Last Monday, Thai Prime Minister Prayut Chan-ocha, at the United Nations Global Climate Change Conference (COP26) in Glasgow, Scotland told the assembled crowd that climate change is the “gravest challenge of our time” and highlighted that Thailand was one of the countries most vulnerable to its effects. According to the Global Climate Risk Index, Thailand ranks ninth globally in terms of countries affected by climate change-related extreme weather events.
“Time is running out and we can no longer afford to be complacent in combating climate change for it means the end of the world as we know it,” Prayut noted.
Within hours of Prayut’s speech, 128 countries, including Southeast Asian neighbors Indonesia and Vietnam signed the Glasgow Leaders Declaration on Forest and Land Use, which aims to halt deforestation by 2030. The Declaration hopes to develop more sustainable forms of trade, easing pressure on forests, while supporting small-scale farmers.
According to the World Bank, forest cover in Thailand has dropped from more than half the country in 1961 to approximately 31 percent as of 2016. One of the first policy goals of the military junta was to nationalize Thailand’s natural resources, later ordering state agencies to crack down on people who seize, destroy, possess or cause damage to national forests. The junta aimed to increase forest cover to 40 percent within ten years, a mandate of NCPO Order No. 66/2014. In the months after the May 2014 coup d’état, more than 500 villagers were prosecuted for forest encroachment and local NGOs complained that the military was deliberately targeting the poor rather than the larger, more wealthy intruders.
While it would seem that the Glasgow deforestation pledge would have been inline with expressed or espoused military interests, Thailand under Prayut refused to sign. A reasonable answer is difficult to find.
Between 2005 and 2015, Southeast Asia lost around 80 million hectares of forest land, and with about 15 percent of the world’s tropical forests, the global spotlight was on the region, which remains one of the world’s most active deforestation areas. The problem for some countries like Cambodia and Laos, which joined Thailand in not signing the pact, was that the language of the agreement failed in their eyes to account for the development of developing countries, which are reliant on forests for economic growth. Laos claims it still needs to clear land and forests for infrastructure projects and to graduate from least-developed country (LDC) status by 2026.
The needs of Vientiane are not the same as those in Bangkok. Laos is where Thailand was several decades ago. 80 percent of the country’s forests are degraded and unsustainable natural resource extraction drives deforestation, in addition to agriculture and infrastructure. Thailand’s deforestation rates are still much lower than other Mekong countries.
Experts have long blamed deforestation for increasing sedimentation as well as the reduction in the amount of rainfall. During the rainy season, the effects of deforestation compromise the runoff of regular water exacerbating flooding. Environmental changes associated with deforestation linger well after a forest is cleared, extending into subsoils and strongly impacting nutrient storage and recycling, carbon storage and greenhouse gas emissions. Thailand’s difficulties with both floods and drought should warrant consideration of policies that mitigate the effects.
Prior to COP26, Thailand was relatively active in various climate change related fora. Thailand ratified the UNFCCC in 1994 and the Kyoto Protocol in 2002. Thailand’s National Climate Change Master Plan (CCMP) runs through 2050 and is supposed to provide a path for sustainable low carbon growth and climate resilience. It is worth noting that a central part of that Plan is an emphasis on reforestation over the next ten years through a more participatory process, although anything that marginally different from its brutal 2014 militarization of the country’s forests would be a welcome departure.
Previously the government had shown great concern about the consequences of deforestation on both local biodiversity and ecosystem services. The National Strategic Plan (2017-2036) is supposed to guide the country through six strategic areas, including green growth. Many projects have been set aside for ecosystem service improvements, conservation, and forest patrolling. Last week’s decision flies in the face of sound climate resilience planning.
Thailand’s COP26 performance was a diplomatic and political faux pas on the international stage. Not only did Thailand not pledge a commitment to deforestation, but it sent mixed signals to the international community about the country’s broader commitments to adopt carbon reduction strategies that would keep global temperatures well below 2°C or accelerate efforts to limit increases to just 1.5°C.
Prayut’s decision leaves the status quo intact. Deforestation rates are low, but they haven’t completely halted. Competing pressures from agribusiness and locals who depend upon the land for their livelihoods remain. A trend toward reforestation would have ripple effects across the country–increased carbon sinks, improved ecosystem services, restored biodiversity in vulnerable areas, as well as reduced air pollution.
But no. Prayut went to Glasgow with nothing and got nothing in return.
