the mae sa-kog ma biosphere reserve: thailand; south-south

SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION PROGRAMME ON ENVIRONMENTALLY

SOUND SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE HUMID TROPICS

WORKING PAPERS

N° 3, 1995

I4

Optical Character Recognition (OCR) document. WARNING! Spelling errors might subsist. In order to accessto the original document in image form, click on "Original" button on 1st page.

The Working Papers series is a publication of the South-South Cooperation

Programme for Environmentally Sound Socio-Economic Development in the Humid Tropics.

The series aimes to disseminate the results of the research on Biosphere Reserves on such

topics as (i) the prevailing conservation and resource-use patterns and, (ii) the ways of

improving the traditional practices and orientation for applied research aimed at a more

intensive and sustainable use of the biodiversity to provide a better livelihood to the local

population in the buffer and transition zones. On more general issues, the Working Papers are

also are an attempt to identify key problems that will become areas of concentration for

international cooperation.

The map on the front page has been produced by using a commercial softwareprogramme. The boundaries do not imply official endorsement or acceptance byUNESCO or the United Nations. Neither do the ideas and opinions expressed in theWorking Papers series, which are solely engaging their authors.

The Working Papers series is published as necessary either in English, French orSpanish depending of the language used by the author.

© Permission to reproduce any material of the Working Papers series will be givenwithout any previous authorization, provided that full reference to the author, title,series title, date, institution editor and place of publication are given.

Edited by: UNESCO

Division of Ecological Sciences Telephone : 33 - (1) 45.68.41.46South-South Cooperation Telefax : 33 - (1) 40.65.98.97programmed Telex : 20.44.61 Paris7 place de Fontenoy E-mail : scmcl @ unesco.org75700 PARIS (FRANCE)

Ignacy SACHSÉ COLE D Es H AUTES É TUDES E N

SCIENCES SOCIALES (EHESS)

Centre de Recherches sur Ie BrésilContemporain (CRBC)

54 Ed. Raspail75270 PARIS Cedex 06

FRANCE

Telephone : 33 - (1) 49.54.20.85

Telefax : 33 - (1) 45.48.83.53

Miguel CLÜSENER-GODT

UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL,

SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL

ORGANIZATION (UNESCO)

Division of Ecological SciencesSouth-South Cooperation programmed

1 rue Miollis75732 PARIS Cedex 15

FRANCE

Telephone :33 - (1) 45.66.41.46

Telefax : 33 - (1) 40.65.96.97

Yann GUILLAUDÉCOLE DEs HAuTEs ÉTUDES EN

SCIENCES SOCIALES (EHESS)

Centre de Recherches sur Ie Brésil

Contemporain (CRBC)

54 Bd. Raspail

75270 PARIS Cedex 06FRANCE

Telephone :33 - (1) 49.54.20.85

Telefax :33 - (1) 45.48.83.53


1

The Biosphere Reserves or similar managed areas that are joining the South-

South Cooperation Programme, are requested to produce an overview of their

covering area containing first hand information on its conditions and urging problems.

These reports will be primarily used as background materials for the

comparative projects agreed upon in the programme of activities established at the

Chiang Mai meeting, held in Mai 1994. For more details please report to the newsletter

South-South Perspectives (N° 1, October 1994 [28 pp.], UNESCO, Paris [France]).

Given the rich information value of these reports, there are being made

available to a wide audience. They may be obtained by contacting UN E S C O/ MA B

Secretariat, Division of Ecological Sciences.

For other documents available in the series, see the back-cover.

Working Paper N° 3, 1995, UNESCO (South-South Cooperation Programme), Paris (France)


2

This Biosphere Reserve covers a total area of about 360 km2. It encompasses aformer project area of the Mae Sa Integrated Watershed and Forest Land Development Projectof the Thai Royal Forestry Department, the United Nations Development Programme and theKog Ma Watershed Research Station of the Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University. It is oneof the most densely populated mountain areas of Thailand. Most of the Mae Sa-Kog MaReserve also overlays a major portion of the Suthep-Pui National Park. In addition to, and inspite of, this national claim for conservation, other major users of this land include :

* the local population who belongs to several ethnic minority groups,traditionally subsisting on shifting agriculture and gathering of forest products but increasinglyadapting to commercialization, both in the gathering activities and agriculture intensification,often with irrigation ;

* encroaching lowland Thais, both the poor in search of land for their livelihood

and the urban rich looking for recreation and investment in mountain resorts ;* the Chiang Mai Valley which depends on watersheds in the surrounding

mountains for its 160 000 ha. of intensive irrigated agriculture and domestic water supply forthe Chiang Mai city, with a population of 250 000 and a fast growing tourist industry thatrecordes 3 million visitors/year.

This paper reviews and evaluates :* the current resource use patterns by all users ;* the impacts of these uses on the resource base (land, forest, watershed and

biodiversity) and the environment ;* the current conservation efforts, by the Government and communities,

including ongoing research and monitoring.

The Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve exemplifies the major problem that isbecoming increasingly severe in the mountains of Thailand, but also in other countries of theMountain Mainland Southeast Asia, i.e. a balance between the need of the local population tomake a decent living and national conservation goals. Thus, with an aim to make the idea ofbiosphere reserve a model for mountain land use we also attempt to identify :

* ways to improve resource-use practices that will enhance productivity in anequitable and sustainable manner;

* direction of applied research that would support this.

Major findings are as follows :i) Agricultural land use has largely changed from shifting agriculture to intensive,

often irrigated, cropping with high valued fruits and vegetables. This has effectively reducedpressure on the land per existing local population, but has then led to the pressure being

Benjavan RERKASEM, Kanok RERKASEM : The Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve (Thailand)


3

created by migration from the lowlands.ii) The Reserve is facing a new kind of pressure from the increase in the number of

tourists, to about one million, in some areas.iii) Indicators of “sustainability” problem include :

* lists of endangered species (those that are disappearing locally and thosespecies that are unique to the area) ;

* increasing incidence of forest fires ;* increasing encroachment on Reserve land, including daming of its streams

The idea of “biosphere reserve” that will allow conservation to take place along sidesustainable use is most appropriate to Mae Sa-Kog Ma. Because of major differences in basicneeds, the Reserve should be managed in two distinct areas :

i) First is the area around popular tourist attractions such as Doi Suthep temples, thepalace, two or three frequently visited hilltribe villages and waterfalls. In terms of area, this isrelatively small, attributing to only a fraction of the total 360 km.z of Mae Sa-Kog MaBiosphere Reserve or 262 krn.2 of Doi Suthep-Pui National Park. Management of this areashould focus on how to respond to the high concentration of visitors.

ii) Second is the remainder, covering most of the Reserve. In this area, themanagement and development could aim to provide support for local population who are stilldependent on agriculture for their living, while maintaining the balance on the objective ofconservation, of biological diversity and the environment.

