Why farmer burning the forest?

[jiangaq]

For burning the waste?

[Ulysses G.]

Tradition. Farmer burning the forest every year.

[Tywais]

In case you haven't seen the pinned topic it helps explain it. http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/692704-smoke-smog-dust-2014-chiang-mai/

1. Preparing the land for mushroom farming (forest burning)

2. Rice husks/stalks burned for new rice planting

3. Have been reports of forest management doing managed burns.

[masuk]

More cleared land for growing the wretched oil palms. Asia's forests are being burned at a great rate, so we can continue to have palm oil in everything.

I often wonder what the Thais used for deep-frying so many of their meals, before the advent of palm oil.

[Chicog]

And Biofuel don't forget, the green movement has made it a very viable commodity, and inadvertently have contributed to enormous environmental damage.

[Dellboy218]

And Biofuel don't forget, the green movement has made it a very viable commodity, and inadvertently have contributed to enormous environmental damage.

And.........made worse by the E85 fuel. Perhaps some clever clogs out there can work out how much bio mass is required to make the stuff, how much land that takes up and how much land has been diverted from food cultivation because the farmer can make more money. Apart from the high cost of all the fertilisers of course and the transportation of same. As you say it does not work out quite so green. As for why farmers burn. Give them an alternative to clearing their land that does not take any energy, does not take any time and at the cost of a single match. That will be the way they look at it I imagine.

[BawBae]

Call from the 107 road north of Chiang Dao at 11:20 15MAR: 50 metre visibility.

[northernjohn]

Are they growing palm trees in the Chiang Mai area for the oil. Seems to me their would need to be a nearby industry to process it and transport it.

I recall years ago we were driving by a palm oil factory down south and there was a huge line up of oil bearing trucks waiting to get into it.

[Cheesekraft]

they want to kill us

[tropico]

The farmers do not burn because its a tradition but because they make money by doing it.

1. Collect pakwan. Green tree leaves of a specific species

2. Bamboo shoots

3. Hed top. Collect this type of mushrooms

4. Clear the land

5. Hunting

if they do not have monetary incentives to stop, they won't.

[T_Dog]

Tropico hit the main reasons. I see the guys picking mushrooms in the forest all the time. I figure they must make a few thousand baht by the time the season ends. It is not a lot of money for the pollution they have to cause, and they have no inkling that they may be causing anyone harm.

[CNXBKKMAN]

Noticed some vacant land burned yesterday in Padad. Clears all the vegation fast and just leaves the soil and redbull bottles that have been tossed in the bushes. The people who burned it may not be building on it anytime soon. After 3 months of no rain I think people see it as an easy way to tidy it up.

[masuk]

Are they growing palm trees in the Chiang Mai area for the oil. Seems to me their would need to be a nearby industry to process it and transport it.

I recall years ago we were driving by a palm oil factory down south and there was a huge line up of oil bearing trucks waiting to get into it.

I was referring to neighbouring countries and their reason for burning the forests - more oil palms.

I was horrified flying into KL airport for the first time, and flying over kilometres of ex-forest and now oil palms as far as I could see.

In Borneo, there are orphanages running to house the young orang-utan as their habitat has been destroyed. The Asian elephants in Sumatra are facing a problem also of no food, no shade trees.

Progress!

[WinnieTheKhwai]

^ right. Though in Northern Thailand you can't just decide to grow a crop in a national park (and pretty much all forrested lands are national parks). So this is not a reason to burn forests.

Tropico (#10) gave a great summary.

[Chicog]

^ right. Though in Northern Thailand you can't just decide to grow a crop in a national park (and pretty much all forrested lands are national parks). So this is not a reason to burn forests.

Tropico (#10) gave a great summary.

Like they give a stuff about national parks, get real Winnie.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

^, ah, yes they most certainly burn, hunt and do whatever else in National Parks, however they are not wholesale clearing them for oil palm farming like they do in Indonesia.

It's mostly the undergrowth that burns.

