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


            Yongyut TRISURAT
        Department ...
Protected Areas
Thailand’s PA System       For protection and
                           maintenance of biological
       ...
National Plans & Policy Targets
• National Forest Policy (1985)
  & 9th NESDP (‘02- ‘06)
                                 ...
Why 40% or 50%?
•   Recommendation from FAO expert
•   Land suitability for agriculture
•   Watershed management & protect...
Objectives
 1. Assess the representation of ecosystems
   in protected area network

 2. Recommend which underrepresented
...
METHODOLOGY
Spatial Data (1:50K)
• Forest Type Map
  Year 2000
• Protected area coverage
  (NP and WS)
• Watershed classif...
METHODOLOGY
Representativeness
  • Forest types, altitude class and
    natural land system
   1) Protected area system (P...
Results
Percentage of the protected areas                                Source: DNP (2004)

                             ...
Scale 1:50K
     - 33.2%
Scale 1:250K
     - 25.3%

                      Class 1 watershed


               • 24.4%countr...
Results
          Forest Types – year 2000 (1:50K)

          6                Well                         Relatively    ...
Results
    % Forest Types Under Protection
            120.00
            100.00
% remaini




             80.00
       ...
Well Represented (CI > 2.4)
• dry ever., moist ever.,
  hill ever., bamboo & pine

Why?
  • Most of the remaining
    fore...
Relatively Well Rep. (CI ≈ 1.0)

• Peat swamp, beach forest,
  and dry dipterocarp forest

Why?
  • Moderate & pristine pe...
Poorly Rep. (CI < 0.1)

• Mangrove forest and
 riparian wetland
Why?
  • Mangrove - Logging,
    shrimp farming and
    co...
Altitude Class
         Altitude gradient VS biodiversity

                    % land
        Class (m)    area     CIPAs ...
Natural Land System
     Def. = assemblage of similar vegetation and land form
       (composition of forest type and alti...
Distributions                               Area (1000 x    No. Sig.
                                            Km2)
    ...
Conclusions
• Conservation areas encompass 24.4% of the
country’s land area almost meeting the 25% target.
And appr. 84% r...
Recommendations
Management Implications:
• Reconsider the policy targets: 50% forest
cover and 30% conservation forest (am...
Recommendations
Future Research:
  • Integrate species distribution, aquatic/marine
    ecosystems, climate and LU change
...
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

Acknowledgements
• Department of National Park, Wildlife and
 Plant Conservation (DNP)
• Roy...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

How much protected area is enough to protect biodiversity in Thailand

1,255 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,255
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
45
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

