been taken to increase public awareness in forestry?
We work very closely with the Ministry of Education, the provincial education officials and the University Bureau. Outside the schools we work with the villages through agricultural extension officers who, in addition to their regular tasks, also help the Forestry Department in disseminating information and inducing the people to become aware of the importance of forest resources. We also have volunteers who take initiatives and do not merely wait for the government to make requests of them. They understand the conditions in their own local forests and are most willing to contribute.
You mentioned the goal of establishing forest villages as permanent settlements, yet under me taungya system farmers are normally able to grow food crops within plantations only for the first few years. How will they support themselves after food crops can no longer be grown?
Well, the Forest Industries Organization lets farmers grow food crops for two or three years until the trees become so high that crops can no longer grow. Then the farmers are employed in caring for the trees and sharing in the profit. But in the case of the Forestry Department, we let them grow food crops or whatever they like in conjunction with trees on 80 percent of the land; the remaining 20 percent is set aside for forests.
Thailand now has several land resettlement programmes. Do these differ from the forest village projects and, if so, how?
They are bigger and they are run by the Public Welfare Department, the Cooperative Promotion Department and particularly by the Land Reform Office in the Ministry. The Forest Department runs only the forest villages.
Several years ago there was a proposal to create a Village Wood-lot Association. Has this been done and what were its basic objectives?
I don't think that has gone very far. But village wood-lots are being started, and in many districts there are informal associations to which the villages belong. They work together developing their own wood-lots.
All forests in Thailand are now owned and controlled by the government with the exception of coastal mangrove forests. What is the rationale for this exclusion?
The main aim... is to ensure that people who have already encroached upon national forests will stay put and not resort to slash-and-burn-type agriculture any more.
The mangrove forests are publicly owned except in certain areas, where they are open for settlement for agriculture, fish-raising and so on and where they are not considered forest land any more.
In Thailand, fuelwood is used for approximately 75 percent of all rural domestic energy and 8.5 percent of the nation's total energy consumption. With what success have technologies for reducing fuelwood consumption or utilizing alternative sources of energy for rural areas been developed?
Our rural electrification programme is developing very quickly so I am not sure if your figures are really up-to-date. Right now in almost every district in Thailand you can find electricity. I think that this has reduced fuelwood consumption to some extent. On the conservation side, the Ministry and some private companies have developed a type of slow burning wood-stove and this saves energy. In addition, the Ministry of Science, Energy and Technology is introducing solar energy in a substantial way, and I foresee that the use of solar energy will increase in the near future.
Wood industries, of which Thailand has many, have been important for the country's domestic and export economy. With the rapid forest depletion rate, what is the government's current policy for ensuring the supply of raw material to these industries?
These industries have to fend for themselves in a way. I mean, they can't say, "we are going to set up a plant here and the government has to supply us with raw materials". The emphasis, you see, is on conservation of the real forest, real in the sense of preservation in the form of national parks or wildlife reserves. The commercial forests are leased out and are part of the open market. Industries, of course, buy from the commercial forests, but in addition they are expected to grow their own trees - which they are doing more and more. For instance, the Siam Cement Company, which is also involved in pulp and paper, is asking for more than 10000 ha of land on which to plant fast-growing species.
What industries have been most severely affected by the decline in forest productivity?
That is really hard to say because people do adjust, you know. The furniture industry, for instance, used to complain because it lacked hardwoods. But now it has turned to a pare-wood - rubber. Rubber trees make very good wood for furniture. People do adjust. The plywood industry is doing fine by growing its own trees. Eucalyptus is being introduced extensively in this country; they are very fast-growing and can be used for many, many purposes. Except for highly skilled furniture-making, I don't think that many industries have really suffered.
Thailand has over 80 paper factories but only four pulpwood processing plants. Almost 80 percent of pulp must be imported. What efforts can and have been made to increase pulpwood production?
Well, again, we are promoting the private sector. Our economy is a free one, and the government always tries to help the private sector set up these factories. Pulp and paper is one of the top priority industries and the Board of Investment is doing its best to promote them. We do have great potential because our trees grow much faster than those in a temperate climate. Recently some visiting students from Finland were surprised to see how fast our trees grew compared with those in Finland. They were quite interested in this advantage that we have, and I think many foreign companies - Canadian, European, Japanese and so on - are quite keen on developing the pulp and paper industry in Thailand.
