Subject: buffer zones I
The Nation
Date: 30 Jan 1997

Buffer zones strategy mooted effort to improve protection of national parks and sanctuaries

   JAMES FAHN

   KHON KAEN ­ In an effort to improve protection of national parks and
   wildlife sanctuaries, Thai conservationists are increasingly turning to the development of
   buffer zones around conservation areas.

   Practitioners of this relatively new strategy ­ which employs
   progressive techniques in the fields of forestry, agriculture and education to foster sustainable development
   in areas around parks and sanctuaries ­ had an opportunity yesterday to get together and
   compare notes at a seminar held in the  Northeastern capital of Khon Kaen.

   But while the promotion of these techniques and obtaining the funds
   to adopt them are important, perhaps the most crucial aspect of the buffer zone strategy is that
   it creates an all-too-rare situation in which local villagers, non-governmental organisations
   and officials from the Royal Forestry Department (RFD) and other agencies are forced to cooperate.

   Presentations were made by representatives of seven buffer zone projects yesterday and each stressed
   the need to ''work together", in stark contrast to the current confrontation outside Government House
   in Bangkok, where thousands of farmers are demonstrating to resolve the dozens of land conflicts they
   have with government officials.

   ''The buffer zone concept has been around for [decades] but has only really come into practice in
   Thailand over the last few years," said Wattana Kaewkamnerd, the RFD's deputy director general.
   Wattana compared a buffer zone to ''a bumper on a car", in that it is designed to brake the impact of
   the collision between human society and conservation areas.

   The Forestry Department has actively promoted a high-profile buffer zone project around Huay Kha
   Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary, but Wattana said that the agency does not have a policy to promote buffer
   zones nationwide, explaining that it is merely a ''strategy" to achieve the goal of protecting natural
   resources.

   Dhira Phantumvanich, president of the Thailand Environment Institute (TEI), which organised the
   seminar, said that no such national policy is necessary, because buffer zones must be set up on a
   case-by-case basis.

   Besides Huay Kha Khaeng, other buffer zone projects have been established at Phu Khiow Wildlife
   Sanctuary, Khao Yai National Park, Pha Taem National Park, Khao Bantad Wildlife Sanctuary, Khao Ang Ru
   Nai Wildlife Sanctuary and Khao Nor Chu Chi Wildlife Sanctuary.

   Many of these projects are quite modest, but the RFD's Manop Chompoochan noted that ''if you start a
   project with only a little money, people have to work harder and the project becomes more sustainable".

   ''If you come in with a big project, it is often likely to fail," he added.

   On Tuesday, seminar participants visited the project outside Phu Khiow in Chaiyaphum province, where
   community forests have been planted in a degraded forest reserve to serve as a watershed and a source
   for timber supply.

   The community forests are not actually adjacent to the sanctuary ­ as at Huay Kha Khaeng ­ but it is
   hoped that they will serve as an alternative source for wood and non-timber forest products so that
   local villagers need no longer enter the sanctuary to obtain these items.

   The project, which is run by TEI in cooperation with local teachers and women's groups, also involves
   creating fire breaks to protect the forests, promoting alternative agriculture to reduce the impact of
   pesticides and fertilisers on the local environment, and an extensive education programme.

   ''We raise environmental awareness among kids, who then pass it on to their parents. That is the most
   effective way," said Pratan Sawkatok, a teacher with the Ban Chanuan Green Schools project, part of
   the Phu Khiow project.

   At Pha Taem, on the other hand, an organisation called Nature Cares is helping to train men who have
   traditionally been hunters or loggers to become nature guides.

   Although the projects take many years to develop, their supporters believe in the long run they are
   effective in reducing pressures on conservation areas and improving the lives of villagers living
   around them.

   A more difficult question is whether buffer zones and community forests should be used for people
   living inside conservation areas, a situation which many of the villagers protesting with the Assembly
   of the Poor outside Government House are facing.

   Wattana of the RFD, which has generally sought to relocate such villagers to live outside conservation
   areas, argued against buffer zones being set up inside national parks and wildlife sanctuaries.

   But, according to Dhira, ''In many cases villagers have been living there for decades, much before
   they were declared conservation areas, so how can you move them?"

   Dhira urged the swift passage of the Community Forestry Bill ­ which was held up by the Banharn
   administration following disagreement among environmentalists ­ adding that the remaining issues can
   be debated in Parliament.

   Dhira said that three controversial issues surround the draft bill: where community forest zones can
   be set up; who should have the authority to approve them; and who should be in charge of managing
   them.

   He argued that community forest zones should be allowed inside parks and sanctuaries, that the
   authority to approve such zones should rest with civil servants and not merely ministers, and that
   village committees and tambon councils should manage them.
 
  1