The necessity to coordinate among the many Governmental policies and objectivesand implementing offices, and not the least the need for public consultation on majordevelopment plans is also highlighted.

Cette Réserve de la biosphère couvre une superficie totale d’environ 360 km2. Ellerenferrne la superficie d’un ancien projet du Projet de Développement Intégré du Bassin et desTerres Forestières de Mae Sa du Départment Forestier Royal Thaïlandais, du Programme desNations Unies pour le Développement et de la Station de Recherche du Bassin de Kog Ma dela Faculté Forestière de l’Université de Kasetsart. C’est l’une des régions montagneuses les plusdensément peuplées de Thailande. La plupart de la Réserve de Mae Sa-Kog Ma recouvre aussiune part importance du Pare National de Suthep-Pui. En plus, et en dépit de cette revendicationnationale pour la conservation, d’autres utilisations majeures de ce territoire inclues :

* la population locale qui appartient à divers groupes ethniques minoritaires,survie traditionnellement grâce à l’agriculture itinérante et la collecte de produits forestiersmais s’adapte de plus en plus à la commercialisation, à la fois dans les activités de collecte quepar l’intensificationn de l’agriculture, souvent irriguée ;

* l’empiètement par les Thaïlandais des basses terres, à la fois les pauvres à larecherche de terre afin d’assurer leur existence et les riches urbains cherchant détente et lieud’investissement dans des complexes montagneux ;

* la vallée de Chiang Mai qui dépend du système fluvial des montagnesenvironnantes pour ses 160 000 ha. d’agriculture intensive irriguée et la furniture d’eaudomestique pour la ville de Chiang Mai, d’une population de 250 000 habitants et une industrietouristique en pleine expansion qui enregistre 3 millions de visiteurs/an.



Ce travail passe en revue et évalue :* les modes d’utilisation actuelle des resources par tous les utilisateurs;* les impacts de ces utilisations sur le fonds des ressources (terre, forêt, bassin

fluvial et biodiversité) et sur l’environnement ;* les efforts de conservation par le gouvernement et les communités, incluant la

recherche et l’évaluation en cours.

La Réserve de la biosphère Mae Sa-Kog Ma sert d’exemple d’un problème majeur quidevient de plus en plus sévère dans les montagnes de Thaïlande, mais aussi dans d’autres paysde l’Asie du Sud-Est continental montagneuse, i.e. l’équilibre entre le besoin de la populationlocale d’accéder à des conditions de vie décente et les objectifs nationaux de conservation.Ainsi, avec l’intention de prendre l’idée de réserve de la biosphère comme modéle pourl’utilisation de terres montagneuses, nous tentons aussi d’identifier :

* les manières d’améliorer les pratiques d’utilisation des resources quiaugmentent la productivité de façon équitable et durable;

* l’orientation de la recherche appliquée qui soutiendrait cela.

Les principals découvertes sont les suivantes :i) L’utilisation agricole des terres s’est largement transformée en passant d’une

agriculture itinérant à une agriculture intensive, souvent irriguée, récoltant des fruits et delégumes de grande valeur. Cela a effectivement réduit la pression sur la terre par la populationlocale existante, mais a ainsi débouché sur une pression créée par la migration des bassesterres.

ii) La Réserve est confrontée à un nouveau genre de pression de la part del’augmentation du nombre de touristes, à environ un million, dans certaines régions.

iii) Les indicateurs du problème de la pérennité comprennent :* la liste des espéces en dangers (celles qui disparaissent localement et celles qui

sont uniques à cette région);* l’incidence croissante des feux forestiers;* l’empiètement croissant des terres de la Réserve, y compris la construction de

barrages sur ses cours d’eau.

L’idée de réserve de la biosphère qui rende possible la conservation au côté d’uneutilisation durable est très appropriée à Mae Sa-Kog Ma. En raison de différences majeures entermes de besoins fondamentaux, la Réserve devrait être gérée en deux zones distinctes :

i) Premièrement, il y a la zone qui entoure des attractions touristiques célèbres commeles temples de Doi Suthep, le palais, deux ou trois villages tribaux fréquemment visités et leschutes d’eau. En termes de superficie, cela est relativement petit, n’imputant qu’une fraction dutotal des 360 km.2 de la Réserve de la biosphère de Mae Sa-Kog Ma ou des 262 km.2 du Parcnational de Doi Suthep-Pui. La gestion de cette zone devrait se concentrer sur la réponse àdonner à la grande concentration de visiteurs.

ii) Deuxièmement il y a le reste, couvrant la plupart de la Réserve. Dans cette zone, lagestion et le développement pourrait avoir comme objectif de fournir de l’aide a la populationlocale qui est encore dépendante pour son existence de l’agriculture, tout en maintenantl’équilibre avec l’objectif de conservation, de diversité biologique et l’environnement.

Est aussi mis en relief la nécessité de coordonner entre-eux de nombreux objectifs, despolitiques gouvernementales, l’implantation d’organismes et, non le moins important, le besoind’une consultation publique sur les principaux plans de développement.



5

I- BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................6

1) The Mae Sa Integrated Watershed and Forest Land Use Project ...........7

2) Kog Ma Watershed Management Research Project of the Faculty ofForest ry, Kasetsart University.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....................7

3) Doi Suthep-Pui National Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........................7

4) Ecological setting . . .......................................................... ..............................8

5) Native vegetation . . . ...................................................................................... 13

6) Wildlife....................................................................................... ............................ 14

7) Biodiversity and endangered species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......15

II - PEOPLE AND CURRENT RESOURCE USE PATTERNS ...................................16

1) Land use by the Iocal population . . . . . . . . . ..................... ....................................... 16

2)Tourism .................................................................................. ..............................18

Ill- IMPACT OF USES ON THE RESOURCE BASE AND THE ENVIRONMENT.....18

1) Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . ........................................................................................ 19

2) The watershed.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......................................20

3) Impact of tourism . . . ......................................................................................... 21

4) Land use and forest encroachment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..........22

IV- CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION EFFORTS BY THEGOVERNMENT AND COMMUNINTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...24

1 Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2) Conflicts between development and conservation ...............................26

CONCLUSION : IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS, POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ...27

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .........28

Professor Benjavan RERKASEM is Director of the Multiple Cropping Centreof the Chiang Mai University (Thailand) and Professor Kanok RERKASEM is also atthe Chiang Mai University.



