Publication Code: N29
Green Finance: A Case Study of Khao Yai
Khao Yai is Thailand's fist and most popular national park. Of the ten million visitors to Thailand's national parks each year, Khao yai receives almost ten percent of the total. The Park's popularity is due to its proximity to Bangkok, availability of tourist facilities, convenient access, and more importantly, the Prk's natural endowment of varied vegetation, wildlife and scenic beauty.
Although the Park charges entrace fees to uses, the fees are low and cost recovery from entrance fees was merely 11 percent and thus, operation costs are largely met through government funding each year. However, the possibility of expanding the government budget to meet the growing needs of natural conservation is limited. Between 1987 and 1992 the number of national parkes increased from 54 to 77 and the areas protected by the National Park Act increased from 28,156 to 39,283 km2, and increase of 40 percent.
However, tourism could be an important avenue for financing protected areas. For Khao Yai, this issue has been controversial. Until 1991, the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) operated tourist accommodation facilities and a golf course within the Park. As tourism expanded, so did the problems of poaching and solod waste disposal. Wildlife was also disturbed by tourist activities. Finally, the government, under the leadership of Prive Minister Anand, decided in 1991 that the TAT-run lodging and golf facilities should be discontinued but camping for students should be allowed. Tourists can stay in hotels and resorts at the entrances of the Park.
To date, the legal uses of national parks have been limited in Thailand. The National Parks Act prohibits all human activities except in specified service and recreation areas. Tourism, education and scientific research are the only human activities allowed in Khao Ya. Collection of even one leaf or pebble is consided illegal under the law. For villagers living in areas surrounding the Park however this has meant that their traditional sources of employment are now prohitited activities and their traditional sources of income are now protected by law. Thus, the establishment of Khao Yai has deprived villages in areas surrounding the Park of economic livelihood and may have led some villagers to take up poaching and other illegal activities in the Park.
A less pressing issue is whether the Park should allow non-park users to use the highway in the park as a through-way. Although traffic through the park is allowed during the day, the gates of the park are closed at midnight. Even so, it can be argued that through traffic disrupts the ecology of the Park and thus endangers survival of wildlife populations.
The most important issue is how Khao Yai National Park could raise more revenue to provide better services and increase protection. How could the Park Authority extract higher revenue to increase its cost recovery capacity without placing undue burden on the environment? Which park services should be increased and which shold be reduced? This study proposes to look at the ways and means of raising non-budgetary income for Khao yai and the surrounding villages. We expect this study to provide the government with the information to make infomred decisions regarding investment, management and financing of Khao Yai.
February 1995