NCPO to reclaim encroached land for reforestration

[webfact]

NCPO to reclaim encroached land for reforestration



BANGKOK: -- National Council for Peace and Order chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha has set out a policy to increase forested land up to 40 percent from today’s 31.5 percent of the entire land mass in ten years.

Spokesman of the Internal Security Operations Command Colonel Banpot Poonpien said today (Wednesday) that both the Isoc and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment have been tasked to work out a working plan for implementation of the policy.

For the first year, the colonel said that most if not all the illegally encroached land in national forest reserves or national parks would be reclaimed from the encroachers.

As for the next step which will start on the second year until the tenth year, the reclaimed land will be rehabilitated or reforested to transform their into their former status.

Currently, the military, police and local officials have been actively evicting encroachers and dismantling illegally-built buildings or structures built on the encroached land.

Source: http://englishnews.thaipbs.or.th/ncpo-reclaim-encroached-land-reforestration/

[thaipbs]2014-08-06[/thaipbs]

[jaidam]

Is Thailand currently 31.5% covered in forest? Having flown over the country many times, and looked at Google Earth, it appears to me that maybe 10% tops is actually real forest.

 

[webfact]

NCPO approves forest protection plan
By Digital Content



BANGKOK, Aug 6 - The National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO) today endorsed a master plan to protect national forests and natural resources and under the plan national forests will be rehabilitated in ten years.

Col Banpot Poolpian, spokesperson of the Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), said theagency had earlier ordered the development of the master plan to solve deforestation and encroachment on public land and sustainably manage natural resources.

Under the master plan, concerned government agencies will implement their integrated action plans to increase the combined area of national forests from 31.57 per cent to at least 40 per cent of the country in ten years.

"The ISOC, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, and the Faculty of Forestry of Kasetsart University drafted the master plan and the NCPO chief already approved it. The master plan has three objectives: to stop deforestation and retrieve forests from encroachers in one year; to develop an efficient, effective and sustainable forest management system in two years; and to completely rehabilitate nationwide forests in 2-10 years," the ISOC spokesman said.

He also said that the implementation of the master plan would include integrated efforts to tackle deforestation and raise public awareness on the importance of forests. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment is the main mechanism in the implementation. (MCOT online news)

[tna]2014-08-06[/tna]
 

[snarky66]

In theory a great plan. Wishing them all success.

[laocowboy2]

Excellent aspiration - just hope it works out in practice

[rickirs]

I can appreciate the NCPO wanting to turn 40% of Thailand's land mass into a treed park but like many of its unilateral initiatives there is no mention of costs. Especially like this initiative that does not appear to produce any offsetting revenues against intial reclamation/reforestation and 10 years of maintenance. Shouldn't there be transparency of such costs and how the government will be expected to pay them? This was a persistent criticism of the Yingluck regime but now under "new management" seems to no longer be a concern.

[ripper15]

I wish them the best in this endeavor. On the other hand, 10 years is a long time in LOS. Population growth and other factors may put a kink in their plans. As for the forest, once the original canopy has been removed, the whole of the area's ecosystem is altered beyond return to original status. Educating the population as to the importance of the value of natural green areas would help. I would hope that they include plans for the protection of the mangroves also, the are natures filter's and erosion protection.  

[ginjag]

I can appreciate the NCPO wanting to turn 40% of Thailand's land mass into a treed park but like many of its unilateral initiatives there is no mention of costs. Especially like this initiative that does not appear to produce any offsetting revenues against intial reclamation/reforestation and 10 years of maintenance. Shouldn't there be transparency of such costs and how the government will be expected to pay them? This was a persistent criticism of the Yingluck regime but now under "new management" seems to no longer be a concern.

 

Could well be we were not able to follow the money of PTP ventures, the difference here that there will be accounts, but of course you will not believe the scheme could be transparent, May well be what corruption money the army have saved in the 8 weeks will pay for the re-forested areas.

 

I have a Thai lady friend who is well up on this subject and her department have won awards from H.M. for her efforts. This Thai official has a big staff to help -they are ready with a million trees.   Thai people are volunteering in thousands in rural Thailand to help plant.  This IS big news.  The outlay is minimal it is the labour that costs but the Thais will do it for free, AND school kids to boot. nature study-conservation.

[renaissanc]

The politicians will have spilled their Cognac while reading this news. Cigars will be dropping from their mouths. Every day seems to bring them more horrible news. How will they survive? How will they pay for their new Benzes? The forests were one of their main sources of income.

