INTERNATIONAL TROPICALTIMBER COUNCIL

MR - 19
Distr.
GENERAL
ITTC(XLI)/6
5 October 2006
Original: ENGLISHFORTY-FIRST SESSION
6 -11 November 2006
Yokohama, Japan

INTERNATIONAL TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATIONACHIEVING THE ITTO OBJECTIVE 2000
AND SUSTAINABLE FOREST MANAGEMENT
IN THAILAND

Report of the Diagnostic Mission

Report submitted to the International Tropical Timber Council by the Diagnostic Mission
established pursuant to Decision 2(XXIX) 2006

November 7, 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations and Acronyms
Acknowledgments

vi
viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ix

1.

INTRODUCTION

1

1.1
1.2
1.3

1
1
1

Background
Objectives
Methodology and Conduct of the Mission

PART I2.

OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT SITUATIONFOREST IN THE NATIONAL CONTEXT

2

2.1
2.2

2
2
2
3
4
5
5
7
7
7
8
8
9
9
9

2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12

National Context
Policy and institutional framework
2.2.1
Macro-level Policies
2.2.2
Legal Framework
2.2.3
Institutions
Land Use and Deforestation
Forest Resources
Permanent Forest EstateLand Tenure
Management of Natural Forests
Plantations
Forest Protection
Forest Production
Conservation of Biodiversity
Socio-economic Aspects

PART II
3.

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL FORESTS

10

3.1

10
10
11
12
13
15
17
19
19
19
21

3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.

DIAGNOSIS

Forest Conservation
3.1.1
Protected Area System
3.1.2
Protected Area Management
3.1.3
People and Protected Areas
3.1.4
Cross-boundary Issues
Forest Reserves
Watershed Management
Mangroves
3.4.1
Resource Management
3.4.2
Tsunami Disaster
Trees Outside Forests (TOF)

COMMUNITY FORESTRY

22

4.1
4.2

22
22
22
24
24
25
25
26
26
26
27

4.3

Evolution of the Government Community Forestry Program
Present Status of the Community Forestry Program
4.2.1
Extent of Community Forests
4.2.2
Benefits from Community Forests
4.2.3
Public Support to Villages
Issues and Constraints
4.3.1
Trust and Confidence in Local Communities
4.3.2
Illegal Immigrants
4.3.3
Privatization of Land Ownership
4.3.4
Tenure and Use Rights of Forest and Forest Products
4.3.5
Financial Support

i

4.4

5.

36

5.1

36
36
36
37
37
38
38
39
40
40
42
45
45
48

6.1

48
48
49
50
50
52
53
53
55
56
56
57
59
60
61

6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7

Supply and Demand
6.1.1
Roundwood
6.1.2
Wood Products
Foreign Trade
6.2.1
Imports
6.2.2
Exports
Wood Industries
6.3.1
Overview
6.3.2
Sawmilling and Panel Industries
Markets for Wood and Wood Products
6.4.1
Roundwood
6.4.2
Wood Products
Furniture Industry
Certification as a Tool to meet Market Requirement
Fuelwood and Charcoal

NON-WOOD RESOURCES AND THEIR UTILIZATION

63

7.1

63
63
63
65
65
65
65
66
67
67
67
68

7.2

7.3

7.4
8.

Rubber Plantations
5.1.1
Rubber Planting
5.1.2
Rubber as a Crop
5.1.3
Rubberwood Supply
5.1.4
Improvement of Genetic Material
5.1.5
Harvesting Methods and Organization
5.1.6
Other benefits
5.1.7
Role of Office of Rubber Replanting Aid Fund (ORRAF)
Timber Plantations
5.2.1
Government Programs
5.2.2
Teak
5.2.3
Dipterocarpus macrocarpus
5.2.4
Eucalyptus

INDUSTRY AND MARKETS

6.2

7.

27
28
29
29
30
31
32
33

PLANTATIONS

5.2

6.

4.3.6
Legal Framework
4.3.7
Goals and Strategy of Community Forestry Program
Towards Effective Community Forestry
4.4.1
Community Forestry Policy and Strategy
4.4.2
Benefits and Costs of Community Forestry
4.4.3
Tenure and Use Rights of Forest and Forest Products
4.4.4
Organizing Communities and Forest-based Community Enterprises
4.4.5
Networking and Association of Community Forest Groups

Bamboo7.1.1
Bamboo Resources
7.1.2
Bamboo Plantations
Rattan7.2.1
Regulatory Framework
7.2.2
Rattan Plantations
7.2.3
Utilization
Other Non-timber Forest Products
7.3.1
Bee products
7.3.2
Lac
7.3.3
Resin
Ecotourism

EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC POLICIES

70

8.1
8.2

70
73
73
76

Combating Deforestation and Poverty Alleviation
Illegal Logging and Logging Ban
8.2.1
Illegal Forest Operations
8.2.2
Control

ii

8.3
9.

Financing and Other Incentives

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

79

9.1

79
79
82
83
84
84
86
87
88
88
90
91
91
91
92
93
93
94
94
95
96
96
98
99
100
102
103
105

9.2

9.3
9.4

9.5
9.6

9.7
9.8
9.9
9.10

Development of Forest Policy
9.1.1
Past Policy Decelopment
9.1.2
Sectoral Planning
9.1.3
Cross-sectoral Linkages
Public Administration
9.2.1
Organizational Structure
9.2.2
Human Resources
9.2.3
Financial Resources
Decentralization
9.3.1
TAOs and Villages
9.3.2
Role of Provincial Government
Forest Industry Organization
9.4.1
FIO’s Role in Plantations
9.4.2
FIO’s Wood-Based Industry
9.4.3
Sale of Teak and Confiscated Wood
9.4.4
Elephant Conservation
9.4.5
Financial Status
Forestry Research
9.5.1
MONRE Forest Research Units
9.5.2
Universities and Other Bodies
Forestry Education, Training and Extension
9.6.1
Education
9.6.2
Further Training
9.6.3
Extension
Information System
Forestry Cooperatives
Organization of the Private Sector
Civil Society

PART III
10.

11.

77

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONSCONCLUSIONS

106

10.1
10.2
10.3

106
107
108

Future Vision
Main Constraints
Opportunities

RECOMMENDATIONS
11.1
11.2

11.3

109

Government
109
Other Stakeholders
113
11.2.1
Forest Industry
113
11.2.2
Forest Communities, Farmers and Landowners
114
11.2.3Civil Society
114
11.2.4All Stakeholders
114
ITTO
114
11.3.1
Support to Thailand
114
11.3.2
General Recommendation
Error! Bookmark not defined.

REFERENCES

116

ANNEXES

Annex 1
Annex 2Annex 3Annex 4
Annex 5Annex 6

Terms of Reference for Diagnostic Missions
Itinerary of the ITTO Mission
List of People Consulted
ITTO Supported Projects in Thailand
Forest Area in 2000-2004
Forest Area by Type and Region, 2004iii

Annex 7
Annex 8Annex 9Annex 10Annex 11
Annex 12Annex 13aAnnex 13b
Annex 14Annex 15
Annex 16
Annex 17
Annex 18
Annex 19
Annex 20
List of Tables
Table 2.1
Table 2.2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 5.1
Table 5.2
Table 5.3
Table 6.1
Table 6.2
Table 6.3
Table 6.4
Table 6.5
Table 6.6
Table 6.7
Table 6.8
Table 6.9
Table 6.10
Table 6.11
Table 6.12
Table 9.1
Table 9.2
Table 9.3

List of Boxes
Box 3.1
Box 3.2
Box 3.3
Box 4.1
Box 4.2

Forest Reserves, 2004
Endemic and Threatened Species in Thailand
Treefarm Plantation Promotion Program 1994-2002
Reforestation Area by Government Program
Imports of Logs and Sawnwood, 1984-2004
Import Duties of Wood Products, 2006
Foreign Trade in Furniture 1999-2004
Export Markets of Wooden Furniture, 2004
Wood-based Industries and Trade in Thailand
Structure of Labour Force in Forest-based Industries i 2000
Farmholding Land-use Change 1998-2004
Cultivated Area by Main Crop 1996-2004
FIO Production and Sales
Administrative Regions in Thailand
Forest Area Map of Thailand
Land-use Pattern by Region, 2001
Forest Cover, 1961-2004
Permanent Forest Estate
Plantation Area by Species in 2000
Species with Status in Thailand
Types and Areas of Protected Areas, 2004
Evolution of Watershed Management Policy
Mangrove Forests
Number of Community Forests by Region and Selected Socio-economic
Variables
Tentative Definition of Use Rights of Forests in Thai Conditions
Rubber Plantation Area, Latex Production and Farm Value 1995-2004
Potential Rubberwood Supply 2005 – 2010
Eucalyptus Wood Supply from Existing Plantations
Recorded Industrial Roundwood Production, 2000-2004
Industrial Roundwood Supply and Consumption, 2003
Wood Residue Balance, 2003
Production and Apparent Consumption of Wood Products, 2004
Recorded Trade in Wood and Wood Products in Thailand 2004
Sources of Recorded Imports of Wood and Wood Products in Thailand, 2004
Recorded Imports from Neighboring Countries in 2004
Exports of Particleboard and Fibreboard, 2004
Economic Indicators of Forest Based Industries, 2000
Examples of Roundwood Prices in April-May 2006
Wood Product Prices, April-May 2006
Biomass-based Energy Consumption, 1999-2003
Oganizational Structure of RFD and DNP in 2005
RFD and DNP Staff, 2004
Government Budget and Revenue of Royal Forest Department and
Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, 2003
Key Legal Provisions of Protected Areas
The Western Forest Complex
Watershed Classes
Key Events in the Development of Community Forestry Legislation in
Thailand
Proposed Procedure to a Establish Community Forests

5
6
7
8
9
12
18
19
23
32
36
37
47
48
49
49
50
51
52
52
53
54
57
58
62
86
87
88
10
14
17
23
28

iv

Box 4.3
Box 4.4
Box 4.5
Box 8.1
Box 9.1
Box 9.2
Box 9.3
Box 9.4

Rationale and Good Practice of Community Forestry
Areas under Community Forests in India and Nepal
Income Generation from Community Forests in Nepal
Evolution of the Illegal Logging in Thailand
Key Milestones of the Thai Forest Policy
Key Measures of the 1985 National Forest Policy
Forest Cover Percentage as a Policy Goal
Constitutional Framework of the Rights of Rural People to Participate in theManagement and Use of Natural Resources

List of Figures
Figure 9.1
Institutional Framework of the Forestry Sector

29
30
31
74
80
81
82
89
85

v

Abbreviations and Acronyms
AEETC
AIT
ASEM
BAAC
BARC
C&I
CBNRM
CEO
CF
CITES
cm
CO
CoC
DAE
DANCEDDANIDA
DBH
DG
DKK
DLD
DMC
DNP
DONP
EU
FAO
FECOFUN
FF
FIO
FRC
FSC
FSMP
GIS
ha
ICRAF
IMFN
INRCP
IT
ITTC
ITTO
IUCN
JICA
KD
kg
KPI
Ktoe
KU
KURDI
m3
MAI
MDF
MOAC
MONRE
NAREBI
n.d
NEA
NESAC

Asian Europe Environmental Technology Centre
Asian Institute Technology
Asia Europe Meeting
Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives
Bank of Agriculture and Rural Cooperatives (Nepal)
Criteria and Indicators
Community Based Natural Resource Management
Chief Executive Officer
Community Forestry
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
centimeter
Certificate of Origin
chain-of-custody
Department of Agricultural Extension
Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development
Danish International Development Assistance
Diameter Breast Height
Director General
Danish Kroner
Department of Land Development
Department of Marine Coastal Resources
Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation
National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department
European Union
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Federations of Community Forest Users (Nepal)
Forestry Faculty (KU)
Forest Industry Organization
Forest Research Center
Forest Stewardship Council
Forest Sector Master Plan
Geographical Information System
HectareWorld Agroforestry Center
International Model Forest Network
Integrated Natural Resources Conservation Project
Information Technology
International Tropical Timber Council
International Tropical Timber Organization
The World Conservation Union
Japan International Cooperation Agency
Kiln driedkilogram
Key Performance Indicators
Kilo tonne oil equivalent
Kasetsart University
Kasetsart University Research and Development Institutes
cubic meter
Mean Annual Increment
Medium Density Fiberboard
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives
Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
National Resources and Biodiversity InstituteNot dated
National Energy Authority
National Economic and Social Advisory Councilvi

NESDB
NESDP
NFP
NTFP
NGO
NPV
NRM
OAE
ORRAF
ORRRF
OTOP
PA
PEFC
PFE
Ph.D.
PNG
PNRE
R
RECOFTC
REX
RFD
RIC
RMFP
RRI
RRIM
RUP
s
SDR
SFM
STK
TAO
TAT
TDRI
TEI
TFSMP
THB
TIC
TOF
US$
WEFCOM
WRME
WWF

National Economic and Social Development Board
National Economic and Social Development Plant
National Forest Program
non-timber forest productNon-governmental Organization
Net Present Value
Natural Resource Management
Office of Agricultural Economics
Office of Rubber Replanting Aid Fund
Office for Rubber Research Revolving FundOne Tambon One ProductProtected area
Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification
Permanent forest estate
Doctor of Philosophy
Papua New Guinea
Provincial Natural Resource and Environment
roundwood
Regional Community Forestry Training Centre
Reforestation and Extension ProjectRoyal Forest Department
Rural Income Per Capita
Regional Model Forest Project
Rubber Research InstituteRubber Research Institute of Malaysia
ratio of urban to total population
processed productSaw-Dry-Resaw
Sustainable Forest Management
Certificate of forest land usufruct rightTambon (sub-district) Administration
Tourism Authority of Thailand
Thailand Development Research InstituteThailand Environment InstituteThai Forestry Sector Master PlanThai Bath (1 US$ = 40 THB)
Teak Improvement Centre
Trees Outside Forests
US Dollar
Western Forest Complex
wood raw material equivalentWorld Wide Fund for Naturevii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Mission members want to put on record the invaluable guidance and foresighted vision which wasreceived from Dr. Manoel Sobral Filho, Executive Director of the ITTO during the Diagnostic Mission
to Thailand. Mr. Chathai Ratanophat, Director General of the Royal Forest Department gave his full
support to the implementation of the Mission. Mr. Suchat Kalyawongsa, together with the entire RFD
and DNP staff who participated in the work of the Mission, did not save any efforts and hospitality tofacilitate the work of the Mission.
The Mission also received valuable assistance from various other government agencies andstakeholder groups, including the private sector, civil society, the donor community, and various
government agencies without which the task would not have been possible to complete.
Dr. Chudchawan Sutthisrisilapa, Dr. Komon Pragtong, Mr. Sittichai Ungphakorn and Mr. Wichit
Sonthiwanit were the key resource persons of the Mission. They also compiled the background reportwhich was an essential input for this final report of the Mission.
The members of the Mission want to express their sincere thanks and gratitude for all those who
contributed to the preparation of this report. It goes without saying that the authors alone areresponsible for any errors or misinterpretations which may be found in the report.

Markku Simula

Takeshi Akaha

Bipin Behari

Yam Malla

viii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Objectives of the Mission
Within the framework of Decision 2(XXIX) of the International Tropical Timber Council (ITTC)
entitled “ITTO Objective 2000”, the Royal Thai Government submitted in 2001 an official request to
the ITTC for the visit of a technical mission to Thailand in order to carry out a diagnosis of the forest
management status in the country. The objective of the mission was to assist the Government in
identifying those factors that prevent or limit the country’s progress towards achieving Objective 2000
and sustainable forest management, and to recommend appropriate measures to overcome these
constraints.
Development of the Mission
In January 2006 three local consultants completed a background document, which served as the basisof the work of the Mission. The Royal Forest Department was requested to inform the key stakeholder
groups on the objectives and the conduct of the Mission and written comments on the main constraints
to SFM were invited. The Mission was fielded from March 22 to April 8, 2006. After initialconsultations with RFD, the Mission identified six main topics for detailed investigation as these wereconsidered to be critical elements for the achievement of sustainable forest management (SFM) in
Thailand. These were (a) conservation and management of natural forests, (b) community forestry (c)plantations, (d) industry and markets, (e) non-timber forest products, (f) public policies, and (g)institutional capacity. Field visits were made to five provinces and the preliminary findings werediscussed in a stakeholder workshop at the end of the Mission. A total of about 125 people wereconsulted representing different stakeholder groups.
OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT SITUATION
Policy and Institutional Framework
The Government of Thailand has established stringent laws towards the protection and conservation offorest areas including water and biodiversity. These include five main acts: Forest Control Act, (1941),
National Park Act (1961), National Reserved Forest Act (1964), Wildlife for Preservation andProtection Act (1992), and Reforestation Act (1992). The Royal Forest Department (RFD), founded in
1896, is responsible for forests outside protected areas which are the responsibility National Park,
Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department (DNP). The Department of Marine and Coastal
Resources (DMC) has the authority over the mangrove and other coastal forests. All the departments
are under the supervision of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE). Several
other agencies are also dealing with forests.
Land Use, Deforestation and Forest Cover
In 2001, the land use of the country was divided between agriculture or farmholding land (41%), forest(31%) and unclassified areas (28%). In 1961, the total forest area of Thailand was about 27 mill. hacovering over 53.3% of the country. Subsequently, forest areas were encroached for the purpose ofslash-and-burn, shifting cultivation, land resettlement, dam and road construction, land reform for
agriculture, etc. The annual rate of deforestation has been about 63,000 ha per year since 2000, or
higher than in the 1990s. The current forest area is estimated at 16.8 million ha.
Forest Resources
There are two main types of forests in Thailand: (1) evergreen forest and (2) deciduous forest. The
evergreen forest consists of the tropical evergreen forest, the pine forest, the mangrove forest and thebeach forest. Tropical evergreen forest is found all over the moist part of the country. Tropical rain
forest is common in the Southern and Eastern regions.
Permanent Forest Estate and Tenure of Forest Land
The area of permanent forest estate (PFE) reported in 1991 was 23.5 mill. ha, much of it alreadywithout forest cover. PFE had shrunk by almost 50% to 12.0 mill. ha in 2001. About 1.15 mill. ha ofthe original PFE has been converted to agriculture, 8.3 mill. ha to settlements and infrastructure, and
1.1 mill. ha to other uses. The balance now available comprises about 10 mill. ha of protected area andix

1.9 mill. ha of plantations. The production PFE now is found only in planted forests on government
land. Practically all the natural forests are owned by the state and managed by RFD, DNP or DMC.
Privately owned forests are mostly plantations but not accounted as PFE. The Government has issued
various types of tenure rights for people living in forest reserves.
Management of Natural Forests
Four stages can be identified in Thai forestry: (i) early exploitation stage (from the mid-1890s to theearly 1930s), (ii) expanding exploitation and management stage (from the 1930s to the early 1960s),(iii) forest exploitation decline stage (from the 1960s to the mid-1980s); and (iv) struggle towards
sustainable management under a logging ban in natural forests (from 1989 onwards). The current
forest management approach has had three main interventions: (a) expansion of designated protectedareas, (b) expansion of the forest resource base by plantations, and (c) development of community
forestry. There are no management plans for the Reserved Forest areas. In annual operational plans
there are no provisions for silvicultural treatments. Emphasis in forest management is on patrolling,
recreation and other services, and only limited research has been carried out.
Planted Forests
The total area of planted forests in 2000 was estimated at 2.81 mill. ha and there are another 2.0 mill.
ha of rubber plantations. The main planted timber species are teak, eucalyptus, acacia and pine.
Plantations were originally established by the Government and in the 1990s various plantation
campaigns with government financing were implemented. More recently, farmers and private
investors have started to plant forests.
Forest Production
No reliable statistics exist in the country on wood production. There are two main sources of industrial
wood: eucalyptus plantations and rubber plantations. Due to the logging plan, there is practically notimber production in natural forests. The total volume of industrial roundwood production is estimatedat 19 mill.m3/year.
Conservation of Biodiversity
Thailand is bestowed with rich floral, faunal and cultural diversity. The country houses approximately
7 % of the world flora and fauna and is considered a collective regional centre of botanical diversity.
There are 15,000 plant species in the country, 4,600 vertebrate species and 83,000 invertebrate
species. There is a large number of plant and animal species, which are endangered, rare or threatened.
Many species have also been domesticated.
Socio-economic aspects
The Thai population totals 63 million inhabitants with an annual growth rate of 0.4%. The population
density is 123 persons per km2. Eighty percent of the population lives in the rural areas. The poverty
level is low and most people living in protected areas are experiencing high or medium level poverty.
For the rural poor, fuelwood and non-timber forest products (NTFP) are important sources of
livelihood. The accounted sectoral contribution to GDP of forestry has been declining and in 2003 it
amounted only to US$ 120.5 million representing 0.1% of the total GDP. This does not take into
account fuelwood and NTFPs. The declining trend in the GDP share is probably changing withincreasing volumes of plantation wood maturing for harvesting.

DIAGNOSIS
Forest Conservation
Thailand has set up a target to have 25% of the country’s total land area as protected areas while theirpresent coverage is about 20%. The protected area (PA) system is comprehensive including 227
declared protected areas (11.3 mill. ha) under the control of DNP. Although extensive, the PAs containdisproportionate amounts of upland forest but very little lowland evergreen forest. However, thehabitat coverage has been considered 'quite satisfactory’ with ‘no obvious gaps'. The PA network in
Thailand is one of the best in Southeast Asia.

xOut of the total 103 gazetted national parks, the Government had prepared master plans only for 55.
Valid management plans exist only for 15 gazetted parks. Another 45 areas have been proclaimed but
are not yet gazetted. Out of the 55 wildlife sanctuaries, only 25 have management plans underpreparation. This shows that the pace of extending the PA network has well exceeded the capacity of
the administration to bring these areas under effective management. In addition, management plans are
not necessarily leading to improved protection as they often lack implementation.
The Thai conservation policy initially revolved around a "wilderness approach," which recommended
total exclusion of people from protected areas. Such an approach is no longer possible in a country
where a large population dependent on forest resources lives inside PAs. The key issue for the futureof the PA network is how to deal with the 1.2 to 2 million people who are living within the protectedareas. Delineation of the gazetted area boundaries has been criticized and the scientific basis ofdecisions has not been made public.
Cross-border forest complexes represent a particular priority in the maintenance of protected areas
over broader landscapes which need to be conserved through integrated approaches including bufferzones, biological corridors, etc. and which should address the specific issues of border areas(immigration, trade in endangered species, illegal logging, etc.). Common approaches are necessary tobring the cross-border areas under effective protection and control.
Forest Reserves
The 1,221 national forest reserves covering an area of 23,4 mill. ha and managed by RFD form alsopart of the conservation system. Together with protected areas, they cover about 63.2% of the total
area of the country. About 20% of the country 56,000 villages are located within forest reserves.
Thailand has never had a long-term silvicultural management system despite the successful
experiences developed in the neighboring countries with similar forest types. There are no records ofnational-level forest inventories.
During the logging period inventories were regional or local in scale and they contained data only on
teak. However, any sustainable silvicultural management requires data on the potential of stands interms of their future growth and yield. Silvicultural systems could be based on species-specific andsite-adjusted selection systems or conversion methods to convert the existing stock into a natural-likeforest. However, silvicultural treatments such as thinnings are not allowed because of the logging ban
and therefore hardly any revenue can be generated for this state-owned huge asset. What is allowed isthe production of NTFPs.
In order to develop appropriate silvicultural systems in Thailand, it would be necessary to establish
permanent sample plots for monitoring growth and yield of different forest types. Knowledge on thephenology and physiology of key indigenous species should be improved on aspects like seedproduction, shade tolerance/light requirements and responses to competition, liberation and othertreatments. There is also need for further research on taxonomy.
The main management goal in forest reserves is conservation. As large areas do not have forest cover
they have become de facto common public lands that are encroached by expanding agriculturalactivity. These areas would need to be brought under management to guarantee their health andvitality. However, the logging ban impedes any silvicultural improvement, as the necessary treatments
would involve liberation harvesting. In Thailand, there is an erroneous perception that setting aside is
the only way to effectively protect forests. With the current conservation paradigm, Thailand is
implementing a non-optimal conservation strategy, which ignores the economic value of timber as oneof the outputs of sustainable forest management. The economic value of lost opportunities could beassessed based on the available yield estimates to guide future policy decisions.
The Mission is fully aware that this is politically a most sensitive issue in Thailand. Any policychanges should be part of a broader process involving all the stakeholder groups at different levels.
Necessary background information on the options, their impacts and consequences should be
generated before such a consultation process becomes meaningful.
Watershed ManagementxiSince the last 20 years the strategy in watershed management has been to maintain or create a
protective forest cover for the protection of soil and water but the implementation concept has changed
over time. The past top-down planning and implementation with costly large-scale reforestation havebeen substituted by diversified approaches. Low density planting minimizes costs and maximizes
impacts, which is particularly useful in degraded lands. Alternative land-use and agricultural practices
have been introduced to discourage shifting cultivation and landscape-level approaches have also been
introduced. The government delivery system of support has suffered from inefficiencies, lack ofadequate technical knowledge, and limited involvement of local people. Partnership arrangements
between authorities and local communities are still poorly developed. Greater attention to traditionalrules, regulations and practices would enhance the feasibility of interventions. Best results on the
ground are probably achieved when villagers have instituted a clear set of rules and regulations tocontrol access and use rights aimed at regenerating the natural forest while allowing controlled use of
the resources.
Mangroves
Promotion of integrated watershed management programs and redesign of farming systems on theprinciples of ecology, economics and employment generation are needed in the mangrove area.
Capacity building programs are also necessary for local communities on the state-of-the art of posttsunami agronomic, ecological and livelihood rehabilitation measures drawing on the accumulating
experience. Investing in environmentally sound development and sustainable management of thecoastal environment will, in the long run, be more cost-effective than restoring human lives andecosystems after a catastrophe. Bioshielding requires a combination of mangrove and terrestrial
systems
Community Forestry
Forest resources have been an integral part of Thailand’s rural life, involving all aspects of local
people’s activities, In addition to some 1.2 to 2.0 million people living in and around the protectedareas, another 20 to 25 million people live nearby the national forest reserves and use them for forest
products. As early as in the 1970s, community (or village) forestry has been tried as a strategy forsustainable forest. Some 11,400 villages (or 15.5% of all the villages) are involved in managing
community forests in the country, of which about a half are reported to have formally registered theircommunity forests. They cover 200,000 ha or 1.2 % of the total forest area.
RFD has identified and promoted a variety of means to support local communities to manage theirforests, albeit at pilot scales, so that these could be scaled up. However, without an enabling
regulation, the future of these community forests is insecure, as RFD is not in a position to provide inwriting any guarantee that these forests will definitely continue to be under community management.
Besides, the area under community forests is so small and the speed at which they are established soslow that no significant positive impact has been achieved on poverty reduction and the managementof the country’s forest resources as yet.
The main reason for the slow progress is the inadequate legal framework in spite of efforts to issue
Community Forestry Bill. Several versions, have been drafted, but the approval has been on hold due
to difficulty in reaching a consensus as views differ particularly on the clause that would allow
community forests in protected areas. The other reasons include conflicts and politics of various
interested groups. The deep mistrust concerning local communities’ capacity to manage forests among
civil servants and some NGOs, who see villagers as the main cause of forest degradation, is one of themain reasons for holding community forestry back. In addition to excluding communities from the
management of protected areas, there are strong views among authorities against allowing community
forestry beyond the degraded sites within the national forest. If community forestry is to make any
meaningful contribution to the country’s forest resource management and poverty alleviation, there
has to be a fundamental shift in the overall thinking on the rationale and purpose for community
forestry policy and program. Local communities should be seen as assets of human capital for
improving the country’s forest resources, not only as threats for their degradation.
Rubberwood
The existing rubber plantations, with a theoretical potential of wood supply of about 21 mill. m3/year,
are the main source of industrial timber in Thailand. Revenue from wood is additional to farmer andxii

helps finance rubber replanting cost. At the national level, the total stumpage revenue of thesmallholders from rubberwood is estimated at US$ 35 to 60 mill. Wood production can be aparticularly attractive option for the poor North and Northeast regions where latex productivity is well
below the national average.
The current policies and institutional arrangements of the rubber sector do not adequately take into
account the potential offered by rubberwood production. There is little coordination between the
promotion of production of latex and that of utilization of rubber trees as a source of wood raw
material. Comprehensive economic analyses on the feasibility of rubber tree planting for wood, either
alone or together with latex, do not exist to guide policy design although growing rubber trees fortimber can be an economically attractive option for farmers. Lacking information on timber yields,
RFD is promoting sub-optimal planting of rubber trees exclusively for timber production with thesame clones and with the same plantation densities that are used to yield maximum latex production.
Even more serious is the lack of information on potential rubberwood supply at provincial level, whichmakes the promotion of rubberwood processing difficult representing a source of risk for firm-level
investment decisions.
Timber Plantations
Since the 1989, logging ban, timber production in Thailand has shifted from natural forests to planted
forests. But plantation of timber species has progressed slowly due to a series of constraints. Most of
farmers are indebted and therefore, they have to obtain quick returns, and even a five-year rotation
with eucalyptus is often too long for them. There is a need to adjust the law so that farmers can beallowed to harvest, transport and sell plantation timber on their own private lands without any
permission, including reserved species. This would remove uncertainty related to the right to harvest at
the end of the rotation.
The technical basis of plantation development is still relatively shallow. Studies should be carried out
to diversify plantation sites and species for improved economic returns. Forest Plantation Promotion
Centers should continue the monitoring and establishment of experimental plots for periodic
measurement, etc. This could be done in partnership with industry and linked to training of farmers as
both parties have common interest in plantation development.
Teak
The area of natural teak forest in Thailand decreased from 2.3 million ha in 1954 to about 150,000 hain 2000. During the same time, the private and public sectors have established only 836,000 ha of teakplantations. Small logs from teak plantations can already be used for furniture, carving, building
construction, household utensils, toys, poles and posts, etc. Apart from genetic improvement,
practically no research has been done regarding teak in spite of the fact that the species was themainstay of the forestry sector for more than 100 years. There should be registered sources of teakseeds and planting material for large-scale plantations and smaller landowners. There is also a need tohave adequate systematic research on quality planting material, increased productivity, and economic
feasibility of teak plantations to support their expansion.
No survey and no management plans exist on teak plantations in the country. There is a need to have a
database regarding these plantations which need to be registered anyway before harvesting can beallowed as teak is reserved species. The information would also assist in policy design, planning andmarketing of plantation teak, etc.
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus plantations cover about 480 000 ha of which 10% is in paddy fields. Wood production isestimated at 7 mill. m3/yr. Most (70-80%) of eucalyptus produced is used by the paper and pulp
industry, 10-15% goes for charcoal and 5% for construction poles, etc. Manufacturing of MDF,
hardboard and particleboard from eucalyptus has also started.
There is an on-going debate on the environmental impact of eucalyptus throughout the world and in
Thailand, the public perception is also generally negative. However, among farmers the negative
perception has apparently faded as it has been demonstrated that there is no adverse effect either on
the productivity of agricultural crops if plantations are established and managed properly. Withxiii

relatively simple improvements in genetic material and silvicultural treatments, the productivity of
eucalyptus plantations can be substantially improved.
The current emphasis on pulpwood production in eucalyptus plantations does not yield the optimum
contribution of the resource to the country’s wood supply. The potential of using eucalyptus forsawnwood and plywood, both presently being imported on a large-scale, still remains to be tapped.
The associated technical problems can be solved. On the wood supply side, it is important to introduce
thinnings (and pruning if needed) in plantations where owners can wait for higher economic yields
than with short-rotation pulpwood. This could open up new areas for eucalyptus planting which arepresently too distant from the existing industrial plants. In view of the critical wood supply situation in
the country, this could be one of the strategic priorities of forestry development in the short andmedium term.
Timber Supply and Demand
The total industrial roundwood supply was about 19.2 million m3 in 2004. About 98% of the totalindustrial roundwood supply come from plantations. The largest consumer of roundwood (54% of thetotal) is the pulp and paper industry, followed by the sawmilling industry (30%) and wood-based
panels. Imports are strategically important in the sawnwood supply (90% of the total). Thailand’s main
export items in wood products are sawnwood, particleboard and fiberboard. In the 1990s thesawnwood trade was small and rather stable in 2004 it reached 1.8 mill. m3. This quite phenomenal
development is a result of the growing interest of Chinese furniture producers to procure sawn
rubberwood from Thailand.
There is some unrecorded trade with the neighboring countries and there are discrepancies between
trading partners in the data. Unrecorded trade has two components, i.e. legal imports of small volumes
for non-commercial purposes and illegal imports. There is a general perception that illegal imports
have been declining drastically compared to what they used to be in the 1990s.
The sawmilling industry’s biggest challenge is probably how to cope with the increasing labor costs
and modernize the existing capacity. The improvement process could apply a value optimization
approach. There is also a need to consider higher efficiency technological options for log handling,sawing, drying, further processing and waste handling.
Markets for Forest Products
In log trade, market transparency is limited and sellers do not have a clear understanding of thepotential value of their wood crop. There is an urgent need to improve the market transparency, which
could gradually start making the market more efficient. Wood measurement practices cannot beeffectively controlled by the seller and therefore represent an opportunity for misuse. Buying ofgrowing stock by area should be phased out and replaced first by weight measurement. In the long run,saw and veneer log measurement should preferably be carried out based on volume.
The crucial element for improving the negotiation power of roundwood producers is to establish
effective common organizations (associations, cooperatives, etc.) which would be capable to protect
farmers’ interests in varying market conditions. Tree farmer-corporate partnership arrangements areuseful instruments in promoting investment in plantations and mitigating against market risks. They
can also mobilize such landowners in plantation investment who themselves do not have capacity toorganize planting and management activities.
Furniture Industry
Without a concerted effort driven by the government, Thailand’s thriving furniture industry, as asignificant source of export earnings, is likely to become stagnant due to the heavy competitive
pressure. The industry has developed largely on its own without (a) a systematic strategic approach inresource management, (b) R&D benefiting the whole sector, (c) marketing support, (d) standardizationand quality control systems, and last but not least (e) specialist technical training. The Government’s
role is to address these bottlenecks. The key problem of the large-scale furniture industries is theshortage of competent supervisors and middle managers who would be able to improve operations at
mill floor level on a continuous basis and implement effective quality control systems. In addition,
there is only limited domestic capacity for furniture design.

xivMeeting Market Requirements for Certification
The Thai export industry has already taken some action to respond to the market demands for certified
and legally produced products. These demands will increasingly influence the market access of Thai
exports both in furniture and wood-based panels. A facilitated continued access to these markets
should be ensured by implementing certification. There are no inherent obstacles which would not
make smallholder tree growing certifiable in the Thai conditions. On the contrary, certification could
boost the organization of farmers that would in any case be needed. The environmental issues related
to eucalyptus planting need to be, however, duly addressed.
Fuelwood
The woodfuel sector offers a promising outlook for the Thai forestry. In addition to household
fuelwood, the demand for charcoal making and associated alcatra production remains strong.
Commercial combined heat and electricity production is expected to be feasible soon in Thailand. This
would represent additional market opportunities for plantation wood, particularly in locations that arefar from industrial mills using small-sized wood.
BambooThailand’s bamboo resources cover 800,000 ha and the potential annual production of bamboo is
500,000 tons. In addition, 10,700 ha of plantations have been established. In spite of overexploitation,
the production potential of bamboo is only partly tapped even though ready markets exist. Bamboo isparticularly suited to social forestry/agroforestry practices as well as in watershed management. Thereis need to intensify cultivation of bamboo by providing incentives and guidance on improved
technology which could have a significant impact on productivity and costs.
RattanRattan resources have been subject to serious overexploitation and only timid efforts have been madeto develop plantations. Present production systems are not sufficient to meet the demand for rattan.
Government policies should be adjusted to support rattan plantation by providing secure tenure, credit
and technical assistance. A network of gene banks is needed and adequate knowledge should be
generated for the management and maintenance of rattan resources in the country,
Other Non-timber Forest Products
Besides bamboo and rattan, a large number of edible and medicinal plants, seeds, mushrooms, honey,
wax, lac and resin etc. belong to Thailand’s NTFPs. But their significance in the rural and national
economies has been little appreciated. Yet NTFPs can play a key role in alleviating rural poverty.
Information on the resource, markets and integration in forest management is typically needed. An
adequate database regarding the availability of NTFPs by species, area and quantity would help policy
design and planning as well as in developing proper market mechanism and trade opportunities forvarious value-added products.
Ecotourism
The national parks system in Thailand has a growing importance to ecotourism, one of the fastest
growing sectors of the tourism industry. In the case of the Mekong River, the nature-based tourism
potential particularly applies to the poor Northeast region. There appears to be no specific ecotourism
development strategy that could guide local communities and the private sector to enhance thecontribution of the natural heritages and local communities to sustainable tourism development. The
Mekong subregional tourism strategy has identified three border areas as potential focal zones for
future tourism development, i.e. west (Andaman), east (the Eastern Forest Complex) and the Northernarea. Ecotourism should be adapted as one of the strategic elements of the development of nationalparks and other priority conservation areas.
Combating Deforestation and Poverty Alleviation
The available data on the deforestation in Thailand suggests that the rate is not declining and continues
at unacceptable levels. Deforestation is concentrated in the forest margin or agricultural frontier. Thereis also deforestation inside the larger forest areas which is different in nature, permanence and degreeof environmental impacts. Extension of the rural road network, expansion of cash crops, populationpressure in the areas affected by immigration, and land allocation programs are key underlying reasonsxv

which have resulted in policy failures in terms of forest conservation. Public policies on combating
deforestation have been focused on measures to maintain forest cover through rehabilitation of
degraded areas and reintroducing trees to deforested marginal lands. This costly approach (rather
repair than prevent) has not ensured the halt of deforestation. Policies have not adequately addressed
rural poverty as a root cause of deforestation. Impacts on forests of the policies of agriculture andother related sectors have not been duly recognized resulting in inconsistencies and policy conflicts
which make the Government’s effort to curb deforestation ineffective.
Illegal Logging and Logging Ban
The 1989 logging ban was a shock treatment has had mixed effects. The ban does not work alone but
needs supporting and complementary measures which became late, were inadequate and could nothave a desired impact. The market shock transmitted part of the problem of illegal logging toneighboring countries, as local supply could not respond to demand. On the other hand, had thelogging ban not been implemented, conservation efforts may have proved to be less effective than atpresent. Social impacts have also been mixed: employment and income were lost in rural areas but
improved environmental quality has also brought some social benefits.
The ban provoked a surge in illegal operations which has since then been contained by tightening
control. The volume of confiscated timber is presently marginal but it is questionable whether thecontrol is truly effective. According to stakeholders, illegal logging, which in the past was carried out
on a large scale, has become a small-scale activity by small groups, often linked with timber buyers.
On the other hand, traders have become more and more sophisticated when the control has improved.
Underpricing, downgrading the product in official documents, and incorrect volume measurement canstill be applied, as these practices are difficult to control. Various forms of extracting wood from theforest legally for household consumption but ending to the market have also emerged.
The authorities admit that corruption can be a problem but its importance is difficult to quantify. As
many authorities from central and local government agencies are involved in control, the cost ofcorruption becomes easily high for illegal operators. On the other hand, traders have become more andmore sophisticated when the control has improved but at the same time volumes are generally thought
to have reduced significantly.
The effectiveness of control system has greatly improved after involvement of people’s participationthat has proved to be particularly useful for the control of encroachment. Extensive media coverage,international concerns and export market requirements have been important in bringing illegal logging
largely under better control. However, more resources are needed to strengthen mobile units forcommunication and remote sensing data on the forest cover to monitor encroachment.
Financing and Other Incentives
Plantation development is an inevitable strategy in Thailand. Financing plays a crucial role as therequired heavy investment cannot be borne by small farmers. The Government has provided somesubsidies and incentives through various programs but the targets have not been achieved. Shortrotation plantations for timber production offer attractive opportunities and they do not need to begenerally subsidized. Provision of adequate credit facilities is critical but currently insufficient. Credit
would need to be accompanied by training of both farmers and the financial institutions involved.
There is a particular need to strengthen the perception among BAAC and other support agencies
concerning the planting as an economic activity. Modalities for lending to community forestry should
also be established.
Development of Forest Policy
The 1985 Forest Policy was not successful in addressing the root causes of deforestation. The attempt
to revise it in 1992 through the Thai Forest Sector Master Plan was not formally completed. There isan urgent need to revise the Forest Policy due to major changes in the political and legal framework.
The use of forest cover as the key sectoral goal has serious limitations even though it is easy tomonitor and communicate. The concepts of protection forest and economic forest represent a
simplified view on SFM. There is also a false perception that only planted forests can be economic
forests. The top-down government policy to protect and conserve natural forests has failed to obtainthe cooperation from the rural poor which is partly due to the fact that the policy-makers do not know

xvi

enough about the lives of forest-dwelling people. The references to forest sector in the national socialand economic plan (9th NESDBP) are general and do not provide sufficient guidance for theGovernment and stakeholders for the development of the forest sector. There is a need to launch anational forest program process involving broad-based participation.
Public Administration
RFD and DNP were separated with the apparent intention of division of work based on the territorial
duties, i.e. DNP being responsible for protected areas and RFD outside these areas. This is, however,not reflected in the designated functions and reflects a misunderstanding on what is forestry as afunctional activity. In addition, there is an element of duplication of activities, unclear delineation ofduties in many functions and distorted allocation of human resources. Forest reserves cannot beeffectively managed by RFD. In addition, there are problems in coordination and cooperation between
the two departments at the field level.
RFD has been marginalized having been stripped down of some of its key functions. A clear vision islacking on the Department’s mission, functions and resources, and there is no proper line of command.
This is a serious bottleneck for making progress towards SFM in the country. Duplication of extension
work by several agencies is not proving efficient, instead it is confusing the farmers who are finding
the messages from different agencies conflicting with each other. For proper forestry development,
RFD extension efforts need to be augmented and better coordinated with other field offices and NGOs.
There is overstaffing at higher and middle levels, i.e. at officers’ level in the (RFD) headquarters.
More field staff could be recruited (or assigned from the headquarters) as they are very limited atpresent. There is also a need to reduce the number of offices at the center and at the province level.
Decentralization
The legal provisions for local government at tambon (subdistrict) and village level provide a suitableadministrative structure to transfer the responsibility of forest resource management to villages andvillagers’ groups. The on-going change in the revamping of the role of the public administration
represents a paradigm change and its operationalization will be a long learning process. Provincial andDistrict Natural Resource/Forest Officers should assume a strong role and develop solid strategic plans
for the forestry development for their territories. Guidance for how such plans should be prepared does
not exist and this, together with associated training, should be addressed by RFD as a top priority. Inview of the large number of provinces the task is extensive.
Forest Industry Organization
FIO has evolved into a very diversified organization operating in resource management, industrial
wood processing and marketing, tourism, conservation and social development. The Government
constantly loads it with new tasks without adequate consideration of financial, managerial andpractical implications. The result is an operation which has extensive assets and broad mandates but
inadequate revenue generating capacity to carry out its tasks. There is no clear long-term vision andstrategy about the organization’s future role. FIO is in need of overhauling of its operations, which
would probably involve divestment or transfer some of the duties and assets to organizations which
are in better position to carry out the tasks.
Forestry Research
Research in forestry is presently scattered. The RFD Research Division was divided into two when
DNP was established and there is no central body for forestry research, which has resulted in someoverlap and lack of coordination. Many actors including universities and private sector are conducting
forestry-related research on specific issues of immediate interest to them. The results are not often
effectively disseminated and remain as gray literature in project files. The research agendas of various
actors would benefit from a clear strategic vision of the forest sector which is unfortunately lacking.
Extension requires development of technological packages suited to diverse agro-ecological,
silvopastoral and socio-economic conditions. There are clear gaps in the research agenda (e.g. policy
research, social impacts, NTFPs, etc.).
Forestry Education, Training and Extension
Forestry education has the tendency to confine itself within a very narrow base of target group
institutions and it must find ways for addressing the needs of all the operators who have multiple

xviiinterests in forests. Conservation rather than forest management has become the main focus oftraining. Lack of adequate training on forest economics is a major shortcoming. Among all forestry
professionals, there is a need for graduates to have adequate skills in problem analysis and relatingthem to broader issues. Skills in furniture design for export markets is another example of an area
where no or limited educational capacity exist.
There appears to be no capacity for technical and vocational level training on forestry related subjects
in the country. Consequently, concerned organizations and companies have taken the responsibility todevelop their own human resources. However, there is a particular need to arrange common training
for supervisors and other middle managers of wood and specifically furniture industries. This is one of
the key constraints in industrial development. There is a need to carry out a survey of the industry’s
training needs and prepare an action plan, assigning an appropriate existing technical-level training
institute for implementation. In addition, further training is particularly needed for forestry extension
staff.
Extension
MONRE appears to have no planning and development of the overall extension policy and program inforestry. This is unfortunate when the responsibility for management of forest resources andproduction is rapidly shifting to the private sector and communities. The field centers have limited
outreach capacity, due to shortage of financial resources. Most of the budgeted funds go for
maintaining infrastructure and paying staff salaries with little left for covering the cost of training
events. At present, extension activities at the field level are ad hoc, confined to specific project sites.
There is no training on maintenance and harvesting of the planted trees, and marketing of forest
products. A separate extension division, with its own field offices and personnel and its own line ofcommunication and command, is unlikely to be a viable solution. On the other hand, the extension unit
or division at the department level would be necessary for the overall development of forestry
extension.
Information System
The present statistical reporting in the forestry sector in Thailand is far from satisfactory. Information
is a powerful tool in managing the sector but this area has been almost neglected in the past. There is aneed to have a programme to improve the collection of forestry data and its publication and theeconomic and social aspects of forest utilization. An overall strategy for information management does
not exist. For middle-level staff the purpose of data collection is not clear and it is perceived as anadministrative burden rather than a management tool due to little feedback. The entire forest statisticalsystem needs to be carefully reviewed, including identification of data needs and gaps.
Forestry Cooperatives
Forestry cooperatives are still nascent but offer a viable solution for organizing individual tree
farmers. International experience on setting cooperatives for a group of community forests is mixed
due to differences in objectives and resources. This option could, however, be considered for Thailand,particularly in situations where community forests are small and cannot develop downstream activities
on their own.
Organization of the Private Sector
There are about 10 organizations/associations of forest-related industries in Thailand which are weak
as enterprises see more value in promoting their interests individually. This will have to be reviewed
when the national policy processes have become participatory and all stakeholder groups are expected
to propose clear priorities and policy proposals. In tree farmers’ associations the membership is still
limited. In view of the size of the country and the large number of smallholders involved, a bottom-up
approach could be attempted to organize tree farmers. It is also important that farmer/landownerassociations develop over time their own extension capacity as it is unlikely that the public sector
could carry out this task. Associations could also facilitate the development of partnerships between
forest industries and smallholders. Organizational development of smallholders will not happen
without the catalytic support from RFD or other public agencies. One single model may not work
everywhere in the country and alternative approaches for organization of tree farmers and extension
services could be tried.

xviii

Civil Society
The civil society active in the forest sector is heterogeneous with different agendas being promoted.
The past suspicion among the NGOs concerning authorities and among the public agencies concerning
NGOs has been gradually diminishing, partly as a result of the opening-up of the policy processes tobroad participation. There is a sense of mutual need to cooperate among most parties on both sides.
However, government policies tend to be opaque and access to information – albeit greatly improved–
still need to be enhanced. From the Government’s perspective, the fragmentation of the NGO
community makes dealing with them somewhat cumbersome. It would be beneficial if the dialogue on
the rural people’s role in conservation strategies could be enhanced among the NGO community as theGovernment is getting mixed messages on how policies on forest-dependent people should bedesigned and implemented.
MAIN CONCLUSIONS
The diagnosis of the Mission has shown many gaps and weaknesses in the current situation but it does
not show a gloomy picture for SFM in the country if corrective action is taken. Thailand has
accumulated a wealth of knowledge and well-trained professional human resources based on whichfurther progress towards the SFM goal can be made.
Future Vision
The following elements could constitute possible elements for the future strategic vision of SFM in
Thailand: (a) net deforestation arrested; (b) most degraded areas rehabilitated; (c) the role of forests inpoverty reduction enhanced through income and employment generation and improvement of
livelihoods of rural people; (d) community forests established with a secured usufruct/tenure rights; (e)most industrial wood obtained from plantations with less dependence on rubberwood; (f) the woodbased industry having an active role in the development of its raw material supply; (g) all the timber
harvesting operations verifiably legal and certifiable for SFM; (h) tree resources outside forests
substantially expanded; (i) efficient forest product market with adequate transparency; (j) theinternational competitiveness of the Thai forest-based industry; (k) bamboo and rattan resources
brought under systematic management and sustainably utilized; (l) the protected areas would bemanaged also for improved livelihoods for the people living in and around them; (m) forest
environmental services for mitigation of climate change, biodiversity, soil and water conservation
enhanced and, as appropriate, remunerated; (n) a firmly grounded forest policy process in place basedon NFP principles; (o) decision-making based on adequate information; (p) FIO privatized; (q) forest
communities and forest owners effectively organized; (r) civil society well organized and educated onforestry; and (s) private sector promoting common interests through strengthened associations.
Main Constraints
The most critical constraints impeding progress towards SFM in Thailand are: (i) the bottlenecks of
the regulatory framework; (ii) lack of coherence between public policies; (iii) people’s widely varying
perceptions about how Thailand’s forests should be conserved and managed; (iv) lack of coherent
support to communities and the private sector to manage forest resources; (v) institutional uncertainty
related to public forest administration; (vi) deficient information systems; and (vii) lack of systematic
strategies for human resource development and extension (including processing industries).
Opportunities
In spite of the constraints highlighted above, sustainable management of Thailand’s forests offer anumber of significant opportunities: (1) the potential of community forestry to contribute to poverty
alleviation; (2) major expansion of commercial tree planting on marginal lands thanks to Thailand’scompetitive advantage; (3) enhancing forest-based environmental services through payment
mechanisms to forest managers and owners; and (4) expansion of the production of non-timber forest
products in high demand both in the domestic and export markets.

xix

RECOMMENDATIONSThe Mission’s key recommendations by target group are summarized below and those in italics are
considered priorities:
Government
Natural forests
1. Guidelines for the preparation of management plans for PAs and forest reserves should be
revised to better address participation of local people and potential for management of NTFP
resources.
2. Effective communication mechanisms should be established to inform local people and thestakeholders on the gazettement processes.
Community Forestry
3. The Community Forestry Bill should be approved without delay. Community forestry should beallowed in national forest reserves through legal provisions.
4. The Bill would also need to be supported by a field implementation guideline.
5. Utilization of community forests should be open for both the subsistence and commercial
purposes and harvesting of all types of forest products as specified in the agreed management
plans.
6. Regarding the issue of community forestry in protected areas, a policy statement/instruction
could be issued to develop specific forest management and utilization activities to meet the needsof communities residing in and around PAs. Such activities should be defined in the management
plan of each PA.
Plantations
7. RFD should take a more active role to promote strengthened coordination between the agencies
involved in rubber planting and utilization of latex and rubberwood.
8. The obligation of transit permit should be removed from teak logs from thinnings in areas outside
forest reserves. At a later date, regulation of harvesting mature planted trees could bereconsidered in the light of then prevailing enforcement situation.
9. Wood measurement practices should be further developed and promoted to protect sellers’interests.
10. The Government’s role in mitigating market risks related to private sector plantation investment
should be focused to the following measures: (i) arranging adequate credit facilities, (ii)
improved market transparency, (iii) promotion of diversification of outputs, (iv) developing
measurement and grading systems for timber, (v) support to organization of producers, and (vi)promotion of landowner-industry partnerships. A government-backed minimum price scheme
should not be put in place.
Fuelwood
11. A study on the production and utilization of fuelwood should be carried out in view of meeting
demand through fuelwood and other bio-energy plantations.

Non-Timber Forest Products
12. The knowledge generated on the state-of-art in management and utilization of bamboo resources
should be effectively disseminated down to the farmer and SME levels.
13. Bamboo should be promoted in the social forestry/agro-forestry practices as well as in watershedmanagement through guidance on intensified technology and provision of incentives.
14. Market transparency on the demand and trade of NTFPs should be improved.
Ecotourismxx15. A national ecotourism development strategy should be elaborated. The three border areas aspotential focal zones for future tourism development (Andaman, the Eastern Forest Complex and
the Northern area) should be duly considered in the strategy.
Financing
16. Feasibility of establishing a special forest fund for community forestry and smallholder
plantation development through using the existing banking institutions as the delivery channel
should be studied.
Public Policies
17. The Forest Policy should be updated through an inclusive structured NFP process. The
conflicting policy goals related to land use, which impact forests and the forestry sector, should
be removed.
18. National Criteria & Indicators for SFM should be developed to serve as a tool for clarifying
forest policy goals and designing a monitoring system at national and forest management unit
levels.
19. Forest impact safeguards should be developed to guide the design of future infrastructure andurban/tourism development projects.
20. A special survey with field data collection should be carried out on the illegal logging andassociated trade. Monitoring and control systems should be further developed.
Institutional Capacity
21. A detailed assessment should be carried out on options for the institutional structure related to
RFD and DNP. RFD needs to establish a proper line of command should be established.
22. The extension unit or division at the department level should have a clear role in the overall
development of forestry extension with the tasks of developing suitable extension strategies andpackages, and providing support and training to field staff.
23. Provincial and District Natural Resource/Forest Officers should assume a strong role and develop
solid strategic plans for the forestry development in their territories. Guidance for preparation ofsuch plans should be prepared together with provision of associated training.
24. FIO should revise its mandate and overhaul its operations within a strategy where all options forthe organization’s future role are duly considered.
Research
25. The research priorities should be identified based on problem analysis. Practical and fieldoriented research and dissemination of research results should be improved.
26. The research agendas of various actors should be linked to a clear strategic vision of the forestry
sector and an integrated Forestry Research Network should be established in the country.
27. Further research would be required on (a) economic and social aspects of forestry, (b) suitable
tree species for shelterbelt establishment, (c) increasing of productivity of wood and other forest
produce, (d) reclamation of wastelands and degraded lands, (e) social forestry, farm forestry,
agroforestry, and urban forestry, and (f) commercial bioenergy generation.
Education, Training and Extension
28. A human resource development plan and extension strategy should be prepared for the forestry
sector covering education and training (for the next 5-7 years).
29. Government support to organizational development of community forests and smallholders
should be strengthened.
30. One of the technical colleges/institutes should be assigned to set up a specialized training
programme to meet the technical level training of the about 1,700 Thai furniture enterprises.
Information System
31. RFD should prepare a road map with the time frame for the collection, dissemination anddevelopment of National Forestry Database Management System (NFDMS).

xxi

Other Stakeholders
Forest Industry
1. Sawmilling and plywood industries should improve the current purchasing system of logs with
due attention to the use value of logs based on established grading criteria.
2. The private sector should implement an integrated approach to develop eucalyptus utilization forsawmilling and plywood production.
3. Both sawmilling and pulpwood industry should be engaged in R&D work to develop utilizationof large-diameter logs.
4. A broader range of species should be introduced in plantation investments, particularly
Eucalyptus grandis, E. urophylla and their hybrids.
5. The industry should have a stronger role in the development of its raw material supply and woodprocurement.
6. The industry should move more aggressively towards adoption of higher efficiency technologicaloptions for log handling, sawing, drying, further processing and waste handling.
7. The industrial associations should be strengthened in view of policy analysis, participation inpolicy dialogue and promotion of sectoral interests.
8. A joint consultative body among industry associations should be considered to address common
interests like promotion of wood production, certification, trade regulation, promotion of training
and research, etc.
Forest communities, Farmers and Landowners
9. Forest communities, farmers and landowners should establish at local level effective common
organizations to protect their interests in varying market conditions.
10. Associations should probably develop a clear two (or three)-level structure with provincial or
district level associations and a national federation.
11. Tree farmer-corporate partnership arrangements should be promoted as a means for greater
investment in plantations and mitigating against market risks.
Civil Society
12. The dialogue on the rural people’s role in conservation strategies should be enhanced among the
NGO community to avoid different and mixed messages on policy adjustment.
13. An NGO Forest Network should be established.
All Stakeholders
14. All the stakeholders, probably with the facilitation of the RFD, should identify and assess options
for the development of forest certification in Thailand. A national-level stakeholder workshop
would be a useful instrument to reactivate the process.
ITTO
Support to Thailand
1. The development of national Criteria & Indicators through a broad-based participatory process
has a potential to serve as a critical element in developing a shared vision among stakeholders
about how the country’s national forests should be managed. ITTO has a comparative advantage
in supporting Thailand in this important exercise which could clarify the national policy goals.
2. Cross-border forest complexes represent a particular priority in the maintenance of protectedareas over broader landscapes which need to be conserved through integrated approaches
including buffer zones, biological corridors, etc. and which should address the specific issues ofborder areas ITTO support would be required to develop the Management Plan for the Western
Forest Complex.
3. The elaboration of the human development plan and extension strategy would be the first step toremove a key constraint to making progress towards SFM in Thailand. In view of ITTO’s earlier

xxii

4.