How much protected area is enough to protect biodiversity in Thailand

  1. 1. HOW MUCH PROTECTED AREA IS ENOUGH TO CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY IN THAILAND? Yongyut TRISURAT Department of Forest Biology Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University Bangkok, Thailand
  2. 2. Protected Areas Thailand’s PA System For protection and maintenance of biological diversity (pop. viability & ecological integrity), and of natural and associated cultural resources (IUCN, 1994) Khao Yai, 1st NP How much is enough for established conservation obj? in 1962 • Controversy issue • Key policy question
  3. 3. National Plans & Policy Targets • National Forest Policy (1985) & 9th NESDP (‘02- ‘06) terrestrial - 40% forest cover - 25% conservation forest, 15% production forest island • 20 yrs Nat. Env. Policy (1997-2016) – 50% forest cover - 30% conservation F. Rules of thump 20% production F. • IUCN – 10% (Bali, 1982) • Brundtland Com. (’87) - 12%
  4. 4. 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.
  5. 5. Objectives 1. Assess the representation of ecosystems in protected area network 2. Recommend which underrepresented ecosystems should be added to fill the gaps Ad Hoc VS Strategic Planning
  6. 6. METHODOLOGY Spatial 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 ≠ • Gap analysis Forest Gap • Grid-based analysis (200 m)
  7. 7. METHODOLOGY Representativeness • Forest types, altitude class and natural land system 1) Protected area system (PAs) national park (NP), wildlife sanctuary (WS) 2) Conservation area (Con) NP + WS + Class 1 Watershed Comparison Index (CI) – proportion rep. CI = ___% ecosystem in protection_______ % ecosystem in country’s land area ≥ 1, well represented; < 1 poorly represented
  8. 8. Results Percentage of the protected areas Source: DNP (2004) % of IUCN % of the % No. protected Cat. country Cont. areas Categories II 102 10.2 National parks 38.4 56.5 V 69 0.2 Forest parks 1.0 Ia 55 7.0 Wildlife sanctuaries 26.1 38.8 IV 55 0.9 Non-hunting areas 3.6 V 16 <0.1 Botanical gardens? 0.1 V 54 Arboreta? <0.1 <0.1 Sub-total 18.2 64.5 Ib THA NA Class 1 watershed 18.1 74.4 Ib NA Conserv. mangroves 0.1 NA. Total 24.4
  9. 9. Scale 1:50K - 33.2% Scale 1:250K - 25.3% Class 1 watershed • 24.4%country’s land • 83.4% under forest
  10. 10. Results Forest Types – year 2000 (1:50K) 6 Well Relatively Poorly 5 CI Valu 4 3 2 1 0 BAM DEF PF HEF MEF MDF DF D PSW BF MGF RPF Forest Type CIPAs C on IC C =1 I CI Pas = NP + WS; CI Con = NP + WS + WSC1
  11. 11. Results % Forest Types Under Protection 120.00 100.00 % remaini 80.00 PAs 60.00 CON 40.00 20.00 10% 0.00 RPF M F G BF PSW DDF MDF PF EV BA F M Forest Type CI Pas = NP + WS; CI Con = NP + WS + WSC1
  12. 12. Well Represented (CI > 2.4) • dry ever., moist ever., hill ever., bamboo & pine Why? • Most of the remaining forest cover is under protection. • Hill, Dry & Pine occur in high altitude & rugged terrain (de facto natural protection) • Bamboo is dominant in limestone & marginal land
  13. 13. Relatively Well Rep. (CI ≈ 1.0) • Peat swamp, beach forest, and dry dipterocarp forest Why? • Moderate & pristine peat swamp is under a wildlife sanctuary. • Dry diptercarp forest is disturbed by logging & monocropping. • Beach F. is deteriorated by tourism activities.
  14. 14. Poorly Rep. (CI < 0.1) • Mangrove forest and riparian wetland Why? • Mangrove - Logging, shrimp farming and coastal development. • Riparian – Human settlement, non-wood product collection, and small patches (not fit PAS criteria) Riparian: lost 55% in 40 yrs. Mangrove: lost 51% (‘61-’89)
  15. 15. Altitude Class Altitude gradient VS biodiversity % land Class (m) area CIPAs CI Con 0-400 77.5 0.5 0.4 400-800 15.5 2.6 2.7 800-1200 5.8 3.0 3.6 1200-1600 1.1 3.1 3.8 1600-2000 0.1 4.3 3.9 >2000 <0.1 5.7 4.2 CI Pas = NP + WS; CI Con = NP + WS + WSC1
  16. 16. Natural Land System Def. = assemblage of similar vegetation and land form (composition of forest type and altitude class) Forest/Altitude 0-400 400-800 800-1200 1200-1600 1600-2000 >2000 Moist Ever. F. 3.2/2.6 4.5/3.8 5.2/4.2 5.6/4.2 0.0/3.9 Dry Ever. F. 3.6/2.8 4.6/3.8 4.0/3.9 1.3/3.9 2.5/4.1 Hill Ever. F. 4.7/3.5 3.8/3.6 3.5/3.9 3.7/4.0 4.6/4.0 5.7/4.2 Pine Forest 5.6/4.0 4.1/4.0 3.5/3.1 2.7/4.1 6.6/4.6 Peat swamp 1.3/1.0 7.1/0.5 7.0/5.0 Mangrove F 0.2/0.0 Riparian F. 0.0/0.0 Beach F. 1.2/0.0 Mixed Dece. F. 1.6/1.6 2.5/2.8 2.8/3.5 3.3/3.7 4.8/3.8 Dry Dipt. F. 0.9/0.8 3.3/3.3 3.0/3.1 5.5/5.2 Bamboo 3.5/3.0 7.5/5.5 5.5/5.2 6.4/5.2 6.1/4.3 CIPas/CICon = 1.3/1.0
  17. 17. Distributions Area (1000 x No. Sig. Km2) Code Basin Name PAs % PAs by River Basin 01 Salawin 19.33 10 30.03 02 Mekong 56.92 11 7.80 03 Kok 7.25 3 19.82 04 Chi 49.43 11 10.26 05 Nam Mun 71.52 9 7.81 06 Ping 34.92 14 31.51 2 07 Wang 10.38 4 18.02 08 Yom 24.46 10 11.82 09 Nan 34.18 7 18.72 10 Chaophaya 21.61 1 0.06 5 10 12 11 Sakae Krang 5.11 1 24.38 13 12 Pa Sak 15.37 5 0.00 13 Tha Chin 13.57 0 1.27 17 14 Mae Khlong 30.09 15 57.64 15 Prachin 9.87 3 26.31 16 Bang Pakong 8.71 2 14.32 18 17 Ton 3.98 0 8.49 18 East Pennisular 13.32 5 9.30 19 Phetburi 6.26 1 35.02 20 West 9.18 5 31.22 23 21 East Pennisular 20.26 11 17.51 22 Tapi 13.22 7 28.57 23 Song Khla 12.21 3 7.07 24 Pattani 3.90 1 10.78 25 West Pennisular 19 05 10 19 82
  18. 18. Conclusions • 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?). • Most of PAs are located in high altitude aiming to protect head watershed and not properly distributed.
  19. 19. Recommendations Management Implications: • Reconsider the policy targets: 50% forest cover and 30% conservation forest (ambitious). • Propose underrepresented ecosystems as priorities for new NP/WS or other forms. • In general, preservation of remaining PAs/Con is more important than adding more new areas.
  20. 20. Recommendations Future Research: • Integrate species distribution, aquatic/marine ecosystems, climate and LU change (historical range?) • Increase mapping resolution (200 m to ≈ 50 m) to capture unique/remnant ecosystem (wetland) • Prioritize ecosystem & species conservation targets according to its conservation status and proportion of coverage.
  21. 21. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION Acknowledgements • Department of National Park, Wildlife and Plant Conservation (DNP) • Royal Forest Department (RFD) • Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP) • East-West Center/University of Hawaii • Thailand – U.S. Fulbright Program

×