[metisdead]

A post that can be construed as being negative about the imposition of Martial Law or the Coup has been removed. 

[wilcopops]

 

Thailand's record on the environment is appalling; there have been countless announcements in the past that have led to nothing. I sincerely hope that this time the words will be followed by actions (laid out in a time table??)

however I get the impression that the authorities in question don't actually even have a grasp on what "re-forestation entails. for start "former status" is a pandora's box in itself.

[chotthee]

Ex PM General Surayud Chulanont, installed by previous junta will be glad to hear that piece of good news.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surayud_Chulanont

 

"He has been accused of forest reserve encroachment (a charge that was not investigated since the statute of limitations had run out by 2 years) and illegally acquiring train carriages for display in his forest home. "

Edited August 6, 2014 by chotthee

[moe666]

All they need to do is come up here around Chiang Mai and stop the hill tribe people from cutting down the forest to plant crops. Riding along highway 106 from Lamphun to Theon there is rai after rai of land that has been cut and burned over the last 3 years.

[OccamsRazor]

Is Thailand currently 31.5% covered in forest? Having flown over the country many times, and looked at Google Earth, it appears to me that maybe 10% tops is actually real forest.

 

 

From the below chart it shows an increase in forest area from 1990 to 2000, 31.3% to 37.2% respectively.  But dropped marginally from 2000 - 2010, 37.2% to 37.1% respectively.

 

Forest area (% of land area) in Thailand was last measured at 37.14 in 2010, according to the World Bank. Forest area is land under natural or planted stands of trees of at least 5 meters in situ, whether productive or not, and excludes tree stands in agricultural production systems (for example, in fruit plantations and agroforestry systems) and trees in urban parks and gardens.This page has the latest values, historical data, forecasts, charts, statistics, an economic calendar and news for Forest area (% of land area) in Thailand.

 

Forest area Thailand.

[h90]

I can appreciate the NCPO wanting to turn 40% of Thailand's land mass into a treed park but like many of its unilateral initiatives there is no mention of costs. Especially like this initiative that does not appear to produce any offsetting revenues against intial reclamation/reforestation and 10 years of maintenance. Shouldn't there be transparency of such costs and how the government will be expected to pay them? This was a persistent criticism of the Yingluck regime but now under "new management" seems to no longer be a concern.

 

If it could have prevent 10 % of the flooding of 2011, it would have paid all the costs for the next 10 years.....

Reforestation cost very little if the army does it.

Maintenance of a jungle is zero (beside flying over it and check if someone cut the trees)

[bangrak]

 

Is Thailand currently 31.5% covered in forest? Having flown over the country many times, and looked at Google Earth, it appears to me that maybe 10% tops is actually real forest.

 

 

From the below chart it shows an increase in forest area from 1990 to 2000, 31.3% to 37.2% respectively.  But dropped marginally from 2000 - 2010, 37.2% to 37.1% respectively.

 

Forest area (% of land area) in Thailand was last measured at 37.14 in 2010, according to the World Bank. Forest area is land under natural or planted stands of trees of at least 5 meters in situ, whether productive or not, and excludes tree stands in agricultural production systems (for example, in fruit plantations and agroforestry systems) and trees in urban parks and gardens.This page has the latest values, historical data, forecasts, charts, statistics, an economic calendar and news for Forest area (% of land area) in Thailand.

 

Forest area Thailand.

 

Please, how are rubber trees and oil palms considered then in that count (you know, like the ones planted on 10,000s of rais inside national forests cleared by rich and influencial people to satisfy their destructive greed)?

[wilcopops]

 

I can appreciate the NCPO wanting to turn 40% of Thailand's land mass into a treed park but like many of its unilateral initiatives there is no mention of costs. Especially like this initiative that does not appear to produce any offsetting revenues against intial reclamation/reforestation and 10 years of maintenance. Shouldn't there be transparency of such costs and how the government will be expected to pay them? This was a persistent criticism of the Yingluck regime but now under "new management" seems to no longer be a concern.

 

If it could have prevent 10 % of the flooding of 2011, it would have paid all the costs for the next 10 years.....

Reforestation cost very little if the army does it.

Maintenance of a jungle is zero (beside flying over it and check if someone cut the trees)

 

 

 

Nonsense! It's massively expensive and has to be managed in an appropriate way to "restore" or rather establish the correct species count and balnce to allow the forests to become a normal eco-system. Just "growing back" takes a few months/years, but to establish an ecosystem can take decades..........