I- BACKGROUND

This Biosphere Reserve covers a total area of about 360 km.². It encompasses a

former project area of the Mae Sa Integrated Watershed and Forest Land Development Project

of the Thai Royal Forestry Department, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

and the Kog Ma Watershed Research Station of the Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University.

The reserve also largely overlays Doi Suthep-Pui National Park (Cf. MAP 1).

MAP 1 : Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve and Doi Sutehp-Pui National Park.

7“&“

\

./. SMOENG

X3v ~Q?-. U’ L la----

1 2 3 4knl>

Note : The boundary of the Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve is drawn in light line and theboundary of the Doi Sutehp-Pui National Park (in two separate pieces) is in heavy line.



7

1) The Mae Sa Integrated Watershed and Forest Land Use Project

The Mae Sa Project ran from 1973 to 1981. It was support by UNDP, at the request of

the Royal Thai Government, with the objectives to (Cf. MAE SA PROJECT) :

i) promote economic growth and improve living conditions of farmers in the highland

zones in northern Thailand ;

ii) foster social integration within the Thai Nation between the various peoples of the

area;

iii) improve the environment through the replacement of the present slash-and-bum

economy with settled, market oriented agriculture, compatible with rational land-use and

through improved forest conservation and reforestation measures.

The project activities were carried out in the following sectors : conservation farming

and watershed management, forest grazing and range management, horticulture, forest

management, forest fire control, road construction and extension.

2) Kog Ma Watershed Management Research Project of the Faculty ofForestry, Kasetsart University

This research project begun in 1965, with an initial finding from the United States

Operations Mission (USOM) and later supported through the regular research budget of

Kasetsart University. On this small watershed (65 ha.), detailed long term data were collected

with the following objectives (Cf. CHANKAO et al.) :

i) to study relationships between soil-water-plants in the hill evergreen forest, in the

natural state and under slash-and-bum cultivation ;

ii) to research on the rehabilitation of degraded watersheds resulting from slash-and-

burn agriculture ;

iii) to promote the importance of watershed and environment conservation.

The data collected included climate, stream flows, surface runoff and sedimentation.

3) Doi Suthep-Pui National Park

The area declared by the national Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB)

committee of Thailand as the Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve is largely overlaid by the

area established as the Doi Suthep-Pui National Park (Cf. MAP 1). In 1949, the mountain area

west of the city of Chiang Mai was established as a reserve forest with restricted access. On

Working Paper N° 3,1995, UNESCO (South-South Cooperation Programme), Paris (France)


8

October 7th. 1962, Thailand passed a legislation on the establishment of national parks. Doi

Suthep-Pui National Park was established by legislation in 1981, to cover an area of 162 km.2

to the west and northwest of the city Chiang Mai that includes Mae Rim, Muang and

Hangdong districts of the Chiang Mai Province. In 1982 the Park was further expanded to

cover another 100 km.2. This total area of 262 km.2 is now made up of two pieces of forests,

separated by agricultural land and villages over a distance of about 15 kilometers.

At the time of this study, the Chairman of the national MAB committee has informed

us that so far there is still no legislation to support the establishment of Mae Sa-Kog Ma

Biosphere Reserve. The Reserve and the National Park, however, cover roughly the same land,

and implementation of conservation and highland development policy are carried out through

Doi Suthep-Pui National Park, under the administration of the Royal Forestry Department. In

this review, analysis of problems and conflicts over resource use and conservation in Mae Sa-

Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve and Doi Suthep-Pui National Park will be considered to be one

and the same.

4) Ecological setting

The area of Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve covers the watershed of the Sa

River, a tributary of the Ping, which is part of the Chao Phya System (Cf. MAP 2). The area

lies mainly in the Mae Rim District of the Chiang Mai Province, but also extends over small

parts of three other districts: Muang, Hangdong and Samoeng (Cf. MAP 3).

The topography is rugged, ranging in altitudes from 300 m. on the valley floor to

1685 m. at the summit of Doi Pui. More than half of the land has slopes of greater than 35%.

Parent rocks of the area are largely gneiss and schists, with some scattered areas of limestone.

The climate is characterized by distinct wet (April-November) and dry (December-

March) seasons, with most of the rain falling from May to October. The average annual rainfall

ranges from 1 300 mm. near the plain to over 2 000 mm. near the summit of Doi Pui.

November to February are relatively cool months, with average temperatures at 18 °C or

lower, with occasional night of minimum temperature at 4-5 °C. But frost is extremely rare.

By the end of February the temperature begins to rise, to peak with the average of 28 °C in

April. With an average of relative humidity around 60%, high winds (11-13 km./hour),

coupled with a high temperature (absolute maximum temperature at 35 °C), March and April

are very hot and dry months, with high probability for forest fires. Tropical storms are common

at the break of the wet season by the end of April. Detail climatic data from Mae Sa Mai

(1 000 m.), Kog Ma (1 300 m.) andBuakHa(1 400 m) are shown in GRAPH 1a,1b and 1c..



9

MAP 2 : Location of the Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve in the Chao PhyaWatershed

ScaIe

o 50 100km

Note : The circle indicates the location of the Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve.



10

MAP 3 : Location of the Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve in the Chiang Mai

P,Pf---i. .. fi--{ ‘,.. ● ,

j ‘,.-6. ,m./) ‘-~.,

‘ . _,>

O.koi ~- ‘./’

)(

-—-- Provincial boundary

\1°----- District boundary

● Provincial center---(,

.-{ ● District center

Note : The boundary of the Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve is dawn in heavy line throughthe districts of Mae Rim, Mae Taeng, Hangdong and Samoeng.



12

GRAPH 1C : Climatic record at Buak Ha(1 400 m.)

T (oC), yoRti Rainfall (mm)

‘m~’”

I80 ~

60

40

20

I::;;] fj,,:,,,,,,jq. . . . I

. . . . . . . II I

“ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

400

300

200

100

0

Buak Hah(1963-1 985)

Soils on the slopes are dominated by a deep red loam with a deeply weathered layer

beneath. This soil is commonly known as a red-brown lateritic soil (Typic palaeustult). Very

high acidic phase is common (Cf. TABLE 1). Other areas are occupied by shallow, infertile,

erodible red-yellow podzolic soils (Typic tropustults). In small highland valleys are alluvial

soils, most of which have been developed for wetland rice. Some small areas of limestone

derived soils can also be found.

