First, the Royal Forestry Department
(RFD) came out with
a proposal to lease conservation land
to illegal resorts,
then the Tourism Authority of Thailand
(TAT) and former
Deputy Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra
suggested that
the RFD's National Parks Division should
actually be
turned into a state enterprise. The
TAT's proposal looks
like old wine in a new bottle: it wants
control over national
parks so that they could be developed
for tourism,
presumably by discarding cumbersome
conservation rules
along the way.
Under the circumstances, RFD chief Sathit
Sawinthara
could justifiably express confidence
that the public would
prefer to see the parks managed by the
forestry
department than by the TAT. The RFD
may be a
corruption-riddled agency, but at least
it has some
experienced and capable conservation
officials at lower
levels. The TAT, meanwhile, is interested
solely in making
more money, and has absolutely no experience
in natural
resource management.
But it is really a case of choosing the
lesser of two evils. In
fact, if asked to select which of the
two agencies should
manage national parks, we would prefer
to select the old
multiple-choice answer: ''none of the
above''.
Our choices are limited because business
interests are
behind all these proposals. Some investors
have
managed to gain hold of land within
national parks through
dubious dealings. The RFD proposal would
essentially
provide them with an amnesty and open
the way for
building on plots which remain undeveloped
because of
the uncertain legal situation, and no
doubt the TAT would
find a way to accommodate them, as well.
Of course, there are also legitimate
developers out there
and legitimate reasons to improve the
currently chaotic
state of tourism in and around national
parks. Thais beset
by the ills of modern life are increasingly
eager to visit
parks, and they should be encouraged
to do so. Not only
will they be able to learn how ecosystems
work and how
we all depend on a healthy environment,
but people have a
right to enjoy their natural heritage.
Of course, they also have to accept the
responsibilities
which go along with that right. That
means leaving the
parks in a pristine state so that future
visitors, and future
generations, can also enjoy them. It
also means that
activities within parks have to be limited.
Parks should be
zoned, with some areas left off limits
to tourists. Carrying
capacities need to be set, and many
other managerial
decisions are waiting to be made before
eco-tourism can
be carried out sustainably.
And yet, none of these managerial issues
were even
addressed in the proposals made by the
RFD and the
TAT. Neither agency seems to care how
eco-tourism is
managed, only who gets to do it, and
who gets the
kickbacks from it.
The RFD has had four years since Sawit
Bhotiwihok's
proposal to create tourism zones in
parks went down in
flames, and yet the agency has not made
even the most
basic of managerial decisions on eco-tourism.
The truth
is, it can not, because it must always
act upon the whim of
its latest venal politician, to the
point where now even park
superintendents have to buy their positions,
and the most
competent and honest officials are simply
not promoted.
Poor leadership has left the RFD an agency
adrift.
Established to exploit the forests economically,
it has
been unable to turn itself into a modern
agency capable of
sustainably managing forests. Sathit's
ridiculous claim that
a road being built around Khao Yai National
Park is
actually a ''buffer'' is only the latest
evidence that the
agency's time to prove itself has run
out.
If our remaining forests are to survive,
the National Parks
Division and its fellow conservation
agencies must be
moved out of the RFD and into a more
professional
administrative environment. The growing
support for this
proposal is most encouraging; even Agriculture
Minister
Pongpol Adireksarn has talked of doing
it. Should he
follow up his words with action, he
might one day be hailed
as a true hero.