5.
6.

work in this field in the region, the Organization would have a competitive advantage to provide
support the country by starting with a pre-project study.
A major support program should be launched to strengthen the national forest information
system. This is required for improved control of illegal logging and associated trade but also
public decision-making on the sector in general. The work could be launched with a feasibility
study that would map out options and outline a comprehensive plan for implementation.
ITTO should build partnerships with Thai education and training institutes and some regionalorganizations, such as RECOFTC, to design and deliver a range of capacity building products andservices targeted at implementation of the recommendations of the Mission.
In view of the urgent needs of the Thai furniture industry, a program of crash courses forsupervisors on quality management could be arranged by ITTO assistance.

General Recommendation
ITTO has a comparative advantage in promoting the transfer of knowledge on eucalyptus
processing for solidwood products. An international-level project to take stock of the state-of-art
and disseminate the existing knowledge would benefit producing Member Countries, including
Thailand, which need to diversify the production of their eucalyptus plantations. Dissemination
should focus on technical solutions on problems of species utilization, sawing and drying of
eucalyptus, further processing, markets and economic aspects.

7.

xxiii

1.

INTRODUCTION

1.1

Background

The International Tropical Timber Council (ITTC), at its 29th session, adopted Decision 2(XXIX)
entitled “ITTO Objective 2000” which set up a possibility for producer countries to seek specificassistance in their efforts to achieve the Objective 2000 and sustainable forest management (SFM)
through the following provision:“Authorize the Executive Director to render assistance to producer countries, on request, toidentify, in each country, those factors which most severely limit progress towards achieving
Objective 2000 and sustainable forest management and to formulate an action plan to overcome
these constraints.”
In 2001, the Royal Government of Thailand requested such assistance from the International Tropical
Timber Organization (ITTO) and action was respectively taken to mount a diagnostic mission within
the specified terms of reference. The Thai mission was the sixteenth in the series of largely similar
exercises already carried out in other tropical timber producing countries.
Thailand has been an important recipient of ITTO’s support during the last sixteen years. Elevenprojects, with a total ITTO funding of US$ 3.8 mill., have been completed and three more are under
implementation. The total ITTO support to Thailand amounts to US$ 5.2 mill. (Annex 4). Most of the
projects have been either support to R&D or related to management of buffer zones, and protectedareas.
1.2

Objectives

The Mission had three main objectives:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

Identify the factors that represent the most determining obstacles to the realization ofsustainable forest management in the country
Regroup these constraints in order of importance
Recommend a series of measures aimed at lifting these constraints, and estimate their costwhere possible

The detailed terms of reference are reproduced in Annex 1 outlining the tasks which were to be carriedout by the Mission.
1.3

Methodology and Conduct of the Mission

Three local consultants had prepared a background document, which served as the basis of the work of
the Mission (Ungphakorn et al. 2005). The Royal Forest Department (RDF) was requested to informthe key stakeholder groups on the objectives and the conduct of the Mission and written comments on
the main constraints to SFM were invited.
The Mission was thereafter fielded from March 22 to April 8, 2006. It consisted of Dr. Markku Simula(Finland) as Team Leader, Dr. Takeshi Akaha (Japan), Dr. Bipin Behari (India), and Dr. Yam Malla(Nepal). The mission was assisted by a team of specialists assigned by RFD to the task coordinated by
Mr. Suchat Kalyawongsa.
The Mission started its work with a review of the available information and scrutiny of existingstatistics. After a briefing with the RFD management, the Mission identified six main topics fordetailed investigation as these were considered to be critical elements for the achievement ofsustainable forest management (SFM) in Thailand. These were (a) conservation and management of
natural forests, (b) community forestry (c) plantations, (d) industry and markets, (e) non-timber forest
products, (f) public policies, and (g) institutional capacity.

1After the field visit to five provinces the Mission gave a presentation of its preliminary findings in a
stakeholder workshop organized by RFD. Observations of the workshop were considered during theelaboration of the report.
The itinerary of the Mission is presented in Annex 2. A total of about 125 people were consulted
representing different stakeholder groups (Annex 3).
The report contains first a brief review of the national context of the forestry sector which is thenfollowed by the thematic chapters presenting the analyses and the Mission’s assessment. The overall
assessment on the progress and constraints related to achieving the ITTO Objective 2000 are
summarized in Chapter 10 and Chapter 11 contains a summary of the Mission’s recommendations to
the Government, stakeholders and ITTO.
PART I.

OVERVIEW OF THE CURRENT SITUATION

2.

FOREST IN THE NATIONAL CONTEXT

2.1

National Context

The Kingdom of Thailand is located in the southeastern part of Asia between the 5o 35’ and 20o 15’
North latitudes and 97o 30’ and 105o 45’ East longitudes. It encompasses an area of 513 115 km2. The
country has common boundary with four countries (Myanmar, the People’s Democratic Republic of
Laos, Cambodia and Malaysia).
The upper part of the country is hilly where the four main tributaries of the Chao Phraya River, flow
through the alluvial plain of the central part downward to the Gulf of Thailand and forms a great
central alluvial plain known as the Chao Praya Delta. A long stretch of the peninsula stretches far in
the south where population is predominantly Muslim. One third of the upper part of the landmass
forms a large plateau stretching eastwards and known as the Northeast highland or Korat plateau
sloping eastwards to the bordering Mekong River.
Administratively, Thailand is divided into five regions: Northern, Northeastern, Central, Eastern andSouthern Regions, with a total of 76 provinces (Chang Wad) and 716 districts (Amphoe). Each districtis further divided in sub-districts (Tambon).
The country’s climate is influenced by the southwest monsoon during the wet season and northeast
monsoon during the dry season. The distribution of rainy months ranges from 2 to 8 a year with anannual rainfall of 1 000 – 4 000 mm. There are broadly two definite dry and rainy seasons in the wholecountry. The temperature may rise up to 40oC during the dry season and drop to 0oC in some places in
the cool-dry season. The average temperature of 25 C is common all over the year.
At present, the population totals 63 million inhabitants with an annual growth rate of 0.4%. The
population density is 123 persons per km2. Eighty percent of the population lives in the rural areas. Thai
society comprises many groups with ethnic Thais as majority, Chinese, Khmers, Laotian and hilltribe
people as minorities. Buddhism is the national religion.
2.2

Policy and institutional framework

2.2.1

Macro-level Policies

Over the last four decades of national development, all parties in the Thai society have had tocontinuously adjust to changing socio-economic situations. The First and Second National Economic
and Social Development Plan (NESDP) (1961-1970) emphasized economic growth through thediversification of investment in infrastructure, including road, electricity, and water supply networks.
Despite achieving an impressive record of economic growth, both income distribution and the qualityof life of the people in the rural areas deteriorated. Hence, the Third Plan (1971-75) gave more2

attention to social development, the reduction of the population growth rate, and income distribution.
During the Fourth Plan period (1976-1980), political uncertainty and an energy crisis ensued, bringing
about severe deficits in balance of trade and current account. As a response, the Fifth and Sixth Plans(1981-1990) emphasized economic stability, structural adjustment and poverty eradication. A
subsequent worldwide economic recovery brought about rapid expansion of the economy, causing it tooverheat. The Seventh Plan (1991-1995) subsequently began the shift to a sustainable development
paradigm which emphasizes maintaining a sustainable level of economic growth, stability, improving
income distribution, developing human resources, and enhancing the quality of life and theenvironment.
The Eighth NESDP (1996-2000) continued change in the development concept, shifting from a growthorientation to people-centered development. The well-being of the people was considered the final
measure of success; economic improvement was viewed only as a means toward this goal. The
planning process has also been shifted from a compartmentalized to a more holistic approach, whichenables all stakeholders in the society to participate in the national development planning process.
However, due to the Asian economic crisis (1996-1998) there was a need to revise the plan, with more
attention given to economic stabilization, provision of social protection and economic structuraladjustment.
The economic crisis generated many negative impacts on the quality of life which have not yet been
duly addressed. Poverty and income disparities have worsened. In addition, unemployment has also
increased. The rapid deterioration of natural resources and the environment has also given rise to moresocial conflict. Despite all of these shortcomings, the Eighth Plan’s emphasis on participation was amajor step toward the mobilization of Thai people to play a more active role in the process of national
development. This is evident in the increased levels of political activism, networking among people’sorganizations and public–private partnerships, which all serve as a strong foundation for the future
development of the country. The collaborative efforts have not only led to the identification of sharedvision and development strategies for Thailand’s future, but also to a significant degree of consensus
to adopt the “philosophy of sufficiency economy” introduced by the King. It stresses the middle path,moderation and due consideration in all manner of conduct, as the guiding framework for national
development.
2.2.2

Legal Framework

The Government of Thailand has established stringent laws towards the protection and conservation offorest areas including water and biodiversity. Presently, there are following five main Forestry Acts:(1)
Forest Control Act, 1941 concerns logging operations and non-wood forest products
collection, transportation of timber, and non-timber products and, sawnwood production as well as
forest cleaning.
(2)
National Park Act, 1961 covers the determination of the National Park land, National Park
Committee, as well as protection and maintenance of the National Park.
(3)
National Reserved Forest Act, 1964 includes the determination of National Reserved Forest,
control and maintenance of the National Reserved Forest.
(4)
Wildlife for Preservation and Protection Act, 1992 establishes provisions for the National
Wildlife preservation, establishment of Protection Committee and identification of 15 species ofreserved wildlife.
(5)
Reforestation Act, 1992 covers the determination of reforestation and land registration ofprivate reforestation right, ownership and exemption from royalty on forest products from reforested
areas.
Besides the provisions for heavy penalties under these Acts, other provisions have been made toensure that any crime or illegality in the field of forestry and wildlife is effectively controlled andconvicted. As a whole, there are more than 20 laws and a number Cabinet decisions for forest andresource management. Under Section 39.23 of Forestry Act, 1941, whoever moves the timber or forest
products shall have a moval pass issued by the competent officer in accordance with the terms
specified in the ministerial regulations.

3

The most significant recent political development in Thailand has been the 1997 Constitution thatrecognizes the rights and roles of Thai people to participate in national policy formulation regarding
resources and environmental development and conservation. The Constitution clearly notes the rights
of civil societies in managing natural resources and the roles of actors1.
2.2.3

Institutions

The Royal Forest Department (RFD) was founded in 1896 in Thailand to consolidate the exploitationof forests. As a result, the ownership and control of all forests were transferred from the feudal chiefs
to the Government. RFD was divided into three Departments in 2002: Royal Forest Department(RFD), National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department (DNP) and Department of Marine
and Coastal Resources (DMC). All the departments are under the supervision of the Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE).
RFD is responsible for forests outside protected areas which are DNP’s responsibility. DMC performs
resource management of marine of coastal flora and fauna, including mangrove forests, throughconservation and rehabilitation. The following agencies are also dealing with forests.
MONRE
(i)

Office of Natural Resources and Environment Policy and Planning develops and proposes thenatural resources and environmental enhancement and conservation management plan andpolicy.

(ii)

Pollution Control Department regulates supervises, directs, co-ordinates, monitors andevaluates rehabilitation, protection and conservation of environmental quality.

(iii)

Department of Environmental Quality Promotion carries out research, development training,
public awareness, development of environment technology, natural resources and environment.

Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC)(a)Land Development Department – A division of this Department is responsible for land use
planning. Several categories of forestry land uses are included in its land use related work.

(b)

Agricultural Land Reform Office – Large numbers of the state forest land are being
declassified and turned over to this office for distribution to the farmers.

(c)Office of Agricultural Economic collects statistics and conducts economic studies concerning
agricultural crops, including forestry information.

(d)

Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund is responsible for development of rubber
plantations.

(e)

Office of Marketing Organization for Farmers is a possible alternative to developing markets
for forest products.

Other Ministries and Agencies(i)

Ministry of Interior: The day-to-day operations of the province and district forest officers of
RFD are supervised by the office of the Governor of the different provinces, which are under
the Ministry of Interior’s Local Administration Department. The Forest Police Unit of the
Police Department assists in forest protection and control of illegal activities.

(ii)

Ministry of Industry and Ministry of Commerce are responsible for promoting forest-basedindustries and their internal and overseas trade.

(iii)

National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB) prepares and promotes the
National Economic and Social Development Plans on a five-year cycle, formulates the1

Article 46, 56, 59, 69, 79 and 290.
4

policies to implement the plans and assesses the progress of forest development programs toensure their consistency with the plan.
(iv)

The are two state enterprises in the forestry sector: Forest Industry Organization (FIO)
involved in reforestation, teak plantation, sawmilling, and development of forest villages.
FIO´s subsidiary Thai Plywood Company Ltd. produces plywood and other wood products.

2.3

Land Use and Deforestation

In 2001, the land use of the country was divided between agriculture or farmholding land (41%), forest(31%) and unclassified areas (28%). This pattern is the result of rapid expansion of agriculture onwhat was previously forest land. There are significant differences in the land-use pattern by region; theNorth still having more than 50% under forest cover, while the other regions are predominantly
agricultural. It is noteworthy that about a third of the total land in the other three regions remains“unclassified”. This includes urban and peri-urban areas, infrastructure, etc, but obviously alsodegraded areas which were in the past under the forest cover (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1

Land-use Pattern by Region, 2001

RegionForestNorth
Northeast
CentralSouthern

54.0
15.0
27.1
22.5

Farmholding land
- per cent 26.4
55.0
30.9
43.4

Total
31.4
40.9
Source: Based on Agricultural Statistics of Thailand, 2004

Unclassified
19.6
30.0
33.0
34.1
27.7

In 1961, the total forest area of Thailand was about 27 mill. ha. covering over 53.3% of the country.
Subsequently, forest areas were encroached for the purpose of slash-and-burn, shifting cultivation,
land resettlement, dam and road construction, land reform for agriculture, etc. As a result, the share offorest area declined to 25.3% in 1998. From 2000 onwards the forest area has been assessed fromLANDSAT-5 interpretation imageries at the scale of 1:50,000, while the earlier assessments weremade using imageries of 1:200,000. Due to the change of scale and method of calculation2 a new
benchmark was established for forest area (Table 2.2). The annual rate of deforestation has been about
63,000 ha per year since 2000, or higher than in the 1990s. The current forest area is estimated at 16.8
million ha.
2.4

Forest Resources

There are two main types of forests in Thailand: (1) evergreen forest and (2) deciduous forest .
(1) The evergreen forest is subdivided into the tropical evergreen forest, the pine forest, themangrove forest and the beach forest.
(1.1)

Tropical evergreen forest is found all over the moist part of the country. This type offorest is also subdivided into the tropical rain forest, the semi-evergreen forest and the hill
evergreen forest.
(1.1.1) Tropical rain forest is characterized by a very rich flora and very dense undergrowth.
This type of forest is commonly found in the Southern and the Eastern regions where
rainfall is above 2 000 millimetres. It is also found along rivers and/or in valleys in otherparts of the country. The predominant species (the top storey species) are, for example,
Dipterocarpus spp, Hopea spp, Lagerstroemia spp, and Shorea spp, whereas the lower
storey species are bamboos, palms and rattans.
2

Any pixel containing an element of tree cover was included as a whole in forest/area (Charuppat,
pers.comm.).
5

Table 2.2

Forest Cover, 1961-2004
Year

Forest Cover
1,000 ha% of the country area

1961
27,3691973
22,172
1976
19,841
1978
17,522
1982
15,6801985
15,087
1988
14,3801989
14,343
1991
13,6701993
13,355
1995
13,148
1998
12,972
2000
17,011
2004
16,759Source: RFD (1998) and RFD (2004b)

53.33
43.21
38.67
34.15
30.56
29.40
28.02
27.95
26.64
26.03
25.62
25.28
33.15
32.66

(1.1.2) Semi- evergreen forest is scattered all over the country where the rainfall is between
1,000-2,000 millimetres. The predominant species are Dipterocarpus spp, Hopea spp,
Diospyros spp, Afzelia spp, Terminalia spp, and Artocarpus spp. The main undergrowth
species consist of bamboos and rattan.
(1.1.3) Hill evergreen forest is found on the highlands (above 1 000 metres from the sea level)
where the climatic condition is the humid subtropical type. The presence of mosses andlichens on trees and rocks is the indicator of this forest type. The predominant species
are oaks (Quercus spp) and chestnuts, (Castanopsis spp, and Lithocarpus spp).
(1.2)

(1.3)

(1.4)

Pine forest has two species of tropical pines, Pinus merkusii locally called Son Song Bi(the two-needle pine) and P. kesiya locally called Son Sam Bi (the three-needle pine).
P. merkusii is found in the northern and the western part of the Central region, where thesoil is poor (grave) lateritic and podzolic. P. kesiya is found only on the highlands of theNorthern and Northeastern regions.
Mangrove forests occur along the coastal areas of the Eastern, Central and Southern
regions. The mangrove forest is scattered along the estuaries of rivers and seashores
where the soil is muddy and influenced by the tide. The predominant species are
Rhizophora spp, Xylocarpus spp, Avecennia spp, Bruguiers spp, and Nypa spp.
Beach forests occur along the sandy coastal plains especially in the eastern coast of theSouthern regions. The main species in this type of forest are Diospyros spp, Croton spp,
Lagerstroemia spp and Casuarina spp.

(2) Deciduous forest is characterized by the presence of deciduous tree species and is commonly
found throughout the country. It is broadly subdivided according to the species composition into
the mixed deciduous forest (with and without teak) and the dry dipterocarp forest.
(2.1)

(2.2)

Mixed deciduous forest is commercially among the most valuable forest of Thailand. In
the Northern Region, this type of forest is called the teak forest with Tectona grandis,
Xylia kerrii, Pterocarpus macrocarpus, Afzelia xylocarpus and Dalbergia spp (rosewood) as dominant/common species.
Dry dipterocarp forest is commonly found in the dry area (rainfall below 1 000
millimetres) with sandy or gravely lateritic infertile soils. The predominant species aremainly Dipterocarpaceae such as Dipterocarpus tuberculatus, D. obtusifolius, Shorea
obtusa, S. siamensis with the presence of Dalbergia spp, Lagerstroemia spp, Terminalia
spp and other species

The forest area by type of forest is given in Annexes 5 and 6.

6

2.5

Permanent Forest Estate

The area of permanent forest estate (PFE)3 reported in 1991 was 23.5 mill. ha, much of it alreadywithout forest cover. PFE had shrunk by almost 50% to 12.0 mill. ha in 2001. About 1.15 mill. ha ofthe original PFE had been converted to agriculture, 8.3 mill. ha to settlements and infrastructure, and
1.1 mill. ha to other uses. The balance now available comprises about 10 mill. ha of protected forest
area (Table 2.3) and 1.9 mill. ha of plantations. The production PFE now is found only in planted
forests on government land. Theoretically, forest reserves (Annex 7) should be classified as PFE but
while they do not have effective protection in spite of their legal status, many of them have lost theirforest cover, and there are no management plans, they have not been classified as part of PFE.
2.6

Land Tenure

Practically all the natural forests are owned by the state and managed by RFD, DNP or DMC.
Privately owned forests are mostly plantations but not accounted as part of PFE. The Government has
issued various types of tenure rights for people living in forest reserves.
Table 2.3

Permanent Forest Estate

Estimated total forest
area

Total closed natural forests(mill. ha)(1,000 ha)

PFE (1,000 ha)
Production

Natural013.0-16.8
10,127
Planted1,870
Source: ITTO (2006a), total closed forests FAO (2001), RFD (2004b)

2.7

Protection

Total

10,118.8

11,988.8

Management of Natural Forests

In the historical perspective four stages can be identified in Thai forestry:
1.

Early exploitation stage (from the mid-1890s to the early 1930s). Logging for commercial
purposes started to meet domestic and export demand for teak. RFD was established to regulate
forest exploitation, particularly in the teak forests of the North.

2.

Expanding exploitation and management stage (from the 1930s to the early 1960s). Logging
became an important economic sector generating foreign exchange, capital for national
development, and government revenue, as well as making land available for agriculture. RFD
attempted to bring forest exploitation under management by enacting forest laws, staff training,and enforcement efforts.

3.

Forest exploitation decline stage (from the 1960s to the mid-1980s). Logging peaked, exportoriented agriculture expanded, and national economic development gained momentum. Coupledwith inefficient control and excessive logging, often illegal, the forests continued to dwindle, atan alarming rate. As a result, a growing awareness of the link between the forest and national
well-being emerged. Desperate measures were introduced to rationalize forest management but
were not successful.

4.

Struggle towards sustainable management led to a logging ban (from 1989 onwards) as a resultof widespread awareness of the adverse effects of forest exploitation. The forest had declined to apoint where the nation had to decide that what remains of it must be kept for conservation rather
than for further exploitation.

3

ITTO (2005) defines Permanent Forest Estate as “land, whether public or private, secured by law and kept
under permanent forest cover. This includes land for the production of timber and other forest products, forthe protection of soil and water, and for the conservation of biological diversity, as well as land intended tofulfill a combination of these functions.
7

The new forest management approach has had three main interventions: (i) expansion of designatedprotected areas, (ii) expansion of the forest resource base by plantations to substitute wood supplies
from natural forests, and (iii) development of community forestry.
There are no management plans for the Reserved Forest areas. The annual operational plan of thereserved forests covers the activities such as protection, reforestation, nursery activity and land
allocation. There are no provisions for silvicultural treatments and aided natural regeneration.
Emphasis in forest management is on patrolling, recreation and other services, and only limited
research has been carried out.
2.8

Plantations

Reforestation in Thailand started already in 1906. Teak was planted in the form of taungya
agroforestry system4. Small areas were planted annually until 1960. A national reforestation campaign
was implemented during 1994-1996 with a target area of about 800,000 ha. The campaign embraced
planting of forest trees (i) along roadsides, (ii) around the school premises, governmental offices andreligious places, (iii) areas such as parks, recreation areas, dams and reservoirs, riverside, etc. and (iv)existing degraded forests.
The government’s farm forestry program (1994 to 2001) was a response to the deteriorated wood
supply situation with the target area of 1.28 mill. ha. The program subsidized the private sector andfarmers to c tree planting costs. 80,000 farmers joined the program but the planted area only covers
169,400 ha (Annexes 9 and 10). The program is still going on.
The total extent of planted forests in 2000 (Table 2.4) was estimated at 2.81 mill. hectares and there
are another 2.0 mill. hectares of rubber plantations (FAO, 2001).
Table 2.4

Plantation Area by Species in 2000

SpeciesRubberTeak
Eucalyptus spp
Acacia mangium and other A. spp
Other broadleaved species
Pinus merkusii and other P. spp
Other conifers
Total
Source: FAO (2001)

2.9

1000 ha
2,019
836
443
148
541
689
148
4,824

Forest Protection

Forest fire is defined by RFD (1996) as “a fire that occurs [on forestland] for any reason and in theabsence of any control”. Thus, controlled burning, for instance, in shifting cultivation system is not aforest fire according to this definition. Forest fires are regarded as a “serious threat” because, althoughmany tree species of deciduous forests can survive fire, seedlings and saplings are easily destroyed,
and wildlife is also affected. Furthermore, loosing soil fertility due to large-scale fires is regarded as athreat. (Nalampoon 2003). Each year in Thailand large areas burn during the dry season: in 2000, thetotal burned area was 197,000 ha (FAO 2001). RFD has established forest fire control centres incritical areas. These are, however, inadequate in controlling fire in remote areas, and the military
assists in high-risk sites. In addition, extension campaigns to combat forest fires have been launched(Nalampoon 2003). Community-based approach has also been introduced to fire management.

4

Agricultural crops were grown in young teak plantations
8

2.10

Forest Production

No reliable statistics exist in the country on wood production. There are two main sources of industrial
wood: eucalyptus plantations and rubber plantations. Due to the logging plan, there is practically notimber production in natural forests. The total volume of industrial roundwood production is estimatedat 19 mill.m3/year (see ch. 6). There is no information available on the volume of fuelwood produced.
At least five million people5, the approximate number of actual forest dwellers in Thailand, arecritically dependent on non-timber forest products (NTFP). Non-timber forest products include a large
number plant and animal products. The most important NTFPs are bamboo, rattan, lac, bee products
and medicinal plants.
2.11

Conservation of Biodiversity

Thailand is bestowed with rich floral, faunal and cultural diversity. It contains approximately 7 % of
the world flora and fauna. It is considered a collective centre of botanical diversity from major
regional elements: Indo-Burmese, Indo-Chinese and Malaysia.
There are approximately 15,000 plant species in the country of which approximately 12,000 are
vascular plant species, including over 1,140 species of orchids. There are more than 2,154 nonvascular plant species in Thailand, including algae and bryophytes, i.e. moss, hornwort, and liverwort.
Thailand has approximately 4,600 species of vertebrates and about 83,000 invertebrate species, ofwhich 14,000 species can be identified. Most of the identified species are insects (MONRE 2006).
There is a large number of plant and animal species which are endangered, rare or threatened (Table
2.5). Many species have also been domesticated. More detailed data on species is given in (Annex 8).
Table 2.5

Species with Status in Thailand

StatusPlantsAnimals
Mammals

Bird

ReptileAmphib.

Freshwater fish

Sea fish

Total

2
39
48
12
7
3

8
39
68
21
2
95

1
10
26
4
33
8

2
21
3
11
3

1
12
12
3
37
125

7
6
12
-

12
109
181
55
90
234

19

5

6

2

64

1

97

130

238

88

42

254

26

778

Extinct
Endangered
100
Rare
1,000
Threatened
300
Domesticated1,000
Exotic800
Ornamental (plant)
700
Native (animals )Total plants
3,900
Total animals
Source: MONRE 2006

2.12

Socio-economic Aspects

Due to the logging ban the sectoral contribution to GDP of forestry, logging and related
activities has been declining since 1989. In 2003 it amounted only to US$ 120.5 million
representing 0.1% of the total GDP and 1% of the GDP of Agriculture, Hunting and Forestry(Office of... 2005). This does not take into account fuelwood and NTFPs, which are important
activities in the forestry sector. It is unclear whether rubberwood harvesting is included in the
sector’s statistics. The declining trend is probably changing with increasing volumes of plantation

5

Various sources give estimates for forest dependent people ranging from 2 to 5 million people
9wood maturing for harvesting. Forestry’s accounted GDP contribution can be expected to significantly
increase in the future.
Out of the total population of 64 million, 70% is reported to live in rural and mountains areas. The
poverty level is low and most people living in protected areas are experiencing high or medium level
poverty (46% and 28%, respectively). For the rural poor, fuelwood and NTFPs are important sourcesof livelihood. Poverty is the most significant underlying cause for deforestation in the country.
PART II.

DIAGNOSIS

3.

CONSERVATION OF NATURAL FORESTS

3.1

Forest Conservation

3.1.1

Protected Area System

Since the enactment of the National Park Act in 1961 the areas under legal protection have expanded
rapidly and they presently cover about 17% of the total national territory. The protected area (PA)system consists of national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, provincial or local government controlled forestparks, wildlife sanctuaries, no hunting areas (mostly I private lands), botanical gardens andarboretums. The existing 227 protected areas6 amount to 11.3 mill. ha and they are under the control of
the Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP). The national forest reserves
managed by RFD form also part of the system, as logging is not allowed in them. The forest reserves
have obviously less strict rules than the sites with protected area status (Lakanavichian) 2001, 10–11)(Box 3.1). In addition, the system of conservation includes watershed areas which largely overlap with
forest areas (cf. section 3.3).
Box 3.1

Key Legal Provisions of Protected Areas

The National Park Act of 1961 states that a national park is to be preserved in its natural state for the public
education and enjoyment'. National marine parks have similar functions: most are former national parks thathave reclassified.
The Wildlife Protection and Preservation Act of 1960 states that wildlife sanctuaries are areas for theconservation of wildlife habitat so that wildlife can freely breed and increase their populations in the naturalenvironment'. Wildlife sanctuaries are not generally open to the public but researchers are allowed. They are
primarily areas for biodiversity conservation. Some are grouped in clusters and adjoin national parks.
Forest parks are forested areas that have at least one significant feature such as waterfall, large trees orgeomorphologic formations. They are provided for under the National Reserve Forest Act of 1964, and theirchief purpose is to provide sites for local tourism and recreation.
Non-hunting areas protect land that is open to consumptive uses such as fishing and gathering of non-timber
forest products but from which hunting is excluded.

The PA system is relatively fragmented and individual areas vary in size, habitat and conservation
condition. In many areas degradation of the conservation values is ongoing from local agricultural
encroachment, infrastructure and tourism development, illegal logging, and substantial illegal wildlife
trade (Lessons Learned ….n.d.)
Although extensive, the PA system contains disproportionate amounts of upland forest but very little
lowland evergreen forest. Apart from this, MacKinnon (1997) rated habitat coverage as 'quitesatisfactory’ and reported ‘no obvious gaps'. All biounits and subunits were represented. Already prior
to the logging ban it was widely believed that the PA network in Thailand was one of the best inSoutheast Asia (Parr 1996).

6

Excluding botanical gardens and arboretums.
10In 1989, the King made an amendment to the National Park Act, which prohibited basically all
activities in national parks and allowed the conversion of the national reserve forests into nationalparks (Sutthisrisilapa & Noochdumrong 1998). National parks fall under group II of the IUCN PA
classification, wildlife sanctuaries under group IV, and no hunting areas and forest parks undergroup V.
3.1.2

Protected Area Management

By 1979, Thailand had only 16 national parks covering an area of 935,700 ha. But, by 2004, 114
national parks covering an area of 6,35 mill. ha were established. According to DNP, there are stillseveral national parks which have not yet been are gazetted (i.e. legal status) (Table 3.1). All the 55
wildlife sanctuaries (conservation areas) are gazetted. In addition, 67 forest parks have been createdcovering an area of 87,000 ha. There are 55 “No-hunting areas” covering 441,000 ha, out of which
about 17,00 ha are on private lands, and the rest on public lands, probably with more effective control
for hunting risks in the latter case.
Thailand has set up a target to have 25% of the country’s total land area as protected areas. At present,
protected areas declared by Royal Decrees (under DNP’s responsibility) account for about 20% of thecountry’s total land area. Table 3.1 lists the types of protected areas by category.
Besides taking the stringent efforts in covering a total of 9.3 mill. ha under the protected area system,
Thailand has also created 1,221 National Forest Reserves spread over an area of 23.4 mill. ha. Out of
the five regions in Thailand the North has the largest area under National Forest Reserves with
11,2 mill. ha. It is highly significant for policy design that National Forest Reserves together withprotected areas cover about 63.2% of the total area of the country. About 20% of the country’s 56,000
villages are also located within forest reserves.
DNP has well-developed procedures for producing management plans7. In 1999, a little over 30
national parks and about 20 wildlife sanctuaries had management plans. By 2005, the Government had
prepared master plans for 55 national parks, out of the total 103 gazetted national parks. These masterplans are more general strategic plans than operational management plans. Out of these 55, 15 areapproved/validated whereas 40 master plans have expired. DNP reported that 5 master plans are underpreparation. This clearly exhibits that master plans of 88 national parks are yet to be processed which
includes 43 gazetted parks. Moreover, there is no master plan for 55 wildlife sanctuaries. It is
understood that master plans for 25 sanctuaries are under preparation. There is also a plan to havewildlife corridors in two national parks.
Management plans may be produced in-house by DNP officers, by universities or by private
consultancy companies, subject to terms of reference defined by DNP. Each management plan takes
about one year to complete. During this period, a steering subcommittee supervises the work
especially when an external agency is being employed. All stakeholders are consulted during theplanning process, including local communities, although this is said to be a relatively recent
innovation. (Clarke n.d.)Completed management plans are vetted by a management committee, comprising representatives of
RFD, the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), universities and relevant NGOs. Those that areapproved go to the Director-General for final signature are then passed to Superintendents toimplement.
Implementation is subject to monitoring, and past experience has been of a 50 to 60 per cent rate ofachievement with regard to the planned targets. The reasons for this are unclear but may include
prescriptions being too elaborate or demanding; insufficient manpower; insufficient time; orinadequate equipment. Whatever the reasons, the low rate of implementation suggests thatprescriptions may be unrealistic given the resources available to management (Clarke n.d.). The life

7

Called master plans in Thailand
11span of a management plan is currently five years but consideration was given to increasing this to
10 years already about ten years ago. The validity period has not, however, been changed as yet.
Table 3.1

Types and Areas of Protected Areas, 20048

Categories
By Royal Decrees
National park
Wildlife sanctuary
Marine national park
Non-hunting area
Total
By Ministerial Declarations
Forest park
Botanical garden
Arboretum

IUCN protectedarea category

NumberTotal area
1000 haII
Ia & IIb
II
IV

114
59
27
55
227

6,346.4
3,675.9862,8
441.0
11,326.1

12.37
7.16
1.68
0.86
22.07

III
VI
VI

67
15
54

87.0
5.9
3.9

0.17
0.01
0.01

136

96.5

0.19

9,309.0
42.8

18.14
0.08

..

..

9,351.8

18.22

Total

Percentage of total
country area

By Cabinet Resolutions
Watershed class 1 & 2Conservation mangrove*
Environmentally protected
area

I, II, IV & VI
VI

Total

International Recognitions
World Heritage (nature)*II
2**
Ramsar Site*
VI
10***
373.2
..
Biosphere reserve
VI
4
26.1+
0.05+
ASEAN Heritage*
II
2**
Total
399.3
0.05+
*
Total land area is not shown because some overlap with other categories, e.g. national park, wildlife
sanctuary and non-hunting area.
**
As legal status, the World Heritage and ASEAN Heritage sites are either wildlife sanctuaries or
national parks.
*** 8 out of 10 Ramsar sites are protected areas.
Source: MONRE 2006

3.1.3

People and Protected Areas

The Thai conservation policy initially revolved around a "wilderness approach," which recommended
the total exclusion of people from protected areas. This approach was introduced to Thailand by US
experts already in the 1950s. It has become increasingly evident that such an approach is no longer
possible in a country where a large population dependent on forest resources lives inside PAs(cf Chapter 4). There is a need to balance people’s rights to land and traditional resource use within
the formal conservation context. The history of conflicts over access to natural resources is rooted in
the process of villagers' "encroachment" of forestland. Changes in land allocation and uses over theyears have also resulted in pronounced imbalances in power relations between state, private sector(largely through commercial farmers and land developers) and forest dwelling ethnic minorities.
(Bugna & Rambaldi 2003).

8

The data differs somewhat from what is reported from DNP (2004). There is some overlap between
categories.
12

Most protected areas have people living in them and all have people living nearby who harvest timberand NTFP from within. Harvesting is not only for subsistence use. There are considerable commercial
interests stimulated by middlemen. The forests are plundered for wild animals (dead and alive),timber, basket-weaving materials, medicinal plants and other commercially valuable products.
Resource harvesting in protected areas is not allowed under current legislation except by permission of
the Director General, although it is occurring in the surrounding buffer zones. However, it is reported
that, although there is legal justification, some park or sanctuary Superintendents may, on their own
initiative, relax the rules at local level in the interests of fostering local support.
The measures to enlarge protected areas and stop the rotational farming systems have raised concerns
at the local level over people’s livelihood. In particular, the intentions to relocate villages have caused
resistance already for years. The solution suggested in the Thai Forestry Sector Master Plan was tolimit relocation plans to only a few necessary cases and instead to encourage people to find alternative
livelihood outside the protected forest (TFSMP 1993). The Government has never formally endorsed
this.
Several NGOs are active in protected areas, including TEI, the Dhammanaat Foundation, theFoundation of Education for Life and Society, Seub Nakhasathien Foundation, Promotion of Human
Resources for Community Development Foundation, Village Foundation, Serving for the People
Association and WWF Thailand. Some NGOs expressed the view that DNP does not encourage
participation by communities in the management of forests or protected areas but RFD is cooperating
to find local-level solutions to the problem of population pressure. The reason is said to be thatprofessionals are jealously guarding their territory against those they perceive as amateurs.
Nevertheless, local people continue to manage forests according to traditional skills and knowledge,
albeit to some extent often illegally. Radical conservation NGOs still argue for expulsion of people
who are living in PAs.
3.1.4

Cross-boundary Issues

At least 18 protected areas lie adjacent to international borders with neighboring countries. Thailand
has recently made an agreement with Lao PDR on the common approach to the Eastern Forest
Complex and it is reported that Cambodia will join this effort. ITTO’s role has been instrumental inthis exercise in providing support to the management plan of the zone on the Thai side and facilitating
the discussions with the neighboring countries. Informal contacts have been made with Myanmar
concerning the Western Forest Complex (WEFCOM) (Box 3.2)
Common approaches are necessary to bring the cross-border areas under effective protection andcontrol which has also national security implications. There is an illegal flow of non-timber products
from neighboring countries to Thailand. This includes supplies to feed a major illegal market inagarwood oil (Aqualaria spp) in the Middle East and Japan, where it is said to catch so high prices thatillegal harvesting has all but eliminated the plant from Laos9. Illegally obtained timber also crosses theborders from Cambodia and Myanmar. Another market in wildlife by-products involves the wild
cattle-gaur10, kouprey and banteng which occur on the border between Cambodia and Lao PDR. They
are hunted for trophies that are exported to Thailand. Thai middlemen encourage this trade. Wildlife
trade routes also enter Thailand from Myanmar by way of Tachilek and Maesod (Clarke n.d.).

910The current export price from Indonesia is US$ 118/kg (www.bulkoil.com).
Wild ox.
13

Box 3.2

The Western Forest Complex

The Western Forest Complex (WEFCOM) is a large, hilly tract of forested land on the border with Myanmar
between about 14º10' and 16º30' N. It comprises a cluster of 11 protected areas that have an important watershed
protection function. WEFCOM is a biogeographic crossroad, where the Indochinese, Himalayan and Sundaic
realms meet. There is therefore unusually high biodiversity. Tiger (Panthera tigris), elephant (Elephas
maximus), guar (Bos guarus) and tapir (Tapirus indicus) are among 153 mammal species found in the area. As
many as 490 bird species are encountered. WEFCOM encompasses many waterways which supply three ofThailand’s six major rivers.
WEFCOM is the largest surviving contiguous forest tract in Thailand, covering 1,873 mill. ha. It is composed of
9 national parks, 6 wildlife sanctuaries and 2 proposed national parks. Two of the largest wildlife sanctuaries,
Huai Kha Khaeng and Thung Yai Naresuan, have been designated as World Heritage Sites by UNESCO.
A number of communities are living inside the protected area and a large number of villages are surrounded by
WEFCOM. The protected area is under pressure from agricultural encroachment, wild fires, infrastructuredevelopment, mining, illegal logging and poaching of wildlife.
All these villages need special attention in terms of outreach strategies, particularly on controlling humanimpacts. In addition 25 villages need specific outreach strategies in order to manage resources sustainably for thewell-being of local people. Continuous monitoring of human use in WEFCOM is considered essential.
Source: Emphandhu & Kalyawongsa (2003)

Assessment
1.

The key issue for the future of the PA network is how to deal with the 1.2 to 2 million people
who are living within the protected areas. This issue is discussed in detail in chapter 4.

2.

Research on northern Thailand suggests that actually protected areas have no significant effecton reducing the likelihood of forest clearance unless they are supported by the local
communities and the livelihood of their residents is adequate without encroaching on park
territory (Cropper et al. 2001). It is also problematic that the national parks lack buffer zones
and, in practice, the boundary areas tend to function as a buffer zone.

3.

A large number of pilot projects have been implemented in the various ways to involve local
communities which provide convincing case for the benefits of involving people in planningand implementing management plans of PAs. As there still persist perceptions among policy
makers, government technical staff, NGOs, academics, etc. about the viability of this approach,there is probably a need to carry out a comprehensive stock-taking exercise of this experience toclarify the lessons learned in terms necessary preconditions and practical arrangements toachieve conservation and development goals in specific situations.

4.

Valid management plans exist only for 15 of the country’s 103 gazetted national parks11. 45
parks have been proclaimed but are not yet gazetted. During the last six years only four newparks have been gazetted. As regards the 55 wildlife sanctuaries, only 25 have management
plans under preparation. This shows that the pace of extending the PA network has wellexceeded the capacity of the administration to bring these areas under effective management.

5.

In addition, management plans are not necessarily leading to improved protection as they often
lack implementation. Expropriation of the PAs from the community use has led to a degree ofalienation of communities in the protection efforts, as there are no clear incentives to takecorrective action.

6.

Guidelines for preparation of PA management plans need updating. The contents of the plans islargely defined by experts and therefore the plans treat social and economic aspects as
secondary at most. Plans tend to be theoretical documents rather than well grounded on what is
possible to implement in practice.

7.

There is a need to improve the involvement of the communities in the preparation of the PA
management plans to make them more realistic and to reduce conflicts between PA manage-

11

40 have expired, 5 are under preparation, and 55 are scheduled to be prepared. Source DNP
14

ment and people living in and around the area. This is also called for by the 1997 Constitution(Sections 46, 56 and 79).
8.

Delineation of the gazetted area boundaries has been criticized and the scientific basis ofdecisions has not been made public. The decisions would be better accepted if the underlying
reasons (e.g. habitat of wildlife populations, breeding grounds, migration routes, important
floristic communities, etc.) would be communicated in an easily understandable form to local
stakeholders.

9.

Degraded areas have been typically rehabilitated by high-cost planting which limits the areasthat can be covered by interventions. Planted sites would also need to be managed to keep them
healthy (including thinnings) which is not possible under the present regulations. This issue
could be addressed by a two-pronged approach: (i) adjusting regulations to allow necessary
silvicultural treatments in protected areas, and (ii) applying less intensive techniques to restore
the ecosystem functions.

10.

Cross-border forest complexes represent a particular priority in the maintenance of protectedareas over broader landscapes which need to be conserved through integrated approaches
including buffer zones, biological corridors, etc. and which should address the specific issues ofborder areas (immigration, trade in endangered species, illegal logging, etc.).

3.2

Forest Reserves

Thailand has never had a long-term silvicultural management system despite the successful
experiences developed in the neighboring countries with similar forest types, particularly Myanmar.
There are no records of national level forest inventories and during the logging period inventories
were regional or local in scale and they contained data only on teak. However, any sustainablesilvicultural management requires data on the potential of stands in terms of their future growth andyield. This information is grossly inadequate in Thailand.
Native teak, Tectona grandis, has been the most favored species for commercial plantations. Other
broadleaved species such as Pterocarpus macrocarpus, Dipterocarpus spp, Swietenia macrophylla
and Hopea odorata are planted on a smaller scale. Teak trees grown in plantations on good soils may
reach an average of 60 cm in diameter at breast height and 30 m in height in about 50 years. Typically,
1,200 to 1,600 stems per hectare are planted and canopy closure takes place between the third andfourth year and suppresses the development of weeds. Pruning is carried out near the time of canopy
closure. This has the added purpose of reducing the chance of ground fires reaching the crowns andfacilitating access to the stand. The first thinning generally takes place when the dominant height
reaches about 9 or 10 m, and the second when the dominant height reaches 17 to 18 m.
Teak is also the dominant tree in the mixed deciduous forests of northern Thailand. These forests areopen, with teak trees isolated or in small groups. Although logging in natural forests in Thailand wasbanned in 1989, the current National Forestry Policy states that efficiency in timber production should
be increased through appropriate forest management techniques using both selection and clear-fellingsystems. With the logging ban in force, this provision has become irrelevant.
In theory, the clear-felling system would require cleared areas to be replanted immediately. Teakforests should be managed under a 30-year felling cycle; trees to be felled are marked and girdled for
felling. The tropical evergreen forest should be managed under a similar system and the same felling
cycle. The dry dipterocarp forest should be managed under “modified coppice” and “coppice withstandards” systems, based on a 20-year rotation. These provisions are technically sound but cannot beapplied in practice.
Recent research has revealed that the growth potential of dry dipterocarp forest is about 5 m3/ha/yr ofwhich 1 m/ha/yr is crop trees. These forests have potential for silvicultural management, particularly
through liberation and refinement. However, due to long history of disturbance, a large part of these
forests’ growing stock levels are so low that advanced management is not justified and therefore
silvicultural treatments should be targeted in areas with high growth potential. The specific uniformityof stands and the high degree of regeneration render such sites suitable for shelterwood system which15

is widely practiced in the Indian sub-continent. Clearcuts would be unsuitable opening soil for erosion.
The transitional areas would need to be managed taking into account their heterogeneity targeting at
resembling mixed or dry dipterocarp forests. Selective treatments, harvesting and regeneration would
be appropriate in these areas. Both intensive and extensive management methods could be applied
depending on the characteristics of the forest and the site. This would in any case require clear
delineation of management compartments based on the inventories to be carried out (Weyerhäuser
2001).
Since the logging ban the overall management objectives of the forest policy have been geared
towards conservation. For PAs this is logical but in the existing 1,221 forest reserves there has beenlack of clarity what the management objectives should in practice be. PAs were established in someareas which used to be forest reserves. As large areas do not have forest cover they have become defacto common public lands that are encroached by expanding agricultural activity. Lacking inventories
little is known about the growing stock, including the relatively large areas planted over the last 20
years in forest reserves. These areas would need to be managed to guarantee their health and vitality.
Silvicultural treatments such as thinnings are not allowed because of the logging ban and therefore
hardly any revenue can be generated from this huge state-owned asset. What is allowed is the
production of NTFPs which is mainly being carried out by local people. In addition, RFD employs
them to carry out forest rehabilitation and reforestation work where available funds allow it.
Assessment
1.

The most extensive forest types in Thailand, dry dipterocarp and mixed deciduous forests, canbe technically managed in a way which would mimic natural processes resulting in a healthy
natural forest representing higher environmental and social values than as these forests presently
stand, often degraded. Sustainable management of these forests could generate benefits for local
people to serve as incentives for their conservation.

2.

In mixed dipterocarp forests, traditional silvicultural systems (minimum DBH and fixedrotation) may not be applicable. A more attractive option could be species-specific and siteadjusted selection systems or conversion methods which attempt to convert the existing stock
into a natural-like forest. The whole regeneration process should be better understood which isonly possible when based on long-term permanent plot data. Such a silvicultural approach
would lead to complex forest structures.

3.

In order to develop appropriate silvicultural systems in Thailand, it would be necessary toestablish permanent sample plots for monitoring growth and yield of different forest types.
Knowledge on the phenology and physiology of key indigenous species should be improved on
aspects like seed production, shade tolerance/light requirements and responses to competition,liberation and other treatments. There is also need for further research on taxonomy.

4.

The logging ban has probably reduced deforestation but not eliminated it. The ban currently
impedes any silvicultural improvement of the forest reserves, as the necessary treatments would
involve liberation harvesting. In Thailand, there is an erroneous perception that setting aside is
the only way to effectively protect forests, and the large degraded areas suggest that this is noteven effective. There are other countries which have been able to manage similar forests for thenational benefit and, with the revenue generated, silvicultural management has also become
economically possible which is not the case in Thailand.

5.

Without a change in the current conservation paradigm, Thailand is implementing a non-optimalconservation strategy, which ignores the economic value of timber as one of the outputs ofsustainable forest management. The economic value of lost opportunities could be assessed
based on the available yield estimates to guide future policy decisions.

6.

The Mission is fully aware that this is politically a most sensitive issue in Thailand. Any policychanges should be part of a broader process involving all the stakeholder groups at different
levels. Necessary background information on the options, their impacts and consequences
should be generated to allow a meaningful consultation process. .

16

3.3

Watershed Management

The land area can be grouped into three types according to topography and the soil:
1)
2)
3)

flat lowland areas in river valleys and flood plains, where paddy rice can be cultivated,uplands suitable for upland crops and where slash-and-burn cultivation used to be the primary
farming system,
uplands with steep slopes unsuitable for cultivation

Classification of watersheds into five categories, for which a special Watershed Classification
Committee was established in 1992, is an integral component of the Protected Area system. The
classification is made according to five criteria: slope, elevation, landform, soil and geology (Box3.3). Watershed Classes 1A and 1B are the areas with a slope more than 60% and they are totallyprotected from utilization including also a prohibition of settlement. Watershed Class 1B has
somewhat less strict rules because it is defined as a degraded area. The aim is to reforest as much ofthis area as possible or maintain it under permanent agroforestry. Other categories of watersheds (2–5)
allow use and logging to a certain extent. (Lakanavichian 2001). Of northern Thailand, about 30% of
the land area belongs to the Watershed Class 1A and 3% to Class 1B. About 15% belongs to the Class
2 and the rest falls under categories 3–5.
The protected area system is closely linked with watershed management. In Watershed Class 1A areas,
national parks, wildlife sanctuaries and other conservation areas have been gazetted according to therespective laws. According to the regulations, no human should be allowed to inhabit, cultivate orutilize any tangible product in these areas.

Box 3.3

Watershed Classes

The watershed classes are described as follows:
1. Protected forest in headwater source:
1.A Strictly protected forest usually at high elevations with very steep slopes
2.B Physically similar to 1A but partially cleared for agriculture and soil protection requires special
attention. Planting of trees in this area is encouraged.
2.Commercial forests, where logging and mining is allowed, in high elevations with steep slopes but lesssusceptible to erosion than the areas under Class 1.
3.Fruit tree plantations in uplands with steep slopes that can be used for commercial forests, fruit trees, grazing,or certain agricultural crops provided that soil conservation is taken care of.
4.Upland farming in gentle slopes with a moderate requirement for erosion control.
5.Lowland farming in gentle slope or flat area with only a few restrictions.

Only less than ten percent of the total land area is classified as suitable for agriculture. Nevertheless,even steep slopes are cultivated. Merely slightly over one percent of the land area is suitable for
irrigated farming and even the land suitable for hill crops is only about seven percent of the total landarea.
The strategy in watershed management has been to maintain or create a protective forest cover for theprotection of soil and water but the implementation concept has changed over time (Table 3.2). Many
activities in the past tended to be top-down in planning and implementation. As large-scale
reforestation was attempted, there was also resistance from local people as planted areas were nolonger available for their use. More diversified strategies are presently being used including strategic
plantings of natural species carefully matching the choice of species to the site conditions. Low
density planting minimizes costs and maximizes impacts, which is particularly useful in degradedwatersheds where biodiversity and other environmental services are important considerations (Elliott
et al. 1998). Alternative land use and agricultural practices have been introduced to discourage shifting
cultivation and landscape-level approaches have also been introduced (Thomas 2005).

17

Table 3.2
PeriodEvolution of Watershed Management Policy
Policy focus

Major activities
Reforestation of abandoned swidden areas; relocation of hill
1976-1980
Watershed rehabilitation
tribe villages and improvement of their quality of life
Integrated watershed
Land-use planning, soil and water conservation measures,
1980-1990
management
forest fire control and promotion of agricultural extension
Participatory watershed
Local people’s participation, village committee, watershed
1990-1999
management
network, internal rules and regulations
Landscape-level approaches to watershed management,
2000Watershed for the people
integrated land-use, participatory planning and implementation,
integrated approaches, policy linkages and adjustment
Source: Elaborated based on Jantakad & Gilmour (1999)

In the past, rotational slash-and-burn cultivation was the main form of land-use and the main crop was
upland rice, which was intercropped with various other crops; paddy rice was cultivated only in asmall area. Aerial photographs show that in the 1950s no modern roads or national parks existed, thelandscape was dominated by forests under different stages of succession during fallow period, andonly relatively small areas were cleared for cultivation annually. Since then significant changes inlandscape have taken place. The forest area is now permanent instead of being a fallow in a swidden
cycle. On the other hand, the area under cultivation has increased substantially during the past
decades, mainly because cash crops are grown instead of subsistence crops (Thomas 2005). Whileslash-and-burn cultivation area has considerably diminished, intensive cash-crop cultivation has been
increasing in area. It is often practiced in the sites of former opium poppy fields and typically in thevillages with good road communications. Irrigated fields are found on flat lands, but now, in addition
to rice, cash crops are grown in them (Care 2001).
The Watershed Management Division of DNP largely focuses on the protection and rehabilitation ofdenuded watersheds, most of which are located in national park forest reserves and wildlife
sanctuaries. Alternative land use and agricultural practices have been introduced to discourage shifting
cultivation. ICRAF has done extensive pathbreaking research on the conservation of watershed
improving the understanding of the dependency between upland conservation and lowland land use.
The focus has been recently moving towards landscape level management of watersheds instead ofdeveloping techniques for plot-level integrated technologies (Thomas 2005).
Assessment
1.

The past government efforts have often been costly focusing on work to be carried out rather
than people’s capacity to conserve watershed. The government delivery system of support has
suffered from inefficiencies (e.g. timely delivery of seedlings), lack of adequate technicalknowledge, allocation of poorest sites for rehabilitation work, and involvement of local people
mainly as hired labor.

2.

Partnership arrangements between authorities and local communities are still poorly developed.
Such arrangements would allow decentralization of authority for resource management andconservation. Greater attention to traditional rules, regulations and practices would enhance thefeasibility of interventions.

3.

The main constraints in achieving more success on the ground have been limited and unclear
rights of local people to use natural resources and the legitimacy of local institutions andorganizations to make decisions about the land use (see chapter 4).

4.

Best results are achieved when villagers have instituted a clear set of rules and regulations tocontrol access and use rights aimed at regenerating the natural forest while allowing controlled
use of the resources.

18

3.4

Mangroves

3.4.1

Resource Management

Mangrove forests constitute a unique tropical ecosystem, occurring most extensively along theprotected coastal shores with muddy to sandy bottoms, which is alternately covered and uncovered bytidal fluxes. The development, structure and dynamics of mangrove ecosystems are regulated by theinterplay of marine coastal waters with fresh or brackish waters from land drainage (ITTO Mangrove
work plan, 2002-2006). Thailand has 2,600 km of coast line and 70% of this is under mangroves
covering a total area of 276,000 ha with 55 species, showing an increase of about 7,600 ha per year12(Table 3.3).
The concessions in mangrove forests have been stopped for the last 2-3 years. To avoid any confusionand possibility of illegality, demarcation has been done on the ground through canals. Aquaculture canbe practiced by farmers and local inhabitants in the existing canals within the mangrove areas. The
fisheries sector (marine and inland) offers great potential for employment and income generation as
well as for food security. Rice cultivation is the main agricultural activity in these areas. The houses
are exclusively made of mangrove poles. One-third of harvested mangrove trees are used for making
charcoal, lactic acid, etc.
The Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (DMC) is carrying out a project for the enrichmentof mangroves (2004 – 2009). About 16,000 ha have been planted in the last two years and the planting
target for 2006 is 8,000 ha. In total, 60,000 hectares are to be planted in the five-year period under the
project. The Government is also funding the ‘People’s Participation Program’ which includes (i)training and awareness raising, (ii) participation in planting activities, and (iii) protection andimprovement of facilities.
Table 3.3

Mangrove Forests

Region

2000

Central12,550East
23,390South
209,310
Total
245,250
Sources: RFD 2004b, Geo Informatics, DNP

2004- ha 9,650
22,750243,400
275,800

Annual change 13
-725
-160
+8,522+7,637

Thailand Environmental Institute (TEI), a reputed NGO, is developing mangrove information network
which will be completed in three years. TEI is operating in 80 buffer zones to improve their
management to enhance protection of mangrove forests.

3.4.2

Tsunami Disaster

On December 26, 2004, a large ‘tsunami’ hit the coast of Southern Asian and African countries. The
tsunami caused heavy destruction of human life, property, economic infrastructure and environmental
assets in six southern provinces in Thailand along the Andaman coast line (Ranong, Phang Nga,
Phuket, Krabi, Trang and Satun). The severely affected areas included 407 villages in 95 sub-districts.
Casualties stood at 5,395 dead, the injured at 8,457 and the missing at 3,001. A total of 12,068
households with a population of 54,672 were directly affected by the loss or injury of family members.
About 3,300 houses were totally destroyed and 1,500 houses were partly damaged. This naturalcalamity cost more than US$ 75 million14.