TABLE 1 : Characteristics of soil from selected sites within the Mae Sa-Kog MaBiosphere Reserve

Site Soil type pH (in 1:1 Organic phosphorus PotassiumH70) matter (%) (PPm) (PPm)

Mae Sa Mai Clay 5.0 3.4 38 223

Nong Hoi Sandy clay 6.0 3.9 6 183Chang Kian Sandy clay loam 4.9 4.2 12 181Pah Nok Kok Sandy clay 4.6 6.0 6 32Kog Ma Sandy clay loam 5.4 10.4 na na

Note : na -not available.

SOURCE: LAMPAOPONG et al. ; CHUNKAO et al.



13

5) Native vegetation

There are 5 major forest types :

i) Moist evergreen forest. This is the dominant forest type in the Reserve, occupying

60% of the land. It is found on bottom land at 600 m., and other areas with high moisture. It is

a three-storied forest. The upper storey consists of Anisoptera oblonga, A. costata, and a

number of dipterocarps and other species. The middle storey is composed of Chaetocarpus

castanocarpus, Euphoria longana and other species. The lower storey contains small trees of

the genera Aglaia, Amoora and others. There are scattered palms and sparsely growing

bamboos. Lianes are abundant, with occasional epiphytic ferns and orchids. The dense

undergrowth is composed of members of the ginger family, ferns and other plants.

“Eaglewood”, caused by fungus infection of Aquilaria crassna, greatly valued for its scent, can

also be found.

ii) Hill evergreen forest. This forest type extends from 1 000 m. upwards, where

annual rainfall is between 1 500 mm. to 2 000 mm., covering about 20 % of the Reserve. It is

two-storied. Oaks, false chestnuts, laurels, birch and others make up the upper storey.

Dominance of false chesnuts (Castanopsis) and birch indicates the impact of man (Cf.

SMITINAND et al.). This can be seen at Doi Suthep, where dominant trees are birch, in the

higher slopes, and five species of Castanopsis. The lower storey consists of laurels and other

species. There are several genera of bamboos and a rich representation of ferns. Lianes are

relatively infrequent. Epiphytes are abundant, including mosses, liverworts, lichens, ferns,

orchids and a number of ephiphytic shrubs.

Detail description of the hill evergreen forest in this Reserve was provided by the

study at Kog Ma Station, at altitudes 1 000-1 600 m.. At this site the original natural forest still

remains intact. Plant species identifed in this 65 ha. watershed included 43 species of trees, 18

species of undergrowth, 21 phreatophytic species. The dominant trees belong to the family

fagaceae, especially those of the genera Castanopsis, Lithocarpus, Quercus and Podocarpus

spp.. The undergrowth comprises of ferns on the bottom land, Fuirena umbellata on the hill-

slope and Vetiveria zizanoides associated with Imperata cylindrical on ridge tops. Currently

the moist evergreen forest occupies about 60 % of the area.

iii) The coniferous forest. This is an edaphic type that occupies steep slopes and

exposed ridges subject of extensive erosion and leaching. The soils are grayish sandy or

brownish gravelly. It occupies only 2 % of the Reserve land. This is a three-storied, open

forest. The upper storey is composed to two-leaved pine (Pinus merkusii) and three-leaved

pine (Pinus kesiya). Oaks, false chestnuts and other evergreen species make up the middle



14

storey. At lower elevations dipterocarps are found in the the middle storey. Small and tall

shrubs make up the lower storey. Ground flora is composed of tall grasses and a number of

herbaceous species.

iv) Mixed deciduous forest. This is another extensive type of forest in the Reserve,

covering 20% of its area. It generally extends through lower to higher elevations. In this area

it is associated with the lower range of rainfall, at about 1 000 mm.. The upper storey of this

two-storied forest contains teak, Xylia kerrii and several other valuable timber species.

Dalbergia ovata, Melletia brandisiana and other species occupy the lower storey. Shrubs

include species of Memecylon, Helicteres and other genera. Bamboos are scattered. The

ground flora is composed of herbaceous species such as Kaempferia, Curcuma, Crotolaria and

Desmodium. Epiphytes, including ferns and orchids, are frequent. The ground flora is subject

to annual ground fires.

v) Dry dipterocarpus forest. This type of forest, occupying the lower slopes from

about 800 m. downwards, covers about 20% of the Reserve. As the name indicates, the

predominant species belong to to the family dipterocarpaceae. Dry dipterocarpus forests are

characterized by : poor soils, i.e. highly leached sandy or lateritic with low water holding

capacity, and annual burning. These have given rise to a climax type of vegetation in which

dipterocarps and other fire-resistant species prevail. The upper storey includes dipterocarps

such as Quercus kerri, Melanorrhoes usitata. Low shrubby trees such as Strychnos spp. make

up the second storey. The height of the upper storey is between 20-25 m., but in arid places

they can be only 15-20 m.. The ground flora consists largely of tuber, rootstock-bearing

species, because of the selective pressure of fire, and includes small bamboos and members of

herbaceous genera. Epiphytes are common and include ferns and orchids.

6) Wildlife

Larger animals are said to have been hunted out of the area. According to the

National Park brochure species of mammals that can still be found include a few barking deer

(Muntiacus muntjak), deer (Cervus unicolor), bears, gibbons (Hylobates lar) and monkeys.

Birds are more numerous. Out of the total 850 species of birds found in Thailand some 326

species can be found in this Reserve, many are rare residents and rare seasonal visitors. Major

species include :

i) Hawks, falcons, buzzards, vultures and eagles : Mountain hawk-eagle (Spizaetusnepalensis) [Rare visitor] ; Rufous-bellied hawk-eagle (Hieraaetus kienerii) [Rare resident] ;

Norther goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) [Rare visitor] ; Crested honey-buzzard (Pernis



15

ptilorhynchus) [Rare resident] ; Cinnamon-winged buzzard (Butastur liventer) [Rare

resident] ; Gray-face buzzard (Butastur indicus) [Rare visitor] ; Oriental hobby (Falco

seversus) [Rare resident] ; Long-billed vulture (Gyps indicus) [Rare resident] ; White-backed

vulture (Gyps bengalensis) [Common resident].

ii) Other residents and seasonal visitors : Dark-rumped swift (Cypsiurus parvus)

[Rare migrant] ; Woodcock (Scolopax rusticola) [Rare visitor] ; Hume’s pheasant (Syrmaticus

humiae) [Rare resident] ; Wedge-tailed green pigeon (Treron sphenura) [Rare resident] ;

Emerald cuckoo (Cacomantis maculatus) [Rare resident] ; Blue pitta (Pitta cyanea) [Rare

resident] ; White-throated rock thrush (Montilola gularis) [Rare winter visitor] ; Slaty-backed

flycatcher (Ficedula hodgsonii) [Rare visitor] ; Ultramarine flycatcher (Ficedula superciliaris)

[Rare visitor] ; Green cochoa (Cochoa viridis) [Rare resident] ; Purple cochoa (Cochoa

purpurea) [Rare resident] ; Sulphur-breasted willow warbler (Phylloscopus ricketti) [Rare

visitor] ; Lemon-rumped willow warbler (Phylloscopus proregulus) [Rare visitor] ; Tristram’s

bunting (Emberiza tristrami) [Rare visitor].

