1. HOW MUCH PROTECTED AREA IS ENOUGH
TO CONSERVE BIODIVERSITY IN THAILAND?
Yongyut TRISURAT
Department of Forest Biology
Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University
Bangkok, Thailand

2. Protected Areas
Thailand’s PA System For protection and
maintenance of biological
diversity (pop. viability &
ecological integrity), and of
natural and associated cultural
resources (IUCN, 1994)
Khao Yai, 1st NP How much is enough for
established
conservation obj?
in 1962
• Controversy issue
• Key policy question

3. National Plans & Policy Targets
• National Forest Policy (1985)
& 9th NESDP (‘02- ‘06)
terrestrial
- 40% forest cover
- 25% conservation forest,
15% production forest island
• 20 yrs Nat. Env. Policy
(1997-2016)
– 50% forest cover
- 30% conservation F.
Rules of thump
20% production F. • IUCN – 10% (Bali, 1982)
• Brundtland Com. (’87) - 12%

4. Why 40% or 50%?
• Recommendation from FAO expert
• Land suitability for agriculture
• Watershed management & protection
Wood demand (0.004 m3 per capita)
•
• Protect remaining forest cover, etc.

5. Objectives
1. Assess the representation of ecosystems
in protected area network
2. Recommend which underrepresented
ecosystems should be added to fill the
gaps
Ad Hoc VS Strategic Planning

6. METHODOLOGY
Spatial Data (1:50K)
• Forest Type Map
Year 2000
• Protected area coverage
(NP and WS)
• Watershed classification
• Contour line & DEM 200 m
(1;250K)
Spatial Analysis
Gap Analysis ≠
• Gap analysis
Forest Gap
• Grid-based analysis (200 m)

7. METHODOLOGY
Representativeness
• Forest types, altitude class and
natural land system
1) Protected area system (PAs)
national park (NP), wildlife sanctuary (WS)
2) Conservation area (Con)
NP + WS + Class 1 Watershed
Comparison Index (CI) – proportion rep.
CI = ___% ecosystem in protection_______
% ecosystem in country’s land area
≥ 1, well represented; < 1 poorly represented

8. Results
Percentage of the protected areas Source: DNP (2004)
% of
IUCN % of the %
No. protected
Cat. country Cont.
areas
Categories
II 102 10.2
National parks 38.4
56.5
V 69 0.2
Forest parks 1.0
Ia 55 7.0
Wildlife sanctuaries 26.1
38.8
IV 55 0.9
Non-hunting areas 3.6
V 16 <0.1
Botanical gardens? 0.1
V 54
Arboreta? <0.1 <0.1
Sub-total 18.2 64.5
Ib THA NA
Class 1 watershed 18.1 74.4
Ib NA
Conserv. mangroves 0.1
NA.
Total 24.4

9. Scale 1:50K
- 33.2%
Scale 1:250K
- 25.3%
Class 1 watershed
• 24.4%country’s land
• 83.4% under forest

10. Results
Forest Types – year 2000 (1:50K)
6 Well Relatively Poorly
5
CI Valu
4
3
2
1
0
BAM DEF PF HEF MEF MDF DF
D PSW BF MGF RPF
Forest Type
CIPAs C on
IC C =1
I
CI Pas = NP + WS; CI Con = NP + WS + WSC1

11. Results
% Forest Types Under Protection
120.00
100.00
% remaini
80.00
PAs
60.00
CON
40.00
20.00
10%
0.00
RPF M F
G BF PSW DDF MDF PF EV BA
F M
Forest Type
CI Pas = NP + WS; CI Con = NP + WS + WSC1

12. Well Represented (CI > 2.4)
• dry ever., moist ever.,
hill ever., bamboo & pine
Why?
• Most of the remaining
forest cover is under
protection.
• Hill, Dry & Pine occur in
high altitude & rugged
terrain (de facto natural
protection)
• Bamboo is dominant in
limestone & marginal land

13. Relatively Well Rep. (CI ≈ 1.0)
• Peat swamp, beach forest,
and dry dipterocarp forest
Why?
• Moderate & pristine peat
swamp is under a
wildlife sanctuary.
• Dry diptercarp forest is
disturbed by logging &
monocropping.
• Beach F. is deteriorated by
tourism activities.