Edited March 15, 2014 by WinnieTheKhwai

[T_Dog]

Here are some photos of the burns up in the hills near Mae Taeng. There are still a lot of green leaves on the brush so things are not burning well as can be seen from the photos. Only the dry leaves on the ground are burning well, with just a bit of brush going up. Last years burns by this time were much more extensive. As soon as the rains come, the mushroom hunters will be out in full force.

[tropico]

Winnie is right! Mainly the undergrowth is burnt together with all the new seedlings and that's why the forest has no way to regenerate itself but degrade further.

[Gonsalviz]

Winnie is right! Mainly the undergrowth is burnt together with all the new seedlings and that's why the forest has no way to regenerate itself but degrade further.

Not sure where you come from but controlled burn is used everywhere people have any sense. It allows the established trees to grow unhindered and it it a very good way to keep a real forest fire from being uncontrolled.

[tropico]

Winnie is right! Mainly the undergrowth is burnt together with all the new seedlings and that's why the forest has no way to regenerate itself but degrade further.

Not sure where you come from but controlled burn is used everywhere people have any sense. It allows the established trees to grow unhindered and it it a very good way to keep a real forest fire from being uncontrolled.

where I come from we do not burn and if we catch somebody lighting fire, he is going to have some jail time. I work in forestry in south east Asia for quite a while and I can tell you that in most cases fire is not under control and it is very detrimental for forests around here. In some pine forests of north America fire is needed for regeneration of some tree species but it is not the same here. Fire is damaging forests ultimately.

[xen]

Winnie is right! Mainly the undergrowth is burnt together with all the new seedlings and that's why the forest has no way to regenerate itself but degrade further.

Not sure where you come from but controlled burn is used everywhere people have any sense. It allows the established trees to grow unhindered and it it a very good way to keep a real forest fire from being uncontrolled.

where I come from we do not burn and if we catch somebody lighting fire, he is going to have some jail time. I work in forestry in south east Asia for quite a while and I can tell you that in most cases fire is not under control and it is very detrimental for forests around here. In some pine forests of north America fire is needed for regeneration of some tree species but it is not the same here. Fire is damaging forests ultimately.

In Australia the simplistic, and popular, view of "controlled burning" is that a cold burn removes the forest floor litter so it deprives a fire of fuel. Instead a fire will stress most of the trees especially eucalyptus spp and on the first things trees will do when under stress is to defoliate as a self preservation and defence reaction and this results in creating forest litter (or fuel for a Fire) . it also encourages weeds , dries out the soil and selectively prunes the diversity of the forest. Species that can withstand a cold burn then come to dominate the forest . Removing the litter also removes a massive nutrient source for plants ( and animals and insects too) and further dries out the soil. It also aids erosion and leaching of soils too . And so a slow decline, possible slow enough that people don't notice, begins. Yes, some species like banksia spp germinate from fire and fires from lighting strike occur natually but the regularity of these fire is spasmodic allows diversity of the forest to survive. I suspect a similar situation occurs in Thailand .

[jaideeguy]

The farmers do not burn because its a tradition but because they make money by doing it.

1. Collect pakwan. Green tree leaves of a specific species

2. Bamboo shoots

3. Hed top. Collect this type of mushrooms

4. Clear the land

5. Hunting

if they do not have monetary incentives to stop, they won't.

You mean to say that they burn because of 'greed, ignorance and short term gains'?? The burning idiots must not look up at the sky, as they are looking down all the time for mushrooms and other things.

We'll never see the end of the burning as it'a not only LOS burning [look at the burn map in the pinned topics on the CM forum], but all her neighbors and they are even more uneducated and short sited and more poor. The smoke cloud from forests burning extends all over SE Asia and at some point mixes with China's industrial pollution, then we really get a nasty brew.

[isanbirder]

I know of two particular reasons for burning the forest.

1. Swidden agriculture, practised by Karen tribesmen in (mainly) Mae Hong Son. A certain area is cleared for agriculture each year. I think the rotation is usually about five years, so for each rai cultivated, the farmer is 'using' 5 rai of forest.

2. Hunting. I have seen this practised by the Lisu on Doi Chiang Dao. Fire is set in a semi-circle, driving inwards, thereby forcing small animals into the centre, where they can be trapped (nets?). Since I saw this at night, I can't give further details.