12
13
14

Expansion has only occurred in the South Region.
The increase is assumed to be due to change in the assessment method (see ch. 2.3).
Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation, Ministry of Interior
19About 320 ha of mangrove area was severely affected by the tsunami in Thailand. Damage wasserious with Avicennia spp whereas Rhizophora spp withstood the tsunami because of their deep roots.
Damage was severe in areas where there was no protective bioshields. The Government has alreadyrehabilitated the severely affected mangrove area.
The tsunami disaster has, dramatically shown the high vulnerability of the coastal areas to natural
hazards that can have immense impact on human lives and economic infrastructure. It has also
illustrated the role that coastal forests can play as bioshields and speed-breakers to enhance coastal
security. However, the damage caused to coastal forests is threatening the ecological security of thezone as well as the livelihoods and economy of the communities which mainly depend on fishingactivities. The coastal vegetation is diverse; it includes beach forest which plays a crucial role in theprotection of communities and economic infrastructures against tidal waves, coastal erosion, crop
destruction, etc. It comprises also the mangroves which are the nurseries of many coastal and oceanic
fish species, and are therefore vital for the livelihoods of coastal communities and for commercial
fisheries of the country.
The Government of Thailand is implementing an ITTO project titled ‘Contribution to Forest
Rehabilitation in Thailand’s Areas Affected by the Tsunami Disaster’ (PD 372/05 Rev.1 (F)) to theamount of US$ 790,020. Among the project’s most important outputs will be the rehabilitation of
1,250 ha damaged by the tsunami and the elaboration of plans for long-term community-based coastal
forest rehabilitation in pilot areas of the Provinces of Krabi and Pang Nga. The project will promote
the use of bamboo in house construction and furniture to replace mangrove wood. The Danish
Government is supporting rehabilitation of biodiversity and ecosystem functions of protected areas
affected by the tsunami catastrophe with responsibilities and outcomes of sustainable management
shared among all stakeholders.
Assessment
1.

Coastal zone management requires cohesive, multi-disciplinary approaches as well as a multidimensional vision. Sustainable human security in all its dimensions – ecological, economic,
ethical, cultural and social well-being, in terms of the health and happiness both man and nature– should be the goals of an enlightened coastal zone management policy. The implementation ofsuch a policy will require appropriate regulations supported by effective monitoring systems aswell as education, public and political understanding of risks and benefits of development
activities and, above all, social mobilization through grassroot institutions.

2.

Devastating as they were, the tsunami of December 2004 and recent tropical storms have sent a
clear message that investing in environmentally sound development and sustainable
management of the coastal environment will, in the long run, be more cost-effective thanrestoring human lives and ecosystems after a catastrophe.

3.

Rehabilitated mangrove ecosystems can bring back all the benefits of the ecosystem to the local
people who depend on it for livelihood. ITTO’s Mangrove Work-plan (2002-2006) has
suggested the following measures for the protection and development of mangrove ecosystem
which are relevant in the Thai context: (a) conservation and sustainable management, (b)mangrove information and awareness, (c) social-economic aspects, (d) mangrove ecosystem
functions and health, (e) cooperation and capacity building, and (f) pragmatic policies andlegislation.

4.

Promotion of integrated watershed management programs and redesign of farming systems
based on the principles of ecology, economics and employment generation are needed inmangrove area. Community participation through local organizations, fishermen and the youth
should be encouraged.

5.

Capacity building programs are needed for local communities on the state-of-the art of posttsunami agronomic, ecological and livelihood rehabilitation measures drawing on theaccumulating experience.

6.

There is a need for a close integration of the efforts between the concerned government
departments and their interaction with the reputed NGOs working in the field of disastermanagement. The grassroot community institutions should also be strengthened in this context.
20

7.

At least 70 metre buffer zone along the sea coast is required in Thailand depending upon low
and high tide15. This would reduce losses of life and property in natural calamities. Bioshielding
requires a combination of mangrove and terrestrial systems such as beach forests. Thus, thebioshield programs should be strengthened to regenerate mangroves and other suitableterrestrial forest programs within the context of the dynamics in the geomorphology and coastalhydrology. These initiatives would act as bioshield and reduce the impact of any future disasterdue to storms or tsunamis.

8.

If bioshield plantations are raised starting from the high tide line, then the supply ofsand/sediment to the littoral current would be greatly reduced or stopped (due to sand/sedimentbinding property of the plantation) and to compensate this, current and waves would remove
large chunk of sand in other areas, leading to sea erosion in those areas. To address this risk, theshelterbelt plantation should be started at least from 50 to 75 m away from the high tide line.
Moreover, the natural landscape of the coastal area has high aesthetic value, which should beconserved not least because of tourism attraction.

3.5

Trees Outside Forests (TOF)

In the Thai context, “tree cover” means the area covered by crown of trees that is too small to bedelineated by digital interpretation of remote sensing data at 1:50,000 scale used for forest resource
assessment16. “Tree cover” differs from the concept of “Trees Outside Forests” (TOF) which means alltree crops outside recorded forest area (forest and other woodland). About 18.9 mill. ha or 36.8% of
the land area of Thailand comes under the category of “others”, i.e. outside recorded forest area, which
may be interpreted as potential TOF area.
TOF is an important element of landscape in the whole country but particularly in Central Region
where the relative forest cover is lowest. Trees are grown as part of land use for a variety of products
such as fuelwood, construction poles, NTFPs, shelter, fencing, etc. Trees are also part of land-use
systems such as agro-forestry or silvo-pastoral techniques. The open areas with TOF resources are also
important for biodiversity conservation. Data is, however, badly lacking on the biological and socioeconomic importance of TOF as a strategic natural resource. Knowledge on the contribution tomeeting farmers’ various needs could lead for adjustment of reforestation programs and extension
services.
Assessment
1.

TOF inventories should be carried out using remote sensing and ground truthing be carried out
based on sample plots in each strata (block plantation, linear plantation and scattered trees) andthe data obtained should be processed to generate a computed tree cover at 70% canopy density.
Such an assessment of TOF will help in developing proper monitoring mechanism/ information
system to support the sustainable development of tree resources outside forests at the subdistrict level. This monitoring could be combined with regular assessment of the progress andsurvival rate/status of various afforestation programs in the country, to make their futureplanning realistic17.

2.

TOF management should be considered in the extension packages for farmers.

15
16
17

The control buffer zone in Indonesia is 400 m.
See also definitions of forest and TOF in FAO (2005b)
ITTO has recently decided to fund a TOF project PD 376/05 Rev.1 (F, M) in Thailand to address informationneeds related to this resource.
21

4.

COMMUNITY FORESTRY

4.1

Evolution of the Government Community Forestry Program

Forest resources have been an integral part of Thailand’s rural life, involving all aspects of local
people’s activities, thereby contributing to their social, economic, cultural, environmental and politicalobjectives. At present, some 1.2 to 2.0 million people are reported to be living in and around theprotected areas (national parks and wildlife sanctuaries) and rely on forests for livelihoods. In addition,
another 20 to 25 million people are reported to live near national forest reserves and use them forforest products both for household consumption and to sell them in markets for cash income((Wichawutipong 2005; Pragtong, pers. comm.)
As early as 1970s, RFD recognized community (or village) forestry as a strategy for sustainable
management of the nation’s forest resources (FAO 1978; Pragtong, 1991.). In 1991 a Community
Forestry Division, now renamed as the Office of Community Forest Management, was created with amandate to plan and promote community forestry, and to involve local communities, localorganizations, NGOs and other civil society organizations and various other institutions in community
forest management. The Forest Sector Master Plan of 1992 recognized community forestry as one of
the main strategies (TFSMP 1993).
In 1993, drafting of a legislative framework what is known as the Community Forestry Bill, wasinitiated to provide a legal framework to promote community forestry in the country. Since thenseveral versions, have been drafted, but the approval has been on hold due to difficulty in reaching a
consensus among politicians and stakeholders (Box 4.1). In particular, views differ on a clause thatwould allow community forests in protected areas.
According to Wichawutipong (2005), the establishment of government-supported community forests
is at present allowed in two types of legally categorized forests: (i) national forest reserves, underformal management by RFD, and (ii) other forests (i.e. any forests not yet occupied or developed forany use by Thai citizens, as per the Forest Act of 1941).
According to the draft of Community Forestry Bill (1993 version, cited in Wichawutipong, 2005),
community forest would not be allowed in the following categories of land: areas (i) where use
permits have been given to individuals and/or any government agencies for residential purposes,
afforestation and other types of use, (ii) government afforestation areas, state parks and botanicalgardens, and (iii) protected areas declared by the Cabinet.
4.2

Present Status of the Community Forestry Program

4.2.1

Extent of Community Forests

Some 11,400 villages (or 15.5% of all the villages) (Wichawutipong, 2005) are involved in managing
community forests in the country, of which about a half (5,331 villages) are reported to have formallyregistered their community forests with RFD (Table 4.1). These community forests are reported tocover an area of 196,667 ha in both national forest reserves (112,869 ha) and other forest areas (83,798ha), accounting for about 1.2 % of the total forest area (Wichawutipong, 2005). It can be extrapolated
that were all the villages involved in community forestry, the total area covered could be in the rangeof 1.1 million ha.
The majority (72%) of existing community forests is concentrated in the North and Northeast regions
where most natural forests are located. Moreover, these two regions are also the areas where themajority of the poor people are reported to live (IUCN, 2004). Interestingly, the Northeast, which isthe poorest region, is also reported to be the least indebted region, with US$ 1,128 per household,compared to the figures for the whole country, Central, North and South, which are US$ 1,630; 1,467;
1,284 and 1,324, respectively (IUCN 2004). On the other hand, in the Northeast the average size of thecommunity forest is smallest.

22

Box 4.1

Key Events in the Development of Community Forestry Legislationin Thailand

Date

Event

1991

The RFD began a process to develop a Community Forestry Act to involve local
communities in managing community forests, and developed a draft Community
Forestry Bill.
1992
The concept for a draft Bill was approved by the cabinet.
1992-1995
The draft bill was revised and reconsidered through committee and public hearings.
1993
A draft Bill was developed by RFD and another version by NGOs
1994
NGOs and grassroots groups campaigned for the government to accept the people’s
version of Bill.
1996
As a response to the grassroots and NGO pressure, the government assigned the
National Economic and Social Development Board to organize and draft a newversion of the Bill, with participation of representatives from government, NGOs,
academics and grassroots communities. A compromise version of the draft was
produced.
1997
Urban conservationists lobbied against the redrafted Bill and the concerned
Ministry was ordered to further modify the Bill.
The Cabinet approved the Ministry version of the Bill.
Local community members from across the country rallied against the Ministry
version. A joint committee revised the Ministry version.
2000
Nationwide community forestry networks announced their intention to collect
50,000 signatures to submit a people’s version to the Parliament according to
Article 170 of the 1990 constitution. The Bill was approved by the Lower House.
2001
A new government confirmed its intention to consider the Bill.
2002
The Senate’s revision deleted the most crucial clause of the Bill which would haveallowed community forests in protected areas. The Bill was sent to Joint Committeeof Senators and Representatives. The Bill was sent back to the Lower House toconsider the Senate’s revision.
2005-06
The consideration of the Bill in the Joint Committee continued.
Sources: Kalyawongsa 1997; Witchawutipong 2005

Table 4.1

RegionNumber of Community Forests by Region and Selected Socio-economic
Variables
North

Northeast

Central

East

South

Total

Population (1,000 inhabitants)
10,47922,315
18,172
2,449
9,004
62,418
Total forest area (1,000 ha)
9,206.8
2,809,6
2,124.3
824.0
1794.3
16,759.1
Villages with CFs (No)
3,359
4,809
1,621
563e
1,059
11,411eSize of community forest (ha)
28.7
5.5
13.2
15.0e
26.7
14.9
CFs registered with RFD (No)5,331
Areas under formal CFs ( 1,000
196.7
ha)
Population living in poverty (%)
12.2
28.1
5.4
NA
11
NA
Sources: Ministry of Interior, 2005; RFD 2004a; Wichawutipong, 2005; IUCN, 2004: Mission estimates

In the North and Northeast regions, the landless forest dependent population is dominated by so callhill tribe people. Furthermore, a significant proportion of the hill tribes live in and around theprotected areas, especially those bordering neighboring countries. Many are reported to be illegal
immigrants. They have no formal land rights and their land-use practices have been criticized byauthorities and NGOs as being one of the main causes of deforestation. (cf. chapter 8.1).

23

4.2.2

Benefits from Community Forests

At present, due to the logging ban of 1989, villagers are not allowed to fell or harvest any kind ofliving trees (“green wood”) from natural forests for household or commercial purposes. They may,
however, use the plantation forests to harvest timber and fuelwood but for teak and other reserved
species a permit is required from RFD.
Villagers are allowed to use community forests to collect dry and dead wood free of charge forsubsistence needs (e.g. fuelwood and construction timber). With no other source of energy, the amountof fuelwood used each year by these millions of people for cooking and heating is significant (see ch.
6.6).
In addition to fuelwood and construction wood, villagers are allowed to use free of charge NTFPs,
such as mushrooms, rattan, bamboo and bamboo shoots, wild vegetables, flowers, fruit and nuts, andmedicinal plants. These are used mostly for household consumption to supplement diets, especiallyduring the time of food shortages but also for supply to local markets for cash income. The types of
NTFPs collected from CFs vary from place to place, and their volumes can be locally highly
significant. For example, in 2004, villagers reported collecting about 13 tons of NTFPs from NongSong Hong, Khon Kaen and Dong Keng community forests (a dry dipterocarp forest covering 287 ha)(Witchawutipong 2005).
Relatively few households are reported to be engaged in marketing of NTFPs, but the cash generated
through forest products trade in local markets can be quite substantial. For example, in Dong Keng in
2004, NTFPs sold in the local market accounted for 5.25% of the average annual household income(Witchapwopitong 2005). According to the Thailand Environment Monitor Series, in 2004, a village
generates, on average, over US$ 25,000 per year by selling non-timber forest products. Thus, with
73,467 villages in the country, this would amount to up to about US$ 2 billion per annum from the
NTFP trade in the local market alone18.
In addition, community forests have an important cultural and religious significance for rural people.
Tens of thousands of monks are reported to reside inside the forests often cooperating with forest
authorities to encourage villagers to protect the forest. Many NGOs and authorities see forests to beimportant for watershed protection and are therefore actively engaged in the promotion of planting
trees and protecting forests for watershed areas through community involvement.
4.2.3

Public Support to Villages

According to the Office of Community Forest Management, RFD provincial and district staff help
demarcate community forest areas and prepare operational plans. They provide villagers with basic
forestry skills, such as nursery establishment, planting and maintenance and fire protection. RFD also
provides planting materials, such as seeds and seedlings (mainly eucalyptus). Almost all the villages
with registered community forests have a nursery and tree-planting program. RFD also organizes
study tours for community forest group members to visit successful community forest sites, bothwithin and outside Thailand. They also provide training on networking among community forestgroups.
Some community groups are reported to receive financial assistance through the tambon (sub-district)administrations (TAO) under the decentralization program while RFD at present has no provision for
direct financial support to villages for community forestry activities.
RFD has identified and promoted a variety of means to support local communities to manage theirforests, albeit at pilot scales, so that these could be scaled up once the Community Forestry Act ispassed. These support projects and programs include:

18

This is probably an overestimate as there are wide regional differences in NTFP collection and trade (seech. 7).
24

●

●
●

●

●

Community forestry in buffer zones, which is being tested with pilot projects in national forest
reserves that surround national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. The aim is to develop understandingof local processes and tools for developing collaborative management arrangements between localorganizations and RFD to manage buffer zones.
Small-scale forest plantations to support TAOs in their role as a primary local institute to promotesmall-scale enterprises and employment. Areas of 10 to 20 ha are allocated to a TAO for
reforestation and planting of trees such as eucalyptus and teak.
Involving TAOs in forest management in all 75 provinces, with the aim to develop procedures for
local forest officers to work with the TAO administration to manage forestlands in their territories.
TAOs are encouraged and assisted to develop forest management plans and activities (for TAO
forests or community forests/village groups), while forest officers play a crucial role in providing
extension services to plan and implement activities that will ensure wise use of forests by villagers
for their own benefit.
One Tambon One Product (OTOP) is a government program that supports local communities todevelop value-added products that have potential for commercialization; for example products
from forest trees and plants, such as wine, juice, honey, medicines are produced by many villages
in the Northeast region.
Forest and forest fire protection initiative involves local people in controlling forest fire. RFD has
supported TAOs in developing forest fire control plans to reduce the impact of forest fires on local
economies and forests, especially in national parks and wildlife sanctuaries19.

These interventions need to be integrated in the overall planning of community forestry in a village inorder to be relevant and effective. Involving TAO is highly relevant as the Government’s
decentralization program recognizes TAO as the focal organization for local development to mobilize
people and resources. TAO authorities usually have a good understanding of the issues facing forest
management in their areas as well as the local people and their forestry needs. This also fits well to thegovernment’s present decentralization policy which aims to vest the responsibility and authority ofmanaging local resources in TAO authority (cf. ch. 9.3).
4.3

Issues and Constraints

In two decades, only about 1.01% (Wichawutipong, 2005) of the total forests has been brought undercommunity management. Therefore, with the current approach and slow speed, the Government’s
community forestry program will have limited positive impact on the livelihoods of forest dependent
people and the country’s forest resources. Key issues and constraints facing community forestry
development are discussed in the following sections.
4.3.1

Trust and Confidence in Local Communities

The authorities and many vocal NGOs have little trust and confidence in local communities ascustodians of forests. They see people living in and around the forests as the main cause of forest
degradation, and fear that community forestry might contribute to further degradation of the remaining
forests. Both DNP and some influential NGOs like Dhammanaat Foundation strongly believe that
community forestry should not be allowed in protected areas, Even in the national forest reserves,
where community forestry activities are allowed, RFD has retained control over almost all of the wellstocked forests, leaving only degraded sites for community forests to be established. Communities are
expected to rehabilitate these marginal lands.
As Kalyawongsa (1977) has pointed out there are conflicting interests among stakeholders on whichlands should or could be allocated for community forestry. It is not only a matter of having differences
between the groups but also within the groups which has made it complex to develop common views
through a broad-based dialogue both at local and national levels.

19

The responsibility for fire control is currently vested in DNP (see ch. 9).
25

4.3.2Illegal Immigrants

The number of illegal immigrants, especially in the protected areas bordering Myanmar, Laos andCambodia, is reported to be increasing continuously driven by better living conditions in Thailand(including possibilities for off-farm income) and the fact that the same ethnic groups are found on bothsides of the border. According to Dhammanaat20, the number of people living in and around theprotected areas in 1994 was less than 1.0 million but the population has now more than doubled,
mainly due to the illegal immigrants21. Some existing local communities are reported to encourage
people from across the border (who are usually their own relatives) to come, clear forests and settle
down. This is one of the main reasons for objection by DNP and NGOs to allow community forestry
in protected areas. It is feared that not only would community forestry give illegal immigrants use
rights to forests, but would also serve as a means for the immigrants to obtain Thai citizenship.
4.3.3

Privatization of Land Ownership

Individual land grant programs are well justified to provide people a more stable social situation as thedelineation of granted holdings is a basis for effective controls against misuse. The downside is thattitling may be expanded to areas that would be otherwise assigned to community forest. There arepresently on-going programs to transfer some land to individual households both in protected areasand national forest reserves. In 1997, the Thai King declared the need to recognize forest use rights ofpeople living in and around the forests, regardless of protected areas or national forest reserves.
Consequently, this particular year became a basis for determining which households would be eligible
for land grants (i.e. families living in a site prior to 1997).
According to RFD, in the national forest reserves, a household is entitled for minimum one ha,whereas, in the protected areas this has now been reduced to a maximum of a little over one hectare
per household.
There seems to be no proper guideline laid out for what can or cannot be done on such land, especiallyin the protected areas. In principle, families can use the land to grow crops, vegetables and fruits, etc.,
but they are not allowed to sell the land. However, in practice some villagers/farmers are reported tohave informally sold their land to people from cities without having a formal land title. Payment ofland tax is used as a proxy to demonstrate that the land is occupied by its claimed holder.
4.3.4

Tenure and Use Rights of Forest and Forest Products

All the natural forests - regardless of their status as protected area or national forest reserves – areowned by the state and controlled by two government agencies, DNP and RFD. In protected areas,
local communities have no formal use rights (although they are allowed to collect free of charge somebasic forest products, such as dry fuelwood and some NTFPs for household consumption). Alldecisions related to the use and management of protected areas are made by the DNP authorities.
In the national forest reserves, local communities are reported to have usufruct rights to forest
resources (but not to the forest land). RFD attempts to control the forests and local communities areengaged in protecting and patrolling the resource. Villagers are allowed to collect free of charge dry
and dead wood for use as fuelwood and construction timber, but felling of any living tree species innatural forests is prohibited. In plantation forests, felling of reserved tree species, such as teak, forhousehold use or for village development activities may be allowed but requires a permit from RFD.
Villagers are also allowed to collect free of charge various NTFPs for both household consumption
and sales. Thus, from villagers’ perspective, apart from some use rights of selected forest products(which are allowed in non-community forest areas anyway), a formally registered community forest
seems to bring no additional direct benefits to them. Instead, it would bring more responsibilities forforest protection, management and other activities.
20
21

Interview information
There are various estimates on the number of illegal immigrants and people living in protected areas ingeneral.
26

4.3.5

Financial Support

There is no financial support to community forestry. RFD provides some assistance to villages (e.g.
forest demarcation, operational plan preparation, planting materials, etc.). The current approach tocommunity forestry typically focuses on planting trees and protecting forests, and sees the utilizationof forests mainly from the perspective of subsistence needs. On the other hand, local people are
involved in collecting NTFPs from forests, within and outside community forests and are trading themin local markets. At present, there seems to be little support and assistance for local people inmarketing of forest products or setting up community-based processing enterprises for commercial
purposes. Such enterprises are, however, in the interests of TAO Councils.
According to RFD staff, TAOs are supposed to allocate funds for forest management, but local budget
allocation procedure has yet to formally include community forests. Some TAOs have started to do
this and e.g. in Don Keng, Nong Song Heng and Khon Kaen a TAO can allocate up to US$ 1,500 ayear as wages to forest protection groups. Forest guards receive up to US$ 12.5022 per month forpatrolling forests 2 to 3 times a week (Witchawutipong 2005). However, rather than directly hiringand making payments to individuals for forest protection, it would probably be more appropriate for
TAOs to provide such support through community forest groups.
4.3.6

Legal Framework

As explained above the Community Forestry Bill is still waiting to be approved by the Parliament.
Regardless of the Bill, local communities in many villages are already actively engaged in managing
forest resources, even though the delay in approval has slowed down the progress. The lack of an
appropriate regulatory framework has also resulted in the misunderstanding of what can and cannot bedone in a community forest, often contributing to frustration among, and even frictions between, theconcerned parties. Field forestry staff often have to take personal risks in promoting community
forestry as later on it may be found out that such activities were against the letter of the law in force.
Concerns over illegal immigrants have been cited as a major reason for holding up the Community
Forestry Bill23. However, the number of illegal immigrants in the protected areas has increased over
the years independently from the legal control. Thus, the issue appears to have more to do with theimmigration policy than the Community Forestry Bill. Another risk involved is, as pointed out bysome conservation NGOs, that community forestry may be used as a means to giving land out toindividuals which could possibly be later on privatized or would be converted to other uses (cf. section
4.3.4).
Without a Community Forestry Bill in place, it has proved difficult to develop proper, formal
administrative procedures and guidelines for field implementation of community forestry. The
proposed process of the establishment of a community forest is outlined in Box 4.2. Formally it would
be up to local people to decide whether they want a community forest and then to form a group and fillin an application. However, the planned system is rather complex, bureaucratic and time consuming.
For example, each community forest has to be approved by the Director General of RFD before avillage is formally given a use right of forest. This responsibility could be delegated to the concerned
provincial authority. In addition, some conditions, such as the need to form a group with at least fifty
households, may not always be applicable for every village. Management plans in the past haveconsidered mostly technical details (forestry and environment) and very little of social, economic andcultural aspects and this should be rectified.

22
23

Equivalent to about 3-day minimum wage in Thailand.
Interview information27

Box 4.2

Proposed Procedure to a Establish Community Forests

A number of steps will have to be completed before a community forest is officially registered in the name of agroup.
1
Local people organize themselves into a group of at least 50 people (18 years or older), discuss and agree
on a set of community forestry programs and activities, fill-in and sign a community forestry application
form (CF Document 1), and submit it to community leaders (e.g. Tambon leader – Kamnan and/or village
headman– Poo Yai Ban), who in turn submits the form to the concerned District Administration Authority.
2
District Mayor, District General Secretary and District Forestry Officer review the application form (CFDocument 1), check if all the supporting documents are included, and forward the application to theconcerned Provincial Authority.
3
The Governor, with authorized Forestry Officers from the Provincial Office of Natural Resources andEnvironment (i) appoints a responsible Forestry Officer for field investigations; (ii) the Officer carries out
the field investigation, together with Kamnan and/or Poo Yai Ban and authorized community members, andwrites a field site investigation report (CF Document 2); (iii) the applicant local group/institution develops a
proposal for community forest (CF Document 3) with technical assistance from forestry officers; (iv)
together with a recommendation from TAO, the group submits the proposal to the Provincial
Administration; and (v) the concerned provincial officers review the proposal and submits to the RFD for
final approval.
4
The Director General of the RFD approves or disapproves the proposal, informs the provincial officers ofthe decision and issues instructions to implement the decision.
Upon the approval of the CF proposal, the authorities start the process for registration of the community forest,
as follows:
5
The Provincial Governor declares an area of the approved community forest as per the National Forest
Reserve Act 1964 (Decree 15) and informs the District Mayor, Kamnan and/or Poo Yai Ban, Forestry
Officers, and Provincial Agricultural and Cooperative Officers. These officer are responsible formonitoring and evaluation of the program. Forestry and Agricultural/Cooperative Officers develop a CF
monitoring and evaluation report (CF Document 4) and submits it to the RFD at least once a year.
6
The local group, with the help of forestry officers, demarcates boundaries of the forest, place community
forest signs with information on rules and regulations, sanctions and restricted forest products. The
community forest group (a) develops a CF operational plan for plantation, enrichment planting, community
forest development, etc., (b) establishes forest patrolling groups, (c) monitors CF activities, (d) informs
community members of the plan, and (d) provides progress reports to forestry officers.
7
Forestry officers work closely with the local CF group as technical assistants to ensure program
effectiveness and forest sustainability
Source: Witchawutipong 2005

4.3.7

Goals and Strategy of Community Forestry Program

The final constraint relates to the lack of definition of the overall goal and long-term strategy ofcommunity forestry. The Forestry Sector Master Plan of 1992 clearly describes objectives and roles ofcommunity forestry, but they were never formally endorsed
The situation with the Community Forestry Bill shows that the Government’s community forestry
program has been trapped in a political stalemate. The lack of overall policy goals corresponding totoday’s realities in the environmental degradation, inappropriate resource use, imbalance between
demand and supply of forest products, a long-standing ban on logging, uncertainties in the utilizationof plantations, etc. does not provide an adequate strategic framework for community forestry. It is
unclear whether community forests should become commercially viable economic undertakings or justa means to meet subsistence needs and generate some additional revenue for the most disadvantageousgroups in the community who do not have other resources. It is also important to clarify the role ofagriculture as a source of livelihood in forest communities be they located in or outside protected areas(cf. e.g. Walker 2005).
This situation undermines the government investment already made in promoting community forestry.
Important lessons have been learned to avoid top-down and bureaucratic approaches and to generateawareness and willingness to manage and conserve forest resources sustainably. These lessons
however, cannot be put in practice due to the lack of clarity in policy and strategies.

28

If community forestry is not allowed in protected areas in the future, the Government should also
make it clear what kind of livelihood strategies are offered to the 1-2 million people living in theseareas (relocation, long-term subsidization, engagement in PA management activities, etc.).
4.4

Towards Effective Community Forestry

From the experience and insights of planning and implementing community forestry in and outside
Thailand, the Mission identified a set of key building blocks for effective community forestry
development which are described in the following sections.
4.4.1

Community Forestry Policy and Strategy

There is a need to recognize the key role of community forestry in the overall strategy to achievesustainable forest management in Thailand. Local communities should be seen as assets or humancapital for improving the country’s forest condition (rather than as the cause of forest resource
degradation) (Box 4.3). There are numerous examples from different parts of the world (including
Thailand) that demonstrate local communities’ understanding and knowledge of forests and forest
products as well as their successful efforts in managing and regenerating forests and trees in theirvillages.
The rationale and good practice is relevant to Thailand’s forestry situation. The knowledge andunderstanding of forest-dwelling people on forest conservation have been well demonstrated anddocumented (e.g. Hares 2006). Community forestry fits well into the government’s current
development objective of poverty reduction and the philosophy of development throughdecentralization. Not only would community forestry mobilize millions of people to participate in the
management of the country’s forest resources, but the Government’s financial and administrative
burden for forest management would also be reduced.

Box 4.3

Rationale and Good Practice of Community Forestry

Community involvement in forest management has been justified on following grounds:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Proximity to the resource: those in close contact with the forest are best placed to ensure its
effective husbandry.
Impact: those whose livelihoods depend on the forest should be involved in its management.
Equity: forests should be managed so as to ensure adequate resource flows to rural population.
Multiple needs: single-purpose management for timber may be incompatible with thelivelihood needs of rural population.
Capacity: forest-dwelling communities may be better forest managers than the government
agencies.
Biodiversity: multiple purpose management of forests by communities can lead to better
conservation of biodiversity than management for timber alone.
Cost-effectiveness: local involvement in management may be an important way of cutting costto the state.
Governance: community involvement introduces important checks and balances in relation tostate services, which tend to be mismanaged.
Sustainability: local participation, decentralization and subsidiarity can ensure sustainability
Source:Adapted based on Brown (1999)

It is important to have clear targets as to how much forest area would be under community
management and within what time period should that be achieved. Such targets would give theplanners clear goals and strategic direction to strive and plan for, and for seeking and mobilizing thenecessary resources. Targets would also serve as a useful basis to measure progress and assess theoverall impact of community forestry over time as experience in other countries demonstrates (Box
4.4).

29

Box 4.4

Areas under Community Forests in India and Nepal

In India, the Government introduced Joint Forest Management (JFM) in 1990 and since then the programme
has been implemented in 29 States covering 21.44 million ha under JFM system. These forests are being
managed by 99,868 JFM committees involving 16.3 million rural people (men – 68% and women – 32%).
(Proceedings of … 2005)
JFM is essentially creating equity in participation. Rights have also been given to the community to collect,
store, barter and sell non-nationalized NTFPs free of royalty. NTFPs such as wild fruits, gum, honey, barks,
flowers, medicinal plants etc. are sold by the villages either to local traders who visit the villages or at the
local markets/haats. Some produces, such as Sal leaves are usually sold after value addition. For thenationalized NTFPs such as Tendu/Kendu leaves, Sal seeds, cashew etc. communities mostly get collection
charges on delivery of NTFPs at the designated collection centers. There are benefit-sharing arrangements
between the State and community in respect of timber.
In addition to the direct benefits, villages under JFM have been getting several indirect benefits from theprogram such as village resource development and wage employment. In a nutshell, maximum benefit under
JFM has come in the form of easy access to and increased supply of fodder, fuelwood and NTFPs. The side
benefits like wage employment and village development have also been quite significant.
The JFM programme has led to regeneration of degraded forests, reduction in frequency of conflicts,
reduction of encroached forest land and improved livelihoods. Experience so far gained with JFM shows that
it is a successful approach for protecting and regenerating India’s forests and biodiversity. While forest
destruction and degradation is continuing at an alarming rate in many parts of the world, India has managed toarrest this trend. The JFM programme has made an important contribution in reversing the degradation offorests and also fostering a sense of commitment among the people for the cause of conservation. The
involvement of people in the management of forests is leading to regeneration of forests and creation of an
efficient institutional framework for the protection of forests, apart from meeting the livelihood needs of thepeople. JFM Committee has been recognized as a vehicle of ensuring Sustainable Forest Management andconservation with local community participation.
In Nepal, a community forestry program was initiated in 1978, but the program to hand over forests to usergroups was actually started only after the restoration of multi-party system in 1990. After 15 years of
implementation of forest user group concept, there are now 13,749 forest user groups, involving some 1.14
million ha (21% of the total forest area) and over 9 million people (38% of the total population) (Bhattarai,2005).

4.4.2

Benefits and Costs of Community Forestry

Actual or perceived benefits are a key to attract local people for active participation in community
forestry activities. Most government programs, including in Thailand, tend to place emphasis on
meeting local people’s subsistence needs. However, many villagers, especially the poorer members, do
not have access to other means of livelihoods and therefore find such programs irrelevant. These poor
villagers are interested in forestry activities that would help them get out of the subsistence economy.
Therefore, community forestry must consider production of goods and services beyond the subsistenceneeds, i.e. development of commercial operations including collection and sales of NTFPs andsupplying wood to processing industries (Box 4.5). This would help raise the income of poor
households while adding value to forests for society at large.
Unfortunately, community forestry has yet to find its way to benefit the poorer villagers in Thailand.
Specific pro-poor activities are needed to reach this social group (e.g. providing scholarships tochildren, interest free loans for income generating activities, and providing necessary skills bytraining) (Kanel and Niraula, 2004).
Community forestry’s contribution to conservation objectives is equally important. A large number ofcase studies from different parts of the world have highlighted regeneration of forest resources,
improved watersheds and return of wild animals and birds, following the implementation ofcommunity forestry programs. Community forestry has a huge potential for contributions towards theobjective of sustainable forest management, thereby enhancing the role of forests for society through30

improved ecosystem services (i.e. biodiversity conservation, watershed management and carbon
sequestration, etc.).
Box 4.5

Income Generation from Community Forests in Nepal

A survey of 1,788 forest user groups from 12 hill and lowland districts in Nepal, carried out in 2002 andextrapolated to all forest user groups in the country, showed that the total annual cash income from the saleof forest products from community forests was more than US$ 10 million. This amounted to about 42% of
the annual budget of the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation. The benefits go to the forest user groups.
The value of subsistence forest products and other income generated by the user groups, was estimated atabout US$ 24 million. About 36% of the income from community forests was spent by the forest usergroups on community development activities such as building of schools, roads and drinking water facilities.
Source: Kanel and Niraula (2004; cited in Gilmour et al., 2005)

As well as benefits, it is equally important to consider costs caused by community forestry activities.
According to Malla (2006), local communities, once they are in control of community forests, can start
making substantial investment of their resources (money, time, energy, knowledge and skills) inregenerating, protecting and sustainable use of the resources. Long gestation period of forestry
investments makes it impossible for the poor to engage in tree planting without external support.
Appropriate incentive structures have to be tailored to the operational environment and they have toaddress power sharing, information sharing and equity issues (Castrén 2004).
Apart from direct costs of management and production there are also transaction costs which are often
disregarded (Adhikary 2005; Malla 2006). Through community forestry programs, the authorities
impose a lot of demands on local people’s time and other resources. They are required to organize
meetings among themselves and with forest authorities. They need to fill in forms and submit periodic
reports. When forest officers pay visits to a village, they expect to be entertained with organized visits
to community forest sites, all free of charge. Indeed, in some places, some community members arereported to have started to use the village fund to cover such costs. There is a need to consider all
benefits and costs (direct and indirect) when planning community forestry and carrying out financial
analysis.
4.4.3

Tenure and Use Rights of Forest and Forest Products

Another important factor for community forestry lies in the “ownership” and “secured use rights” offorest and forest products. For this, two actions are critical. First, it is important to clearly defineboundaries of the resource that will be allocated as community forests and identify which households
are users of the forests (Gilmour & Fisher 1991). The draft Community Forestry Bill would require agroup of minimum 50 people to commit to the activity before a community forest can be established.
Second, the local communities should be vested with both “authorities” and “responsibilities” (not justresponsibilities) for the protection and management of community forests, including authority toprotect the resource from outsiders and action against the community members who breach the forest
management rules (Moore, 2005). This would involve establishment of clear internal rules for use
rights, protection of the resource, sharing of benefits and penalties. Most community forests, wherethese elements are present, are found to be very effective. Table 4.2 provides a tentative outline forhow local communities’ use rights of forests could be defined in the Thai conditions.
In Thailand in general, it appears that most community forests have loosely defined resourceboundaries and users and villagers have unclear responsibilities for protecting and regenerating
forests, but with no effective control over the resource. It is important to provide a clear set of
conditions for what is and isn’t possible for community members, i.e. resource boundaries and users,
use rights (both authority and responsibility) as well as sanctions (Table 4.2).

31

Table 4.2

Tentative Definition of Use Rights of Forests in Thai Conditions

Resource boundaries of forests (area,
restricted area, etc.)
Users (h/holds numbers & names)
Ownership of land
Ownership of forests/trees
Responsibility for:● Protection● Regeneration● Monitoring
Authority to community for:● Controlling/protecting resource● Imposing fines and sanctions
Forest resource use:
● Subsistence purposes● Commercial purposes● Set aside core conservation areas
Forest land grants/leases:● To a defined community orgroup for tree planting● Use of products for subsistenceneed by a defined group orcommunity● For planting trees by individual
households (disincentive to CF)● For cultivation/building houseby individuals● To clear forests for other uses by
a community or group● To a company / corporation
Benefit sharing arrangements:● 100% to community (group● 100% to Tambon/provincial
govt.
● Share b/w community & govt.
Utilization of income● For forest management● For village development● Sharing amonggroup/community members(loans, etc.)
Operational or working plan
Agreement with gov. authority

National forest
reserve

Communal landProtected area

Yes
Yes
State
Community

Yes
Yes
Community
Community

Yes
Yes
State
State

●
●
●

Yes
Yes
Yes

●
●
●

Yes
Yes
Yes

●
●
●

In designated areas
In designated areas
In designated areas

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Within FMP provisions
Possible through internal
rules

Yes
Yes
If necessary

Yes
Yes
If necessary

Yes
No
Yes

Yes

Yes

Within FMP provisions

Yes

Yes

Within FMP provisions

No

No

Within FMP provisions

No

No

No

No
Yes

No
No

No
No

No
No
Yes

Yes
No
No

Within FMP provisions
No
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

In designated areas
Yes

The present Thai policy to grant/lease reserve forest land to private individuals and private companies
for commercial tree plantations may represent a limitation to community forestry development.
Therefore, other options should be considered in situations where communal management can better
achieve the sustainable management objectives.
An appropriate regulatory framework is critical to enable community forestry activities in the field(Moore 2005) and for their mainstreaming beyond the pilot sites. Indeed, in countries such as India,
Nepal and the Philippines, community forestry expanded rapidly once a regulatory framework was put
in place. On the other hand, in Thailand, the delay in approving the Community Forestry Bill has been
one of the limiting factors for the expansion of community forestry.
4.4.4

Organizing Communities and Forest-based Community Enterprises

Community forestry is about both forests and people (communities), and it can only move ahead if thepeople concerned are interested in acting together. A community is made up of individuals and groups
with different interests and means of livelihoods. Different interest groups see forest resources from32

the viewpoint of their own specific needs. Many Thai forest communities are ethnically and socioeconomically diverse. Community members need to organize themselves to be able to manage theforest and to ensure that different forest goods and services are available in a sustainable and equitablemanner.
Community-based forest management and related enterprises have been expanding dramatically in theworld with the recognition of historical tenure rights and the transfer of responsibilities to local levels(Molnar et al. 2005). Yet, a major weakness of most government community forestry programs,
including in Thailand, is that they concentrate resources and effort mostly to forest protection andregeneration activities. The reason is that these programs have been initiated largely in response to theenvironmental concerns. Forest industries and market promotion have been viewed negatively as
expanded production is feared to accelerate the deforestation process.
It is time that policy makers and stakeholders realize that community forestry is not about just planting
and protecting forests, or producing forest products for subsistence purposes only. Communities cangenerate revenue to reduce poverty while contributing to meeting broader societal needs of forest
goods and services. It has been demonstrated that people are willing to pay for such goods andservices. Both domestic and international markets for timber and NTFPs have expanded dramaticallyand as a new opportunity payment schemes for environmental services have been put in place in many
countries. Financing is available through various financing institutions and private sector sources
which are providing credits and other services to support small and medium-scale enterprises.
On the other hand, local people are already extensively involved in collecting NTFPs, within andoutside community forests, trading them in local markets. In Thailand, the Bank of Agriculture andAgricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) provides loans to groups of farmers for various types ofprocessing, including NTFPs, and even for export market development. Various initiatives, such as theRoyal Foundation Projects and the King’s Projects and have been designed to help the poor people,
especially hill tribes, living in and around the forests to improve their livelihood base. These Royalprojects provide training and financial support to the villagers. Similarly, the government program
One Tambon, One Product (OTOP) is specifically designed to encourage villagers to become morebusiness oriented. Support and infrastructure for forest-based community enterprises already exist in
the country but they do not reach the target groups in the communities. It is necessary to linkcommunity forest groups with these various initiatives through training, communication and eventualadjustment of financing instruments.
4.4.5

Networking and Association of Community Forest Groups

Community networks
As the number of community forests increases and more experience is gained, local communities needto develop networks among themselves, share experiences and learn from each other. In particular,
communities, which have yet to establish community forests, could benefit from visiting the existing
ones. As community forest groups expand both in number and area, the RFD staff will find it
increasingly difficult to meet the information demands of the community groups.
In some parts of the country, especially in the North and Northeast regions, some groups have alreadystarted networking often assisted by donor projects and NGOs24. RFD can build on these community
networks as channels of information and assist in expanding them in an organized and systematicmanner.
Associations of community forest groups
As well as networking among community members, another major task of community forestry
practitioners should be to assist in establishment of associations of community forest groups. This
concept has been applied in some other countries (e.g. in Nepal, see Bhattarai (2005) for details). Such
associations could operate at different levels – from Tambon through to the national level. Just as
24

E.g. Thailand Wildlife Fund, WWF, TEI
33

government authorities need to inform community groups on new programs or changes in policy
instruments and regulations, local communities need to provide feedback on the extent to which public
programs are relevant. Community forestry associations could play a range of roles in facilitating thiscommunication by:●●●●

Acting as an interest group in dialogue with the government and market actors including on policy
and market issues ensuring that the concerns of community forest group members are taken into
account.
Acting as a link between community group members and other stakeholders (government forest
authorities, industries, etc.) for communication on new knowledge and information, includingchanges in forest regulations.
Acting as an agent of change by educating and motivating different groups of community
members (children, men and women), using a variety of media communication tools andtechniques, for awareness raising and sustainable use of forest resources.
Acting as a service provider to community members on the management of community forests,
including hiring necessary technical expertise.

Community forest groups should be charged a membership fee to make the operating of such
associations financially sustainable25. For technical services community groups should pay fees which
can be initially nominal and subsidized. Over time they may take responsibilities for extension andcampaigning activities, and associations may raise funds from various sources.
Assessment
1.

Despite recognizing its strategic importance in achieving sustainable forest management (FSMP
1992) and the provision of the 1997 Constitution (Article 46 on Decentralization Policy) on therights of local people to natural resources, community forestry has made only limited progressin Thailand. The reasons include unclear legal basis, conflicts, and politics of various interested
groups. While the Community Forestry Bill is waiting to be approved by the Parliament, RFD
has already for years supported local community groups. However, without an enabling
regulation, the future of these community forests is insecure, as RFD is not in a position toprovide in writing any guarantee that these forests will definitely continue to be community
forests. Besides, the area under community forests is so small and the speed at which they are
established so slow that no significant positive impact has been achieved on poverty reduction
and the management of the country’s forest resources.

2.

The deep mistrust concerning local communities capacity to manage forests among thegovernment and some NGOs, who see villagers as the main cause of forest degradation, is oneof the main reasons for holding community forestry back. Authorities and the conservation
movement seem to have a strong opinion not to allow community forestry in the protectedareas. There also seem to be strong views among the RFD staff whether to allow community
forestry beyond the degraded sites within the national forest. Consequently, most of the existing
community forests in the forest reserves have been established on the degraded sites.

3.

The view that the main purpose of community forestry is to help local people meet theirsubsistence needs for forest products is yet another major constraint. Local people in and aroundforests are poor, living with less than US$ 2/day. Subsistence economy cannot help them exitfrom poverty and therefore off-farm income is the only route to improved welfare.

4.

In spite of potential risks, the Mission thinks that the Community Forestry Bill should beapproved without delay. Passing the Bill would open way for millions of forest dependent
people to take part in, and benefit from, forestry activities legally within a regulatory
framework. Regarding the issue of community forestry in protected areas, a policy
statement/instruction could be issued to develop specific forest management and utilization
activities to meet the needs of communities residing in and around protected areas. Such
activities would be defined in the management plan of each PA. This would keep the forest
under state property ensuring its authority under changing conditions to protect the resource

25

This is practiced in many countries including e.g. Nepal.
34

while allowing local communities to develop their livelihood strategies based on sustainable useof the forest resources without endangering the environmental values of the PA.
5.

The Mission is of the opinion that community forestry should be allowed in national forest
reserves through legal provisions. There will also be a need to start preparation of additional
provisions for issues like transfer of group member rights in different situations, etc. The Bill
would need to be followed by the development of a field implementation guideline, which
describes in simple language (a) the rationale for community forestry, (b) process and approachto establish community forests, (c) definition of roles (responsibilities & authorities) ofgovernment forest departments and local communities, (d) institutional structure, (e)formulation of management/operational plans, (f) supporting services available from theGovernment, as well as (g) procedures for monitoring progress and assessing impacts. The
Government could set up a special commission or task force to look into the specific issues andcome up with solutions.

6.

If community forestry is to make any meaningful contribution to the country’s forest resource
management and the overall national economy, there has to be a fundamental shift in the overall
thinking on the rationale and purpose for community forestry policy and program. Therefore,
the Mission makes the following observations:(a) Community forestry represents a great opportunity and should be seen as a key, viablestrategy for the management of the country’s forests. There is a need to broaden the present
vision of community forestry and see it in the light of challenges and opportunities within
the changing social, economic and environmental contexts of Thailand. Local communities
should be seen as assets of human capital for improving the country’s forest resource
condition.
(b) Community forestry should be allowed and practiced in all forest types, adjusting local
management activities to the ecosystem maintenance and landscape-level management
objectives, on the basis of defined “users” and “use/access rights of forests”. The
government should accelerate the process of extending community forests throughout thecountry.
(c) The current policy for land allocation to individual families – although benefiting the
livelihoods of the poor if implemented properly – could pose a serious constraint anddisincentive for community forestry development in Thailand. Once the land grants topresently landless people have been completed in forest areas, no new programs may bejustified.
(d) Utilization of community forests should be open for both the subsistence and commercial
purposes (rather than limiting it to the subsistence purpose only). Further, the concerned
community members should be allowed to harvest all types of forest products, including
living trees, provided harvesting is carried out as specified and agreed in the management
plan for sustainable forestry and effective enforcement and control are in place.
(e) The role of TAOs and individual villages is critical in the planning and implementation ofcommunity forestry activities, and they must be involved in the process with clearly
defined responsibilities. In the planning of new community forests village members should
preferably be engaged in an appropriate way to avoid internal conflicts.

7.

Regarding the issue of community forestry in protected areas, a policy statement/instruction
could be issued to develop specific forest management and utilization activities to meet theneeds of communities residing in and around PAs. Such activities should be defined in the
management plan of each PA. This would keep the forest under state property ensuring its
authority in changing conditions to protect the resource while allowing local communities todevelop their livelihood strategies based on sustainable use of the forest resources without
endangering the environmental values of the PA.

35

5.

PLANTATIONS

5.1

Rubber Plantations

5.1.1

Rubber Planting

The rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis) is native to the equatorial tropical zone in the Amazon Basin inSouth America. It was first introduced in 1900 in south Thailand and in 1908 in eastern Thailand.
Rubber planting has been actively promoted by the Government since the 1960s and the total area
reached 1,959 million hectares in 1996. The international rubber markets experienced a period ofexcess supply in the mid-1990s and the expansion of the area was discontinued. Since 1999 theinternational prices of rubber have more than doubled (Table 5.1) and a new promotion program waslaunched in 2004. The current rubber area is 2.019 mill. ha of which 84% is found in the Southern
region and 11% in the Central region. Thailand, together with Malaysia and Indonesia, is one of thebiggest rubber producers in the world.
Rubberwood, also called parawood in Thailand, is a medium density hardwood with relatively low
shrinkage, compressive and bending strengths for its hardness. It is highly susceptible to fungal attackand dries well. It machines easily, but latex tends to clog the saw’s teeth. Gluing and finishing pose no
problems. It has become a very popular timber for use in furniture, parquet flooring, wooden
household articles and toys. It is also used as a raw material for the production of particle board, MDF
and plywood. Rubberwood has thus become the lifeline of the Thai wood industries and the country
has been a forerunner in the development of rubberwood utilization.
Growing of the rubber tree and the production of latex fall under the Ministry of Agriculture andCooperatives, productivity improvement is the responsibility of the Rubber Research Institute (RRI)
under the Department of Agricultural Extension, and the promotion, financing and control of thereplanting are the responsibility of the Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund (ORRAF), reportingto the Department of Agriculture. The conversion of the logs into manufactured products is promoted
by RFD.
5.1.2

Rubber as a Crop

The rubber tree is generally planted for its latex, which can be harvested from the age of seven years
onwards26. Good drainage and suitable soil are required. The most commonly used technique forrubber planting is stump budding improved varieties or clones. RRI has promoted a special approachfor production of high quality rubber. Earlier they used to provide free seedlings but now, the highquality seedlings are being provided at the rate of US$ 0.38/seedling. The planted area, harvested area,
yield of latex, farm price and farm value for the period 1995 to 2004 are given in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1

Rubber Plantation Area, Latex Production and Farm Value 1995-2004
Yield
Per haKg

Farm gate price oflatex
US$ per kg

Farm value

1,000 ha1,000 haLatex
production
1,000 tons

1995

1,870

1,572

2,062

33.6

0.78

1,605

2000

1,988

1,524

2,378

40.0

0.54

1,279

2004

2,083

1,657

3,005

46.4

1.10

3,315

Year

2005
Source:26

Planted area

Tapping area

US$ million

2,019
1,602
Agriculture Statistics of Thailand, 2004, Centre for Agricultural Information, Office of Agricultural
Economics, Ministry of Agricultural & Co-operatives, Bangkok, Thailand, data for 2005 from the
Office of Agricultural Economic

When trees reach 50 cm girth 150 cm above ground.
36

93% of rubber plantations belong to smallholders, the average size of the plantation being only
2.08 ha. The medium-sized plantations are larger averaging 9.6 ha but they represent only 6.7% of thetotal area. The rubber holdings represent a major source of income (about US$ 3.3 bill. per year) forover 800,000 rural households or 2.4 million people and their social importance is therefore strategic.
The average family income from rubber is US$ 4,125 per household.
5.1.3

Rubberwood Supply

The rubber plantations are the main source of industrial timber in Thailand. The Mission has estimatedthe theoretical potential of wood supply to be about 21 mill. m3/year (Table 5.2). The sawlog share isestimated to be 7.9 mill. m3 while the rest (13.1 mill. m3) would be small-sized logs for wood-based
panels, fuelwood and other purposes.
This theoretical supply potential is calculated based on regular replanting of mature rubber plantations
as after 25 years of age their latex productivity starts to decline rapidly. In practice the annual
replanting is only 48,000 ha (or 57% of the theoretical long-term potential)27. During the last few years
when the latex prices have peaked as a result of oil price increase, farmers continue exploiting theirmature plantations as the lower yield is well compensated by the current high sales price of latex. As aresult, the rubberwood supply has dropped and it is estimated that only about 35,000 to 40,000 ha isbeing currently harvested and replanted releasing only 8.7 to 10.0 mill. m3 of rubberwood for themarket. This has seriously influenced the wood supply of the sawmilling and panel industries(see ch.7).
Table 5.2

Potential Rubberwood Supply 2005 – 2010

RegionTotal planted
area

North
Northeast
CentralSouthern
Total
1)
2)

1.9
94.4
222.2
1,699.4
2,019.0

Tapping area

- 1000 ha 1.6
53.4
160.5
1,386.2
1,601.7

Annual wood
harvesting area1)

0.1
2.8
8.4
73.0
84.3

Annual wood
supply 2)1000 m3
25
700
2,100
1,820
21,075

Rubber tapping
productivity index

64
83
87
102
100

Assumption: 25 year rotation, even age structure
Based on standing volume of 250 m3/ha

Sources: Planted area based on remote sensing data from Office of Agricultural Economic, June 2006.
Harvesting area and supply: Mission estimates

Revenue from wood sales is additional to that from latex and helps farmers finance replanting cost.
While the average annual revenue from latex is US$ 2,000/ha, the wood sales at the end of the rotation
period can only generate US$ 1,000–1,500/ha (stumpage). At the national level, the total stumpage
revenue of the smallholders from rubberwood is estimated at US$ 35 to 60 mill. but it could be muchhigher were the plantations managed based on regular output. Wood production can be a particularly
attractive option for the North and Northeast regions where latex productivity is well below thenational average (cf. Table 5.2).
5.1.4

Improvement of Genetic Material

It is apparent that in the current situation farmers prefer those clones which are for latex only. RRI’s
research has also targeted developing clones that yield most latex. Strong rubberwood demand has,
however, created an interest in developing clones which combine both latex and wood, or which aretargeted at wood production only (as in Malaysia). RRI has three types of clones available for farmers:(a) Only for latex – RRM 1 is the most popular clone in this category, but PB 225 is also used.

27

Based on Laesak, pers. comm. and ORRAF
37

(b) Only for wood – BPM 1, Chatchensao 50, AVRS 2037 and PBM 1; these clones are not tapped.
(c) Combined latex and wood – PB 255, PB 235, PB 260, RRI 110.
Apart from the strong market for rubberwood, the other reason for interest in planting rubber trees forwood production is limited labor supply for tapping work. In the Southern and Central regions labor
can be attracted by offering only with a basis of benefit sharing as the standard minimum wage
(US$ 4/day) cannot mobilize sufficient labor force for tapping. In a typical arrangement, skilledworkers get 40% of the output value which results in a daily wage of about US$ 12 to 14. It is
common to employ immigrant labor in rubber tapping as the working season is only about 100 days
per year and no permanent employment can be offered.
The Malaysian experience suggests that timber clones of the rubber tree can have a mean annual
increment of about 26 m3/ha which can represent an attractive investment opportunity for thelandowner if regular annual revenue is not needed and skilled labor for tapping is not readily available.
This contrasts with the best Malaysian latex clones where MAI is 20 m3/ha and the 9th year latex yield
is 2,675 kg/ha28. (Hassan 2000).
In planting rubber solely for its wood, no tapping would be involved, and the rotation period can besignificantly shortened. For medium-sized farmers with other income or absent landowners thisinvestment option is likely to become attractive.
5.1.5

Harvesting Methods and Organization

Rubberwood harvesting is a simple operation (chainsaws or bulldozers are used for felling, bucking is
by chainsaws and loading is often manual onto trucks directly on the plantation site without skidding)where the focus is on the volume rather than optimizing the potential value of the tree as a raw
material for industrial processing. This labor-intensive approach has worked well in the past when
manpower was available and the industrial capacity was below wood supply. In the long run, semimechanized harvesting is likely to become attractive and loading, as an enduring and accident prone
manual work, should be the first phase for mechanization. The industry’s involvement in theharvesting of rubberwood is limited as it is usually contracted out or organized by middlemen.
Transportation is mainly with small-sized trucks (10 to 14 tons) which can easily enter the plantationsite and circulate in narrow rural roads but their use also results in high transportation costs.
Due to rubberwood susceptility to fungal attack, the harvesting-transportation process has to be fast as
logs cannot be stocked for more than a few days. There is no information available on the wood
quality loss due to to deficiencies in the wood supply system. There is a need to carry out analysis of
this issue as well as other means to improve value added of the log output through improved bucking.
The short log length makes manual loading practical but longer log lengths would be desirable for
productivity improvement both for transportation and industrial processing. Silvicultural aspects (e.g.
pruning techniques) could be integrated into the management prescriptions of rubber plantations tomaximize timber value while not losing productivity of latex at the same time.
Most harvesting is carried out by contractors who usually work for intermediaries. Some large
sawmilling-furniture companies and panel producers have a few harvesting crews to be fully informed
about the production costs. Long-term planning of the wood harvesting operations has not been given
a due attention in the past (Bassili 2000).
5.1.6

Other benefits

Rubber plantations are largely established at the spacing of 3mx7m as recommended by RRI. In theinitial years, farmers plant other annual cash crops such as tea, coffee, pineapple or chile to gain some
additional income during the first three years. There are also other options which have not yet been
tried in Thailand. In Mexico, a shade-tolerant ornamental palm tree (Chameodora elegans) was
introduced in the rubber plantations. Its leaves are regularly harvested to be used for providing green
28

Both referred clones are of the RRIM 2000 series.
38

material in flower bouquets, mainly for export markets (notably the USA). This has become
economically so attractive that palm leaves can generate more revenue than latex tapping. An
optimum utilization of the rubber resource can therefore have several diversification opportunities, andvarious options could be considered in Thailand, which is a world leader in flower exports.
5.1.7

Role of Office of Rubber Replanting Aid Fund (ORRAF)

ORRAF was created in 1960 with the responsibility to provide rubber plantation technology to farmers
and promote high-quality rubber production ORRAF subsidizes the cost of replanting rubber. The
funding source is the cess of US$ 0.475/kg of latex which is collected from producers. The subsidy
covers the initial period of replanting and it amounts to US$ 1,441/ha to cover the cost of seedlings
and labor force. The subsidy is paid in seven installments after milestones of implementation.29 The
subsidy has proved to be necessary to keep farmers replanting and not switching to other crops.
Recently other crops (including 28 tree species, mostly fruit trees but also e.g. teak and dipterocarps30)
have, however, been included in the support program. The subsidy can also be used for replanting withoil palm.
Together with the Bank of Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) (see ch. 8.3), ORRAF
is also providing small loans to farmers for establishment of new rubber plantations. The loan amount
can be up to US$ 750 with an interest rate of 3%. ORRAF is also important in improving theefficiency of the market mechanism. They assist farmers in collecting production volumes in strategic
locations for supplying the rubber industry. Information on available sales volumes is disseminated forbidding by interested buyers, and farmers are informed on market trends. ORRAF does not buy any
rubber as their role is just to collect and disseminate information and facilitate trade.
ORRAF is fully aware of the importance of wood revenue for farmers but it is seen as acomplementary element in the replanting phase. There is no coordination with Thailand’s important
rubberwood industry although information on plantation areas has been made available to the woodindustry. The wood production depends practically entirely on the latex market and therefore
represents a significant market risk factor for the wood processing industry.
Assessment
1.