Illegal logging has been a major problem in Thailand for years. What measures have been taken to control it and how successful have they been,?
Well, we are more successful than we were in the past, perhaps because there are fewer trees left and it is easier to look after them. But seriously, many agencies are trying to work together to combat this destruction. The inclusion of the military in this effort is a blessing; in the past soldiers either stood aloof or sometimes got involved in illegal logging themselves. Soldiers have been very successful, more successful than the government in certain cases, particularly in remote areas and where the hill tribes are involved. One action taken in the past to discourage illegal logging was to prohibit the export of teak logs in 1973 and other logs in 1977, and to prosecute the offenders.
An estimated 12.6 percent of Thailand's land area is under shifting cultivation, and one of the objectives of the FAO/UNDP Mae Sa Integrated Watershed and Forest Land Use Project is to reduce and/or improve this practice. How successful has it been?
It was intended as a model for developing similar projects in other areas and has been quite successful. Additional projects have been started in some areas in the north with some assistance from the United States. The idea is to get the hill tribes to give up opium cultivation and enter into other commercial crops like timber and fruit-trees. The particular area you mentioned, Mae Sa, has been somewhat overdeveloped.
To what extent is watershed management a priority in Thailand?
FOREST VILLAGE IN THAILAND a successful government policy
It is very important. The highest priority watershed zones are protected by law and government policy; they are not to be touched except in really exceptional circumstances. To be frank, the main problem we have with our watersheds is the hill tribes, including those who migrate from neighbouring countries. Their encroachment and unsophisticated agricultural methods have caused a lot of depletion and degradation.
Could you say something about Thailand's system of national parks?
We now have about 50 national parks. However, our concept of these parks is somewhat different from that in the United States or Europe. We do not look at them as mainly recreational or tourist areas, but instead as perhaps one of the best means of conserving the natural forest resources that we still have left. Our forest laws are such that violations bring much stiffer fines than elsewhere. When you declare a national park, people seem to develop a sense of reverence; they look at it as a different kind of forest, something for future generations.
Reports suggest that a number of Thailand's wild animals face extinction within less than 15 years, among them the elephant, gaur, banteng and water buffalo. What actions have been taken to save these and other forms of wildlife?
PART OF MANGROVE VILLAGE dedicated to fish production
Penalties alone will not be sufficient because they would inevitably be too light. It is difficult for us to convince a judge to send a man to jail for a year or two just because he killed a deer. So we feel that the best way to protect these animals is through the creation of national parks and game reserves where the animals will be less molested.
One of the recently implemented FAO programmes in Thailand concerns wildlife farming. What are the chief goals and features of this project
In certain cases, wildlife could be commercially exploited. We would like to have people set up wildlife farms, fully regulated but profitable for the owners. There are many in the private sector who are interested in this. However, our problem is that the present law does not allow for it, so now we are in the process of making amendments.
What efforts have been made in the past or are planned for the future to coordinate forestry planning and development between Thailand and neighbouring countries?
We still have a long way to go on that. We do have some cooperation with Malaysia on the forest land on the border, but the political instability that now exists in much of the region makes coordinated forestry planning difficult if not impossible.
Thailand is nearing the end of its 5th National Economic and Social Development Plan (1982-86). Do you foresee any significant shifts in goals and priorities for forestry in the near future?
Well, the shift may be away from the public, government sector to the private sector in forest development and utilization. I think this trend will continue through the next, the 6th Development Plan.
One of the top priorities is to halt and eventually reverse the deterioration of your forests. What have been the chief causes of this deterioration and what are the major steps that have been and are being taken to control it?
We see deterioration mainly as a result of growth in our population, which has almost tripled in the last 30 years, although the rate of increase has recently been diminishing. With only a limited amount of land, people will always try to occupy public land, forests in particular, in order to make a living. In addition, we also have the hill-tribe people moving in from neighbouring countries like Burma and Laos who prefer to settle down here.
The idea is to get the hill tribes to give up opium cultivation and enter into other commercial crops like timber and fruit-trees.
The government has been able to reduce somewhat the destruction of our forests, but I hope that we will be getting even better results in the future with more public awareness of the importance of forest resources. In the past it seems that forests were taken for granted; they were thought of as something given by God without any real value to anyone. But now the public is much more cognizant that forest resources are for their own and particularly for their children's benefit.
SHIFTING CULTIVATORS AT WORK posing a policy dilemma