[wilcopops]

 

Will they be abandoning the plans for the Mae Wong Dam, then?

 

Edited August 6, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

All they need to do is come up here around Chiang Mai and stop the hill tribe people from cutting down the forest to plant crops. Riding along highway 106 from Lamphun to Theon there is rai after rai of land that has been cut and burned over the last 3 years.

 

 

the reason for this is that these people are restricted in movement etc by the government, so they have to farm where they are to survive.

[wilcopops]

 

so....let's see the plan then! what guarantee is there that the plan will continue after elections are held? (or isn't that a consideration we need to make?)

 

Edited August 6, 2014 by wilcopops

[wilcopops]

 

 

Is Thailand currently 31.5% covered in forest? Having flown over the country many times, and looked at Google Earth, it appears to me that maybe 10% tops is actually real forest.

 

 

From the below chart it shows an increase in forest area from 1990 to 2000, 31.3% to 37.2% respectively.  But dropped marginally from 2000 - 2010, 37.2% to 37.1% respectively.

 

Forest area (% of land area) in Thailand was last measured at 37.14 in 2010, according to the World Bank. Forest area is land under natural or planted stands of trees of at least 5 meters in situ, whether productive or not, and excludes tree stands in agricultural production systems (for example, in fruit plantations and agroforestry systems) and trees in urban parks and gardens.This page has the latest values, historical data, forecasts, charts, statistics, an economic calendar and news for Forest area (% of land area) in Thailand.

 

Forest area Thailand.

 

Please, how are rubber trees and oil palms considered then in that count (you know, like the ones planted on 10,000s of rais inside national forests cleared by rich and influencial people to satisfy their destructive greed)?

 

 

 

"excludes tree stands in agricultural production systems (for example, in fruit plantations and agroforestry systems)"

[DeepInTheForest]

 

 

I can appreciate the NCPO wanting to turn 40% of Thailand's land mass into a treed park but like many of its unilateral initiatives there is no mention of costs. Especially like this initiative that does not appear to produce any offsetting revenues against intial reclamation/reforestation and 10 years of maintenance. Shouldn't there be transparency of such costs and how the government will be expected to pay them? This was a persistent criticism of the Yingluck regime but now under "new management" seems to no longer be a concern.

 

If it could have prevent 10 % of the flooding of 2011, it would have paid all the costs for the next 10 years.....

Reforestation cost very little if the army does it.

Maintenance of a jungle is zero (beside flying over it and check if someone cut the trees)

 

 

 

Nonsense! It's massively expensive and has to be managed in an appropriate way to "restore" or rather establish the correct species count and balnce to allow the forests to become a normal eco-system. Just "growing back" takes a few months/years, but to establish an ecosystem can take decades..........

 

I think this is an unsupported argument, e.g.: "it's massively expensive" is asserted without evidence.

And what does "massively expensive" mean, anyway? Thousands per hectare? Millions? That's the sort of generalization that is often used to short-circuit attempts at rehabilitation.

 

Yes, growing back a logged forest takes decades or more. As the previous poster pointed out, however, costs of rehab could be leveraged against the expenses of flood control and air pollution. 

 

Though forest regrowth has not been studied extensively, it is clear that the rate of regeneration of the ecosystem depends on the kind of logging done, its extent, and local conditions (climate, soil, etc.). 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112713007779

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091202114046.htm

 

And from wikipedia:

 

Is tree planting essential to restore forest ecosystems?    

Not always. A lot can be achieved by studying how forests regenerate naturally, identifying the factors that limit regeneration and devising methods to overcome them. These can include weeding and adding fertilizer around natural tree seedlings, preventing fire, removing cattle and so on. This is "accelerated" or "assisted" natural regeneration.^[10] It is simple and cost-effective, but it can only operate on trees that are already present, mostly light-loving pioneer species. Such tree species are not usually those that comprise climax forests, but they can foster recolonization of the site by shade-tolerant climax forest tree species, via natural seed dispersal from remnant forest. Because this is a slow process, biodiversity recovery can usually be accelerated by planting some climax forest tree species, especially large-seeded, poorly dispersed species. It is not feasible to plant all the tree species that may have formerly grown in the original primary forest and it is usually unnecessary to do so, if the framework species method^[11][12] can be used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_restoration

Edited August 6, 2014 by DeepInTheForest

[DeepInTheForest]

 

 

Is Thailand currently 31.5% covered in forest? Having flown over the country many times, and looked at Google Earth, it appears to me that maybe 10% tops is actually real forest.

