Govt to help farmers grow 26m rai of income generating trees

By The Nation

 

The government will provide support to farmers to grow revenue-producing trees on their lands, said Agriculture Minister Surasak Karnjanarat on Saturday.

 

The government hopes the project will expand forest areas in the country by 26 million rai (4 million hectares) over a decade, he added.

The project is part of the plan to improve the economy at the grassroots level, said Surasak.

 

He said the Cabinet has approved a draft directive to allow the use of trees with economic value on farmers’ lands as assets to guarantee loans. As well, the Cabinet approved in principle a bill to amend the forestry laws to allow landowners to make decisions about protected trees residing on their lands without first seeking approval from forestry officials.

The project aims to in 10 years have created 20,000 communities, and 2.6 million families, growing revenue-producing trees. The government hopes that each family would, over a decade, grow at least 400 trees, for a total of 1.04 billion trees on 26 million rai.

That would generate economic value of Bt10.4 billon a year, Surasak said.

 

Surasak said the meeting of the government committee overseeing implementation of government policies has resolved to have the National Research Council of Thailand work with the Forestry Department, the Biodiversity-Based Economic Development Public Organisation and the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives to implement the policy.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/detail/breakingnews/30354035

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2018-09-09

Good idea.

Trees are good

10 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

Good idea.

The ideals are quite decent.

Becoming dependent on a government body that has less than altruistic community tendencies behind their strategies should be looked upon with suspect.

Good idea, but the details are very significant. For example, what do they consider income producing trees? Eucalyptus? I hope not. Also, the main reason most Thais do not grow a lot of trees is the land floods. You must use fill dirt first and then plant. That's about 400 baht per truckload. Will they pay for that? Also, irrigation through the dry season. It is a lot of work. Indigenous trees like shorea and lithocarpus are hardy, but are they considered economical? Usually sold for timber or cut up for firewood.

But what will the farmers do while they wait for the trees to grow if they use big portion of their land for the trees?....

This was yesterday---------

 

Prayut warns against vote-buying in next general election

 

 

but today it's------

Govt to help farmers grow 26m rai of income generating trees

Has anyone given thought to the fact that people who have grown trees for the sole purpose of being cut for profit are quite likely to add other trees into their product when the time comes to sell. What Thailand needs is trees on the mountain slopes that will not be cut but stay there for ever. At present I can still see the tree line moving up the hills where I live as local farmers clear more forest to plant cash crops.

Likely to be plantation teak which is not new.  Other exotics hardwood will take too long to grow to marketable size. As Ezzra said, farmers can’t generate income while the tree grow and land have to be sacrificed. More a dud idea and not carefully thought out. 

1 hour ago, rooster59 said:

to improve the economy at the grassroots level, said Surasak. 

 

Oh, Surasak . . . that's so punny. Now, get those billion trees planted . . . barkish.

Edited September 9, 20187 yr by Ossy
omisson

21 minutes ago, Lunchbob said:

Good idea, but the details are very significant. For example, what do they consider income producing trees? Eucalyptus? I hope not. Also, the main reason most Thais do not grow a lot of trees is the land floods. You must use fill dirt first and then plant. That's about 400 baht per truckload. Will they pay for that? Also, irrigation through the dry season. It is a lot of work. Indigenous trees like shorea and lithocarpus are hardy, but are they considered economical? Usually sold for timber or cut up for firewood.

Teak?

1 hour ago, rooster59 said:

The government hopes that each family would, over a decade, grow at least 400 trees

Yes, it sounds like the trees might not be as barking mad as it sounds, but I question the maths … again!

 

The Ministry figure means a staggering annual total of 40 trees per family per year, or 1 tree every 9 days. Surasak and his government numbskulls must think that the Thai farmer works at their snail's pace. Now, why don't they get real, with what could be an excellent idea, outsource the planet for tree seedlings and increase this tiny number by a ten, whereby, if your typical family grows 4 thousand trees in a decade, you might  start to see forests - not garden plots - springing into life.

 

And what's the betting; next week, poor old Surasak will be saying, 'Sorry, but you know that tree-planting idea that we threw into the ring, last week? . . . on looking into it, it will be untreesonably expensive, but we are looking at another project . . . weed-growing. Well, they might be edible.'

Edited September 9, 20187 yr by Ossy
omisson

15 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

farmers can’t generate income while the tree grow and land have to be sacrificed.

 

There are plenty of things that can be grown in between hardwoods, whilst they are maturing...

We have now got a good variety on our plots. We still have palm and rubber but not also have a selection of hardwoods (grown around the perimeter and amongst the palms in places), fruit trees in between younger palms (various types), everything else growing where space is available (chilli, lemon grass, pineapple, etc)

7 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

There are plenty of things that can be grown in between hardwoods, whilst they are maturing...

