Regional Environmental Technical Assistance 5771
Poverty Reduction & Environmental Management in Remote greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Watersheds Project (Phase I)

BIODIVERSITY AND PROTECTED AREAS

Thailand

By

J E Clarke, PhD

CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND

1.1. Country profile

Thailand’s neighbours are Myanmar to the west and north, Lao PDR to the northeast and east and Cambodia to the southeast. The narrow southern extremity runs between the Andoman Sea to the west and the Gulf of Thailand to the east, and the southernmost tip adjoins Malaysia. The country is divided into 76 provinces.

About one third of the country is low-lying plain—the Khorat Plateau—which extends up to the Mekong River. Mountainous terrain dominates northern and western areas. Elevations range from sea level to 2,955 metres on Doi Inthanon on the border with Myanmar.

The major river systems are the Chao Phraya, which flows south from between the western and central mountains, reaching the Gulf of Thailand near Bangkok, and the Mekong, which runs along much of the border with Lao PDR.

The climate is under the influence of monsoon winds. From April to October, when mean temperatures range between 26⁰ and 37⁰C, water-laden winds blow from the southwest. From November to March (temperatures 13⁰ to 33⁰C), the monsoon blows from the northeast. Cooler temperatures prevail in the highlands and along the coasts. The rainy season lasts from June to October. Mean rainfall is about 1,300 mm on the Khorat Plateau, 1,500 mm in the northwest and central areas, and 2,500 mm in the Malay Peninsula.

Most estimates for forest cover are in the range of 26 to 28 per cent although Leungaramsri & Rajesh (1992) claim it to be nearer 20 per cent. Whatever the exact figure, all estimates suggest a marked decline from 53 per cent coverage in 1961. Arable land occupies 34.3 per cent.

1.2 Biodiversity

Thailand falls within three of Udvardy’s (1975) global biounits, and five sub-units of MacKinnon & MacKinnon (1986).

Thailand has moderately high levels of biological diversity although levels of endemism are unremarkable. The Biodiversity Index is 9.8 (MacKinnon, 1997), highest of the five Indo-Chinese countries but lower probably than Yunnan.

Most of Thailand was once forested: MacKinnon's table of 'habitat details' suggest at least 85 per cent, of which dry dipterocarp (33 per cent), semi-evergreen (23 per cent) and tropical moist deciduous forest (19 per cent) were predominant. Today, dry dipterocarp cover is about 9 per cent, semi-evergreen 6 per cent, and tropical moist deciduous 5 per cent. Other forest types are:

• Freshwater swamp
• Forest on limestone
• Montane deciduous
• Mangrove forest
• Sub-montane dry evergreen
• Tropical montane evergreen
• Tropical wet evergreen

The Khorat Plateau in the Northeast between the Petchabun Range to the west and Dongrak Range along the border with Cambodia, have been largely deforested although some deciduous and evergreen forests persist.

The central Plain along the Chao Phraya River was originally freshwater swamp and monsoon forest but is now intensively cultivated.

In the Southeast, semi-evergreen rain forest occur on an extension of the Cardamom Mountains from Cambodia.

On the Tenasserim Hills along the border with Myanmar, semi-evergreen rain forest occurs at higher elevations. Elsewhere the original deciduous monsoon forest has been cleared or degraded and replaced with bamboo and grassland.

The southern peninsula was originally rain forest. Most lowland areas are now cultivated, and the remaining forests are threatened by expansion of agriculture and rubber plantations.

Biodiversity in most areas is high but under threat. Although commercial logging was banned in 1989 deforestation remains a constant threat.

MacKinnon (1997) estimated that between 20,000 and 25,000 species of vascular plant occur in Thailand, including 10,000 to 15,000 flowering species. More than 500 are trees and 1,000 orchids. Vertebrate animals number at least 3,000:

Threatened species recorded in Thailand, based upon November 1998 data from the WCMC, comprised 1,592 plants (1,555 excluding synonyms) and 276 animals. Numbers of threatened animals are listed below. Categories of threat follow those of IUCN.

The most highly threatened species (extinct in the wild, critically endangered and endangered), based upon information provided from the WCMC database, are listed below. Where appropriate, comments or corrections have been added based upon local information from relevant specialists.

