HOW MUCH PROTECTED AREA IS ENOUGH TO CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY IN THAILAND?

Yongyut TRISURATDepartment of Forest Biology

Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart UniversityBangkok, Thailand

Khao Yai, 1st NP established in 1962

For protection andmaintenance of biologicaldiversity (pop. viability & ecological integrity), and ofnatural and associated culturalresources (IUCN, 1994)

Protected AreasThailand’s PA System

How much is enough forconservation obj?• Controversy issue• Key policy question

National Plans & Policy Targets• National Forest Policy (1985)

& 9th NESDP (‘02- ‘06)- 40% forest cover- 25% conservation forest, 15% production forest

• 20 yrs Nat. Env. Policy (1997-2016)– 50% forest cover- 30% conservation F. 20% production F.

island

terrestrial

Rules of thump• IUCN – 10% (Bali, 1982) • Brundtland Com. (’87) - 12%

Why 40% or 50%?• Recommendation from FAO expert• Land suitability for agriculture• Watershed management & protection• Wood demand (0.004 m3 per capita)• Protect remaining forest cover, etc.

Objectives

2. Recommend which underrepresented ecosystems should be added to fill the gaps

1. Assess the representation of ecosystemsin protected area network

Ad Hoc VS Strategic Planning

Gap Analysis ≠Forest Gap

METHODOLOGYSpatial Data (1:50K)• Forest Type Map

Year 2000 • Protected area coverage

(NP and WS)• Watershed classification• Contour line & DEM 200 m

(1;250K)

Spatial Analysis• Gap analysis• Grid-based analysis (200 m)

METHODOLOGY

Comparison Index (CI) – proportion rep.

Representativeness• Forest types, altitude class and natural land system1) Protected area system (PAs)

national park (NP), wildlife sanctuary (WS)2) Conservation area (Con)

NP + WS + Class 1 Watershed

CI = ___% ecosystem in protection_______% ecosystem in country’s land area

≥ 1, well represented; < 1 poorly represented

Percentage of the protected areas

NA0.1NA.IbConserv. mangroves

NA

<0.1

0.1

3.6

38.8

1.0

56.5

% of protected

areas

64.518.2Sub-total

24.4Total

74.418.1THAIbClass 1 watershed

<0.154VArboreta?

<0.116VBotanical gardens?

0.955IVNon-hunting areas

26.17.055IaWildlife sanctuaries

0.269VForest parks

38.410.2102IINational parks

% Cont.

% of the countryNo.IUCN

Cat.Categories

Source: DNP (2004)

Results

Scale 1:50K - 33.2%

Scale 1:250K- 25.3%

Class 1 watershed

• 24.4%country’s land• 83.4% under forest

Forest Types – year 2000 (1:50K)

Results

0123456

BAM DEF PF HEF MEF MDF DDF PSW BF MGF RPF

Forest Type

CI V

alu

CIPAs CICon CI = 1

PoorlyRelativelyWell

CI Pas = NP + WS; CI Con = NP + WS + WSC1

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

RPF MGF BF PSW DDF MDF PF EVF BAM

Forest Type

% re

mai

ni

PAs

CON

10%

% Forest Types Under Protection

Results

CI Pas = NP + WS; CI Con = NP + WS + WSC1

• dry ever., moist ever., hill ever., bamboo & pine

Well Represented (CI > 2.4)

Why?• Most of the remaining forest cover is under protection.

• Hill, Dry & Pine occur in high altitude & ruggedterrain (de facto natural protection)

• Bamboo is dominant inlimestone & marginal land

• Peat swamp, beach forest, and dry dipterocarp forest

Why?• Moderate & pristine peat

swamp is under awildlife sanctuary.

• Dry diptercarp forest isdisturbed by logging & monocropping.

• Beach F. is deteriorated by tourism activities.

