New Mandala

14 responses so far ↓

• 1 nganadeeleg // Aug 13, 2007 at 9:35 am

  ill-informed interventions

  I will concede that ‘new forest plantations’ can be seen as an intervention, but I would be interested in the detailed reasoning that makes you consider ‘preserving existing forests’ to be an intervention.

  The way I see it, destroying existing forests is the intervention.

• 2 robuzo // Aug 13, 2007 at 1:36 pm

  The “forest as water catchment” notion may be incorrect, but forests and woodlands do play an important role in water management:

  http://njaes.rutgers.edu/njriparianforestbuffers/restoring.htm
  Riparian forest buffers are one of the best management tools for enhancing water quality and protecting water bodies from NPS (non-point source) pollution. A riparian forest buffer is composed of trees, shrubs, and tall grasses planted to help protect the integrity of a waterway, act as a vegetative filter strip, and reduce impacts of the surrounding land-use on water quality. Riparian forest buffers:

  * improve water quality by filtering sediments and absorbing chemical and nutrients;

  * reduce erosion by stabilizing stream banks;

  * provide wildlife habitat by providing cover and food;

  * enhance aquatic habitat by stabilizing water temperature, reducing sediment and providing woody debris
  ————
  Pointing out the mistakes in a “theory” positing a connection between rainfall and forest cover would probably be more helpful had you bothered to point other and better arguments for forest conservation and planting, for example the valuable roles of forests noted above (there are many others not directly related to water, of course). You are close to being deliberately misleading when you suggest that increased forest cover would be a net negative because forests are “thirsty water users”. That the people you are criticizing are themselves likely disingenuous is no excuse.

• 3 jonfernquest // Aug 13, 2007 at 6:15 pm

  I think the real issue is lack of transparency in what the forestry department actually does. Sometimes planting right over poor hill tribe’s land, as Matthew documented.

  There are probably more labour intensive and more environmentally
  sustainable ways of farming than swidden, like the terracing for instance, that you find north of Baguio in the Phillipines.

  To my understanding, it was lowlander generals who initiated the process of forest destruction during the Vietnam war by destroying the forest cover.

  I just read the most frightening mother’s day quote, how Easter Islanders used to curse each other after they had destroyed all the forest and animal life on their island and had been reduced to endemic warfare and cannibalism: “The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth.” Let’s not go there!

  IMHO the Queen’s speech was basically right and people should wake up and be even more creative. Like make a pedestrian-friendly Bangkok rather than buy more cars, but this is as likely as all the air molecules collecting in the corner of my room and suffocating me.

• 4 Andrew Walker // Aug 13, 2007 at 6:51 pm

  Robuzo, I’m a big fan of riparian buffer zones. But I don’t think they are what the queen had in mind. And the sorts of plantations that the authorities in Thailand like to promote often don’t do a lot of sediment buffering, especially when ground cover is consistently removed as a result of controlled burning.

• 5 LondonEye // Aug 13, 2007 at 8:23 pm

  Robuzo’s comments perhaps say more about this subject than the Queen’s usual line. There is actually much research that says that forest monoculture either uses more water on balance than it releases… or that the statistics on forests-and-erosion only look at sheet erosion under forests rather than gully erosion… or that it is the soil infiltration that really matters for dry-season water release rather than forest cover alone (and there are various ways of protecting soil infiltration rather than replacing local agriculture with plantations). Indeed, other countries (eg South Africa, New Zealand, Nepal) have abandoned old fixed beliefs about hydrology and now reject the Queen’s line (they have different ways of doing science and public policy than, say, Russia).

  I don’t think Andrew was arguing that destroying forests was a good idea, just that many of the ideas used to defend forest monoculture in Thailand simply do not add up, and we have to look for alternative, political explanations for how these ideas hang around. And stating the value of riparian forest is not the same as saying the Queen’s views are state-of-the-art.

  Anyone worried about forests and hydrology should really start by looking at what has been written by hydrologists: start with Ian Calder or L. A. Bruijnzeel or (older:) Larry Hamilton.

• 6 jonfernquest // Aug 14, 2007 at 3:36 am

  The community forest bill that is about to become law, giving groups that reside in forests some autonomous decision-making, wouldn’t that give local groups some ability to farm in the forest (a change from forest monoculture)?

  http://www.bangkokpost.com/110807_News/11Aug2007_news12.php

  I haven’t seen an analysis anywhere.
  Does it come with property rights?
  Thanks for the hydrology references.