The current policies and institutional arrangements do not adequately take into account thepotential offered by rubberwood production. Comprehensive economic analyses on thefeasibility of rubber tree planting for wood, either alone or together with latex, do not guidepolicy design. Based on the experience of other countries, growing rubber trees for timber canbe an economically attractive option and add net benefits to farmers compared to the current
situation.

2.

The current replanting rate of rubber plantations appears to be lagging in view of the economic
rotation of rubber trees. Accelerating replanting would significantly increase latex yields as aresult of better clones while releasing badly needed wood supply to meet the wood industry’s
demand for raw material.

3.

The dependence of the rubberwood supply on the sales price of latex and the extensive cyclicalvariations of international rubber prices represent a major business risk for furniture, sawmilling
and wood-based panel industries. In addition to increasing the replanting rate, the only short andmedium-term solution is to diversify wood supply to reduce the current dependence on
rubberwood.

4.

There is little coordination between the promotion of production of latex and that of utilizationof rubber trees as a source of wood raw material. The available information on the volume ofstanding rubber trees is still based on simple pilot measurements rather than comprehensive
inventories in spite of the recent development of appropriate methodologies with ITTO support.

29

1st year in two installments US$ 181.40 and US$ 346.72, 2nd year US$ 139.69, 3rd year US$ 127.50, 4th and5th year US$144.69 each and 6th year US$ 55.94.
Eucalyptus is not included

30

39

RFD is promoting planting of rubber trees exclusively for timber production with the sameclones and with the same plantation densities that are used to yield maximum latex production
lacking information on timber yields. There is a need for improved information and coordination between different government departments (besides sharing of information). The
collaboration between RRI and RFD’s Forest Products Research unit should be intensified for
identification of suitable clones for wood.
5.

There is only limited information available on the country’s growing stock of rubber trees, their
total volume, annual increment, age distribution, diameter at various ages, initial plantation
density, etc. The recent survey by the Office of Agricultural Economic on the rubber areas
should be complemented with quantification of potential wood supply. Such information would
be needed by region and province, type of clones, type of soil etc. to enable reliable estimationof the industrial wood supply. Lack of this information makes not only promotion of rubber
planting and the rubberwood processing sector at the macro level more difficult and more
imprecise, but it also adversely affects firm-level decisions to invest in the rubberwood industry.
Several pilot studies have been carried out as a follow-up of the ITTO-supported Rubberwood
Action Plan (Bassili 2000) but their results should be consolidated and complemented.

6.

Management of rubber areas for latex could better consider the terminal value of the standing
timber stock through adjustment of treatment prescriptions. Farmers have now no incentive todo this as timber selling is based on area to be harvested or the weight of timber to be removed.
No clear rules exist for compensating for the log quality. It would be in the interest of thesawmilling and plywood industries to improve the current purchasing system of logs where theonly criterion of quality is presently log diameter, if any. Such a system should pay due
attention to the use value of logs based on established grading criteria.

7.

RRI is developing new clones but there is no economic analysis available on the combined
wood and latex production options to guide farmers’ decisions. The current planting program ofrubber for wood is still timid and would merit expansion drawing on experience in Malaysia.

8.

Direct cooperative linkages between producers, smallholders and wood industries should bepromoted so as to ensure more equitable prices for producers to encourage sustainableproduction of both latex and rubberwood. There is a need to have a relevant programme for the
integrated development of the rubber and rubberwood sectors.

9.

In the medium term, a more systematic approach for the harvesting-transportation chain will beneeded to control the landed cost of the rubber logs. This would be in the industry’s interest inorder to mitigate business risks related to their wood supply and keep the wood costs
competitive.

5.2

Timber Plantations

5.2.1

Government Programs

All forests in Thailand are owned by the State whereas all trees established on private lands are private
property. Since logging in natural forests is banned, timber production in Thailand has shifted fromnatural forests to planted forests, particularly teak and rubberwood and non-forest sources
supplemented by imports. But planting of timber species has progressed slowly due to a series of
constraints. Most farmers are poor and indebted and therefore, they have to obtain quick returns andeven a five-year rotation with eucalyptus is often too long for them. This has led many farmers toapply only 3-4 -year rotations with resulting loss of timber yield. Thus, they prefer to raise agricultural
crops for seasonal regular revenue and tree crops are usually complementary to these sources ofincome. Only rich and large-scale farmers can wait for the returns at the maturity of the timber
species.
Farmers hesitate in investing in timber plantations because of the following additional reasons: (a) noproper credit facility is available, (b) forestry species are competing with other cash crops such as
cassava, sugar cane etc. which are being actively promoted (see ch. 8.1), (c) the registration problem
of reserved species at the time of harvesting represents a source of uncertainty, and (d) some species
such as neem have no market.
40

In order to overcome the problem of diminishing forest resources and achieve the target to bring 40%
of country area under tree cover, both the private and public sectors have initiated plantation
promotion schemes (Annexes 9 and 10). Teak, eucalyptus and rubber are main plantation species
though bamboo, Acacia mangium, Albizzia lebbeck, Leucaena leucocephala, Gmelina arborea, Pinus
spp, Acacia spp and Azadirachta indica (neem) have also been planted.
After the initial trials by the Forest Industry Organization (FIO), the private sector also initiated teakplantations. The long rotation period (about 30 years) and lack of initial cash flow, however, curtails
teak’s attractiveness. Teak is mostly planted as part of agro-forestry systems and on some commercial
block plantations. The initial experience indicates that the plantations are able to provide mediumquality raw materials for wood-working industries.
Data on private plantations is scarce. Available figures are biased upwards as they refer to the planting
carried out, not the trees survived. No detailed inventory of the existing plantation area has been
carried out. The estimates of the survival rates range from 33% to 57%. Thus, even at best, the net
plantation area would be only half of the cumulative area reported as planted. On the other hand, there
is estimated to be a significant area which has been planted without any government involvement but
no reliable data is available.
The Government-supported plantations in Thailand have been established mainly through thefollowing six agencies (Annex 10): (a) afforestation by Government budget, (b) concessionaire’s
reforestation i.e. the reforestation campaign in commemoration of the Royal Golden Jubilee, (c) Forest
Industry Organization (FIO) and its current subsidiary Thai Plywood Co. Ltd., both parastatal
companies, (d) reforestation according to the Ministry’s Regulations, and reforestation by
concessionaire budget. The average plantation area from the above six sources during 1999 to 2004
has been 21,380 ha /year.
In 1992-2004, the JICA Reforestation and Extension Project (REX) in the Northeast promoted
planting by local people, through a social forestry approach in order to restore environmental
conditions and to improve living standards in the region (JICA 2004). The project included four
components: (i) forest management information, (ii) forest management techniques, (iii) training andextension, and (iv) monitoring. In 1998 the project concluded with remarkable outputs such as
89 million seedlings produced by four large-scale nurseries, seedling distribution to 2,444 villages in
the region, 143 training courses, 6,093 hectares of demonstration plantations, research reports andvarious others activities contributing to the promotion of tree planting activities by local people in theregion. The main species were selected based on the farmers’ preferences, including eucalyptus, neem,
Pterocarpus macrocarpus, Acacia mangium and teak. Trees are generally planted on marginal lands
by small farmers often intercropping with other cash crops, particularly on the boundaries ofagricultural field. The main objective is to get quick returns. Marginal lands have been usually used,
except on saline soil. The bushland mostly belongs to the community, which means that plantation
activity needs be decided by the community. Villagers have formed community forest centers which
provide seedlings. The promotional activity is concentrated on marginal farmers who do not haveother economic options. Most of the trained villagers are spreading the knowledge and therefore, work
as informal extension agents. The main objective of the community forest may be NTFPs whereas
private forest owners aim to produce timber which gives them quicker and better economic returns.
Eucalyptus and Leucaena leucocephala have been raised on private lands for making charcoal andwood vinegar (alcatra). Mushrooms and some NTFPs such as bamboo shoots, jungle spice andmedicine herbs are also grown and they offer large potential for economic benefit to the farmers(see ch. 6).
In order to meet the increasing demands for wood, the Ministry of Agriculture and Co-operatives,
upon the initiative of RFD, proposed the budget to the Government to implement a farm forestry
program. The Private Tree Farm Incentive Plantation Promotion ran from 1994 to 2002 (except 2001),
with the target area of 1.28 mill. ha. The program encouraged the private sector and farmers to plant
the specified economic tree species on their lands at 1,250 seedlings/ha. The purpose was to make useof all unutilized marginal farmland and areas for environmental benefit, and to reduce rural poverty.

41Planting was subsidized by the Government with US$ 469/ha31. The farmers are free to harvest or
manage the standing stock on their own decision after the deal ends at the beginning of year six.
About 80,167 farmers joined the programme. The planted area covered 169,400 ha (Annex 9) whichmeans that only 13% of the target was achieved. The reason is claimed to be more attractive subsidies
offered for rubber but the inherent obstacles of investing in tree crops discussed above have obviously
been important as well. The program is still going on for some years even though it was officiallyplanned to end in 2002.
Assessment
1.

There is a need to adjust the law so that farmers can be allowed to harvest, transport and sellplantation timber on their own private lands without any permission, including reserved species.
This would remove uncertainty related to possibility to harvest at the end of the rotation.

2.

The plantation development should be linked with proper marketing mechanisms which arelacking in many parts of the country (see ch. 6).

3.

Charcoal making and associated alcatra production are economically viable options for smallscale utilization of plantation wood32. Private plantations for charcoal should be encouraged as
their economic viability has been demonstrated e.g. by the REX project.

4.

Studies should be carried out to diversify plantation sites and species for improved economic
returns.

5.

Forest Plantation Promotion Centres should continue the monitoring and establishment ofexperimental plots for periodic measurement, etc. This could be done in partnership withindustry and linked to training of farmers as both parties have common interest in plantation
development.

6.

Courses should be preferably organized in villages instead of at the regional centres. It is
important to create a critical mass of trained farmers at village level.

7.

There is no study or estimation available regarding the production and utilization of fuelwood(cf chapter 6.7). Though the use of gas and electricity has reduced pressure on forests,
uncontrolled collection and use of fuelwood is still continuing in rural areas. Introduction ofsolar equipment may be promoted in villages outside the reach of the national electricity grid to
reduce their dependence on wood in areas with fuelwood shortages.

8.

Fuelwood plantations could be expanded to meet the demands of fuelwood outside forests. Bioenergy plantations could be established by the private entrepreneurs for industrial use.

5.2.2

Teak

“Among timbers, teak holds the place which diamond maintains among precious stones and gold
among metals”. This is what Dietrich Brandis, the renowned German forester, observed about teak(Tectona grandis) some 150 years ago. Teak is one of the most favoured timbers all over the world,
since it has been used for many centuries for a range of products and services. It is known for its
strength, durability and appearance. The ever-increasing demand for teak timber has resulted in largescale plantations, both within and outside its range of natural distribution. Teak is a species ofsignificant ecological and socio-economic importance throughout the tropics.
Teak forests occur naturally in the Asia-Pacific region over an area of about 23 million hectares inIndia, Laos, Myanmar and Thailand. Asia constitutes 94% of global teak plantations. The natural
distribution in these countries ranges from sea level to mountainous areas of 800 m and in exceptional
cases, up to 1,300 m above the sea level. Teak can survive and grow under a wide range of climatic
31
32This corresponds to THB 3,000/rai which was disbursed as follow: 1st year THB 800, 2nd year THB 700,
3rd year THB 600, 4th year THB 500, 5th year THB 400
Only eucalyptus produces alcatra (vinegar) as a by-product of charcoal burning. Its economic contribution iscurrently larger than that of charcoal for the producer.
42and edaphic conditions. The rotation period is 60 -120 years. Shorter rotations of 20-30 years for bothveneer and sawlog production for relatively quick returns are now being employed in many countries.
Since teak is basically a long rotation tree species, its carbon sequestration potential is also significant(Bhat et al. 2005).
The area of natural teak forest in Thailand decreased from 2,324,300 ha in 1954 to about 150,000 ha in
2000, mostly due to the demand for agricultural land and construction wood by the increasing humanpopulation. Overexploitation, often illegal, was also an important factor. Up to 2000, both private andpublic sectors in Thailand had established only 836,000 ha of teak plantations (FAO 2001). Thailand,
therefore, has to import teak wood, especially from Myanmar, Laos and Indonesia, with an averagevalue of about US$ 50 million annually. However, small logs from domestic teak plantations canalready be used for furniture, carving, building construction, household utensils, toys, poles and posts,
etc. for domestic consumption as well as for export. Forest Industry Organization (FIO) has obtained
two FSC certificates for its sustainable teak plantations and is still trying to get additional certificatesfor other areas (Kijkar 2005).
Teak planting in Thailand started in 1906, by applying the taungya system with modifications to suit
the surrounding circumstances, both economically and socially. From 1994 to 2000, RFD has alreadyassisted the private sector to establish teak plantations of about 100,000 ha. Spacings are typically
2mx4m or 4mx4m whereas Mean Annual Increment (MAI) is reported as 13.52 m3/ha.
The long-term production potential of the existing teak plantations has been estimated at about 0.9–
1.0 mill.m3/yr33. This level of production would require timely implementation of thinnings which is tosome extent lagging behind due to limited markets (see ch. 6). As teak planting has mostly taken placein forest reserves, it is unclear whether they can be effectively managed for timber production due tothe logging ban.
Teak plantations have increased since 1993 after the Government of Thailand started to promoteprivate sector investment in this business through the provision of subsidy. However, the enactment of
the Forest Plantation Act, 1992 is presently considered an obstacle for private planting. Teakplantation establishment is likely to increase when the Act is amended which is foreseen by RFD.
FIO34 has played an important role in teak plantation establishment and utilization (see ch. 8.3).
Lack of domestic supply of teak is a major concern among the wood-based industries. Legal
harvesting is only possible with a special license and the volume of confiscated illegal teak logs (about
10,000 m3/yr) is only a fraction of what was produced in the 1980s (see ch. 6.1).
More and more farmers and other landholders are planting teak in rotations of 20–30 years35. Recent
research findings indicate that short-rotation teakwood is not significantly inferior in density andstrength compared to natural-grown teak, but its lower heartwood and extractive contents make it lessdurable and attractive. These studies36 offer the following outlook to plantation-growers, including
smallholders:(a)Without altering timber strength, plantation managers can aim to produce logs with higher
yields of naturally durable heartwood by accelerating tree growth in short rotations with
judicious fertilizer application and genetic improvements on suitable sites. Irrigation during theearly years of the rotation period can also be justified.

(b)

The MAI for teak plantations is generally relatively high in short rotations of 20–25 years.
However, yield tables indicate that MAI usually peaks within 20 years of plantation
establishment.

(c)Teak can produce timber of optimum strength in relatively short (e.g. 21-year) rotations.

33
34
35
36

This is probably an underestimate.
Including its subsidiary Thai Plywood.
In addition to Thailand, this is going on in countries like Laos, Malaysia, India, Costa Rica, Panama, Brazil,
etc.
Summarized in Bhat et al. 2005.
43

(d)

Fast-growing provenances/clones can be selected for teak management without reducing the
wood’s specific gravity. However, matching the provenances for specific site conditions andproduct requirements appears to be crucial in tree improvement programs and therefore on-site
testing is useful.

Some research has been conducted in Thailand into teak breeding through pollination among selected
trees. However, the seed orchards have not given satisfactory open-pollinated product. Controlled
pollination trials have therefore been initiated and seed production area has been established to support
field operations. The Teak Improvement Centre (TIC) has operated in Lampang since 1965, incollaboration with DANIDA, to improve plantations, especially using genetically improved materials.
Techniques to propagate teak vegetatively have been developed and have been commercialized andare at present used for superior clonal multiplication. Other main results of TIC include:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)

480 elite trees selected (Gavinlertvatana, 1995) for further multiplication and propagation. Outof them, 357 plus trees have been vegetatively reproduced for clone banks and clonal seedorchards establishment (Sumantakul & Sangkul, 1995).
Both local and international provenance trials have been established and studied for theirappropriateness to suit different conditions and sites.
About 1,120 ha of seed production areas and 1,831 ha of seed orchards have been establishedand maintained for immediate seed production. However, seed productivity of these areas israther low, i.e. about 10 kg/ha (Meekaew, 1992).
Controlled pollination in teak has been successfully developed for breeding programmes. The
research outputs from this exercise are still under-way.
Vegetative propagation techniques have been developed. Buds are commonly used for cloning;tissue-culture technique was developed in 1987, which became commercial in 1992. Annually,
about 500,000 plantlets are produced (Gavinlertvatana, 1995).
Utilization of small-sized teak logs from thinnings is under study.

The availability of relevant information on water use and carbon sequestration potential of teak trees
and suitable teak provenances/seed sources for quality timber production can help preparation ofsustainable plantation management plans. Standardized cost-effective vegetative propagation/clonalmultiplication techniques are envisaged with the establishment of decentralized nurseries and clonalorchards to supply genetically superior planting material to teak growers.
In spite of the extensive research effort, wood production has not yet benefited much from such
improvements. The main problems of teak plantations in private land are as follows: (a) planting on
unsuitables sites where growth is poor, (ii) delays in thinnings, (iii) lack of market for thinning wood,and (iv) lack of definition of key silvicultural parameters, including the targeted rotation period,
thinning densities, pruning schedules, etc. The relatively large areas planted in the Northeast region
are now reaching the age of thinnings and their timely execution will be crucial for the economic
returns to the investment made (JICA 2004).
Assessment
1.

Apart from the TIC project, practically no research has been done regarding teak in Thailand in
spite of the fact that the species was the mainstay of the forestry sector for more than 100 years.
There should be registered sources of teak seeds and planting material for large-scale
plantations and smaller landowners. There is a need to have adequate systematic research on
quality planting material and increased productivity in plantation management to support the
expansion of teak plantation.

2.

No survey of existing teak plantations has been done in the country. There is a need to have a
database regarding these plantations which need to be registered anyway before harvesting canbe allowed. The information would also assist in policy design, planning and marketing ofplantation teak, etc.

3.

The initial analysis on the economic viability of young plantations indicate that growing of teakcan be highly profitable (JICA 2004). There is, however, a need to carry out further research on

44

the economics of teak plantations and to disseminate up-to-date information for the private
sector and forest communities with plantation programs.
4.

There is no management plan for teak in protected areas and reserved forests. Silvicultural
treatments of teak should be an important component of their management. Thinning materials,
dead, diseased and dying trees could be made available at least from reserved forests to the local
people to reduce illegal logging, but this should be under effective control (see ch. 8.2).

5.

The movement of all timber is not free as a transit permit is required for teak and reserved
species. Large plantations of teak could be established by farmers, especially the rich ones, were
they allowed to harvest and transport the planted teak at the time of maturity without
uncertainty. The obligation of transit permit could be removed from teak logs from thinnings as
the first step to facilitate trade and to reduce transaction costs for owners. At a later date in the
future, regulation of harvesting mature planted trees could be reconsidered in the light of thenprevailing enforcement situation in the forestry sector. There is an urgent need to amend the law
in this context to reduce uncertainty among investors and to reduce illegal logging in naturalforests.

6.

FIO and the REX Project have done pioneering work in developing thinning schedules andmarkets for thinning logs. This experience should be disseminated to private plantation owners
through extension and training work.

7.

The research results under the REX project are a valuable source of information for training ofextension agents. Broad dissemination of these results in a suitable form in Thai language isneeded.

5.2.3

Dipterocarpus macrocarpus

There are some plantations of Dipterocarpus macrocarpus in the Northeast of Thailand but only
limited information is available on their characteristics. The species is suitable for the region as it cangrow on sandy soil in lowlands. The available data suggests that D. macrocarpus grows first more
slowly than teak but at about 15 years it becomes taller. There is little information on tree
improvement but the REX project has identified plus trees. Seedlings can be propagated from cuttings
and the first gene bank of this species is reported to exist. Basic knowledge on nursery techniques has
also been developed. Once established with proper site preparation and fertilization, Dipterocarpus
stands require effective tending to avoid growth losses and pruning is also recommended. (JICA
2004). Further research is required on the economic potential of this species as a strategic option forplantation programs.
5.2.4

Eucalyptus

Because of their astonishing growth characteristics, climatic adaptability and wide ranging usefulness,
eucalyptus trees are increasingly being regarded as amongst the most important species available for
economic utilization. Eucalyptus wood is versatile and can be used for multiple purposes includingtransmission poles, posts, fuelwood, pulpwood, particle board, plywood and sawnwood. Minor forest
products obtained from eucalyptus include oil distilled from leaves, tannin from bark, alcatra fromcharcoal burning, etc. Many eucalyptus species have decorative flowers and are used as ornamentals,
others are used for windbreaks and shelterbelt. It is also a common species in housing and furniture
making.
In South-East Asian countries, eucalyptus acquires the maximum strength at about age of 13-14 years
whereas the yield can be up to 50-60 m3/hectare/year. In the existing private plantations in Thailand,
the recorded MAI tends to average 25 m3/ha in good sites but only 8 m3/ha in poor sites. However,even with the current relatively low MAI rates on good and medium sites, planting is clearly profitable(JICA 2004) and spreading fast on farm lands, however with sub-optimal techniques.
The quality of seedlings is a key issue. This is demonstrated by the fact that pulp and paper companies
are selling improved seedlings at the cost of US$ 0.06 to 0.11 each while ordinary seedlings cost only
US$ 0.04. Selling improved seedlings by the pulp and paper company is a win-win option as it
45

increases wood supply reducing upward pressure on pulpwood prices while the nursery operations ofcompanies are highly profitable. Strong demand for improved seedlings (sometimes in short supply)
demonstrates that farmers are aware of their net benefits as well. As two to three coppice rotations areusually applied, the yield impact should be considered over a period of 15 to 20 years.
In Thailand, 70-80 per cent of eucalyptus produced goes to the paper and pulp industry, 10-15 per centis used for charcoal and 5 per cent is used for construction poles, etc. Manufacturing of MDF, hardboard and particle board from eucalyptus has been taken up by some companies. Moreover, it is also
used by the Electricity Department as a source of biomass energy.
Eucalyptus has some problems in sawing. Surface cracking and splitting, warping and collapse arecommon seasoning defects for both air and kiln seasoning. However, these defects can be reduced
considerably through air drying before kiln seasoning and using appropriate drying schedules with low
temperature (Vermaas 1998). SDR process (Saw-Dry-Resaw) also improves sawing quality of
eucalyptus. E. hybrid seasons well when sawn radially compared to tangentially. Improved peelingafter boiling or adequate soaking and gluing techniques have made it possible to use plantation growneucalyptus in plywood and veneer in many countries. Eucalyptus could be a prime species forplywood manufacture also in Thailand. As the country is in short supply of sawn timber and saw logs,
eucalyptus can improve the situation if its use is promoted in sawnwood and plywood manufacture.
There is an on-going debate on the environmental impact of eucalyptus throughout the world and in
Thailand the public perception is also generally negative. Eucalyptus has been seen as incompatible
with soil water retention and local people’s livelihoods. This is partly due to past top-down programs
to plant eucalyptus where people did not want it. Eucalyptus plantations were also seen as a means totransfer land which was used by local people to private investors (Carrere & Lohmann 1996).
However, among farmers the negative perception has apparently faded as it has been demonstrated
that there is no adverse effect either on the productivity of the land or on the agricultural crops if
plantations are established and managed properly. About 20 years of regular plantation in dry farming
areas has proved that there is usually no adverse impact in this respect. Instead, with the plantations,increased production of rice has been reported when eucalyptus has been in paddy fields37. E.
camaldulensis has been largely planted at the spacing of 3mx3m. It gives a MAI of up to 50 m3/ha inshort rotations. The selling price of eucalyptus pulpwood at mill gate is about US$ 17 to 35 (average
US$ 30) per m3 whereas the cost price for five years is about US$ 780/ha resulting in an attractive
positive margin with even lower MAI rates.
One of the biggest consumers of planted eucalyptus wood is Advance Agro Group. The company
consumes about 2 mill. m3 of eucalyptus wood annually for the production of bleached chemical
pulp38. The company encourages farmers to plant trees and seedlings are also provided under contract
farming as the company wants to ensure sustained supply of raw material to the mill. Similar
approaches are practiced by other pulp producers (see also ch. 8.3).
According to FAO (2001), eucalyptus plantations covered 443,000 ha in 2000 in Thailand. The current
area is estimated at 480 000 ha of which 10% is in paddy fields. Wood production is estimated at
7 mill. m3/yr (Table 5.3). Rotation period of eucalyptus is 3-5 years and spacing 1mx1m or 1mx3m.
Productivity varies by province. Many small farmers prefer to sell standing trees through the contract
farming to be sure about the income whereas others prefer to cut the trees on their own and sell thewood by weight to the company.

37
38

Source: field interviews by the Mission
In Thailand, wood is measured as green tons and the conversion factor is 1 ton = 1 m3
46

Table 5.3

Eucalyptus Wood Supply from Existing Plantations

Indicator
Area, 1000 ha
MAI, m3 /ha/yr- medium-term- long-term
Wood supply, mill. m3- short-term- long-term
Source: Mission estimates

Current situation
480
4.6
7.0

Potential
480
25
40
12.0
19.2

A study of eucalyptus plantations with cassava has shown that the Benefit-Cost ratio is 1.85 whereas
the Net Present Value (NPV) is US$ 1,086/ha (JICA 2004).
Assessment
1.

With relatively simple improvements in genetic material and silvicultural treatments, theproductivity of eucalyptus plantations can be significantly improved. For the pulp and woodbased panel industry, this is important as the current wood costs of the Thai producers are notparticularly competitive in an international comparison. For farmers and other investors
increased productivity would be crucial to improve economic returns.

2.

Plantation activities require initial heavy expenditure, which is beyond the capacity of poor
farmers. Though the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives (BAAC) is providing
some credit facilities (see ch. 8.3), there is need to make financing more readily available at thegrassroot level.

3.

Availability of labor is also becoming a problem in forestry operations because people prefer towork in urban centers and factories rather than in forests. Rubber plantations are facing thisproblem already with the extraction of latex. The problem is not acute in eucalyptus plantations,but there is a need to adopt more efficient harvesting methods than at present.

4.

Harvesting training would be needed for those growers who have capacity to work inharvesting. Industry and contractors could encourage this by introducing remunerative prices forlogged timber sold on roadside or on the plantation site.

5.

Smallholders often sell their timber to middlemen who have a profit margin of 20 to 40%. Thereis a need to develop a more effective market mechanism and educate and inform farmers onwood prices and pricing. Farmers’ associations could play a key role in this task (see ch. 9). The
RFD extension activities are not sufficient and they need to be expanded. The development of anational plantation database could help in better management, monitoring and marketing.

6.

The current emphasis on pulpwood production in eucalyptus plantations does not yield the
optimum contribution to the country’s wood supply. The potential of using eucalyptus forsawnwood and plywood, both imported on a large-scale (see ch. 6) still remains to be tapped.
As explained above, the technical problems can be solved. On the wood supply side, it isimportant to introduce thinnings (and pruning if needed) in plantations where owners can wait
for higher economic yields than with short-rotation pulpwood. This could open new areas for
eucalyptus planting which are presently too distant from the existing pulp and panel plants.
Inview of the critical wood supply situation in the country, this could be one of the strategic
priorities of forestry development in the short and medium term.

7.

There is initial research on thinning schedules with E. camaldulensis in Thailand whichsuggests that the impact on log yield may take several years to materialize. The sample plots arestill young (JICA 2004). However, a more serious constraint is presently the lack of market forlarge-sized logs. Both sawmilling and pulpwood industry should be engaged in R&D work todevelop utilization of large-diameter logs to gain experience in processing, particularly drying,drawing on knowledge in other countries. ITTO has a comparative advantage in promoting thistransfer of knowledge and an international level project to take stock of the state-of-art in47

eucalyptus processing for solidwood products would benefit Thailand and other countries in asimilar situation.
8.

In view of the potential to use eucalyptus for solidwood products there is a need to introduce a
broader range of species as E. camaldulensis is not the optimum for all uses. This would also
reduce risks related to plantations. The feasibility of growing E. grandis, E. urophylla and theirhybrids should be studied.

6.

INDUSTRY AND MARKETS

6.1

Supply and Demand

6.1.1

Roundwood

There is no reliable information on the production of roundwood in Thailand. What is known is (a) the
small volume of illegally harvested confiscated logs that are sold to the domestic market by FIO and(b) the limited volumes of licensed harvesting dying or decaying trees in natural forests or areas
cleared for road construction and other infrastructure. The total volume of these items used to be about
30,000 m3 but it has now reduced to a few thousand cubic meters (Table 6.1).
Table 6.1

Recorded Industrial Roundwood Production, 2000-2004
Licensed fellings ofreserved species

2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Source: RFD 2004b

5.5
4.5
5.8
2.7
1.2

Fellings of nonreserved species

Confiscated timber- 1,000 m3

20.6
17.1
10.2
10.7
0.5

Total

-

20.2
19.8
17.6
6.8
0.5

46.4
41.2
33.6
20.2
2.1

Lacking reliable data, the Mission has estimated the wood supply situation on the basis of industrial
production by sector and typical conversion factors of processing by type of raw material. The timberfrom natural forests is only a small fraction of the total roundwood supply, which is estimated to beabout 19.2 million m3 in 2004 (Table 6.2). About 98% of the total industrial roundwood supply comesfrom plantations, 10.6 mill. m3 being eucalyptus and 8.2 mill. m3 rubberwood.
The largest consumer of roundwood is the pulp and paper industry accounting for 54% of the total,
followed by the sawmilling industry (30%). Particleboard is estimated to absorb 11% as it mainly
relies on sawmill residues (Table 6.3). MDF production is based on small sized logs that are debarked
before processing while many particleboard mills also use unbarked raw material.

48

Table 6.2

Industrial Roundwood Supply and Consumption, 2003

End-use sector

Source of supply
NaturalforestFIO

Roundwood- Sawmilling- Veneer & plywood- Particle board &fibreboard- Pulp & paper
Total

Importedroundwood

Total

53.3
190.0

5,348.4851.6
2,000.0

356.1
4.8
-

5,728.6
909.8
2,190.0

10,332.9
10,576.2

8,200.0

19.1
380,0

10.351,1
19,179.5

Plantation wood

20.2
-

3.9
-

20.2

3.9

PrivatePrivateeucalyptus
rubberwood- 1,000 m3 (r) -Source: Mission estimates, partly based on RFD & RFD/ KU 2005.39

Table 6.3

Wood Residue Balance, 2003
Domestic logs

Imported logs

Total

3

- 1,000 m (r) -Wood residue availability• Sawmilling40- rubberwood (65%)- other (55%)
Sub-total• Plywood and veneer
Total availability
Wood residue utilization• Particle board andfibreboard production• Energy generation 1)
Total utilization

3,476.5
10.2
3,486.7
452.5
3,939.2

178.0
178.0
2.4
180.4

3,476.5
188.2
3,664.7454.9
4,119.6

3,120.0
999.6
3.393.2

180.4

4,119.6

1) Assuming that all other residues not used for panel production are used for energy generation
Source: Mission estimates

6.1.2

Wood Products

In spite of its limited economic forest resource base, Thailand has been able to develop an extensive
forest industry, which can meet most of the country’s domestic demand (Table 6.4). The largest
segments of the industry in terms of production volume are pulp and paper, sawmilling andparticleboard. With the exception of plywood and veneer, the Thai industry is a significant export
supplier in all products in spite of rapidly increasing domestic demand. A particular element in theThai domestic timber demand is the consumption of the export-oriented furniture industry, which is amajor consumer of sawnwood, particleboard and MDF.
Imports play a key role in meeting the demand for sawnwood and plywood. About two thirds ofsawnwood consumption is imported, mainly for building construction as this end-use market cannot be
served by rubberwood, the mainstay of the Thai sawmilling industry. The limited supply of good
39

40

It is noted that various sources give quite different figures for industrial roundwood supply and consumptionin Thailand. E.g. FAO (2005) reports industrial roundwood production in 2002 as 7.8 million m3, andrespective consumption as 8,488 million m3.
100-recovery rate %.
49

quality large-sized logs is a constraint for plywood industry and therefore imports account for 28% of
the apparent consumption. Log imports (Table 6.2) have been necessary for keeping the country’s
present plywood production level as the domestic raw material, rubberwood, is only applicable inmills which have been designed for this purpose.41
Table 6.4

Production and Apparent Consumption of Wood Products, 2004

Product

Production

Imports

Exports

Consumption

3- 1000 m (s) -Sawnwood 1)
2,700 - 3,000
1,835
1,789
2,746 - 3,046
Veneer & plywood
455
176
4
627
Fibreboard
914
25
638
301
Particle board
2,600
11
867
1,744
Woodpulp1)
900
457
167
1,190
Paper & board2)
3,600
560
819
3,341
1) FAO (2005c) reports sawnwood production as 288,000 m3 which is likely to cover only part of thedomestic supply (probably based on non-planted timber).
2) 1,000 tons
Sources: Sawnwood production: Mission estimates based on interview data; imports and exports Table 6.5

In particleboard and fiberboard the country is a large export supplier as 33% and 70% of the total
production is exported, respectively. Thailand also exports 23% of its paper production and 19% of
pulp output. About 1 million tons of virgin fiber is imported either in the form of wood pulp or paperand board to complement the local supply.
Thailand has no systematic data collection on the production and trade of sawnwood and processed
products. The Mission could find no reliable estimates on sawnwood production that had to be
estimated. This is a major lack in the current information system which should be addressed.
6.2

Foreign Trade

6.2.1

Imports

The total trade balance of wood-based products (including pulp and paper) is positive amounting toabout 3.4 million m3 in wood raw material equivalent (WRME) (Table 6.5). Apart from reconstituted
panels, Thailand is also a significant exporter of wood chips (about 800,000 m3/yr) which are mainly
produced in eucalyptus plantations. In all other wood products the country is a net importer.
The sawnwood trade is strategically important as it accounts for 90% of the total wood productimports and 54% of total exports. It must be reviewed in the context of log imports (Annex 11). The
combined imports were in the 1980s relatively stable (about 1 mill m3 WRME per year). The imports
expanded exponentially as a result of the logging ban, first in logs but later on in sawnwood.
Sawnwood production based on imported logs proved gradually less and less competitive compared toimported sawnwood. The peak level of combined imports was reached in 1994 (7.1 mill. m3 WRME).
In the second half of the 1990s the imports declined, partly due to the economic crisis and associateddecline in demand. However, in 1999 the import started showing an upward trend which has been
continuing since then, driven by the strong demand in the building construction sector. At the sametime log imports have gradually declined and they represented no more than about 10% of the total
combined imports in 2004.

41

Automatic peeler for small-sized short logs
50

Table 6.5
Products

Recorded Trade in Wood and Wood Products in Thailand 2004
Imports

Exports

Balance3- 1000 m ---Logs (wood in the rough)
381
1
-380
- coniferous000- non-coniferous
381
1
-380
- wood chips
800+800
Sawnwood
1,835
1,789
-46
- coniferous
50-50- non-coniferous
1,785
1,789
+4
Veneer sheets35
2-33
Plywood1412-139
Fibreboard
25
638
+613
Particle board
11
867
+858
Sub-total
2,047
3,298
+1,254
Wood pulp1)
457
167
-290
Paper & board1)
560
819
+259
Total wood raw material+3,371equivalent (WRME)2)
1) 1,000 tons
2) Different conversion factors have been used for imported coniferous and non-coniferous sawnwood andexported rubberwood sawnwood.
Sources: UN/FAO/EUROSTAT/ITTO Thailand’s Forest Sector Questionnaire; WRME based on Mission
estimates

The recorded imports do not cover all the trade in sawnwood. There is unrecorded trade with theneighboring countries, particularly Myanmar and Laos. It has two components: legal imports of small
amounts for non-commercial purposes and illegal imports (see ch. 8.2). The volume of these flows is
not known. There is a general perception that illegal imports have been declining drastically compared
to what it used to be. However, unrecorded and unlicensed importation by private individuals has
become in some border towns a lucrative semi-organized activity. It takes place not only in the form ofsawnwood but also in pre-cut furniture components or rough pieces of squared wood to be processed
into value added products in Thailand.
The main sources of recorded log imports are Malaysia and Myanmar (130,000-140,000 m3 each)(Table 6.6). Two thirds of sawnwood imports come also from Malaysia, mainly various dipterocarp
species. The next largest source is Laos (mainly planted teak) while the balance is mostly temperate
hardwoods from North America and Europe. Malaysia is also the main source of supply for veneer
sheets and plywood, which are also imported from China and Indonesia. The Chinese imports are
representing a tough competition for traditional suppliers and their market share has been increasing
rapidly.
The imports from the neighboring countries represent distinctive patterns (Table 6.7). Thailand
imports mainly logs from Myanmar, as the share of sawnwood is still only a quarter of the combined
volume (on WRME basis). With Laos the situation is reversed: most imports are sawnwood and log
trade is limited. The imports of sawnwood from Cambodia are marginal (2004) but there is somefurniture trade with Laos and Myanmar. Differences in labor costs make furniture trade profitable andit is likely to expand in the future.42
Imports of wood products are influenced by tariff escalation (Annex 12). While logs have only anominal import duty of 1%, in further processed products the duty can be up to 30%. Also wood-based
panel imports face a duty of 2 or 12.5%.
42

There are discrepancies in the trade data between partner countries. Myanmar reported log exports toThailand in 2004 as 163,865 m3 (29% more than the recorded Thai imports), and sawnwood exports as
21,270 m3 (17% more than Thai imports). In addition, Myanmar exported 3,799 m3 of plywood to Thailand
which does not appear in the Thai import statistics at all.
51

Table 6.6

Sources of Recorded Imports of Wood and Wood Products in Thailand, 2004

SourceLogs

Sawnwood

Veneer sheets

Plywood

Particleboard

Fibreboard- 1000 m3 -

China
1
9
4
29
Indonesia
41
1
24
Laos
27
290
5
Malaysia
142
1,187
16
83
Myanmar127
18
1
3
Asia total 1)
298
1,556
28
141
Oceania63
93
Africa13
2Europe4
25
5North America
3
106
1
Total
381
1,835
35
141
1) Including all Asian countries
Source: UN/FAO/EUROSTAT//ITTO Thailand’s Forest Sector Questionnaire

Table 6.7

1

1

8

6
5
11

11
10
3
25

Recorded Imports from Neighboring Countries in 2004

Products

Logs
Sawnwood
Parquet panels
Furniture (pieces)
Source: RFD 2004b

6.2.2

3
1

MyanmarLaos- 1000 m3 ---Cambodia

127,419
18,20862,416

27,400290,158
670
33,906

5,260
27,777

Exports

Thailand’s main export items in wood products are sawnwood, particleboard and fiberboard. In the
1990s the sawnwood trade was rather stable varying within a relatively small range of 45,000 to
96,000 m3 per year. In 1999 the situation started to change and volumes increase rapidly reaching thelevel 1.6 mill. m3 in 2002. There was a dip in 2003 when the exports dropped to 1.1 mill. m3 but
picked up again in 2004 reaching 1.8 mill. m3. This quite phenomenal development is a result of thegrowing interest of Chinese furniture producers to procure sawn rubberwood from Thailand. About
97% of the total sawnwood exports in 2004 were rubberwood and China represented 80% of this43.
Most of the balance (15% of the total) was rubberwood exports to Peninsular Malaysia which has been
suffering from shortage of sawn rubberwood.
The Mission noted discrepancies between trading partners also in the export data. Sawnwood imports
from Thailand to China (incl. Hong Kong) were 510,000 m3 less than the reported Thai exports; in thecase of Malaysia the same difference was 130,000 m3. A possible explanation is that these volumes
could have been re-exported directly from the importing countries. However, there is clearly a need toinvestigate why such significant differences exist; i.e. a third of the reported Thai sawnwood exports
does not get recorded in the importing countries.
Particleboard exports have been increasing since 2002 as the volume more than doubled in 2002-2004.
The entire exports go the regional market in Asia where the principal outlets have been the Republicof Korea, China, Malaysia and Taiwan Province (Table 6.8).

43

Including Hong Kong
52

Table 6.8

Exports of Particleboard and Fibreboard, 2004
MarketParticle board

Fibreboard- % -Korea Rep.
China, incl. Hong Kong
Malaysia
Taiwan Province
VietnamIndonesia
Korea Dem.Rep.
Philippines
Other Asia
Other
Total
Total 1,000 m3
Source: RFD 2004b

29.8
26.4
17.0
12.3
5.9
3.9
2.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
100.0
869.6

8.2
31.6
9.7
12.8
7.5
1.3
..
1.4
14.3
27.5
100.0
705.5

In fiberboard the export growth has been limited, i.e. during the last few years only 3-4% per year. The
market distribution is different from particleboard as the subregional market has less importance.
China is the biggest outlet absorbing almost a third of the total followed by the Taiwan Province,
Malaysia, the Republic of Korea and Vietnam. The main export item is MDF which many countries
have shortage of capacity and sometimes no capacity at all. Fiberboard is exported in significant
quantities also to the Gulf States.
In further processed products, a significant item is parquet panels, the exports of which reached about
7,800 m3 in 2004. This was 41% less than in 2000 indicating difficulties in competing internationallywith laminated MDF flooring. The main markets for this niche product were Japan, Germany, USA,
Denmark and Italy.
Thailand is one of the world leaders in rubberwood furniture exports and the trade expanded rapidly inthe 1990s. The value of exports in 2004 was about US$ 562.8 mill. In addition, the furniture or
furniture parts made of rattan and bamboo added another US$ 4.2 mill. making the total forest-derived
furniture exports valued at about US$ 567 mill. The growth in wooden furniture exports has, however,slowed down even though it picked up again in 2004 (growth was 13%) after a stagnant period in
2003. The small bamboo and rattan furniture market has expanded vigorously, 30-40% per year during
the last two years.
The main export market for Thai rubberwood furniture is the USA (50% of the total), where most of
the volume is sold on the basis of price and the quality is at the low end, but still strictly controlled(Annex 13). The second largest outlet is Japan (26%) which represents the high end of the furnituremarket. The quality requirements, particularly for finishing are significantly higher in Japan than in theUSA. Europe takes another 12% of the Thai exports and the quality requirements are between Japanand the USA. All the markets are highly competitive, being supplied by traditional rubberwood
furniture exporters (Malaysia and Indonesia) as well as new suppliers (particularly China andVietnam, often based on imported Thai rubberwood). The sawn rubberwood exports are partly in thesame hands as furniture exports as the larger companies are all integrated. There have been calls for
restricting sawnwood exports to ensure competitiveness of the Thai furniture makers who buy theirraw material in the open market.
6.3

Wood Industries

6.3.1

Overview

According to the industrial statistics, there are about 2,500 establishments in the wood-basedindustries of which two thirds are furniture producers (Table 6.9). They employ about 260,000 people
representing 11.2% of the total manufacturing industries. The sector paid US$ 560 mill. in wages and53salaries, or US$ 2,150 per employee on an average. The wood-based sector generated a value added of
US$ 1.5 bill. in 2000 or about 8% of the total manufacturing. The figure could presently be at least
about US$ 1.8 – 2.0 billion taking into account the output growth during the last five years. In 2000
the value added by employee was US$ 5,724 or 70% of the average in all manufacturing. However,
the wood-based sector’s wages and salaries were less than 80% of the average in all industries. These
indicators illustrate the significant direct economic contribution of the wood-based sector even though
they do not take account of the indirect upstream and downstream effects.
Table 6.9
Indicator

Economic Indicators of Forest Based Industries, 2000
Wood and woodprocessing

Furniture 1)

Pulp and paper andconverted products

Number of
797
1,671
487
establishments- Employment
52,482
163,182
44,260- Employee remu99.8
321.0
138.4
neration US$ mill.
- Remuneration/
1,902
1,967
3,126.9
employee US$ .
Value added US$ mill.
222.8
703.1
561.9
Value added % of
24.9
29.2
22.8
gross output
Value added/employee
4,246
4,309
12,695US$
Relative indicators (total manufacturing = 100)
- Employee
69
72
114
remuneration- Value added/
51
52
154
employee
Share of total manufacturing- Employment
2.3
7.0
1.9
- Value added
1.2
3.7
2.9
1) Furniture and manufacturing n.e.c.
Source: Mission calculations based on data of National Statistical Office (www.nso.go.th)

Total
2,555
259,924558.8
2,149.8
1,487.8
..
5,724
78
69
11.2
7.8

The industrial statistics do not include the smallest scale operators. According to another source in
2004, there were reported to be 242 sawmills and 5,318 woodworking plants, half of which in the
Bangkok area (Annex 14). The wood-based panel sector has 22 particleboard mills, 4 hardboard units
and 7 MDF plants.
In addition there were about 3,000 timber traders, lumberyards and similar operations and another
3,800 wood products retailers selling timber and timber products. The formal timber trade can be
estimated to generate an additional employment of 30,000. The informal operations are likely to beeven more important as a source of employment.
Of total employment of the wood and wood-processing sector (260,000), 45% are women (Annex 15).
The industry relies heavily on unskilled labor (50%) while the share of skilled labor is only 39%. Thisis a cause of concern and is reflected in low labor productivity and problems of quality control, and, ingeneral, inefficiency in the organization of work. This was observed during the mill visits of theMission and also highlighted in the top management interviews. Particularly, maintenance teams areoften overstaffed while production operations are better organized.

546.3.2

Sawmilling and Panel Industries

The sawmilling industry has been under a major restructuring as most of the teak and mixed hardwood
mills have been closed down due to lack of raw material44. Most of the rubberwood sawmills are
medium sized but there are also large units with up to 25 band saws. These mills are typically owned
by furniture companies and produce mainly for the corporate needs. Mills are labor intensive and thelayout is simple tailored to the rapid throughput of rubber logs which cannot be stocked for longer
periods. Most of the equipment is locally made and tends to be old. The recovery rates vary dependingon the level of technology and production management, varying in the range of 20 to 35%. Operators
appear to be skilled and have only had on-the-job training. The processing system is targeted at
maximizing the throughput rather than at high conversion rates, or even less at optimization of thepotential log yield.
The common length of rubberwood logs in the South is 1 m, while in the East it is 1.3 to 1.5 m. Logs
with diameter below 15 cm (in length of 1.8 m) are used by MDF mills while particle board mills buy
branches and thinner logs with minimum diameter of 5 cm and minimum length of 0.9 m, using themwith bark. Largest logs (diameter of over 30 cm) are destined for plywood production if there is a mill
within an economic distance, while the balance goes to sawmilling. As the logs are short (from 1 to
1.3 m), the number of pieces to be handled is huge even in medium-sized mills which lowers laborproductivity. Furthermore, possibilities to produce longer lengths for applications where fingerjointing is not desirable are limited.
In the action plan for the rubberwood industry developed with ITTO support (Bassili 2000), it was
highlighted that the value of sawn rubberwood could be increased through a higher quality of sawing,
operating at lower speeds to select the best open face, sawing for grade and not only for volume. Other
possible measures included grading of logs and applying smaller number of diameters in the headsaw
to increase recovery rate. The quality of saw-doctoring is still weak in many mills. These conclusions
are still valid.
As much of the sawnwood market is integrated with furniture production, there has been little
incentive to introduce grading systems. Some mills selling to third parties are applying their own
classification system but no national standard like in the case of e.g. Malaysia exists.
The Thai plywood industry has been declining due to the changing raw material situation, especiallyafter 1989 when the logging ban was introduced and practically no local logs were available. It isestimated that there are still about 10 veneer and plywood mills in the country. Many rely on the use of
rubberwood as a raw material for core veneer. The largest unit is state-owned Thai Plywood (see ch.
9.4). The future development of the industry will depend on the availability of large-sized logs fromplantations, including eucalyptus.
The reconstituted wood-based panel industry has many modern world-class production units which are
relatively well organized as regards the processing and handling of products. Woodyard operations
could however often benefit from improvements. Of the four hardboard mills, three utilize eucalyptus
as raw material but in the case of MDF only one mill has been relying on eucalyptus and another one
on bagasse. All the others use rubberwood. Most particle board mills use rubberwood and only somesmaller mills use either eucalyptus or bagasse. There are several investment projects either decided orin the planning stage and at least two new MDF lines are going to be installed by 2008. They represent
a challenge to already tight wood supply situation.
Assessment
1.

44

The wood supply situation is a critical factor for the expansion of both sawmilling and panel
industries in Thailand. With rubberwood availability recently curtailed by the upswing of theinternational latex market, the companies are now looking for any options including fruit trees(durian, mango, etc.) which could be used as raw material. These somewhat improvised efforts
are unlikely to be the long-term solution for the Thai wood industry and therefore a more
In 1996 there were 756 sawmills of which 409 worked with teak and mixed hardwoods (Bassili 2000).
55

systematic approach should be developed. The industry should have a better control of its raw
material supply and it should also play a more active role in its development.
2.

Rubberwood is the most important raw material but the use of eucalyptus is expanding rapidly
in the production of MDF, fiberboard and particleboard. Eucalyptus has also potential as a raw
material for plywood and sawnwood but the users will have to overcome the technicalproblems. There is accumulated experience on solutions for sawing and drying of eucalyptus
sawnwood and peeling of eucalyptus logs in other countries. This technology could betransferred to Thailand without major problems. The Thai industry has not yet mobilized itself
for tapping this opportunity which could reduce dependency on the rubberwood availability
which is periodically constrained by the international rubber markets. Eucalyptus sawnwood has
broader application areas than rubberwood due to better log form and longer logs but its use inhigh quality furniture making is not well developed even internationally. An integrated
approach would be needed to develop eucalyptus utilization for sawmilling and plywood
production including (i) establishment of thinning trials and development of silvicultural
systems, (ii) stock-taking of the international experience on the use of eucalyptus for solidwood
products, (iii) industrial-scale trials, (iv) development of quality requirements for large-sizedlogs and pricing scales, (v) promotion of thinnings among eucalyptus farmers.

3.

The sawmilling industry’s biggest challenge is probably how to cope with the increasing laborcosts and modernize the existing capacity. The improvement process could apply a value
optimization approach where the sawnwood yield would have to be analyzed in the light ofwhat could be obtained from the available log material. This could have major changes in the
production philosophy of independent rubberwood sawmills that are better placed to maximize
economic value of sawmilling than mills which are practically exclusively serving integrated
furniture plants. The vision of the industry appears to be inward looking which is illustrated by
the fact that improved foreign technology is only seen in forklifts (Bassili 2000). There is a needto consider higher efficiency technological options for log handling, sawing, drying, further
processing and waste handling.

4.

The reconstituted panel industry has world-class production units. Its future competitivenesswill greatly depend on the long-term wood supply which is already under pressure. The industry
should assume an active role in developing its wood supply sources.

5.

A major effort is needed to improve the almost useless production statistics and to investigate
the reasons for discrepancies in trade statistics between Thailand and its trading partners.

6.4

Markets for Wood and Wood Products

6.4.1

Roundwood

The current market mechanism for plantation-based roundwood is characterized by the strong
demand-pull in the southern and central parts of the country where most of the processing industry is
located (Annex 5 Table 8). The sellers are small producers and they are poorly organized. In logs thenumber of buyers is large and competition between them is intensive while in small-sized logs there
are fewer buyers and they are well organized. The pulpwood prices (Table 6.10) appear to be rather
uniform over species. The sawlog market is limited to teak thinning logs which are sold at higher
prices depending on the size.
Intermediaries play a significant role. Large buyers have small logging operations mainly to be fully
informed about the real costs of harvesting. No systematic information is available on intermediaries
and contractors but field data suggested that their margins can be significant, typically 10 to 30% of
the sales price. Large buyers appear to have a policy to favor larger contractors capable of
implementing medium-term commitments in their deliveries. Contractor management and wood
supply/purchasing planning appear to be based on simple principles of quick, short-term deliveriesrather than long-term win-win partnership.
Wood purchasing is either based on area (rai) or weight. Both are inaccurate measures for wood trade.
In area-based deals the buyer makes a lump sum offer for the standing stock and the seller does not56necessarily have a sufficient idea of the potential value of his crop. Weight-based deals are notmeasured in purchasing and they are estimated by truckloads. In weight-based deals the log size andlog quality are not considered and the sole criterion is minimum diameter. The intermediary, often thecontractor, carries out log sorting and makes the profit when selling to the industry different
assortments, this time by actual weight. In rubberwood, weight-based measures work better than in
eucalyptus as logs cannot be left in the site for more than a couple of days while in eucalyptus drying
on the ground takes place quite fast and influences the owner’s revenue if paid by weight. Storing is
not however practiced widely due to the tight supply situation.
Table 6.10

Examples of Roundwood Prices in April-May 2006
Price US$/m3

Comment

Rayong21.40-35.70

Prachinburi
Southern
RegionNakon
Ratchasima
Northeast

25.00-41.70
20.00-50.00

THB 10,000-100,000/rai depending on thequality of growing stock

12.50-23.75
40.00

Low end for small logs, high end for large
logsNortheast

50.00-112.50

Low end for first thinnings, high end forsecond thinning

RayongSouthern
Province
Prachinburi

33.25
40.00-47.50

Type of wood

Stumpage- Rubberwood- Eucalyptus- Teak thinning logs
Delivered mill price- Rubberwood

Location- Eucalyptus- Teak planted, from Chiang Mai
Laos
Source: Mission field data

30.00-40.00

Low end for less than 6” and high end formore than 8” in diameter

125.00-150.00

The current market mechanism is far from being balanced and is strongly influenced by the small
number of pulpwood buyers. They have also contract farming schemes where they provide seedlings,
technical advice and other support in the establishment stage while committing themselves to buy theoutput at ”market prices”. Many farmers living in their properties have been reluctant to embark on
this type of contract being unsure about their true benefits. Strong demand for wood is contributing tothis cautiousness for long-term commitments from the owners’ side. The formula fits better forabsentee landowners that do not have the capacity to manage their plantations.
The delivered mill wood costs of pulpwood vary in the range of US$ 30 to 40 which is significantly
higher than e.g. in Indonesia but lower than in Europe or North America. In addition, for foreign pulp
mill investment, Thailand is not among the most attractive locations due to lack of reliable informationon the raw material source and the weak organization of the timber market.
6.4.2

Wood Products

The distribution channels of sawnwood and panel products are relatively well established. All thebigger consumption centers have their own private lumberyards that compete which each other inselling to builders and professionals. In addition, small wood shops both in urban and rural areas sell
to individual customers, often providing resawing, drying, and even cabinet or furniture making
services to buyers.
Typical current prices in the Thai timber markets (Table 6.11) indicate that the market is highly
competitive and relies on imported natural timbers in sawnwood trade. The imported sawnwood goeslargely to the building and construction sector, which cannot be supplied by domestic timbers. There isa heavy emphasis on hardwoods for traditional reasons and the consumption of coniferous species ismarginal. Only radiata pine is used in small quantities for utility purposes. In the construction sector
57there is potential to substitute high-value hardwoods with lower-cost good quality softwoods which
would result in economic gains for the users. Strong teak tradition has however kept such transition
marginal.
Table 6.11

Wood Product Prices, April-May 2006
Product

Sawnwood- rubberwood- rubberwood- Thai mixed hardwoods- Malaysian hardwoods- meranti- radiata pine
- teak natural (from Myanmar)- teak planted (from Laos)
Plywood- teak veneered- utility grade hardwood- construction grade (from China)
Recycled wood

LocationPrice US$/m3

Bangkok-“-“-“Chiang Mai
Bangkok
Chiang Mai
Chiang Mai

211
132
268
357
483
210
7,500
720

Chiang Mai
Bangkok
Chiang Mai

713
365
295

Bangkok
Bangkok

44
90

Comment

Furniture grade
Utility grade

25x300 mmm, KD
Green

Sales price for residues
Purchase priceSource: Mission field data

Of particular social importance as a timber use is the strong small-scale enterprise sector dominated by
the carving industry which is suffering from the non-availability of Thai teak. An associated market
segment is the traditional hand-made furniture industry which thrives e.g. in the North region serving
both the domestic market and high-valued export market niches, especially in Europe. Imported teak isexpensive and prices are high. Planted Thai teak comes still in small dimensions which limits its use
for large-sized objects.
About 75% of plywood consumption is in the building construction (including doorskins), 20% in
furniture and 5% for packing crates, advertising boards and other uses. Particleboard, MDF andhardboard are mainly used for furniture and cabinet making, laminated flooring, etc. The use inconstruction for ceilings, fittings, interior walling etc. is less important.
The Thai panel market is competitive due to the presence of many strong domestic suppliers and some
imports. There is a large share of sales which go directly business-to-business and the balance ismarketed through the same distribution channels as sawnwood. There are established practices forgrading of the product unlike in sawnwood.
Assessment
1.