7) Biodiversity and endangered species

Studies and species inventories carried out

numbers of species in the reserve area (Cf. TABLE 2).

T ABLE 2 :

in Chiang Mai University found enormous

pecies inventory in Doi Suthep, part of Doi Suthep Pui National ParkY

Species Number of speciesfound

Flowering pIants and ferns 1959Birds 326Butterflies 500Moths 300Mammals 61Reptiles 50Amphibians 28Total 3224

SOURCE : PRAKOBWATAYAKIT & ELLIOTT

Of this list, 22 species of birds are considered endangered, including Sitta magna,

Terron sphenura and Lophura mycthemera. From 50 species of orchids on the endangered list

of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 7 are unique to the area,

including Balanophora abbreviate and B. jungosa. Another endangered species is a



16

salamander, Tylotrition verruscosa, found only in three other places in Thailand. It’s habitat in

the Reserve is considered by the Chiang Mai University ecologists to be endangered.

II- PEOPLE AND CURRENT RESOURCE USE PATTERNS

The Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve is home to a total human population of

20 000 whom are traditionally dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. Its resource

pattern is also strongly influenced by its nearness to the city of Chiang Mai, one of Thailand’s

most popular destinations for tourists, from inside as well as outside the country. Visits to Doi

Suthep temple, on Doi Suthep overlooking the city and the King’s Pooping Place just behind it,

are alsmost always a must for visitors from Thailand. Hilltribes villages within the Reserve,

because of their easy access from the comfort of a Chiang Mai hotel room, are popular with

overseas tourists who are interested in seeing “indigenous” hilltribes without the hardship.

1) Land use by the local population

A survey made by Doi Suthep-Pui National Park in 1987 found a total population of

13 954, within the boundary of the Doi Suthep-Pui National Park, occupying an area of 11 493

ha., or 40 % of the Park. A different survey by the Department of Land Development (DLD)

found slightly different numbers : 41 villages with a population of 12000, with sixteen of the

villages in Doi Suthep-Pui National Park and 25 in the nearby National Reserve Forests of Mae

Rim and Mae Taeng (Cf. DLD). From the DLD survey, only 46 % of the population are ethnic

Thais, the balance is made up of people who belong to ethnic minority groups, with the

Hmong, at 50 % the dominant group, and small numbers of Karen, Shari, Yao, Lahu and Lisu

(Cf. TABLE 3).

During the Mae Sa project years of 1970’s this indigenous population made their

living from the cultivation of wetland rice on the paddies developed on land with

slopes <15 %. On steeper slopes, shifting cultivation was practiced to grow upland rice, maize,

opium and cash crops of tare, cabbages,... Livestock numbered about 4000 heads of buffaloes

and cattle.

By the early 1990’s, land use within the Reserve has undergone a most remarkable

change. In those villages which have developed paddy land, the cultivation of wetland rice

continues to be an important subsistence activity (Cf. TABLE 4). Permanent cultivation of cash

crops, often with irrigation, has, however, largely replaced shifting agriculture. The Hmong

villages at Doi Pui and Chang Kian especially have completely commercialized into tourism



related occupations such as selling handicrafts and souvenirs and are economically well off.

TABLE 3 : Population living within the boundary of the Doi Suthep-Pui NationalPark (1993)

Ethnic Number ofgroup villages households inhabitants

Thai 30 1407 5381Hmong 10 614 5896Karen 2 68 214Shari 1 10 30Lisu 1 11 56Karen/Thai 1 17 51Yao/Hmong 1 6 60Thai/Lahu 1 31 100

TABLE 4 : Livelihood activities of villagers living in the boundary of Doi Suthep-

Notes :

Pui National Park (1993) -—

Major livelihood activity Number of villages involvedPaddy rice 12Upland rice 15Cash crops, vegetables 32Cash crops, grain Iegumes² 5Fruit treess³ 10Growing and processing tea 7Tourism related4 5Total number of villages in survey5 47

¹Include cabbages, carrots, ginger, flowers, potatoes, sweet potatoes, strawberryand tare.²Soybean, peanuts and dry bean.

³Lychees and mangoes.4I.e. running tours and transportation, selling souvenirs, handicrafts, flowersvegetables and earning wages at resorts.5Total activities add up to 89, more than total number of villages at 47, as mostvillages, and indeed most households, take part in more than one major livelihoodactivities.

SOURCE: DLD (1993) and some survey data

Opium cultivation within the Reserve area has virtually stopped. New annual cash

crops are vegetables : cabbages, carrots, ginger, flowers, potatoes, sweet potatoes, strawberry

and tare, and beans : soybeans, peanuts and common beans. Lychee and mangoes planted since

the 1970’s-1980’s are now productive. A number of villages have benefited from the growth of

tourism.



18

2) Tourism

In 1980, Doi Suthep-Pui National Park was already attracting 500 000 to 600 000

tourists a year. By the 1990’s, the number of tourists is fastly approaching 1 000 000, i.e.

averaging over 2 500 per day. The reasons for its popularity include both natural and cultural

attractions within one day distance from the city of Chiang Mai, on sealed roads.

i) Doi Suthep temple and Pooping Palace. Doi Suthep Temple, overlooks the city

of Chiang Mai, in one of Thailand’s most reverent Buddhist shrine. The main stupa or chedi is

believed to house a relic of the Buddha. It is one of the most frequently visited places by

tourists from within Thailand. Behind the temple, at a slightly higher elevation at Doi Buak Ha,

is Pooping Royal Palace. When the royal family or their guests are not in residence, the palaceground, with its gardens of flowers from cooler climate, is open to the public. A popular half

day tour from Chiang Mai hotel includes a visit to Doi Suthep, Phuping and then onto the

Hmong villages on Doi Pui and Chang Kian. Although all of these destinations are accessible

by car, a popular occasion among young Thais is to walk up to the temple, on a foot path,

especially on Buddhist holidays.

ii) Hmong and other hilltribe villages. Their easy accessibility from the city of

Chiang Mai make hilltribe villages within the Reserve a popular destination. Two of these are

the Hmong village at Chang Kain. Although the village has undergone much change since it

began to attract visitors in the early 1970’s, with the “traditional” way of life largely

disappeared. Most of the villagers now make a living on running tours and transportation and

trading of souvenirs and handicrafts.

iii) Waterfalls. Waterfalls are another favourite “attraction” for local tourists. The

Reserve boasts 9-10 waterfalls all within short distance of Chiang Mai.

iv) Doi Suthep-Pui National Park as a nature reserve. With the rise of “eco-

tourism”, the Reserve is becoming increasingly popular for those tourists who are interested in

“nature”. This is supported by its easy access from Chiang Mai coupled with the richness of

wildlife, especially birds, butterflies and orchids.