Relatively Well Rep. (CI ≈ 1.0)

• Mangrove forest and riparian wetland

Poorly Rep. (CI < 0.1)

Why?• Mangrove - Logging,

shrimp farming and coastal development.

• Riparian – Humansettlement, non-wood product collection, andsmall patches (not fit PAS criteria) Riparian: lost 55% in 40 yrs.

Mangrove: lost 51% (‘61-’89)

4.25.7<0.1>2000

3.94.30.11600-2000

3.83.11.11200-1600

3.63.05.8800-1200

2.72.615.5400-800

0.40.577.50-400

CI ConCIPAs

% land areaClass (m)

CI Pas = NP + WS; CI Con = NP + WS + WSC1

Altitude ClassAltitude gradient VS biodiversity

Natural Land SystemDef. = assemblage of similar vegetation and land form

(composition of forest type and altitude class)

6.1/4.36.4/5.25.5/5.27.5/5.53.5/3.0Bamboo5.5/5.23.0/3.13.3/3.30.9/0.8Dry Dipt. F.

4.8/3.83.3/3.72.8/3.52.5/2.81.6/1.6Mixed Dece. F.1.2/0.0Beach F.0.0/0.0Riparian F.0.2/0.0Mangrove F

7.0/5.07.1/0.51.3/1.0Peat swamp6.6/4.62.7/4.13.5/3.14.1/4.05.6/4.0Pine Forest

5.7/4.24.6/4.03.7/4.03.5/3.93.8/3.64.7/3.5Hill Ever. F.2.5/4.11.3/3.94.0/3.94.6/3.83.6/2.8Dry Ever. F.0.0/3.95.6/4.25.2/4.24.5/3.83.2/2.6Moist Ever. F.

>20001600-20001200-1600800-1200400-8000-400Forest/Altitude

CIPas/CICon = 1.3/1.0

19 821019 05West Pennisular25

10.7813.90Pattani24

7.07312.21Song Khla23

28.57713.22Tapi22

17.511120.26East Pennisular21

31.2259.18West20

35.0216.26Phetburi19

9.30513.32East Pennisular18

8.4903.98Ton17

14.3228.71Bang Pakong16

26.3139.87Prachin15

57.641530.09Mae Khlong14

1.27013.57Tha Chin13

0.00515.37Pa Sak12

24.3815.11Sakae Krang11

0.06121.61Chaophaya10

18.72734.18Nan09

11.821024.46Yom08

18.02410.38Wang07

31.511434.92Ping06

7.81971.52Nam Mun05

10.261149.43Chi04

19.8237.25Kok03

7.801156.92Mekong02

30.031019.33Salawin01

% PAsNo. Sig.

PAsArea (1000 x Km2)Basin NameCodeDistributions

by River Basin

10 1213

2

5

23

17

18

• Conservation areas encompass 24.4% of the country’s land area almost meeting the 25% target. And appr. 84% remains under forest cover.

• Mangrove forest, swamp forest, beach forest and riparian forest are poorly represented and not sufficient to protect ecological integrity (pop. viability?).

Conclusions

• Most of PAs are located in high altitudeaiming to protect head watershed and not properly distributed.

Management Implications:• Reconsider the policy targets: 50% forest cover and 30% conservation forest (ambitious).

Recommendations

• Propose underrepresented ecosystems aspriorities for new NP/WS or other forms.

• In general, preservation of remaining PAs/Conis more important than adding more new areas.

Future Research:• Integrate species distribution, aquatic/marine

ecosystems, climate and LU change (historical range?)

Recommendations

• Increase mapping resolution (200 m to ≈ 50 m)to capture unique/remnant ecosystem (wetland)

• Prioritize ecosystem & species conservationtargets according to its conservation status and proportion of coverage.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTIONTHANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Acknowledgements• Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP)

• Royal Forest Department (RFD)• Office of Natural Resources and EnvironmentalPolicy and Planning (ONEP)

• East-West Center/University of Hawaii• Thailand – U.S. Fulbright Program