In log trade, market transparency is limited to local information on prices offered by local
buyers. Sellers do not have a clear understanding of the potential value of their wood crop but
while their negotiation power and sales options are limited, more information would notnecessarily change the situation. There is an urgent need to improve the market transparency
which could gradually start changing the situation.

2.

Wood measurement practices cannot be effectively controlled by the seller and therefore
represent an opportunity for misuse. Buying of growing stock by area – albeit simple – does notprotect sellers’ interest as s/he is less prepared to make reliable estimates of the volume of sales.
This should be phased out and replaced by weight measurement. In the long run, saw andveneer log measurement should preferably be carried out based on volume, which would makethe value of the product more transparent for both parties.

58

3.

In addition to market transparency and measurement, the crucial element for improving thenegotiation power of the roundwood producers is to establish effective common organizations(associations, cooperatives, etc.) which would be capable to protect farmers interests in varying
market conditions.

4.

Tree farmer-corporate partnership arrangements would be useful instruments in promoting
investment in plantations and mitigating against market risks. They can also mobilize suchlandowners in plantation investment who do not have own resources to organize planting andmanagement activities. There is a need to improve transparency on the practical arrangements
and, if needed, introduce facilitators to advice on appropriate formulae which are not abusive forsmall landowners. Farmer associations can assume the facilitator role.

5.

Proposals have been tabled to introduce some kind of government intervention (e.g. throughFIO) to ensure that producers can obtain a fair, stable minimum price which would remove theuncertainty concerns related to plantation investment. Based on the experience on othercountries, the Mission thinks that such measures would not be appropriate and they risk
distorting the wood markets in Thailand. A package of measures including (i) improved market
transparency, (ii) diversification of outputs (introducing sawlogs as complementary product for
eucalyptus plantations), (iii) developing measurement and grading systems for log trade, (iv)organization of producers, and (v) for risk averse farmers and landowners, encourage theindustry to include a minimum price clause in partnership agreements. These measures would
go a long way towards contributing to the objectives that a government-backed minimum pricescheme would achieve without the risk of leading to a financial disaster. There are also otheroptions which could be considered like introducing tradable timber futures when the market forplantation timber has developed further and the volumes have become large enough.

6.5

Furniture Industry

Thailand’s wooden furniture industry can be divided into solid rubberwood furniture (60%), hardwood
furniture (10%) and furniture made of wood panels such as particleboard, MDF and plywood, 90 per
cent of which are also made of rubberwood. Thus, the industry is almost entirely dependent onrubberwood for its raw material. There are about 1,700 wooden furniture factories in the country(cf. Table 6.9) which produce for the domestic and export markets; 200 of which are considered larger
factories employing over 200 people. However, the bulk of the exports is created by about 10 to 15
large-scale enterprises which have been able to develop reliable regular export trade with the US,
Japanese and European customers.
The manufacturing of rubberwood furniture and parts has been the fastest-growing sub-sector within
the furniture industry accounting for the bulk of production for exports. As indicated in section 6.2.2
the exports are still growing but at significantly slower pace than in the past. The Thai exporters arepresently under a heavy competitive pressure from Chinese producers with ample supply of low-costlabor and who import a significant part of their raw material from Thailand. Addressing this issue
through export regulation based on the protection of domestic industries does not, however, appear
feasible.
In the larger companies equipment and process layout are, by and large, up to the international
standard. Lines are not yet fully automated, as labor force has still been available at reasonable cost.
Working conditions are generally good in large and medium-scale mills. Internal transportation ofintermediate goods is sometimes haphazard. Surface finishing skills are good and can meet, if needed,
the highest Japanese standards. Investment needs are mostly in improving the bottleneck equipment.
Management system standards are also high allowing easy monitoring of production and costs. The
situation in the small mills is different as plants suffer from problems if inadequate layout, weak
maintenance standards, and only basic level of planning and quality control. (Bassili 2000).
Assessment
1.

Without a concerted effort driven by the government (e.g. the Ministry of Trade and Industry)
Thailand’s thriving furniture industry is likely to become stagnant due to the heavy competitive
pressure. Furniture industry has developed largely on its own without (a) a systematic strategic
59

approach in resource management (e.g. development of timber clones for rubber plantations,introduction of sawlog schemes in eucalyptus management), (b) R&D which would benefit thewhole sector (technical process improvements), (c) marketing support (export promotion), (d)standardization and quality control systems, and last but not least (e) specialist technical training
which is practically non-existent in Thailand. The Government’s role is to address thesebottlenecks and e.g. the Malaysian experience shows how this can be done successfully.
2.

The key problem of the large-scale furniture industries is the shortage of competent supervisorsand middle managers who would be able to improve operations at mill floor level on acontinuous basis and implement effective quality control systems. This is the reason why
probably the bulk of the Thai exports go still today to the least remunerative US market. This
outlet is extremely prone to price competition from China and other new exporters andrepresents a significant market risk for the entire Thai furniture industry. At the operator level,
on-the-job training with adequate basic education appears to function well and no major
development action is needed. There is, therefore, an urgent need for the Government to assign
one of the technical colleges/institutes to set up a specialized training programme to meet thetechnical level training of the about 1,700 Thai furniture enterprises. Crash course-based
training could be arranged e.g. by international assistance to meet the most urgent needs of theindustry.

3.

There is only limited domestic capacity for furniture design and most of the product models arefrom the buyers or copied from others. This is another weakness as there is still limited
movement towards developing entire living concepts for consumers (rather than individual
pieces of furniture) to meet the specific taste of individual target markets. Such productconcepts can significantly add to the value of the product. Development of new business
opportunities is a lengthy process but it can draw on the exceptional design skills available in
Thailand. What is missing is the link between the market demands and the local design skills tobe able to generate marketable product concepts. This work could be started in close
cooperation with selected distribution channels serving the upgrade segment of the market.

6.6

Certification as a Tool to meet Market Requirement

Certification has been one of the key market drivers in several major importing countries over the last
five years. Large buyers of wood, wood products and furniture have been under pressure to issue theirown responsible purchasing policies and many traditional customers of Thai exports in North America
and Europe are now taking brisk action in this field. Furthermore, many governments have turned tousing public procurement policies as a tool to give preference to products which are legally andsustainably produced. These policies are now in place in Japan, Denmark, Belgium, France, the UK
and New Zealand while many others like Germany and Spain are in the process of finalizing similar
provisions. The ultimate objective is to phase out illegally produced timber from the market and give aboost to implementation of forest certification as a tool to ensure that products come from sustainably
managed legal sources.
The Thai export industry has already taken some action to respond to these market demands which are
likely to be more pronounced, particularly when China as an in-transit further processing country will
have to meet the same requirements. Household furniture markets have still been quite immune tothese market pressures but in garden furniture certification is almost a basic requirement in manymarkets. Some Thai companies have obtained an FSC chain-of-custody (COC) certificate and a few
company-owned plantations have also been certified. With the relatively well-developed management
systems in place, larger companies have no problems to obtain a COC certificate but certifying thewood source has proved to be problematic.
Only a few rubberwood plantations in the whole world have been certified under FSC and practicallyall of them are large-scale plantations which are rare in Thai context (see ch. 5). Rubber is planted in
99% of cases for latex not for timber. The whole latex management concept has little to do withsustainable forest management. The other issue is plantation sustainability as rubber may be replacedby other crops when trees reach maturity. Similar issues are likely to arise also with eucalyptus whengrown as in agroforestry systems in paddy fields which is typical in the Central and Northeast regions.

60

At least two companies have taken action to start certifying their small-scale rubberwood suppliers
according to the generic FSC standard as special orders had been received for FSC certified products.
Certifying smallholders proved to be complex for a number of reasons. They are scattered and they do
not have common organizations. Individual commitments to FSC principles were difficult to explain
when the main purpose of plantation is to produce latex and wood is only a by-product. One of thecompanies managed to form a group of 200 farmers with a major effort providing explanatory material
in Thai language but the whole effort failed when the group could not meet the FSC specificrequirements for group certification.
Assessment
1.

The demands for certified and legally produced products will increasingly influence the market
access of Thai exports both in furniture and wood-based panels, which are often used inimporting countries in the region to produce further processed products to be exported to third
countries where customers have such demands. The Thai wood industry sector should takemeasures to ensure a facilitated access to these markets by implementing certification. There are
two non-exclusive options to be considered:(a)Consult with FSC on their plans for addressing specific issues related to certifying
agricultural tree crops such as rubber or timber produced in agroforestry systems and,based on the results, assess whether appropriate relevant FSC provisions could be put inplace which would be applicable in Thailand within a reasonable time-frame. This would
enable development of a national certification standard according to the specificrequirements of FSC.

(b)

Develop a national certification standard drawing on the relevant international C&I(ITTO) and certification (PEFC) frameworks as well as other relevant reference
documents (e.g. the planned FAO Code on Plantations). The standard should beapplicable for auditing/certifying smallholders in Thailand. The production volumes areprobably sufficiently large to justify development of a national certification system which
could eventually be enforced by the international mutual recognition framework PEFC
(Programme for Endorsement of Forest Certification).

If option (a) does not prove to be feasible, the only way to implement certification is to proceedwith option (b).
2.

The Mission did not observe any inherent obstacles which would not make smallholder tree
growing certifiable in the Thai conditions45. Certification could boost the organization of
farmers which would in any case be needed for improving their negotiation power in the timbermarkets. The environmental issues related to eucalyptus planting need to be, however, duly
addressed. Scientific knowledge and practical experience has accumulated on the impacts of
eucalyptus trees on intercrops and the water table, but appropriate choice of species and planting
sites should be applied to address the key concerns.

3.

A national-level stakeholder workshop would be a useful instrument to take stock of the market
demands and grassroots experiences, and to assess which option(s) above would be feasible in
Thailand. In the development of the national standard a broad-based participatory process
should be applied.

6.7

Fuelwood and Charcoal

Since 1990 no reliable surveys have been carried out on the consumption of woodfuels in Thailand. It
was then estimated that the household sector uses about 20 million tons of fuelwood and charcoal
annually. According to the National Energy Agency (NEA 1991), the per capita annual consumption
in rural households in 1990 was 0.410 m3 (97.1 kg).
FSMP (1993) estimated that 92 per cent of the wood energy is used in the countryside and one percent and 7 per cent in Bangkok and other urban centers, respectively. In rural areas, the per capita
45

Apart from the difficulties to meet some specific FSC requirements.
61

demand of fuelwood has been estimated at 0.6-0.7 m3 (or significantly higher than the NEA estimate).
The rural population of Thailand (47 million) may be estimated to consume 28-33 million m3 ofwoodfuel annually.
FSMP further estimated that only a fifth of fuelwood supply (6 to 7 mill. m3) comes from forests andthe balance from other sources, such as tree crops and agro-forestry (37 per cent) and non- forestry
crops (18 per cent). It was also estimated that the supply potential could be in the range of
40 million m3. 46
Since the early 1990s the energy situation has radically changed. The average monthly expenditure ofhousehold on woodfuels was then 16.4% of the total expenditure on all fuels but in 2000 the figure
had dropped to 3.9%. However, in absolute terms, the consumption levels have slightly increased(Table 6.12). Calculated based on energy equivalent, it has been estimated that fuelwood represents
60% of the total wood-based energy while the balance is charcoal. It is noteworthy that theconsumption of other biomass energy sources has increased faster and bagasse is now more importantsource of energy than charcoal. There are also some imports of charcoal which amounted to 34,000
tons in 2004 or 62% more than in 200047.
Table 6.12
Type of energy

Biomass-based Energy Consumption, 1999-200348
1999

2003
ktoe

Fuelwood
Charcoal
Paddy husky
BagasseTotal Biomass
Share of total nationalenergy consumption %Source: Thailand Energy Situation 2003

Change
%

3,279
2,218
733
2,092
8,322

3,493
2,357
996
2,905
9,751

+4.6
+6.3
+35.9
+38.9
+17.2

17.7

17.3

..

There are a large number of industries, which still depend on wood-based fuels as their main source ofenergy. These industries (agro-processing, food processing, brick making, pottery and ceramic
production, etc.) have experienced shortages of energy, which has led to calls for government
investment in fuelwood plantations. This is paradoxical when it is considered that the Thai forest
resources could easily produce more than double the current demand.
Several measures to improve the situation have been taken including the development of fuelbriquettes, promotion of agricultural residue stoves, improved cooking stoves, and improved charcoal
kilns (Panunumpa 2004). The REX project demonstrated that charcoal production can be highly
profitable, particularly as alcatra (wood vinegar) from eucalyptus can generate more revenue thancharcoal. The problem to develop this activity is the availability of labor and limited number ofinvestors who are interested in production which needs relatively low investment and can largely bebased on non-saleable plantation output.
Assessment
1. The woodfuel sector offers a promising outlook for Thai forestry if the supply can be developed.
In addition to traditional fuels for household and industrial use, it is foreseen that commercial
combined heat and electricity production would become feasible soon in Thailand. This would
represent additional market opportunities for plantation wood, particularly in locations which arefar from industrial mills using small-sized wood. Further studies would be required in this area to
46
47
48

It is noted that the production of fuelwood and charcoal have been reported as ‘Nil’ in 2003 and 2004 in
Forestry Statistics of Thailand.
RFD 2004.
The reliability of these figures could not be validated by the Mission.
62

draft an action plan for similar promotional activities and make necessary policy adjustments
accordingly.
7.

NON-WOOD RESOURCES AND THEIR UTILIZATION

7.1

Bamboo7.1.1

Bamboo Resources

Thailand has 12 genera and about 60 species of bamboo. The main species are Thyrsostachy
siamensis, Bambusa blumeana, B. polyumorpha, B. mana, B. tulda, B. arundinacea, Dendrocalamus
hamiltonii, D. giganteus, and D. brandisi. Bamboos constitute the natural undergrowth in deciduous
forests. The latest survey (1998) showed that bamboo covers a total area of 800,000 ha. On the basisof an average annual yield of 0.1 ton/hectare green weight, Thailand’s potential annual production ofbamboo from natural sources is about 500,000 tons49.
Bamboo is used extensively as a substitute of timber in construction, scaffolding, ladders, bridges,
fences, and in pulp making. Numerous articles such as baskets, furniture, toys, musical instruments,
sticks, beds, fans, fishing rods and traps, water containers, etc. are also made from bamboo. About 80
per cent of the bamboo production in Thailand goes to the non-industrial uses and about 20 percent
has gone to the pulp industry but the latter use has been declining. The pulp industry’s preference is touse eucalyptus if available in the market.
The importance of bamboo as a source of employment is largely unrecognized. Harvesting licenses arebeing issued without any resource assessment. The free removal of bamboo from forests by the people
has created shortage of bamboo which for artisans and SMEs is a more serious constraint thanshortage of money. Because of inaccessibility and lack of management, the overall productivity ofbamboo in Thailand is annually about 8% that of Japan. Since stump cleaning costs about
US$ 0.5/clump, farmers do no cleaning of stump site. They use edible salt to change the pH of the soil
which they feel gives more bamboo shoots. No other treatment is generally done.
7.1.2

Bamboo Plantations

To meet the demand for bamboo, farmers are also planting it on a large scale. There is an extensive
niche market available among artisans in Thailand. Bamboo plantation requires one-time investment
and utilization possibilities are diverse. Since the bamboo shoot is edible, the farmers use them fortheir own consumption whereas bamboo poles are sold in the domestic market. They are easy totransport and maintain and no insecticide is required. Farmers harvest about 20-40 percent of theculms from clumps every year. They do not require any permission for cutting in their own plantations
or any transport permit.
About 10,700 ha of plantations have been established under the extension programme of DAE.
Because of attractive yield, commercial plantations for edible shoots with D. asper are extending
rapidly. According to an estimate, average bamboo production from 1980 to 1990 was 49.2 million
culms or about 147,600 tons.
With the plantation of bamboo, farmers start getting income from the third year and therefore, in many
villages each family has a bamboo plantation. Such a plantation can yield an average annual net
revenue of US$ 875/ha. In Nongcan village in Prachinburi, planted bamboos are the best in the
country because of soil conditions in comparison to those grown in Kanchanburi in the West and
Bolachatani in the Northeast.
Due to its fast growth, easy propagation, soil binding property and short maturity period, bamboo is
being recognized as an ideal species for afforestation, soil conservation and social forestry programs in49

Allowing economic accessibility rate of 62% estimated by the Mission.
63many parts of the world. The bamboo, as an agricultural intercrop, can increase ground flora and theallied silvicultural and agricultural operations can significantly improve the nutrient status of the soil.
Bamboo is widely used as food and for many medicinal uses. Compared to tree crops, bamboo can
produce an economic return in a relatively short period of time. Furthermore, while trees grown fortimber can only be harvested once, a bamboo clump can be harvested many times over. Bamboo is amultipurpose species and its processing is labour intensive providing opportunities for diverse
employment. It may also be converted to value added products. It is thus more useful than most
multipurpose woody species. Therefore, developing bamboo cultivation is of great significance not
only to promote economic gains but also to improve rural livelihood and economy as well as toincrease farmer’s income.
Bamboo is facing competition with rubber and eucalyptus. The competitive selling price of 6 metre
Eucalyptus and bamboo poles are US$ 2.50 and US$ 0.62/piece, respectively. Only four bamboo
culms from one clump can give the same revenue as obtained by cutting an eucalyptus tree. One
bamboo clump provides several culms annually while eucalyptus needs 3 to 4 years to produce avaluable pole. Farmers harvest bamboo clump twice a year producing on an average 20 culms perclump per year. Bamboo market is very attractive. It has a high potential for domestic trade andexport. In the best producing areas, local intermediaries buy bamboo for export to Taiwan Provinceand other markets. Bamboo is virtually a standing bank account for farmers which requires limited
management effort.
Assessment
1.

Expansion of bamboo plantations to bridge the gap between fiber demand and supply has notreceived adequate attention. The present shortage of bamboo for local processing represents alost development opportunity which could be tapped with limited promotional effort. The ITTO
Project PD56/99 Rev.(I) Promotion of the Utilization of Bamboo from Sustainable Sources has
well established the state-of-art in management and utilization of bamboo resources (RFD/ITTO
2004a). This useful information still remains to be effectively disseminated down to the farmer
and SME levels in an appropriate form. Such a public investment would have a high economic
and social return for the country.

2.

In the context of development of rural economies, bamboo should be given adequate importancein the social forestry/agro-forestry practices as well as in watershed management. There is needto intensify cultivation of bamboo by providing incentives to small-scale and marginal farmers.
There is also an urgent need for guidance on intensified technology to the people to growbamboo on private lands.

3.

In the management plan for natural forest areas (when prepared) there should be provisions forbamboo resources. The current over-exploitation should be brought under control.

4.

There is no proper harvesting management system, cleaning of clump site or soil mounting
system, etc. Simple technological improvements could have a significant impact on productivity
and costs. Besides addressing these issues, there is an urgent need to continue research over theentire spectrum of bamboo propagation, management and utilization.

5.

A nationwide survey of bamboo supply and demand would be a useful tool to determine
necessary promotion or extension measures. Such a database can help in policy design, planningand management of bamboo for tapping market/trade opportunities and bringing additional
economic returns to the farmers.

6.

Raw bamboo is exported to China and Taiwan Province. This makes sense to some private
operators but potential added value is lost when bamboo is exported in raw form. Moreover, it isa bulky product (about 4,200 culms in one container). The necessary credit and technologicalfacilities should be provided to the rural artisans and SMEs (e.g. by BAAC) for development of
manufacturing of value added products of bamboo to reduce the export share of bamboo in raw
form.

64

7.2

Rattan7.2.1

Regulatory Framework

In the past all rattan species were growing in the natural forest, except Calamus caesius in the 14
southern provinces. Rattan was originally a non-reserved forest product and no permission was
required for harvesting which led to serious overexploitation. The situation was changed through aRoyal Decree in 1987 which specified rattan as a reserved forest product. To gather rattan in theforest, the permission is required from RFD and royalty is also to be paid. Thailand has banned theharvesting of rattan in natural forest and its export in raw form.
7.2.2

Rattan Plantations

The rapid reduction of rattan in natural forests prompted Thailand and other cane producing countries
to establish plantations, as an obvious strategy for sustainable development of rattan resources. Rattan
gardens can also serve as a safety net for the farmers. When they need cash, they can harvest somestems for sale. Selection of suitable species of rattan for plantation depends upon the targeted use:●●●

Large cane: Calamus manau, C. blumei, C. peregrinus, C. latifoluis, C. rudentum.
Small cane: Calamus caesuis, C. pandanosmus, C. myrianthus, Wai Ka Nun, Wai Sanim,
Daenomorops sabu,t C. palustris, C. rudentum, Wai Sai Kai, C. javensis and Wai Kao.
Edible shoot: Calamus viminalis, C. siamensis and C. tenuis.

Rattan has been planted under different programs in Thailand but on a small scale (Sutthisrisilapa &Phuriyakrn 2002). In 1998, the total area of rattan plantations was 210 ha mainly with five species(Calamus longisetus, C. latifoluis, C. palustris, C. caesius and C. rudentum). By 2003, 512 ha wasplanted under the Royal Initiatives Programme (1997-2003) and 6,216 ha were planted under thesupervision of RFD’s Reforestation Division. Rattan plantations are found in Northern, Northeastern,
Central and Southern regions. Their objectives were to serve as food bank and to produce value added
forest products as well as to protect the reforestation area from encroachment. In state lands a total of
4,914 ha has been planted. Private investment in rattan has not advanced because of lack of knowhow, the long rotation period (about 10 years), and lack of systematic promotion.
At the age of 14 years rattan has maximum growth rate of 0.49 m/year followed by the ages of
11 years and 12 years with the growth rate at 0.46 m and 0.45 m, respectively. The appropriate age forthe utilization of rattan is 12 years, depending upon the species, site conditions, etc. The rotation of thelarger stem rattan is about 15 years while the small stem rattan is grown in 7-10 years.
Thailand is also producing rattan shoots for food. In fact, Thailand and Laos are competitors in the
trade. The development of management for shoots of three rattan species C. viminalis, C. siamensis
and C. tenuis, has been quite successful and rather sophisticated in Thailand. The shoot can be
harvested as early as 1-1.5 years and full production is achieved at 6 years. The shoot production canlast more than 20 years. It is estimated that an income of US$ 1,562/ha can be obtained, which is ahigh return compared with other crops.
7.2.3

Utilization

The role of rattan in the rural economy is important in many areas as local people largely depend on
rattan for their living. Rattan is used by the local people to produce various utensils for their own use.
Cash income can also be obtained from rattan handicrafts. In many areas, local people use rattan
shoots for food and also for medicine. The decline of rattan resources significantly affected the rural
economy in many areas.
More than 200 rattan furniture factories are found in Thailand but most of them are small household
manufacturers. Only three factories are large and can export their products. Due to shortages of local
supply, rattan is also imported from other countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Laos, Cambodia,
Philippines, Myanmar and India and but the volume is decreasing each year. Rattan furniture is one of65the important export items of Thailand with the main markets in France, Germany, UK, U.S.A, Japan
and New Zealand.
Rattan and rattan products have an export value US$ 0.8 to 2.2 million annually, while the value ofimports has varied up to US$ 0.5 million (RFD 2004b). During recent years, due to decline of raw
material supply, the export value from rattan has reduced considerably (Sombrun 2004).
Assessment
1.

Present production systems are not sufficient to meet the demand for rattan. There has been
little monitoring and no management of wild rattan resources and virtually nothing is known
about the population biology and ecological effects associated with extraction. Rattan should be
duly considered in management planning for natural forests.

2.

The management of cane can be done simultaneously for short and long cane. Farmers can get
early income from shoots and extra benefits from short cane, or in the long run from raw
material sales to handicraft and furniture industry. This would create employment and income
for the rural poor.

3.

Government policies should be adjusted to support rattan plantations. This involves providing
tenurial security to rattan gatherers and planters. Moreover, suitable sites may be identified topromote the establishment of rattan plantations. The planting of rattan species for furnitureindustry such as C. manau, C. pandanosmus, C. latifolius etc. should be particularly
encouraged. Rattan seedlings can also be planted in agro-forestry systems with rubber and fruit
trees. Successful rattan cultivation and management require local people’s participation in all
aspects of the enterprise.

4.

Since about 30-40 percent of the rattan stem is wasted during harvesting, better portablemechanical devices should be developed to pull down the entire stem without damaging therattan stem or the supporting trees.

5.

There is a need to provide credit and technical assistance for rattan plantation development,
harvesting and marketing. ORRAF could have a potential role in channeling funds and othersupport to farmers, for the establishment of rattan plantations as in the case of rubber.

6.

Taxonomic knowledge about rattan species is good in Thailand but the data both on naturalforests and plantations are scanty. Local scarcity caused by uncontrolled harvesting is now
limiting the access of gatherers to their income. Therefore, value addition by means of improved
processing and manufacturing techniques is needed. The value of rattan as raw material isinfluenced to a great extent by the structural composition of the stem with considerable
variation along the stem length. This needs to be considered in management of rattan areas.

7.

A network of gene banks is needed. Genetic diversity studies are required to determine the sizeof the population for ex-situ conservation. There should also be more research on the
management and maintenance of rattan resources in the country, including trade and marketingof products.

8.

Some efforts have been made in the field of rattan research in Thailand. Future research
priorities are: (a) survey the existing resources in order to establish adequate data of all rattan
species (commercial and non-commercial) stock in natural forests and plantation areas, (b)development of propagation of cultivation and techniques, (c) improved systems of harvesting,utilization and marketing, and (d) germplasm collection, storage, exchange and characterization

7.3

Other Non-timber Forest Products

Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP) have high economic potential and therefore, they should often beraised as crops so that people do not have to depend on wild plants. At least five million people areassumed to be critically dependent on NTFPs as they provide material needs, cash income andemployment at levels which are significant to the rural and national economies. In addition, their
extraction usually represents a non-exhaustive sustainable form of tropical forest utilization.

66

Besides bamboo and rattan, a large number of edible and medicinal plants, seeds, mushrooms, honey,
wax, lac and resin etc. belong to NTFPs. But their significance in the rural and national economies has
been little appreciated. Yet they can play a key role in alleviating rural poverty, as they offer the poor
the means to increase both their food production and their incomes.
Traditionally used medicinal plants in Thailand are Rauwolfia serpentina, Gloriosa superba, Cassia
augustifolis, Amomum hrevanh, Dioscorea spp, Derris elliptical, Hydrocarpus anthelmintica,
Calophucllum inophyllum and stemona tuberosa. More than, 500 species of edible plants are found in
Thailand. About 85 per cent of major natural forest-based food products such as bamboo shoots,
mushrooms and vegetable are consumed by households. There are no estimates available on theamount of food collected from natural forests. Mushrooms have been cultivated during the last 30
years and annual production is about 70,000 tons valued at US$ 27.5 million.

7.3.1

Bee products

Honey and other bee products were mostly collected from the wild until 1980 when beekeeping
expanded to a large scale in Thailand. The six bee products have broad range of use (FSMP 1992):-

Honey as food or sweetener in many industrial food products.
Wax for polishes, cosmetics and candles.
Pollen as dietary supplement and in herbal medicine.
Royal jelly as food component or supplement which is also considered as an aphrodisiac andrejuvenator.
Propolis is used on a small scale medically because of its bactericidal properties.
Bee venom is used medically for desensitizing people who are hyperallergic to bee stings, and as
traditional medicine to prevent arthritis.

Beekeeping is a highly useful activity for farmers. It provides easily harvestable, transportable andmarketable products. It generates employment to the keepers and the traders and export earnings to thenation. Above all, it enhances pollination of crops and trees.
7.3.2

Lac

Lac is the resinuos secretion of several species of tiny plants the most common species being of
Laccifer lacca. In Thailand, it is collected from the branches of numerous tree species of mixed anddeciduous natural forests. Thailand is the second largest lac producing country after India. Lac
production is done only in the North and Northeast regions. The North accounts for about 80-90 per
cent of total production. The average stick lac production in the last 10 years has been 7,365 tons.
Production was the highest in the mid-1980s. The most productive species is Samanea, which undernormal conditions can produce annually as much as 2,440 kg/ha. Swietenia macrophylla, yields only
250 kg/ha.
There have been more than 50,000 families involved in stick lac production, in the early 1990s when
there used to be 20 licensed lac processing plants in operation. The production volume as gone down
since then.
7.3.3

Resin

Resin has been tapped from pine trees for centuries in Thailand. Oleoresin and gums are obtained fromthe two native pine species, Pinus kesiya and P. merkusii. Only P. merkusii is being tapped
economically, yielding of about 2-5 kg per year while kesiya pine yields only about 1 kg/tree/year.
The total area of pine forests, allowing for mixed stands, is about 216,200 ha located mainly in the
North and Northeast. The estimated potential annual production from these trees is about 12,700 tons.
Tapping can be done all the year round. In the last ten years, on an average, 285 tons of resin were
produced annually and from these, 205 tons of rosin and 52 tons of turpentine were obtained. At

67present, the net value realized from rosin and turpentine is about US$ 0.5/kg. The pine resin industry
has the potential to create 25,000 jobs in rural areas.
Tapping dipterocarp trees is also an important source of income for many forest dwellers but theextent of the activity is not known.
Assessment
1.

In Thailand, about 45 items of non-timber forest products are imported. They are mainly
bamboo, rattan, cinnamon, natural honey, gum damar, other natural gums and gum resins, tungoil and its fractions and furniture. Some wildlife articles permitted under CITES are also
imported. The total import value of these items was US$ 47.9 million in 2004. About 40 NTFP
items are exported. They are mainly furniture, natural honey, feathers, skins and other parts ofbirds with their feathers, seed lac, gum damar, bamboo, shellac, seats of cane and its furniture.
Total export earnings from these items were US$ 70.4 million in 2004. The country is a net
exporter of NTFPs but the supply potential is far from being fully utilized.

2.

The extent, role and availability of NTFPs should be explicitly specified in the management
plans of protected areas and reserved forest areas for their sustainable harvesting, production
and utilization. NTFPs have a huge potential to ameliorate the economic conditions of the rural
poor.

3.

The germplasms of NTFPs should be conserved in in-situ conditions and their propagation
should also be promoted.

4.

Knowledge of the resource should be improved and technology for propagation and processing
should be developed.

5.

There is a need for comprehensive study of lac production, processing, marketing and its
important role in the income and employment generation for the rural poor.

6.

There is also a need to have an improved streamlined market mechanism for bamboo and other
NTFPs from the cultivation by the farmers to the final consumer.

7.

Market information should be regularly published to facilitate the collectors and other primary
producers in getting reasonable prices for their products, which will also help them insafeguarding their interests in dealing with the middlemen.

8.

There is a need to develop a database regarding the availability of NTFPs by species, area andquantity. This would not only help in policy and planning but also in developing proper market
mechanism and trade opportunities for various value added products.

7.4

Ecotourism

Tourism in Thailand is well developed and diverse, having prospered since it was promoted in the
Fourth National Economic and Social Development Plan of 1977-1981. The number of foreign tourists
arriving in the country has leveled around 10 million as the growth in the recent years has been slow
(NSO 2004). Together with domestic tourism, this represents a huge market potential for nature-based
tourism in the country. Indeed tourism in Thailand today focuses on archaeological, historical andcultural sites, protected areas and resort areas. There are sometimes overlaps between these areas.
Tourism is spreading its influence increasingly also to rural areas, particularly on the coastal zone,
around national parks and in the North region. Its activities in the interior rural areas are typical inupper watershed where also most of remaining forests are found.
The tourism market has been changing toward more differentiation among types of clients andservices demanded. These different types have different impacts and trade-offs regarding theenvironment and natural resources. Coastal zones are examples where one type of tourism for masses
can undermine the potential for other types (e.g. ecotourism). The demands of the tourism industry are
not necessarily compatible with the values of local residents. In landscape management, maintenance68

of esthetic values tends to have a low priority as there is no legal basis for compensation of damages
incurred by activities or investments dependent on them (Thomas 2005).
The Government's policy on tourism for the past years has been gearing towards more and moresustainable tourism development with emphasis on community participation, safety of tourists andnon-exploitation. One of the fastest growing sectors of the tourism industry is that of ‘eco-tourism’
whereby tourists visit undisturbed natural areas to experience spectacular scenery and view wildlife.
The term eco-tourism has been widely used to describe a form of tourism in natural areas that is basedon the knowledge about and responsibility towards the ecological system of the area. At present, thenumber of real eco-tourism visitors is, however, still minimal. Mostly, those tourists are included inother types of tourism such as nature-based tourism, agro-tourism, cultural and historical tourism andhealth tourism. Most of such tourism areas are in natural parks and specific historical-cultural areas.
The national parks system in Thailand has as growing importance to the eco-tourism industry. With
most parks easily accessible by road, there exists excellent potential to expand the number of visitors
who use them. In the case of the Mekong River, the nature-based tourism potential particularly applies
to Northeast Thailand, an area that Thailand Tourism Authority (TAT) has identified as a priority fortourism development. The national parks in close proximity to the Mekong River include sites ofprehistoric, archaeological and natural significance. As the Mekong region increases in its exposure
and popularity, these parks are expected to experience an increased number of visitors.
The composition of tourism attractions is being diversified. About two-thirds of all domestic tourists
are engaged in varying forms of ecotourism (nature study, exploring, camping, trekking, rafting, etc),
compared with slightly more than a quarter of foreign tourists (TISTR 1997). In general, Thai visitors
are reputed to be more interested in sightseeing and picnicking, while foreigners appear to focus
attention on nature.
The potential of the protected areas in ecotourism has been recognized in Thailand. Ecotourism
projects have been implemented since the late 1990s in several national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.
These projects have also tried to involve local people (Pragtong 1999). However, both social andecological problems tend to appear when increasing numbers of people visit protected areas; shortageof staff, for example, makes control difficult (National Park Office 2004, cited in Hares 2006).
Nevertheless, tourism, together with the availability of economic assistance, has encouraged theenlargement of protected areas (Sato 2003). The presence of local people can add value to theecotourism products through the cultural aspects of ethnic groups. In particular, the traditional culturesof ethnic groups are expected to play an increasingly important role in tourism development.
To develop such cultural or rural tourism as a complementary line of ecotourism requires that there are
adequate services of accommodation and catering in place. One-day tours in villages tend to leavebehind more impacts and less income for local people than visits which involve overnight stay,trekking in the surrounding area, etc.
Problems or obstacles to developing ecotourism include the following (cf. Clarke n.d.).
A danger that the policy outlined above will not be implemented in full resulting in erosion of culturaland natural resources in protected areas and elsewhere, to the extent that biodiversity, heritage, scenic
values, and eventually their tourism potential, are lost. The challenge is how to resolve conflicts
between conserving Thailand's natural and cultural resources while at the same time promoting
tourism based upon those resources. Heritage conservation and social impact management are also
recognized as one of the key action areas of the Greater Mekong tourism development strategy (ADB
2005).
A tendency to focus management strategies on satisfying tourist demands rather than safeguarding theresources upon which tourism potential is based.
- Although there are about 2000 authorized tour operators and over 10,000 authorized guides, they
are mostly geared to cater for the needs of general tourism. In particular, there is a shortage ofwell-informed guides who have a sound basic appreciation of nature and wild lands.

69-

Ill-behaved tourists who deposit litter, pollute protected areas, show disrespect for local culturalvalues, act in an uncouth manner and resist attempts by tour operators or guides to moderate their
behavior.

-

Community participation in protected area management is virtually non-existent. At present local
communities derive little benefit from nearby protected areas.

-

Mistrust and unwillingness to co-operate still exists on the part of DNP personnel, local
administrative bodies, local communities and local entrepreneurs.

Assessment
1.
2.

3.

There appears to be no specific ecotourism development strategy which could guide local
communities and the private sector to enhance the contribution of the natural heritages and local
communities to sustainable tourism development in Thailand.
The Mekong subregional tourism strategy has identified three border areas as potential focal
zones for future tourism development: west (Andaman), east (the Eastern Forest Complex) andthe Northern area. In these zones cultural and natural heritage conservation needs to beconsidered among strategic goals.
Ecotourism should be adapted as one of the strategic elements of the development of nationalparks and other priority areas. It will be appropriate to integrate relevant provisions for
ecotourism into management plans and to develop mechanisms to involve local people inecotourism activities as a source of income.

8.

EFFECTIVENESS OF PUBLIC POLICIES

8.1

Combating Deforestation and Poverty Alleviation

The land-use process in Thailand is closely associated with population density, biophysical conditions
and socio-political factors. Population creates the pressure on the natural resources andcommercialization of agriculture brings the economic incentive for land use change which takes place
within the bio-physical constraints (terrain, soil, rainfall, etc.). The deforestation process varies
between regions, watersheds and cultural backgrounds of the people. However, the following
description referring to the Northeast region can serve as a typical example. The example is also
important as the region houses one third of Thailand’s population and land area, and it is a region
where deforestation has already progressed relatively far as forest covers only 15% of the total landarea whereas the share was originally 90%.
Land was first transformed from forest to cultivated fields by pioneering farmers. In the earlysubsistence stage (i.e. until the 1950s), land transformation did not lead to dramatic forest loss at any
scale. Only after the integration with the market economy, cash crops were increasingly cultivated andforest loss started to accelerate. Transformation began in the lowlands and worked its way upward to
the uplands. The lowland was changed into paddy fields. Upland cultivation was originally for
subsistence but, as population increased, paddy fields were expanded to more marginal lands withlower productivity. Cash crop cultivation spread also to upland cultivation, which involved the use offertilizers, insecticides and pesticides. When the land could no more support the ever-increasing
population, the migration flow changed outwards. Groups with little or no land left to seek for new
areas and sometimes had to travel up to 50 to 100 km before a suitable location could be found tosettle down. These land ”pioneers” started with subsistence production but as soon as they got
connected to the road network cash crops were introduced. The emerging agro-industries provided a
ready market for products together with domestic and export outlets for basic commodities (Dixon
1978, Fukui et al. 2000, Thomas 1998, Vityakon et al. 2004).
The available data on the deforestation in Thailand suggests that the rate is not declining and continues
at the level which cannot be ignored (see ch. 2.3). Deforestation is concentrated in the forest margin or
agricultural frontier. There is also deforestation inside the larger forest areas which is different innature, permanence and degree of environmental impacts. The two types of deforestation are also

70

associated with different socio-economic dynamics; the first one is driven by economic gains and thesecond more associated with the livelihoods of the poor. In the latter case communities are remote,they often still have extensive forests around them, population density is low but poverty levels arehigh while subsistence economy prevails. This traditional situation among the hill tribes in the Northhas, however, been changing when immigration from neighboring countries has changed population
dynamics.
Several reasons could have led to a reduction in the deforestation rate in Thailand:---

The logging ban has limited the opening up of new areas for encroachment through new forest
roads; the experience in Thailand and other countries suggests that the road access has probably
been one of the most significant drivers for deforestation (Geist & Lambin 2001; Kaimowitz &Angelsen 1998).
Rising off-farm income increases the opportunity cost and availability of labor for land conversion
and low productive agriculture; the off-farm employment is being generated in tourism andassociated commercial and industrial activities which are driving urbanization in many strategic
valley locations, particularly in the North region (Thomas 2005)
Control of the land conversion and illegal logging has improved in all natural forests (see chapter
8.2). This improvement has been observed both in forest reserves and protected areas and the
expansion of national parks may have brought more resources for field-level control.
The expansion of the farmholding land appears to have slowed down as well as the area undercultivation of major crops (Annexes 16 and 17).

In spite of these trends, deforestation in Thailand continues for a number of reasons:
-

-

-

-

-

Rural roads are one of the main instruments to help isolated communities reduce poverty throughcutting the transportation cost of inputs and products to the markets, and facilitating access to offfarm income. However, when immigration is possible (be it legal or unregulated as is the case inmany communities in the North region), improvement of the rural road network through public
investment is likely to attract new settlers increasing pressure on forests.
Successful program to reduce opium crop cultivation has brought new cash crops to areas whichwere earlier outside the reach of commercial agricultural production.
Immigrant communities along the border areas represent an increasing pressure on the natural
resources as alternative livelihood means are limited. Some groups are used to move around inaccessible areas utilizing slash-and burn agriculture not necessarily having an intention of settling
down due to lack of tenure resulting in a periodic process of moving to new areas. Villages in the
North region have experienced groups spinning off when the pressure on land could no more be
coped with. These shifting cultivators are difficult to reach by authorities, as there is rarely a roadaccess to areas where they are residing.
Public land allocation policies transfer land to private individuals for crop cultivation. These land
allocation programs are targeted at expanding the area under cultivation for oil palm, rubber, sugar
cane and other crops, particularly in the Northeast region. The only land available for such an
expansion is forest which is often fragmented or otherwise degraded. These programs may besocially and economically justified but they lack consideration of the environmental values which
are lost when the forest cover is removed. Part of the land conversion is assumed to be financed bywealthy interests. Agricultural subsidies reduce production costs and make land conversion
artificially attractive. This may not be sustainable if there is a policy change and subsidies are
discontinued and land is ”returned” to forestry requiring major rehabilitation investment.
High prices of some crops have provided a strong incentive for expansion of cultivation areas; e.g.
the rubber price has doubled during in 2000-2004 (see ch. 5.1.2). This effect was found even in
Thailand’s mangrove forests where high shrimp prices have promoted deforestation (Barbier &Cox 2004).
Labor shortage in central and southern Thailand is already influencing many economic activities
in rural areas and, as a result, wages have increased. Off-farm income is also reported to be
increasingly common in other parts of Thailand even though labor shortages are not yet
experienced. It has been argued that higher wages can lead farmers to substitute labor for land
which could accelerate deforestation (Barbier & Cox 2004). On the other hand, higher off-farm71

wages increase opportunity cost of subsistence farming. While increasing off-farm income
undoubtedly reduces poverty, its impact on deforestation in the Thai context can be mixed.
The factors influencing deforestation described above are a cause of concern because the removal offorest cover tends to take place in uplands and can thereby adversely influence the protection of water
catchment areas. There have already been serious conflicts over water between the hill population andlowlanders. There is a general view that lowland paddy fields experience no or limited degradation ofsoil or nutrients (compared to forestland) but they depend on the receipt of deposits of nutrient andorganic materials eroded from the uplands. Degradation of uplands contributes to aggradation of thelowlands. This general view prevails in spite of the fact that the scientific evidence on the interaction
between water run-off and forest cover is mixed (Bruijnzeel 2004).
The biophysical factors also influence the deforestation process. High rainfall (more than 2,000 mm)
makes it difficult to grow many crops. Hilliness is another factor as slopes are difficult, often
impossible to cultivate. As a result, deforestation tends to take place on better soils where biodiversity
values can be high. It is generally recognized that permanent land conversion has more significant
impact on the forest cover than shifting cultivation where fallow periods allow restoration of landfertility and help maintenance of biodiversity. This is demonstrated in many upland areas where
shifting cultivation has been replaced by permanent intensive cash crop cultivation.
The role of tenure in deforestation has been explored in many studies and in general it is assumed thatlack of established tenure tends to promote deforestation. This may be not always the case in Thailand.
It has been observed that forest dwelling communities, having been under pressure from thegovernment policies already for years, have taken action to effectively conserve forests in theirsurroundings to demonstrate to the authorities that they are capable for sustainable land management.
Such village-level collective decisions and internal control are assumed to be motivated by the fact
that, through demonstration of good land stewardship, communities will in due course gain formal
tenure for their forests (e.g. Hares 2006).
The assumed link between forest destruction due to illegal logging and landslides and flooding was thereason why the Thai Government took the radical move in 1989 to ban all logging in natural forests50.
The scientific evidence of this link suggests, however, a more complex relationship where local factors
are important. There is little doubt that trees affect run-off and infiltration.
In Thailand a substantial body of research has been accumulated by the work of ICRAF which clearly
articulates for a watershed or landscape-based approach to develop a combination of sustainable landuse systems (Thomas et al. 2004). However, the popular belief among many environmentalists andforesters in Thailand appears to be that rainforests cause increased rainfall even though the scientificevidence rather suggests that these forests exist because of high rainfall (Bruijnzeel 2004).
Nevertheless, there is a common view that headwater conservation is important for reducing damage
caused by flash floods and landslides, and mitigating dry season water shortages both for urban andvillage communities and agriculture. The quality concerns related to water supply are linked withpesticides and insecticides used in cash crop cultivation and varying rate of sediment in the surface
water.
The popular perception in Thai society appears to be that deforestation and forest degradation are
currently mainly due to highlanders, most of whom are living in long-established communities whichwere originally reserved forests, presently often declared as protected areas. These areas have been
also subject to migration pressure and it is precisely due to lack of established tenure that local
communities have not been able to effectively control the inroads of external people in their traditionallands. This process was also in a way a by-product of opium substitution program and stronger control
of national security which as by-products opened large areas for immigration pressure.
While in mountain areas a lot of attention has been given to measures to stop deforestation, lessemphasis appears to have gone to improving the sustainable management of lowlands which suffer
50

The most recent catastrophe causing 100 dead and large areas flooded took place in May 2006 in fiveprovinces of the North region.
72

from inadequate urban planning, weak administration of fluvial systems, environmentally sensitive
water engineering projects, inappropriate development of flood plain areas, etc. Unsustainable lowland
management often exacerbates the impacts of upstream land-use changes, particularly due to natural
hazards. The result is that, in the media, the extent of disasters is easy to link with deforestation eventhough the impact might often be marginal at best.
Assessment
1.

The Government policy on combating deforestation has been focused on measures to maintain
forest cover through rehabilitation of degraded areas and reintroducing trees to deforested
marginal lands. This costly approach (repair rather than prevent) has not ensured the halt of
deforestation. Policies have not adequately addressed rural poverty as a root cause of
deforestation.

2.

Lack of established tenure as a reason for deforestation is widely recognized and, in addition to
the Government, many actors have taken action to improve the situation. This has resulted in a
multitude of programs and projects with well- intentioned objectives to improve people’s wellbeing but the fundamental issue of lack of formal recognition of land and use rights has not beenaddressed. This has probably marginalized the effectiveness of other efforts or limited theirimpact on project sites only.

3.

Expansion of commercial monocultures of agricultural crops in uplands promoted by public
policies is, together with associated land allocation programs, probably one of the mostsignificant threats to the remaining forests in Thailand. As land is getting increasingly scarce (atleast in the lowlands), agricultural intensification is inevitable. Reversion to polycultural
agricultural systems, especially those with tree components that mimic the natural systems is
one possibility. Such systems could represent greater self-reliance depending less on external
inputs (Vityakorn et al. 2004). These integrated farming systems which are characterized byintercropping could offer an economically feasible option for small-scale Thai farmers (theaverage size of their holdings vary in the range of 2 to 4 ha). As long as on-farm labor isavailable and its opportunity cost is not too high, these systems represent a strategic option forsustainable natural resource management.

4.

Impacts on forests of the policies of agriculture and other related sectors have not been duly
recognized resulting in inconsistencies and policy conflicts which make the Government’s effort
to curb deforestation ineffective. There is a particular need to introduce forest impact safeguards
in the design of future road, infrastructure and urban/tourism development projects in Thailand
as they play a critical role in opening up access to encroachers facilitating commercialization of
the agricultural production in frontier areas.

8.2

Illegal Logging and Logging Ban

8.2.1

Illegal Forest Operations

There is a wealth of anecdotal information on the volume of illegal logging in Thailand, mostly
referring to the 1990s (e.g. Lakanavichian 2000). The only official data available refers to confiscatedtimber (see ch. 6.1). The evolution of illegal logging since the logging ban in 1989 has gone throughseveral steps (Box 8.1). The ban has resulted in an ever-increasing creativity in finding new ways tobring teak to the market. The various forms of illegal operations since 1989 can be summarized asfollows (FER 2005):(a)Nationalization of the logs through ”Burmese dressing” as explained in Box 8.1. This also
involves imports of small amounts of processed timber from neighboring countries (including
Laos and Cambodia) in small lots without customs clearance as allowed by law. Pick-up trucks
and motorcycles are used and operations may engage large numbers of people (”ant armies”).

(b)

Log laundering. All confiscated illegally cut logs were sold exclusively to FIO, which auctioned
the logs often in pre-arranged deals. This is no more possible with the present management of
FIO.

73

Box 8.1

Evolution of the Illegal Logging in Thailand

After the logging ban, the Thai Government negotiated with the Myanmar government for 18 large Thaicompanies to operate on the Burmese side along the borderline between the two countries. This was a win-win
project for Myanmar government as (i) the logging roads would open up the accessibility to the area which was
occupied by the minority ethnic groups (the Karen, Tai Yai, Kachin and Mon) while the possibility to control thesensitive area was facilitated by large scale removal of protecting forest cover, and (ii) it generated revenue for
the Myanmar government.
On the other hand, the minority group, in the new situation needed more powerful weapons than in the past andfor them it was logical to get involved in the logging activity to earn necessary cash. This was against theircultural values but they had limited options, as their earlier less intensive logging operations in the zone were no
more sufficient for ensuring the livelihood of the communities.
In the first phase logging started in an intensive way on the Myanmar side and both large and small-sized trees ofcommercial species were harvested and transported to the Thai side as fast a possible to fill the vacuum which
was left by the abrupt disruption of the log supply to the sawmills and plywood and veneer plants. The width of
the border zone subject to exploitation was reported to be 100 km during just four years from 1988 to 1992. The
result was so devastating that the Myanmar government gradually cancelled by 1995 all the Thai logging
licences. In the Mae Hong Son border alone a total of 743,000 m3 of logs were imported in 1989-1994 according
to the customs statistics but the real volume is likely to be larger.
In this new situation, logging moved to the Thai side and logs were first hauled and floated over the border riverto Myanmar side. Certificates of origin were obtained by inappropriate means and thereafter the logs were
imported to Thailand as “legal” timber.
The following parties were involved in the operations: (i) local villagers who had little other option than to workas paid labor in the operations, often under pressure from influential operators, (ii) minority group immigrants
from Myanmar who were economically and socially even more vulnerable than local villagers, (iii) local
influential groups (retired police officers, sub-district chiefs, village headmen and local politicians), (iv) log
trading companies and the wood processing industry, (v) dominant regional businessmen who had a direct
economic interest, (vi) state officials from several ministries and agencies (including Forest Industry
Organization) who were attracted by bribes and pressed if they did not accept bribes, and (vii) politicians wholaid down the policies for log imports.
Some logs were necessarily confiscated by the authorities. These logs were then auctioned by FIO but auctioning
was typically arranged between log traders and industry so that each party could recover their investment inhauling the illegal logs to the border. After the logging ban the volume of confiscated logs in Mae Hong Son
started to increase and reached almost 9,000 m3 in 2000. Since then there was a drop in teak logs suggesting
reduced availability but the volume of other species started to increase.
The border trade became more complex as the easily accessible river zone had been depleted. It continued
however, and instead of importing the Thai timber back as logs, it was processed on the Myanmar side.
Processed products did not in the beginning require certificate of origin and therefore they were easily exported
back to Thailand. Subsequently, the requirement on the Certificate of Origin for processed products was issued.
Source: FER 2005(c)

Inflicting premature death on the trees (by girdling and chemical treatment) so that, when dead,they could be harvested by FIO. This method may still be applied on a limited scale.

(d)Re-launching of logs from adjacent areas. Originally this was practiced in concession areas but
more recently in areas which were cleared for dams or irrigation infrastructure. The actual log
removals were often many times larger than the authorized volume of the timber in the project
area.

(e)

Recycling of permits, i.e. using legal documents several times(f)Recycling of confiscated logs: An example is the Sahanawakit sawmill in Tak province which
had used a long-standing confiscated log storage as an intermediate stock for their raw material.
New illegal logs were replenished to the storage area while older logs were transported to thesawmill for processing avoiding any control.

(g)Transformation of logs for ”subsistence” consumption into instruments or rough houses whichwere thereafter dismantled and sold to the market. This practice was encouraged by timber
buyers who also offered to buy existing old houses often built with large-dimension teakwood.

74

(h)

Illegal logging by small chainsaw teams which break down the logs in the forest into roughplanks of short lengths which are then transported to the market under cover avoiding control.

The volume of confiscated timber is presently very low, only about 10,000 m3/year. About 20% of theconfiscated timber was destined for domestic use and 80% for commercial use. Illegal activities are
said to mostly occur in the North and Northeast regions. However, in 2004 timber was confiscated inonly two provinces (in Kamphaeng Phet, Northern region and in Prachuap Khiri Khan, Central region)(RFD 2004b). This raises the question of whether the control is effective where the problem is serious.
According to the authorities and NGOs which were interviewed by the Mission, illegal logging whichin the past was carried out on a large scale has become a small-scale activity by small groups, often
linked with timber buyers. Logging is typically carried out by 5-6 -man teams. Logs are broken down
into short planks in the forest with chainsaws and the products are manually or by animals carried to
the roadside where transportation is under cover by pick-ups, small trucks or even motorbikes.
Environmental damage of such operations is mainly related to over harvesting of teak as loggers go forindividual good trees. A lot of waste is generated as sawing of planks is by chainsaws. Sawyers canearn US$ 12.50/day, i.e. three times more than minimum daily wage paid in rural areas (US$ 3.75 to
4.50/day). There is a strong economic incentive for engaging in such activities, which is due to thevery high value of teakwood and its ready markets in Thailand.
There is unrecorded trade between Thailand and neighboring countries. A lot of wood is imported insmall lots using pick-up trucks, agricultural tractors and even motorbikes. Individuals can import
goods free with a value less than US$ 500 provided it is not intended for commercial purposes. There
are a very large number of people who are involved in this kind of activity around the border posts
with Myanmar and Laos. Thailand has only 27 border posts with its neighboring countries.
A certificate of origin (CO) is presently required from Myanmar for logs and sawnwood. According to
the Thai Customs, a CO is difficult to forge This requirement was imposed on natural teak imports asa significant part of it was in the past in reality illegally harvested in Thailand. With the introductionof CO requirement, a better control was attempted. In the past, processing was done into roughsawnwood but because of labor cost differences between the two countries and problems ofavailability of manpower in Thailand, the trade has moved to further processed products such as precut
furniture components. However, often such a processed product that may be declared as window
frame component is in fact rough sawnwood. For sawnwood classified as processed wood, a 20%
import duty has to be paid which importers consider an acceptable cost for legalizing timber (further
processed products can be transported without permit in Thailand). This shows that the transaction
cost of illegal operations and the risk of being caught have become so high that a 20% import duty ismore economical for traders compared to the costs of organizing in-country illegal logging andtransportation. In the case of imports from Laos and Cambodia no CO is required as the teak from
Laos is reported to come entirely from plantations and Cambodia has no teak exports to Thailand.
Since the border control has improved and illegal logging and smuggling of logs to Myanmar havebecome more difficult, overharvesting is believed to spread now on the other side of the border to feed
the Thai (and Chinese) markets. In March 2006, the Government of Myanmar requested the Chinese
Government to stop all imports of timber products through the borderpost in Yunnan. On June 3,
2006, the Myanmar authorities imposed a ban on all exports of timber through the Three Pagodas Pass
which is the main entry point of timber exports to Thailand. The ban is planned to be extended to all
the other border posts with Thailand soon. There are at least 80 furniture factories in and around theThree Pagodas feeding mainly the Thai market and these operations will have to be closed down due
to the export ban. These extreme measures have become necessary to bring all the land-based tradewith Thailand and China and associated illegal harvesting in Myanmar under control (ITTO 2006b). It
is possible that the closing up of the Myanmar border for timber imports will give a boost to expand
illegal harvesting of teak in Thailand due to strong market pull.