Ill- IMPACT OF USES ON THE RESOURCE BASE AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Chiang Mai plans to celebrate its 700th anniversary in 1996. The valley, where the

city sits, was occupied and cultivated even long before A.D. 1200. The original temple on Doi

Suthep is said to have been first built in those early days. Though the concentration of the

population was largely in the valley, interference by man on the mountains has been going on



19

for a long time, but there are some indications that the pressure increasingly becomes critical.

1) Biodiversity

A study in 1993 by the Department of Geography of the Chiang Mai University found

that forest cover accounted for 197 km.2 or 71 % of the Reserve area (Cf. CMU). This was an

improvement from 1985, when there were only 157 km.2 (60 %) of forest cover. This increase

was mainly the result of an increase in the area under the dry dipterocarpus forest (Cf. TABLE

5). Among the increase were also plantation for conservation purpose on the waterhseds of 16

km.², covering the watersheds of Mae Nai, Mae Luad, Mae Sa, Mae Ram and Mae How.

TABLE 5 : Forest cover in Doi Suthep-Pui National Park (1993 and change since1985)

Forest type Area in 1993 (in km.2) Change since 1985Moist evergreen 23.5 no changeHill evergreen 55.0 no changeConiferous 5.5 no changeMixed deciduous 51.0 no changeDry dipterocarp 62.0 increase

Total 197.0 increase from 157 km.²

SOURCE : CMU

However, changes in the composition of the vegetation in the Reserve have been

noted. Shifting agriculture was blamed for the loss of primary forest and the spread of

Imperata cylindrical. Dominance of birch and Castanopsis on the slopes of Doi Suthep was

thought to be the result of interference by man (Cf. SMITINAND et al.). Disturbance and

encroachment of their habitats as well as overhunting were most likely the reasons behind

disappearance of large mammals from the area.

hornbills used to be found in the

NARUEMITRAKHARN). The endangered

including Sitta magna, Terron sphenura and

(including Balanophora abbreviate and B.

Some observers noted that several species of

reserve, now there are none ( C f .

species list that includes 22 species of birds,

Lophura mycthemera, seven unique orchids

jungosa) and the salamander, Tylotritionverruscosa, indicates a critical pressure on the land from all the various uses.

Many of those concerned with conservation of native biodiversity are voicing a

complaint about the introduction of “exotic” species into the Reserve, to meet the need of

visitors to the temple and waterfalls. For example, the Northern Agricultural Development

Centre, which occupies 500 ha. of the Reserve area has planted a collection of Eucalyptus. In

other areas, such as Government offices and popular waterfalls “beautification” efforts are

Working Paper N°3, 1995, UNESCO (South-South Cooperation Programme), Paris (France)


carried out with landscape gardening and planting in beds and borders of temperate annuals as

well as showey species such as Bougainvillea (Cf. NARUEMITRKHAKARN)

2) The watershed

The streams that flow from the Reserve are part of the Mae Ping Watershed (Cf. MAP

4). Two streams, the Mae How and Mae Sa, drain the upper part of the Reserve and join the

Ping around Mae Rim. The southern end of the Reserve form the drainage system of the Mae

Khan, another major tributary joins Mae Ping some distance south of Chiang Mai.

MAP 4 : Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve and irrigation development in theChiang Mai Valley

+ Weir

-w.wl [ [“’”::..k “b Directon of water take -off

.’, .:. . . .,,,

*:::, ”:”;::::.,{,&.., DO, ~,ket

>Scale

o 5 0 100 km

Note : The boundary of the Mae Sa-Kog Ma Biosphere Reserve is drawn in heavy line.



21

All of these streams have had a long history of irrigation development (Cf.

SEKTHEERA & THODEY). Small weirs, originally made of wood, bamboo and stones, were

placed across the stream to raise the water level to irrigate paddy fields in the Chiang Mai

Valley below. These traditional irrigation systems have long been important as a means to

stabilize as well as increase productivity of wetland rice in the valley. Dry season cropping is

also made possible on some of the larger systems. Development in the mountain, including

tourism and irrigated agriculture, has led to increasing competition for water. Although direct

relationships are still to be proved, many areas with intensive cropping systems are facing

increasingly severe water shortage, especially in the dry season, some to an extent that

previous triple cropping areas (3 successive crops/year) have been reduced to double or even

single crops annually. Another source of competition for water is with the domestic use for the

city of Chiang Mai.

Development of tourist industry, encroachment of Chiang Mai urban area up the

slopes and development of irrigated agriculture (including that of the Faculty of Agriculture,

Chiang Mai University, with 3 experimental stations within the boundary of the Reserve) have

had a combined result on a the building of small reservoirs on the Reserve’s streams. Some 30

of these have been built in the last few years. In addition to their effects on hydrology of the

area, major changes of habitats have also been significant.

3) Impact of tourism

Chiang Mai now welcomes about 3 million tourists a year, about 0.5 million are from

outside the country. One in three of the 3 million makes it into the Reserve. On public holidays

and special Buddhist holidays, the number swells into tens of thousand per day. Very few of

these yet are “ecotourists”. On the other hand, most of the tourists never venture out beyond a

relatively small area of the Reserve. The impact of tourism on the Reserve is three-fold.

i) Waste. Many papers and commentators have raised the problem of waste in the

Reserve brought on by the impact of tourism (for example Cf. CPAC). However, there is still

limited quantitative data on the extent of wastes generated and the impact they have on the

resource base and the environment. Areas in the vicinity of Doi Suthep temple, the palace and

the more popular hilltribe villages and waterfalls are becoming unsightly with non-degradable

thrash such as plastic and foil bags and wrappings, empty drink cans and bottles. There are also

complaints of waste water from communities in the highlands that feed directly into streams

used as domestic water sources in villages at the foot of the mountains. The problem of waste

management in the vicinity of Doi Suthep temple is beginning to be attended to by the Chiang

Mai Provincial Administrative Office (Cf. PONGCHAREONKUL).