Extinct in the wild

Critically endangered

Endangered

2. BIODIVERSITY POLICY

The Office of Environmental Policy and Planning (OEPP) draws up policies relating to environmental affairs. Although it may seem self-evident that implementing agencies such as the Royal Forest Department should be involved in defining policies, it is not clear that this is always so.

There is no specific policy relating to protected areas although IUCN is including policy definition in a project proposal being developed that will aim to reclassify protected areas and produce a more systematic arrangement.

The National Forest Policy recommends that 40 per cent of Thailand be forested (as against the present estimate of 25 per cent): 25 per cent protected and 15 per cent economic forest. The protected forests would encompass the protected area system (national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, etc.) plus botanical gardens and arboretums. The target percentages have been raised in the policy described below.

A far-reaching policy—Policy and Prospective Plan for Enhancement and Conservation of National Environmental Quality, 1997-2016 (Anon, 1997)—was passed by the Cabinet in November 1996. Themes are described under the headings of six sectoral policies on:

• Natural Resources
• Pollution Prevention and Eradication
• Natural and Cultural Environments
• Community Environment
• Environmental Education and Promotion
• Environmental Technology

Several provisions that relate to biodiversity conservation and protected area management are included under two of the sets of sectoral policies: Natural Resources, and Natural and Cultural Environments. These policies are reproduced in full below (in italics) together with summaries of the guidelines prescribed for each policy.

3. BIODIVERSITY LEGISLATION

3.1. State law

Current government policy is to evaluate the existing fragmented legal basis for protected areas, and replace it with a more comprehensive and integrated body of statutory law. In the meantime the extant system is as follows.

Legal bases are provided by the National Park Act of BE 2504 (1961), the Wildlife Protection and Preservation Act of BE 2535 (1992), and the National Forest Reserve Act of BE 2507 (1964).

The National Park Act provides for the following.

• The manner in which national parks are declared, altered or extinguished by Royal Decree, and the requirement that boundaries be demarcated.
• Formation of a National Park Committee to serve in an advisory capacity to the Minister responsible for national parks.
• Rules for protecting and maintaining national parks. Entry is permitted but entrants are subject to prescribed rules of conduct. Prohibited acts include hunting clearing or gathering vegetation, mining, introducing domestic livestock, causing fires, polluting water and causing disturbances.
• Fees for entry into or use of national parks.
• Penalties for offences committed under the Act.

The Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act provides for the following.

• A National Committee on Wild Animal Preservation and Protection who shall assist in seeing that the Act is implemented in accordance with its provisions.
• Rules governing hunting, breeding, possessing and trading in wild animals and their by-products.
• Rules governing import, export and transport of wild animals, and the management of quarantine stations.
• The licensing and management of public zoological gardens.
• Protected areas for wild animals, and the rules applying to entry and land use within them. Entry is subject to Ministerial Notification; hunting, clearing vegetation, mining, grazing domestic livestock, changing river or stream flow, polluting water and wetlands are prohibited
• Offences, penalties and licence fees.
• A list of protected wild animals:

3.2 International conventions

Thailand is signatory to the following international conventions.

• Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention). The focal point is OEPP.
• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The focal point is the Royal Forest Department (RFD).
• Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Culture and Natural Heritage
• Convention to Combat Desertification
• UN Convention to Combat Climate Change

Thailand has not yet signed the Convention on Biological Diversity.

4. CATEGORIES OF PROTECTED AREAS

The present system has developed over many years in a piecemeal manner. IUCN is developing a project proposal to introduce a new classification system.

There are five categories of protected area: national parks, national marine parks, wildlife sanctuaries (in some translations 'wildlife conservation areas'), forest parks and non-hunting areas. National marine parks exist primarily to protect areas of coastal habitat and islands, and appear therefore to have little relevance to watershed management: some, however, extend inland to include even mountainous terrain.

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 that have reclassified.

The Wildlife Protection and Preservation Act of 1960 states that wildlife sanctuaries are areas for, 'the conservation of wildlife habitat so that wildlife can freely breed and increase their populations in the natural environment'. 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 or geomorphologic formations. They are provided for under the National Reserve Forest Act of 1964, and their chief 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.

5. INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

5.1. State management

The Royal Forestry Department (RFD) manages the protected areas described above. It is a large organisation: its headquarters alone employees about 3,000. The staff of RFD in 1997 comprised 8,512 officers and 8,623 permanent employees, totalling 17,135.