75

8.2.2Control

For transportation of round logs and sawn timber a licence (moval pass) has to be obtained from RFD.
This regulation is also extended to imported products. In further processed products, a licence is notneeded. The arrangement appears to be working effectively even though it may also serve as anincentive for corruptive practices. There are also some anomalies; timber imported through Bangkok
port and processed in a mill in the Bangkok area also needs a transportation licence. The private sector
claims that this is negatively influencing their competitiveness due to slow bureaucracy and associatedcosts of obtaining the transportation permit It is also claimed that some Thai mills have been relocatedin China or other countries due to this regulation. The private sector sees free trade and illegal logging
as different issues; as the Thai (non-rubberwood based) sawmilling industry will have to operate
mainly based on imported logs for several years to come, trade should be facilitated due to the weakcompetitiveness of the local production. The (organized) private sector does not see illegal logging
presently a problem in Thailand as domestic natural teak is no more available to the market.
Underpricing, downgrading the product in documents, and incorrect volume measurement can beapplied, as these practices are difficult to control. Planed sawnwood is classified as rough sawnwood
to pay lower import duties. “Rough houses” (structures made of rough sawn planks) are being built invillages with timber which was supposed to be used for domestic consumption. However, after three
years the owner is entitled to sell the timber in the open market. All these different forms of working
outside or on the margin of regulations are difficult to control and put a major burden on the forest
administration, the customs authorities and other parties involved in the control of illegal forest-related
activities.
Several authorities are involved in the control operations: RFD, border police, the customs, and thearmy. RFD has 195 control units (excluding protected areas, which have their own patrols) in 75
provinces involving 650 officers and 1500 rangers and other employees. There are regional control
stations and check points are operated in critical locations. DNP has even larger staff numbers
involved in patrolling protected areas.
The effectiveness of control has greatly improved when the system was changed to involve people’s
participation. RFD has a hot line where information can be given and the informant may remain
anonymous if s/he so desires. The fine is shared between the informant (50%), forest officer (25%)
and the Treasury (25%). The economic incentive has been instrumental in increasing the effectivenessof control. About 3,000 calls are received per year through the hot line of which about 70% lead toinvestigation. Court cases take about one year but there is not reported to be a large backlog of cases.
People’s participation is particularly important for the control of encroachment. However, moreresources are needed to strengthen mobile units for communication and remote sensing data on theforest cover to monitor encroachment.
The authorities admit that corruption can be a problem but its importance is difficult to quantify. As
many authorities are involved in control from central and local government agencies, the cost ofcorruption becomes easily prohibitive if the volumes are small. The stakeholder groups interviewed by
the Mission no longer perceived illegal logging as the significant large-scale problem it used to beduring the early years after the establishment of the logging ban. On the other hand, traders havebecome more and more sophisticated when controls have improved but at the same time illegal
volumes are generally thought to have been significantly reduced.
Assessment
1.

The logging ban provoked a surge in illegal operations which has since then been contained bytightening control. The ban was a shock treatment; it was not preceded by any planning or
preparation to allow the industry to adjust itself, and there has never been any post-ban
implementation legislation. The only apparent adjustment in Thailand was to demarcate more
protected areas and to strengthen law enforcement which did nothing for the market for wood.
Many negative impacts could have been avoided, had the policy been applied by stages (seealso Brown et al. 2001). The problem was in a way sent to Myanmar.

76

2.

The logging ban has had mixed effects. If the primary cause of deforestation and forest
degradation is agriculture, rather than industrial forestry, a logging ban can be only of limited
use in controlling degradation. On the other hand, had the logging ban not been implemented,
conservation efforts may have proved to be less effective than at present. Social impacts havealso been mixed: employment and income were lost in rural areas but improved environmental
quality has also brought some social benefits. In the short and medium run many rural
households were put into a difficult situation. Also Thailand’s elephant population fell into
serious problems when it became effectively unemployed (see ch. 9.4).

3.

Thailand has been unable to cope with the imbalance of timber and wood product imports andexports. In economic terms, forestry and the forest product industry have reduced production
foregoing considerable income. Markets responded with higher prices, which led to increased
imports and additional expenditure of foreign exchange. In the 1990s shortages and higher
prices also caused the private sector and involved parties to increase illegal harvesting which
has been difficult to bring under control (cf. Lakanavichian 2001).

4.

A logging ban does not work alone but needs supporting and complementary measures (Brown
et al. 2001). In the Thai case, these measures came late, were inadequate and did not have thedesired impact. The purpose of the Reforestation Campaign of 1994-1996 was, inter alia, tooffset the impacts of the ban but production from these plantations started only around 2000 andit was in pulpwood, not sawlogs which was the market affected by the ban.

5.

Since the late 1990s, extensive media coverage, international concerns and export market
requirements have been important in bringing illegal logging largely under control in Thailand.

6.

There is still concern on cross-border impacts of forest destruction and degradation. Due to thehigh demand, particularly for teak, which cannot be legally supplied from domestic sources, thequestion is how these demands are being met by importing timber from neighboring countries.
Since the transparency of the market is not adequate, there is great apprehension of some illegal
logging in the neighboring countries, especially those have large forest areas near the Thaiborders. There is a need to continue cooperative efforts with Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos inorder to avoid negative impacts of the Thai imports in those countries. Improved market
transparency is important in this cooperation.

7.

People’s participation can make enforcement effective. Even the fairly large enforcement staffof RFD and DNP only have a fairly limited effect on controlling illegalities.

8.

As a whole, the main lessons to be learned from the Thai logging ban can be summarized asfollows: (i) adequate analysis of options to achieve the attempted objectives and their impacts
should be done beforehand; (ii) the preparatory process should be participatory where all thelegitimate interests should be considered, (iii) lead time should be allowed for economic
operators to adjust their activities, (iv) adverse impacts on disadvantaged groups should be
mitigated as far as possible, and (v) adequate support and complementary measures should betaken.

9.

The logging ban will greatly limit the economic opportunities offered by community forestry
development. In due course, options should be considered how the logging ban could be
adjusted to allow sustainable community-based timber production to enter the domestic market(e.g. by applying forest certification or other independent auditing as a validation instrument).

8.3 Financing and Other Incentives
Besides creating awareness and proper legal framework, financing plays a crucial role in forestry. To
meet the domestic demand for industrial wood, fuelwood, fodder, fruits and fibre etc., plantation
development is inevitable. The required heavy investment cannot be borne by small farmers. The
Government has provided some incentives through the programs like Private Treefarm Promotion
Plantation which also involved subsidies (see ch. 5.2).
The Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (BAAC) was founded in 1966 as the funding
source for farmers and farmers’ institutions as investments in their agricultural or related activities.
BAAC is now the largest macro credit provider in Thailand for all farming purposes. It also provides
77

first step and second step loans to agricultural co-operatives. The annual credit volume is US$ 8billion
for farming activities and US$ 2 billion for non-farming activities.
BAAC is also involved in the protection of forests by encouraging people to plant trees on a large
scale, making it a movement. There are 5.2 million farm families which BAAC has started to engage
through training and other awareness programs to have at least 9 planted trees/family/year. The
number 9 has been chosen as the present King is the 9th king of Thailand.
BAAC has a credit scheme for plantation of rubber, eucalyptus, bamboo and other trees. It does notlend to farmers who cut the trees. Credit covers only part of the costs as it is feared that if more money
is given, it will create avarice in the minds of the people which will lead to cutting of more trees. The
credit scheme is a 10-year plan for provision of long-term loans up to 20 years. It is difficult to
identify the right farmers for lending but BAAC is taking necessary steps to ensure that the credit is
not used for other purposes. BAAC is also making necessary advertisements in television and othermedia against cutting of trees and contributing significantly towards the social and environmental
goals. BAAC’s approach is not economic and does not take into account that planted trees will have tobe harvested one day anyway.
Many other agencies like Electricity Generating Private Limited are also joining hands with BAAC inthis context to communicate to farmers not to destroy forests. Farmers are encouraged to carry out
afforestation and reforestation by provision of free seedlings from departments whereas the necessary
initial expenditure can be borne with the help of the loan provided by BAAC.
The annual budget for forestry sector credits is US$ 100 million. The funds allocated for training andcapacity building (direct and indirect) is US$ 2.5 million. The loan is provided to the farmers at aninterest rate of 7 per cent for 10 to 25 years. The repayment capacity of the farmers is good as nonperforming loans to tree planting represent only 4% of the portfolio. The grace period for the
repayment is 3 to 5 years.
BAAC is also helping the farmers in the production of handicrafts made from bamboo, cane etc. It is
playing a significant role in the capacity building of the farmers and the workers in the field of dyes
made from silk, baskets, etc. from bamboo. BAAC recognizes that the handicrafts which are difficult
to make are easy to sell and generate good profit, but if the products are easy to make, they become
difficult to sell.
Assessment
1.

There must be proper access to credit facilities. Lending to forestry activities is more costly thanfor agricultural activities. Small farmers cannot invest large sums of money in raisingplantations unless they are financially supported. BAAC is no doubt doing a valuable work
which must be promoted to reach increasing numbers of small farmers in the country.

2.

There is a need to strengthen training and extension activities in the field of private forestry to
motivate people for afforestation and other forestry activities. Moreover, incentives and supply
activities must be encouraged.

3.

Subsidy makes the farmer more dependent and less focused than credit. The farmers should
become self-reliant but lending, training and facilities are necessary to achieve this goal.

4.

There is a need to strengthen the perception among BAAC and other support agencies
concerning the planting as an economic activity which should be financially viable and capable
for repayment of the credit.

5.

BAAC should also look into modalities for lending to community forestry.

6.

Short-rotation plantations for timber production could be an attractive target for financing
institutions and they do not need to be subsidized.

78

9.

INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY

9.1

Development of Forest Policy

9.1.1

Past Policy Decelopment

Before 1985 the forest policy was expressed primarily through subsequent pieces of legislation (Box
9.1, see also ch. 2.2.2). In the first phase forests were brought under state ownership and management.
The legal status of the permanent forest estate was established either as protected areas or forest
reserves. In the latter phase, concessions were given to private operators and the state-owned FIO
which were subsequently cancelled when the logging ban was instituted.
As part of the policy implementation the institutional structure was built up and adjusted, and various
government programs were implemented. The evolution of the related legislation on land andpromotion of agriculture also had an impact on forest policy implementation. (Box 9.1)
A National Forest Policy was drawn up and adopted by cabinet in 1985 in an attempt to consolidate
sectoral policy in the country and to place forestry within the context of overall national development(Box 9.2). The process of preparing the policy was thorough and detailed, with extensive public
hearings and input. Reforestation and afforestation were seen as important strategies to supply future
wood demand in the country. The private sector was to become involved in tree planting and, in
addition to meeting domestic demand, export supply was also foreseen. The Policy identified the needfor partnerships between the public and (commercial) private sectors. Short, medium and long-termplans were mandated for development of forest lands and the forest industry. Forest laws andregulations were to be thoroughly reviewed and revised and RFD was directed to encourage local
community participation and to cooperate closely with the private sector. The Policy urged allcomponents of government and society to collaborate with RFD in defining and maintaining a forest
resource base which can support the needs of society (Pragtong & Thomas 1990). However, the Policy
was silent about the root causes of deforestation and poverty reduction in forest areas and it did not
explicitly involve rural people.
The Forest Policy was not successful in addressing the root causes of deforestation (which are largely
outside the sector), the growing imbalance in the demand and supply of industrial wood andwoodfuels, illegal operations in forest harvesting, and livelihoods of people who were living in andaround forest areas, often without proper permit or tenure rights. As a result, the process ofdegradation has continued. In the late 1980s this led to so serious consequences that a logging ban innatural forests as a drastic measure was introduced. The focus of the forest policy shifted thereafter
towards an emphasis on conservation which still continues as reflected in the forest area targets for
production and conservation. The usefulness of such a target can, however, be questioned, particularly
as it is has not been achieved after more than 40 years of application (Box 9.3).
With the shift of the emphasis in the forest policy towards conservation, the production aspects havebeen set aside. Pragtong & Thomas (1990) raised three key issues in this respect which still remain to
be clarified: (1) to what extent should economic forests emphasize natural forest management or
intensive tree plantations; (2) to what extent should public forest lands be privatized; and (3) whatscale of management units should be emphasized in private-sector collaboration.

79

Box 9.1

Key Milestones of the Thai Forest Policy

Year

Policy measure

Mid-19th
century
1874-

Early 1890’s

-

1896

-

1897
Late 1890s

-

1901

-

1913
1932
1938
1941

-

-

1945

-

1954

-

1960
1961

-

1962
1964

-

Late 1960s

-

1974
1975

-

1983
1985

-

1989

-

Commercial forestry with exploitation of teak started and expanded with road network under thepartnerships of princely states and British foresters in Burma.
Proclamation of the monarchy’s legal ownership of all land.
Royal order was issued to collect tax on the export of timber;
Legislation enacted to require government approval of any contracts between foreigners and northernlords prohibiting overlapping concessions.
Establishment of the Royal Forestry Department and termination of northern lords’ control over forest
resources.
Royal Order was issued to regulate cutting in teak forests.
Enactment of the Forest Protection Act, the Teak Trees Protection Act, a law prohibiting theunauthorized marketing of timber, a law outlawing teak extraction unless duties and royalties were
paid.
Land law of documented individual private ownership, which distinguished factual occupancy (without
legal protection), and ownership (protected). This led to confusion and conflicts.
The Forest Conservation Act was passed during the time of King Rama VI.
Constitution.
Promulgation of the Act for the Protection and Reservation of Forests.
Enactment of the Forest Act. Forest land was defined as ”land which has not been acquired by any
person under the land law. Farming on such land (Pah Sa-nguan) was legal only under authorization by
RFD. This created incentives for entrepreneurs and landless farmers to migrate into previously forested
areas and establish claims.
RFD is placed in the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives.
The Forest Act provided the most comprehensive coverage of forest law. It has been amended several
times, but remains the basis of forest law. It regulates forestry-related activities on all lands that are notunder private ownership and prohibits the felling of certain species of trees whether they are on private
or public lands.
The end of colonial teak era with the termination of concessions to foreigners which were not renewed.
Logging continued under the concession system for national entrepreneurs.
Enactment of Land Code: anyone occupying forest land was eligible to receive a claim certificate (NorSor 1) which could then be upgraded to temporary occupation (Nor Sor 2), a certificate of utilization(Nor Sor 3) or a title deed (Nor Sor 4 or Chanode).
Enactment of Wildlife Reservation and Protection Act.
Government Decree to establish that at least one half of land cover to be permanently retained as publicforest land.
Enactment of National Lands Act
Promulgation of the National Parks Act and establishment of the first National Park (Khao Yai).
Enactment of the National Forest Reserve Act which established gazettement of forest reserves with
the intention of slowing deforestation. A target was established to set aside 50% of the country’s landarea as forest (already defined in the 1961 Government Decree).
Promotion of export oriented cash crop agriculture which led to conversion of degraded concession
areas into farm lands.
Declaration of amnesty for occupants of forest reserves.
Enactment of the Agricultural Land Consolidation Act.
Approval of Plan for the Forest Village Program managed by RFD.
Enactment of the Agricultural Reform Act.
Launching of the National Forest Land Allotment Project which allowed leasing of up to 2.4 ha forthree years without tenurial provisions.
Enactment of the Land Development Act
Adoption of National Forest Policy which reduced the forested area target to 40% (15% protected
forest, 25% economic forest).
RFD was authorized to classify about 20% of the public forest land (Pah Sa-nguan) as non-forest.
Resolution on Watershed and Land.
Five-year Resettlement Program (khor jor kor) allowed commercial reforesting of degraded forest.
Logging ban in natural forests.

80Box 9.1 Key Milestones of the Thai Forest Policy (cont’d)
Year
Policy measure
1991

-

1992

1993
1994
1997

-

2002

-

2005

Eviction of occupants in khor jor kor areas started but led to a moratorium.
7th National Economic and Social Development Plan changed the forest area target of 40% (25%protected forest, 15% economic forest).
Land reform.
Completion of the Forest Master Plan with a focus on rural development and community forestry.
Amendment of Wildlife Reservation and Protection Act.
National Enhancement and Conservation of Environmental Quality Act.
First draft of Community Forestry Bill.
Tambon Administration Organization Act.
New Constitution was adopted with provisions for communal rights in the conservation and use ofnatural resources.
First Policy and Perspective Plan for enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental
Quality (1997-2016) included guidelines for institutional reforms for the management of community
forests, water, biodiversity and protection of watershed; and participation people and community. The
forest cover target was set as 50% (30% conservation and 20% economic forest).
Separation of DNP from RFD.
Establishment of the Ministry Natural Resources and Environment.
Adoption of the 9th NEDP with earlier forest cover targets for production forest (reforestation).
The draft Community Forestry Bill was still discussed in the Parliament in a Joint Committee.

Sources: Sittichai et al. 2006; Rasmussen et al. 2000; Lynch & Talbott. 1995

Box 9.2
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Key Measures of the 1985 National Forest Policy

Promoting shared forest management between the Government and the private sector.
Improving the administration system to make it compatible with the changes in the forest situation.
Specifying the target forest areas at 40% of the country's area (15% conservation forests and 25%
commercial forests).
The Government and the private sector should jointly develop and manage the forest area both for direct
and indirect benefits.
Reducing forest destruction by improving agricultural technology.
Integration of the Forest Development Plan into the National Development Plan.
Accelerating the city planning process and designing forest utilization zones in each province.
Appointing a National Forest Policy Committee under the Forest Act.
Intensification of private forest plantations to meet the needs of forest industries.
Defining 35% slope areas as forest areas.
Creating incentives for private forest plantations.
Planning of human resources development and settlement based on nature conservation basis.

81Box 9.3
-

-

-

-

Forest Cover Percentage as a Policy Goal

The forest cover percentage as the key sectoral goal was introduced in Thailand by a foreign forestry specialist more than 50 years ago. The country’s forest policy has been formulated within the framework of achieving a target percentage of land area to be covered by forests. The original target was 50% and it has sincethen been revised (mostly downwards) several times differentiating the areas reserved for production andprotection forest.
In this way, the forest policy goal was reduced to one single indicator and setting of the targeted values for
economic and protection forest was a reflection of value judgement. It was not based on scientific knowledge
on how much forest would be needed in Thailand for the maintenance of the environmental services of thecountry’s forests, or on assessment of what should the forests’ socio-economic contribution to the nation’s
development be.
The forest cover percentage is a simple indicator which lends itself to straightforward monitoring if necessary
information is available (as has been the case in Thailand). But, it has also shortcomings: (a) it makes implicit
assumptions on the relationship of forest cover and the contribution of forests to environmental conservationand socio-economic development, and (b) the division between protection and economic forest is too
simplified a vision on practical forest management.
The implicit assumption of the past policy is that biodiversity conservation is being addressed by setting
aside a network of different categories of protected areas. As a result, little attention is being paid to addressing biodiversity conservation in other land use categories, including other forests, TOF and other resources.
However, as deforestation and forest degradation continue to erode the biodiversity base of the country, it is
becoming increasingly clear that the protected area system alone will not be sufficient to ensure that biodiversity is adequately conserved. Analyses in many countries have indicated that, while a well-designed
network of protected areas provides the essential backbone of conservation needs, attention should also be
paid to a conservation agenda outside the protected areas (Kanowski et al. 1999). The introduction of biodiversity conservation as an element of rehabilitation activities in production forests is one way of doing this.

9.1.2

Sectoral Planning

In the new situation an attempt was made to revise the Forest Policy in a comprehensive manner. The
Thai Forest Sector Master Plan (FSMP) was prepared in 1992 involving detailed analysis of all the
relevant aspects. Due to weak local capacity in strategic planning, the planning process was largely
driven by outside technical experts. The process and contents were severely criticized by NGOs (bothinside and outside the country) on three basic counts (IUCN 1996): (a) the plan did not pay sufficientattention to broader sectoral issues, (b) the plan was not sufficiently attuned to changing societal
interests in forest management, particularly the shift from an emphasis on exploitation to one onconservation, and (c) the process used to develop policy positions was too technically driven andlacked effective participation of key stakeholders.
A particularly conflictive issue was plantation development as it was felt that it would lead to largescale transfer of land from smallholders to private companies and investors (Carrere & Lohmann1996). In spite of these shortcomings, many of the Plan’s actions were gradually implemented(including the enactment of new legislation).
In April 1997, an improved version of the FSMP was presented for consideration to the National
Forest Policy Committee (NFPC), which agreed in principle and asked RFD to update the Plan
according to the changing situation of the country, including the preparation of an action plan, forapproval by the Cabinet.
The mid-term review of FSMP, supported by FAO, was completed in 2002, stressing the urgent
necessity of a reformulation of the country's forestry sector policy. Major changes had occurred bothin the political and legal framework at the national level and in international initiatives which should
now be taken into account. This recommendation has not yet been implemented but in 2005 aworkshop was organized with FAO’s assistance to encourage the country to launch a national forest
program (NFP) process in Thailand (NFP Facility, 2005).

82

9.1.3

Cross-sectoral Linkages

Macro-economic and other sectoral policies have major direct and indirect impacts on the country´sforests. A comprehensive review was not possible but the Mission has noted the following51:
Land allocation programs. There are still many new and old forest encroachers living on forestlands(including protected areas, national parks and wildlife sanctuaries) who do not want to be relocated to
the new areas. The Government has implemented several land allocation programs and there are also
on-going initiatives. These programs transfer what is presently classified as forest land to other uses.
Most of this land is assumed to be without forest cover.
Agricultural policies. Several programs are underway to expand cultivation of rubber, sugarcane andother cash crops, particularly in the Northeast. New cultivation areas will have to be found in zones
which are presently gazetted as forest reserves. The Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives hasdeveloped nine policies for action which include a policy on resources of forest, soil, water, coastal
area and biodiversity containing for land reform, land management, survey and use of forest resources,
eco-tourism, improvement of agricultural production in irrigated areas, and prevention of pollution.
Rural development policy. Natural forest conservation and protection are included in the constitution
and the rural development policy to maintain and improve the rural environment. At the local level, aforest officer is a member of the drafting committee for the rural development policy to ensure that
forest resource management is incorporated appropriately into rural development programs.
Industrial development policy. The RFD does not permit the establishment of new sawmills.
Gradually, wood-processing enterprises have installed high-efficiency machinery to increase recovery
rates and wood residues are used for reconstituted panels, bioenergy and other purposes (e.g.
rubberwood sawdust as a growing media for mushrooms). Many lesser-known species are being usedas raw material. Even the old stumps of trees in the over logged forests are being used by the furniture
and wood-carving industries.
Infrastructure policy. The Government has strict regulations for controlling construction of dams,
roads, reservoirs, highways, etc. Project plans have to be passed by the national environmental
committee, in which forestry experts are members. Every infrastructure project should minimize
damage to natural forest resources.
Indigenous people. RFD and the Hilltribe Welfare Office of the Public Welfare Department have
implemented a program to settle shifting cultivators in the North region. Permanent villages have been
provided with access roads, schools, health centers and agricultural extension offices. Only part of theneeds can, however, be attended. Permanent agricultural practices with soil conservation techniques
and promising crops have been introduced to support a better living for the settlers, even if somesettlements have failed to meet the targets.
By Ministerial Resolution on 4 April 1985, the Government granted amnesty to all forest encroachers
who had been arrested and prosecuted and allowed them to use the land that they had occupied
formerly; this resulted in extensive forest destruction as there was no evidence to establish the exact
land boundaries. Thousands of new forest encroachers discovered this loophole and joined forces inclearing more forests. There is no reliable data but it is estimated that the forest areas occupied bythese people amount to two million hectares.
Assessment
1.

51

The development of the Thai forest policy has involved rapid changes which have not been
properly prepared. The targets have focused on the forest cover and they have not been achieved
indicating lack of realism. Downward adjustments have contributed to the lack of credibility of
the national goals and the forestry sector as a whole.

The list is largely based on the FAO NFP database (www.fao.org)
83

2.

The 1985 National Forest Policy has been in force for two decades now, but some key issues
still exist. Forest encroachment and poaching continue as root causes have not been properly
addressed. The rural household and industrial wood demands are not being met on a sustainablebasis. More importantly, the long-established conflict over land use of state forest land by local
people remains unresolved.

3.

The use of forest cover as the key sectoral goal has serious limitations even though it is easy tomonitor and communicate. The concepts of protection forest and economic forest represent a
simplified view on sustainable forest management which in practice should involve a continuumof various combinations of protection and economic objectives at the level of stand, forest
management unit and landscape. There is now also a false perception that only planted forests
are economic forests.

4.

It is evident that the top-down government policy to protect and conserve natural forests has
failed to obtain the cooperation from the rural poor who live close to or within the forests. The
policy-makers do not know enough about the lives of forest encroachers who are destitute andhave no rights to the natural resources (cf. Brown et al. 2001).

5.

If the forest policies are not duly incorporated into the national social and economic plan, they
do not endure and their impact is limited. The references to the forest sector in the 9th NESDBP
are general and do not provide sufficient guidance for the Government and stakeholders for thedevelopment of the forest sector.

6.

There is a need to launch a national forest program process involving broad-based participation.
It would offer a major opportunity to advance consensus on key forestry issues which are still
impeding efforts towards SFM. Cross-sectoral linkages should be duly addressed in the NFP.
The launching of the NFP process should be considered a top priority by the Government as amajor tool to clarify the goals of the national forest policy in the present situation and to adjust
the policy instruments for their achievement.

9.2

Public Administration

9.2.1

Organizational Structure

In the Thai public administration forestry, has been the responsibility of the Royal Forestry
Department (RFD) since 1896. The Department was originally an independent unit but since several
decades it has been under the control of various ministries. In 1941 RFD was placed under the
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) as the productive role of forests was emphasized.
In 2002 RFD was transferred to the newly established Ministry of National Resources andEnvironment (MONRE) and it was broken down into two independent departments: RFD and DNP,
while the management of mangrove forests was transferred to the Department of Marine and Coastal
Resources (DMC).
The Government’s policy is to promote decentralization strengthening the line of command from thelevel of provincial governors down to districts and sub-districts (TAOs) (see ch. 9.3). These areelected bodies at four levels (parliament, provincial assembly, TAO and village) which work together
with the line officers of the public administration (Figure 9.1). Specialized agencies have had theirown territorial units but since the establishment of MONRE, RDF staff have been assigned/seconded
to the Ministry’s provincial offices. MONRE had no other field staff in the beginning and forest
officers were also assigned duties related to environmental regulation and natural resource
management. As a result, there are now less human resources for forestry than in the past. The
decentralization process is far from complete and it appears that RFD will have less and less humanresources in the future52. This is a major cause of concern.

52

During the mission, it was learned that about 1,000 RFD staff will be transferred to other administrative
units.
84

Figure 9.1

Institutional Framework of the Forestry Sector

Parliament

Provincial
assembly

PM Office

Governor of
Province

Ministry of
Resources andEnvironment

Other Related
ministries

Provincial Offices
Provincial Forest
Officer

Specialized
agencies
RFD
DNP
DMC

District Officer

TAO
sub-district
organization

Village council

District Forest
Officer

Territorial units

Kamnan (Subdistrict Officer)

Village Leadman

When DNP was separated from RFD, it was given the following main responsibilities: (i) conserve,
protect as ell as maintain forest resources and wildlife in balance for sustainable use of natural
resources to the highest economical and social benefits; (ii) rehabilitate and restore the deteriorated
natural resources and ecosystems in the forest areas; (iii) monitor and prevent forest encroachment andoffences to the forest law, forest reserve law, national park law, wildlife resources and biodiversity;(iv) study, research and develop conservation, management and rehabilitation methodologies of forest,
wildlife resources and biodiversity; (v) establish ways and means as well as standards of conservation,
management and utilization of forest wildlife resources; and (vi) providing information andtechnology transfer service.
RFD was left with regulatory functions outside protected forest areas, promotion of community
forestry and private sector plantations as well as some aspects of forest research including on forest
products (Table 9.1).
The apparent intention of the current arrangement was division of work based on the territorial dutiesof the two departments, i.e. DNP being responsible for protected areas and RFD outside these areas.
This is, however, not reflected in the designated functions and can be interpreted as a misunderstanding of forestry as a functional activity. More specially, the following observations can be made:
-

-

53

there is an element of duplication of activities (planning, administrative and support services)
parallel units for the same functions (control) require coordination which appears to be difficult toorganize in practice53,

Views expressed during field interviews.
85

Table 9.1

Oganizational Structure of RFD and DNP in 2005

Main function

RFD

DNP

Administrative andsupport offices anddivisions

Office secretary
Central administration
Internal auditing
System administrative development

Central administration
Internal auditing
Public service development

Functional offices anddivisions

Planning division
Permission division
Forest management and control officeCommunity forestry management office
Forest plantation promotion office
Forest management and products research
officeCITES division
Planning and coordination office
National parks office
Watershed conservation andmanagement office
Forest protection, suppression and wild
fire control office
Forest and plant conservation research
officeRegional, provincial andlocal level

Territorial mission group at provincial anddistrict levels

Regional conservation management
offices (16)Protected area units

Sources: RFD and DNP-

many of DNP’s functions extend beyond protected areas (watershed conservation, protection, fire
suppression, rehabilitation of degraded areas) which should functionally be RFD’s responsibility,
RFD has no human resources to carry out these tasks in forest reserves even though it has
responsibility for their management,
there appears to be overlap also in research activities,
coordination and cooperation between the two departments at the field level appear to depend on
good personal relationships between responsible staff rather than based on a clear identification ofduties and responsibilities.

As a conclusion, RFD has been marginalized having been stripped of some of its key functions andthere is currently a lack of clear vision among public sector administrators of what the Department’s
mission is and what its functions and resources should be. The Mission considers this a serious
bottleneck for making progress towards SFM in the country.

9.2.2

Human Resources

The institutional structure described above is also reflected in staff levels: in 2004 DNP had 2.4 moretimes staff than RFD (Table 9.2). The staff structures are also a cause of concern for the following
reasons:-

54

62% of RFD’s staff are based in, or subordinated to, the headquarters,some field staff report directly to the DG instead of being subordinated to provincial forest
officers,
the double roles of the provincial forest staff working for MONRE and RFD tasks are not clearly
defined,in RFD the ratio between officers and employees is 2:1 (in DNP 1:1.2); this is far from optimal as
the ratio should rather be 1:2 (or more)54.

When outsourcing is not widely practiced as is the case in Thailand
86

Table 9.2

RFD and DNP Staff, 2004

Department

RFD- Headquarters3)- Field level 4)
Total
%
DNP
- Headquarters- Protected areaadministration6)
Total
%2)

Deputyemployees1)

Total

%2)

2,518
7,014
9,5325)62
38
100

Officers

Employees

1,425
1,130
2,555

1,093
384
1,477

63

37

913

764

...

1,617

3,344

4,515

12,000

7,859

4,257

5,279

12,0009,4767)

45

55

...
4,500
4,500

100
18
82
100

100

Casual labour
Excluding “Deputy employees”
Includes staff seconded to field level but reporting to the headquarters
Provincial, district and project staff
Excludes about 4,500 temporary staff
Regional and PA offices
Excludes temporary staff, the total staff of officers and permanent employees was 11,921 in February 2005

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)

Sources: RFD and DNP

In conclusion, there is lack of a clear line of command among a significant share of RFD’s field staff
and the structure of personnel does not reflect the operational duties of the organization.

9.2.3

Financial Resources

The financial resources assigned to RFD represent 12% of those of DNP (Table 9.3) while its staff
levels are 42% of those of DNP. Even though direct comparisons are easily misleading. This is a causeof concern. Revenue generation is a marginal element in the finances of RFD (5% of the expenditure)mainly coming from various fees55. Also DNP can generate only 5% of its expenditure through its own
revenue resulting mainly from entrance and other fees in national parks. It is also recalled the RFD has
a management responsibility for 9.4 mill. ha of forest reserves while DNP’s protected areas amount to
23 mill. ha.
As a conclusion, RFD’s financial resource allocation does not appear to correspond to its mandate andit is obvious that most of the available funds go for staff salaries and other fixed costs instead ofdevelopmental field implementation.
Assessment
1. In RFD, there is no proper line of command, which needs to be looked into. Duplication ofextension work by several agencies is not proving efficient, instead confusing the farmers who
are finding the messages from different agencies conflicting with each other. Therefore, forproper forestry development, RFD extension efforts need to be augmented and better
coordinated with other field offices and NGOs to avoid duplication of activities.

55

The Permission Division has a staff of only 171 which suggests that the fiscal cost-benefit ratio of fee
collection is possibly negative.

87Table 9.3

Government Budget and Revenue of Royal Forest Department and Departmentof National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation, 2003
RFD

DNP

Total

Expenditure
Personnel
Operational costs
Investment
Other
Total

13.0
4.5
4.2
0.9
22.6

- US$ million 106.2
27.9
58.2
2.5
194.9

119.2
32.4
62.4
3.4
217.5

RevenueRoyalties and sales of timber
Sales of confiscated goods
Fees
Others
Total

0.0
0.0
1.0
0.1
1.2

0.0
0.2
8.5
1.6
10.3

0.0
0.2
9.5
1.7
11.5

Revenue share of budget expenditure

5.2

5.3

5.3

Source: RFD 2004b and National Park… 2004.

2.

There is confusion and overlapping between the functions and tasks of RFD and DNP.
Moreover, there is lack of formal coordination mechanism, which is detrimental for the forestry
and wildlife sectors. Both departments could be re-merged with more precise and clear mandate
under a single line of command, for better coordination and understanding. It would have moremeaningful impact on the people, senior bureaucrats and the politicians for the overall
development of the sector. Both departments would then have a stronger role. However, it also
possible to keep the two departments separate, but the above issues should be duly addressed.56

3.

There is overstaffing at higher and middle levels, i.e. at officer level in the (RFD) headquarters.
There is an urgent need to reduce this burden of large number of officers; instead more field
staff could be recruited (or assigned from the headquarters) as they are very limited at present.

4.

There is a need to reduce the number of offices at the center and at the province level dealing
with minor subjects which have inter-related impact. These functions could be combined atsome place, probably in the headquarters. This would lead to a single line of command withclear directions and obviously the implementation would be more focused than at present.

9.3

Decentralization

9.3.1

TAOs and Villages

Decentralization has been the government policy since the 1992 Tambon Administration (TAO) Act
which provided a greater role for local government units in forest and other natural resource
management. Under this act, TAOs (sub-district governments units) have responsibility for managing
all natural resources within their boundaries. TAOs should also ensure that sustainable use andconservation of local natural resources and the environment is achieved. The decentralization process
was further strengthened by the 1997 Constitution which states that local people and organizations
should be involved in managing their natural resources (Box 9.4). These two laws enshrine people's
participation in forest management and pave the way for clarifying land-use issues and people's role inforest management (Poffenberger 1999). However, it is not yet clear how the implementation should
be carried out.

56

In other countries there are both positive and negative experiences related to keeping production andprotection functions separate, or combining them into one single department.
88Box 9.4

Constitutional Framework of the Rights of Rural People to Participate in theManagement and Use of Natural Resources

Section 3: Rights and freedom of the Thai people
Clause No. 46: Communities shall have the right to preserve and restore the traditional culture, knowledge andlocal fine arts of their local community and of the nation, and participate in the management,
maintenance, preservation and utilization of natural resources and the environment in a balanced way asprovided by law.
Clause No. 56: The human right to participate with the state and community for maintenance and utilization ofnatural resources and biodiversity and protect and promote the quality of environment for better living
and better quality of life. This right must be covered by law.
Section 5: Basic policy guideline for the state
Clause No. 79: The state shall promote and encourage public participation in the preservation, maintenance andbalanced exploitation of natural resources and biological diversity and in the promotion, maintenanceand protection of the quality of the environment in accordance with development principles.
Source: The 1997 Constitution

The TAO is the lowest level of the local government administrative structure. It is made up of thetambon chief, the village headmen from each village in the tambon and the tambon health officer, andtwo elected members from each village in the tambon.
The level beneath the TAO is the village, which is the smallest community unit in Thailand. The
designation of a village is legislated 57 as follows:-

Existing villages must have more than 400 resident villagers before they can be divided into theexisting village and a new village.

-

If the existing village has more than 400 people but the village headman can comfortably care forthe enlarged population, there is no requirement for designation of a new village.

The village is managed by the village headman, two assistant village headmen and the village
committee. This committee is the basic operating structure at the village level. The village committee
acts as the advisory board to assist the village headman in his routine work. The village committee issubdivided into sections related to work areas for i.a. developing village plans and related projects. In
addition, villagers form groups which usually include savings fund group, agriculturists group,
women’s group, youth group, etc. Other groups can be established to facilitate collaboration in
specific areas. This approach is thought to be more practical than working with individual villagers. In
almost every village in Thailand there is at least one such group. Some groups are functioning wellwhile other may exist on paper only. Village forestry groups are usually initiated by Provincial,
District or Tambon Officers who can participate in the preparation of respective development plans.
In spite of legal provision, it appears that for the time being decentralization of power and authority to
TAO level has had a limited impact on local control and management of surrounding natural
resources. Obstacles include unclear mandates, lack of budget, limited personnel and no clear
procedures. The proposed Community Forestry Bill would improve the situation as it would clarify atleast the role of TAO in the establishment of community forests (see Ch 4).
There are some lessons from the TAO process which are relevant to forestry development. A key
requirement for promoting natural resource activities is adequate knowledge of what is possible andunderstanding of what people’s rights and responsibilities are. One method that can speed up thislearning process is by facilitating study tours where people learn by seeing. Interested villagers should
be given the opportunity to visit successful managed villages to observe how success has beenachieved. This method is also the most suitable medium for exchange of ideas for relatively poorly
educated rural villagers. The support of the public sector as represented by local government must
adapt its role from "caretaker" who does everything for the communities to that of a "helper". The
objective of support organizations should be to promote true participation of the people in their57

By The Executive Service Regulation of the Kingdom of Thailand Act 191489

development. These simple lessons have been hard to interiorize by civil servants but there is now
growing awareness of their fundamental importance.
While at the TAO level state’s power is still dominating in the control of natural resources, at village
level the political reform of decentralization appears to open more space for different fractions ofpeople to hold and withhold their stands and the power relationships can become quite complex. The
dominant politico-economic elites and their fractions of villagers are expected to be challenged inresource mobilization and accumulation by the poorer factions which by definition should lead tolosing some of their earlier power (Prabudhanitisaarn 2004). This positive development induced by thedecentralization policy reform will give more power to the powerless groups in the village and theCommunity Forestry Bill would ensure that they would as groups have formal access to resources
which was not possible before.

9.3.2

Role of Provincial Government

The Thai Government has recently adopted a new approach for provincial government58. Governor isconsidered Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the province and the local staff of all the agencies should
be working to support him. The five-year strategic plan of the province is the key instrument ofmanagement as it provides the targets, the framework of the budget and other resources. Monitoring isbased on Key Performance Indicators (KPI) which are agreed upon for individual units. Provincial
level targets and KPIs are partly amalgamated based on tambon and village plans. The overall
approach of this reshaping of public administration is targeted at putting people as customer of public
administration in the center and the local level action at the focus of all government efforts. KPIs are
expected to include such indicators as the forest cover for which the Governor would personally be
responsible to the Prime Minister.
This will have major implications for the field level forestry administration as the provincial and fieldlevel work would be targeted at achieving village/TAO/province targets. Strategic plans should haveclear strategies for sustainable forestry development in the province but these are not yet defined. The
central administration’s role (apart from PA management) would be emphasizing the normative andfacilitator functions rather than being in charge of the execution. The central agencies would be
expected to provide necessary tools and information and make sure that the adequate human resources
are available for local efforts.
Assessment
1. The legal provisions for local government at tambon and village level provide a suitableadministrative structure to transfer the responsibility of forest resource management to villages
and villagers’ groups. In community forestry it will be necessary to have clear internal rules of thevillage for how forests will be managed and utilized and what the rights and responsibilities of thecommunity forestry groups are in order to avoid internal conflicts later on if the activities become
economically important.
2. The on-going change in the revamping of the role of the public administration represents aparadigm change and its operationalization will be a long learning process. Provincial and District
Natural Resource/Forest Officers should assume a strong role and develop solid strategic plans forthe forestry development. Guidance for how such plans should be prepared does not exist and this,
together with associated training, should be addressed by RFD as a top priority. In view of thelarge number of provinces the task is extensive.
3. The role of the protected area administration within the new structure is not yet clarified as manyPAs extend to more than one province. There is, however, a need to link DNP’s activities to theelaboration and implementation of provincial strategic plans.

58

Information based on the Public Sector Development Commission
90

9.4

Forest Industry Organization

Forest Industry Organization (FIO) founded in 1947, is an autonomous State Corporation. FIO was
originally set up for teak harvesting and industrial processing of teakwood. Subsequently, FIO got
widely involved in reforestation and plantation development in accordance with the policy to reforest
logged-over areas. Its role was further extended to research commercial growing of teak and fast
growing species, nursery, and agro-forestry. FIO still has industrial operations and its elephantconservation activities are nationally important. It is still (at least in theory) the responsibility of FIO
to balance wood production and consumption for the whole country even though its role in productive
activities has become marginal and therefore this mandate cannot be effectively implemented.
9.4.1

FIO’s Role in Plantations

FIO has played an important role in teak plantation establishment and utilization in Thailand. The total
area of FIO plantations is currently 177,580 ha of which 49% is teak and 36% is eucalyptus59. The
share of eucalyptus has increased rapidly. FIO has also 5,170 ha of rubber plantations which areimportant for its annual revenue. A fairly large area (12% of the total FIO planted area) is various
other hardwoods (Acacia mangium, Leucaena leucocephala, Dipterocarpus alatus, Acacia
auricaliformis, Pterocarpus macrocarpus, Afzelia xylocarpa, Dalbergia cochinchinnensis).
About 20 percent of the FIO lands are occupied by local farmers who are using them partly for
agriculture. As a result, there is a strong conflict between the local people and the Company. The
policy is to persuade these farmers to limit encroachment in forests. In the South region where rubber
is grown on FIO lands, the benefit from latex is shared 50/50 between farmers and FIO but wood
revenue goes entirely to FIO. Latex revenue represents almost 20% of FIO operating income fromsales of products and services (Annex 5, Table 13).
FIO supports the local administration as 5-10 per cent of the gross revenue from eucalyptus
plantations goes to TAO and in some areas also the revenue of teak plantations.
FIO (and its subsidiary Thai Plywood) involve smallholders in contract farming. The plots are usually
no more than 1.6 ha. FIO provides free seedlings to the farmers60 and buys the timber after 4-5 years. It
offers a guaranteed market and price (presently US$ 25/m3) for the farmer.
The Prime Minister of Thailand has recently set up a project in Asama District, Loyet Province in the
Northeast region, to create sustainable economic tree resources for the eradication of poverty. The
pilot project implemented by FIO is for 320 ha with interested farmers (mainly with rubber andeucalyptus). The program is planned to cover 160,000 ha over the next three-year period. Marginal
private and public lands, paddy fields, etc. can be utilized for the program which is aimed at teachingpeople to earn more profits through tree growing.

9.4.2

FIO’s Wood-Based Industry

FIO has three sawmills (one in the North and two in Bangkok) and one furniture factory (in Bangkok).
It has one kiln-drying mill in Bangkok and one elsewhere. The sawmills are have a small capacity andthey were designed for sawing large-sized teak logs61 from natural forests. The equipment is not
appropriate for the present raw material which is mainly small-sized plantation teak62. The financial
result is therefore negative but the mills are kept in operation for social reasons. About 180 permanent
employees are engaged in the industrial sector.
Thai Plywood is a wholly owned subsidiary of FIO. It has one plywood mill where the production is
not continuous as runs are made to the order which reflects difficulties in competitiveness and
59
60
61
62

FIO fact sheet, March 25, 2006 and management information.
The cost of the seedling for Eucalyptus ranges from US$ 0.025 to 0.075/seedling.
Typically 5-10m3/log.
Typically 10 to 20 logs/m3.
91

marketing. The Company has one MDF mill having capacity of 70-100 metric tons/day which is only
10% of the size of the modern production lines in Thailand. Most of its raw material in log form
comes from Malaysia and Indonesia. Thai Plywood also imports veneer, particularly teak face that isbought from Myanmar. The core veneer is made from logs imported from PNG (about 2,000
m3/month). There are 800 staff in Thai Plywood and the turnover is US$ 32.5 million per year. The
debt burden is heavy amounting to US$ 57.5 mill. or 177% of the turnover. Such an operation cannot
be considered viable.
The teak obtained from thinning is used by FIO in furniture making. This operation has expanded as it
used to represent only 5% of the total operating income while, according to the management, it ispresently about 20% (US$ 3.75 mill). FIO has been pioneering the use of teak thinnings for furniture
making and its major achievement has been the acceptance of FIO garden furniture in the European
outlets which refuse to buy furniture made from natural teak due to illegality and unsustainability
concerns. FIO is also supplying plantation teak to the SME furniture industries which are concentrated
in the Phrae Province. This cooperation has led to export trade also for the SME sector.

9.4.3

Sale of Teak and Confiscated Wood

FIO is the main supplier of teak in the country and its market share is about a third of the total national
consumption estimated at 200,000 m3 63. The balance is met by imports. In addition to logs and poles
from plantations, FIO has also the duty and right to market confiscated timber, the volume of which ispresently about 10,000 m3/year on an average (see ch. 6.1).
Selling of logs is done by auction which is not optimal as buyers tend to form informal cartels to press
prices down. With the confiscated timber, there is also the quality deterioration problem as the legal
process can take up to five years from the confiscation to the sales of logs64.
Due to its difficult liquidity situation (see ch. 9.4.5), FIO is forced to adjust its sales volumes
according to the prices obtained. If price is high, FIO tends to harvest 50,000 m3 but if prices are low
more volume has to be sold. Within this income- based management framework, FIO aims to produce
on average 60,000-70,000 m3 per year as most of the plantations are still young.
In order to strengthen its market position FIO has attempted to achieve forest certification. The
experience is however mixed as the first FSC certificate issued was subsequently cancelled. In
addition to misunderstandings on the part of auditors, the main reasons were as follows:- There was no input/effort for village welfare such as usufruct and taungya system rights etc.
People’s participation was not adequate in forest management decisions.
- Teak plantations were not managed on a systematic compartment basis (rotational blocks).
- Regional minimum wages were not applied and workers were forced to accept lower wages.
- There was no proper understanding among the staff about plantations (including the choice ofspecies).
According to the FIO management, these deficiencies have now been addressed and the re-issuance of
FSC certificate is foreseen in the near future.

63
64

FIO estimate
According to RFD, there is no major backlog of legal cases outstanding.
929.4.4

Elephant Conservation

There were 2,257 domesticated elephants in the whole country in 199865. There are still 36 elephantcamps in Thailand with about 1,000 elephants which can be classified into unemployed (53% of thetotal), tourism elephants (44%) and wandering animals (3%) (Tipprasert 2002). FIO plays animportant part in elephant conservation for historical reasons as in the past the animals were mainly
employed in forest operations. The conservation activities include the operation of a rehabilitation
center to take care of elephants. FIO is presently running its elephant operations with its own funds66
and considers them a social obligation.
Elephants are presently used mostly working for tourism. FIO’s National Elephant Center attracts alarge number of tourists. The Center provides training to the young elephants for tourism work free ofcharge. After training the elephant works for one or two years with FIO. FIO also organizes onemonth training programs to the mahouts. For tourists, one-day training is provided for which a daily
fee of US$ 25 is charged.
9.4.5

Financial Status

For its size of land assets and personnel, FIO generates only a limited turnover which varies from
US$ 20 to 32.5 million per year. FIO and its subsidiary Thai Plywood are running at a loss which inthe case of the parent company have represented about 2% of the gross revenue67 (Annex 18).
According to the management, there would be a gross operating profit of 35% this year. The financial
result is burdened by heavy indebtedness as the interest payments are about US$ 0.7 mill. a year.
Industrial operations are being run at a loss but they generate about 25% of the operating income(2001-2002). Ecotourism runs at 100% loss whereas the financial result of furniture making isreported to be positive. The available information does not allow reliable estimation of the profitabilityof individual operations.
Many reasons explain the weak financial situation. Lacking full information the Mission concluded
that the following factors have probably contributed to the current unfortunate situation: (i) inadequate
past financial management although the present management has made major improvements in thisrespect, (ii) inappropriate equipment and low productivity and efficiency in industrial operations, (iii)
execution of tasks mandated by the Government which have no or partial cost recovery, (iv) various
social obligations which go beyond the responsibilities of private companies.
Assessment
1.

As a result of long historical development, FIO has evolved into a very diversified organization
operating in resource management, industrial wood processing and marketing, tourism,
conservation and social development. FIO appears to be an organization which is constantly
loaded by the Government with new tasks without adequate consideration of financial,managerial and practical implications. The result is an operation which has extensive assets andbroad mandates but inadequate revenue generating capacity to carry out its tasks.

2.

There is no clear long-term vision and strategy about the organization’s future role. FIO is inneed of overhauling its operations, which would probably involve divestment or transfer ofsome of the duties and assets to organizations which are in better position to carry out the tasks.

3.

Possible future roles for FIO could be (i) management of state-owned plantation assets (likely
involving outsourcing), (ii) development of partnerships with farmers and other private
landowners for production of timber and NTFPs, and (iii) acting as a catalyst for new
technologies (utilization of teak thinnings, eucalyptus sawlog production and marketing,bioenergy, etc.). These roles (which are not exclusive) may include R&D activities asappropriate. If found justified, FIO may expand its sphere of activities by including supplying of

65

There were 100,000 domesticated elephants a hundred years ago, almost all employed in the logging industry(Tipprasert 2002).
In 2002 there was Elephant Aid Fund of about US$ 1 mill. accounted as equity in the balance sheet.
Based on the balance sheets of the Company in 2001 and 2002.

66
67

93

quality planting materials, piloting new processes for raising source plants for NTFPs,
channeling funds for tree planting and developing markets and providing market guarantees forforest products. Its promotional role should be seen in the context of the overall extension
strategy of the forestry sector to avoid overlapping activities and staff structures. FIO could
possibly best find its role in some priority zones where the RFD extension services cannot alone
lead to the desired targets.
4.

The Mission thinks that industrial operations are better carried out by the private sector thanstate-owned companies. Only few countries still have public enterprises running major forest
industries. Earlier privatization efforts of Thai Plywood were not successful due to the weakindustrial competitiveness of the facilities. There is a need for a re-valuation exercise of theexisting assets, including technical evaluation of the equipment. Based on the results, possible
divestment options could be developed.

5.

The Mission recognizes the valuable work that FIO has carried out in the area of introducing
new raw materials for furniture industries. State-owned production facilities are however notnecessary for this, unless they primarily serve for training purposes for the entire sector. The
future of the FIO furniture manufacturing should be viewed with this perspective.

6.

With the decreasing work in timber processing, FIO needs to downsize its staff strength. The
Mission also notes that the Board of Directors mainly consists of public sector administrators.
There is a need to strengthen business management knowledge both in the Board and the
managerial staff of the organization.

7.

Together with its owner and the involved stakeholders, FIO should develop a clear vision andstrategy on what its future role should be. This process should involve identification of options
in view of the government policies and the strengths and weaknesses of the organization. The
planning process should cover a detailed implementation plan for restructuring which isinevitably needed. The potential catalytic role of FIO in certification, extension to private
farmers and R&D on diversified wood utilization could be considered in this context.

8.

FIO’s work on elephants is highly valuable but the duties, staff and facilities could betransferred to a separate body with a mandate on elephant conservation. The past link of thisactivity with FIO’s operations has disappeared.

9.5

Forestry Research

9.5.1

MONRE Forest Research Units

Forestry research in Thailand started ten years before RFD was founded (1896) in order to develop
knowledge on the extent of teak resources. For the early decades research emphasized the
management of natural forests. Four regional silvicultural research stations were established in 1952
and others were added subsequently. The Teak Improvement Centre in Lampang and the Pine
Improvement Centre in Chiang Mai were established with Danish support, together with threesilviculture stations. Four lac research and extension stations were also established. Somecollaborative research projects were carried out with the support of the Republic of Korea and Japan(REX project). All this has represented a major public sector investment in forest development.
Research in forestry is presently scattered in Thailand. RFD Research Division was divided into twowhen DNP was established. There is no central body for forestry research68 which has resulted in someoverlap and lack of coordination. Among the 19 current DNP research projects about five would
probably better fall under RFD which, on the other hand, has eight on-going projects related to forest
biodiversity.

68

At times, the need for a Forestry Research Institute (FRI) was identified but not considered by theGovernment.
949.5.2

Universities and Other Bodies

The Faculty of Forestry at the Kasetsart University (KUFF) conducts research in important areas
covering forest management, silviculture, forest biology, wood products, watershed, and forest
engineering. The Faculty is actively engaged in inter-disciplinary research and educational activities ofcritical issues of sustainable forest management and utilization. The research programme is carried out
by individual faculty members through the Forest Research Centre (FRC), which is basically a
National Centre for Research and Development in all the fields of forestry. FRC has 67 staff memberswith 58 percent holding Ph.D. degree.
Areas of current and future research in FRC include (a) community based eco-tourism, (b) forest firepolicy analysis, (c) remote sensing and GIS applications in resource planning, (d) protected areasystem analysis and planning, (e) mechanical properties of rubberwood, (f) agroforestry, (g) highland
reforestation, (h) biodiversity of forest insects, (i) watershed modeling, and (j) mangrove ecology andcoastal zone management. KUFF has 2 research stations one in Chiang Mai and the other one in theSouth.
Research funding is mainly through the Kasetsart University Research and Development Institute(KURDI). Funds for forestry research have been quite limited, at present forestry represents only 2%of the KU research budget
Besides KUFF and RFD, research on different aspects of forestry is also conducted by other state andprivate sector institutions. Chiang Mai University and the Farming Systems Research Institute of the
Department of Agriculture conduct research on upland and highland farming systems. Khon Kaen
University and the Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute conduct research oncommunity forestry. Research on environmental conservation and medicinal plants has been carriedout by Mahidol University. FIO has carried out research on commercial teak growing, fast-growing
trees, nursery techniques, utilization of teak thinnings and agro-forestry. Studies are also being doneby the private sector, particularly on forest plantation development which the Thai Cement Company
Limited, Phoenix Pulp and Paper Company Limited and the Kitty Plantation Company Limited areundertaking.
Various NGOs are also carrying out valuable research on site specific issues. Some have also done
policy analysis to define their agenda. These have served as valuable inputs for the policy process as
there is limited other research on policy issues.
Assessment
1.

Forestry research and extension have a key role in improving forest conservation and increasing
the productivity of forests. The extension of forestry research requires development oftechnological packages suited to a wide diversity of agro-ecological, silvopastoral and socioeconomic conditions. Moreover, the technology transfer cannot be successful without
improving the technology uptake capacity among the targeted users. The process of technology
development and transfer involves (a) identification of needs of beneficiaries, (b) developmentof appropriate solutions involving testing, (c) assessment and validation, and (d) dissemination
involving demonstration. To make this to work in practice, the following ingredients areneeded: (i) awareness building and people’s participation throughout the process to duly
accommodate new technology in traditional land use patterns, (ii) clarification of benefits andeconomic feasibility, and (iii) identification of drivers and motivators of change.

2.

There is an urgent need to establish an integrated Forestry Research Network in the country
with sufficient budget allocations.

