January, 2003
A sign outside the entrance to Tham Lod in the Pang Mapha district, Mae Hong Son province, reads: “Announcement - the Forestry Department would like to inform all visitors that it intends to collect an entrance fee to Tham Lod Nature Education Centre in the near future.”
The Royal Forestry Department (RFD) is currently implementing an extension of its admission fee policy (B 200 for foreigners and B 20 for Thai nationals) to include a greater number of National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries. One such addition is the Lum Nam Pai Wildlife Sanctuary, Mae Hong Son Province, which covers the cave system near the small village of Ban Tham Lod. Locals fear the application of this measure may have severe repercussions for the village and its residents.
Tham Lod consists of three caverns that contain impressive stalactites and stalagmites, and a complex, delicate ecosystem. Every morning, just before sunrise, and every evening as the sun is setting, thousands of swifts and bats can be seen exchanging places in an impeccably executed display of communal living space. For the last 25 years the caves have been managed by local people, and the revenue that Tham Lod brings in not only supports those directly involved in the management, preservation and tours of the cave area, but also all those villagers who ride its wave. Approximately 200 people, one from virtually every house in the village, derive income from the tourist industry drawn by the cave. More than 140 men and women work as lantern and raft guides, and many others sell food, drinks and souvenirs at the entrance area. The community fears that the inflated fees will discourage tourists from visiting the cave and in turn, seriously deplete the major source of income of many locals. Their fears have a valid basis - even a 10 - 20% decrease in foreign visitors to the cave would seriously affect the locals in question. The RFD, on the other hand, would still be drawing in more money than it is now under the new payment system if tourist activity was to drop by half.
The new policy is almost certain to diminish the number of tourists to Tham Lod and other natural attractions which have been targeted for a change in admission requirements, effectively depriving local communities of income from ecotourism and individuals of direct income and self-sustainability. Another concern is that the policy might spur a return to the traditional ‘slash and burn’ farming procedures which most of the villagers have abandoned in favour of employment produced by the cave.
Locals are not the only people who feel cheated by the fee scheme modifications. There have already been complaints from tourists who face the steep charges of National Parks all over the country. How will future visitors react when at every cave, waterfall and hot spring they are asked to pay B 200? At a time when Thailand is working towards expanding the tourist industry and keeping visitors in the country for longer, the hiked up admission costs are not likely to aid in these endeavours.
National Parks all over the world, many more popular than Tham Lod or other sights which are presently incorporated into the RFD’s payment policy, charge very reasonable prices for admission. Some even waiver admission fees altogether in the interests of education and development. The very fact that Tham Lod is a Nature Education Centre seems to contradict the enforcement of a plan that will eliminate a vast number of visitors for economic reasons.
The Ban Tham Lod villagers have been active in attempting to keep the proposed developments at bay. Several hundred people who will be directly affected have signed a petition to be presented to the head of the RFD. If this should fail, there has been talk of staging a protest. The list includes the names of lantern and raft guides, guesthouse and restaurant owners, souvenir sellers and owners of other tourist-related businesses.
Rather than simply criticising the policy changes, it would be more productive to look to the possible alternatives that exist. One of these is to implement a standing charge of B 20 for tourists (free for Thais) at all National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries in Thailand. However, it is unlikely that the RFD, which has been collecting B 200 fees at various natural attractions nationwide, will agree to this plan.
If permits could be used for a few months and for a range of Parks and attractions, a number of objectives would be achieved at once.
The system would sustain, and almost certainly benefit, those local communities which presently derive their income from tourist attractions in areas under RFD jurisdiction. Tourists would be more likely to visit a greater number of sights, and in so doing, provide an economic injection for communities whose livelihood depends on their natural resources. Less significant areas of interest, which have been neglected up until now, stand a chance of drawing more visitors and being economically revived in this way. Not only would visitors to the country be encouraged to stay longer and spend more money, but the new system would also help to minimise tourist discontent at perceived unfair government policies. Additionally, a great deal of pressure would be lifted from the RFD’s shoulders, as the constant barrage of criticism with which it is faced as a result of its present policy would in all likelihood be dramatically reduced.
Recently, a two year research project was conducted by Mahidol and Silapakorn Universities, and supported by the Thai Research Fund, which focused on the cave and karst resources in the Nam Khong catchment area, most of which lies in the Nam Pai Sanctuary. The findings were that the natural resources could only be effectively managed and preserved with the active participation and co-operation of the locals in the area. This study and the Tham Lod issue are both clear indications that a policy such as the RFD’s is not conducive to the sustainability of certain environmental resources and those communities who depend on them. In the words of one long-time Ban Tham Lod resident, “If the RFD wants to become more community and user friendly, all it needs to do is change its policy.”