The annual budget for 1996 was Baht 10,026,160,500 (US$279 million). Subheads were:

Within RDF, the Natural Resources Conservation Bureau (NRCB), which includes the three divisions concerned with managing most protected areas, employs about 1,500 persons (300 officers and 1,200 permanent employees). About 10 per cent are graduates and 10 per cent hold forestry school certificates. Most protected area Superintendents are graduates in forestry, and will have worked for several years as technical forest officers. Main sources of trained personnel are the Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, and the Regional Community Forestry Training Centre. RFD also offers in-service training courses in four areas of the country.

There are also reported to be 12,000 daily paid employees although their input is seasonal and intermittent.

The three divisions of NRCB are:

• The National Parks Division responsible for managing national parks.
• The National Marine Parks Division responsible for managing national marine parks.
• The Wildlife Conservation Division responsible for managing wildlife sanctuaries and non-hunting areas.

Forest parks are managed variously by the National Parks Division (13 parks), Regional Forest Offices (36) and Provincial Forest Offices (16).

Within RFD current operational policies favour a process of decentralisation so that protected area management may increasingly be delegated to Regional Forest Offices.

Where wetlands lie within protected areas they are the responsibility of RFD but wetlands outside are subject to other authorities such as the Royal Fisheries Department, the Royal Irrigation Department and the Electricity Generating Authority.

RFD is aware of the need for capacity building, and recently co-operated with Kasetsart University to conduct a training course for senior national park personnel to gain wider experience of protected area management in other countries. A regional training centre has been established for at Khao Yai National Park. However, while protected areas have been increasing in number, staff numbers have not risen due to the government cap of two percent on annual recruitment rates.

Until recently only national parks were authorised to charge entrance fees and earn revenue. Wildlife sanctuaries are now permitted to do so. All protected area revenues are passed to RFD headquarters, where they are pooled and allocated back to the field according to need. These revenues and disbursements do not form part of the annual government budget.

5.2. Management plans

The RFD has well-developed procedures for producing management plans. At the time of writing (March 1999) a little over 30 national parks and about 20 wildlife sanctuaries had management plans.

Department spokesmen reported that management plans may be produced in-house by RFD officers, by universities or by private consultancy companies, subject to terms of reference defined by RFD. Each management plan takes about one year to complete. During this period, a steering subcommittee keeps a watching brief to ensure that the terms of reference are being followed—especially when an external agency is being employed. All stakeholders are consulted during the planning process, including local communities, although this is said to be a relatively recent innovation.

Completed management plans are vetted by a management committee, comprising representatives of RFD, Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT), universities and relevant NGOs. Those that are approved go to the Director-General for final signature. They are then passed to Superintendents to implement.

Implementation is subject to monitoring, and current experience is of a 50 to 60 per cent rate of achievement. The reasons for this are unclear but may include prescriptions being too elaborate or demanding; insufficient manpower; insufficient time; or inadequate equipment. Whatever the reasons, the low rate of implementation suggests that prescriptions may be unrealistic given the resources available to management.

The life of a management plan is currently five years but consideration is being given to increasing this to 10 years, largely it appears because of the existing rate of implementation.

A master plan covering all functions of RFD was produced a few years ago (Royal Forest Department, 1993) and has been awaiting Cabinet approval since then.

5.3 NGO and donor involvement

The government shows strong interest in fostering co-operation with Thai and foreign NGOs, private companies, foundations, educational and research institutes. NGOs with environmental interests register with the Department of Environmental Quality and Promotion, and by 1996, 63 had registered.

WWF has several projects under way that are directly related to protected area management.

• The largest is the Western Forest Complex Environmental Education Project. The programme works with a minority people, the Karen, who inhabit the borders between Thailand and Myanmar, mostly in the latter country. The aims are to develop community participation in managing forest resources using traditional knowledge and skills. As children move into the schools' system, where they are educated in Thai, traditional ecological knowledge tends to be lost.
• A tiger conservation project.
• An elephant reintroduction programme. There are about 1,500 wild elephants and 3,000 in domesticity—used in the timber trade. With the ban on logging, many elephants have become redundant. WWF manages a programme to reintroduce them into areas where the species had been extirpated but which still have suitable habitat. Doi Pha Muay is the first area, to be followed by Doi Khuntan—both in northern Thailand.
• Promoting ‘buffer zone’ development around Phu Luang.