3.

The research agendas of various actors would benefit from a clear strategic vision of the forestry
sector which is unfortunately lacking. The criteria of the Ministry of Science and Technology
are too general to properly guide forestry research. The research priorities should be identified
based on problem analysis. Practical and field-oriented research would ensure its wider utility.

95

4.

Many actors including universities and private sector are conducting forestry-related research on
specific issues of immediate interest to them. The results are not often effectively disseminatedand remain as gray literature in project files69.

5.

There are clear gaps in the research agenda (e.g. policy research, social impacts, NTFPs, etc.). A
large number of pilot projects on community forestry and other key topics have been
implemented but comprehensive stock-taking appears to be lacking. Such analyses would be
useful to feed the policy design process.

6.

The review of the on-going research programs of RFD and DNP leads to the following
conclusions:- The link of the programs to the actual forestry problems and development priorities is notclear. This is understandable as there is no strategic sectoral development plan.
- There is a strong focus on species-related research which represents a traditional disciplinebased approach to forest research. With few exceptions like research on teak thinnings, it isoften not easy to see how the generated information can be utilized in the practical forestry
work.
- The social aspects are almost absent in the research agenda. There also appears to be limited
element of multidisciplinary research.
- There are many related research topics but it is unclear whether these are planned to represent
an integrated research program.
- There are research projects which may not be necessary as similar research has been carriedout elsewhere in the region (e.g. Acacia mangium, oil palm utilization, etc.).
- Logical sequence could possibly be improved instead of launching a major effort on a species(e.g. utilization aspects of new plantation species to be studied after silvicultural questions
have been clarified first).
- Economic evaluation appears to be missing or weak in many cases.

7. The mission has identified a number of topics where further research would be urgently required:(a) Economic and social aspects of forestry(b) .Suitable tree species for shelterbelt establishment along the coastal areas.
(c) Increasing of productivity of wood and other forest produce.
(d) Reclamation of wastelands and degraded lands.
(e) Research related to social forestry, farm-forestry, agroforestry, and urban forestry.
(f) Commercial bioenergy generation from waste and residues
8.

There is a need to expand on-farm research which has more demonstrative effect on the farmers.
It is a challenging area as only successful results will lead to adoption of improved technologies
based on convincing field demonstration which can launch a major people’s movement.
Something like this has already happened with eucalyptus planting by farmers. Demonstration
has an immense role in agroforestry and farm forestry. The extension activities should go handin hand with the on-farm research activities.

9.6

Forestry Education, Training and Extension

9.6.1

Education

There are several universities in the country that offer Bachelors’ and Masters degree courses related
to forestry and natural resources but wit different emphasis on technical subjects. These include,
Kasetsart University which offers courses on forestry, agriculture and fisheries, Chiang Mai
Agriculture University known for courses on farming systems and natural resource management, andKhon Kaen University for courses on rural development and regional planning. Similarly, Mae Jo
69

The Japanese REX project is an exception as it has consolidated its research findings and disseminated
them.
96

University offer courses on land use and eco-tourism, and Chulalongkorn University on community
development (in which community forestry is a part of the course curriculum).
Kasetsart University has the only full-fledged forestry faculty in the entire country. It offers
Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral degree programs in forestry and related subjects. The four-year
Bachelor’s program presently include three specific subjects. These are forestry, wood sciences andtechnology, and pulp and paper technology. The forestry course covers: forest resource management,
forest engineering, social forestry and forest biological sciences.
The Master’s programs, which started in 1967, include four specialized subjects: forestry, parks andrecreation, forest resource administration and tropical forestry. The forestry program has five major
areas of specialization, including forest management, forest biology, forest products, watershedmanagement and silviculture. The Master’s program on forest resource administration also includes a
special weekend program, designed to accommodate people who cannot attend regular weekday
classes.
The Doctoral degree program in forestry, which started in 1992, focuses on five subjects: silviculture,
forest management, watershed and environment management, forest ecology and tropical forestry(international program).
There are some 65 faculty staff (professors, associate and assistant professors and instructors) andsome 90 administrative and support staff (including technicians). According to the enrolment record in
2002, there were 1013 bachelor students (478 female), 397 masters (116 female) and 34 doctoral
students (8 female). So far, the Forestry Faculty has produced 833 diploma graduates, 3,814
undergraduates (Bachelors), 479 graduates (Masters) and 13 Ph.D. graduates. The number of female
students in forestry has increased significantly in recent years.
There seems to be no problem for forestry graduates in finding jobs as they become easily employedby various departments of MONRE and NGOs and the private sector. The majority of the forestry
professionals in MONRE are reported to have studied in the Kasetsart University.
Assessment
1.

One of the main problems of forestry education in general is the tendency to confine itself
within a very narrow target group, and Thailand is not exceptional. KU’s forestry curricula
seems to have remained focused towards producing graduates largely for employment in thegovernment forest authorities, though in recent years some graduates are reported to be
employed by NGOs and the private sector which also need forestry specialists. These new
employers’ needs are different from those of the public agencies. Therefore, forestry educationmust find ways for addressing the needs of the expanding target group, with multiple interests inforests.

2.

Many of the forestry issues are cross-sectoral and their solutions often lie outside the forest
sector. Thus, there is a need to learn from other disciplines and to influence the forest-relatedteaching of other relevant faculties and universities.

3.

Knowledge on issues such as climate change, biodiversity conservation or management of
national parks and promotion of eco-tourism, are now in demand, rather than the traditional
skills related to timber production and utilization. New tools and techniques are required to
manage forests for local communities’ needs for timber, fuelwood and other non-timber forest
products.

4.

Many of the problems in SFM are policy related. There is, however, limited capacity among
forestry professionals to carry out policy analysis, particularly on the economic aspects. This isalso reflected in weak capacity to promote forestry as an economic activity among communities
and smallholders. If extensionists cannot carry out field-level economic analyses, their messages
tend to remain theoretical and unconvincing. Lack of adequate training on forest economics is amajor shortcoming. Among all forestry professionals, there is a need for graduates to haveadequate skills in problem analysis and relating to broader issues.

97

5.

As regards forest industry, there is only limited capacity to train well-qualified specializedengineers. This is another major gap in the present supply of education. Skills in furniture
design for export markets is another example of an area where no educational capacity exist.

6.

The only way the Forestry Faculty could address future demand for forestry professionals is bypartnering with other faculties in KU, other universities and institutions in Thailand, and evenuniversities outside Thailand. Some other Thai universities, such as Chiang Mai, Khon Kaen,
Mae Jo and Chulalongkorn, have already started to accommodate forestry related subjects intheir curricula on natural resources or environmental management. Fortunately, there are also
regional institutes located in Thailand, such as Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) and theRegional Community Forestry Training Centre (RECOFTC) which can be drawn on. Some
universities, outside Thailand are interested in collaborating with Thailand in research andtraining on forestry issues. The International Course on Tropical Forestry of KUFF is an
excellent initiative to this end (apparently largely self-financing).

7.

There appears to be no capacity for technical and vocational level training on forestry related
subjects in the country. Consequently, concerned organizations and companies seem to havetaken the responsibility to develop their own human resources. However, there is a particularneed to arrange common training for supervisors and other middle managers of wood andfurniture industries. This is one of the key constraints in industrial development according to theindustry top management representatives interviewed by the Mission. There is a need to carryout a survey of the industry’s training needs and prepare an action plan, assigning anappropriate existing technical-level training institute in implementation.

9.6.2

Further Training

Prior to splitting into two departments, RFD had a training division, with several training centers in
different parts of the country. The most important ones included the training centers located at thecentral office and those in Phrae Province, Khao Yai, Cha am, Chiang Rai and Tak Provinces.
However, following MONRE’s decision to restructure RFD, the training division was removed,
placing all the respective human and financial resources and facilities under DNP. At the time of theMission, RFD’s annual program did not include any training activities.
According to DNP’s training plan for 2005–06, the activities (meetings, workshops and seminars)
cover such topics as orientation training for newly recruited staff, training of trainers, management andservices, conflict management and negotiation, insect inventory/survey techniques, forest fire control,
environmental impact assessment after forest destruction, forest law and enforcement, forest criminalcase investigation, tools and techniques for financial analysis, youth camp trainers, GIS, databasemanagement, appropriate morale (King’s birthday), research, development strategy for DNP, andrefresher courses for senior government officials, etc. Overall, in total, some 150 activities are plannedand carried out each year, involving over 3,000 trainees.
The main constraint facing further training is that all the resources have been assigned exclusively forthe training of the DNP staff. This overlooks training needs of the staff working in RFD and otherdepartments. The RFD staff (more than 4,000), responsible for the management of national forest
reserves, promotion of community forestry and private reforestation, are completely deprived offurther training possibilities.
Assessment
1. Conservation rather than management has become the main focus of training. Protected areas alsoneed to be managed, including the application of silviculture, especially in areas that include
plantations. Protected areas where local communities live and depend on forest resources forlivelihood will need different management approaches and hence a different training strategy thanfor traditional park staff focusing on enforcement.
2. Forests outside the protected areas, both natural and plantations, need to be managed differently
than those inside the protected areas, and may include harvesting and replanting as well as

98

involvement of local communities. Multiple-use techniques of forest management (particularly
NTFPs and environmental services) would deserve a stronger emphasis than at present.
3. There is also a need for training activities to be linked with the Government’s overall
environmental and economic development objectives, such as poverty alleviation and decentralization. Further training is particularly needed for extension staff.
4. Most staff in the DNP training division and field centers have background in traditional forestry.
While traditional forestry knowledge has an important role, the training staff should also have agood understanding and ability to relate forestry issues to wider socio-economic, political andenvironmental issues.
5. The staff of the training centers cannot be expected to plan and deliver all training activities bythemselves. They need to pool together expertise from other departments within MONRE andother organizations by building partnerships with the training divisions of other ministries,
universities and regional centers, such as RECOFTC. They should also engage NGOs andindustries to identify on training needs and in designing and delivering relevant further training.

9.6.3

Extension

There is no specific extension division or unit in RFD or DNP. However, some RFD field projects
have provisions for extension activities, although with focus on nurseries, seedling production andplanting on private lands. Some RFD staff feel that the Office of Community Forest Management isalso responsible for extension services. Some staff refer to the public relations unit within MONRE,
and see this to be equivalent to an extension unit. There is no clear understanding in RFD what forest
extension entails.
Assessment
1.

MONRE appears to have no planning and development of the overall extension policy andprogram in the forestry sector. This is unfortunate when the responsibility for management offorest resources and production is rapidly shifting to the private sector and communities.

2.

The field centers have limited outreach capacity, due to shortage of financial resources. Most of
the budgeted funds go for maintaining infrastructure and paying staff salaries with little left forcovering the cost of training events.

3.

At present, extension activities at the field level are all ad hoc and confined to specific projectsites. Once the projects are terminated, extension activities are either dropped or reduced to aminimum level.

4.

The focus of extension activities seems to be mainly on nursery establishment and planting trees
on private land. There is no training on maintenance and harvesting of the planted trees, andmarketing of forest products.

5.

Separation of DNP from RFD aggravated the problem of dissemination of conflicting messages
to clients and general public. This has been earlier experienced with agriculture but it has now
become an internal problem as well.

6.

A separate extension division, with its own field offices and personnel and its own line ofcommunication and command, is unlikely to be a viable solution. The extension unit or divisionat the department level would be necessary for the overall development of forestry extension
with the tasks of developing suitable extension strategies and packages, and providing support
and training to field staff.

7.

The role of the extension unit or division would be to ensure that there are consistent messages
going out to the clients and the public, in line with the Government’s overall environmental anddevelopment policy objectives. The unit should provide leadership in developing a unified
integrated extension program for the provincial, district, TAO and village level officers,
including plans for activities related to extension of community forestry, private forestry,
industrial forestry, watershed management and people’s participation in management of national99

parks and wildlife sanctuaries. The unit should also coordinate with the extension units ordivisions of other sectors, especially agriculture, rubber, fisheries and ministries responsible forthe implementation of decentralization as well as financing institutes (e.g. BAAC) that are
involved in promoting community-based enterprises.

8.

There is a need to develop a medium-term education, training and extension strategy (for the
next 5-7 years). A task team could be established to undertake a scoping study for the current
and future needs of education, training and extension programs and activities to serve as a basis
for such a strategy.

9.7

Information System

Maintenance of proper statistics and records is inevitable for the management of forests on asustainable basis. It is not only the long rotation of trees involved but also the nature of the forests as arenewable resource which requires comprehensive information for proper management with collectionof necessary statistical data on the status and change of forest resources as well as activities carried out
and their outcomes and impacts. Besides fulfilling the international commitments, the collection,compilation, validation and dissemination of forestry statistics are also urgently required for satisfying
the national commitments for policy planning, and to assess trends and progress with respect to SFM.
Since there is no complete forestry statistics database in the country, the sectoral contribution to GDP
and other key socio-economic variables is not known and grossly understated (see ch. 2.12). This ismainly due to the failure of the information system to capture reliable information on such key
parameters of the sector as production of roundwood and sawnwood (as key outputs), production andconsumption of fuelwood and charcoal, as well as collection and use and NTFPs. While Thailand is
one of the few developing countries which has been monitoring its forest cover change based onsatellite images for several years, no national forest inventory exists. On the other hand, the foreign
trade data appears to be of relatively good quality although it is not comprehensive and discrepancies
with some trading partners exist which need to be investigated (see ch. 6).
Two annual statistical yearbooks are being produced on the forestry sector which contain valuable
information. “Forestry Statistics of Thailand” is being published annually by RFD to disseminate
statistical data and information to contribute to policy formulation, planning for forestry development
and to conduct academic research. The published data in this document was collected from secondary
sources, special surveys, operational reports on field activities and research reports of RFD and otherrelated departments. The document contains mainly foreign trade statistics and general statistics of thecountry, and only fairly limited information on forest resources and their utilization. In spite of its
deficiencies, the document is, however, a valuable source of information.
The other basic forestry related statistical report is “Statistical Data-2004 by National Park, Wildlife
and Plant Conservation Department” which contains data on protected areas and their management.
The Mission notes that there is a considerable unnecessary overlap between the two publications asboth include extensive reporting on foreign trade in forest products.
Data on private sector activities (planting, harvesting, roundwood production and sawmilling) is alsolacking. There are now regular surveys targeted at this purpose in spite of the fact that productive
activities are mostly carried out by the private sector.
Forest related data (mostly based on RFD’s information) is also published by National Statistical
Office. Information on the extent of the rubber resources is collected by the Rubber Research Institute,and the Center for Agricultural Information of the Office of Agricultural Economic reports on land use
under crop cultivation. All these various sources are used when Thailand reports to international
bodies such as ITTO, FAO, UNFF, etc.
Besides the Government efforts, some organizations like ICRAF have taken serious steps in collecting
necessary data at the local watershed level. Their parameters include rainfall, water quality, soil
erosion etc. for data collection as from a natural resource management perspective watershed functions

100and biodiversity conservation are clearly separate issues. In a nutshell, isolated good efforts have been
made at various levels to generate data for specific purposes but there is no connectivity and linkage.
Assessment
1.

The present standard of statistical reporting in the forestry sector in Thailand is far fromsatisfactory. There is no complete inventory of forest-based resources. Production, consumption, trade and movement of wood and non-wood forest produce outside the state-owned forest
estate contributes substantially to the national economy but there is no proper mechanism fortheir recording. Some data in different projects and studies are available but there is a complete
lack of information link. In fact, there is no data networking.

2.

Information is a powerful tool in managing and analyzing the sector but this area has been
almost neglected in the past. There is a need to have a programme to improve the collection offorestry data and its publication, research on growth and classification of forest resources andthe economic and social aspects of forest utilization. The recording of forest statistics andavailability of such information is weak in Thailand due to the following main reasons:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Inaccuracy and inadequacy of the official statistics.
Much of wood consumption is local, household utilization goes largely unrecorded.
Markets for roundwood and wood products are not monitored on a systematic basis.
Domestic subsistence use does not even pass through market mechanism viz. products are
not valued in monetary terms. Informal markets are important for NTFPs and are notmonitored.
(e) Data on illegal supply (logging and imports) does not exist.
(f) Lack of proper recording of rubberwood production.
3.

Investment in RFD’s hardware and software is not capitalized. An overall strategy for
information management does not exist. For middle-level staff the purpose of data collection is
not clear and it is perceived as an administrative burden rather than a management tool. This isdue to little feedback of information from the data collected. There is a lack of analysis of theorganization’s information needs and a proper methodology is missing for data collection,compilation, dissemination and necessary networking. There is also need for the development of
geo-biological and social models.

4.

The top management and policy makers understand the importance of data but sometimes they
appear to believe in ad hoc information produced by individuals rather than in the results that
could be generated by an information system.

5.

The entire forest statistical system needs to be carefully reviewed, including clear identificationof data needs and gaps. Data collection and reporting capacity should be re-enforced. Only inthis way the contribution of forests to social, economic and ecological well-being of the nation
can be established. Both costs and associated benefits need to be known to inform policy design
and resource allocation to the forestry sector. Dissemination of forest and wildlife statistics tostakeholders is vital to avoid misconceptions on the performance and contributions of the sector.
There is a particular need to improve market transparency as part of the information system.

6.

Within the forest administration the value of information as a management tool should be better
recognized. In particular, middle management should be provided feedback information
providing benchmarks and monitoring data to enable assessment of own performance.

7.

Lack of sufficient information has proved crucial in forestry development in Thailand. The roadmap with the time frame for the collection, dissemination and development of National Forestry
Database Management System (NFDMS) need thus be prepared covering data needs/formats forreporting of the forestry statistics. The individual components of the system should be linked
and tools for networking should be put in place. The requisite parameters and variables must be
properly identified through Information Need Analysis to have a uniform format for datareporting but giving due emphasis to regional and provincial priorities. The following additional
aspects need consideration for developing NFDMS: (a) functional requirement study; (b)capacity building; and (c) regional/provincial and national workshops to discuss and decide the101parameters, variables for data reporting, and (d) development of necessary data networking
mechanism.
8.

There is a need to improve collection and dissemination of information and statistical data on
forest resources, forestry operations, forest industry and product markets with unified
definitions and measurement units. Use of commonly agreed international terms and definitions
would reduce reporting burden to international bodies and facilitate cooperation.

9.

Special studies should be carried out on key data gaps such as the production and consumptionof timber and sawnwood, fuelwood, and NTFPs in the domestic market at the sub-district,
district and provincial levels, including illegal harvesting and associated trade.

10.

Advanced Information Technology (IT) should be used to facilitate timely and efficient data
capturing and transfer for enforcement and environmental monitoring management as a key tool
to prevent and suppress illegal use of natural resources. This should be adequately considered in
the design of the NFDMS.

11.

Development of the NFDMS database should involve participation of users and otherstakeholders including the design of means for how they can access relevant information. A
maximum level of transparency should be aimed at.

12.

The Government should prepare a full-fledged project for the NFDMS development. A
feasibility study would map out options and outline a comprehensive plan for implementation.
Lessons gained in similar exercises in other countries should be drawn on. This activity could
receive financial assistance from ITTO as a priority.

9.8

Forestry Cooperatives

Cooperatives are well established in Thailand and they are involved in a wide variety of activities. The
total number of registered cooperatives is 8,424, of which 74% are active. Almost 60% are involved in
the agricultural sector (including forestry). They provide loans to members for productive purposes at
attractive interest rates; they provide savings facilities and credits, they can engage in purchasing
inputs and daily necessities, and they are often involved in promoting appropriate farming practices
and providing marketing channels for products.
Agricultural cooperatives are generally established for a specific purpose. There are water users’
cooperatives to regulate water use and conservation from a common source, land reform cooperatives
to assist farmer members in agricultural production to gain access to capital, agricultural inputs,
marketing, saving facilities, etc. Special cooperatives have been organized for producers of some crops(e.g. rubber), livestock or even forestry.
Among the almost 5,000 agricultural cooperatives there are only 36 which are involved in tree
planting, harvesting and sawmilling services. Only 30 are reported to be active. The first one wasestablished only in 1996 and the experience is still accumulating. The average forest cooperative has
about 300 members and the average investment is only US$ 3,250. More than half of the active
cooperatives are involved in marketing of timber, one third in charcoal production and one third inwood processing. Three cooperatives are engaged in tree planting, another three in furniture making
and two in wood handicrafts. Only one cooperative has invested in sawmilling. In general, most forest
cooperatives have been set up for marketing purposes and the next important objective is developmentof production. Many are also involved in agriculture and therefore it is difficult to separate theirforestry activities from the entire business of the cooperative.
Based on an RFD survey among the forestry cooperatives, the key constraint is lack of working capital(79% of replies). Shortage of raw materials is also a significant limitation (24%), as is difficulty indealing with the authorities (24%) but this was not linked to the legality of operations. Marketing andhuman resources were a constraint for 21%, but also problems in relationships among members werealso important (17%). A fairly common problem is insufficient forestry activity among members(17%).

102

Assessment
1.

Forestry cooperatives have potential to help members to get involved in productive activities
based on trees and forests. Their main role is in marketing and production promotion. The
existing experience is still limited but a cooperative can be in many cases a useful way toorganize farmers rather than trying to support them individually.

2.

The key weakness is the lack of working capital. BAAC’s credits do not appear to reach forestry
cooperatives. With limited capital investment significant impacts could be anticipated. Most
farmers as small-scale landowners do not have sufficient financial resources to invest in joint
production facilities (e.g. small-scale sawmilling utilizing plantation wood).

3.

There is a need to seek better cooperation between authorities and forestry cooperatives. The
authorities would probably have to see themselves more as supporters and extension agents thanenforcement bodies. It is a cause of major concern that one quarter of cooperatives see
relationships with authorities as a constraint for their development.

4.

Planning of cooperative businesses should be based on a realistic assessment of the available
raw materials from the members’ plantations to avoid failure in capital investment. Extension
service should be able to provide business guidance and assistance in preparing and reviewing
development plans which cannot be based on purely technical knowledge. Organizing effective
forestry cooperatives need to be included in the forestry extension packages.

5.

Good internal relationships are important for the success of forestry cooperatives. This can beachieved if there is a true willingness to work together and leadership is trustworthy. Many
failures in cooperatives tend to be due to internal problems and conflicts and enough time isneeded to develop a common vision of all the benefits from working together.

6.

Forest cooperatives offer a viable solution for organizing individual tree farmers or artisans.
International experience on setting cooperatives for a group of community forests is mixed due
to differences in objectives and resources. This option could, however, be considered for
Thailand, particularly in situations where community forests are small and cannot develop
downstream activities on their own.

9.9

Organization of the Private Sector

There are about 10 organizations/associations of forest-related industries in Thailand, including the
Wood Export-Import Association, the Thai Furniture Association, the Tree Farmers Association, theThai Sawmilling Industry Association, the Sawmill Association (rubberwood producers), the Sawn
Timber Trade Association, the Thai Pulp and Paper Industry Association, and the Thai Economic
Reforestation and Wood Industry Association.
In wood producers’ (planters’) associations the membership is still limited. There is not a strong
tradition among farmers to join common nationally recognized associations, which are sometimes
perceived to mainly serve the interests of the leaders. This may be due to the fact that the leading
figures have been earlier employed by the Government. At local level, there are, however, promisingexamples. E.g. in Nakon Ratchasima province farmers, with the assistance of RFD extension staff,
have established a wood plantation and bioenergy producers’ association. It has quarterly meetings, anannual exhibition to promote product sales and other activities. About 70 members participate fromseveral districts. It will be possible to establish a database on the members which will be instrumental
for monitoring, market promotion, and training and extension. Such initiatives would be needed
throughout the country.
The Thai Economic Reforestation and Wood Industry Development Association was established in1990 when the promotion of private tree planting was started by RFD. About 160 members include
some 120 cooperatives (43 reforestation cooperatives) which have about 3,000 to 4,000 members all
70
around the country . The membership also includes all the industry associations. The thrust of theorganization is to promote tree planting by farmers and to improve the market mechanism.
70

It appears that these are not recorded in the MOAC data (see ch. 9.8).
103

Cooperation is focused on local level where farmers are informed about the industry’s raw material
needs and the industry can learn about the future supply potential of wood. Meetings of the Executive
Committee of the Association take place at regular intervals. The basic objective is to provide
acommon forum/platform so that farmers can know the demand of the species in the market andindustry can know the requirement/quantity available with the farmers which can also guide them as towhat species should be grown by them. These activities are managed at the local level by groups andco-operatives. The Association also attempts to provide some extension service and organizes highprofile national and local-level events to promote tree planting. The demand for extension advisory
services far exceeds what the Association can provide. RFD has provided strong support to the
Association.
The strongest industry groupings appear to be the Thai Pulp and Paper Association and the Thai
71
Furniture Industry Association while the sawmillers’ associations are weaker. A major undertaking
by the Furniture Association is organization of annual furniture fair which also attracts international
participation. In general, the Thai forest industry is secretive by its tradition and the competition
between enterprises is tight. This has greatly limited interest in jointly pursuing matters of common
interest such as the development of the raw material supply, technical training or participation inpolicy processes. The situation is not facilitated by the fact that in some sectors there are competing
associations.
Assessment
1.

Tree farmers’s organizations are still weak and need to be strengthened. In view of the size ofthe country and the large number of smallholders involved, a bottom-up approach could beattempted. Drawing on experience from other countries, a clear two (or three)-level structure
could be aimed at where farmers (or their groups) join at provincial or district level into
associations to assist members in the areas of technical advice, training, market information andmarket facilitation. These local associations could form a national federation which would serve
as a common interest group in policy design and pursuing matters which need to be addressed atnational level. These activities could include e.g development of wood measurement, and log
grading rules, improvement of market transparency, market development for wood, design ofmodel contracts, coordination of training and R&D to serve tree farmers’ needs, etc.

2.

It is important that farmer/landowner associations develop over time their own extension
capacity as it is unlikely that the public sector could carry out this task. If the organization ofsmallholders remains only at the level of smaller groups, this may not be possible. Local
associations would have a strong role in pursuing the interests of the members with provincial
goverments and TAOs, and they could also facilitate the development of partnerships between
forest industries and smallholders to achieve a more balanced negotiation power between theparties. For the forest industry, working with associations would reduce the transaction costs
related to wood procurement and the role of intermediaries would not become too prominent.

3.

In many villages there are already locally organized (more or less formal) groups of tree
farmers. These groups could serve as nuclei for the provincial/district-level tree farmers’
associations to make them more effective. Organizational development of smallholders will not
happen without the catalytic support from RFD or other public agencies. This would involve
identification of group leaders/lead producers at local level who could assume the responsibility
for organization of the association work. Government support could include developing model
rules of operation for local associations, and support to initial phase of organization. In due
course, Government support to farmers in training, provision of seedlings, etc. could be72
channeled through the associations rather than targeting at individual smallholders directly.

4.

It is likely that one single model will work everywhere in the country. Therefore, pilot projects
in representative situations could be launched to test alternative approaches for organization oftree farmers and how extension services could be arranged.

71

Rubberwood sawmills and other sawmills have their own associations but their memberships do not cover all
the operators.
E.g. Mexico is successfully piloting this approach.

72

104

5.

Private tree farm development has been a major strategic area of intervention already for morethan 10 years. The results are promising (see ch. 5) but still remain far from expectations.
Without strong organization of tree farmers, they will not be able to become a major market
player who can organize their own technical services, promote their markets and protect theirinterests.

6.

The industrial associations are still generally fairly weak as enterprises see more value inpromoting their interests individually. This will have to be reviewed when the national policy
processes have become participatory and all stakeholder groups are expected to propose clear
priorities and policy proposals. Associations will have to become more capable for their own
policy analysis, more transparent and more effective to ensure that broader industry interests are
duly considered in the public policy.

7.

A common consultative body among industry associations could become useful in the future toaddress common interests like promotion of wood production, certification, trade regulation,
promotion of training and research, etc.

9.10

Civil Society

The development of Thai NGOs has taken place in parallel with the socio-economic changes in the
country during the last 25 years. Initially, their focus was on health, literacy and economic activities asa means to promote human development and the main target was rural areas. Later on popular
environmental awareness gained momentum in the late 1980s partly as a result of the emergence ofmajor environmental problems like the flash floods in 1988, blamed on deforestation. The introductionof the logging ban in natural forests was a major achievement of the civil society.
Among the civil society there appears to be two main currents of thinking as regards forests and their
management. The extremist green movement focuses on strict protection of natural forests and theonly way to achieve it is segregation of local communities from their forest lands. During the Mission,
it was reported that in protected areas alone there are about 1.2 to 2 million people living. No clear
solution has, however, been proposed by these NGOs for how these people could be removed from theforest (where these people should go and what they should do). The implicit apparent strategy is torestrict their living conditions to such an extent that people have no other option than to move out
somewhere where they can survive.
The other part of the civil society movement takes a more social approach where community forestry
is promoted in conjunction with recognition of land and use rights and use of traditional knowledge.
This group would also allow community forestry activities in protected areas. The two groups havebeen actively doing advocacy work and implementing development projects among local
communities.
The extremist activist movement tends to have its main constituency among urban elites while theother NGOs tend to have a more managerial approach grounded on rural environmentalism and it ismore broadly represented in different local-level arenas. There is a tension between the two sides as
their perceptions on the solutions for protection of biodiversity are different. The civil society has
significantly increased environmental awareness and concern with nature, water pollution andincreasing demands for water by agriculture, urban centers and industry, focusing attention to the useof upper watersheds (Hirsch 1997).
The past suspicion among the NGOs concerning the authorities and among the public agencies
concerning NGOs has been gradually diminishing, partly as a result of the opening of the policy
processes to the participation of all stakeholder groups which was grounded in Section 3 of the 1997
Constitution. Presently the Government sees NGOs as important partners in executing valuable
activities that are beyond the reach of the public sector. There is a sense of mutual need to cooperate
among most parties on both sides. On the other hand, NGOs have accepted that they alone cannot
provide alternative to development and that their work is complementary to that of the Government.

105However, there are still areas where improvements are needed. Government policies tend to be opaqueand access to information – albeit greatly improved during the last ten years – still needs to beenhanced. This is probably more a matter of traditional way of dealing with information by
bureaucrats rather than a deliberate government policy.
Assessment
1.

From the Government’s perspective, the fragmentation of the NGO community makes dealing
with them somewhat cumbersome. There are several hundred NGOs in Thailand even though
their exact number is not known. A particular problem is to ensure equal access to informationand financing for local rural NGOs and community groups compared to international or
Bangkok-based NGOs, which are often politically well connected. While the large, wellestablished NGOs like TEI, TDRI Wildlife Fund Thailand, etc. are well positioned to influencepolitical decision making, their local counterparts play only a marginal role in policy dialogue
and there are no good mechanisms to involve them.

2.

It would be beneficial if the dialogue on the rural people’s role in conservation strategies could
be enhanced among the NGO community as the Government is getting vastly different or mixed
messages on how policies on forest-dependent people should be designed and implemented. In
promoting sustainable forestry development, it is of utmost importance that the two sides of the
NGO community can be engaged in achieving the common goals. For the NGOs their impact
would also be more significant if they could develop common policy proposals and work
strategies.

3.

There is a need to promote an NGO Forest Network. Enhanced cooperation is needed both atnational and local levels to ensure effective change of experience and information applying
people oriented and participatory approach.. A new neutral body could be identified or
established to run such a network.

4.

The NFP process would be a useful testing ground for developing more common views among
the NGO community on forestry issues and the planning process should include special eventsor other measures for this purpose.
PART III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

10.

CONCLUSIONS

10.1

Future Vision

Self-sufficiency economy is one of the key principles of national development (cf. section 2.2.1).
Forest resources offer a major opportunity in contributing to its achievement. The following elements
could constitute possible elements for the future strategic vision of Sustainable Forest Management inThailand:(i) Net deforestation arrested and forest cover maintained over 35 to 40% of the total land area.
(ii) Most of degraded areas rehabilitated generating commercial and environmental goods/services
for Thai society.
(iii) The role of forests in poverty reduction enhanced through income and employment generationand improvement of livelihoods of rural people. Traditional knowledge on the utilization andconservation of the Thai forests effectively employed in reducing poverty in forest areas.
(iv) Community forests established with secured usufruct/tenure rights in most villages providing
goods and services to meet the household requirements, including for purposes beyond
subsistence needs such as generating revenue from sales of various products to the expanding
domestic and export markets for forest products.
(v) Most of industrial wood obtained from plantations established on private smallholder lands,
community forests and industry owned lands; plantations would produce both pulpwood and

106

(vi)

(vii)
(viii)
(ix)

(x)

(xi)

(xii)
(xiii)

(xiv)
(xv)

(xvi)

(xvii)(xviii)(xix)(xx)

sawlogs from a variety of species to meet the industrial and household needs. The plantations
would be sustainably managed with appropriate silvicultural regimes.
Rubberwood will continue to be an important raw material for wood industries but its relative
importance would be less than at present. Part of the rubberwood supply will come fromplantations established for timber or joint timber and latex production.
The wood-based industry would assume a more active role in the development of its raw
material supply, including through partnerships with private tree farmers and community forests.
All the timber harvesting operations would be verifiably legal and certifiable for SFM.
The TOF resources will continue to be expanded and their products would become commerciallyvaluable as sources of income for landowners from sales of timber, fuelwood and various
NTFPs.
The markets for forest products would become efficient based on full market transparency and as
a result of organization of roundwood sellers. Bio-energy, including for commercial alternative
energy supply, would be a significant outlet for forest production.
The international competitiveness of the Thai furniture industry, the wood-based panel industries
and pulp and paper production will be maintained based on sustainable raw material supply andefficient operations aimed at maximizing the value added of wood and other production factors.
Bamboo and rattan resources would be brought under systematic management as part of theforest management plans and their planting would be spread in private and community forests.
The protected areas would be managed in way which would ensure secured and improved
livelihoods for the people living in and around them, including their engagement in park
management and park-based ecotourism which will continue to grow.
Forest environmental services for mitigation of climate change, biodiversity, soil and water
conservation enhanced and, as appropriate, remunerated.
A firmly grounded forest policy process involving all the stakeholder groups would beestablished based on NFP principles; the national forest policy would be revised and its
implementation spelled out in the national forest program (to be further elaborated at provincial
level) which would be periodically updated.
Decision-making at all levels would be based on adequate information, including periodic forest
resource assessment, and regular reporting and monitoring systems. Indigenous knowledge andwisdom would be duly considered in making decisions on the use of forest resources.
FIO and Thai Plywood would be privatized.
Forest communities and forest owners would be effectively organized and they would be able toarrange the extension services for their own needs.
Civil society will become better organized and educated on forestry issues and its role in forest
conservation and development will be increased.
Private sector would switch their focus from pursuing individual interests to identification andpromotion of the common interests through effective associations.

These possible elements of the future vision of the Thai forestry should be discussed and further
developed as part of the NFP process to create a common understanding among all the stakeholders
about the direction of future actions.
10.2

Main Constraints

As a response to its terms-of-reference, the Mission has identified the following as the most criticalconstraints impeding progress towards SFM in Thailand:
1. The bottlenecks of the regulatory framework represent a critical obstacle for Thailand’s progress
towards SFM. These bottlenecks include the lack of legal framework for community forestry. In
addition, the legal framework related to the utilization of plantations should be clarified to107eliminate uncertainties for private investment in plantation forestry. There are also a number ofminor adjustments needed in the existing laws in this context.
2. There is lack of coherence between public policies, which makes implementation difficult andsometimes impossible. While the forest cover should be maintained for maintenance ofenvironmental values according to the forest policy, the agricultural and development policies callfor releasing forest land for crop cultivation and other uses. There is a need to clarify the policy
goals based on adequate analytical work so that value judgements can be based on facts rather thanperceptions.
3. People’s widely varying perceptions about how Thailand’s forests should be conserved andmanaged represents a major constraint for making progress towards SFM in the country. This has
blocked the approval of the badly needed Community Forestry Bill, which continues to impede thedevelopment of community forestry, the cornerstone of the SFM strategy for natural forests. In
addition, there is lack of clarity how natural forests outside protected areas should be managed.
The prevailing conservation paradigm focuses on setting aside protected areas, which undermines
the potential of these areas for meeting people’s needs without compromising the biodiversity
objectives. Analytical work to feed the public debate is relatively shallow and stakeholders are
generally not well prepared to articulate their priorities and constraints. A broad-based participatory process (within the framework of developing Criteria & Indicators for SFM or an NFP
process) could help generate a shared vision for the future forestry development in the country.
4. While the responsibility of forest management and timber production is being shifted in practice tothe private sector and communities, there is lack of coherent policy measures to support thischange. This has become a major constraint, as the change is fundamental requiring adjustment of
the public policies to support farmers, communities and investors in achieving SFM. The
Government’s role should be more focused on support and facilitation rather than control andenforcement. The support programs and incentives in the past have been inadequate and should bereformulated to correspond to the present and future needs of the target groups.
5. Institutional uncertainty about how public forest administration will be organized is a major
obstacle. Since 2002 RFD’s resources to implement its mandate have become limited and lack ofclarity in the policy framework has left the organization without clear direction on what its
mandate in practice should be. The inherited organizational structure is not optimal in terms of
deployment of human resources between the headquarters and the field activities, nor in the tasks
and financial resources assigned to RFD at DNP.
6. Deficient information systems make decision making haphazard and policy design becomes suboptimal by definition. Information should be understood as one of the main management tools at
different levels of the involved organizations both in the public and private sectors. Inadequate
information makes also monitoring and enforcement ineffective. There is a need to improve thetransparency of the market, and information on illegal logging, control and enforcement,
performance and impacts of forest operations.
7. In human resources the critical constraint appears to be lack of training for furniture and woodindustry supervisors and technicians. This currently makes it difficult for the industry to expand
and add value to its exported products. The other key constraint in the development of humanresources is the narrow focus of educational institutions on traditional forest management andutilization concepts which can no more meet the current needs of the forest sector.
10.3

Opportunities

In spite of the constraints highlighted above, sustainable management of Thailand’s forests offer anumber of significant opportunities:
1. The potential of community forestry to contribute to poverty alleviation is significant and remains
largely untapped. Several million people would benefit through improved livelihood and income
generation based on community forests.
108

2. There is a significant potential to expand planting of trees in marginal and other unused lands forincome generation. Thailand’s biophysical conditions are suitable for growing a whole range oftree species and the country has a competitive advantage compared to many other countries eventhough it is not among the lowest-cost producers. The development of the resource base throughplantations represents a major investment opportunity.
3. The forest-based environmental services have been declining due to deforestation. Mechanisms togenerate payments to forest managers and owners for these services could change this. The
services of carbon sequestration, soil and water conservation, biodiversity conservation, andamenity values (important both for local people and the tourism industry) remain largely as freepublic goods. Payment schemes for these services have a significant potential to change thesituation but their development is a major undertaking involving also regulatory changes.
4. Certified plantation teak offers an opportunity to tap a high-value export niche market (garden
furniture, decking, public construction projects, etc.).
5. Many non-timber forest products are in high demand both in the domestic and export markets
which offers major expansion possibilities if the resources and production and marketing methods
are duly developed.
11.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The analytical chapters of this report (from 3 to 9) already contain a series of detailed
recommendations for the Government and other stakeholders in Thailand. The Mission has singled out
the following recommendations which are thought to be critical in making further progress towards
sustainable forest management in the country. Those in italics are considered priorities:
11.1

Government

Natural forests
1. Preparation of management plans for PAs and forest reserves should be accelerated. Guidelines
for their preparation should be revised to better address participation of local people who are
influenced by the PA and forest reserve management. Management plans should adequately
address NTFP resources and their utilization by local people.
2. Effective communication mechanisms should be established to inform local people and otherstakeholders on the reasoning of the delineation of the gazetted protected areas to avoid conflicts
and resistance among those who are affected by the gazettement decisions. Communications
should be made in a simple, easily understandable manner.
Community Forestry
3. In spite of potential risks, the Community Forestry Bill should be approved without delay, as it
would open way for millions of forest dependent people to take part in, and benefit from, forestry
activities legally within the regulatory framework.
4. Community forestry should be allowed in national forest reserves. A task force should beestablished for preparation of additional provisions for issues like transfer of group member rights
in different situations. The Bill would also need to be followed by the development of a field
implementation guideline, which describes in simple language (a) the rationale for community
forestry, (b) process and approach to establish community forests, (c) definition of roles(responsibilities & authorities) of government forest departments and local communities, (d)institutional structure, (e) formulation of management/operational plans, (f) supporting services
available from the Government, as well as (g) procedures for monitoring progress and assessing
impacts.
5. Utilization of community forests should be open for both subsistence and commercial purposes(rather than limiting it to subsistence production only). Further, community members should be109allowed to harvest all types of forest products, including living trees, provided harvesting iscarried out as specified and agreed in the management plan for sustainable forestry and effective
enforcement and control are in place.
6. Regarding the issue of community forestry in protected areas, a policy statement/instruction could
be issued to develop specific forest management and utilization activities to meet the needs ofcommunities residing in and around PAs. Such activities should be defined in the management
plan of each PA. This would keep the forest under state property ensuring its authority inchanging conditions to protect the resource while allowing local communities to develop theirlivelihood strategies based on sustainable use of the forest resources without endangering theenvironmental values of the PA.
Plantations
7. RFD should take a more active role to promote strengthened coordination between the agencies
involved in rubber planting and utilization of latex and rubberwood. The promotion of planting
rubber trees for timber production should be based on the evaluation of the clone performance andalso the silvicultural aspects should be considered in the establishment and management of suchrubber areas. This would require adequate information on the country’s growing stock of rubber
trees, their total volume, annual increment, age distribution, diameter at various ages, initialplantation density, etc. which should be generated through special studies and regular monitoringwork.
8. The obligation of transit permit should be removed from teak logs from thinnings in areas outside
forest reserves as the first step to facilitate trade and to reduce transaction costs for owners. At alater date in the future, regulation of harvesting mature planted trees could be reconsidered in thelight of then prevailing enforcement situation in the forestry sector. There is an urgent need toamend the law in this context to reduce uncertainty among investors, reducing the pressure on
illegal logging in natural forests.
9. Wood measurement practices should be further developed and promoted to protect sellers’interests. Selling growing stock without measurement should be phased out and replaced byweight measurement of harvested product. In the long run, saw and veneer log measurement
should preferably be carried out based on volume, which would make the value of the productmore transparent for both parties.
10. The Government’s role in mitigating market risks related to private sector plantation investment
should be limited to the following measures: (i) improved market transparency, (ii) promotion ofdiversification of outputs (introducing sawlogs as complementary product for eucalyptus
plantations), (iii) developing measurement and grading systems for log trade, (iv) support toorganization of producers, and (v) for risk averse farmers and landowners, encourage the industry
to include a minimum price clause in partnership agreements. A government-backed minimum
price scheme should not be put in place.
Fuelwood
11. A study on the production and utilization of fuelwood should be carried out as there is no data toplan programs in this field. Fuelwood plantations could be expanded to meet the demand of
woodfuels outside forests. Bio-energy plantations could be established by private entrepreneurs forindustrial use, were there sufficient information to enable such decisions.
Non-Timber Forest Products
12. The ITTO Project PD56/99 Rev.(I) Promotion of the Utilization of Bamboo from Sustainable
Sources has well established the state-of-art in management and utilization of bamboo resources(RFD/ITTO 2004a). This useful information should be effectively disseminated down to thefarmer and SME levels in an appropriate form. Further work will still be required on research on
bamboo utilization for industrial applications. Such a public investment would have a higheconomic and social return for the country.

11013. Bamboo should be given adequate importance in the social forestry/agroforestry practices as wellas in watershed management. Providing incentives to small-scale and marginal farmers should
encourage cultivation of bamboo. There is also an urgent need for guidance on intensified
technology to promote growing bamboo on private lands.
14. Market transparency on the demand and trade of NTFPs should be improved with a continuous
information service which would also reveal the mark-ups of middlemen to improve the efficiencyof the market mechanism.
Ecotourism
15. An ecotourism development strategy should be elaborated which could guide local communities
and the private sector to enhance the contribution of the natural heritage and local communities tosustainable tourism development in Thailand. The three border areas as potential focal zones for
future tourism development (Andaman, the Eastern Forest Complex and the Northern area) should
be duly considered in the strategy.
Financing
16. Feasibility of establishing a special forest fund for community forestry and smallholder plantation
development through using the existing banking institutions as the delivery channel should bestudied.
Public Policies
17. The Forest Policy should be updated through an inclusive structured NFP process. The conflicting
policy goals related to land use, which impact forests and the forestry sector, should be removed.
18. National Criteria & Indicators for SFM should be developed to serve as a tool for clarifying forest
policy goals and designing a monitoring system at national and forest management unit levels.
19. Forest impact safeguards should be developed to guide the design of future road, infrastructure
and urban/tourism development projects in Thailand as they play a critical role in opening up
access to encroachers facilitating commercialization of agricultural production in frontier areas
with a risk of contributing to inappropriate land conversion.
20. A special survey with field data collection should be carried out on the illegal logging andassociated trade, as there is no reliable information available on the current extent and nature of
the problem. Monitoring and control systems should be further developed drawing on the
integration of different sources of data and possibility for various modalities to improve theefficacy of control (e.g. independent auditing, chain-of-custody certification, etc.)
Institutional Capacity
21. A detailed assessment should be carried out on the options for the institutional structure related to
RFD and DNP. Both departments could be re-merged with more precise and clear mandates forbetter coordination and understanding, but they could also be run as separate units. In the lattercase reallocation of duties and resources would be needed and effective coordination mechanisms
at the level of the headquarters and field staff should be established. In both cases, a proper line ofcommand should be established.
22. The extension unit or division at the department level should have a clear role in the overall
development of forestry extension with the tasks of developing suitable extension strategies andpackages, and providing support and training to field staff. It should ensure that there areconsistent messages going out to the clients and the public, in line with the Government’s overall
environmental and development policy objectives. The unit should provide leadership indeveloping a unified integrated extension program for the provincial, district, TAO and village
level officers, including plans for activities related to extension of community forestry, private
forestry, industrial forestry, watershed management and people’s participation in management of111

national parks and wildlife sanctuaries. The unit should also coordinate with the extension units ordivisions of other sectors.
23. Provincial and District Natural Resource/Forest Officers should assume a strong role and develop
solid strategic plans for the forestry development. Guidance for how such plans should be
prepared does not exist and RFD should address this, together with associated training, as a toppriority. In view of the large number of provinces the task is extensive.
24. FIO should revise it mandate and overhaul its operations within a strategy where all options forthe organization’s future role are duly considered. This would probably involve divestment ortransfer some of the duties and assets to organizations which are in better position to carry out thetasks. Possible future roles for FIO could be (i) management of state-owned plantation assets(likely involving outsourcing), (ii) development of partnerships with farmers and other private
landowners for production of timber and NTFPs, and (iii) acting as a catalyst for new technologies(utilization of teak thinnings, eucalyptus sawlog production and marketing, etc.). The future role isinterlinked with RFD’s future mandates. Options for the organizational arrangements in bothorganizations should be considered simultaneously.
Research
25. The general criteria of the Ministry of Science and Technology are too general to properly guideforestry research. The research priorities should be identified based on problem analysis. Practicaland field-oriented research would ensure its wider utility. Effective dissemination of research
results targeted at beneficiaries should be improved, as there is now emphasis on academic
channels.
26. Many actors including universities and private sector are conducting forestry-related research on
specific issues of immediate interest to them. The research agendas of various actors should belinked to a clear strategic vision of the forestry sector which is unfortunately lacking. There is anurgent need to establish an integrated Forestry Research Network in the country with sufficientbudget allocations.
27. Further research would be urgently required on (a) economic and social aspects of forestry, (b)suitable tree species for shelterbelt establishment along the coastal areas, (c) increasing ofproductivity of wood and other forest produce, (d) reclamation of wastelands and degraded lands
through low-cost measures, (e) research related to social forestry, farm-forestry, agroforestry, andurban forestry, and (f) commercial bioenergy utilization for electricity and heat generation fromplantation wood and industrial residues. On-farm research should be expanded as it has moredemonstrative effect on the farmers. The extension activities should go hand in hand with the onfarm research activities.
Education, Training and Extension
28. A human development plan should be prepared for the forestry sector covering education, training
and extension (for the next 5-7 years) should be developed.. As a first step, a task team should beestablished to undertake a feasibility study for the current and future needs of education, training
and extension programs and activities to serve as a basis for such a strategy.
29. Organizational development of smallholders and community forests will not happen without thecatalytic support from RFD or other public agencies. Government support to organizational
strengthening could include developing model rules of operation for local associations, andsupport to initial phase of organization. To start the process, pilot projects in representative
situations could be launched to test alternative approaches for organization of tree farmers andcommunities, and how extension services could be arranged.
30. One of the technical colleges/institutes should be assigned to set up a specialized training
programme to meet the technical level training of the roughly 1,700 Thai furniture enterprises.

112

Information System
31. RFD should prepare a road map with the time frame for the collection, dissemination anddevelopment of National Forestry Database Management System (NFDMS). The System would
improve collection and dissemination of information and statistical data on forest resources,
forestry operations, forest industry and product markets with unified definitions and measurement
units. Special studies should be carried out on key data gaps such as the production andconsumption of timber and sawnwood, fuelwood, and NTFPs in the domestic market at the subdistrict, district and provincial levels, including illegal harvesting and associated trade.
Development of the NFDMS database should involve participation of users and other stakeholders
including the design of means for how they can access relevant information. A maximum level oftransparency should be aimed at.
11.2

Other Stakeholders

11.2.1 Forest Industry
1. Sawmilling and plywood industries should improve the current purchasing system of logs where
the only criterion of quality is presently log diameter, if any. Such a system should pay due
attention to the use value of logs based on established grading criteria.
2. The private sector should implement an integrated approach to develop eucalyptus utilization forsawmilling and plywood production including (i) establishment of thinning trials and developmentof silvicultural systems, (ii) stock-taking of the international experience on the use of eucalyptus
for solidwood products, (iii) industrial-scale trials, (iv) development of quality requirements forlarge-sized logs and pricing scales, (v) promotion of thinnings among eucalyptus farmers. This
work could possibly be done through a joint project between RFD and the private sector.
3. Both sawmilling and pulpwood industry should be engaged in R&D work to develop utilization oflarge-diameter logs to gain experience on processing, particularly on drying, drawing on
knowledge in other countries.
4. In view of the potential to use eucalyptus for solidwood products, a broader range of species
should be introduced in plantation investments as E. camaldulensis is not the optimum for all uses.
The feasibility of growing E. grandis, E. urophylla and their hybrids should be studied with thisobjective. Based on the results, the woodworking industry could encourage private planting ofthese species which are also highly suitable for pulping.
5. The industry should have a better control of its raw material supply and it should also play a more
active role in its development. Harvesting training should be provided to those growers who havecapacity to work in harvesting. Industry and contractors could encourage this by introducing
remunerative prices for logged timber sold on roadside or on the plantation site. This
recommendation concerns particularly the pulp and paper and reconstituted wood-based panel
industries.
6. In order to improve its competitiveness, the industry should move more aggressively towards
adoption of higher efficiency technological options for log handling, sawing, drying, further
processing and waste handling.
7. The industrial associations should be developed to make them more capable for their own policy
analysis, more transparent and more effective to ensure that broader industry interests are duly
considered in the public policy.
8. A joint consultative body among industry associations could become useful in the future toaddress common interests like promotion of wood production, certification, trade regulation,
promotion of training and research, etc.

113

11.2.2 Forest Communities, Farmers and Landowners
9. Forest communities, farmers and landowners should establish effective common organizations(associations, cooperatives, etc.) which would be capable to protect their interests in varying
market conditions. These common organizations would be crucial for improving the negotiation
power of the roundwood producers leading to remunerative wood prices.
10. Associations should probably develop a clear two (or three)-level structure with provincial or
district level associations and a national federation which would serve as a common interest
group. Farmer/landowner associations should develop over time their own extension capacity, as
it is unlikely that the public sector could carry out this task.
11. Tree farmer-corporate partnership arrangements should be promoted as a means for greater
investment in plantations and mitigating against market risks. Partnerships can also mobilize suchlandowners in plantation investment who do not have own resources to organize planting andmanagement activities. There is a need to improve transparency on the practical arrangements and,if needed, introduce facilitators (e.g. RFD extension agents) to advise on appropriate formulae
which are not abusive for small landowners. Also farmer associations can assume the facilitatorrole.
11.2.3 Civil Society
12. The dialogue on rural people’s role in conservation strategies should be enhanced among the NGO
community as the Government is getting vastly different and mixed messages on how policies onforest-dependent people should be designed. In promoting sustainable forestry development, it isof utmost importance that the two sides of the NGO community can be engaged in achieving thecommon goals. For the NGOs their impact would also be more significant if they could develop
common policy proposals and work strategies.
13. An NGO Forest Network should be established. Enhanced cooperation is needed both at national
and local levels to ensure effective change of experience and information. A new neutral body
could be identified or established to run such a network if none of the existing NGOs can assume
this task.
11.2.4 All Stakeholders
14. All the stakeholders, probably with the facilitation of the RFD, should identify and assess options
for the development of forest certification in Thailand. A national-level stakeholder workshop
would be a useful instrument to take stock of the market demands and grassroots experiences, andto assess which option(s) would be feasible in Thailand. In the development of the national
standard a broad-based participatory process should be applied and the international requirements for national standards/systems should be duly considered from the outset.
11.3

ITTO

11.3.1 Support to Thailand
The following elements could constitute a framework for ITTO’s future support program to Thailand
1. The development of national Criteria & Indicators for SFM through a broad-based participatory
process has a potential to serve as a critical element in developing a shared vision among
stakeholders about how the country’s national forests should be managed. ITTO has a comparativeadvantage in supporting Thailand in this important exercise which could clarify the national policy
goals.

114

2. Cross-border forest complexes represent a particular priority in the maintenance of protected areas
over broader landscapes which need to be conserved through integrated approaches including
buffer zones, biological corridors, etc. and which should address the specific issues of border areas(immigration, trade in endangered species, illegal logging, etc.). Drawing on the positive
experience to develop a management plan for large forest areas in the Phatam Protected Forests
Complex, ITTO support would be required to develop the Management Plan for the Western
Forest Complex.
3. The elaboration of the human development plan and extension strategy would be the first step toremove a key constraint to making progress towards SFM in Thailand. In view of ITTO’s earlier
work in this field in the region, the Organization would have a competitive advantage to provide
support the country by starting with a pre-project study.
4. A major support program should be launched to strengthen the national forest information system.
This is required for improved control of illegal logging and associated trade but also publicdecision-making on the sector in general. The work could be launched with a feasibility study thatwould map out options and outline a comprehensive plan for implementation.
5. ITTO should build partnerships with Thai education and training institutes and some regionalorganizations, such as RECOFTC, to design and deliver a range of capacity building products andservices targeted at implementation of the relevant recommendations of the Mission.
6. In view of the urgent needs of the Thai furniture industry, a program of crash courses forsupervisors on quality management could be arranged with ITTO assistance.

11.3.2 General Recommendation
7. ITTO has a comparative advantage in promoting the transfer of knowledge on eucalyptus
processing for solidwood products. An international-level project to take stock of the state-of-art
and disseminate the existing knowledge would benefit producing Member Countries, including
Thailand, which need to diversify utilization of their eucalyptus plantations. Dissemination should
focus on technical solutions on problems of sawing and drying of eucalyptus, further processing,markets and economic aspects.