• 7 Alan // Aug 15, 2007 at 6:24 am

  I am not qualified to comment on the validity of forest protection to benefit water supplies, but I was surprised at the apparent fact that the all-powerful monarchy (in the person of HMQ) can ‘campaign vigorously … for decades’ to no apparent avail.

  So much for HMK being the guiding light of the Thai nation.

• 8 robuzo // Aug 16, 2007 at 3:54 pm

  “I’m a big fan of riparian buffer zones. But I don’t think they are what the queen had in mind. ”

  I’m afraid you are more than likely right about that. And monoculture tree plantations are nothing more than green deserts that look nice from a distance. Japan provides classic examples of that- and the Japanese ones don’t really look that nice at all when vast plumes of cedar pollen are issuing from them. The Japanese have caught on to their mistake, albeit a bit late, but I am not too sanguine about the prospects here.

• 9 Restorationist // Aug 17, 2007 at 6:28 am

  The fact that the queen utters something that is hardly more interesting than the kind of statement one hears from undergrads and others with a passing interest in the topic is of little interest of itself. That her comments become big news and the subject of debate is the interesting thing. For me it indicates how dismal things have become in Thailand.

• 10 Urbanism, Sprawl, and Water « deathpower // Mar 30, 2008 at 2:34 am

  [...] And while the long-time regional identification of forests as guarantors of water supply may be an ecological falsehood, it clearly has some sort of historical experience behind it: killing of the forests may not destroy water, but it certainly makes it less amenable to the sort of centralized control necessary for imperial life. [...]

• 11 Jo // Aug 24, 2008 at 5:27 am

  Editor’s note (NF): Readers hoping to learn more about Paul Handley (mentioned below) would be well-advised to start here. His record speaks for itself.

  Jo // Aug 24, 2008 at 5:10 am

  Yo - you freaks are all talking about how the King is so this and that - but every country all over the world - and every president is greedy - you all complain about The Thai King - but look at Bush? He has in the last 10 years killed the majority of The Middle East - and he is close friends with Taksin - They are close friends. And Taksin’s bithazz is the one contributing to most of the problems in Thailand now - I don’t understand? The Thai people are not like you Western small-minded idiots who think driving big cars and making only money for your life is everything - they value family, and belief, and they love their country and their King - The one thing that you western freaks never learn is that to leave others alone and look at your own idiot reflection in the mirror before you try to fix everybody else’s - Since the beginning it’s pretty much been westerners going around trying to change every country to be Christian, and bombing other countries - Let me ask you a question? What is any of somelse’s business with yours? Let me tell you something this Handley. He can’t speak Thai, he’s never lived in Thailand, and doesn’t know anything about Thai Culture. Culture of a country is not written in a book - and can not be explained by words - it is felt and experienced in real time - And I am from America, but speak Thai fluently, and have lived in Thailand for already about 2 years.

• 12 amberwaves // Aug 26, 2008 at 7:30 pm

  Dear Jo:

  Handley speaks Thai, lived in Thailand longer than you have, and unlike you, doesn’t consider fabrications part of Thai culture. He doesn’t drive a big car _ unlike many PAD supporters I know _ and values his family highly.

  So please don’t waste people’s time.

• 13 Bystander // Aug 28, 2008 at 11:49 am

  I’m sorry AW. I’m a regular reader of your web and mostly concur with your fine materials. But here I have to disagree. I check out your “published” article on hydrology ( and references therein) and.. well.. what can I say. maybe you’re an “authority” in hydrology, but your statistics are not convincing to say the least.

  I would not say with such conviction you have.. it is not this.. it is not that. One would have thought from reading in passing that it is a rigorously proven piece of exact science.

  You can at most say.. it is consistent with.. it correlates with.. if that

  Environmental science is difficult.. it takes a lot of painstaking work to do it right. I wouldn’t cheapen it by just using something like this with not enough data to score some points against the ancien regime. It’s not like that you have a shortage of ammo. You know.

• 14 Andrew Walker // Aug 28, 2008 at 4:53 pm

  Hi Bystander. What are the particular issues you disagree with?

Leave a Comment