BASELINE STUDY 5, Thailand - Forest Trends

pre-date park establishment, and they argue that ‘jungle rubber’, or rubber trees integrated into a natural forested
landscape, is not ecologically damaging.
Smallholder rubber farmers in Thailand would likely face significant challenges meeting international certification
or legality assurance systems, depending on the type of system put in place. Smallholder certification could
be disproportionately costly compared to larger-scale land tenure models, and Thai smallholder producers
could have difficulty demonstrating full legal title to their land. The entire framework of National Forest Reserves
in Thailand is open to significant dispute and contestation. It is reported that there are some 20-25 million
people, including entire villages, located within legal Forest Reserve areas.
The pulp and paper sector dominates the overall forest industry by wood volume consumed: The majority
(73%) of the country’s eucalyptus woodchip harvest is consumed by the pulp and paper sectors (Barney 2005).
Since the takeover of Phoenix Pulp and Paper by Siam Pulp and Paper (a subsidiary of Siam Cement Group, or
SCG), two semi-integrated companies— SCG and Advance Agro—together represent approximately 75% of
domestically produced wood pulp.
Thailand still imports tropical hardwoods from neighbouring countries: Although domestic industrial tree
plantations have largely replaced natural hardwoods for use in Thailand’s wood manufacturing sector, certain
segments of the industry also consume imported natural hardwoods. Myanmar accounts for the bulk of round
log imports, mostly teak. Malaysia provides the majority of imported sawnwood (approximately 1 million m 3 in
2009). Most sawnwood imported to Thailand is comprised of non-rubberwood species (i.e.,natural forest
hardwoods) (FAO 2009:57). Imported natural hardwoods are used to create high-quality plywood for use in the
building construction industry, or in furniture manufacturing. While some of the wood furniture is for domestic
consumption, especially rubberwood, much of the natural wood furniture is for the export market, and therefore
would respond to certification or verification measures. However, many problems present themselves:
according to numerous lead-author interviews with Myanmar timber traders and former Myanmar forestry
officials, Myanmar timber is being processed into sawnwood in Malaysia and then shipped onwards to Thailand,
but is often listed as Malaysian wood.
Thailand is vulnerable to new requirements for proof of legal origin: The United States, Japan and the European
Union account for approximately one third of Thailand’s forest product export market by value, worth approximately
US$840 million in 2009 (Figure 2). In all three of these major markets, over the past ten years,
there has been a rapid increase in demands for the proof of the legality or sustainability for their wood products
– and this proof must be third-party verified. Thailand also exports semi-processed sawn timber to several
regional manufacturing hubs, including China (US $300 million in 2009) and Vietnam, and these countries in
turn export predominantly to Europe, North America and Japan. Requirements for proof of legal origin for Thai
forest products could eventually also come from these regional East Asian exporters.
Thailand’s forest products industry could be considered as less exposed than that of China and Vietnam, which
sent 50% to 80% of their exported wood products to these environmentally sensitive markets.
While documented proof of legal origin is the emerging requirement to export to Western/OECD countries,
such documentation is made more costly and complex in Thailand by a plantation sector dominated by thousands
of smallholder farmers, operating outside of the mandate of the Royal Forestry Department (RFD).
© EU FLEGT Facility, BASELINE STUDY 5, Thailand: Overview of Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade, July 2011
This Action is funded by the European Union and the governments of Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK. The views expressed herein
can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the European Union.
www.euflegt.efi.int
8