Much of the burning is not forest at all, but rice stubble.... a cheap way to clear the land for the next season's planting.

There may also be wildfires, where there is a fire climax vegetation, but I'm afraid I don't know anything about this in a Thai context.

[tropico]

The farmers do not burn because its a tradition but because they make money by doing it.

1. Collect pakwan. Green tree leaves of a specific species

2. Bamboo shoots

3. Hed top. Collect this type of mushrooms

4. Clear the land

5. Hunting

if they do not have monetary incentives to stop, they won't.

You mean to say that they burn because of 'greed, ignorance and short term gains'?? The burning idiots must not look up at the sky, as they are looking down all the time for mushrooms and other things.

We'll never see the end of the burning as it'a not only LOS burning [look at the burn map in the pinned topics on the CM forum], but all her neighbors and they are even more uneducated and short sited and more poor. The smoke cloud from forests burning extends all over SE Asia and at some point mixes with China's industrial pollution, then we really get a nasty brew.

I feel same as you but these people need to make a living and collecting ntfp's is what they have been doing for a very long time, and that involves burning. These are families that lives on a 500 baht a month when there is no rice to sell. It is easy to blame them because we do not have the same problems and because we are educated to understand preservation of nature. I work with many hill tribes and they do not understand the extent of problems they cause. They think they need to make a living.

it is not easy to resolve this problem.

[EASYDOGG]

A good reason to leave the lovely northern part of the country.

[wolf5370]

The farmers do not burn because its a tradition but because they make money by doing it.

1. Collect pakwan. Green tree leaves of a specific species

2. Bamboo shoots

3. Hed top. Collect this type of mushrooms

4. Clear the land

5. Hunting

if they do not have monetary incentives to stop, they won't.

You mean to say that they burn because of 'greed, ignorance and short term gains'?? The burning idiots must not look up at the sky, as they are looking down all the time for mushrooms and other things.

We'll never see the end of the burning as it'a not only LOS burning [look at the burn map in the pinned topics on the CM forum], but all her neighbors and they are even more uneducated and short sited and more poor. The smoke cloud from forests burning extends all over SE Asia and at some point mixes with China's industrial pollution, then we really get a nasty brew.

I feel same as you but these people need to make a living and collecting ntfp's is what they have been doing for a very long time, and that involves burning. These are families that lives on a 500 baht a month when there is no rice to sell. It is easy to blame them because we do not have the same problems and because we are educated to understand preservation of nature. I work with many hill tribes and they do not understand the extent of problems they cause. They think they need to make a living.

it is not easy to resolve this problem.

It just needs some thought and people in authority that give a dam_n. Just like when the northern mountains were thriving with opium growers - along comes Mama in her helicopter and shows them they can make more money growing strawberries than drugs and it is safer and legal too. Give them another way of earning the money - another way of doing it - whether that be subsidies for not burning (and fines for burning - carrot/stick), rent free use of soil turning machinery/buffalo, movement to crops that do not require annual burning (such as tree farming (using designated areas of maintained trees - not back to logging days) / high value root farming - like ginseng / etc) - where there is a will, there is a way - move to local/regional governance (if it happens - and both sides seem keen in their own special way!) may give the will - because BKK doesn't care about smoky mountains hundreds of miles away!

[scotbeve]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Are they growing palm trees in the Chiang Mai area for the oil. Seems to me their would need to be a nearby industry to process it and transport it.

I recall years ago we were driving by a palm oil factory down south and there was a huge line up of oil bearing trucks waiting to get into it.

I was referring to neighbouring countries and their reason for burning the forests - more oil palms.

I was horrified flying into KL airport for the first time, and flying over kilometres of ex-forest and now oil palms as far as I could see.

In Borneo, there are orphanages running to house the young orang-utan as their habitat has been destroyed. The Asian elephants in Sumatra are facing a problem also of no food, no shade trees.

Progress!