115

REFERENCES
ADB. 2005. The Greater Mekong Subregion Tourism Sector Strategy. Manila.
Agricultural Statistics of Thailand 2004. Center for Agricultural Information, Office of Agricultural
Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. Bangkok.
Angelsen, A. & D. Kaimowitz. 1999. Rethinking the Causes of Deforestation: Lessons from Economic
Models. The World Bank Observer 14(1): pp. 73-98
Bahuguna, V.K., M. Kinsuk, D. Capistrano & S. Saigal. 2004. Root to Canopy; Regenerating Forests
through Commuty-State Partnership. Ministry of Environment and Forests. New Delhi.
Barbier, E.B & M.Cox. 2004. An Economic Analysis of Shrimp Farm Expansion and Mangrove
Conversion in Thailand. LSand Economics, Volume 80, Number 3, 1 August 2004, pp. 389-407
Bassili, A. 2000. Proposed Action Plan for the Thai Rubberwood Industry. RFD Forest Research Office.
ITTO PPD 1/98 Rev 2(I) Rubberwood Utilization and Marketing in Thailand.
Bhat K. 2000. Timber Quality of Teak from Managed Plantations of the Tropics with Special Reference to
Indian Plantations. Bois et forêts des tropiques 263 (1).
Bhat, K.M., K.K.N. Nair, K.V. Bhat, E.M. Maralidharan & J.K. Sharma. 2005. Quality of Timber
Products of Teak from Sustainable Forest Management. Kerala Forest Research Institute/ITTO.
Kerala. India.
Bhattarai, B. 2005. Widening the Gap Between Terai and Hill Farmers in Nepal. The Implication of the
New Forest Policu 2000. In Mahanty et al (eds) 2005.
Brown, C., P.B. Durst & T. Enters. 2001. Forests Out of Bounds: Impacts and Effectiveness of Logging
Bans in Natural Forests in Asia-Pacific. FAO. Bangkok.
Brown, D. 1999. Principles and Practice of Forest Co-Management: Evidence from West-Central Africa.
EU Tropical Forestry Paper No 2. ODI, London.
Bruijnzeel, L.A. 2004. Hydological Functions of Tropical Forests: Not Seeing the Soil for Trees?.
Agrculture, Ecosystems and Environment 104(19: 185- 228.
Bugna, S. & G.Rambaldi. 2003. Review of the Protected Area System of Thailand.
Care. 2001. Collaborative Natural Resources Management in Mae Chaem District Project. Project
Document. Care International in Thailand, 99 pp
Carrere, R. & L. Lohmann. 1996. Pulping the South: Industrial Tree Plantations and the World Paper
Economy. World Rainforest Movement. Zad Books Ltd.
Castrén. T. 2005. Ownership and Incentives in Joint Forest Management: A Survey. Development Policy
Review 23(1):87-104.
Charuppat, T. 2002. Land Use Change Detection, land Evaluation and Land Use Planning in Lam Phrae
Phloeng Watershed. Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree ofDoctor of Science in Soil Science. Khon Khaen University.
Charrupat, T. GEO-Information and Space Technology Development Agency. Personal communication.
Clarke, J. E. (undated) Biodiversity and Protected Areas Thailand. Regional Environmental Technical
Assistance 5771. Poverty Reduction & Environmental Management in Remote Greater Mekong
Subregion (GMS) Watersheds Project (Phase I)
Cropper, M., J. Puri & C. Griffiths. 2001. Predicting the Location of Deforestation: The Role of Roads
and Protected Areas in North Thailand. Land Economics 77(2):172–186.
Dheeraprasart, D. 2005. Until No Trees Remain: Illegal Logging in the Salween Forest. In FER. (2005),
pp. 2-47.
Dixon, C.J. 1978. Settlement and Environment in Northeast Thailand. The Journal of Tropical Geography
46: 1-10.
Elliott, S., D. Blakesley & V. Anusarnsunthorn (eds.). 1998. Forests for the Future: Growing and Planting
Native Trees for Restoring Forest Ecosystems. Forest Restoration Research Unit. Chiang Mai
University.

116

Emphandhu, D. & S. Kalyawongsa. 2003. Human Dimensions in Thailand Western Forest Complex
Challenges and Opportunities. Fifth International SAMPAA Conference. University of Victoria,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. May, 2003
Enters, T. P. B. Durst & M. Victor (eds.) Decentralization and Devolution of Forest Management in Asiaand the Pacific. RECOFTC Report No. 18, RAP Publication 2000/1, FAO and RECOFTC,
Bangkok, Thailand.
FAO. 1978. Forestry for Local Community Development. Forestry Paper No. 7. Food and Agriculture
Organization. Rome..
FAO. 1995. Implementing Sustainable Forest Management in Asia and the Pacific. RAP Publication
1997/7.
FAO. 2001. Global Forest Resources Assessment, Main Report. FAO Forestry Paper No. 140. Rome.
FAO. 2002. Giants on Our Hands. Proceedings of the International Workshop on the Domesticated Asian
Elephant. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok.
FAO. 2003. An Overview of Forest Policies in Asia. EC-FAO Partnership Programme (2000-2002)
FAO. 2005a. Enhancing the National Forest Programme (nfp) Process in Thailland: A Country
Assessment of the NFP’s Basic Principles and Elements. NFP Facility. Workshop Report.
Pakchong, Nakorn Ratchasima, 6-8 July 2005.
FAO. 2005b. Global Forest Resources Assessment. Progress towards Sustainable Forest
Management. FAO Forestry Paper 147. Rome.
FAO. 2005c. State of the World’s Forests 2005. Rome.
FER. 2005. After the Logging Ban. Politics of Forest Management in Thailand. Foundation for Ecological
Recovery. Bangkok.
Fisher & Cook (eds).1997. Conflict and Collaboration. Eigth Workshop on Community Management ofForest Lands. East-West Center, Honolulu, Hawaii. February 18- March 28, 1997.
Forsyth, T. 2005. The Political Ecology of the Ecosystem Approach for Forests. In Sayer & Maginnis(eds.) 2005, pp. 165-175.
Fukui, H., C. Naewchampa & K. Hoshikawa. 2000. Evolution of Rain-fed Rice Cultivation in Northeast
Thailand: Increased Production with Decreased Stability. Global Environmental Research 3(2):145-154.
Gavinlertvatana, P.1995. Commercial Micro Propagation of Teak in Thailand. Teak for the FutureProceedings of the Second Regional Seminar on Teak. 29 May-3 June 1995. Yangon, Myanmar.
Gilmour, D.A. & R.J. Fisher. 1991. Villagers, Forest and Foresters: the Philospohy, Process and Practiceof Community Forestry in Nepal. Sahaayogi Press. Kathmandu.
Gilmour, D., N.O’Brien, M. Nurse. 2005. Overview of Regulatory Frameworks for Community Forestryin Asia. First Regional Community Forestry Forum. Regulatory Frameworks for Community
Forestry in Asia (Edited by N. O’Brien, S. Mathews & M. Nurse). Regional community Forestry.
Training Center for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok.
Gray, D., C. Piprell, & M. Graham. 1991. National Parks of Thailand. Industrial Finance Corporation ofThailand.
Geist, H. J. & E. F. Lambin. 2001. What Drives Tropical Deforestation? A Meta-analysis of Proximate
and Underlying Causes of Deforestation Based on Subnational Case Study Evidence, LUCC Report
Series No. 4, LUCC International Project Office, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 116 pp.
Hassan, M.J.M. 2000. Viability of Rubber Forest Plantation. Seminar on Rubber Forest Plantation. 22
May 2000. Malaysian Rubber Board.
Hares, M. 2006. Community Forestry and Environmental Literacy in Northern Thailand: Towards
Collaborative Natural Resource Management and Conservation. University of Helsinki Viikki
Tropical Resources Institute. Tropical Forestry Reports 28. Helsinki.
Hirsch, P. (ed.). 1997. Seeing Forests for the Trees: Environment and Environmentalism in Thailand.
Silkworm Books. Chiang Mai, Thailand.
ITTO.2002. Mangrove Work Plan 2002-2006. June 2002. Yokohama.

117

ITTO. 2005. Revised ITTO Criteria and Indicators for the Sustainable Management of Tropical Forests
Including Reporting Format. ITTO Policy Development Series No 15. Yokohama.
ITTO. 2006a. Status of Tropical Forest Management 2005. Yokohama.
ITTO. 2006b. Tropical Timber Market Report 1-15 June 2006. Vol. 11(11): 6-7.
IUCN. 2004. Annex 11 of IUCN Asia Inter-Sessional Program 2005-2008. Prepared for the World
Conservation Congress Meeting. Bangkok. November 2004.
Jantakad, P. & D. Gilmour. 1999. Forest Rehabilitation Policy and Practice in Thailand. ADB RETA 5771
Poverty Reduction & Environmental Management in Remote Greater Mekong Subregion
Watershed Project (Phase I).
Janya Waevuthinan. 1992. Collections of Forest Acts 3rd Edition.
JICA. 2004. Record of Activities. Forest Management Techniques Section (1999-2004). JICA Reforestation and Extension Project in the Northeast of Thailand (Phase II). November 2004. 286 pp.
Kalyawongsa, S. 1997. Defining the Forests: Resolving Conflict over Communty Forestry Legislation in
Thailand. In Fisher & Cook (eds).1997; pp.55-74.
Kanel, K.R. and D.R. Niraula. 2004. Can Rural Livelihood be Improved in Nepal Through Community
Forestry? Banko Janakari, Vol. 14(1) :19-26.
Kanel, K.R. 2005. Nepal – Community Forestry 2005, 1st Regional Community Forestry Policy Forum.
Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific (RECOFTC). Bangkok.
Kijkar, S. 2005. Current Status of Teak in Thailand. In Bhat et al. (ed). 2005, pp. 68-72.
Laesak, Nikhom, pers. comm. University of Kasetsart, Faculty of Forestry.
Lakanavichian, S. 2000. Impacts and Effectiveness of Logging Bans in Natural Forests: Thailand.
Country Study.
Lakanavichian, S. 2001. Forest Policy and History in Thailand. Research Centre on Forest andPeople in Thailand. Working Paper No. 9, December 2001, 63 pp.
Lessons Learned in Cambodia, Lao PDR, Thailand and Vietnam. Review of Protected Areas andDevelopment. Lower Mekong River Region. (undated). IUCN.
Limchoowong, S. et al. 1997. Evaluation on Thailand - Vietnam Agroforestry Development Project, Nink
Binh Province, Vietnam.
Lynch, O.J. & K. Talbott. 1995. Balancing Actis: Community-based Forest Management and National
Law in asia and the Pacific. World Resources Institute. September 1995. Washington, D.C.
MacKinnon, J. (ed). 1997. Protected Area Systems Review of the Indo-Malayan Realm. Asian Bureau forConservation, World Conservation Monitoring Centre.
MacQuistan, C. 1999. The Tambon Administration, Organisation and Rural Development: Experiences In
Northeastern Thailand. Special Report. ADB RETA 5771. Poverty Reduction & Environmental
Management in Remote Greater Mekong Subregion Watersheds Project (Phase I).
Mahanty,S., J. Fox, N. Nurse, P. Stephen & L. McLees (eds). 2005. Hanging in the Balance: Equity in
Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Asia. Regional Community Forestry Training
Center for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok.
Malla, Y. 2000. Benefits from Community Forestry in Nepal. UNASYLVA, FAO. Rome.
Malla, Y. 2006. Financing Sustainable Forest management. Actual and Potential Contributions of Local
Coimmunities. A Presentation at the 21st Session of the Asia pacific Forestry Commission. Dehra
Dun. India.
Meekaew P. 1992. Genetic Variation of Growth, Seed Production and Foliar Nutrients of Teak, M.Sc.
thesis. Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University. Bangkok
Ministry of Iinterior. 2005. Population, Area, Density and Households by Region and Province.
Department of Local Administration, Ministry of Interior. Bangkok. National Statistical Office
Website www.nso.go.th.

118

Molnar, A. et al. 2006. Community-based Forest enterprises in Tropical forest Cuntries: Status andPotential. Report to the ITTO. May 24, 2006.
MONRE. 2006. Thailand National Report of the Implementation of the Convention on Biological
Diversity.Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning. Bangkok.
Nalampoon, A. 2003. National Forest Policy Overview Thailand. FAO 2003. Bangkok. P. 295-311.
Moore, P. 2005. Regulatory Frameworks Trends, Challenges and Issues. In O’Brien et al. (eds.)(2005).
National Park Office. 2004. National Park in Thailand. A Handout for the Thai-Nordic Course on Forest
Ecology. Co-organised by the University of Helsinki, Department of Forest Ecology, andKasetsart University, Faculty of Forestry, January 2004, National Park, Wildlife and Plant
Conservation Department, Bangkok, Thailand.
National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation Department. 2004. Statistical Data . Bangkok.
NEA. 1991. Thailand Energy Situation. National Energy Administration, Ministry of Science Technology
and Energy, Thailand.
NESDB. 2002. National Economics and Social Development Plan 2002-2006. Office of the Prime
Minister.
NFP Facility. 2005. Enhancing the National Forest Programme (nfp) Process in Thailand: A Country
Assessment of the nfp’s Basic Principles and Elements. Workshop Report. Pakchong, Nakorn
Ratchasina, 6-8 uly 2005.
NSO. 2004. Statistical Yearbook Thailand. 2004. National Statistical Office. Ministry of Communication
and Information Technology. Bangkok.
O’Brian, N., S. Mathews & M. Nurse (eds.). 2005. First Regional Community Forestry Forum.
Regulatory Framewoks for Community Forestry in Asia. Regional Community Forestry Training
Center for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok.
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning. 1997. Policy and Prospective Plan for Enhancement andConservation of National Environmental Quality, 1997-2016. Ministry of Science, technology andEnvironment.
Office of Environmental Policy and Planning. 2000. Biodiversity Conservation in Thailand: A National
Report. Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment. Thailand.
Office of the National Economic and Social Development Board. 2005. National Income of Thailand
2003 Edition. Bangkok.
PAD. 2003. Thailand – A National Report on Protected Areas and Development. International Center for
Environment Management. Queensland. Australia.
Panunumpa, N. 2004. Reduction and Utilization of Wood Residues. Royal Forest Department. November
2004. Mimeo.
Parr, J. 1996. Evaluation Conservation Areas in Thailand. Tigerpaper 23(3). 4 pp.
Petmak. P. 1990. Agroforestry in Thailand.
Poffenberger (ed.). 1990. Keepers of the Forest, Land Management Alternatives in Southeast Asia,
Kumarian Press, U.S.A.
Poffenberger, M. (ed.). 1999. Communities and Forest Management in Southeast Asia. A Regional Profileof the Working Group on Community Involvement in Forest Management. Forests People andPolicies. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland.
Prabudhanitisaarn, S. 2004. Dynamics of Power Relations on Natural Resource Utilization of Rural Thai
Communities of Northern Thailand. In Sontirat et. al. (eds). 2004: pp. 207-238.
Pratong, K. 1991. Community Forestry: Village Level Models for Sustainable Production and Community
Management in Thailand. Tsukuba University, Japan (unpublished PhD Thesis).
Pragtong, K. 2001. Recent Decentralization Plans of the Royal Forest Department and Its Implications for
Forest Management in Thailand. In Enters et al. 2001; pp 146-151.
Pragtong, K. RFD Ecology & Environmental Research. Personal communication.
Pragtong, K. & D. Thomas. 1990. Evolving Management Systems in Thailand.
119Proceedings of National Consultative Workshop of JFM. 2005. Ministry of Environment & Forests,
Government of India. New Delhi, July 14-15, 2005.
Rasmussen, J. N., A. Kaosa-ard, T. Enggrob Boon, M. Chimere, K. Edwards, S. Kadyschuk, M. Kaosaard, T. Lang, P. Preechapanya, K. Rerkasem & F. Rune. 2000. For Whom and for What? Principles,
criteria, and Indicators for Sustainable Forest Resources Management in Thailand. Skov &Landskab Reports No. 6, Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, Hørsholm, Denmark,119 pp.
Promachotikul, M, M. Doungpet. 1995. Wood Products Industry of Thailand - Paper Presented at The
Asia Forestry Products Trade’s 95 Conference, 29-30 November, 1995. Jakarta, Indonesia.
RFD/ITTO. 2004a. Sustainable Management and Utilization of Bamboo. Project PD 56/99 Rev. I(I).
Promotion of the Utilization of Bamboo from Sustainable Sources in Thailand. Final Report.
Bangkok.
RFD/ITTO. 2004b. The Management Plan of the Pha Taem Protected Forests Complex. ITTO Project
PD15/00(F).
RFD/KU. 2005. Final Report of the Master Pland for the Extension of Economic Tree Farm Developmentin Thailand.
Royal Forest Department. 1996. Thailand Forest Covers by Using Remote Sensing Techniques B.E. 2538
(1995). Fact Sheet December 18, 1996.
Royal Forest Department. 1998. , Statistics Report on Tourists Visiting the National Park in Fiscal Year1997. Fact Sheet March 24, 1998
Royal Forest Department. 2004a. Achievement of Farm Forestry Programme Implementation during
1994-2003. Fact Sheet December 14, 2004.
Royal Forest Department. 2004b. Forestry Statistics of Thailand. 2004.
Sato, J. 2000. People in Between: Conversion and Conservation of Forest Lands in Thailand,
Development and Change 31(1):155–177.
Sato, J. 2003. Public Land for People: The Institutional Basis of Community Forestry in Thailand. Journalof Southeast Asian Studies 34(2):329–346.
Sayer, J.A. & S. Maginnis (eds.) 2005. Forests in Landscapes. Ecosystem Approaches to Sustainability.
IUCN & Earthscan. London.
Dagarik, R. 2005. Preface. In FER 2005.
Sombrun, K. 2004. General Perspectives of Rattan in Thailand, RFD. Bangkok.
Sontirat, S., P. Oksen & P. Duangpatra (eds). 2004. Transformation Processis in the Use of Natural
Resources and Effects on Sustainability. A Monograph on Conceptual Approaches to Interdiscilplinary Land Use and Natural Resource Management in North and Northeast Thailand.
Subansenee, W. 1996. Non Wood Forest Products in Thailand. Forest Research Office, Royal Forest
Department.
Shutthisrisilapa, C. (undated). Country Status Paper on the History and Development of Forestry Researchin Thailand. RFD.
Sutthisrisin, C. & Noochdumrong, A. 1998. Country Report on Thailand: Forest Policy and Planning.
FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok.
Sumantakul, V. & Songkul, S. 1995. Teak Resources in Thailand. Teak for the Future-Proceedings of theSecond Regional Seminar on Teak. 29 May-3 June 1995. Yangon, Myanmar
Technical Forest Office. 1994. ASEAN Institute of Forest Management Phase 1 and Phase 2 (1986-1997).
Technical Forest Office. 1994. ASEAN International Tropical Timber Organization.
Thai Forestry Sector Master Plan. 1993. Vols 1 to 4. Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives. RFD.
Bangkok.
Komkit, T. 1965. Forestry in Thailand.
Thailand Energy Situation 2003. Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (DEDE),
Ministry of Energy.
Thomas, D.E. 1988. Village Land Use in Northeast Thailand: Predicting the Effects of Development
120

Policy in Village Use of Wildlands. Ph. D. dissertation. Dept of Forestry and Resource
Management, College of Natural Resources, University of California. Berkeley. 171 p.
Thomas, D.E. 2005. Developing Watershed Management Organizations in Pilot Sub-Basins of the Ping
River Basin. Participatory Watershed Management of the Ping River Basin Project. Ministry of
Natural Resources and Environment. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy
Planning. The World Bank. Bangkok. December 2005.
Thomas, D.E., P. Preechapanya & P. Saipothong. 2004. Landscape Agroforestry in Northern Thailand:
Impacts of Changing Land Use in an Upper Tributary Watershed of Montane Mainland Southeast
Asia. Synthesis Report: 1996-2004. Faculty of Agriculture, World Agroforestry Centre, Care
Thailand.
Tipprasert, P. 2002. Elephants and Ecotourism in Thailand. In FAO 2002, pp. 157-172.
Tourism Authority of Thailand. (undated) Policies and Guidelines - Development of Ecotourism (19951996).
UN/FAO/EUROSTAT//ITTO Thailand’s Forest Sector Questionnaire 2005
Ungphakorn, S., C. Sutthisrisilapa, K. Pragtong & W. Sonthiwanit. 2005. A Preliminary Report Preparedto Assist the ITTO Diagnostic Mission to Thailand. Bangkok.
Vermaas. H.F. 1998. Drying of Eucalyptus with Special Reference to Young Fast-Grown Plantation
Material. Seminário Internacional, sobre Produtos Sólidos de Madeira de Alta Tecnologia e
Encontro Sobre Tecnologias Apropiadas de Desdobro, Secagem e Utilização da Madereira deEucalipto. 7 a 11 de dezembro de 1998. Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brasil.
Vityakon, P., S. Subhadhira, V. Limpinuntana, S. Srila, V. Trelo-Ges & V. Sriboonlue. 2004. From Forest
to Farmfields: Changes in Land Use in Undulating Terrain of Northeast Thailand at Different
Scales during the Past Century. Southeast Asian Studies 41(4): 444-472.
Walker, A. 2004. Seeing Farmers for the Trees: Community Forestry and the Arborealisation ofAgriculture in northern Thailnd. Asia Pacific Viewpoint 45 (3): pp. 311-324.
Weyerhäeuser, H. 2001. Potential of Semi-Natural Management of Deciduous Forests in Thailand. GTZ.
Eschborn.
Witchawutipomg, J. 2005. Thailand. Community Forestry 2005. In O’Brian et al. (eds.) 2005.
www.customs.go.th
Swww.fao.org FAO. Thailand Forest Sector Data.
www.forest.go.th/rfd
www.nso.go.th121Annex 1

Terms of Reference for Diagnostic Missions

The Terms of Reference of a Diagnostic Mission to any country will be to:
1. Identify the factors that are most critical in preventing the attainment of sustainable forest
management in that country.
2. Assemble these constraints in order of importance.
3. Recommend a sequence of actions to remove the constraints, providing cost estimates wheneverpossible.
Notes of Guidance
The principles underlying the Diagnostic Missions are these:
1. In any situation, there is usually one factor that is most crucial in preventing progress. Until thisconstraint is removed, no progress is possible on any other front. But, once this first constraint isremoved, there may be another that, in its turn, limits progress. Etc.
2. The objective of the Diagnostic Mission is to identify these constraints, to arrange them in asequence and recommend appropriate action.
3. The exact procedures for the Mission will depend upon the circumstances in the country
concerned. It should, however, include:
●
●
●
●
●

Discussion with government ministers and senior members of the department responsible forforests, land use and trade.
Discussion with forest managers and representatives of the timber trade.
Discussion with the principal NGOs concerned with forest questions.
Examination of the National Forestry Action Plan.
Visits to selected forest areas and forest industries that illustrate particular problems oropportunities.

4. The important constraints are likely to lie in Criterion 1 of the National Level Criteria andIndicators, and particularly in the subjects dealt with in Indicators 1.1 to 1.5.
5. The following questions may be found helpful in defining the subject areas in which constraints
may be found. It is NOT intended that the Mission should provide answers to all these questions.
Policy. Is there a national land use policy? Is there a national policy for the sustainable
management of a permanent forest estate? If not, why?
Extent What area of natural forest is managed for the sustainable production of timber?
Allocation. Is there a satisfactory system for choosing, demarcating and protecting those areas thatwill be used as production forest? If not, why?
Is there a satisfactory system for choosing, demarcating and protecting those areas that will be
used as protection/conservation forest? If not, why?
Are there pressures from other sectors or interests to remove productive forest from forest use?
What measures are being taken to counter or divert these pressures?

122

Annex 1/2/

(Terms of Reference (Cont’d)Sociological and economic conditions. In what ways do the various people who have an interest inor are affected by the management of the forest, benefit from this management or suffer frommismanagement (people dwelling in or near the forest, loggers, middlemen, wood processors,
small industries, the Forest Authority, consumers generally, other government revenues)? Are thebenefits adequate to provide an incentive to good management? Is there equitable distribution ofthese benefits? If not, why?
Management. Are there any management plans guiding timber production? Are the objectives ofmanagement conducive to sustainable production? Are the management prescriptions appropriate
for the particular forest type? Are they rigorously applied and reviewed? If not, why?
Pre-exploitation survey. How comprehensive and adequate is the pre-exploitation survey: choice
and marking of trees for felling; analysis of trees to remain unfelled; existing regeneration;
environmental conditions; routing of extraction roads? If inadequate, why is this so?
Choice of exploiters. Does the choice take into account the best long-term interests of the forest?
How?
Conditions of exploitation. Do these bring reasonable benefits to the various parties concerned:
government revenues, any reforestation fund, the logging companies, local contractors, logging
labour, those with customary rights in the land?
Are the conditions of exploitation such as to encourage long-term investment in the sustainable
management of the forest? Are there reasonable incentives to encourage good management? What
proportion of revenues are returned to forest management? If these conditions are not met, what
prevents it?
Quality of exploitation. Are there guidelines for the siting, construction and maintenance of
extraction roads, weather in which exploitation should not take place, equipment to be used,directional felling, cutting of lianes etc.? Are such guidelines followed? If not, why?
Are the above conditions monitored during and after exploitation? How? How well?
Post-exploitation survey and treatment. Are there guidelines? Are they sensitive to different forest
types? Are they adhered to? Is later performance monitored? How? If not, why?
Control. Is there effective control of operations at all stages? If not, why?
Follow-up. Are there arrangements for monitoring and reviewing prescriptions? If not, why?
Research Is research designed to support sustainable timber production from natural forest? Is it
adequate to provide the necessary information to answer the questions set out above? Are there
permanent sample plots to provide the data upon which sustainable yield can be calculated? Are
the data processed and made available to management within a reasonable time?
Education and training. Are sufficient trained staff at all levels being produced with qualificationsin the skills needed in natural forest management?

123Annex 2

Itinerary of the ITTO Mission

Date
22 March
23 March

Time
09.00
10.00

24 March

25 March

09.00
11.00
14.00
15.30
10.00

26 March
27 March

09.00
10.30
14.00

28 March
09.30
14.00
14.00
29 March
09.00
10.30
14.00
30 March

19.00
09.30
14.00

31 March

1 April

14.00
06.30
07.40
09.00
10.30
09.30
14.00
14.00
19.00
08.00
08.00
10.00
14.00

Activities
Arrival in Bangkok of Mr. M. Simula and Mr. C. Mayura
Finalization of the programme of the visits with RFD
Discussion on the preliminary country report with local consultants
Review of the statistical data on production and trade of forest products.
Discussion with representatives of the Department of Customs and RFD Forest
Control
Lecture on ITTO’s programme in SFM in Kasetsart University
Meeting with Tropical Forestry Program of the Faculty of Forestry on Silviculture
Meeting at RECOFTC to review of background documentation
Faculty of Forestry (Plantations)Meeting with local consultants and the Geo-Information and Space Technology
Development Agency
Review of background documentation
Meeting with the Director General, Royal Forest Department (Mr. Chatchai
Ratanopat)
Visit to Sophon Packing Company Limited in Samutprakarn Province
Visit to Fancy Wood Industries Public Company Limited
Arrival of Mr. Behari
Meeting with the Department of National Parks, Wildlife and Plant Conservation(DNP) and RDF
Meeting with Thailand Environment Institute (Group 1)
Meeting with the Fiscal Policy Office (Group 2)
Arrival of Mr. Akaha
Meeting with the Forest Plantation Owners’ Association
Meeting with the Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University on forestry education andresearch
Meeting with coordinators of ITTO-financed Projects (Group 1)
Meeting with the Department of Marine and Coastal Resources (Group 2)
Reception Dinner at Chaophraya Park Hotel
Meeting with Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives (Group 2)
Meeting with the Public Sector Development Commission (Group 1)
Meeting with the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy andPlanning, Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Group 1)
Meeting with DANIDA (Group 2)
Departure for Chiang Mai by TG 100
Arrival at Chiang Mai
Meeting with Chiang Mai University (Group 1)
Meeting with ICRAF (Group 1)
Meeting with Mae Jo University (Group 2)
Visit to Wildlife Fund of Thailand regional office at Chiangdao District (Group 1)
Meeting with the Hill Tribe Development and Welfare Office, Chiang Mai (Group 2)
Dinner meeting with wood and wood product traders, furniture companies andsawmillers, in Chiang Mai
Visit to Baan Talad Kilek, Doi Saket District: Case study on modern forest village(Group 2)
Visit to Mallika Furniture Manufacturer (Group 1)
Meeting with Prof. Dr. Mingsarn Kaosa-ard, Director, Social Research Institute,
Chiang Mai University (Group 1)
Visit to Baan Kampong, Sankampaeng district: Case study on community forest
development plan and ecotourism

124Annex 2/2

Itinerary of the ITTO Mission (Cont’d)Date
2 April

Time
09.00
17.25

3 April
08.00
11.00
15.00
19.00
4 April

5 April

6 April

08.30
10.00
12.00
15.00
09.00
11.00
12.00
15.30
09.00
11.00

7 April

09.00
09.30
13.00

8 April

00.20

Activities
Meeting with Dr. Dhammanaat Foundation in Chiang Mai
Departure for Bangkok by TG 115
Departure of Mr.Mayura
Departure for Nakorn Ratchasima Province by car
Visit to Reforestation and Extension 4: case study on small scale forest plantation,
sustainable forest management (small-scale), forest cooperatives, training andextension model in Nakora Ratchasima
Departure for Prachinburi Province
Dinner meeting with the representatives of the Forest Office Pachinburi Branch, RFD
Provincial and National Park Division, Protected Area Regional Office 2 inPrachinburi
Visit to eucalyptus intercropping with paddy rice farms
Visit two bamboo plantation farmers
Visit to local bamboo market
Departure for Rayong Province
Meeting with the Provincial Office of the Rubber Replanting Aid Fund, Rayong
Visit to rubber plantation area, Rayong
Visit to S.Kijchai Group (rubberwood processing factories)
Visit to Vanachai Public Company Limited, Rayong Province
Meeting of the mission and counterparts for the preliminary conclusions
Meeting with Forest Industry Organization
Departure of Mr. Akaha
Meeting with national wood, paper and furniture industry associations (Group 1)
Meeting with the National Economic and Social Development Board (Group 2)
Debriefing with the Director General and management of Royal Forest Department,
DNP and other stakeholders
Departure of Mr. BehariDeparture of Mr. Simula

125

Annex 3

List of People Consulted

Organization / Names
Bank of Agriculture & Cooperatives- Mr. Thiraphong Tangthirasunon- Mr. Nipath Kuasakul- Mr. Pramote Prasittipayong
Customs Department- Mr. Satihit Phuhomcharaen- Mr. Kanok Supachaivirakul- Mr. Pornnarots Arsadsophe- Ms. Wandee Maolanont
Department Marine & Coastal Resources- Mr. Chaisit Trakulsiripanich- Mr.Tanuwong Sangtiean
Chiang Mai University
Department of Soil Science andConservation- Dr. Soontorn Khamyong- Mr. Charoon Sukkasem
CIRAS- Dr. Suree LakanavichianFaculty of Engineering
Committee for Protection of Ping River Basinand Environment- Mr. Nitikorn Wongchai- Dr. Wasan Jompakdee
Social Research Institute- Prof. Dr. Mingsarn Kaosa-ard
Chokchai Wood Pole Co., Siquil- Ms. Somsi Duakuntot
Dhammanaat Foundation for Conservation
and Rural Development- Dr Wasan Jompakdee- Dr Watanaa
DNP
Planning of Information Office- Mr. Chudchawan Sutthisrisilapa- Mr. Sopon Nakapan
Forest Resources Assessment- Ms. Khanita Meedej
Forest and Plant Conservation- Mr. Vichien Sumantakul
Prachinburi (Regional Office)- Mr. Sumitr Sirichote- Ms. Wattana Wachirodom
FAO- Mr. Patrick B. Durst
Fancy Wood Ind. Plc- Mr. Vichai Tanpattanarat
FIO - Forest Industry Organization- Mr. Amnart Khampalikit
Fiscal Policy Office- Mr. Panithan Suksamra- Mr. Withee Pharnichwong- Ms. Maneekwan Chandarasorn- Ms. Sirimon Kijsuwan
GC Collection Co., Ltd- Mr. Pikun Pattanasupackakit

Positione-mail address / Telephone

President
Vice-President
Vice-President

nipach@baac.or.th+02-629 7249
+02-281 7650

Director
Custom Inspector
Custom Officer
Computer Specialist

sathithh@hotmail.com
kanok1959@yahoo.com+01-845 9582
wandee@customs.go.th

Forest Official
Forest Official

chaisitt@dmrc.go.th
Tanuwong@dmcr.go.th

Forest Ecologist

agiskhmy@chiangmai.ac.thc.suksem@ chiangmai.ac.th

Director

forcmu@chiangmai.ac.th
agislknv@chiangmai.ac.th

Coordinator
Assistant Professor

maeping@dome.eng.cmu.ac.th+66-53-944 152

Director

Professor
Vice-President
Director
Senior Foresterchudsut@yahoo.com@hotmail.com/

Senior Forestry Official

meedejk@gmail.com

Acting Director

vichien-sumantakul@yahoo.com

Director of National Parks
Vice chairman
Regional Forestry Officer

patrick.durst@field.fao.org

President & CEO

vichai@fancywood.th.com

Deputy Managing Director
Economist
Economist
Economist
Economist

panithan@mot.go.th
withee@mot.go.th
maneekwan@fpo.go.th
sirimon@fpo@go.th

Managing Director

pikun@gccollection.com

126

Annex 3/2

List of People Consulted (Cont’d)Organization / Names
GEO-Information and Space Technology
Development Agency- Dr. Thongchai Charuppat
Hill Tribe Foundation, Chiang Mai- Mr. Viraphan Nantaratapan- Mr. Mekin Kepsombat
ICRAF – World Agroforestry Centre- Dr. David E.Thomas
Kasetsart University / Faculty of Forestry- Dr Damrong Sripraram
Department of Silviculture- Dr. Ladawan Puangchit
Department of Forest Biology- Dr. Uthaiwan Sangwanit- Dr. Suree Bhumibhamon
Forestry Research Center- Dr. Nikhom Laemsak- Dr. Damrong Pipatwattanakul- Ms. Montathip Sommeechai
Mae Jo University, Chiang Mai
Prof. Dr. Numchai Thanupol- Assist. Prof. Orathai Mingtipon
Mallika Furniture- Ms. Mallika Ginamoi
Office of Natural Resources andEnvironmental Polic,y MONRE- Dr. Nawarat Krairapanond- Mrs. Nirawan Pipitsombat- Mr. Wanlop Prechamort- Ms. Pongtip Puvacharoen- Mr. Sirichai Roungrit
Office of the Public Sector Development
Commission (OPDC)- Mr. Avoot Wannvong
Office of Rubber Replanting Aid Fund
(ORRAF), Rayong Province Office- Mr. Jaturong Phumsirawat- Mr. Somnuk Rerkwicha
ROYAL FOREST DEPARTMENT- Mr. Chatchai Ratanophat- Mr Monchai Noyrith- Mr. Suchat Kalayawongsa- Mr. Supparat Samran- Mr. Suthichai Weraphiboon- Mr. Surat Kanjanakunchorn- Mr. Wichit Sonthiwanit
Forest Permission Division- Mr. Weerayot Kulpornphan
Forest Protection- Mr. Sontoom Vuchalakuldilok
Legal Forest Group- Mr. Supol Wimlopas- Mr. Winworavong Vinijkitcharoen
Forest Economies Division- Mr. Songsak Vitayaudom

Positione-mail address / Telephone

Directorthongc@gistda.or.th

Director
Head of occupation developmemt
sectionSenior Policy Analyst
Associate
AffairsDean

ford.thomas@cgiar.org
Specialfforlwp @ku.ac.th

Deputy Headfforlwp @ku.ac.th

Head
Course Leader

fforuws@ku.ac.th
fforsrb@ku.ac.th

Director

ffornik@ku.ac.thikhom.l@ku.ac.th
fformts@ku.ac.th

LecturerVice President Foreign Affairs
Facultyof
Agricultural
Production
Manager

mllkaj@loxinfo.co.th

Chief of Strategic Planning
Environmental Officer
Environmental Officer
Environmental Officer
Environmental Officer

nawarat@onep.go.th
nirawan_p@hotmail.com
wanlop@onep.go.th
pongtip@onep.go.th
Sirichai48@yahoo.com

Deputy Secretary-Generalavoot@opdc.go.th

Assistant Director
Director General
Manager
Senior Forester
Senior Forester
Senior Forester
Forest Officer

chatchai@forest.go.th
mmonchai@yahoo.co.thsuchat_forester@yahoo.com
ssamran43@yahoo.com

Director+06 079 1466

suratt@forest.go.th

Director
Forest Administration Officer
Lawyer

+09-876 5604
Pom_kook@yahoo.com

Director

vitayaudom@hotmail.com

127

Annex 3/3

List of People Consulted (Cont’d)Organization / Names
Public Sector Development- Mr. Parinya Boontawee
Community Forestry – Promotion andManagement Division- Mr. Janesak Wichawutipong
Forest Management & Forest Products
Research Office- Mr. Visoot Somnuk- Mr. Wichai Simmanoi- Ms. Woraphan Himmapan- Ms. Narumol Noochplian- Ms. Waranyu Ratcharoen- Mr. Smit Boonsermsuk- Mr. Anawat Sukhotanang- Mr. Prachoen Sroithong Kham
- Mr. Suchart Thaipetch- Ms. Pannee Denrungruang- Ms. Mayuree Jitkaew- Ms. Nuchaart Nilkamhaeng- Ms. Suwanna Umphauk
Ecology & Environmental Research- Dr. Komon Pratgong
Saving and Credit Cooperative- Mr. Sittichai Ungphakorn
Siquil District , Nakon Ratchasima
Province- Mr Chaiwart Dolarran- Ms. Suwanee Jaroenkolkit
State Reforestation Division- Mr. Niwat Jatikanond
Provincial Office. Prachinburi- Mr. Chonglang Sangonee- Ms. Tippawan Sirisakorn

Private Plantation Promotion andCommunity Forestry- Mr. Tieanchai Boonard
RFD, Reforestation and Extension Center 4- Mr. Chaiwut Dolarrom
Provincial Office of Ministry of Natural
Resources and Environment in Prachinburi- Mr. Pitak Chongsujja
Sapern Poon Company, Chiang Mai- Ms. Nunrapan
SKL – S.Kijchai Group- Mr. Vichien Saengvongkij
Sopon Packing Co., Ltd- Mr. Tawee Trakoolsajjawat- Ms. Tassomeeya Attemon- Ms. Waraporn Trakoolsajjawat
TEI - Thai Environment Institute- Dr. Sanit Aksornkoae- Dr. Chamniern Worachaiphan- Ms. Benjamas Chotthong
TERCO – Science Technology & Energy
Senator Committee- Dr. Reungchai Pousajja

Positione-mail address / Telephone

Technical Forest Officer
Director

janesak@forest.go.th

Director
Statistician
Forest Technician
Forest Technician
Forest Technician
Forest Officer
Technical Forest Officer
Forest Official
Forest Officer
Scientist
Scientist
Scientist
Scientist

stat@forest.go.th /woraphyn-h@yahoo.com
Narumol49@yahoo.com
Waranyurat@yahoo.com
smit98@hotmail.com
anawat2001@hotmail.com
prachoen@kse.th.com
suchart_forester@yahoo.com
pdenrungruang@hotmail.com
mayuree1080@hotmail.com
nojnilkamhaeng@yahoo.com
suwanna502@hotmail.com

Director
President

sittichaiu@gmail.com

Chief of Reforestation Promotion
Training and Extension Specialist
Tree farm Inspector

niwat@forest.go.th

Forestry Officer
Forestry Officer
Responsible officer
c4@nursery-C4.net
Head of Forestry Operations
Area Manager
Managing Director

mouy@cijchai.co.th

Executive Director
Assistant to General Manager
FinancialandAccounting
Managersoponpacking@hotmail.com

President
Director of Grassroots Action
Program
Project Manager

sanit@tei.or.th
chamniern@tei.or.th

Committee+01-446 8823

benj@tei.or.th128

Annex 3/4

List of People Consulted (Cont’d)Organization / Names

Positione-mail address / Telephone

Thai Sawmills – Santi Forestry Group- Mr. SantiVayakonvichitr- Dr. Aroon Chomcharn

President
Senior Excecutive Vice President

santi@sunparatech.com
archomcharn@hotmail.com
santigrp@loxinfo.co.th
info@thaisawmills.com
info@thaisawmills.com

Regional Coordinatorpingwatershed@yahoo.com

Secretary

office@tfa@or.th- Mr. Somba Puthavolvong- Mr. Than Jarasthanakis- Mr. Paisal Ratprasertkul
Thailand Wildlife Fund
- Mr. Nikhom Putta
Thai Furniture Industries Association- Ms. Panatda Doeyarn
Timber Merchant, Siquil District- Ms. Suwanee Chareonkohlakit
Vanachai Group- Mr. Nirun Suntipiromkul- Mr. Sukree Weawraweewong

Deputy Managing Director
Production Manager-

Mr. Chuchat Inthanco

Production Planning Section-

Mr. Suwit Nawaphanuphak

Quality Control Section (WoodTechnology)

Village of Ban Lamyaing, Rayong Province- Mr. Alan Kamphonrat- Mr. Mongkhon Amphapirom
Village of Nong Chan, Prachinburi Province- Mr. Prasit Kamvichai- Ms. Bunga Trashoe- Ms. Kanenng ChansirCommunity forest, Doi Saket District
Chiang Mai- Mr. Manoe Tatnum
Ecotourism , Community forest, Chiang Mai
province- Mr. Phrommin Mala
Charcoal Producer
Nakon Ratchasima Province- Ms. Sureporn Phadungyotsanan
Consultants and specialists
Mr. Jose-Luis Albaladejo
Mr. Antoine Bassili
Mr. Ruenrith Prachak
Mr. Yingluk Patibhanthewa
Mr. Kaneung Chansiri

Furniture Shop Manager
nirun@vanachai.com
chonburi-production@
wanachai.com
chonburiproduction@wanachai.com
chonburiproduction@wanachai.com

Village Headman
Village Headman
Assistant Village Headman
Bamboo plantation owner
Bamboo plantation owner
Head of community
Head of village

ITTO Consultant
ITTO Consultant
Forestry specialist
Chairperson
Assistant Professor

prachak.ruenrith@storaenso.com
yingluk.541@hotmail.com

129

Annex 4
Code

ITTO Supported Projects in ThailandYear

Project title

Implementary agency

Budget / USD

11 Completed projects
PP-F/08-18

1990

PPD005/96(F)1996

PPD001/98
Rev. 2(I)1998

PPD004/98
Rev. 1(I)1998

PPD005/99
Rev. 1(F)1999

PD202/91
Rev.1(F)1993

PD016/97
Rev.3(F)1997

PD002/99
Rev.2(F)1999

PD028/99
Rev.2(F)1999

PD056/99
Rev.1(I)1999

PD015/00
Rev.2(F)2000

The National Biological Conference ofThailand
Buffer Zone Development for Sustainable Forest Management
Rubberwood Utilization and Marketingin Thailand
Promotion of Tropical Non-wood Forest
Production in Thailand
Development of a Model Forest for
Sustainable Forest Management inThailand
Sustainable Forest Management throughCollaborative Efforts
Integrated Buffer Zone Development for
Sustainable Management of Tropical
Forest Resources in Thailand
Preparatory Studies to Install a Continuous Monitoring System for the
Sustainable Management of Thailand
Forest Resources
A Scientific and Technical Workshop for
S.E. Asia on Forest Restoration for
Wildlife Conservation
Promotion of the Utilization of Bamboo
from Sustainable Sources in Thailand
Management of the Phatam Protected
Forests Complex to Promote Cooperation for Trans-Boundary Biodiversity
Conservation Between Thailand,
Cambodia and Laos (Phase I)

Sub-total of 11 completed projects
3 Operational projects
PD024/00
2000
Rev. (I)PD051/100
2001
Rev.2(I,M)
PD195/03
Rev.2(F)2003

Promotion of Sustainable Utilization of
Rattan from Plantation in Thailand
Improvement of Rubberwood Utilizationand Marketing in Thailand
To Establish a National Monitoring
Information System for the Effective
Conservation and Sustainable Management of Thailand Forest Resources

Ministry of Science,
Technology and Energy
Thailand Environment
Institute (TEI)
Royal Forest Department(RFD) - Forest Research
Office90,50041,87882,290

RFD - Forest Research Office

89,886

RFD - Forest Research Office

82,079Society for the Conservationof National Treasures andEnvironment

1,039,500

TEI

601,333

RFD - Forest Research Office681,034

Forest Restoration andRehabilitation Unit (FORRU)

36,514

RFD - Forest Research Office452,996RFD

629,624

USD

3,827,634

RFD – Forest Research Office292,457

RFD – Forest Research Office406,138

Department of National Parks,
Wildlife and Plant
Conservation (DNP)

677,743

Sub-total of 3 operational projects

USD

1,376,338

Sub-total of 14 projects 1)

USD

5,203,972

1)

Excludes PP-F/09-21. Global Technical Workshop to Explore the Feasibility of Forest Options

130

Annex 5.

Forest Area in 2000-2004

Region

2000
ForestMangrove

2004

Total

% of total
land area

Forest- 1,000 ha -Mangrove

Total% of total
land area- 1,00 ha -North

9,627.0-

9,627.0

56.8

9,206.8-

9,206.8

54.3

Northeast

2,652.6-

2,652.6

15.7

2,809.6-

2,809.6

16.6

Central2,133.6

12.5

2,146.2

31.8

2,114.7

9.7

2,124.3

31.5

East

820.4

23.4

843.8

23.1

801.3

22.7

824.0

22.6

South

1,532.0

209.3

1,741.3

24.6

1,550.9243.4

1,794.3

25.4

Total

16,756.8

245.3

17,011.1

33.2

16,483.3

275.8

16,759.1

32.7

Source: RFD 2004131

Annex 6
RegionForest Area by Type and Region 2004
Evergreen forest

Mixed
deciduous forest

Dry dipterocrap
forestPine forest

Bamboo forest

BeachforestSwampforest--MangroveforestTotal

Forest % of
total area

- 1,000 ha Central

13.6

126.2

9.5

-

4.1

East

651.1

130.2

2.7

-

16.8

0.4

West

435.9

1,387.7

65.3

-

72.0

0.2

North

1,932.2

6,219.8

995.0

32.4

26.9

-

-

821.7

889.1

968.8

13.0

117.0

-

-

1,500.7

0.3

Northeast
South

Total
5,355.1
8,753.4
Source: Forest Resource Assessment Division, RFD

2,041.3

45.4

0.9

154.4

35.8

0.2

22.7

824.0

22.6

0.2

8.7

1,969.942.7-

9,206.8

54.3-

2,809.6

16.6

.4

9.9

38.6

243.4

1,794.3

25.4

238.2

10.5

38.9

275.8

16,759.1

32.7

Note: The data are not entirely consistent with other sources. The actual forest cover at national level is presently estimated at about 25% suggesting the figures in the table are likely
be higher than actual. Therefore, the table is indicative for the distribution of forest resources by type and region rather than representing accurate current situation.

133

Annex 7

RegionForest Reserves, 2004

National forest
reserves1)

Total reported forest
area

Balance- 1,000 ha North

11,196.5

9,206.8-1,989.7

Northeast

5,533.3

2,809.6-2,723.7

Central2,041.4

2,124.3

+82.9

East

1,447.5824.0-623.5South

2,818.3

1,794.3-1,024.0

Total

23,037.1

16,759.1-6,278.0

1)

Areas based on the declared area of the Government Gazette; some areas may overlap with eachother and some areas have already revoked from the reserve category for other uses
Source: RFD 2004b

134

Annex 8

Endemic and Threatened Species in Thailand

Group
Vertebrate Species
Mammals
Birds
ReptilesAmphibians
Fishes
Total

SpeciesNo. of species
302
982
350 (366 forms)
137 (138 forms)
2,820
4,591
(4,608 forms)

Endemic species
No. of species
%
5
1.66
2
0.20
47 (49 forms)
13.39
7
0.05
72
2.55
2.93
133
(135 forms)

Threatened species **No. of species
%
116
38.41
180
18.33
32 (33 forms)
9.02
5
3.62
215
7,62
548
11.91
(549 forms)

Plant Species
Pteridophyte
468
19
4.6
41
Gymnospermae
32
0
0
27
Angiospermae
8,560
738
8.62
1,356
2,756
211
5.66
416
Monocotyledonae*- Orchidaceae*
1,200
87
7.25
175
- Palmae*
150
16
10.67
85
- Zingiberaceae*
270
27
10.00
57
Dicotyledonae
5,804
527
9.08
940
- Euphobiaceae*
425
47
11.06
79
- Rubiaceae*
600
53
8.83
71
- Gesneriaceae*
144
46
31.94
63
* Only major families are included
Note: The figures are not fully consistent with Table 2.5 in spite of being based on the same source
Source: MONRE 2006 and Mission Calculations

8.76
84.38
15.84
15.09
14.58
56.67
21.11
16.20
18.59
11.83
43.75

135

Annex 9

Treefarm Plantation Promotion Program 1994-2002

Year
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
Total
By species
Tectona grandis
Azadirachta excelsa
Pterocarpus
macrocarpus
Others (53 species)
Total

Planted area
64.5
148.6
51.1
35.5
6.5
4.9
6.5
2.7
320.3
1,000 ha
147.9
72.0
62.5

%
46.2
22.5
19.5

37.8
320.3

11.8
100.0

136

Annex 10

Reforestation Area by Government Program
Unit 1 000 ha
Programs

Afforestation by Government Budget

From
beginning to
1998
658.0

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

Total

9.3

5.5

4.2

5.6

3.9

5.6

692.1

Concessionaire’s Reforestation (theReforestation Campaign in Commemoration of
the Royal Golden Jubilee )

340.4

15.3

13.0

16.0

16.8

2.4

5.0

408.9

Forest Industry Organisation (FIO)

27.0

5.9

0.7

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

33.7

Thai Plywood Co., Ltd.

2.5

0.7

0.4

0.3

0.6

0.1

0.3

4.9

Reforestation according to Ministry’s
Regulations

13.8

1.3

1.5

1.9

0.4

0.5

0.6

20.0

Reforestation by Concessionaire Budget

22.4

0.0

0.1

0.1

2.4

4.9

2.9

32.8

1,064.0

32.6

21.1

22.6

25.8

11.8

14.3

1,192,3

Total
Source: Forestry Statistics of Thailand (RFD 2004b)

137

Annex 11

Imports of Logs and Sawnwood, 1984-2004

Year

Logs

Sawnwood

Total WRME1)- 1000 m3 -

1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
20032)
2004
(1)
(2)

199.5
172.1
152.7
282.9
447.0
1,193.3
1,847.4
1,747.2
2,036.1
1,366.7
1,548,9
1,377.9
936.3
895.5
278.1
468.5
487.4
516.9
641.4
..
381.3

382.0
246.1
195.9
442.3
676.6
1,314.7
1,493.6
1,533.6
1,778.3
1,801.5
2,516.8
2,085.7
2,215.5
1,463.1
961.6
1,255.0
1,027.1
1,285.5
1,924.6..
1,835.3

Calculated based on 45% recovery rate in sawmilling
Data contains statistical errors and is not reproduced here

Source: RFD 2004b;
Note:Total wood raw material equivalent (WRME) calculated by the Mission

1,048.4
719.0
588.0
1,265.8
1,950.6
4,114.9
5,166.5
5,155.2
5,987.9
5.370.0
7.141.8
6.012.8
5.859.6
4.146.8
2.415.0
3.257.4
2.769.8
3.373.6
4,918.3..
4,459.7

Annex 12

Import Duties of Wood Products 2006

Code

Product

44.01
44.02
44.03
44.04
44.06
44.07

44.08
44.09
44.10
44.11
44.12
44.14
44.15
44.18

Logs, chips, wood residues, fuelwood
Charcoal
Wood in the rough, all species
Hopwood, poles, piles, etc. (not sawn)
Railway sleepers
Sawnwood- planed- other
Veneer sheets
Wood continuously shaped (tongued, grooved,
rebated, etc.)
Particle board
Fibreboard
Plywood
Wooden frames
Crates, pallets
Builder’s joinery (door, windows, etc.)

Source: Customs Department

Regulation

Effective% of CIF value
10
10
10
25
10

1
1
1
1
1

40
20
40

5
1
12.5 or 5

40

12.5 or 5

70
40
60
40
40
40

12.5 or 5
12.5 or 5
12.5 or 530
20 or 1030

Annex 13.aForeign Trade in Furniture 1999-2004

Year

Exports

Imports

Balance- US$ mill. -

1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Source:Annex 13.b

349.1
454.4
450.0
492.1
497.6
562.9

1.9
4.6
6.8
7.1
7.3
13.0

RFD & FRI, KU. 2005

Export Markets of Wooden Furniture, 2004
MarketNorth America- USA- Canada
Sub-total
Japan
Europe- UK- Germany
France
Italy
Netherlands
Other Europe
Sub-total
Gulf States
Asia (excluding Japan)
Other markets
Total

Source: Customs Department

%
50.0
4.3
54.3
26.0
4.3
2.0
1.4
1.6
0.5
2.2
12.0
1.3
2.3
4.1
100.0

+347.2+449.8+443.2+485.0+490.3+549.9Annex 14

Wood-based Industries and Trade in Thailand

Type ofestablishment

Total

BangkokCentral

North

Northeast

South

East

- Number of establishments -Sawmills- mechanized- manual

217
25

48
-

92
7

33
14

25
2

17
-

2
2

Total

242

48

99

47

27

17

4

Wood-working plants- mechanized
5,123- manual
195

2,494
35

1,403
20

295
28

544
100

273
9

114
3

Total
Timber traders,timbers yards
Wood products
shops

5,318

2,529

1,423

323

644

282

117

3,049

1,110

855

226

613

157

88

3,837

1,939

726

401

585

103

83

Total

6,886

3,049

1,581

627

1,198

260

171

Source: RFD 2004b

Annex 15

Structure of Labour Force in Forest-based Industries in 2000
Wood and woodprocessing

Furniture 1)

Pulp, paper andconverted products

Total
manufacturing(all industries)

44.6

53.3

39.4

53.7

39.2

54.4

46.0

50.4

49.5

34.0

37.6

33.3

Sub-total

88.7

88.4

83.6

83.7

Other employees

10.3

10.4

16.0

15.7

Grand total 2)

99.0

98.8

99.6

99.4

Indicator

Share of female
employees in total
employment %Structure of labour
force %
skilled labour
unskilled labour

Furniture and manufacturing n.e.c.
(2)

The balance is ”unpaid workers”

Source:Mission calculations based on data of National Statistical Office (www.nso.go.th)Annex 16

Farmholding Land-use Change 1998-2004

Residential area
Paddy land

Change ofarea in 19982001- % 2.8
+3.9
49.8
-1.1

Upland field crops

21.5

-2.8

Land under fruit trees

20.3

+6.0

Land under vegetableand ornamental plants
Pasture land

0.9

+19.9

0.7

+27.8

Waste land
Miscellaneous
Total

2.1
2.0
100

-7.0
+15.6
+0.5

Total 1,000 ha

20,970Land use

Share of total
land use in 2001

Regional differences

Increase in all regions
Increase in Northeast, elsewheredeclineDecrease in all areas, non-existent inSouthSouth has largest area but slower
increase than elsewhere
Increase highest in Northeast,
Central and South
Largest area in Northeast where
increase is smallest..
..
North decline, elsewhere stable orslight increase

Source: Mission calculation based on Agricultural Statistics of Thailand 2004

Annex 17

Crops

Cultivated Area by Main Crop 1996-2004

Share of total cultivated areain 2004- % -Change of areain 1996-2004

Rice

70.6

+5.1

Maize

7.4

-19.9

Mungbeans

1.5

-28.4

Cassava

7.2

-14.3

Sugar cane

7.4

+11.6

Soybean

1.1

+85.5

Oil palm

2.1

-40.3

Others

2.7

..

Total

100

0.0

15,109Total 1000 ha
Source: Mission calculation based on Agricultural Statistics of Thailand 2004

Annex 18

FIO Production and Sales

Production

1999

2000
3

- m

2001

2002

-

Teak logs
Other logs
Total logs
Teak sawnwood
Other sawnwood

3,150
29,32032,470
6,730
1,332

5,200
29,16034,36010,4091,411

4,620
20,83025,450
4,985
2,112

5,260
13,28018,5401,938-

Total sawnwood

8,062

11,820

7,097

1,938

Sales from own production/ services- US$ mill.

-

Logs
Sawnwood
Poles from plantations
Sawmilling and planing
Furniture
Latex
Tourism
By-products
Other

3.23
3.55
6.62
0.19
0.80
2.03
0.17
0.12
0.15

3.30
4.08
7.33
0.22
1.28
2.52
0.18
0.20
0.01

2.84
2.82
8.36
0.20
1.11
2.57
0.21
0.18
0.01

3.22
-9.09
0.19
1.15
3.36
0.22
-0.11

Total Sales

16.86

19.12

18.30

17.34

..
..
..
..

23.25
..
..
0.25

22.41
-21.95
-0.80
-0.34

25.93
-25.88-0.67-0.641)Gross revenue
Expenditure (operating)Interest paid
Net profit(1) The reported loss in the balance sheet in 2002 was US$ 0.59 mill.

Source:FIO Annual Report 2002

Annex 19

Administrative Regions in Thailand

Annex 20

Forest Area Map of Thailand