At least two other NGOs are engaged in wild animal welfare programmes: Friends of the Asian Elephant and The Wild Animal Rescue Foundation of Thailand.

Wildlife Fund Thailand, a local NGO, is undertaking a coastal resources management programme supported by funding from WWF; and several NGOs are active in promoting environmental awareness (e.g., Green World Foundation, Promotion of Human Resources for Community Development Foundation, Environmental Situation of Thailand Information Centre Foundation and World Vision Foundation of Thailand).

Other NGOs are engaged in developing community participatory management (see below).

RFD has enjoyed the support of some international donor agencies, mostly in the form of bilateral programmes. For example:

• An OECF programme about to start in 1999, aims to develop park facilities (roads, trails, campgrounds and signs) and interpretation programmes.
• USAID has supported a programme for personnel development since about 1994.
• The EU supports sustainable management in Phu Kheio Wildlife Sanctuary through community participation.
• Australia supports coral and marine life database training.
• DANCED supports the Khao Yai Regional Training Centre.

5.4 Private sector involvement

There is little private sector involvement. A few national parks have privately run concessions to sell food at designated sites, and local communities are allowed to operate small businesses and serve as guides (see also Section 10). RFD provides most visitor services: accommodation, campgrounds, tent rentals, access to electricity and water and emergency services.

6. INVENTORY OF PROTECTED AREAS

The lists that follow reflect circumstances as they were in October 1998, when the Royal Forest Department provided the Consultant with data sheets. However, by January 1999 further areas had been added to the system, and some areas had been transferred from one category to another so that the system was reputed to comprise

86 national parks and national marine parks

48 wildlife sanctuaries

54 non-hunting areas

National parks (IUCN category II)

National marine parks (IUCN category II)

The first 17 national marine parks listed below were formerly national parks from varying times between 1966 (when Khao Sam Roi Yot was declared) up until 1993, when a separate management structure was created.

Wildlife sanctuaries (in some reports 'wildlife conservation areas') (IUCN category IV)

Forest parks (IUCN category V)

Non-hunting areas (IUCN category V)

The list that follows was translated from Thai. Their sizes, cited by rai (6.25 rai = 1 ha) in the Thai version, have been converted to km².

7. CONSERVATION COVER BY PROTECTED AREAS

The protected area system covers 15.2 per cent of the country. National parks, national marine parks and wildlife sanctuaries (within IUCN management categories I to IV) make up 87 per cent of the total system or 14.2 per cent of the country.

Although extensive, the protected area system contains disproportionate amounts of upland forest but very little lowland evergreen forest. Apart from this, MacKinnon (1997) rated habitat coverage as 'quite satisfactory’ and reported ‘no obvious gaps'. All biounits and subunits are represented.

8. AREAS OF MAJOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION SIGNIFICANCE

Four areas are rated as having special biodiversity significance.

The Western Forest Complex (WFC)

WFC is a large, hilly tract of forested land on the border with Myanmar between about 14⁰10' and 16⁰30' N. It comprises a cluster of 11 protected areas that have an important watershed protection function:

• Klong Wang Chao National Park
• Klong Lan National Park
• Umphang Wildlife Sanctuary
• Mae Wong National Park
• Thung Yai Naresuan Wildlife Sanctuary
• Huai Khakhaeng Wildlife Sanctuary
• Khao Laem National Park
• Sai Yok National Park
• Khaoen Sri Nakarin National Park
• Salak-Phra Wildlife Sanctuary
• Erawan National Park

WFC is a biogeographic crossroad, where the Indochinese, Himalayan and Sundaic realms meet. There is therefore unusually high biodiversity. Twenty-eight species of carnivore occur, including tiger; five macaques; gibbons, banteng, gaur and elephant. WFC also contains the largest tract of continuous forest left in Thailand.

Kaeng Krachan NP

Kaeng Krachan National Park is the largest single protected area in Thailand with high watershed protection values. It lies on the border with Myanmar centred on 12⁰55' N, 99⁰25', and is contiguous with the largest tract of forest in the latter country. Biodiversity is slightly less than in WFC as Kaeng Krachan lies beyond the southernmost limits of the Himalayan realm. There is a large elephant population that moves to and fro across the border, and tiger is present.

