Upload
trisurat2000
View
729
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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