AND apparently, palm trees do not take in CO2 and convert to O2.... A useless, "high commodity" tree. In addition to this, palm needs at least 1.5m of rainfall a year. (that's 1500mm/year!!!!!) for any kind of profit.... I cannot see the north benefiting from these trees at all....

[Saan]

Winnie is right! Mainly the undergrowth is burnt together with all the new seedlings and that's why the forest has no way to regenerate itself but degrade further.

Not sure where you come from but controlled burn is used everywhere people have any sense. It allows the established trees to grow unhindered and it it a very good way to keep a real forest fire from being uncontrolled.

where I come from we do not burn and if we catch somebody lighting fire, he is going to have some jail time. I work in forestry in south east Asia for quite a while and I can tell you that in most cases fire is not under control and it is very detrimental for forests around here. In some pine forests of north America fire is needed for regeneration of some tree species but it is not the same here. Fire is damaging forests ultimately.

In Australia the simplistic, and popular, view of "controlled burning" is that a cold burn removes the forest floor litter so it deprives a fire of fuel. Instead a fire will stress most of the trees especially eucalyptus spp and on the first things trees will do when under stress is to defoliate as a self preservation and defence reaction and this results in creating forest litter (or fuel for a Fire) . it also encourages weeds , dries out the soil and selectively prunes the diversity of the forest. Species that can withstand a cold burn then come to dominate the forest . Removing the litter also removes a massive nutrient source for plants ( and animals and insects too) and further dries out the soil. It also aids erosion and leaching of soils too . And so a slow decline, possible slow enough that people don't notice, begins. Yes, some species like banksia spp germinate from fire and fires from lighting strike occur natually but the regularity of these fire is spasmodic allows diversity of the forest to survive. I suspect a similar situation occurs in Thailand .

A good summation of what happens in Australia but you do not mention that for 50 000 to 60 000 years Aborigines have used fire to promote new growth and that fire in that period has become part of cycle.

[xen]

A good summation of what happens in Australia but you do not mention that for 50 000 to 60 000 years Aborigines have used fire to promote new growth and that fire in that period has become part of cycle.

The aboriginal people 50,000 to 60,000 years probably lived in a different landscape to what we have in Australia today . It was more likely a very diverse ecology , wetter and most likely dominated by rainforest or wet sclerophyll forest . The Aboriginals practised fire hunting - setting fire to the forest and clubbing/spearing any animal that emerged from the other side , nothing noble like to promote re-growth in the forest , after all there was millions of acres of forest which would have appeared never ending .

Rainforest plants generally do not regenerate after fires so plants that can survive fire will eventually become dominant. This goes some of the way to explaining why there are rainforest plants including palms like the Northern Kentia (not Howea fostania that is native to Lord Howe but palms like Hydriastele ramsayi ) have survived in isolated and protected pockets where fire could not reach them .

The eucalyptus spp then became the dominant spp and eucalyptus are very good at absorbing any available moisture (rather than being drought resistant as popularly believed) and as eucalyptus and other spp from Myrtaceae evolved into plants that could survive in a drier climate ( and less fertile and phosphate deficient soils) and regenerate after a fire. The eucalyptus survived in a drier environment and as a result it became a survival strategy and make it tougher for other spp to compete. Also the drier the environment the more widespread a fire would travel either lit by fire hunting, land clearing or by lightning strikes. Basically it was survival by those plants that could adapt and evolve the quickest and the rainforest lost the battle in many areas of Australia.

Therefore the Aboriginal people were in fact the cause for the change in environment just we later immigrants from 1778 onwards have just sped up the damage . Sorry , i don't subscribe to the Noble Savage theory .

[Johpa]

Anyone who has travelled the small rural unpaved mountain back roads of the north knows that it is not palm oil but corn that is replacing large tracts of forest. The encouragement and of course the funding for all this comes from Big-Agra concerns in Bangkok such as the rather notorious CP Group. That is not to deny the role of traditional swidden agricultural practices amongst the highland peoples which certainly includes burning to both clear the land as well as to create a layer of fertilizer, but the scope of the relatively new commercial farming of corn has taken the slash and burn to an entirely new level of intensity. The mushrooms are merely an afterthought, neither the cause nor motivation for the burning.