NO SENSE IN NEW FOREST DIKTAT

Re: “Forest dictatorship at Kaeng Krachan”, (Opinion, March 3).

Historically, the main objective of government forestry officials was to grow, log, and sell valuable commercial timber from state lands. Traditional shifting cultivation was seen as an impediment to producing large trees that could be logged since shifting cultivators returned to the same plots of forest after 10 to 20 years to cut the regrowth of trees and plant their rotational crops. Thus, while somewhat misguided, the rationale of government forest authorities in opposing shifting cultivation was understandable.

Nowadays, Thailand does not legally permit any timber harvesting from the country’s natural forests. The primary objectives in managing natural forests are now for protection of watersheds, enhancement of wildlife habitat and biodiversity, and sequestration of carbon.

With the “new” forest management objectives in place, it is no longer sensible for government forest authorities to oppose the centuries-old shifting cultivation practices of forest-dwellers. The habits of shifting cultivators, in fact, contribute to achieving current forest management objectives. The small gaps in the forest created by shifting cultivators result in more diverse and healthier forests overall as the regenerating farm plots allow for a wider range of tree species to grow than in so-called “undisturbed forests”.

Generations of shifting cultivators living in the same forested areas — without loss or destruction of those forests — are a testament to the sustainability of these practices. It is time for government forest authorities to embrace the legitimate and sustainable practices of these proven forest protectors.

Samanea Saman