14. Poorly Rep. (CI < 0.1)
• Mangrove forest and
riparian wetland
Why?
• Mangrove - Logging,
shrimp farming and
coastal development.
• Riparian – Human
settlement, non-wood
product collection, and
small patches
(not fit PAS criteria) Riparian: lost 55% in 40 yrs.
Mangrove: lost 51% (‘61-’89)

15. Altitude Class
Altitude gradient VS biodiversity
% land
Class (m) area CIPAs CI Con
0-400 77.5 0.5 0.4
400-800 15.5 2.6 2.7
800-1200 5.8 3.0 3.6
1200-1600 1.1 3.1 3.8
1600-2000 0.1 4.3 3.9
>2000 <0.1 5.7 4.2
CI Pas = NP + WS; CI Con = NP + WS + WSC1

16. Natural Land System
Def. = assemblage of similar vegetation and land form
(composition of forest type and altitude class)
Forest/Altitude 0-400 400-800 800-1200 1200-1600 1600-2000 >2000
Moist Ever. F. 3.2/2.6 4.5/3.8 5.2/4.2 5.6/4.2 0.0/3.9
Dry Ever. F. 3.6/2.8 4.6/3.8 4.0/3.9 1.3/3.9 2.5/4.1
Hill Ever. F. 4.7/3.5 3.8/3.6 3.5/3.9 3.7/4.0 4.6/4.0 5.7/4.2
Pine Forest 5.6/4.0 4.1/4.0 3.5/3.1 2.7/4.1 6.6/4.6
Peat swamp 1.3/1.0 7.1/0.5 7.0/5.0
Mangrove F 0.2/0.0
Riparian F. 0.0/0.0
Beach F. 1.2/0.0
Mixed Dece. F. 1.6/1.6 2.5/2.8 2.8/3.5 3.3/3.7 4.8/3.8
Dry Dipt. F. 0.9/0.8 3.3/3.3 3.0/3.1 5.5/5.2
Bamboo 3.5/3.0 7.5/5.5 5.5/5.2 6.4/5.2 6.1/4.3
CIPas/CICon = 1.3/1.0

17. Distributions Area (1000 x No. Sig.
Km2)
Code Basin Name PAs % PAs
by River Basin 01 Salawin 19.33 10 30.03
02 Mekong 56.92 11 7.80
03 Kok 7.25 3 19.82
04 Chi 49.43 11 10.26
05 Nam Mun 71.52 9 7.81
06 Ping 34.92 14 31.51
2 07 Wang 10.38 4 18.02
08 Yom 24.46 10 11.82
09 Nan 34.18 7 18.72
10 Chaophaya 21.61 1 0.06
5
10 12 11 Sakae Krang 5.11 1 24.38
13 12 Pa Sak 15.37 5 0.00
13 Tha Chin 13.57 0 1.27
17 14 Mae Khlong 30.09 15 57.64
15 Prachin 9.87 3 26.31
16 Bang Pakong 8.71 2 14.32
18
17 Ton 3.98 0 8.49
18 East Pennisular 13.32 5 9.30
19 Phetburi 6.26 1 35.02
20 West 9.18 5 31.22
23 21 East Pennisular 20.26 11 17.51
22 Tapi 13.22 7 28.57
23 Song Khla 12.21 3 7.07
24 Pattani 3.90 1 10.78
25 West Pennisular 19 05 10 19 82

18. Conclusions
• Conservation areas encompass 24.4% of the
country’s land area almost meeting the 25% target.
And appr. 84% remains under forest cover.
• Mangrove forest, swamp forest, beach forest and
riparian forest are poorly represented and not
sufficient to protect ecological integrity (pop. viability?).
• Most of PAs are located in high altitude
aiming to protect head watershed and not
properly distributed.

19. Recommendations
Management Implications:
• Reconsider the policy targets: 50% forest
cover and 30% conservation forest (ambitious).
• Propose underrepresented ecosystems as
priorities for new NP/WS or other forms.
• In general, preservation of remaining PAs/Con
is more important than adding more new areas.

20. Recommendations
Future Research:
• Integrate species distribution, aquatic/marine
ecosystems, climate and LU change
(historical range?)
• Increase mapping resolution (200 m to ≈ 50 m)
to capture unique/remnant ecosystem (wetland)
• Prioritize ecosystem & species conservation
targets according to its conservation status
and proportion of coverage.

21. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION
Acknowledgements
• Department of National Park, Wildlife and
Plant Conservation (DNP)
• Royal Forest Department (RFD)
• Office of Natural Resources and Environmental
Policy and Planning (ONEP)
• East-West Center/University of Hawaii
• Thailand – U.S. Fulbright Program