Working Paper N° 3,1995, UNESCO (South-South Cooperation Programme), Paris (France)


22

ii) Commercial responses and expansion. The number of tourists visiting the

Reserve more or less doubled in the decade between 1980 and 1990, to the current number of

one million. This has triggered commercial responses and expansion by the Government as well

as by private citizens. This takes the form of uncontrolled and often illegal construction, moves

for more road construction and access, which had included an attempt to build a cable car from

the foot of the mountain on the edge of Chiang Mai to the Doi Suthep temple. All of these

developments, plans and proposals have been moved forward in spite of the fact that,

legislation stirctly forbids any such development within the boundary of national parks, as it is

often cited by the Royal Forestry Department for villagers, “not a pebble, not a twig, can be

removed”. The commercial opportunities offered have also drawn migrating population from

the lowlands to, the Reserve. For example, the people who have come to “squatter”

vicinity of the Doi Suthep temple and the palace, in order to make a living as venders,

souvenirs, food, flowers,... to tourists, were found to have come from 33 provinces

Thailand (Cf. PONGCHAREONKUL).

in the

selling

within

iii) Interference with wildlife and disturbances of habitats. In point III-1) above,

we have reviewed the current information on status of biological diversity in the Reserve.

However, it is still unclear how these indicators of the apparent decline in biological diversity

have been brought about, and if these one million a year tourists are directly involved. The

concentration of tourists also tends to restrict to the vicinity of only a few sites, i.e. around the

temple, palace, the more accessible waterfalls and a couple of frequently visited hilltribe

villages. On the other hand, annual fires, a major force of disturbance, seem to occur widely

throughout the Reserve.

These are direct impact of tourism. It is important also to note the less direct effect of

alternative income earning opportunities that tourism brings. These have clearly resulted in the

significant reduction of pressure on the land. The effects can be seen around villages such as

Chang Kian and Doi Pui which have gone into tourist related employment such as running

pickup trucks to carry visitors on the more rugged roads and retail trades. Forest clearing

around the villages does not appear to have increased in proportion to their population.

4) Land use and forest encroachment

In 1969 when the area was still classified as a National Reserve Forest, it was found

to be occupied by a total of 417 households. By 1991, a survey carried out by the Park

registered encroachment on Park land by 1 834 households (Cf. TABLE 6). The change from

extensive shifting agriculture to more intensive cash cropping has had significant effects in the



23

reduction of pressure on the land in mountain villages in other areas (Cf. RERKASEM K. &

RERKASEM B.). Similarly in the area of the Reserve, the adoption of cash cropping (Cf. II-1)

would have increased land productivity and decreased the amount of land needed to feed a

given population. Unfortunately, economic succeses of certain cash crops have also attracted

migration from the lowlands. The nearness of the Reserve to Chiang Mai has also led to

encroachment by the urbanization process.

TABLE 6 : Land encroachment in Doi Suthep-Pui National Park (1991)

Number of AreaDistrict Villages Households (in ha. )

Mae Rim 12 434 820Mae Taeng 15 390 536Hangdong 11 684 328Muang 10 326 143Total 48 1834 1827

SOURCE : DOI SUTHEP-PUI NATIONAL PARK

Although hilltribes are often blamed for encroachment of forest land, in this case

lowland Thais account for more than half of the land encroached upon in the Reserve (Cf.

TABLE 7).

TABLE 7 : Land encroachment in Doi Suthep-Pui National Park, by ethnic group(1991)

Number of AreaEthnic group Villages Households (in ha.)Thai 41 1298 963Hmong 7 536 864Total 48 1834 1827

SOURCE : DOI SUTHEP-PUI NATIONAL PARK

Despite the strict legal code prohibiting usage and development of land within

national parks, a considerable area of the Reserve has been allocated to various Government

agencies and offices. Of the total 1 135 ha. so far allocated, 276 ha. went to the Faculty of

Agriculture of the Chiang Mai University, 505 ha. to the Northern Agricultural Development

Centre and smaller tracts to the Chiang Mai Zoo, Kasetsart University and other users. The

land thus allocated are, without doubt, put to praiseworthy usages, for example agricultural

research by the Chiang Mai and Kasetsart Universities. However, a question must be raised on

the impact of these usages on the primary objective of Doi Suthep-Pui National Park, i.e.



24

conservation of natural forests.

IV- CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION EFFORTS BY THEGOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY

A number of factors, especially the special value placed on its economic, cultural and

natural treasures, and the nearness to the academic community in Chiang Mai (Chiang Mai

University and other tertiary educational institutions), have combined to make this Reserve

probably the most closely watched reserve in Thailand. Monitoring have been carried out by

both the office of Doi Suthep-Pui National Park and by academics. However, because of the

various interests of users and “owners” the Reserve is also a target for numerous efforts and

development and conservation. This is partly responsible for the basic difficulty on the

management of this Reserve.

1) Monitoring

i) By Doi Suthep-Pui National Park. To look after the whole area of 262 km.z, Doi

Suthep-Pui National Park office has a total manpower of 125. Nevertheless, the office has been

able to commission studies and evaluations to assess current status of Park management and

problems and to solicit solutions. For example, the Faculty of Forestry of the Kasetsart

University was commissioned to evaluate the status of the Park management and land use

(including encroachment problem). This assignment resulted in a master plan for the Park

development in 1987. One major recommendation in this master plan was the construction of a

“visitor centre” near the temple to relieve the problem of congestion and also to improve

services to the visitors. Organization conflicts however resulted in the centre being relocated at

another site. In 1993, another study was commissioned to the Department of Geography of the

Chiang Mai University. The result was “A Plan for land use development in Doi Suthep-Pui

National Park”. These studies attempted to assess the extent of forest cover, land use and

encroachment. The Chiang Mai University study went on to recommend a five-year

development plan (1993-1997) that would cost 18 275 900 baht. The major thrust of this

development is the improvement of protection, thus the recommendation included barb wire

fencing, increasing manpower and communication facilities, such as two-way radios and

vehicles for patrolling.

ii) By the public. A public forum was organized in the form of a seminar on “Doi

Suthep-Pui National Park : management and conservation”, on April 14-15, 1991. It was



25

organized by : the Chiang Mai University (Faculty of Science, Social Research Institute, Centre

for the Promotion of Arts and Culture, Students Conservation Club), Chore Rom Phua Chiang

Mai (For Chiang Mai Group), Wildlife Fund Thailand and Friedrich-Naumann-Stiflung.

the seminar had the following objectives :

* to increase public awareness of the condition of the Park and its management;* to encourage public support for the Park’s conservation ;

* to seine as a forum at which Government and Non-governmental agencies

could co-ordinate their activities to achieve common goals of Park management and* to formulate recommendations to improve Park management.

