Contribution of Forestry to Poverty Alleviation - APFNet

Linking Reforestation, Poverty Alleviation and the Potential to Maximize Land
Allocated Under Agricultural Land Reform
To a certain extent, it can be said that reforestation has taken off well in Thailand. Due mainly to the
influence of their Majesties, the King and Queen of Thailand, replanting forests captured the interest
of private companies, institutions, and individuals for public relations purposes or for pure interest
in the common good. On the other hand, reforestation is not only about planting saplings and taking
photographs. The effectiveness of reforestation is contingent upon the survival rates, the growth
pattern, and the expected benefits as degraded ecosystems are gradually restored. What must also
be noted is that there are constraints that reduce the potential to combine reforestation efforts with
poverty alleviation goals, as was the experience with some of FIO’s earlier initiatives discussed.
One recent promising initiative discussed was the Trees Bank project initiated by the Bank of
Agriculture and Agricultural Cooperatives. Within the conceptual framework of the project, planting
trees is considered long-term capital investments and the BAAC will accept trees as “assets”. After
five years, the bank will issue a certificate that can be used as collateral. To expand on this concept,
the Biodiversity-Economy Based Development Organization consulted with the BAAC, as well
as FIO and RFD, over the possibility of developing financing mechanisms for reforestation. The
proposal is that a CSR Fund be established within the BAAC. Private companies can deposit a CSR
budget in this fund to be used for reforestation activities or natural resources conservation projects.
This mechanism will help match demand and supply for conservation activities. A potential link
with poverty alleviation goals is through the land factor. Currently, the benefit of the Tree Bank
initiative to the poor can be limited by the fact that the BAAC requires that farmers have land rights.
One possible approach discussed during the workshop was that the supply of land to launch the
Tree Bank concept on a larger scale would be in the land reform areas, which represent around 30%
of Thailand’s agricultural acreage. Even before the Agricultural Land Reform Act in 1975, there
was a Cabinet resolution that 20% of land allocated should be set aside for communal use, which
includes community forests. Although, the resolution was not strictly followed, there is no reason
not to explore the possibility of reinstating this idea in land reform areas. The rationale for this
would be both the poverty situation of land reform beneficiaries, the direct and indirect benefits of
reforestation of large tracts of land, and the increased potential to undertake this on a continued basis
if such activities could be linked to a viable financing mechanism.
The Value of Data to Support Decision-making
The importance of data was clearly demonstrated by the experience of Ban Thung Yao while the
case of Ban Pa Kluay suggests the potential to use findings from detailed economic analysis to
support decision-making. In the case of Ban Thung Yao, data on the monetary value of the NWFPs
provided solid evidence in demonstrating to the villagers the importance of their livelihood on
forestry resources. Such data is also substantial proof to the RFD that the villagers can be self-reliant
even without any external technical and financial support. The economic analysis of the various
management options showed the distribution of costs and benefits and the trade-offs for different
stakeholders, and the discussion can go beyond emotional appeals. Having said that, it is recognized
that there will still be several barriers, some ideological and some technical. The ideological barriers
present a greater challenge than the practical constraints for three reasons: the general concern about
placing monetary values on nature, the cultural understanding needed, and adapting traditional ways
of life.
324