Social consequences Descriptive FLR strategies
162
8. Looking forward: conditions for success
The RFD and DNP are the main government agencies involved in reforestation and forest restoration. They have four-year action plans. The latest action plan was formulated based on inputs and comments from various agencies of the MNRE,
i.e. Departments of Forestry, Environmental Quality Promotion, Water Resources, and the Forestry Industry Organization. The action plans are formulated based on overall government policies corresponding with the Constitution, NESDPs
and Environmental Management Plans on natural resource conservation and management. The reforestation activities involve land and seedling preparation, and planting. Another important part of reforestation is monitoring and evaluation.
The involved agencies formally report achieved tree planting goals annually in terms of areas planted. Reports on tree performances and consequent ecological benefits e.g. biodiversity recovery are also needed as this is related to economic
and social assessments of the efforts carried out. They can also be used for baseline, monitoring and evaluation reports for carbon sequestration, credits and eventually markets.
For the 2012 fiscal year, the DNP’s budget was about US280 million, an increase of about 5 percent from the previous year. A total area of approximately 8 800 ha swamp forests, watershed forests, utilized forests, Royal Initiative forests,
rattan forests, planting of Siamese rosewood [Dalbergia cochinchinensis] and Aquilaria crassna were to be restored. D. cochinchinensis and A. crassna have been illegally logged from the forests due to their high values. However, landscape
restoration has never been explicitly stated in government policies and action plans of the implementing agencies. It is unlikely that plot-level tree plantings can achieve the full ecosystem benefits, dissimilar to what landscape restoration
can provide. Corridors connecting small and fragmented wildlife populations are a benefit. Reducing the impact of some natural disasters, e.g. tsunamis, can be achieved from large-scale mangrove forest restoration.
The National Economic and Social Development Board NESDB stated that a number of ‘immunities’ are needed in order to proceed with all the strategies in the 11th NESDP. For the Third Strategy Sustainable Management of Natural Resources
and Environment, one of the immunities concerns community strength in management of natural resources and the environment. This shows that policy-makers recognize community management roles in this regard. Also, one of the four
objectives is to create fair access to and utilization of natural resources. In addition, one of the aims is to increase the effectiveness of natural resource and environmental management so communities can live harmoniously with the forests.
However, whether this will be translated into actions depends on the implementing agencies. Due to recent natural disasters, for example the catastrophic 2011 flood and some severe storms, which resulted in massive damage, the general
public automatically puts the blame on the mismanagement, often by rural communities, of natural resources, particularly the watershed forests in the Northern part of the country. One of the ideas proposed by the general public to reduce the
impacts of such disasters is to plant more trees. This is not new to Thailand as forests have been a standing issue for a long time and are often raised whenever disasters strike. The situation is ironic as marginal communities in and near forests
and forest dwellers in or near protected areas are poor and need land for agriculture to produce food andor generate incomes. They often do not own the land, and as a result, they have no pronounced incentives to plant more trees.
In recent years, marginal and rural communities have been recognized for their crucial roles in conserving and protecting natural resources such as forests. Consequently, they should be compensated because they lose their opportunities to
utilize the land for food production. Globally, PES mechanisms have been implemented resulting in effective management of natural resources. Thailand can implement similar mechanisms. This should lead to equitable sharing of the benefits
from forests. For Thailand, there are a handful of pre-PES and PES projects, for example, the work by the DNP in four national parks and one wildlife sanctuary http:www.unescap.org esdenvironmentpes 3rd-sea-workshop documents
session1Pattanavibool.pdf, and at Doi Mae Salong Chiang Rai by the World Conservation Union http:www.iucn. orgnews_homepage news_by_date 2012?10165 Assessing-payments-for-ecosystem-services-PES-in-Doi-Mae-Salong-
Northern-Thailand. The NESDB included a proposal on PES in the 11th NESDP as a way to generate income, by referring to ongoing global trends, for the stakeholders involved in guarding natural resources. The opportunity for generating income
from carbon sequestration by trees is gaining more attention, considering its global ecological service for mitigating global warming. Local communities can add this into their rationale for planting more trees. However the transaction
costs are forbidding, and as a result only a small number of projects qualify for the credits. The Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization http:www.tgo.or.thenglish has been facilitating this. Entering voluntary carbon markets
can be an option. Another interesting incentive mechanism for tree protecting andor planting is the ‘Tree Bank’ of the Bank for Agriculture and Agricultural Co-operatives http:www.baac.or.thbaac_enindex.php, in which trees can be
used as collateral by people seeking loans. This has created a new culture to protect andor plant more trees. However, this is not widely recognized, and is still fragmented. However, it can be a good starting point for more forest restoration
undertakings at the landscape level.
The private sector can also play an important role in financially supporting reforestation and forest restoration. Thai industries have been known for being environmentally unfriendly. Many industries and private companies have, as a consequence,
been asked by society to care more about the environment. The decentralization of the executive administration into local administrative branches has also given local communities more control over their resources. At the same time,
public companies are also moving to more environmentally-friendly business approaches, directly or indirectly. One popular activity undertaken by industries and companies is to create andor participate in tree planting via their corporate social
responsibility programmes. However, these tree planting efforts have not reached their full potential for environmental benefits. As is often the case, the planting areas are fragmented, and there have rarely been follow ups to monitor tree
survival and growth. Therefore, there is huge potential for companies and industries to join forces, as well as with the government, for scaling up the efforts on tree planting and monitoring.
163 Forest Landscape Restoration FLR requires suitable techniques for different biophysical settings and stages of degradation.
It also needs to be done in a participatory manner all stakeholders to fulfil their needs. In Thailand, most forest restoration efforts are often done sporadically in fragmented plots depending on available public and private funds and lands, which
vary annually and from place to place. The restoration efforts are sometimes done without community consultation and participation. Success is unlikely as the communities do not gain a sense of ownership, and hence, they may not follow
up with the requisite maintenance and protection efforts. Next, without supporting policies and legal frameworks, FLR is not going to succeed. Policy-wise, it is recommended that FLR should be highlighted and promoted among the public
and private sectors as a practical method for forest restoration. It is also recommended that there should be incentives for FLR implementers. Without the appropriate tenures or usufruct rights, technical and financial support from government
agencies, and incentives from the resulting ecosystem services or enhanced output of forest products, FLR will not be recognized and people may not be willing to implement it.