Experts remain divided on definition of ‘forest’

At a recent meeting on the definition of forest in government policies and plans held at the Forestry Faculty of Kasetsart University, experts and officials from concerned departments of National Parks and Royal Forestry exchanged heated views over the new definition, which was roughly drafted the last time they had met early last month.
According to faculty Asst Professor Khwanchai Duangsathaporn, also a member of the natural resources and environment reform committee, forest is distinctly defined and applied by various concerned agencies, prompting different work results that are not consistent.
For instance, the calculation of the country’s total forested area based on different definitions at different periods in time have shown varying rates of deforestation.
From 1973 to 1998, the forest area was meant to include all types of forests, with canopies not less than five metres and covering no less than 10 per cent of the growing area of five hectares. As interpreted on the map scale of 1:250,000, the country’s forested area shrank to around 17.93 per cent of the country’s total area, or about 57.49 million rai in those 26 years. 
However, when the new scale of 1:50,000 was applied from 2000 to 2016, with the definition slightly adjusted to be in line with the international definition, the rate of forest loss declined sharply to 1.57 per cent, or 4.14 million rai, during those 17 years.
The figures prompted contradictory views on the exact forest area to be addressed in national policies and plans.
This is particularly of concern as critical policies and plans concerning the country’s forests have addressed “forest” differently, leading to different targets and goals, and how concerned authorities should work in the future.
For instance, the 1985 national forest policy addressed “forest for conservation” and economic forestry, which altogether should be maintained at no less than 40 per cent of the country’s total area.
The new 20-year national strategy, however, has defined “forest” as part of the umbrella concept of “green area”, with “natural forest” being maintained to reach the target of 35 per cent in the next 20 years.
“Varied” and “hard to understand” was how Asst Prof Khwanchai’s responded to the situation.
“We have various words to call our forests and they are varied and they are hard to understand. This is without mentioning [the impact] when they are applied in our forest laws and enforced against citizens.
“We are trying to find a new definition that people can understand and agree with. This must also be based on academic merit before being applied and implemented in law,” Khwanchai said during the meeting.
So far, the meeting has agreed to base the definition on what was agreed the last time, which was influenced by the international definition of the Global Forest Resources Assessment (FRA) 2020.
However, the definition was slightly tweaked as some participants raised concerns over agro-forestry and rubber plantations, arguing that they should not be considered as “forest”.
Under the FRA definition, forest means land spanning more than 0.5 hectare, with trees higher than 5 metres, and a canopy cover of more than 10 per cent, or trees able to reach these thresholds. It, critically, does not include land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use.
However, there are some exceptions for certain types of agro-forestry that it allows to be considered as “forest”. These include Taungya, where crops are grown only during the first years of the forest rotation, and rubber-wood plantations, which became controversial in the Thai context.
The meeting saw a heated debate on the inclusion of agro-forestry, as it was hard to differentiate them from satellite photographs when grown close to the forest. More critically, rubber plantations here should not be counted as forest at all, as they are aimed at sourcing rubber, not wood as defined by FRA, the meeting heard.
So far, it is estimated that rubber plantations cover around 32 million rai, with nearly half of them allegedly encroaching upon forest areas.
The meeting failed to settle the issue, but they were encouraged that they could reach mutually agreeable solutions.
Natural Resources and Environment Minister General Surasak Karnjanarat, who chaired the meeting, said the goal for forest reform needed to be set with a clear target, hence the need for a clear definition on forest.
"Enforcement at present was frustrating, and that’s the reason why academic knowledge was needed to help clear the path," said Gen Surasak.