Academics and students have provided valuable information especially on the

Monitoring of biodiversity in the Reserve. These are carried out as part of the University

teaching and also through research by staff with some support from outside funding.

The public forum, with a bias towards conservation, has had significant effects on the

direction of development within the Reserve. Plans for development have been halted. Three of

the most prominant proposals of the last few years are as follows :

a) The cable car. Commercial interests had secured some local and Government

support to build a cable car to start just outside Chiang Mai to Doi Suthep temple. Public

protests have led to the scheme being shelfed for the time being.

b) Road development. With the several Government sections and departments

involved in planning and construction of roads in the Reserve, there are a number of plans for

the road network within the Reserve, especially to serve the popular tour “Doi Suthep Temple,

shoping Palace, Doi Pui Hmong Village”. For example, the Main Road Department had

ready started a survey to widen the main access road. A budget has also been approved to

upgrade the road that connects Doi Pui Hmong village and Pooping Palace. At the time of this

study some of these plans seem to have been stopped.

c) Chiang Mai University’s Highland Agricultural Training Centre. With

financial assistance from the Japanese Government, the Faculty of Agriculture of the Chiang

Mai University had planned to build a Highland Agricultural Training Centre on one of its

Chang Kian Highland Station sites, behind Poo Ping Palace. The 25 ha. site within the

boundary of Doi Suthep-Pui National Park has been allocated to Chiang Mai University for

search on highland agriculture. The Centre was sheduled to begin construction in 1993, it

as to include a dormitory and teaching facilities. Public protests by conservationists,

however, led to the Centre being relocated to Mae Hia Farm. The Farm, is also in an area

originally within the boundary of the National Park but is located at the edge, almost in the

wlands.



2) Conflicts between development and conservation

There are basically three types of conflicts over the uses of this Reserve :

i) Encroachment. These are conflicts between traditional users of the land, local

villagers who still make a living from agriculture, and the Government’s conservation aims. As

in other areas of the highlands, conflicts have arisen between foresters charged with

“protection” and local population over the use of land and forest resources. Although several

villages have turned to tourism for their livelihood activities and therefore are now less directly

dependent on the land. However, the majority of villages are still dependent on agriculture as

a means to their livelihood. The problem of encroachment on the Reserve land is a function of

internal pressure of population increase, compounded by migration from other areas including

the lowlands. Furthermore, its nearness to the city of Chiang Mai with extremely high price of

land for housing, has brought a complication of encroachment by the urbanization process.

ii) Government’s organizational conflicts. In general, national parks in Thailand

come under the jurisdiction of the Royal Forestry Department. However, decision making on

development can be multi-dimensioned, involving many other Governmental actors, as well as

the public. Development efforts within the Reserve, on the other hand, seem to have been

initiated and countermanded among these actors without much systematic co-ordination. The

following actors have been identified : the Chiang Mai Provincial Administrative Organization,

the Doi Suthep-Pui National Park Office, the Royal Forestry Department, the Tourist

Authority of Thailand, Doi Suthep Temple and the Hilltribe Welfare Division of the

Department of Public Welfare. Two examples are cited here to illustrate the problem arising

from lack of co-ordination among all these actors in development and conservation efforts :

a) The Master Plan for Doi Suthep-Pui National Park development (1987).

Proposed by the Faculty of Forestry of the Kasetsart University, commissioned by the Royal

Forestry Department. As part of this Master Plan, the plan for a visitor Centre was approved

by the Royal Forestry Department, with a budget of more than 4 million baht. The plan,

however, was not approved by the Chiang Mai province. The visitor Centre was eventually

built at another site within the Reserve, and was reported to be vastly under utilized.

b) The shopping complex at Doi Suthep temple. As in any places frequented by

a large number of tourists, venders of food, flowers and souvenirs had set up shops at the

temple entrance. Their number had gradually been growing with the increase in number of

tourists, and with the increasing number of venders came inorderliness and unsightliness.

Illegal and uncontrolled building and expansion also began, often by “influential” people with

“political connections”. In response, the Chiang Mai province authorized the construction of a



27

13 million baht shopping complex. Now, a few years later, only the larger shops remain open in

the complex. Smaller venders are found back on the pavements and at the temple gate again.

The final authority on day-to-day management of these venders lies with the temple, which

reap a handsome revenue from the sales, that total up to ten million baht per year.

c) The need for road network development. To serve the area of the Reserve

with the highest concentration of tourists, i.e. Doi Suthep temple, Pooping Palace and the

Hmong villages at Doi Pui and Chang Kian has been long perceived by Chiang Mai Province,

and supporting Government offices such as the Tourist Authority of Thailand. One particular

stretch of road between the palace and Doi Pui Hmong village, was approved at the provincial

level and construction contract signed before 1991. Construction has not started at the close of

1994. In addition to opposition from conservationists, the road goes againts legal rules and

conditions behind the national park legislation.

iii) Public concern. With the strong local public feeling about Doi Suthep, coupled

with rising awareness for the environment and biological diversity, nurtured in Chiang Mai’s

academia, “the public” is increasingly influential on the ‘direction of development within the

Reserve (Cf. IV-lii). Plans for major developments in the Reserve made without public

consultation are likely to continue to run into critical opposition.

CONCLUSION : IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS, POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Through this review it became clear that the Reserve has two distict areas which

require contrasting approaches in management and development :

i) First is the area around popular tourist attractions such as Doi Suthep temples,

the palace, two or three frequently visited hilltribe villages and waterfalls. In terms of area, this

is relatively small, attributing to only a fraction of the total 360 km.2 of the Mae Sa-Kog Ma

Biosphere Reserve or 262 km.2 of Doi Suthep-Pui National Park. Management of this area

should focus on how to respond to the high concentration of visitors.

ii) Second is the remainder, covering most of the Reserve. In this area, the

management and development could aim to provide support for local population who are still

dependent on agriculture for their living, while maintaining the balance on the objective of

conservation, of biological diversity and the environment.

The study has highlighted the necessity to coordinate among the many Governmental

policies and objectives and implementing offices, and not the least the need for public

consultation on major development plans.



the mae sa-kog ma biosphere reserve: thailand; south-south

Documents