The Khao Yai NP-Thap Lan NP-Pang Sida NP complex

A hilly forested area centred around 14⁰15' N, 99⁰25' E, which contains moist evergreen forest. It is a valuable watershed protection area. This is a stronghold for gibbons although the variety of other primates is unremarkable. Elephant, tiger, Malayan bear and Asiatic black bear occur.

The Nam Nao NP-Phu Khieo WCA complex

Centred on 16⁰30' N, 101⁰30' E, this is a large tract of forested high plateau with some hill country to the west: a valuable watershed protection area. Elephant occurs and perhaps a few Sumatran rhinoceros hang on. This area has attracted considerable outside support: the EU plans to spend 12 million ECUs over a seven-year period starting in 1999.

9. TOURISM IN PROTECTED AREAS

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. In 1996 the tourism industry generated revenue of Baht 109 billion. Tourism in Thailand today focuses on archaeological, historical and cultural sites, on protected areas and on resort areas. There is some overlap between them.

TISTR (1997) estimated that tourist volume for 1997 would be 52 million person-trips. The same study also recorded that about two-thirds of all domestic tourists engaged in varying forms of ecotourism (nature study, exploring, camping, trekking, rafting, etc), compared with slightly more than a quarter of foreign tourists. In general, Thai visitors are reputed to more interested in sightseeing and picnicking, while foreigners appear to focus attention on nature.

Visitor numbers for parks and other protected areas over a three-year period are shown in the following table. Domestic tourists account for 87 per cent, foreign for 13 per cent.

Most of the national parks can be visited year-round. The exceptions are marine parks in the Andaman Sea, where storms from May to November make them unsafe for visitors. The most visited are those close to large urban centres, such as Doi Suthep Pui National Park.

The high economic values of tourism in Thailand are reflected in further education. More than 70 institutions of higher learning offer courses in tourism, producing 13,500 personnel every year.

The governing, policy setting body is the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT). TAT's policy for developing tourism (Phayakvichien, 1996) includes the following provisions relevant to ecotourism.

• Quality is to be emphasised, especially effective communications and accommodation.
• Sensitivity to the potential for environmental damage caused by tourism, and the need to co-ordinate the various parties involved (government, private sector and local people) to minimise damage.
• Tourism to be used to develop greater awareness of the values of conservation.
• Local people to benefit directly and indirectly from ecotourism.

In developing tourism, TAT’s objectives aim for sustainable growth; greater public awareness and sense of responsibility; maintenance of quality in touristic areas, and the quality of life for those who live in those areas.

Problems or obstacles to developing ecotourism include the following.

• A danger that the policy outlined above will not be implemented in full resulting in erosion of cultural and 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.
• A tendency to focus management strategies on satisfying tourist demands rather than safeguarding the resources upon which tourism potential is based.
• Although (in 1996) there were 1,746 authorised tour operators and over 10,000 authorised guides they are mostly geared to cater for the needs of general tourism. In particular, there is a shortage of well-informed guides who have a sound basic appreciation of nature and wild lands.
• Ill-behaved tourists who deposit litter, pollute protected areas, show disrespect for local cultural values, act in an uncouth manner and resist attempts by tour operators or guides to moderate their behaviour.
• 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 exists on the part of RFD personnel, local administrative bodies, local communities and local entrepreneurs.

10. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Most protected areas have people living in them. All protected areas have people living nearby who harvest timber and 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.

RFD recognises that law-enforcement alone is counterproductive to good management. Patrols by armed guards was once the main management tool, which is reported to have produced successful forest protection but antagonized local people who sought access to the forests. There is now greater emphasis on promoting good relations between the RFD and communities in and around protected areas.

Two examples of participatory programmes underway are in the Khao Luang and Phu Khieo complexes.

RFD gives training in methods of participatory management, and selects and authorizes visitor guides.

Resource harvesting in protected areas is not permitted under current legislation except by direction of the Director General, although it is tolerated in the surrounding so-called '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.

Several NGOs are active in this field: for example, The Foundation 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.

Some NGOs express the view that RFD does not encourage participation by communities in the management of forests or protected areas. The impression given is that of professionals jealously guarding their territory against those they perceive as amateurs.

Nevertheless local people do manage forests according to traditional skills and knowledge albeit illegally and regarded by RFD as inappropriate. NGO efforts in this field are given RFD approval although think it unlikely that they would ever function were it left to government to make a request.

