Forestry Cover, 1996

[GWR]

http://www.wcmc.org.uk/forest/ffl/maps/tha.gif

[Yappofloyd]

Khun GWR,

Is there a more recent map in order to compare the current amount of forest cover?
I suspect that if someone did a comprhensive study in Thailand on catchment integrity and deforestation, that they would find a clear link to decreases in rainfall and catchment volume thus exacerbating the current drought.

[GWR]

I have a hunch you'd be right on that one. This is about the only recent map I've found on this topic and I think it completely dashes the impression of forests still being significant in Thailand. I'll keep looking and I hope others will too.

My impression is that people look out of the bus or train window and think they see forest; when all too often they are seeing bamboo forest regrowth, rubber trees and eucalyptus plantations. I saw a National Geographic clip recently in which one obviously environmentally concious backwoodsman claimed that most human beings are still essentially 'outdoor' types at heart. I have to say I think that is bollocks. Most folk really don't have a clue how rural communities work; or what constitutes a reasonably healthy environment. And town dwellers have the arrogance to lecture those who work nearer the land.

I think it is also important to realise that Thais are essentially lowlanders; who feel more secure if they can clear-fell real forest before they move in.

[Yappofloyd]

Most folk really don't have a clue how rural communities work; or what constitutes a reasonably healthy environment. And town dwellers have the arrogance to lecture those who work nearer the land.

I think it is also important to realise that Thais are essentially lowlanders; who feel more secure if they can clear-fell real forest before they move in.
In full agreement. My concerns about clearing of forests in Thailand are not related to local communities, who from my viewpoint are usually best placed to manage them, but more related to the corrupt govt. officials and outside buisnessmen seeking to make quick and easy profits. The long term consequences are then left to the locals to resolve. And it seems all too often the govt. imposes big projects with little or no consultation.

One of the potential problems arising from the current priority to build new cross-country water canals/pipelines for 'drought proofing' is that it will disrupt water flows, catchments and potentially established land use patterns in local communities. Overseas studies have found that introducing water from one catchment area to another area can have a huge impact on the local marine ecosystem as tibity & temperature etc can vary greatly from one river system to the next. Communities dependent upon river systems will see changes. And such diversions may have long terms affects for some forested areas if water is diverted by reducing forest coverage in the long term.

[GWR]

Similarly with the Flood Alleviation Projects I've featured. Once upon a time folk had the sense to build in certain areas or build on stilts. Now it's a constant battle to see who can infill land the highest and drown out the neighbors. These guys need to get a better grounding in the basics before they move onto the megaprojects.
Speaking of which, megaprojects like the 'Murray-Darling' seem to have become a total liability in the long-run.

How can we begin to really sell the age-old adage that 'if it works, don't f*** with it!'?