 

 

From the below chart it shows an increase in forest area from 1990 to 2000, 31.3% to 37.2% respectively.  But dropped marginally from 2000 - 2010, 37.2% to 37.1% respectively.

 

Forest area (% of land area) in Thailand was last measured at 37.14 in 2010, according to the World Bank. Forest area is land under natural or planted stands of trees of at least 5 meters in situ, whether productive or not, and excludes tree stands in agricultural production systems (for example, in fruit plantations and agroforestry systems) and trees in urban parks and gardens.This page has the latest values, historical data, forecasts, charts, statistics, an economic calendar and news for Forest area (% of land area) in Thailand.

 

Forest area Thailand.

 

Please, how are rubber trees and oil palms considered then in that count (you know, like the ones planted on 10,000s of rais inside national forests cleared by rich and influencial people to satisfy their destructive greed)?

 

Did you read the previous post? 

"... and excludes tree stands in agricultural production systems (for example, in fruit plantations and agroforestry systems)... " 

That would seem to exclude rubber and oil palm plantations. Of course, there is the possibility that they were included in violation of the supposed criteria.

[timber]

Replanting doesn't have to be that expensive. Can use prisoners, regulations having cut timber replaced with seedlings, better taxation on non forested lands, use it or lose it. Schools can have planting days to have better environmental awareness. There is a lot of money spent on unnecessary items that rank forestry as a less prioritized commitment. Have to make replanting as a budgeted item. In Thailand you see a lot of unused land that could be put into forests. Provides jobs, return on investment, etc.

[wilcopops]

 

Sadly one can't just sit back and expect the forest to "return" to its former self.

 

firstly the land has to be shown to be designated forest land..........this involves both law and even purchase or compensation or legal processes.

 

Once land is defined, it has to be managed.

this isn't just a matter of sitting back and watching it grow.

The KINDS of vegetation has to be closely monitored, Tropical rain forests have a vast number of species per square meter, threes need to be present, but was ISN"T needed are alien plants that may drift in from farmland or other sources - such things as bamboo are extremely rapid growers and can block out other species.

 

Forests of this region function on 4 identifiable layers.....1- the forest floor, 2 - the understory, 3 - the Canopy and 4 - the emergent layer, without these layers it isn't actually a fully functioning eco-system...the upper layers require those massive jungle trees that the loggers love so much and they can can take decades (even centuries) to grow and until the forest has fully developed all its layers, it can't be regarded as a fully operating eco-system.

 

While all this is going on one has to also introduce or encourage the right kind of fauna, an imbalance here can destroy the developing woodland too.

 

Quite apart from nurturing the correct flora and fauna, there is the on-going problem of human interference.

 

The removal or rather demolition of a few bungalows is all very well, but so many of these "regeneration" schemes are little more than exercises to turn a jungle into a municipal-style parkland. Easy access into forests by roads created for dam construction etc give easy access for poachers and other organised exploitation of the forest...logging, hunting for meat/ivory or TCMs are all at least as big a threat to Thailand's natural resources as encroachment by those unscrupulous developers and businessmen, who are just as likely to indulge in other ways to make a quick buck out of the forests.

 

Rangers - armed and organised all cost money....... although in the long term the preservation of Thailand's natural heritage will actually make money for Thailand it is not a simple short term transaction and unless successive governments can actually SEE and instant return on their money, I think it is unlikely that continued funding will be made available in the future in large enough quantities to maintain the impetus.

Let's face it rangers are paid so little at present it is the easiest thing in the world for a poacher to bribe one or two to turn a blind eye.

So in the end a "massive" investment will be needed in all aspects of wildlife conservation, National Parks and employees wages on top of a major captital investment to get the ball rolling....al this from a country that doesn't have ANY wildlife protection laws at present.???????

[wilcopops]

Replanting doesn't have to be that expensive. Can use prisoners, regulations having cut timber replaced with seedlings, better taxation on non forested lands, use it or lose it. Schools can have planting days to have better environmental awareness. There is a lot of money spent on unnecessary items that rank forestry as a less prioritized commitment. Have to make replanting as a budgeted item. In Thailand you see a lot of unused land that could be put into forests. Provides jobs, return on investment, etc.

 

 

I think you don't really realise what is entailed in forest regeneration.