A new bill—Community Forestry Bill—would have profound effects upon the scope for participatory management if it is passed and becomes law. The proposed bill is still under debate, and opposing factions holds strong views. In particular, there is disagreement over whether its provisions would extend to protected areas.

Since 1996, parks have been required to share revenue with adjacent communities. This share is to be used to finance local environmental projects. However, the size of share has yet to be decided, and this initiative remains to be implemented.

11. GENDER

The officer-ranking staff of the NRCB in RFD, consists of 1,035 men and 91 women. The breakdown division-by-division is as follows

At community level, many NTFPs are harvested and managed (though not with RFD approval) by both sexes. Hunting and logging are largely or entirely male occupations. The highest rank occupied by a woman to date was reported to be Deputy Superintendent.

Where decision making is involved in allocations or use of natural resources, men's voices are stronger.

12. CROSS BOUNDARY ISSUES

12.1 Internal boundaries

Some protected areas straddle provincial boundaries but this is not reported to cause serious problems because the areas are under direct control of outlying offices of the RFD.

12.2 International borders

At least 18 protected areas lie adjacent to international borders with other GMS countries. Those marked with asterisks are contiguous with protected areas across the borders. There may be a further three or four: problems with matching spellings from lists and maps made by different translators prevented confirmation.

Adjoining Myanmar

Adjoining Lao PDR

Adjoining Cambodia

Adjoining Malaysia

RFD has no regional co-operative programme with any other GMS country although its officers have made informal contacts with their equivalents in Myanmar. It has, however, engaged in a joint survey with Malaysia along the international border between the two countries, to assess the potential for a transboundary protected area.

12.3 Cross border trade

There is an illegal flow of non-timber products from Cambodia and Lao PDR to Thailand. This includes supplies to feed a major illegal market in maidam (Aqualaria sp) in the Middle East and Japan, where it sells for up to $2,000 a kilogram, and which has all but eliminated the plant from Lao. Illegally obtained timber also crosses the borders from Cambodia.

Another market in wildlife by-products involves the wild cattle—gaur, 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.

13 MAJOR PROBLEMS AND ISSUES

Illegal logging

Logging appears to persist in defiance of the 1989 ban. Forest loss revealed on satellite imagery acquired by FAO shows continued loss of forest cover, which suggests continued logging.

Agricultural encroachment

As human populations continue to grow, especially in the more remote watersheds, so do they clear new areas of forest for permanent rather than shifting cultivation. Government policies that encourage food production for export have exacerbated this trend, which seems likely to continue. The recent economic recession has led to increased unemployment in urban areas, and a shift back to the land.

Large scale projects

Development projects for dams and highways, often publicised then shelved, could, if they went ahead, cause further serious erosion of biodiversity.

Reluctance to institute participatory management

RFD has the reputation with NGOs of doing little or nothing to encourage participation by local communities in managing forest resources. This may be deliberate although well intentioned. Some institutional reform may be needed.

Protected area problems

Highways cross some protected areas. Some protected areas are subject to excessive visitor pressures that lead to environmental damage and littering. Boundaries are often ill defined and poorly guarded.

‘Incompatible developments’ (such as resorts and golf courses) are reported to adjoin some protected areas and erode their edges. However, such developments can hardly be considered inappropriate per se: as MacKinnon (1994) observed, ‘privately owned tea estates and golf courses provide less troublesome buffer zones to national parks than do agricultural village communities’. Where any kind of development (be it cultivation or golf course) encroaches upon and erodes a protected area, this is likely caused by inadequate attention to management, lack of vigilance on the part of Wardens or both – all of which may be the result of insufficient resources.

Refugees

War and associated turmoil has led to floods of refuges (from Cambodia and Myanmar in particular) entering border protected areas with subsequent environmental damage. particular) entering border protected areas with subsequent environmental damage.

Unsustainable harvesting of NTFP

Various plant products are collected: fuelwood, building materials, medicinal and food plants. Poachers seek meat and medicinal by-products of animals, and capture live animals for commercial trade. Increasing numbers of livestock are grazed. Harvesting pressures are unsustainable and biodiversity is eroded.

Visitor impacts

Thailand's RFD was the only technical department in the GMS to report visitor impacts as a significant problem to protected area management. This is clearly due to the exceptionally large volumes of visitors (see Section 9). Visitor impacts include damage to trails and vegetation, and pollution and littering. RFD reports that it has insufficient staff to cope with the demands of visitor control.