Causes of forest degradation – direct causes

159 1987-1992 This was the boom period for eucalypt plantations for pulp by large private companies. Local communities and NGOs opposed this vigorously because the local communities were not paid enough attention. At this time, the RFD became interested in agroforestry and community-forestry development projects. It was also the starting point for mangrove reforestation since 1991. 1993-1998 The RFD emphasized reforestation in forest reserve areas, not only for watershed protection, but also for broader environmental conservation e.g. climate regulation and carbon sequestration. Commercial plantations were operated more by private companies and local communities on their own land. In 1994, the RFD revised its reforestation method from establishing plantations to: 1 watershed-ecosystem restoration by the Watershed Conservation Section of the Natural Resources Conservation Office, and 2 forest restoration in degraded areas in non-watershed conservation areas by the Government Plantation Section, Office of Reforestation Promotion. There were also reforestation projects to commemorate King Bhumipol’s Rama IX Golden Jubilee during 1994-1996 and 1997- 2002. In 1995, the RFD determined watershed-ecosystem restoration based on natural regeneration in areas outside the areas of reforestation projects for the same reason. 1999-2005 This was the period for promoting the roles of the private sector and local communities in participating in forest restoration. People were stated to be the centre of all development according to the National Economic and Social Development Plans. The RFD, as a result, was aware of people’s participation in forest resource restoration, besides regular government reforestation schemes. There were people- volunteer tree planting and maintenance projects in national forest reserves and other public areas, including roadside areas and near reservoirs. In 2000, the RFD proceeded with tree planting in non- protected areas by hiring private companies to plant the trees and maintain them for the first three years. The RFD then maintained the areas until they were ten years old. Gilmour et al. 2000 stated that there were several policy and practical issues concerning forest rehabilitation that had to be addressed, for example, improving techniques to identify degraded land, integrating socio-economic and environmental needs possibly via payments for ecosystem services, PES and research on indigenous speciessite matching. The Forest Restoration Research Unit’s FORRU work has addressed some of these issues assessment of degradation levels and selection of indigenous tree species for restoration. There is no record of economic assessment done by the government on forest restoration. Elliott 2011 gathered some information on costs of different forest restoration approaches based on degradation stages Table 6. The restoration costs were dependent on the degradation stage and the restoration method. As a rule of thumb, the higher the degradation stage, the higher the cost. The methods recommended for the higher stages of degradation are costly because they include costs for site and seedling preparation, and planting, while the methods recommended for the lower stages are mainly for site protection. Table 6. Costs of forest restoration based on degradation stages Elliott 2011 Degradation stage Stage 1 least degraded Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Restoration method Protection ANR ANR Castilo 1986 Framework species method Maximum diversity with mine site amelioration Miyawaki method Country Thailand Philippines Philippines Thailand Brazil Thailand Published cost USha 579 500-1 000 1 623 2 500 9 000 Reference Estimated Bagong Pagasa Foundation 2009 Castilo 1986 FORRU 2006 Parrotta et al. 1997 Mitsubishi pers. comm. Present-day 2014 costs USha 345-403 734-850 2 044-4 508 2 382 10 224 11 410 Date 2006-2009 1983-1985 2006 1985 2009 160 7. Case study on forest restoration using the Framework Species Method The Forest Restoration Research Unit FORRU of the Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand was established in association with Doi Suthep-Pui National Park in 1994. FORRU adapted a forest restoration method called the Framework Species Method from Queensland, Australia Goosem and Tucker 1995. This method is aimed at restoring structure e.g. biodiversity and functions e.g. productivity of degraded forests into their former stage using framework species FORRU 2006. The framework species are indigenous trees, e.g. Fagaceae Castanopsis, Lithocarpus and Quercus, Leguminosae Acrocarpus fraxinifolius, Afzelia xylocarpus, Archidendron clyperia, Erythina subumbran and Peltophorum dasyrhachis, and Moraceae e.g. Ficus spp. that grow fast, have a spreading crown to suppress weeds, are fire resilient and provide nectar and fruits from an early stage for wildlife FORRU 2006. During 1994-1997, FORRU surveyed the tree species of Doi Suthep-Pui National Park and recorded their phenology and collected seeds to be germinated for about one year to their planting sizes in nurseries. In 1997, FORRU established trial plots for forest restoration in collaboration with Mae Sa Mai Hmong village, north of Doi Suthep Mountain. Additional trial plots have been planted with the framework tree species annually since then. A non-planted area was also established as a control. During the first few years of the establishment of the trial plots, research on site preparation and silvicultural treatments was conducted to come up with appropriate treatments for restoration. Before planting, the area was surveyed for existing plant and bird diversity to examine recovery of biodiversity after planting. For other areas, degradation levels were assessed five stages, Table 7 according to FORRU’s protocol FORRU 2008, so that appropriate methods other than the Framework Species Method could be recommended Table 8. For the Framework Species Method, an area is normally prepared by manual weeding or applying chemical herbicide, minimally. FORRU recommends planting 20-30 framework tree species of the indigenous species mentioned earlier that are major components of the hill evergreen forests of Northern Thailand about 1 000 masl. The legume trees can fix nitrogen, the oak trees provide the framework and fruits for wildlife, and so do the figs which also provide food for wildlife, especially during the dry season, as they bear fruit throughout the year. Other species can be selected from the list of framework species. The trees are planted at 3 125 seedlingsha. They are monitored for survival after planting. Direct seeding can be a cheap alternative restoration method as it involves no seedling production and transportation, or planting costs. FORRU has had a limited number of experiments with direct seeding. In comparison to seedlings that were raised in nurseries, trees grown from seeds grew faster and had better-developed roots. However, seeds directly sown can face some problems with dryness, seed predation by wildlife and competition with weeds. Even though the Framework Species Method developed by FORRU has proven to be successful in restoring seasonally-dry evergreen forests, limited trials were also conducted in mixed-deciduous forests at lower elevations, and mountains, i.e. approximately 1 000 masl, of Northern Thailand, with replications in other regions of Thailand, Cambodia, China and the Philippines. There are still a number of challenges. In Northern Thailand, remaining degraded areas are now difficult to restore due to their steep slopes and inaccessibility. As a result, FORRU is trying to develop an aerial-seeding forest restoration technique. The technique will employ unmanned aerial vehicles to carry seeds to be dropped onto areas with steep slopes Stephen Elliott, pers. comm.. Table 7. The five stages of degradation FORRU 2008 3 FORRU 2006, 2008 available at http:www.forru.org; Elliott 2013. Degradation level 1 Least degraded 2 Vegetation More trees than weeds Mixed trees and herbaceous weeds Fire risk Low Medium Seed dispersers Common large and small species Large species becoming rare, small species still common Sources of regeneration Viable soil seed bank, dense seedling bank, dense seed rain, tree stumps Seed and seedling banks depleted, live tree stumps common Soil Mostly fertile Mostly fertile, low erosion Forest Large remnants remain as seed sources Remnants as seed sources Site factor Landscape factor