We have now got a good variety on our plots. We still have palm and rubber but not also have a selection of hardwoods (grown around the perimeter and amongst the palms in places), fruit trees in between younger palms (various types), everything else growing where space is available (chilli, lemon grass, pineapple, etc)

Well done, I didn’t see that aspect of plots usages for other fast revenue growing sub-crops mentioned in the plan as financing, training and distribution would be important for the framers. Reason why I think plan is half baked. Maybe more for election propaganda. 

Any good idea from the state comes with built in corruption.  All seedlings will be supplied by (for example) Surasak's brother-in-law at 40% above cost price.

41 minutes ago, Nyezhov said:

Teak?

Have to wait a hundred years before they are full grown.

35 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

There are plenty of things that can be grown in between hardwoods, whilst they are maturing...

We have now got a good variety on our plots. We still have palm and rubber but not also have a selection of hardwoods (grown around the perimeter and amongst the palms in places), fruit trees in between younger palms (various types), everything else growing where space is available (chilli, lemon grass, pineapple, etc)

Excellent point, which is also a part of the Permaculture ideal, where plant types next to each other are selected on the basis that they compete less for specific nutrients.

 

Maybe this idea to grow trees is also linked to concerns about climate change and rising CO2 levels. CO2 can be considered as an asset because it encourages plant growth. The more CO2 the better, from a tree's perspective, up to a certain point of course.

 

New forests in particular take up lots of CO2 as they grow, but as they mature, that take-up slows down. When the trees are cut down for the timber, the carbon, in a sense, is sequestered, then the newly planted trees begin again to take up more CO2.

40 minutes ago, Vacuum said:

Have to wait a hundred years before they are full grown.

 

Maybe but they are usable after 15yrs....

1 hour ago, ezzra said:

But what will the farmers do while they wait for the trees to grow if they use big portion of their land for the trees?....

How about legalizing Cannabis? Quick growing (See quick income within months after the first planting), minimum use of land. Research can find new uses for the by products which could replace plastics. And, Thailand will truly become the Land Of Smiles again. 

However, this makes too much sense and will be rejected. TIT

Edited September 9, 20187 yr by jaltsc

39 minutes ago, cornishcarlos said:

 

Maybe but they are usable after 15yrs....

Ok, but still a long time to wait.

Its all numbers and empty promises . Reminds me of the rice pledge scheme guaranteeing untold riches to issan farmers. (20,000 communities, 2600000 rai ,billions of  baht.) sic .  Trees take years to grow with no income in the interim period.  Sugar cane is much better because it pays out every year. Unfortunately most land here doesnt have suitable rainfall/irrigation so bad luck!

Try high grade bamboo!!   As soon as the bamboo is about to mature and  ready for harvest - well organised thief gangs will arrive at 2 am  with trucks and clean out most of your crop. They also steal bananas,limes  and orchids.

Why grow cash crops when you can simply steal it, right  under the nose of corrupt local police ?

 

No farmers benefited  from the rice pledge scheme  but the Shinawtra clan  did,  Where are they living now ???

Isaan  , Dubai  & London?  Take a guess.!!

 

 

14 minutes ago, Vacuum said:

Ok, but still a long time to wait.

Not if you have a cunning plan.

Having been out in the garden cutting weeds I have had more time to reflect on the sheer audacity of a Thai military govt asking its poor citizens to grow trees. Firstly, this country has always considered the Forestry Dept to be a business concern not a conservation department. The Forest Industry Organisation was formed for the very purpose of business. The military, in control during the worst years of deforestation (1950 - 80) have long been involved in logging and sawmills and its widely been considered a factor in many generals wealth. But now, with forests raped and trees a scarcity the govt wants to hand back to the very people who gained nothing from deforestation, the responsibility for growing the tree needed to further feed the wealthy's timber businesses. Considering how much land is owned by the present and past parliamentarians I would suggest they put to use there massive land ownership and millions of $'s and start reforesting the very areas they have denuded to claim ownership of "despoiled forest land".

Grow trees so you can get a loan.sounds like a great plan to get people off the poverty line.how about allow foreigners to own one rai that'll put some money into the poor people's pocket quicker than watching a tree grow so they can get themselves into debt and lose their land to the banks.

Who has the financial resources to plant trees on land they don't depend on for daily income?
You know the answer ...

If they included and legalised Mary jane that really would be great.

Two different subjects, reforestation and a living for farmers.

 

I made good money out of my eucalypts, at 5 years old and no maintenance (should appeal to Thais).

5 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Likely to be plantation teak which is not new.  Other exotics hardwood will take too long to grow to marketable size. As Ezzra said, farmers can’t generate income while the tree grow and land have to be sacrificed. More a dud idea and not carefully thought out. 

 

There may also be another problem and that would be the land title. To grow teak AFAIK you need chanote or full land title and less than that may cause a problem at harvesting time.

3 hours ago, overherebc said:

Not if you have a cunning plan.

?

6 hours ago, Vacuum said:

Have to wait a hundred years before they are full grown.

Bad guess Vacuous one! Teak is 25 years to harvest time in the tropics.